South Lake Tahoe Police Officers Laney and Wilson caught up in filing false affidavits

South Lake Tahoe Police watch

Police Chief Brian Uhler pictured.South Lake Tahoe residents and tourists were shocked last year when former South Lake Tahoe Police Officer Johnny Poland was sentenced to 18 months in prison for similar fabrication, falsification and corruption.

Lake Tahoe cop watchersSouth Lake Tahoe Police Officers Laney and Wilson caught up in filing false affidavits and fabricating false DUI arrests.

Stay tuned as this story develops and as we await comments from South Lake Tahoe Chief Brian Uhler and El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson to see if criminal charges will be filed against the perpetrators Officers Laney and Wilson.

South Lake Tahoe residents and tourists were shocked last year when former South Lake Tahoe Police Officer Johnny Poland was sentenced to 18 months in prison for similar conduct.

In 2013 the South Lake Tahoe and the El Dorado District Attorney Vern Pierson were the subject of a protest and a series of negative…

View original post 10,747 more words

Video surfaces of the Stateline, Nevada beating of Mike Burnhart by various law enforcement including SLTPD, EDSO and the Douglas County Sheriff

Mike Barnhart beaten at Stateline by cops

Mike Barnhart beaten at Stateline by cops

Video surfaces of the Stateline, Nevada beating of Mike Burnhart by various law enforcement including South Lake Tahoe Police SLTPD, El Dorado Sheriff  EDSO and the Douglas County Sheriff. DCSO

According to Mike Barnhart, he was just shooting some video of the  Douglas County Sheriff blocking the road.

The cops falsely claimed there was a “crime scene” and attacked Mr. Barhhart. Somehow the South Lake Tahoe Police sltpdSLTPD, El Dorado Sheriff  EDSO got involved and Mike Barnhart was arrested and charged for obstruction and resisting arrest.

The whole thing is in the Justice Court, Judge Richard Glasson presiding, at the Stateline, NV courthouse.

Supreme Court Inaction Boosts Right To Record Police Officers

The Huffington Post  |  By Posted: 11/27/2012

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocking the enforcement of an Illinois eavesdropping law. The broadly written law — the most stringent in the country — makes it a felony to make an audio recording of someone without their permission, punishable by four to 15 years in prison.

Many states have similar “all-party consent” laws, which mean one must get the permission of all parties to a conversation before recording it. But in all of those states — except for Massachusetts and Illinois — the laws include a provision that the parties being recorded must have a reasonable expectation of privacy for it to be a crime to record them.

The Illinois law once included such a provision, but it was removed by the state legislature in response to an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that threw out the conviction of a man accused of recording police from the back of a squad car. That ruling found that police on the job have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Illinois and Massachusetts laws have been used to arrest people who attempt to record on-duty police officers and other public officials. In one of the more notorious cases, Chicago resident Tiawanda Moore was arrested in 2010 when she attempted to use her cell phone to record officers in a Chicago police station.

Moore had come to the station to report an alleged sexual assault by a Chicago cop, and says she became frustrated when internal affairs officers allegedly bullied her and attempted to talk her out of filing the report. Moore was eventually acquitted.police_brutality

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is planning a police accountability project in Chicago that will involve recording police while they’re on duty. The organization wanted to be sure its employees and volunteers wouldn’t be charged with felonies.

The 7th Circuit Court found a specific First Amendment right to record police officers. It’s the second federal appeals court to strike down a conviction for recording police. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled that a man wrongly arrested for recording cops could sue the arresting officers for violating his First Amendment rights.

That decision also found a broad First Amendment right to record on-duty government officials in public: “Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs.'” And in fact, in that it strips police who make such arrests of their immunity from lawsuits, it’s an even stronger opinion. Of course, the police themselves rarely pay damages in such suits — taxpayers do.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari in the case doesn’t necessarily mean the justices endorse the lower court’s ruling. But it does mean that at least six of the current justices weren’t so opposed to the ruling that they felt the case needed to be heard.

The 1st and 7th circuit decisions mean that it is now technically legal to record on-duty police officers in every state in the country. Unfortunately, people are still being arrested for it. Police officers who want to make an arrest to intimidate would-be videographers can always use broadly written laws that prohibit public disorder, interfering with a police officer, or similar ordinances that give law enforcement wide discretion.

The charges are almost always either subsequently dropped or dismissed in court, but by then the innocent person has been illegally detained, arrested, sometimes jailed, and possibly paid expensive legal fees.

Journalist Carlos Miller, who has been arrested multiple times for recording police, documents such cases on a daily basis. He has also documented countless cases in which police officers have deleted incriminating video from cell phones — a crime in and of itself.

Continue reading

Tahoe Tribune News covers the story – Charges filed in police protest case against Justin Brothers Bail Bonds ‘Bounty Hunter’ Doug Lewis

Tahoe Tribune story on Ty Robben

Tahoe Tribune

The El Dorado District Attorney’s Office has filed charges against a bail bondsman for an October incident that spurred a protest against the South Lake Tahoe Police Department.

On Thursday, Assistant District Attorney Hans Uthe filed five misdemeanor counts against bail bondsmen Douglas Lewis for an October incident in the Sierra Tract neighborhood in which bounty hunters allegedly entered the home of Todd “Ty” Robben in an attempt to bring him into custody on a Nevada warrant.

The counts against Lewis include unlawful arrest, aggravated trespass, vandalism, battery and damaging a vehicle, according to court documents.

A man who answered the phone at Justin Brothers Bail Bonds Tuesday morning declined to say how Lewis could be reached. The man said there is no comment on the charges before hanging up.

During the October incident, bondsmen from the company entered the Pinter Avenue home of Robben and shocked him with a Taser in an attempt to take him into custody, according to Robben’s account of the incident.

Robben contends the bondsmen did not have a legal warrant for the search.

The pace of the investigation into the incident led Robben to organize a protest against the police department along Al Tahoe Boulevard in January

source: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/southshore/5522111-113/incident-robben-bail-bondsmen

COMMENTS:
Ty Robben · Top Commenter ·

I want to say thank you to the South Lake Tahoe Police and El Dorado County District Attorney for getting this done. Please see more at https://nevadastatepersonnelwatch.wordpress.com/.

justin brothers bail bonds

Justin Brothers bail bonds

Justin Brothers bail bonds