Justice for LeviFollow

If a civilian shoots someone he is arrested and then is given access to a lawyer. If a police officer shoots someone he is not arrested, but he's not arrested because he explains the legitimate reason he/she had for shooting someone. If the officer isn't willing to immediately explain his actions he should be arrested and given access to an attorney like the rest of us.

It's simple as that. There are no rights being broken here the officer still has a choice.

Where is that stated as fact in this case? I agree that if both sat down in the same room with the same lawyer, that's a problem. But the closest I could find on the linked site was that they were told to wait until they had "both consulted O.P.P.A. lawyers". There is a statement that "Too often, the same union lawyer will review both subject and witness officers statements. The section of the Police Act that calls for officers to be segregated until after being interviewed by the SIU is violated through this practice."

It just seems counterproductive to exaggerate the details here. What *actually* happened here? Because the facts I'm reading don't match what you keep saying in your posts. Don't get me wrong, there's certainly some issues if the legal staff are making adjustments to reports to make sure they match up, but that's a wholly separate issue from whether or not police should have a right to speak with counsel prior to writing their reports in the first place. Those reports should not be subject to adjustment after the fact (or during writing) is all.

Given that the link only says that sometimes the same lawyer is used doesn't tell me if that was the case here. Was it?



Again, was the shooting officer in the same room with the witness officer while he wrote his report? If not, could you stop exaggerating the facts? There's sufficient legitimate cause for concern here, you don't have to stretch things.



Sure. But did the equivalent actually happen in this case? I'm getting a serious telephone vibe going on with the facts here. Can you show me facts indicating that they not only used the same lawyer in this case but wrote their reports together in the same room at the same time? Because if that happened, then obviously that's hugely wrong. But if not, then I'd rather we talked about what actually happened, why it might be wrong, etc.

Standard procedure demands they be segregated until after their reports are filed. They weren't. It also demands that they make their reports in a timely matter. They didn't. And part of this case seems to have been about whether or not police procedure was violating laws (and it seems that the judges agreed that it was).

And it's a very, very different scenario. There's plenty of reason for a client not to speak to the media or to the police, even if innocent.

There's absolutely no good reason for a police officer to need to speak to one when making his official report as a representative of the government.

The decision this court reached was that lawyers have no right vetting notes, but that police DO have the right to seek counsel regarding what their rights are.



This. It's too bad that law requires a police officer to fess up to the fact that he shot some guy in cold blood. But that's the cost of acting as an officer of the law. If I shoot someone, I'm not obligated to tell anyone. He is (assuming he did it while on the job). That's the difference.

Sure. If you're providing an example of something. Here, we're looking for specific details of a single incident. That's kinda different, isn't it?




I'm still not seeing anything in here which says that the two officers were in the same room when they gave their reports, a claim you made three times in your earlier post.

That's the impression I got as well. But isn't it possible his own proximity to the case is clouding his perception of it? He appears to be repeating claims that maybe aren't quite 100% true because they make the victim look more victimized and make the officers actions look more wrong. I'd just like to know if those claims are actually true, or just things people repeat but never bothered to verify.

Except that I can't find anything in the case itself which mentions the two officers being in the same room. Just that they used the same counsel to go over their notes prior to them submitting them, and that said counsel *could* have edited them in order to make sure there were no inconsistencies. The primary complaint appeared to be that since the original notes they submitted to counsel are protected by privilege, they were stuck with the official versions instead.

Now if you can find me some facts of the case in which its stated that the two officers were ever actually physically in the same room discussing the details of the event prior to submitting their notes, I'd love to see it. I just haven't run across anything like that even though the claim keeps getting repeated. Hence why I keep asking if that's just something that he heard and is repeating, or if its actually true. People do tend to exaggerate.

Agreed. But it's not the same as having both officers in the same room while writing those notes as was repeatedly claimed. There's a difference between "problematic, but could be an innocent scheduling issue" and "no way this could be done without an intent to falsify the resulting reports". Alleging the latter if it didn't happen is disingenuous at best.



Semantics, but it's important in this case.

If the process involved a back and forth, yes. But if either different lawyers were used (the best way to handle this IMO), or even if the same lawyer handles both but does them serially (meaning he takes the statement from the first officer, advises him on the best legal language to use, and they write an official report and when he's completely done, he goes on to the second officer) much of that concern can be reduced. In the second case, you're still left with the possibility that the lawyer could advise the second officer in ways which result in a more consistent report at the end.


Honestly though, I'm not sure how critical this is. In that case, the attorney would have to be knowingly violating the law. Not many attorneys are going to do that. And frankly, there are a hell of a lot easier ways for the officers to get their stories straight than this if they really want to. While I'll freely admit to having never heard about this case before, it honestly looks to me like a group of people not satisfied with the official explanation of the shooting, and in the absence of any contradiction or questionable statements in the reports of the officers or evidence collected from the scene, or any other data which might be available, have decided to sue over the methods by which the reports were written in the first place.


And I guess my biggest issue is that the way it's being presented here is like this was some gross violation of the rules. But this appears to be the standard way of handling officer related shootings in that organization. I can't imagine that this just appeared out of the middle of no where. Someone just decided in this case to sue over it, and an investigator decided to raise a big stink about it (apparently about something which would be true in every case involving an officer related shooting for some time now), and a judge decided to rule in the favor of the plaintiffs.


I suppose that's how legal changes happen, but I still have some concerns about the apparent bending of public policy to public outrage (which may very well be exaggerated via the very kinds of false claims being posted in this thread). That's a really bad reason to make judicial rulings which may have a significant impact on people's rights, so I'm a bit concerned about that.



We trust lawyers to do the exact same thing every single time a person is arrested though (or even just questioned). You're guaranteed the right to speak to an attorney prior to being questioned by authorities. Always. And any one of those lawyers might coach their client on what to say and what not to say (in fact, they do this all the time). But they aren't allowed to tell their clients to lie, and they aren't allowed to knowingly present false statements on behalf of their clients. Yet, they certainly *can* do this. And we still extend them attorney/client privilege and we don't consider this a problem. Even in cases where the same lawyer represents two people in a case! OMG!!!

The legal system is required to work around those things. Find evidence at the scene that contradicts the statements of the officers. Find some reason to doubt their statements. But don't just assume that because they *could* have written false statements and the lawyer *could* have facilitated this that this means that there's some problem with the process itself.




Sure. Use different lawyers just to avoid the perception that this could happen. But IMO that's still not a violation if they don't. As I said above, the legal system has to work around that. We extend those rights and privileges to every other attorney and client, and I don't think making an exception in this case is warranted.

Unless there's some reason to actually think the officers lied other than family and friends insisting that there must have been more to the story? Is there anything?




I see both sides of this though. I agree that as a matter of policy the department should segregate the lawyers representing the two in the same way they segregate the officers themselves, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to find some violation of law if they didn't. I'm far more concerned with the precedent this sets. Why not do the same for cases with multiple defendants? After all, it's a big pain in the butt for police investigators trying to get the truth from a group of people if they lawyer up and then are allowed to possibly coordinate their stories through a common lawyer, right? But we allow this. But police would love it if they could separate the suspects *and* not allow them any possibility to have the same lawyer represent them. Is that ok?

If not, why in one case, but not the other?

I have no clue how that happened. But neither do you. I'm not assuming there was some calculated intent to manipulate the reports though, am I? For all I know, they were in some tiny podunk town and there was only one attorney working for the local police force to represent them. If you want to convince me otherwise, then show me that there were 10 different attorneys working in that office and the police captain (or whomever) deliberately sent both officers to the same one.


I agree that the normal procedure should be to use different attorneys. However, I'm not going to assume that them using the same one in this case automatically indicates an intent to falsify the reports in some way. Barring evidence to the contrary, that is. Which is why I've repeatedly asked for more detail supporting the claims being made, and aside from a huge list of links which I don't have time to sift through, haven't received any.


It's not like I have a horse in this race or anything. I just haven't seen enough information to make me assume anything was screwy with how this was handled.



I don't think that's what you meant to write, but agreed! Self evident is self evident. It doesn't mean that we should assume such a thing *did* happen though, or even that the possibility of it happening requires some sort of mandates which may not always be able to be met.



Yes. They are important. I'm not sure what your point is here.



You're really naive enough to think that this case is just about procedure and nothing more? The family is trying to claim that the police officers did something improper or illegal which resulted in the death of that man. And in the absence of any evidence to support that claim, they are going after the method by which the reports the officers filed were written.

What do you think will happen if/when a judge decides that said methodology was improper? While it's easy for us to sit here and debate the issue in objective terms, this is not how the case is going to play out. It will be seen as proof that there was some sort of falsification and that will be used to sue the police. And they'll probably win. All because someone decided after the fact that a methodology which has probably been in use for decades should in this case be made suspect.

The public perception from this case will e that those officers *did* collude and lie about something, not just that since they could have, we should change the methods used in cases like this. Again, you're naive if you don't see that bigger picture here.



So you do believe we should not allow multiple suspects to have the same attorney represent them and speak with them prior to giving statements to the police? You realize you've just turned over a few centuries of legal rights precedent right there? What do you think happens when we let a single attorney speak to his clients before they have to give a statement (which is a guaranteed right)? That attorney absolutely could aid the suspects in straightening out their stories. If he is willing to commit a crime, that is.

Police still have that same right. While me might suggest that when possible their policies should separate them and their counsel, that's a matter of PR and not law.



It's not about what they have a right to. They have a right to "an attorney". That it might be the same one is a secondary consideration. The question is whether the government has the authority to not allow them to have the same counsel represent them. Again, I agree that the policy should lean towards not doing so. But that's purely because you presumably want to avoid the exact perception that's going on in this case. But that's not the same as legally mandating something. In some cases, it may not be easily possible to do that.

You are absolutely wrong. I am an Officer and have experience in Officer Involved Shootings. It may upset you to learn that Officers, on AND off duty are first and foremost citizens and afforded the rights of every other citizen. When you are involved in a shooting, you have the right to an attorney and are encouraged to speak with one before you make an official account of what happened. You should make a brief statement to a supervisor on scene as the very basics of what happened to avoid and officer safety issues (other outstanding suspects, location of the shooting etc....)

Whether you like, agree, disagree or don't care, those are the facts. It is ridiculous to expect people employed in a profession that has a high likelyhood of injury and deadly force to have any type of curtailed rights. Constitutional rights don't stop because you are a government employee. There are other mechanisms in place to help curtail officer misconduct (civilian review boards come to mind).

No it doesn't. It just makes them falsify those notes sooner should they want to.

The information is too vague to draw any conclusion, so I'm avoiding discussing it unless something more solid is presented. I just know human nature: If someone wants to lie, they're going to lie.

But just off what little we do have, I don't think they did lie. I think the officers both panicked after the shooting, and to calm them down the supervisor told them to not make their report until after speaking with legal counsel. I think it's a podunk little town out in the middle of nowhere, so legal counsel is limited which is why it took so long and why they both saw the same lawyer. I think the cops in question should have written their notes and reports, and had them sealed prior to legal counsel to review a copy, and the copy should have been released with the original untouched. That way a third party review board could look at the two in their own investigations, and if the two are so different then the originals could be released.

That would have been the best solution. Of course like you said if someone wants to lie, they are going to lie.