Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [infoguys-list] Re: (Investigator-Notes®) Questions into SOP (Standard Op...

Expand Messages
  • suesarkis@aol.com
    Rick - For starters, I am not about to tell him how to conduct his investigation although I might privately offer some advice or suggestions. He asked for
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 25, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Rick -

      For starters, I am not about to tell him how to conduct his investigation
      although I might privately offer some advice or suggestions. He asked for
      info about SOPs and I responded. Maybe you consider it a waste of time.
      However, if I come out asking for something similar, I would appreciate
      people responding if they have the knowledge rather than second guessing
      whether it is aq waste of my time or not.

      Secondly, I cannot speak for Broward County but I can for Los Angeles
      County and the entire State of CA for that matter. We do not have any
      deposition transcripts available for criminal matters as most states don't allow
      depositions in anything other than civil cases.

      Thirdly, I've had no less than a dozen juries nullify the codes based on a
      LEO/s not abiding by the SOP.

      If I were a juror especially in the case with a known informant as the
      People's star witness, I would sure as heck want to know why they didn't wire
      for audio/video if the rules call for that. What were they afraid the C/I
      would say or do? If they cannot trust him, why should I? We're talking
      about a labeled informant, not the local Bishop !!!

      When I worked the Grand Jury investigation back in the late '80's by the
      time we finished attorney Gigi Gordon wrote a new law that was put on the
      State books immediately. Here in CA a "snitch" cannot be used unless there is
      substantiating evidence. You wouldn't believe the things the LEO's and
      DDA's admitted to under oath. However, not a single one of them were
      prosecuted because the Grand Jury had to grant each of them immunity to complete
      their investigation.

      Believe it or not, it came out that the police were taking jailed inmates
      who were being held without bail or very high bails being charged with
      things like murder, heavy drug dealing, rape, armed robbery, etc. and releasing
      them from the County Jail to use them for sting operations and drug buys.
      When that came out some of our Judges went bonkers.

      Sue



      In a message dated 1/25/2011 10:41:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
      rmriinc@... writes:




      --- In _infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com_
      (mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com) , suesarkis@... wrote:
      >
      > Jesse -

      However, by having
      > access to the manual and finding the correct chapter and verse, the
      attorney
      > then knows which way to go.
      >
      >
      > Sincerely yours,
      > Sue
      > ________________________
      > Sue Sarkis
      > Sarkis Detective Agency

      Which way to go for what? In my personal opinion, BASED ON WHAT LITTLE
      INFORMATION MR. EPSTEIN HAS ALLOWED US TO HAVE, I think the whole process of
      obtaining an SOP Manual in this case is a waste of somebody's time and
      money... Let me explain..

      From what I can gather from Mr. Epstein's post:

      "Good morning group: I have a question and would like to generate a
      discussion into SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) officers take during
      sting operations. I know as investigators the retaining of evidence to
      prove a crime is extremely important and from policy academy to working
      with the OSI…there were always SOP's and EVERYONE had to follow
      the same procedures. Obviously if a crime was witnessed and video/audio
      was not available that is another story. HOWEVER: In a criminal
      investigation operation planned over months, with a sting setup for a
      specific day, along with using an informant and ONLY the informant was
      going to be within the vehicle when the arrest was going to take
      place…WITHOUT HAVING ANY AUDIO OR VIDEO EVIDENCE of the actual sting
      happening I find to be strange and poor police work. I want feedback
      from the group into if anyone knows the SOP into conducting sting
      operations (specifically Broward County if possible). I have a client
      in a difficult situation and I am trying to assist him but I am ONLY
      aware of USAF military SOP's and OSI and would like feedback into if
      local police or if anyone knows BSO's SOP's when conducting
      stings using informants."

      It seems obvious that the Police used an informant to run a "sting
      operation" on an unsuspecting suspect. It seems obvious that the Police did not
      wire the informant for audio or video. And it seems obvious that the person
      that the informant was communicating with was charged with some sort of a
      crime and Mr. Epstein is assisting with his defense.

      So, okay what if Broward County has an SOP for conducting "sting
      operations" and part of that SOP was to wire all informants that are participating
      in these operations for audio? And what if the BCSD did NOT wire up their
      informant this particular time? And what if BCSD Deputy "Danny Dog" gets
      right up on the stand and says "we are supposed to wire all informants
      participating in these "sting operations" for audio per BCSD SOP; but this time we
      just decided not to?

      Does that detract from the evidence they do have? No. They still have the
      testimony of the informant. Does not following BCSD SOP create any
      reasonable doubt? I don't think so. How would it? Sure it does show that the BCSD
      could have done a better job, but it does not negate the evidence the
      Prosecution DOES have, we must remember that with regard to testimony "the
      credibility of the witness is solely within the province of the Jury, they can
      choose to believe some, all, or none of the witnesses testimony". A court or
      a Jury is not going to be all that concerned with why certain internal
      procedures at the BCSD were not followed when the result does not negatively
      impact the evidence that the Prosecution DOES have. Now, if there were some
      question as to evidence being corrupted due to mishandling, I could
      understand wanting to know what the evidence handling procedures are at the BCSD.
      But here from what I can gather, this does not appear to be the case. The
      case will still be decided on the weight of the evidence that the Prosecution
      does have.

      It would seem to me that the most appropriate course of action is to first
      determine who the informant is (1) If the informant is going to testify,
      then the defense has every right to know who the informant is (2) if the
      informant is not going to testify, then if would seem to me that the
      Prosecution does not have much of a case; unless there is some exception to the
      hearsay rule that allows Police Officers to present hearsay evidence, that I am
      not aware of? Second, conduct a very thorough background investigation on
      the informant if he or she is going to testify (3) depose the informant and
      (4) the defense attorney should be working very hard on using every scrap
      of information that the Private Investigator found in his or her background
      investigation and every statement that the informant made in deposition to
      discredit the informant when he or she cross examines the informant.

      Now I have seen a need to examine Police Department Policy Manuals often
      enough; for possible evidence mishandling issues, improper arrest procedures
      that resulted in a possible civil rights violation (I have one of those
      now, and even have a blog up about it: _http://bit.ly/gWP1j9_
      (http://bit.ly/gWP1j9) ), and other such issues. In this case, from what little I can
      gather this approach seems pointless, and it seems time consuming, which also
      means that it is "money consuming".

      Of course though, I should reiterate that this is my opinion based on what
      little information we have been able to see from Mr. Epstein's post. I
      should also say it is certainly his case, he is far more familiar with the
      details to this case than we are. And Mr. Epstein is certainly entitled to
      work his cases any way he sees fit.

      Just my opinion, AGAIN BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN MADE
      AVAILABLE TO US ALL. I know that even though I have written that three (3) times,
      somebody is going to say "but we don't know all of the details to this
      case" or something similar!

      Ricky Gurley.

      --
      Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
      Agency License Number: 2011001124
      Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072

      Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
      Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203

      Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
      Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
      Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
      Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
      Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
      Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
      EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

      RMRI, Inc. Websites
      (1) _http://www.rmriinc.com_ (http://www.rmriinc.com/)
      (2) _http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com_
      (http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com/)

      RMRI, Inc. Blogs
      (1) _http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html_
      (http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html)
      (2) _http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/_
      (http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/)





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • RickyG
      Sue, (1), I clearly put in my post: I should also say it is certainly his case, he is far more familiar with the details to this case than we are. And Mr.
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 26, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Sue,

        (1), I clearly put in my post:

        "I should also say it is certainly his case, he is far more familiar with the details to this case than we are. And Mr. Epstein is certainly entitled to work his cases any way he sees fit."

        So no need for the "for starters"...

        (2)I CAN speak for Boone County, MO.! Here we have a Citizen's Police Review Board. And here it has been made very clear at that CPRB that the Chief of Police is the one responsible for writing the Polices for the CPD and the Sherriff for the Boone County Sheriff's Department. And here I know for a fact (as in a recent case that I worked) that going outside of those policies does not necessarily negate ANY evidence that is bought to court: State of Missouri v. Arlie Nole: 08BA-CR04565-01 - ST V ARLIE DAVID NOLE; VERY SIMILAR to Mr. Epstein's case from what I can gather about Mr. Epstein's case (Jesse Watson actually helped me with that case a little, he read the Police Reports and the Witness Statements given by the informants). Informants were used in Arlie's case, not wired for audio or video, they had prior narcotics convictions, deviation from the Boone County Sheriff's Department's Procedures for using informants made what difference I can sum in in three words: "Hill Of Beans"...... The Defense Attorney in this case was one of the best, working for one of the best firm's in Columbia. And his stance was simple. Let's not worry about the Policies because those Polices DO NOT guide the Prosecutor or the Court, let's worry about trying to make sure the informant's testimony is seen by the Jury as at least as suspicious as it seems to us. Yeah, I think that pretty well illustrates my point... One of the informant's was photographed in Arlie's house/business with a syringe in her arm, while he was not present; AND the photograph was presented to the Jury.

        (3) The Jurors are going to be evaluating the credibility of the informant here. The fact is, there is no audio (based on what I am reading in Mr. Epsteins post). Failure to wire the informant does not dispute the informant's credibility any at all. At the end of the day, no matter what the policy is you still have that informant's testimony to contend with. Now a reasonable Juror is going to say "yeah, the BCSD did not do as good a job as they could have, but we still have to consider the testimony of the informant" over what I would bet is going to be NO testimony from the defendant, and no Policy Manual in the world is going to do anything to negate that. And God forbid you have a "conservative Jury", because then the Police will "walk on water" even if they would have used Charles Manson as an informant without audio or video. But the informant might not be able to "walk on water", which is where I would be focusing my efforts.

        (4) And again, I never said that it is a waste of time to get these Policy Manuals in all cases, I just said that it seemed like a waste of time in this particular case based on what I have seen posted. The methods we use to investigate a case are fluid and they vary from case to case based on the unique needs in each individual case. Here we don't have a evidence mishandling issue from what I have read. So no need to look at policies regarding the handling of evidence. Here we don't have a person that was severely injured during the arrest from what I have read, so no need to look at Arrest Procedure and Policy. What we have here is LESS evidence than what we would normally have IF the policy is to wire up the informants, but that did not stop the Prosecutor from going forward apparently. And that does nothing to negate the evidence that could very well be admitted into court (the informant's testimony), which I believe is what the defense should be concerned with as so eloquently put by the Defense Attorney in Arlie Nole's case.

        (5) So, the Sheriff's Department in L.A. let charged murderers and rapists participate in these sting operations in exchange for their freedom from jail incarceration? Did you really need a Policy Manual to show that (A) the informant was being held in jail for murder, and (B) he was participating in a sting operation in return for being let out of jail, and (C) how inappropriate this was? Really, Sue? You needed a Policy Manual for that? Tell me that you did not go and get a Policy Manual for that, please.......

        AND (6) I don't care how Mr. Epstein works his case, or what methods he uses. He can stand up in court and drop his pants and proclaim that his client is "the second coming" for all I care. I just don't see a need for a Policy Manual based on what I have read in regards to this particular case so far.


        Ricky Gurley.


        --
        Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
        Agency License Number: 2011001124
        Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072

        Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
        Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203

        Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
        Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
        Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
        Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
        Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
        Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
        EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

        RMRI, Inc. Websites
        (1) http://www.rmriinc.com
        (2) http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com

        RMRI, Inc. Blogs
        (1) http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html
        (2) http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/





        --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:
        >
        > Rick -
        >
        > For starters, I am not about to tell him how to conduct his investigation
        > although I might privately offer some advice or suggestions. He asked for
        > info about SOPs and I responded. Maybe you consider it a waste of time.
        > However, if I come out asking for something similar, I would appreciate
        > people responding if they have the knowledge rather than second guessing
        > whether it is aq waste of my time or not.
        >
        > Secondly, I cannot speak for Broward County but I can for Los Angeles
        > County and the entire State of CA for that matter. We do not have any
        > deposition transcripts available for criminal matters as most states don't allow
        > depositions in anything other than civil cases.
        >
        > Thirdly, I've had no less than a dozen juries nullify the codes based on a
        > LEO/s not abiding by the SOP.
        >
        > If I were a juror especially in the case with a known informant as the
        > People's star witness, I would sure as heck want to know why they didn't wire
        > for audio/video if the rules call for that. What were they afraid the C/I
        > would say or do? If they cannot trust him, why should I? We're talking
        > about a labeled informant, not the local Bishop !!!
        >
        > When I worked the Grand Jury investigation back in the late '80's by the
        > time we finished attorney Gigi Gordon wrote a new law that was put on the
        > State books immediately. Here in CA a "snitch" cannot be used unless there is
        > substantiating evidence. You wouldn't believe the things the LEO's and
        > DDA's admitted to under oath. However, not a single one of them were
        > prosecuted because the Grand Jury had to grant each of them immunity to complete
        > their investigation.
        >
        > Believe it or not, it came out that the police were taking jailed inmates
        > who were being held without bail or very high bails being charged with
        > things like murder, heavy drug dealing, rape, armed robbery, etc. and releasing
        > them from the County Jail to use them for sting operations and drug buys.
        > When that came out some of our Judges went bonkers.
        >
        > Sue
        >
        >
        >
        > In a message dated 1/25/2011 10:41:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
        > rmriinc@... writes:
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In _infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com_
        > (mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com) , suesarkis@ wrote:
        > >
        > > Jesse -
        >
        > However, by having
        > > access to the manual and finding the correct chapter and verse, the
        > attorney
        > > then knows which way to go.
        > >
        > >
        > > Sincerely yours,
        > > Sue
        > > ________________________
        > > Sue Sarkis
        > > Sarkis Detective Agency
        >
        > Which way to go for what? In my personal opinion, BASED ON WHAT LITTLE
        > INFORMATION MR. EPSTEIN HAS ALLOWED US TO HAVE, I think the whole process of
        > obtaining an SOP Manual in this case is a waste of somebody's time and
        > money... Let me explain..
        >
        > From what I can gather from Mr. Epstein's post:
        >
        > "Good morning group: I have a question and would like to generate a
        > discussion into SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) officers take during
        > sting operations. I know as investigators the retaining of evidence to
        > prove a crime is extremely important and from policy academy to working
        > with the OSI…there were always SOP's and EVERYONE had to follow
        > the same procedures. Obviously if a crime was witnessed and video/audio
        > was not available that is another story. HOWEVER: In a criminal
        > investigation operation planned over months, with a sting setup for a
        > specific day, along with using an informant and ONLY the informant was
        > going to be within the vehicle when the arrest was going to take
        > place…WITHOUT HAVING ANY AUDIO OR VIDEO EVIDENCE of the actual sting
        > happening I find to be strange and poor police work. I want feedback
        > from the group into if anyone knows the SOP into conducting sting
        > operations (specifically Broward County if possible). I have a client
        > in a difficult situation and I am trying to assist him but I am ONLY
        > aware of USAF military SOP's and OSI and would like feedback into if
        > local police or if anyone knows BSO's SOP's when conducting
        > stings using informants."
        >
        > It seems obvious that the Police used an informant to run a "sting
        > operation" on an unsuspecting suspect. It seems obvious that the Police did not
        > wire the informant for audio or video. And it seems obvious that the person
        > that the informant was communicating with was charged with some sort of a
        > crime and Mr. Epstein is assisting with his defense.
        >
        > So, okay what if Broward County has an SOP for conducting "sting
        > operations" and part of that SOP was to wire all informants that are participating
        > in these operations for audio? And what if the BCSD did NOT wire up their
        > informant this particular time? And what if BCSD Deputy "Danny Dog" gets
        > right up on the stand and says "we are supposed to wire all informants
        > participating in these "sting operations" for audio per BCSD SOP; but this time we
        > just decided not to?
        >
        > Does that detract from the evidence they do have? No. They still have the
        > testimony of the informant. Does not following BCSD SOP create any
        > reasonable doubt? I don't think so. How would it? Sure it does show that the BCSD
        > could have done a better job, but it does not negate the evidence the
        > Prosecution DOES have, we must remember that with regard to testimony "the
        > credibility of the witness is solely within the province of the Jury, they can
        > choose to believe some, all, or none of the witnesses testimony". A court or
        > a Jury is not going to be all that concerned with why certain internal
        > procedures at the BCSD were not followed when the result does not negatively
        > impact the evidence that the Prosecution DOES have. Now, if there were some
        > question as to evidence being corrupted due to mishandling, I could
        > understand wanting to know what the evidence handling procedures are at the BCSD.
        > But here from what I can gather, this does not appear to be the case. The
        > case will still be decided on the weight of the evidence that the Prosecution
        > does have.
        >
        > It would seem to me that the most appropriate course of action is to first
        > determine who the informant is (1) If the informant is going to testify,
        > then the defense has every right to know who the informant is (2) if the
        > informant is not going to testify, then if would seem to me that the
        > Prosecution does not have much of a case; unless there is some exception to the
        > hearsay rule that allows Police Officers to present hearsay evidence, that I am
        > not aware of? Second, conduct a very thorough background investigation on
        > the informant if he or she is going to testify (3) depose the informant and
        > (4) the defense attorney should be working very hard on using every scrap
        > of information that the Private Investigator found in his or her background
        > investigation and every statement that the informant made in deposition to
        > discredit the informant when he or she cross examines the informant.
        >
        > Now I have seen a need to examine Police Department Policy Manuals often
        > enough; for possible evidence mishandling issues, improper arrest procedures
        > that resulted in a possible civil rights violation (I have one of those
        > now, and even have a blog up about it: _http://bit.ly/gWP1j9_
        > (http://bit.ly/gWP1j9) ), and other such issues. In this case, from what little I can
        > gather this approach seems pointless, and it seems time consuming, which also
        > means that it is "money consuming".
        >
        > Of course though, I should reiterate that this is my opinion based on what
        > little information we have been able to see from Mr. Epstein's post. I
        > should also say it is certainly his case, he is far more familiar with the
        > details to this case than we are. And Mr. Epstein is certainly entitled to
        > work his cases any way he sees fit.
        >
        > Just my opinion, AGAIN BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN MADE
        > AVAILABLE TO US ALL. I know that even though I have written that three (3) times,
        > somebody is going to say "but we don't know all of the details to this
        > case" or something similar!
        >
        > Ricky Gurley.
        >
        > --
        > Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
        > Agency License Number: 2011001124
        > Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072
        >
        > Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
        > Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
        >
        > Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
        > Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
        > Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
        > Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
        > Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
        > Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
        > EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871
        >
        > RMRI, Inc. Websites
        > (1) _http://www.rmriinc.com_ (http://www.rmriinc.com/)
        > (2) _http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com_
        > (http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com/)
        >
        > RMRI, Inc. Blogs
        > (1) _http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html_
        > (http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html)
        > (2) _http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/_
        > (http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/)
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.