http://www.sfgate.com/

Five days have passed since a BART police officer shot and killed an unarmed rider on a station platform, but the officer has not given a statement to investigators about what happened and the transit agency has apparently not forced him to do so.

The delay comes as witnesses emerge with their accounts of what happened, some with video footage of the incident recorded on cellular phones. The hold-up is one reason why BART officials – even in the face of public outcry – have said little publicly about the shooting, including whether they believe it was justified.

BART has not released the officer’s name, but The Chronicle has learned that the officer is two-year BART police veteran Johannes Mehserle, who turned 27 on Monday and whose first child was born within a day or two of the shooting – an event that may be a contributing factor to why Mehserle has not yet explained the shooting to investigators.

Mehserle could not be reached for comment on Monday.

Officials have only said that Mehserle’s gun discharged, killing 22-year-old Oscar Grant of Hayward. He had been detained and forced to lie chest down on the ground at Oakland’s Fruitvale Station after 2 a.m. in the chaotic aftermath of a fight on BART on New Year’s Day. BART has promised a thorough probe, and Alameda County prosecutors are investigating as well, as is standard in officer-involved shootings.

But the delay is troubling to John Burris, the Oakland attorney who is representing Grant’s family and who plans to file a $25 million damage claim today against the transit agency, a legal precursor to a civil lawsuit. Burris is also calling for the officer to be charged criminally.

Burris, who has represented clients in more than a dozen officer-involved shootings, said he had never seen such a long delay before an officer makes a statement to investigators. He said it raises the possibility that the statement could be affected by the video footage and by loss of memory, among other things.

“It’s pretty shocking to me,” Burris said. “When you delay like this, it raises questions about the integrity of the investigation. It raises the question, ‘What has BART been doing?’ You want to prevent collusion. You want to prevent people from tailoring their statements to the evidence.”

BART spokesman Linton Johnson said Monday that Mehserle had not yet given a statement, but did not provide further details. David E. Mastagni, an attorney for Mehserle, declined to comment on Monday.

Michael Rains, a Pleasant Hill attorney who has represented officers in use-of-force cases and taught courses on internal investigations, said the public should not read anything into the officer’s motives without knowing exactly what happened on the platform and what efforts BART investigators and prosecutors have made to arrange or compel an interview.

Rains also said he did not believe Mehserle’s statement would be tainted by a delay, even if he had seen video footage of the shooting.

However, Rains said police agencies typically move fast to probe officer-involved shootings that are generating controversy. Often, he said, an officer will be asked to give a statement on the same day as the shooting.

Officers, like anyone else, have a right to remain silent when questioned in connection with possible criminal charges. Rains said lawyers sometimes advise officers not to talk immediately due to their emotional state.

But police agencies can order an officer – under threat of firing – to speak to internal affairs investigators during a separate administrative probe. Those investigators must decide if the officer should be disciplined for breaking agency rules.

“Typically when you have something that is controversial, agencies are in a hurry to get the investigation done,” Rains said. “They want to get some answers out there. They will usually rush into an administrative investigation.”

Rains added that he and his clients had “walked out of an interview room with (criminal) detectives only to be greeted by internal affairs investigators.”

Statements that officers make to internal affairs investigators cannot be used in criminal court, Rains said. However, it is possible that the statements may be shown to prosecutors, who could gain an advantage even if they can’t directly use the statements.

“No one can fault the officer and say he’s done something terrible because he invokes a constitutional right,” Rains said. “If a law enforcement agency isn’t compelling a statement right away, that’s not the officer’s fault either.”

While BART has said little publicly, a source familiar with the investigation said the agency is looking into many leads, including the possibility that the officer had intended to fire his Taser stun gun instead of his gun.

Don Cameron, a former BART police sergeant and weapons expert who now teaches police officers about proper use of force, said Monday that he had watched footage of Grant’s death and was convinced that the officer had meant to fire a Taser – a device that he said BART began using recently.

Footage taken from inside a BART car by a phone camera, first shown by KTVU television, shows officers forcing Grant to the ground and trying to hold him down. One officer appears to try to put cuffs on him before drawing his weapon and firing. In the video, Grant appears to struggle with the officers, though it is unclear exactly what he was doing.

Cameron said he made his conclusion based in part on the officer’s stance, and the fact that a second officer moved away from Grant just before he was shot, perhaps trying to avoid a second-hand shock.

“If someone was actively resisting, which it appeared this guy was, the device to use would be the Taser, to overcome his resistance,” Cameron said. “The Taser is a great controlling device. But if you grab the wrong device, you kill somebody.”

http://lawfuel.com/show-release.asp?ID=19970

The Colorado National Guard, for the first time ever, received an asset forfeiture sharing check this afternoon at a ceremony that took place inside the State Capitol. The check was a result of a Western Slope marijuana investigation, involving the Guard as well as a number of federal agencies. Agencies participating in the ceremony included the United States Attorney, and representatives from the Bureau of Land Management Enforcement Division, the IRS-Criminal Investigation, and the Colorado National Guard.

Major General H. Michael Edwards, the Adjutant General of Colorado, was presented a $93,701 check for the National Guard’s role in the “Topliss” marijuana investigation, which included asset forfeiture. Beth and Alfred Topliss were arrested for growing marijuana on their property in rural Mesa County. A search warrant executed on the property resulted in a bizarre stand-off, where Mr. Topliss put a gun to his head and said, “I’ll kill the hostage if you don’t back-off.” The hostage was Mr. Topliss himself. The subject was disarmed, and ultimately he and his wife were convicted on state felony charges of possession of marijuana.

Under federal law, property involved in various crimes, including drug cultivation, may be seized and forfeited. In this case, the IRS was the seizing agency, at the request of the Mesa County Drug Task Force. The United States Attorney’s Office filed a forfeiture action against the Topliss’ property in U.S. District Court in Denver. As a result of the case, a court order was issued, forfeiting $375,000, which was the property’s value. Under federal law, the funds go to agencies involved in the investigation, for programs that aid law enforcement in apprehending criminals as well as to youth drug prevention programs. The Mesa County Drug Task Force also received a check during the event for $112,441.

A new Colorado law, Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 16-13-601 and 28-3-1303 (2) designate the Colorado National Guard as a law enforcement agency for the limited purpose of participating in the Federal Asset Forfeiture Program. This new law allows the Guard to receive forfeiture sharing monies from cases in which they play a direct role in investigating. The statutes do not expand the law enforcement authority in relation to other types of operations.

“No one should profit from crime,” said United States Attorney Troy Eid. “Besides facing prison and fines, drug-traffickers risk forfeiting their ill-gotten gains.”

No one should profit from crime… except those in government apparently. Asset forfeiture is bad enough already… this is only going to make it worse.

And really… “ill-gotten gains?” Providing customers with products and services you don’t like are ill-gotten? Well I guess when you have the guns and the aura of legitimacy with regard to violence… I suppose it’s whatever Troy says.

http://www.nj.com/…

Police departments in a handful of New Jersey towns are implementing directives that require officers to write a minimum number of tickets every month. To the police chiefs and mayors in those towns, the directives are a good way to measure productivity, and officers who don’t comply can face unsatisfactory performance reviews.

To some officers and the state Policemen’s Benevolent Association, they’re something else: quotas designed to generate revenue for financially strapped municipalities.

“We’re not toll collectors, we’re public safety officers,” said James Ryan, spokesman for the state Policemen’s Benevolent Association. “When the greater good is public safety, that’s where (writing more tickets) makes sense. But (not) if there’s no increase in traffic accidents, no increase in fatalities.”

Ryan said five to 10 officers from departments statewide have raised complaints in recent months.

Mitchell Sklar, executive director of the State Association of Chiefs of Police, said departments can demand officers perform at the same level as peers and one way to monitor performance is the average number of tickets written.

“How could you otherwise look at performance? You can’t subtract traffic or road safety from the duties of a police officer,” Sklar said. “It’s critical to manage day-to-day operations.”

A 2001 state statute makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to force police officers to make a certain number of arrests or citations. But it is legal to use an average number of summonses written when it is one of several criteria for promotion, demotion or dismissal.

I’m not sure if it was better when we knew they had quotas but they didn’t admit it or not. At least we can confirm it now to those who had a doubt. And just as with the speed cameras show that they care more about money then safety.