St. Louis prosecutor says she will no longer accept cases from 28 city police officers

I had no idea this could be done, but apparently it can be:

St. Louis prosecutor says she will no longer accept cases from 28 city police officers

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.

This decision apparently came because so many cases have been compromised and/or overturned due to officer conduct. And not just in terms of their conduct at the time/scene of the crime. Trials have been jeopardized as officers refuse to testify or plead the fifth.

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.

I'm sure the prosecutor's office did not make this decision lightly or rashly, but rather because the conduct of police officers was making it impossible to do their job. And that's pretty darn bad. But it is important to keep this in context; numerous studies across the country and various law enforcement departments show that it is only a handful of officers responsible for the vast majority of complaints within any department. In this case --

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.

It would seem to me that these officers serve no practical purpose to the department (and justice itself) if their testimony cannot be trusted, and therefore we would expect that they would be let go, but that's not a given. We can also expect that their union will fight tooth and nail for them to be exonerated... vindicated... whatever... and allowed to continue their dirty policing.

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.

The article goes on to cite (and link) several other occasions where prosecutors have refused to accept cases from certain LEOs. So this isn't a new thing or any kind of isolated incident. Neither are the veiled threats against the public for daring to hold such officers to account:

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.”

Yeah, that's it... dirty cops make the people safer... right... He may believe that (cough! cough!) but the people he serves don't. When folks know there are dirty cops being given free reign, it only makes the people fear and distrust ALL cops. And rightfully so, because we don't know which cops are dirty and which cops aren't. And all because of those who protect and defend the dirty cops while threatening the people they are supposed to be serving and protecting.

As the national debate continues about policing and corruption and excessive use of force, etc., it's good to know this is an option that people can demand. We need more practical and proactive remedies, just like this. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that the people need to know we have such practical and proactive remedies, just like this. It may just be me, but I feel like those with the power and authority too often just throw their hands up in the air and say, "Nuttin' we can do about it..."

For the sake of the people, AND for the sake of the overwhelming number of good LEOs everywhere, we have to do better.

a reply to: Boadicea

People like St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner and those that think like her are the problem.

Not the police.

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: Boadicea

People like St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner and those that think like her are the problem.

Not the police.

Quite an accusation to make... especially with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Care to expand on your gross generalization?

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: Boadicea

People like St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner and those that think like her are the problem.

Not the police.

Because she's making sure the law is enforced correctly?

If there are police officers that are bringing charges that can't hold up in court, there is a problem. No citizen deserves to go to court for some bogus charges, much less have to pay for them or go to jail.

That is a big step.

Sounds legal if she has valid reasons and examples to back up her actions.

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm sure what ever I expand upon will not be sufficient.

This lady is playing identity politics and perpetuating false narratives which certain segments like to present as fact.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
That is a big step.

I thought so too. The prosecutor's office would not take such a step unless it was having serious impact on her ability to bring charges and successfully prosecute offenders.

Sounds legal if she has valid reasons and examples to back up her actions.

I would think she does, given the examples of cases that could not proceed due to officer conduct. There would have to be significant documentation for her to do this. She must understand better than anyone the importance of documented evidence to support her decision. Especially knowing there will be a fight.

I sure hope so at least. I don't want any officers unfairly targeted any more than I want the people unfairly targeted.

a reply to: Boadicea

I remember a few years back the locals quit prosecuting mj cases unless the officers would call the prosecutor and get them on scene during the bust. It was done cause they were losing so many cases.

Ah, another liberal list to exclude people with.
No due process for the people on her list - she just decides who gets blacklisted and can't do their jobs properly.
Progressive authoritarianism at its finest.
What a monster this woman is.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Boadicea

I remember a few years back the locals quit prosecuting mj cases unless the officers would call the prosecutor and get them on scene during the bust. It was done cause they were losing so many cases.

Exactly - sounds like she is crap at her job and wants to blame everyone else.

a reply to: SKEPTEK

Please back up your statements with facts.

Thanks.

a reply to: SKEPTEK

This lady is playing identity politics and perpetuating false narratives which certain segments like to present as fact.

Let's be clear, police officers are our employees. If they are taking someone to court, why in the world would they need to plead the fifth?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

- Fifth Amendment

I don't know what you meant by identity politics, because if police officers are aloud to be dirty and not bring all the facts to trial, F throwing out their cases, fire their asses.

So what did you mean by identity politics? I'd love to hear you elaborate.

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm sure what ever I expand upon will not be sufficient.

Sufficient for who? For what?

This lady is playing identity politics and perpetuating false narratives which certain segments like to present as fact.

Again, pretty big accusations with nothing to back it up. I don't see any identity politics at all. She did not target all officers... she targeted a very specific few, whose specific conduct had prevented successful prosecution and/or caused guilty verdicts to be overturned, thus jeopardizing other cases. So neither do I see any false narratives.

She either has the evidence or she doesn't. As a prosecutor who knows exactly what constitutes evidence and what doesn't, she either has her ducks in a row or she doesn't.

If you have something to suggest that she doesn't, please share.

a reply to: UKTruth

Exactly - sounds like she is crap at her job and wants to blame everyone else.

You think public servants should be aloud to plead the fifth while in the process of trying to convict a citizen with a crime?

I know you come from a police state where you're always on camera and have to register your butter knifes, but we do things a bit different here. We aren't always right, but we fight to make sure the citizen always has the upper hand.

a reply to: Boadicea

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.

Well, ain't that a B!

How many times don't police use that line?

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Boadicea

I remember a few years back the locals quit prosecuting mj cases unless the officers would call the prosecutor and get them on scene during the bust. It was done cause they were losing so many cases.

Interesting... do you recall why they were losing cases?

I'm wondering if jury nullification had anything to do with it. I know I wouldn't vote to convict anyone for a simple marijuana possession charge, probably not even a distribution charge. I do reserve my right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case!

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Boadicea

I remember a few years back the locals quit prosecuting mj cases unless the officers would call the prosecutor and get them on scene during the bust. It was done cause they were losing so many cases.

Exactly - sounds like she is crap at her job and wants to blame everyone else.

What makes it sound that way?

I see it as though she is doing her job by setting a standard and level to the department she represents.

Keep in mind that lawyers can eat away at a sloppy case and it only causes the taxes to go up.

As long as she has evidence of certain officers not watching their p's and q's and she has tried before to tighten them up then the department hands will be tied. There only defense will be to bring race or personal character attacks into play.

If she does not have the goods to back up her actions then she will have to answer to that.

This won't last.

Due process is constitutionally guaranteed. Judges can't just circumvent the constitution because they don't want to deal with the case load, regardless of whether her logic is just.

This is a publicity stunt, meant to draw attention to the alleged shady law enforcement.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

What do I mean identity politics?

Have you lived under a rock for the past 5 years?

St. Louis, home of the "hands up, don't shoot" fabrication about the evil White police forces targeting poo defenseless minorities?

I love how coy and dumb some of you play.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Ah, another liberal list to exclude people with.

Um... why do you say that like it's a bad thing? Excluding dirty cops is a good thing.

No due process for the people on her list...

Due process? We're not talking about her charging and prosecuting these cops. No one has a "right" to be an LEO, so due process doesn't apply there either. So what due process?

- she just decides who gets blacklisted and can't do their jobs properly.

Um... just like she just decides who gets charged and prosecuted for what and can't live their lives freely??? That is her job. If it's unfair to do to cops, then it's even more unfair to do to the people they arrest.

Progressive authoritarianism at its finest.

Oh dear Lordie!!!

What a monster this woman is.

She's not the monster. She's trying to stop the monsters -- that you seem to be giving a free pass to.