Bless her heart, the Ocean City police chief has apparently ordered an internal affairs investigation into a 2005 traffic stop, where Rick Meehan's daughter was stopped, admitted to consuming alcohol and called daddy to come and get her. Although details of the alleged incident have not been made public, I couldn't help but notice there was no mention made of a field sobriety test being administered. So that makes it a whole lot less suspicious than the Atkins fiasco.
So why would DiPino order an internal investigation in this case, and what good is it going to do? Answers to these questions are important because there are avenues for a miscarriage of justice built into the investigation that need close scrutiny.
First, it's troubling that DiPino's version of IAD is to have the head of the department to which the officer is assigned do the investigation. That means the person doing the investigation has a personal relationship with the officer in question, so his findings could be colored by that relationship, as well as how popular or unpopular the officer in question is both within the division and in the community at large. And even if the results of the investigation are on the straight and narrow, what reason is there for the public to believe it, given the Atkins case in contrast, not to mention DiPino's history of lying in sworn testimony. In effect, anything she says- good, bad, or indifferent- cannot be taken at face value. So, I don't understand why this investigation didn't get handed off the WCBI or the State Police.
Secondly, in the event the officer is found to be in the wrong, there's the question of his penalty and whether he would suffer a harsher penalty than he might have if the Atkins issues had not reached the public eye. In other words, getting sacrificed on the alter of political expediency.
And, unless I miss totally, this investigation effectively removes it from public oversight, because the original report on this traffic stop, which under ordinary circumstances would be a public document, is now an investigation document and so shielded from public view.
12 comments:
I would be surprised to learn that there was a report written on this incident. A speeding ticket does not generate a report.
From what the paper says, this was nothing more that a speeding traffic stop, therefore no report. Stuff like this happens all the time. A cop comes on a citizen that he cannot prove is too drunk to drive (or more correctly does not have probable cause to arrest for DWI), but in an abundance of caution, looks for a way to get the person off the road. Cops do not write up a report every time this happens. It is just good routine police work.
What we have here is:
An anonymous complaint that is TWO Years old.
That alleges well, nothing, no wrong doing.
The Chief elects to give this more attention than it deserves.
The person she is to designate to look into it is a Lieutenant commanding the Division involved. Our correspondent must believe that a Lieutenant would lie, you know for a buddy. Bullcrap. If the Chief had told the Daily Times, “no comment”, there would have been no story. The Daily Times would not print a story based on an unsubstantiated anonymous complaint. The story here is the fact that the Chief said she will look into it.
IF there is a story here, to me it is a police department wasting time and resources looking into anonymous bitching alleging no wrong doing.
Rat said – “”And even if the results of the investigation are on the straight and narrow, what reason is there for the public to believe it, given the Adkins case in contrast…”
The reason would be that the Adkins case was handled perfectly and no wrong doing was found. The cops were found to have acted just as we would want them to act. And, if that is not enough, who cares if the public does not believe an ANONYMOUS unsubstantiated complaint?
And of course the Chief has never lied under oath. We know that for a fact, as she has never been charged with perjury.
This whole sordid “story” really a NOT STORY has got no legs Rat, so let it die.
DiPino has never lied under oath, is that what you said? Not even the time she lied to obtain a warrant against a guy who she said endangered her life by identifying her as a narc? Hmmm. That's not what the Court of Appeals said when they overturned the conviction in May of 1999:
OCEAN CITY- The Maryland Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling
Tuesday that a resort police officer had no probable cause to arrest an
Ocean City man in 1991.
Ocean City officials claim Wayne Nelson Davis hindered officer Bernadette
DiPino in her capacity as an undercover narcotic investigator.
Davis alleges DiPino acted maliciously when she sought hindering charges
against him after he allegedly identified her in public as a "narc."
DiPino and another officer were leaving a downtown Ocean City bar when Davis
allegedly made the comment to a friend, according to police records.
Though prosecutors eventually dropped the charges, Davis spent two nights in
jail before selling his car to post a $50,000 bond. He is seeking
compensation and punitive damages because of false arrest, false
imprisonment, malicious prosecution and abuse of process charges.
The high court ruling Wednesday means the civil lawsuit will return to the
Worcester Circuit Court and must incorporate the lower court decision.
The decision likely will help Davis' case.
According to Peter Wimbrow, Davis' attorney, the case will center on whether
or not DiPino had probable cause and whether or not Davis' comments
constituted protected speech.
The case reached the high court after the Worcester Circuit Court refused to
consider Davis' charges, stating DiPino had probable cause.
The ruling was overturned last year when the Court of Special Appeals ruled
the circuit court erred, stating the officer had to be performing her duties
at the time.
The high court agreed, stating "that was no evidence that DiPino ... was
engaged in any police activity when Davis made his remark.
The court also agreed with the lower court opinion that Davis' comments were
protected speech.
Referring to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, the court stated, "there is
utterly no evidence in this record that Davis made his remark ... with the
intent to incite or produce imminent lawless action. Nor, under the
circumstances, were his words likely to incite or produce any such action
against DiPino ..."
Citing the complexity of the court's 40-page decision, neither Wimbrow nor
Town Attorney Guy Ayres would comment on what impact Wednesday's decision
would have on the case.
And maybe it does happen a lot, but from what we're seeing, it apparently happens most often to the well-connected. That said, I hasten to add that we've yet to see any information that would confirm that the stop even took place.
As to anonymity, well surly, as a cop you can understand that people are reluctant to report crimes by cops because, rightly or wrongly, they have a reputation for revenge and lying to cover for one another.
As to the Adkins thing, we don't know what happened. We only have the report and the word of people who would have a reason to lie. DiPino reportedly declined to investigate, saying she did not want to second-guess the offiecers who were on the scene.
I read your excerpt from a paper.
I did not see anything about her lying either over or under oath.
All I could see is that the COA found that there was no probable cause for the asshole's arrest.
When a person, any person cop or not, goes to a Commissioner and fills out an Application For a Statement of Charges, or a Statement of Charges, they put in the facts that they know, and the Court Commissioner or some other judicial officer decides if there is probable cause.
Simply because the COA found no PC does not mean that the facts were wrong or a lie, it means that they did not rise to the level of PC.
It is disingenuous of you to use the excerpt as proof or innuendo that Chief DiPino lied.
As for the quote from Pete Wimbrow, do you really expect us to take HIS word for it? He worked very hard to keep her out of the Chief’s job. This animosity goes way back to when she worked under me,,, no snide crude lewd remarks please,,, as a young undercover narcotics officer, and she managed to get convictions on some prized clients. Now I am not taking up for her because she is a friend, quite the contrary she and I have crossed swords many times~~and I lost!!
The reason that you even hear about the “stop & release” cases like Atkins or Meehan, is because they are well-connected. Why would Mr/Mrs anonymous bother to send a letter to the Daily Times if they knew that 2 years ago Joe Schmoe from Altoona, PA had the exact same thing happen.
As for the Atkins case, MADD came, heard the facts, and went home satisfied. There is really nothing to investigate. Do you figure OCPD should subpoena the bank records of the cops involved to see if there has been a large unexplained deposit? Should they check with the MVA to see if Natalie or Doug is sporting around in a new Mercedes? There were 4 witnesses. Atkins and his wife-THEY ain’t talking, and the two cops, who have been interviewed by the Chief and others. If the Council is happy (especially Jay-no big fan of the Chief) and MADD are happy, then I think it is safe for all but the most rabid conspiracy types to relax.
Have a nice day.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that DiPino, who had training and experience as a cop, had no training or experience and could not be expected to understand the law as it relates to probable cause or First Amendment rights. Is that what you're saying?
I ask because these seem to be he only two apparent options: If she didn't know the law, then how could she be expected to enforce it? And if that's the case, what was she doing on the street.
On the other hand, if she did know the law, then why did she wait 4-5 days to file a complaint for an infraction that she said put her life in danger? And wouldn't necessarily know and understand the laws relating to PC and protected speech. ...And if she did know those laws and still went before a majistrate to swear a complaint, isn't that lying?
... So she had time to determine that her fear of immediate physical danger was unfounded, yet, four or five days later, she swore a complaint alledging that her fear was well-founded?
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1549451615
Cut and paste the above--this poor guy got arrested. . . Could any of us do all of this even when sober??? LOL! Enjoy!
Nope. The fear must be "reasonable." For instance, You may fear that ET are strying to control what you think, and therefore take up wearing a tinfoil hat and seek an injunction against the ETs. But that doesn't mean your fear is reasonable.
In exactly that same manner, the fact that DiPino was fearful does not necessarily mean that fear was reasonable....As a side note, I observe that she now wears scrambled eggs on her hat; Is that to defend against domenstic poultry from trying to control her thoughts? .... back to the point at hand. The fact that the female police officer with her at the time she was IDd as a narc, did not join in seeking the arrest warrant, and so that provides further evidence the DiPino was either unreasonably fearful or that her response was an act of malice. In either event, she's unfit for duty as a LEO.... more to the point, if her actions were the result of malice, then she lied to obtain the warrant. So, you tell me, Dick; was she a coward, or did she commit perjury. Those are the only two options open to us.
A police officer can not "join" in submitting an Application For A Statement of Charges.
So that disposes of your "joining" argument.
The Court Commissioner who issued the arrest warrant found that the fear was extant AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT and was reasonable.
Only fool never feels fear. Fear makes one run form a burning building.
Feeling fear does not make one a coward. So she is neither a coward or a liar.
As an aside to the discussion, the guy was "in contempt of cop", and was a guest of the city for a night or two. Do you suppose he has learned to keep his mouth shut?
Oh my Gawd!! Contempt of Cop?! Most people get executed from crimes like that.... at the very least, they get dragged into some (cyber)alley and get stomped by four or five cops.... hell, sometimes even the state's attorney brings his wife down to join in the festivities.... yeah, geez, that guy's luckey he lived long enough to file a lawsuit...Just the same, a charge like that confirms DiPino's malice and perjured testimony. And that's why nothing she says can be taken at face value.... Indeed, it confirms why NOTHING a cop says can be taken as the truth.
You guys are a hoot.
ratturdinthecak if a cop says I am lying does it mean that he is telling the truth?
Hello Kip. Welcome.
What I'm saying here, KIp, is that a cop's word is no better or worse than anyone elses in a court of law. Pinning on a badge does not imbue someone with infallibility. Cops are no more or less honest than the population from which their ranks are drawn. Have you ever heard of a cop committing murder, or rape, or robbery, or theft, or drug dealing? Of course you have. But you've also heard, ad-freaking-nauseum, that cops are heroes. How can someone who is corrupt be a hero? .... The answer, of course, is that he can't. SO the cop PR machine that tries to persuade the population that cops, as a group, are heroes is lie.... Some cops may be heroes, but the same is true of accountants, firefighters, dentists, or even ballet dancers. Cops have a difficult job, and that's true, but it's one they volunteered to do and they are in no fashion obligated to keep doing it if it's too difficult or scary, or whatever. And the fact that they keep doing it means they like it.
So I just want them to shut the fuck up and quit complaining about all they have to put up with from civilians, and I want them to return to making public safety their first job, instead of being such pussies that they feel they have to put people in handcuffs without arresting them, or search their persons of cars for "Officer safety."
Dick!
So nice to hear from you... How is Frau Doggie... Didja get those bruised knuckles bandaged? I'm fine, thanks for asking..... just a bloody nose and bruised ribs. I took worse beatdowns when I was a kid.... how's Joel Todd and Anita ... man, those two fight like girls, don't they? Joel hit me with his briefcase... swung it like a girl swinging a purse. It hurt and all, just the same, it sure did look funny.
Post a Comment