I've heard this term before with slight variations, but it's the idea that police will always cover for another officer, even if he's in the wrong. Anyway, there was an interesting piece in today's paper:
When Barron Bowling wouldn’t let a car pass him from the right seven years ago, it sparked road rage that left him beaten and lying on blistering pavement.
Bowling’s attacker turned out to be federal Drug Enforcement Administration agent Timothy McCue, who was in an unmarked car with two colleagues.
Bowling won $833,250 in federal court Friday for the beating, which left him with severe brain damage and post-traumatic stress.
U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson ruled that Bowling, of Kansas City, Kan., suffered assault, battery and excessive force from “road rage fueled by egos and unwarranted self-righteousness.”
In a side comment, Robinson wrote that Kansas City, Kan., police management forced Detective Max Seifert into early retirement after he tried to report honestly what happened to Bowling.
The treatment of Seifert was “shameful” after he crossed “the thin blue line,” the judge wrote. Seifert’s findings went against those of the DEA officers, but Wyandotte County prosecutors charged Bowling anyway with causing a traffic accident with the DEA agent’s car.
The Wyandotte County Unified Government also was a defendant in the case but settled last year for $425,000. The government admitted no wrongdoing on claims of malicious prosecution, abuse of process and conspiracy.
A Wyandotte County jury earlier found Bowling not guilty of the felony of intentionally causing the wreck but convicted him of leaving the scene of the accident, for what he contended was driving a short distance so he wouldn’t block traffic.
Attorneys on both sides Monday declined to comment on the case.
Bowling also declined to comment, but his attorney, Cheryl Pilate, said, “We believe justice was done.”
Robinson heard the lawsuit without a jury. She listened to 19 days of testimony.
Among findings in the judge’s 48-page verdict:
The case stemmed from a minor sideswipe crash in Kansas City, Kan., on July 10, 2003.
Bowling, now 36, was driving north on Tenth Street when he noticed a car trying to illegally pass him on the right side. He sped up, but the other car still tried to pass him. The cars bumped, and shortly after both pulled over.
As Bowling got out of his car, McCue rushed toward him with a gun pointed at him. Bowling was shirtless when McCue and another agent forced him stomach down onto the hot pavement. It was 98 degrees outside.
Bowling tried to push himself up with one hand, and McCue hit him several times with his fist and/or with the butt of a gun.
“The court also finds that McCue kicked the plaintiff several times while (Bowling) was fully handcuffed and laying on the ground,” the ruling states.
McCue also called Bowling names like “inbred hillbilly,” the ruling states. And when he learned from dispatch that Bowling had no prior convictions, McCue called him “system-dodging white trash.”
The agents with whom McCue was working undercover did not stop him during the attack.
According to the ruling, McCue claimed that Bowling rammed McCue’s car, almost causing McCue’s vehicle to hit a utility pole. In McCue’s version, he hit Bowling’s shoulders and neck with an open hand as a way to control him. He admitted that he struck Bowling in the back of his head and on his face, causing a black eye.
McCue also admitted calling Bowling “white trash” and other names, according to the ruling.
The judge ruled that she did not believe McCue’s version of the accident. Bowling “did not intentionally ram McCue’s vehicle,” she wrote. “Indeed, a jury reached the same conclusion” when it found Bowling not guilty of causing the wreck. She agreed with the jury “by a very strong preponderance of the evidence.”
The government used McCue’s assertion that Bowling caused the accident and then evaded arrest as justification for how McCue and another agent tried to control him as they arrested him, Robinson ruled.
Seifert, the detective whom the judge praised for honest work that got him “castigated by his superiors, by the prosecutor, by the DEA,” paid a high price, the ruling states.
Seifert was forced into retirement before his retirement benefits were fully vested, the judge said. He was even denied a routine commission that would allow him to work as a security guard.
Seifert could not be reached for comment Monday.
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/09/20/2238527/court-blames-dea-agents-road-rage.htmlAnd the actual ruling:
Moreover, the actions and statements of Detective Lane tend to corroborate that these
eyewitnesses witnessed plaintiff being assaulted and battered, and subjected to excessive force.
Detective Lane took the names of these eyewitnesses, but pointedly declined to take their
statements. At trial, Lane could only explain that he failed to take their statements for “no
particular reason,” but further explained that he thought taking the eyewitnesses’ statements
might “escalate the situation,” a remarkable statement that he did not further explain. There was
absolutely no evidence that these eyewitnesses were acting out or presenting a problem to law
enforcement.
In contrast, Lane told the officer who was later assigned the case, Detective Max Seifert,
that the police department needed to “cover” for the DEA agents, because “you know what
happened down there.”74 Seifert understood that Lane did not take the statements because he
was trying to avoid placing his own career at risk or in jeopardy. In contrast, Seifert proceeded
to investigate the charge of criminal damage to property, an investigation that necessarily
entailed determining whether the collision was intentional. Seifert understood that plaintiff’s
allegations that the agents had committed assault, battery and excessive force were not unrelated
to the charge of criminal damage to property; at the least, the credibility of the complaining
witnesses, as well as the motives and intent of plaintiff could not be ignored in investigating the
crime. So, Seifert conducted a thorough investigation and, presciently, his career was not only
put in jeopardy, he lost his career over this case. Seifert was chastised by his managers and
ultimately forced out of the police department before he was vested in all retirement benefits.
Seifert was shunned, subjected to gossip and defamation by his police colleagues, and treated as
a pariah.75
In any event, when Detective Seifert interviewed these three eyewitnesses a day or two
later, he found them to be pleasant, objective and cooperative. Seifert even tape recorded the
statements of these eyewitnesses. Notably, after Seifert turned the tape recording over to his
superiors, the tape recording went missing and it has never been recovered.
And just to be thorough, here's footnote 75:
75Although this evidence largely pertained to plaintiff’s conspiracy claims, the Court is compelled to note
that the way Seifert was treated was shameful. Seifert was balkanized for crossing the “thin blue line.” In all
respects the Court found Seifert a credible witness, in fact, of all the witnesses who testified, Seifert was the most
credible. He did not ask to be assigned to this case, and in keeping with his characteristic diligence and dedication,
which had been noted in past evaluations and even written about in a paper authored by his supervisor, Seifert
attempted to fully and objectively investigate this case. Seifert soon determined that there was not even probable
cause to charge plaintiff with criminal damage to property. He was castigated by his superiors, by the prosecutor, by
the DEA, and upon his forced retirement, he was denied a commission that would allow him to obtain work as a
security guard, something police retirees typically rely upon to supplement their limited retirement income.
Construing language in an opinion authored by another judge in this Court, law enforcement—even in this
trial—attempted to paint a false picture of Seifert and impugn his credibility, even while a string of law enforcement
witnesses in this case either testified falsely or through omission, in a way that did not represent the entirety of what
the three federal agents did on the day in question.
Protect and serve huh? They ran the only honest guy out of town... I'm not surprised at the conduct, just surprised that more people don't care...
