This definitely falls into the WTF category


St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner delivered an “exclusion list” to the city police department on Tuesday. On that list were the names of 28 police officers — and Gardner says that she will no longer consider cases brought to her office by any of those on the list.

Gardner’s office gave no reason for submitting the list, but did note that previous cases brought by those same officers were under review for “viability.”

Warrant applications from the affected officers may also be denied according to an email obtained by the St. Louis Post Dispatch in which Maj. Michael Sack, of the Bureau of Professional Standards, referenced Gardner’s Chief Warrant Officer Chris Hinckley as the point of contact for any concerns.

In his email, Sack quoted Hinckley’s email. “Mr. Hinckley advised, ‘warrant applications involving officers (sic) as essential witnesses will be refused if their participation is essential to the successful prosecution of the case. Cases previously issued where the above officers are essential witnesses will be reviewed for viability.'”

While Gardner’s office has given no official reason for the case review or the exclusion list, many of her critics fear that the move could be political. Gardner’s relationship with local police departments has long been contentious — and a couple of recent high profile cases have not done much to mend fences.

In 2017, protests broke out after Gardner failed to get a conviction against former police officer Jason Stockley for the shooting death of Anthony Lamar Smith. Stockley has since filed a lawsuit against former circuit attorney Jennifer Joyce — who filed charges on her way out the door and left the prosecution in Gardner’s hands — for defamation and malicious prosecution.

Gardner was also the subject of a formal complaint, filed earlier this week, alleging that she suborned perjury and withheld evidence in the case she brought against former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens.

Despite sketchy appearances, according to St. Louis University law professor Anders Walker, what Gardner is doing isn’t exactly illegal. However, he did offer a caveat. “She may jeopardize her relationship with the police department, he explained, “And it could be a problem politically if the voters of St. Louis don’t agree. It could be a positive, if she has singled out officers she thinks cannot be trusted and is proven correct.”

The 28 officers on the list account for 2.5 percent of the police force and 5 percent of front-line officers, and according to an internal email obtained by the St. Louis Post Dispatch, all of the affected officers are to abide by their mission statement and continue doing their jobs to protect the people of St. Louis.

“Unless otherwise instructed, employees are expected to adhere to these principles and perform their responsibilities as outlined in all established policies and procedures. Should anyone be restricted from performing his/her responsibilities as a result of being listed on the exclusion list, please instruct the employee to immediately notify this office through their chain of command.”

Sgt. Keith Barrett offered an official statement on behalf of Police Chief John Hayden, saying, “The police division did receive an exclusion list created by the Circuit Attorney’s Office. While we are seeking legal guidance on how this affects the police division, we have also taken steps to notify each of the involved employees.”

Barrett then referred any further questions to Gardner’s office.


https://dailycaller.com/2018/0...r-refuses-28-police/

If I was one of them, bi'd patrol from the parking lot.

Unless these guys are known by their peers to be utter and complete dirtbags, the entire "front line" of the department should be sick tomorrow. Maybe sick for the entire holiday weekend.

With no reasons given, welcome the new age of the Scarlet Letter.

More than likely it could be related to this from earlier this year:

Police and Prosecutor Clash

or this one:

Chief and Prosecutor War of Words

quote:

This definitely falls into the WTF category

More here:

UPDATED at 4 p.m. with statement from police union official.

ST. LOUIS • St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner will no longer accept criminal cases from 28 city police officers and is reviewing any open cases they handled for “viability.”

Gardner delivered the list of officers to the police department Tuesday, calling it an “exclusion list,” according to documents obtained by the Post-Dispatch.

A written statement from Gardner said, in part, that prosecutors have “the responsibility to defend the integrity of the criminal justice system. Police officers play an important role in the criminal justice system, and the credibility of officers is one of the most important attributes of the job.”

“A police officer’s word, and the complete veracity of that word, is fundamentally necessary to doing the job. Therefore, any break in trust must be approached with deep concern,” the statement said.

Sgt. Keith Barrett said Police Chief John Hayden was unavailable for an interview but issued a statement on his behalf:

“The police division did receive an exclusion list created by the Circuit Attorney’s Office. While we are seeking legal guidance on how this affects the police division, we have also taken steps to notify each of the involved employees. At this time, we are considering how best to proceed and what if any actions to take. Any further inquiries should be directed to the Circuit Attorney’s Office.”

Koran Addo, spokesman for Mayor Lyda Krewson and Public Safety Director Jimmie Edwards, had not responded to questions about the situation.

In an email obtained by the Post-Dispatch, Hayden told colonels and majors to remind officers on the list to adhere to the department’s principles “and perform their responsibilities as outlined in all established policies and procedures.”

Hayden said his office is consulting with the legal division to “understand what this legally means and more specifically how this actually impacts these individuals.”

In another email obtained by the Post-Dispatch, Maj. Michael Sack, who oversees the Bureau of Professional Standards, told the affected officers to contact Gardner’s Chief Warrant Officer Chris Hinckley if they “have any concerns.”

Sack quoted Hinckley’s email as saying, “warrant applications involving officers (sic) as essential witnesses will be refused if their participation is essential to the successful prosecution of the case. Cases previously issued where the above officers are essential witnesses will be reviewed for viability.”

The move is bound to ratchet up tensions between Gardner’s administration and police over her office’s scrutiny of officer conduct. Previous clashes include city officers refusing to testify in nonfatal police shooting cases over concerns they, too, could be prosecuted. Gardner also announced in June that she was dropping hundreds of traffic cases and about 30 felony and misdemeanor cases brought by a Missouri state trooper whose conduct during traffic stops was called “questionable” and “unacceptable” by Hinckley.

The officers on the list account for about 2.5 percent of the department’s 1,180 commissioned officers, and about 5 percent of front line officers, said Jeff Roorda, business manager for the St. Louis Police Officers’ Association.

“I’m not going to speculate about the Circuit Attorney Office’s motivations for this,” Roorda said, adding that the police union was “surprised and alarmed.”

At a news conference Thursday afternoon, Roorda said he had five lawyers working on both the legality of the list’s creation and an attempt to block it from being shared.

Roorda, who has the list, said some officers were on it because they asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in cases where Gardner’s office was simultaneously reviewing an officer’s conduct in a police shooting and pursuing charges against the person shot. Last year, Gardner’s office dropped an assault case shortly before trial after an officer warned he wouldn’t testify without a guarantee that he would not face charges.

Roorda declined to detail why others are on the list, and said officers and police officials were not told. He said Gardner’s office failed to make a specific disciplinary finding and provide officers “due process,” as required, before they were placed on the list.

Roorda said that cases linked to officers on the list had already been dismissed in state court. He said the full group is linked to “dozens if not hundreds of cases.”

Roorda said the list included “front-line” officers. He blasted it as “dangerous” both to officers’ reputations and public safety when cases are dropped or not charged because of an officer’s inclusion on the list.

The police department, the circuit attorney’s office and Roorda all refused to release the list Thursday.

Kristi Flint, a St. Louis defense lawyer who worked as a prosecutor in the circuit attorney’s office from 2005-2013, said prosecutors see it as a “red flag” when police officers invoke the Fifth Amendment and choose not to testify.

“Why would you not answer the question if you don’t have anything to hide?” Flint said.

But although that may be a reasonable inference for a law enforcement official, she said in this situation it was important to consider the strained relationship between police and Gardner. The officers may be taking the Fifth because they don’t believe they will be treated fairly, she said.

Excluding police officers from being witnesses or bringing cases is not a new thing.

Gardner’s predecessor, Jennifer Joyce, refused to take cases from a handful of officers at a time in the past when their credibility had been questioned.

Two prosecutors in St. Clair County also have barred evidence from certain police officers.

In 2015, St. Clair County State’s Attorney Brendan Kelly announced he would no longer accept cases from any Brooklyn police officer. At a news conference announcing his decision, he said he made his decision in “solemnity and sadness,” but that officers had botched investigations, mishandled evidence and were reckless with firearms.

In 2009, then St. Clair County State’s Attorney Bob Haida announced he would no longer use 15 East St. Louis police officers as “essential witnesses” in felony cases. He listed his reasons for doing so in each of the letters to the affected officers. Some officers had been convicted of crimes and Haida banned others for their conduct during investigations.

In New Hampshire, the attorney general is rejecting requests from media groups and civil liberties groups to release the “Laurie List,” a “statewide list of police officers with credibility issues,” the Union Leader reported Wednesday.

St. Louis University law professor Anders Walker said he has never heard of a prosecutor making an exclusion list but said it is within Gardner’s power to do so.

“She may jeopardize her relationship with the police department,” Walker said. “And it could be a problem politically if the voters of St. Louis don’t agree. It could be a positive, if she has singled out officers she thinks cannot be trusted and is proven correct.”

The danger, Walker said, is if the police department decides it doesn’t like Gardner’s policy and stops investigating certain crimes.

Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley said Friday afternoon he was “deeply concerned that this action will result in criminals going free (and) being unaccountable and vulnerable communities not getting the protection that they deserve.”

Hawley told reporters at a campaign event in south St. Louis County that he had asked Gardner for a copy of the list and the basis “for each officer’s inclusion.” Hawley is running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Claire McCaskill.

Asked what he could do about the situation, Hawley said “we are exploring” potential actions but acknowledged that state law gives Gardner the authority and jurisdiction on whether to investigate or prosecute.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/...0B89BC16A7DF9646B9B6

Maybe there are issues on the record that put their credibility in question. I know officer's have been fired here for doing sketchy shit. I can only imagine its even tougher in St. Louis!!!

I would not make any assumptions in a situation like this without further information. I knew one officer whose testimony the prosecutor said he would not accept, and based on what little I knew of him, it was probably completely justified.

I can think of two people at my old department that the DA would not even open the case if his or her names were anywhere in the case investigation at all.

Both of them had found to be liars and their testimony was not believable.

Had they not been minorities, they would have been fired. (It was presumed by anyone who had been there for more than a decade; that those two had dirt on other high ranking officers from when they all were new cops). I saw plenty of cops let go or fired when the did minor things, but these two were basically retired on duty.

So, if the DA is outing these guys, there is most likely a reason.

Then again, it’s probably political.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MikeinNC,

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
So, if the DA is outing these guys, there is most likely a reason.

Maybe yes. Maybe no. Or may be using it for political leverage or retaliation.

1. I WANT to be outraged. However, I UNDERSTAND that it IS POSSIBLE this is legit, although unlikely for ALL 28.

2. I'm waiting to see if the other information will come out, and also will be legitimate.

3. If i were forced, at gunpoint, to make a bet, I'd bet this is half political, and actually, half deserved (or at least SOME proportion).

quote:

3. If i were forced, at gunpoint, to make a bet, I'd bet this is half political, and actually, half deserved (or at least SOME proportion).

^This. She likely had a list of unreliable officers and she just added a few that were on her personal/political shit list.

quote:

Originally posted by XinTX:

quote:

3. If i were forced, at gunpoint, to make a bet, I'd bet this is half political, and actually, half deserved (or at least SOME proportion).

^This. She likely had a list of unreliable officers and she just added a few that were on her personal/political shit list.

SUPPOSEDLY (and i say this as something I have heard throught hte grapevine, and have no way to corroborate it.. Some of the officers who have been involved in nonsense, and not had a resolution as to criminal charges (long story there, but EVERY officer involved shooting has the officer listed as "suspect" and the shootee listed as "victim" is a possible.

If they have not been ruled as cleared by her office, they are advised by lawyers to refuse to take the stand (because the rank and file does not trust her). So she is POSSIBLY taking revenge upon them for that.

Now, full disclosure, I really do not know, I just hear the scuttlebutt from friends. But no one trusts Kim, and IMO, I wouldn't either. Same as out incoming DA, because he is cut from the same cloth, and owes the same favors to the political groups who helped him into office. I'm taught to be suspect of those who owe such favors.

That's all I'll say about that, and let you all read between the lines on that one.

It will be a REALLY tough year for crime victims here. There won't be any actual "Justice" until the people stand up, reclaim it, and realize that these foolish "progressive" ideas are just bunk.

I’ll wait for more information either way, but given the suddenness and number of officers, this smells political.

Thanks Kevin, i was waiting to get your take on this.