TAC suspends police funding after it was revealed that officers faked 258,000 breath tests

iT IS NOT CLEAR IF THE DELIBERATE FALSE READINGS WERE TO SAVE THE MOTORISTS OR GET EXTRA CONVICTIONS FOR THE STATE TO RAISE REVENUE.FORMER IS TRUE,THEN OK. IT WOULD SEEM THAT MORE TESTS WERE DONE BY OFFICERS ON THEMSELVES TO MEET QUOTAS FOR NUMBERS TESTED

The Transport Accident Commission has suspended its funding to Victoria Police following revelations officers falsified more than a quarter of a million roadside breath tests.

The Age revealed that more than 258,000 alcohol breath tests were faked over 5½ years, in what appears to be a rather deliberate ruse to dupe the system.

In the wake of the scandal, $4 million in annual funding the TAC gives to police for road safety measures has been put on hold, the head of Victoria Police’s Professional Standards Command, Assistant Commissioner Russell Barrett, confirmed.

“The TAC have suspended funding of our operations at this point, and we’re currently working through that with them to give them some reassurances,” Mr Barrett said.

Meanwhile, an external investigator has been appointed to probe the breath-testing scandal. Former Victoria Police chief commissioner Neil Comrie will look into how the behaviour was condoned & allowed to occur and what the force could do to improve operational practice in the future.

“I had not heard of our members engaging in such practiceSs. We let ourselves down, we’ve let the community down. It stops now,” Mr Barrett told The Age on Wednesday night.

An audit found that in many situations, officers had blown into breath test units themselves or actually tampered with the test devices.

“Victoria Police doesn’t set quotas at local levels broadly,” Mr Barrett said on Thursday. “If local members, local managers set a target for members, then that’s a matter for local areas.”

The police findings represent about 1.5 per cent of the 17.7 million breath tests conducted.

Police said about 1500 preliminary breath test devices were analysed during the internal investigation.

Police Association secretary Wayne Gatt said the faked tests were the result of “critically under-resourced”, over-worked officers trying to meet unrealistic targets.

“Call them whatever you want, targets, quotas, objectives. It’s no lie, every individual van across the state gets told that they have to target PBTs … it is wrong to say it doesn’t happen. It does happen. It happens every shift,” he told radio station 3AW.

“They’ve had a dramatic increase in the amount of tests required out on the street. Asking the same amount of people to do more, if follows this sort of behaviour is likely to occur.”

He said he did not believe the members who faked the tests should be stood down.

“I dont think it’s criminal. It’s not fraud… no one is paid for the amount of tests they do. None of our members have a direct financial or other benefits from any of this.

“It’s the wrong thing to do, but it’s a far cry from criminality.”

Victoria Police Minister Lisa Neville labelled the actions an “unacceptable breach of trust.”

“This conduct is extremely disappointing and unacceptable — it’s wrong, it’s a breach of trust, and it won’t be tolerated,” Ms Neville said.

While Ms Neville welcomed an independent investigation into the officers’ behaviour, she said there was no evidence to suggest their alleged conduct had affected drink-driving prosecutions.

But opposition police spokesman Edward O’Donohue said the breach raised plenty of questions.

“The integrity, not only of our police but our road safety regime, is paramount and it is up to Daniel Andrews to make sure this is thoroughly investigated,” Mr O’Donohue said.

The Transport Accident Commission raised concerns with Victoria Police after they found an anomaly in data late last year, Mr Barrett said.

It sparked the audit of the past 5½ years of data from the breathalyser devices.

Mr Barrett said the audit found a suspicious number of breath tests were being conducted in quick succession

Usually there should be a space of time between each test, to take into account an officer talking to a driver and breathalysing them, before moving on to the next car, he said.

But the faked tests occurred one after the other.

Mr Barrett said he believed officers were faking the tests to make themselves appear busier.

“The question we all asked was, ‘Why?’ There could be a number of reasons but the main rationale I believe is to hide or highlight productivity,” he said.

“Whatever reason our workforce may come up with, it isn’t acceptable.”

It is believed self-testing was largely undertaken by police on general duties or highway patrol members, with some rural areas overrepresented in the available data.

The practice was not common at supervised drug and alcohol bus testing sites, police stated.

RELATED STORIES

www.crimefiles.net

www.intelagencies.com

www.ozrural.com.au

www.scamsfakes.com

www.clublibido.com.au

Henry Sapiecha

Researchers state a breathalyzer has flaws, casting doubt on countless DUI convictions

The source code behind a police breathalyzer widely used in multiple states — and millions of drunk driving arrests — is under the spotlight.

It’s a recent case of technology and the real world colliding — one that revolves around source code, calibration of equipment, two researchers and legal maneuvering, state law enforcement agencies, and Draeger, the breathalyzer’s manufacturer.

This most recent skirmish began a decade ago when Washington state police sought to replace its aging fleet of breathalyzers. When the Washington police opened solicitations, the only bidder, Draeger, a German medical technology maker, won the contract to sell its flagship device, the Alcotest 9510, across Washington state.

But defense attorneys have long believed the breathalyzer is faulty.

Jason Lantz, a Washington-based defense lawyer, enlisted a software engineer and a security researcher to examine its source code. The two experts outlined in a preliminary report that they found flaws capable of producing incorrect breath test results. The defense hailed the results as a breakthrough, believing the findings could cast doubt on countless drunk-driving prosecutions.

The two distributed their early findings to attendees at a conference for defense lawyers, which Draeger said was in violation of a court-signed protective order the experts had agreed to, and the company threatened to sue.

Their research was left unfinished, and a final report was never finished.

Draeger said in a statement the company was protecting its source code and intellectual property, not muzzling research.

“Pursuant to a protective order, Draeger provided the source code to both of the defense experts in Snohomish County,” said Marion Varec, a spokesperson for Draeger. “That source code is highly proprietary and it was important to Draeger that the protective order limit its use to the purposes of the litigation at issue.” Draeger says it believes that one of the experts entrusted to examine the source code was using it in violation of the protective order, so Draeger sent the expert a cease and desist letter. Draeger says it “worked with the expert to resolve the issue.”

Of the law firms we spoke to that were at the conference and received the report, none knew of Draeger’s threat to launch legal action. A person with a copy of the report allowed ZDNet to read it.

The breathalyzer has become a staple piece of equipment in law enforcement, with more than a million Americans arrested each year for driving under the influence of alcohol — an offense known as a DUI. Drunk driving has its own economy: A multi-billion dollar business for lawyers, state governments, and the breathalyzer manufacturers — all of which have a commercial stake at work.

Yet, the case in Washington is only the latest in several legal battles where the breathalyzer has faced scrutiny about the technology used to secure convictions.

TRIAL BY MACHINE

When one Washington state driver accused of drunk-driving in 2015 disputed the reading, his defense counsel petitioned the court to obtain the device’s source code from Draeger.

Lantz, who was leading the legal effort to review the Alcotest 9510 in the state, hired two software engineers, Falcon Momot, a security consultant, and Robert Walker, a software engineer and decade-long Microsoft veteran, who were tasked with examining the code. The code was obtained under a court-signed protective order, putting strict controls on Momot and Walker to protect the source code, though the order permitted the researchers to report their findings, with some limitations. Although the researchers were not given a device, the researchers were given a binary file containing the state’s configuration set by Washington State Patrol.

Although their findings had yet to be verified against one of the breathalyzers, their preliminary report outlined several issues in the code that they said could impact the outcome of an alcohol breath test.

In order to produce a result, the Alcotest 9510 uses two sensors to measure alcohol content in a breath sample: An infrared beam that measures how much light goes through the breath, and a fuel cell that measures the electrical current of the sample. The results should be about the same and within a small margin of error — usually within a thousandth of a decimal point. If the results are too far apart, the test will be rejected.

But the report said that under some conditions the breathalyzer can return an inflated reading — a result that could also push a person over the legal limit

One attorney, who read the report, said they believed the report showed the breathalyzer “tipped the scales” in favor of prosecutors, and against drivers.

One section in the report raised issue with a lack of adjustment of a person’s breath temperature.

Breath temperature can fluctuate throughout the day in an individual, but, according to the report, can also wildly change the results of an alcohol breath test. Without correction, a single digit over a normal breath temperature of 34 degrees centigrade can inflate the results by six percent — enough to push a person over the limit.

The quadratic formula set by the Washington State Patrol should correct the breath temperature to prevent false results. The quadratic formula corrects warmer breath downward, said the report, but the code doesn’t explain how the corrections are made. The corrections “may be insufficient” if the formula is faulty, the report added.

Issues with the code notwithstanding, Washington elected not to install a component to measure breath temperature, according to testimony in a 2015 hearing, and later confirmed by Draeger.

Kyle Moore, a spokesperson for Washington State Patrol said the police department “tested and approved the instrument that best fit our business needs,” and believes the device can produce accurate results without the need for the breath temperature sensor.

The code is also meant to check to ensure the device is operating within a certain temperature range set by Draeger, because the device can produce incorrect results if it’s too hot or too cold.

But the report said a check meant to measure the ambient temperature was disabled in the state configuration.

“The unit could record a result even when outside of its operational requirements,” said the report. If the breathalyzer was too warm, the printed-out results would give no indication the test may be invalid, the report said.

Draeger disputed this finding. A spokesperson said the Washington devices check their temperature, the check is enabled, and that the devices will not produce a reading while the device is outside its operational temperature range.

When asked, a Washington State Patrol spokesperson would not say if the breathalyzer was configured to allow breath tests outside its operational temperature range, saying only that the device “has been tested and validated in various ambient temperatures.”

The report also scrutinized the other sensor — the fuel cell — used to measure a person’s alcohol levels. Any fuel cell will degrade over time — more so when the breathalyzer is used often. This decay can alter the accuracy of test results. The code is meant to adjust the results to balance out the fuel cell’s decline, but the report said the correction is flawed. Breathalyzers should be re-calibrated at least every year, but the state’s configuration limits those adjustments only to the first six months, the report added.

“We also note that the calibration age does not account for the use frequency of conditions; a unit that has been used hundreds of times in a day would have the same correction as one used only once or twice in a number of months,” the report said.

Concluding the nine-page report, the researchers say they are “skeptical” that the Alcotest 9510 can & does produce a reliable measurement of breath alcohol.

“Although the apparatus states its output in very absolute terms, we recommend interpreting the results with extreme caution,” the report said.

LEGAL BATTLES

Although Momot and Walker’s code review was limited to devices in Washington, similar concerns roped in other states into protracted legal battles, forcing prosecutors to defend not only the breathalyzer but also how it’s configured.

But the line between Draeger’s source code and each state’s configuration is blurry, making it difficult to know who is responsible for incorrect results.

Draeger said in an email that the “calibration and adjustment procedures depend on the instrument, additional equipment and materials, and the persons performing these procedures.” When asked about the guardrails put in place to prevent calibration errors, the company said, “only trained and certified personnel perform these special instrument certification procedures.”

A Draeger Alcotest 9510 device, with a reading in Dutch.

Washington State Patrol said the device produces accurate results, even without certain sensors fitted.

Draeger’s breathalyzer is widely used across the US, including in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. It’s often the only breathalyzer used in the states where they were bought.

In both New Jersey and Massachusetts, defense lawyers raised concerns. By acquiring the devices used by the states, lawyers commissioned engineers to analyze the code who say they found flaws that they say could surely produce incorrect results.

But defense teams in both states largely failed to stop their state governments from using the devices, public records reveal.

New Jersey’s top court found in 2008 that a similar Alcotest breathalyzer — said to use the same underlying algorithms as the Alcotest 9510 — was “generally scientifically reliable” and can be used with a few configuration changes. One such change was to adjust the breathalyzer’s results for women over age 60 — who often aren’t able to produce the minimum breath volume of 1.5 liters required for a test. But defense lawyers argued that these changes were never put into place.

The same court ruled five years later that the breathalyzer “remains scientifically reliable, and generates results that are admissible” in court.

In nearby Massachusetts, a scandal that blew up in 2017 involving alleged failings in the breathalyzer threw thousands of prosecutions into disarray, because “all but two of the 392 machines” examined in the state had not been properly calibrated.

A district judge ruled that breath test results from miscalibrated devices for two years prior to September 2014 were “presumptively unreliable,” said Joe Bernard, a defense attorney who led the case against the Alcotest 9510 in Massachusetts.

Bernard, and his colleague Tom Workman, a computer forensic expert who later trained as a lawyer and consulted on the case, obtained the state’s source code and produced a report.

In a phone call, Workman criticized the Draeger breathalyzer, arguing that it can produce widely inflated outcomes. One section of his report claimed the device had a litany of programming errors, including code that — like in Washington — apparently fails to correct for fuel cell fatigue.

But the court rejected the findings and found the source code still produced sound scientific results.

“THROW CAUTION TO THE WIND”

While legal battles were continuing, Washington waited to push ahead with its deployment, but the ruling in New Jersey case in 2008 was seen as a vote of confidence.

Almost a year later, Washington State Patrol’s toxicologist said in an email seen by ZDNet that the police department should “throw caution to the wind” to deploy the device to police officers across the state without commissioning an independent source code evaluation — though she recommended confirming with the chief of police.

When asked whether an independent evaluation was ever commissioned, a Washington State Patrol spokesperson would not comment further and referred back to the legal filings in the case.

A later email in 2015 confirmed that the Washington State Patrol “never commissioned” an independent assessment.

Moses Garcia, a former Washington state prosecutor who now works for a non-profit providing local governments in the state with legal advice, said in an email that the earlier breathalyzer in the New Jersey case had already been deemed admissible, and that the newer Alcotest 9510 uses the “same basic algorithms and formulas” as its predecessor.

The former prosecutor criticized the defense’s discovery effort as “speculation.”

“In adopting and approving the [Alcotest 9510], the Washington breath alcohol program exceeds, by far, the scientific standards accepted in the scientific community for breath test instrument validation,” he said.

Five years after the contract was signed, Washington State Patrol began deploying hundreds of Draeger breathalyzers in 2014 — sparking interest from defense attorneys in the state.

Not long after, defense attorneys in the state sought access to the devices.

Lantz was granted access to the source code used for Momot and Walker’s code review by a local county court. In one of several recent phone calls with ZDNet, he recounted how he set out to see if there were problems with the state’s device.

“We thought we would find something but nothing like this,” he said.

SETTLEMENTS AND SETBACKS

Hundreds of DUI lawyers descended on Las Vegas in mid-2017 for their annual gathering.

At the event, the two researchers shared their findings, which claimed the Alcotest 9510 having a “defective design.”

Word spread quickly. Draeger sent the researchers a cease and desist letter claiming defamation and alleging the two violated a protective order, designed to protect the source code from leaking.

Draeger and the researchers settled before a case was filed in court, avoiding any protracted legal battle. A court case disputing the fine print of the order could have taken years to resolve.

Draeger said it “remains prepared to provide the source code for use in other litigation in Washington, so long as a proper protective order is in place.”

Beyond a tweet by Walker pointing to a settlement statement on his site, there was little to indicate there had been any legal action against the pair.

The statement said that the two experts “never intended to violate the protective order” and denied any wrongdoing. But the two sides “agree” the draft report was based on incomplete data and not finished — and that “no one in possession of the report should rely on it for any purpose.”

We reached out to Walker with questions, but he referred only to the settlement statement on his company’s website, and he refused to comment any further.

Draeger would not say why the settlement did not include a retraction on the report’s findings.

“There has not been an evidentiary hearing in Washington. If and when there is one, Draeger will cooperate fully,” a spokesperson said.

But Lantz outlines a different scenario. The defense attorney said he believes there “really was no technical violation of the protective order,” because the report didn’t disclose any source code.

“I do believe that [Draeger] is trying to interpret the protective order to be something that it’s not,” he said. “If we could go back in time, I would’ve asked that the report was not handed out — just because of the optics of it.”

Lantz said the protective order is vague, but contends it was framed to prevent the researchers from using the source code or their findings for commercial gain — effectively preventing Momot and Walker from using their knowledge to build their own competing devices. He believes the order gives Draeger near complete control over the code and anything that the company deems “protected” information.

That’s when Draeger “began developing a strategy on how to block” the researchers’ report, said Lantz, because the company didn’t want the “pervasive exposure of these flaws.”

“I believe that interest of Draeger’s to protect their bottom line overlaps with the state’s interest to keep juries from hearing this information about the problems,” he said.

Draeger maintained that it is protecting its intellectual property. The company said in response that it “takes very seriously the proprietary nature of its source code,” and “protects proprietary information as a sound business practice,” which can include various types of communications or agreements for any particular issue.

Momot and Walker are not any more involved with the case, but Sam Felton, a Washington-based software engineer, is set to conduct another review of the Alcotest 9510 code. When contacted, Felton would not speak in specifics about his findings to date, citing his own protective order, except that he found things in the code that caused him “to have some grave concerns.”

And Lantz, now working at a new law firm, is working on starting discovery proceedings in neighboring King County, home of Seattle, the largest city in the state.

www.intelagencies.com

Henry Sapiecha

Hi-tech cameras to snag drivers using their mobiles AUSTRALIA

DISTRACTION is one of the leading causes of fatal road crashes in Australia but new hi-tech detection cameras that catch drivers using their mobile phones without them even knowing could soon change everything.

A New South Wales Police spokesman told news.com.au that officers currently “use a variety of methods to detect drivers using their phones while driving”.

“Line-of-site, by trained officers is the primary method of detection, however, long-ranged cameras have been used with success, and helmet cameras in motorcycle police continue to be used,” the spokesman said.

But that technology could soon be replaced by fixed position cameras that automatically issue an infringement notice without the driver even realising they’ve been sprung.

NSW Police Highway Patrol boss, Assistant Commissioner Mick Corboy, told the Nine News there were “emerging technologies coming out”.

“So the way we are going to defeat this is by video evidence, by photographic evidence and we are looking at everything possible around the world at the moment and we think we’ll get something in place fairly quickly,” Mr Corboy said.

His comments came after NSW Minister for Roads Melinda Pavey put out a call on Tuesday for potential providers to present “practical, technology-based solutions to address the problem” of mobile phone use in cars.

“Developing this technology would be a world-first and is one of the priorities of our Road Safety Plan 2021 that we announced,” Mrs Pavey said.

As part of the Road Safety Plan 2021, the NSW Government outlined its plans to implement legislative changes to allow camera technology to enforce mobile phone use offences.

Mrs Pavey said the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Road Safety) Bill 2018 was introduced into the NSW Legislative Assembly on March 6, 2018. NSW is the first jurisdiction to introduce such legislation in Australia.

Last year, NSW Police handed out about 42,000 fines to drivers caught on their mobile phones, with the distraction increasingly emerging as a factor in fatal crashes over the past decade.

In February this year, serial texter Jakob Thornton, was allegedly engrossed in his phone when he ploughed into a roadside breath test in southwest Sydney, seriously injuring two officers.

Senior Constable Jonathon Wright had his foot and part of his lower leg amputated and Senior Constable Matthew Foley suffered a broken leg.

Alex McCredie demonstrates how the hi-tech cameras that can detect drivers using mobile phones work. Picture: Mark Stewart.

According to National Road Safety Partnership Program (NRSPP) Manager Jerome Carslake, the most common causes of road fatalities and car accidents occasioning serious harm are fatigue, speed, distraction (including mobile phones), and alcohol or drugs.

During the 12 months ending in February 2018, there were 1249 road deaths across Australia. That was a 0.2 per cent decrease compared to the total for the 12-month period ending February 2017.

In 2016, 1300 lives were lost on roads nationwide, which was an increase of nearly 8 per cent on the previous year (1205).

Mr Corboy said in a statement earlier this month that too many people made “poor decisions” while driving. “Every fatal crash is a tragedy for not only those involved, but for the families they leave behind,” he said.

“The most frustrating part about it is that most crashes are preventable if people slow down and take responsibility on our roads.”

In NSW, motorists caught using a mobile phone while driving can be slapped with a $330 fine and a loss of four demerit points, regardless of whether they’re repeat offenders or not.

The Australian Capital Territory has some of the toughest laws in the country, with a fine of $528 and loss of four demerit points for a driver caught texting or using social media behind the wheel.

Like the ACT, Western Australia also has a separate specific offence for motorists caught texting while driving. “WA Police Force is constantly looking for new ways to target offences frequently linked to serious and fatal crashes on our roads, including inattention through mobile phone use,” a WA Police spokesman told news.com.au.

“The penalty for using a mobile phone while driving is $400 and three demerit points.”

This driver was booked by Acting Sargeant Paul Stanford for using a mobile phone while driving in Brisbane City and copped a $378 fine. Picture: Jamie Hanson.

In Queensland, motorists can be fined $378 and have three demerit points recorded against their traffic history if they are caught holding a mobile phone for any reason while driving – that includes when they’re stopped at traffic lights or in congested traffic.

Learner and P1 drivers are prohibited from using hands free, wireless headsets or a mobile phone’s loudspeaker function. “At this time the QPS does not have technology to detect drivers using mobile phones,” a QLD Police spokesman told news.com.au.

Double demerit points apply for second or subsequent mobile phone offences committed within one year after an earlier offence.

A hi-tech camera which can detect people using their mobile phones while driving was trialled in Melbourne last year. Picture: Mark Stewart.

A red-light style camera capable of photographing drivers illegally using their mobile phones was trialled in Melbourne, Victoria last year. The technology – touted as a world first – detected 272 culprits during a five-hour test across just one lane of the Eastern Freeway, the Herald Sun reported.

The trial revealed that 7.1 per cent of the drivers observed infringed phone use laws. And 65.8 per cent of those offences related to motorists actively using their phone by holding it or touching it in a cradle. Authorities said in December last year that they were always looking at ways to improve road safety but had no current plans to introduce the technology.

This driver was booked for using his mobile phone whilst driving in Brisbane. Picture: Jamie Hanson.

A South Australia Police spokesman told news.com.au the state “doesn’t yet have any technologies to assist in the detection of driving while using mobile phones”.

As of November 11, 2017, the fine for using a mobile phone while driving was $327 plus a $60 government levy – totalling $387 coupled with three demerit points. Drivers are permitted to touch their phones only if they are making or receiving a call on a device mounted to the vehicle.

“To avoid doubt, nothing … authorises a person to use a mobile phone by pressing a key on the device, or by otherwise manipulating the body or screen of the phone, if the phone is not secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle,” the legislation reads.

The SA Police spokesman said it was “lawful to pull over to the side of the road to a place where it is legal to stop and make or receive a telephone call”.

“There is no requirement to turn off the engine,” he said. “Although the rule that relates to mobile telephones does not say that the vehicle must be in an area where it is legal to park, other Australian Road Rules come into play.

“To put that into perspective, it is not legal to park at a set of traffic lights, therefore it is unlawful to use a hand held phone while stationary at those lights.”

Acting Sargeant Paul Stanford speaks to a motorist in Brisbane City.

Henry Sapiecha

10 Most Corrupt Cops In History in this video

Police Officers are meant to protect and serve our communities, but what happens when they go rogue? Alltime10s brings you a list of 10 of the most untrustworthy, corrupt and downright evil cops of all time.

Check out this video for the ten bad cops list

Henry Sapiecha

Video shows Virginia Police Caught PLANTING Drugs – 6/2014 CORRUPTION

DRUG DOG FOUND NOTHING IN CAR BUT VIRGINIA POLICE SAID THEY DID

[UPDATE 5.3.16: You cannot see the HILARIOUS annotations on mobile – so watch on desktop, for all the details & funny pop-ups. YES, the case was dropped once this video was shown to the Asst. D.A., There were NEVER any drugs to begin with & if they’re were I’m sure the K9’s nose would’ve been ALOT better than these 2 dirty cop’s noses. Also, I was instructed by my Atty. that with the Judges & Cops in that town; a Civil suit would’ve been a waste of time. I support cops as we need them/but loathe biased thugs hiding behind badges.] POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT & SERVE – NOT – PLANT EVIDENCE & POLICE PROFILE. This is personal to me/I’ll tell you why. In June I was illegally stopped while bird dogging RE properties with a white female Co-worker (Driver & owner) in a VERY rural part of VA. We were followed by an unmarked car so we voluntarily pulled over to allow him to pass. We were detained, searched for weapons & drugs and when that turned up nothing & instead of being allowed to drive away – 4 cruisers pulled up with a the K-9 dog and they proceeded to walk the dog inside & out. RESULT- That turned up nothing. So 2 cops ripped the car apart, looking for God knows what on the side of a country road for 1.5hrs and 5 other cops on standby in tactical gear. Picture 1 cop working the driver’s side & the other on the passenger side. After ripping through the car, the passenger side cop (Jr. officer) walks away and leaves his superior to finish. After finding NOTHING; the superior officer walks back to his squad car, the Jr. officer steps over to him, mumbles under his breath & the Superior officer bolts to the passenger side floorboard (my seat) and miraculously finds a morsel of marijuana. Something the dog & the other cop didn’t detect. He puts it in a tester, claims it to be Marijuana and that b/c it was found on MY side of the car—says ‘he’s giving me a citation for possession’. Why not arrest me –BECAUSE apparently the quantity was so small. WEIRD – So ask yourself, how is it a passenger with No marijuana (furthermore – 2 Non users), get pulled over for tinted windows (ONLY after I questioned the stop, the officer replied, give me your I.D. –UNFORTUNATELY for them I had NO warrants etc.), has a K-9 dog & 2 cops search the car with NO results UNTIL 1 officer does something blatantly illegal WEIRDER – So ask yourself, how is it the officer on the driver’s side of the car, magically finds marijuana a dog couldn’t discover? WEIRDEST – After paying $1500 to a lawyer, the VA Prosecutor dropped the charges knowing there was a video. BUT NOW, I’M SADDLED WITH EXPUNGING THIS RIDICULOUS CHARGE FROM MY RECORD—ANOTHER FEE, and get this – Since Virginia is a Commonwealth, they reserve the right to DENY my request! Ps: So I guess June 25th was my day to get a drug arrest record, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY! Pss: The Jr. cop (whom I believe planted the so-called Marijuana) even asked to see the vid –I suppose he wanted to see IF he was caught on tape & YES, it’s all on video. HAHA, these guys really think they’re cowboys. PIECE de RESISITANCE – I RECORDED IT ON HD Iphone VIDEO – So after some serious thought, I decided to post the video of (2) Virginia cops planting evidence and make them celebrities.

www.crimefiles.net

www.intelagencies.com

Henry Sapiecha

NEVER TALK TO POLICE – HERE’S WHY as an EXPERIENCED LAWYER & LAW PROFESSOR EXPLAINS IN THIS DETAILED VIDEO

Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials.

Law Professor James Duane gives a video presentation as to why you should not talk to the police

www.crimefiles.net

www.intelagencies.com

Henry Sapiecha

West Australian police officers suffer setback in Fremantle Taser damages appeal

Three WA policemen who Tasered a couple during an arrest and were ordered to pay damages have had an appeal setback, with their union not paying security on a crucial court costs bill.

Robert Cunningham and Catherine Atoms were outside the Esplanade Hotel in the early hours of November 2, 2008 when they saw a group of men falling into a garden bed and tried to help.

But police believed they were causing a disturbance and the couple were Tasered during a scuffle.

The University of WA associate professor of law and Ms Atoms sued the state and the three officers involved, Peter Clark, Simon Traynor and Glenn Caldwell, and were awarded $1.1 million in damages.

The 2015 trial judge found the officers were liable for battery, misfeasance in public office, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

She also found the conduct caused the couple to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder and a back injury to Ms Atoms.

The officers challenged, arguing on 24 grounds, but were ordered by Justice Robert Mitchell last month to pay $90,000 security on a court costs bill – already estimated to have reached at least $900,000 – by August 23 or the appeal would be dismissed.

On Wednesday, the full bench of the Court of Appeal dismissed an application to review Justice Mitchell’s order.

The court heard the union decided not to provide the security payment, and the judges said “the appeal is arguable, but we … would not put it any higher than that”.

But the officers have applied for a 48-hour extension to make the payment and will find out later on Wednesday if it has been allowed.

In his recent provisional assessment of the appeal, Justice Mitchell said the arguments advanced in support of grounds one to 19 were “far from strong”.

He also noted the officers’ liability for damages and trial costs already exceeded their assets.

Traynor’s wages have been suspended as he is on continued sick leave while Caldwell is unemployed and receives a disability pension but Clark continues to work in the police force.

AAP

www.intelagencies.com

www.crimefiles.net

Henry Sapiecha

Australia’s most wanted fugitives named by police in these pics

Police launch Operation Roam in the hope of getting the community to assist with catching 18 individuals on the run from the law.

The country’s most wanted offenders are currently at large and possibly hiding in plain sight in communities across the nation, according to Crime Stoppers Australia.

Operation Roam: Rogue Radar kicks off today (August 21-27), in an attempt to catch Australia’s most wanted.

“The individuals named in this year’s Operation Roam are responsible for a range of offences, including murder and armed robbery,” Chairman of Crime Stoppers Australia, Trevor O’Hara said.

“These criminals could be working alongside you in your community. It might be a new person you’ve noticed in your area or a more familiar face such as a neighbour, work colleague, friend or even a family member.”

Last year 19 persons of interest were named as part of the campaign. Of those police were able to locate and arrest 11 offenders.

This year four fugitives are wanted in New South Wales, six in Queensland, six in Victoria, three in South Australia and one in the Northern Territory.

“We urge members of the public to visit http://www.rogueradar.com.au to see if they recognise any of these faces and report anything they know about these individuals.

“Many of these people are wanted for a range of serious offences so we advise members of the public to put them on your radar but do not approach them under any circumstances.”

If you have any information on anyone on the Rogue Radar list, contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

Source: CrimeStoppers

www.intelagencies.com

www.crimefiles.net

Henry Sapiecha

 

 

 

Lebanese police helped foil alleged Sydney airport terrorist plot, Australian interior minister states

Brother of two Australians charged with terrorism offences ‘was an Isis commander tracked by Lebanese intelligence’

Police at Sydney airport in July after a counter-terrorism raid uncovered an alleged plot to blow up an Emirati passenger plane.

Lebanon’s interior minister has said the country’s police intelligence played a major role in foiling an alleged plot to bring down an Emirati passenger plane flying from Sydney to Abu Dhabi.

Nohad Machnouk told reporters on Monday that four Lebanese-Australian brothers, including one who is in detention in Lebanon, had planned to blow up the plane with bombs hidden inside a large Barbie doll and a meat grinder.

He said the bombs had not made it on to the plane because the handbag they were in was 7kg above the weight permitted by the airline.

Two Sydney men charged over alleged terrorism bomb plot

Machnouk said the bombs had been sent back to the would-be attacker’s home in Australia. He said the attacker had tried to bring two explosives on the plane in case one of them did not work. The second was to be detonated by one of the brothers who was supposed to be the suicide attacker. It was not immediately clear how authorities uncovered the alleged plot.

Australian authorities said late last month that they had thwarted a credible terrorist plot to down an airplane by smuggling a device on board but provided few details, including the precise nature of the threat or any airlines involved.

On Tuesday Australia’s transport minister, Darren Chester, who has primary responsibility for airports, was reluctant to confirm the statements by the Lebanese interior minister.

“The bottom line is we work very closely with our security partners around the world,” Chester told Sky News.

“It’s a team effort in the sense that we do need to share information, because the threat of terrorism crosses international boundaries.

The United Arab Emirates’ national airline said it was working with Australian police in the investigation. But Etihad Airways, the smallest of three long-haul Gulf carriers that fly to Australia, refused to confirm if it had been targeted.

This month Australian police said two men had been charged with terrorism offences in Australia in connection with an alleged plot to bring down the airplane. It was not immediately clear if they were two of the four brothers.

Four Lebanese-Australian men have been arrested by police, who also reportedly seized a meat grinder that investigators thought may be the basis of a bomb. One of the four was released later without charge.

Machnouk said two of the brothers, Khaled and Mahmoud Khayyat, were being held in Australia, while another, Tarek, was a senior member of the Islamic State group based in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa.

He added that the fourth brother, Amer, was supposed to be on board the plane, working to bring it down 20 minutes after takeoff, but was arrested in Lebanon after he arrived in mid-July from Australia.

Machnouk said the alleged plot had been “foiled because of the extra weight”.

“Intelligence branch followed on the case and found that Amer was involved in this act and it appears that he was supposed to carry it out,” he said.

The minister said Lebanese police had been tracking Tarek Khayyat’s brothers since he moved to Raqqa and became an Isis commander.Machnouk said Amer Khayyat had travelled between Australia and Lebanon several times under pretexts such as coming to get engaged or get married.

He said about 400 passengers had been on the plane, including 120 Lebanese and that the four brothers wanted to punish the UAE and Australia for being part of the US-led coalition fighting Islamic State.

“When four Lebanese brothers in Australia decide to blow up an Emirati jet this means that the whole world should work together to fight terrorism,” Machnouk said. “Coordination should be 24 hours a day between all security agencies to stop such attacks.”

Since you’re here …

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

www.intelagencies.com

www.crimefiles.net

Topics