Re: Palo Alto Homeless Update - Homeless van sleeper tasered by police
Greegor
http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2008-7-30-ciampi
dhm > Homeless man given hard time trynig to get police camera videos
I read it twice, and I still don't understand
why and how they could deny this supoena.
Did anybody see an explanation of the correct
procedure to obtain the data??
I think Citizens should know!
http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2008-7-30-ciampi
Wednesday Jul 30
Taser data at center of legal battle
Attorney's subpoena fails; wrong process, judge says
By Kristina Peterson / Daily News Staff Writer
A months-long legal battle over the Palo Alto Police Department's
second activation of a Taser is tangled up over just a few seconds of
film.
Joseph Ciampi, 41, who for years has periodically lived out of his van
in Palo Alto, said this week he has been trying for months to obtain
precise data detailing the use of two stun guns he alleges were
inappropriately fired at him during an altercation with police in
March.
Ciampi said data downloaded from the Tasers should tell him exactly
when the Tasers were activated and for how long, as well as their
temperature - an indication of how much charge was released.
But the key question remains whether Ciampi was stunned by two
different officers, an issue contested by Ciampi and the police
department.
Last week, Ciampi's attorney, David Beauvais, unsuccessfully
subpoenaed the Palo Alto Police Department in an effort to obtain the
Taser data.
Palo Alto Assistant City Attorney Donald Larkin said Ciampi is
entitled to receive such data, but subpoenaing the police department
is not the correct legal process.
"There is no subpoena for records from a police department in a
criminal case," Larkin said. "He's entitled to the Taser video
downloads, he's just not entitled to subpoena them."
Instead, Ciampi should obtain the Taser information through a
"discovery process," by which evidence is shared in the Santa Clara
County court system, Larkin said.
Deputy District Attorney Deborah Medved said she has given all the
evidence she has to Ciampi's attorney, but could not specify whether
that included the Taser data.
"We've turned over everything we've had," Medved said. She said her
office is helping to facilitate the transfer of evidence from the
police department to Beauvais.
So far Medved has turned over videos from two officers' cars taken
during the altercation. But Ciampi said the film does not capture the
actual incident.
"The video just shows the street," he said. Only the Taser data, which
he has not received, will be able to clarify what happened in the
altercation, he said.
Ciampi maintains the skirmish began when officers noticed he was
sleeping in his van. Police reports, on the other hand, state the
officers were investigating a neighbor's complaint that Ciampi was
watching his wife and daughter from the van. When Ciampi became
angered by an officer's questions, a heated debate arose, eventually
leading to a scuffle in which Ciampi was shot at least once with a
Taser.
The original police report acknowledges that Officer Manuel Temores
used his Taser in its drive-stun mode, a method in which the stun gun
is placed directly on the subject's skin, similar to an electric prod.
But the three officers present at the March altercation diverged over
whether Officer Kelly Burger had previously fully activated his Taser
using the traditional electric darts on Ciampi as well.
Temores wrote in his report that Burger's Taser use "only partially
affected" Ciampi. Burger noted that after he shot a cartridge, Ciampi
appeared to be "dancing on his feet," then allegedly charged and
punched him. The third officer present, Agent April Wagner, said the
stun gun did not appear to shock Ciampi.
Assistant Police Chief Dennis Burns said the police department fully
intends to make sure Ciampi gets the Taser data.
"If it hasn't already been provided, it will be," he said. Ciampi is
"entitled to everything the prosecution has that is germane to the
case," Burns said.
Burns could not verify Tuesday whether the data had been sent to
Medved's office and said it is possible the data downloads are still
awaiting transfer.
Ciampi faces charges of resisting arrest and assaulting a police
officer. He will appear in court Aug. 11 for a hearing on the
evidence.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2008-6-1-taser
>
>http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2008-7-30-ciampi
>
>dhm > Homeless man given hard time trynig to get police camera videos
>
>I read it twice, and I still don't understand
>why and how they could deny this supoena.
Read it again.
"Palo Alto Assistant City Attorney Donald Larkin said Ciampi is
entitled to receive such data, but subpoenaing the police department
is not the correct legal process.
"There is no subpoena for records from a police department in a
criminal case," Larkin said. "He's entitled to the Taser video
downloads, he's just not entitled to subpoena them."
>
>Did anybody see an explanation of the correct
>procedure to obtain the data??
It's in the article.
"Instead, Ciampi should obtain the Taser information through a
'discovery process,' by which evidence is shared in the Santa Clara
County court system," Larkin said.
This isn't a detailed explanation, but then it's not the
reporter's job to give a detailed explanation.
>
>I think Citizens should know!
I'm surprised Ciampi's lawyer didn't know. I would expect a
criminal defense lawyer would know the proper procedure for the
jurisdiction in which s/he works.
--
"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
Gregory Scott Hanson, Jan 22, 2008
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
-----Begin Forward-----
To the Honorable Mayor, City Council and City Manager of the City of
Palo Alto , California
My name is Joseph Anthony Ciampi
A:
My attorney, David Beauvais, informs me that the Santa Clara County
District Attorney directed him to subpoena the Palo Alto Police
Department for the remainder of the Discovery Evidence, which includes
the TWO Data Downloads from the TWO Taser guns.
My attorney issued a subpeana to the Palo Alto Police Department for
this Discovery Evidence, yet, a spokesperson from the Palo Alto Police
Department responded by telling my attorney that he must acquire the
Discover Evidence through the District Attorney and the "Discovery
Process."
With the shenanigans aside, the question that needs to be asked is,
why is your police department refusing to hand over the Data Downloads
from the Taser guns when your police department espouses to be open,
honest and transparent?
It has been documented that I have asked for this information several
times, my attorney has asked for this information through the
Discovery Process several times and now has subpoenaed your Palo Alto
Police Department for the information, but your police department does
not want to provide this information.
According to Palo Alto Police Department Policy:
“308.96 REPORTING
The downloaded NMD activation rapport will be included with the
original police report.”
Why is your Police Department
VIOLATING IT’S OWN POLICY?
The data files should have been submitted to the DA voluntarily when
your police department submitted the police report back in March, FOUR
months ago.
The very purpose to have these documented Data Downloads is for Court
Admissibility according to Taser International.
http://www.taserx26.com/03.html
SECURE “X26 DATA FILES: The data downloads are saved in encrypted
data files that are secure from tampering. This preserves the
admissibility of X26 dataport download reports for court
admissibility. The X26 will store the last 2000 firings in its
memory.
Internal USB Dataport
Secure x26 data files
Duration of discharge and temperature
Data port stores temperature, duration of discharge, time and date of
firing in both GMT and local time.
The data downloads are saved on encrypted data files that are secure
from tampering. This preserves the admissibility of X26 dataport
download reports for court admissibility.
One firing period can last up to 127 seconds.
Please provide the DA with the data files from officer Temores’ Taser
gun as well as Officer Burger’s Taser gun.
B:
Last December a tiger at the San Francisco Zoo mauled a man
to death. The 911 tapes, the calls for service to the police dispatch
were released to the media within a few weeks after the incident.
Accusations were made about me to you police dispatcher, of which I
have a right to know and use for my defense.
I have repeatedly asked for a copy of the recording made to the
Dispatch, (the call for service made by Mr. Harold Alsman) regarding
the incident which took place on 3/15/2008 for over three months, yet
your police department has not provided this information as of yet.
Why does your police department NOT want to provide this information?
Please provide me with this information.
C:
Police Chief Lynne Johnson has stated that Officer
Temores’ MAV audio malfunctioned. According to Police Department
Policy, officers are to check their MAV system prior to going out on
duty, and if either the video or audio recording devices are
malfunctioning the officers are not to use that vehicle and report the
malfunctioning device to a supervisor and to the Technical Services
Staff for maintenance. Should a Supervisor order an officer to use
the malfunctioning MAV system, the officer is to make an Audio/Radio
notation with the Dispatch indicating that he/she is going out on duty
with a malfunctioning device.
I want a copy of the audio notation made by officer Temores
to the dispatch indicating that the MAV system was malfunctioning.
Either prior to going out on duty or while on duty once it became
apparent that the device had malfunctioned which would have occurred
shortly after viewing the recording on 3/15/2008. If no notation has
been made, I want an explanation as to why one was not made.
I want a copy of the maintenance report indicating that the
Technical Services Staff was notified of the malfunctioning device and
what the Technical Services Staff determined to be the cause of the
malfunction.
D:
I want a the “CHAIN OF CUSTDODY,” the names of the department
personnel who has been in possession of each and every “Recording
Record” [Burger’s MAV recording, Burger’s Taser-CAM recording,
Burger’s Taser Data Files, Temores’ MAV recording, Temores’ Taser-CAM
recording and Temores’ Taser Data Files.
I want the names of all department personnel who viewed the any
of the recordings and the date and time when they first viewed the
recordings.
-----End Forward-----
Greegor
When he was shopping for attorneys for this I wonder how
many didn't want to take a case suing the cops and city.
Rock on Joseph Ciampi!
Go for millions and don't agree to any
hush clause or non-disclosure agreement.
Kent: Did you notice the DA's misdirection?
Do you smell a large cash settlement?