Page 2 of 8
Posted on March 20 at 9:09 a.m.
lawdy - "noscams" statement is relevant as police credibility is an issue that is involved in the DeNunzio case and other recent cases handled by the PD. Lawdy's statement is relevant as she is another person in an unfortunately long line of people that have issues with the PD similar to the type identified with DeNunzio in his contact with the PD.
Credibility, especially for an officer, is the foundation of their work. Who are you going to believe? If police are known to lie why should any of them be believed? If it is continually reported various officers have not been truthful in their statements why should we believe any officer on the PD? They all receive the same training. Goes back to the thought that one bad apple spoils the whole barrel.
I have no doubt the majority of officers on the PD are dedicated, competent and are an asset to the department. But, you get a few a$$holes past the hiring process and they will continue to undermine this department and leave a negative opinion of all officers on the department. Based on the identified issues I believe it could honestly be stated there are a number of persons in supervisory and staff positions at the PD that give meaning to the "peter principle."
Probably a good time for rank and file officers to consider having a heart-to-heart discussion with those officers they know (and they do know) that are creating problems for the department. The PD doesn't appear to have the leaders in place to handle this issue.
On Mistrial Declared in Tony Denunzio DUI Case
Posted on March 19 at 5:24 p.m.
Validated - I wonder if Jane Gray and her political committee would get off their rear ends and make appointments to make her comment that I've quoted to Police Chief Sanchez, his staff and the City Council: "Society cannot stand for this prejudicial, damaging and profoundly bellicose conduct," as it relates to police officers Sanchez and his staff have trained. What could be more "bellicose" and "misogynistic" than the recent conduct reportedly exhibited by some officers the PD? I can't think of a better group of people that should hear her comment!
What would Gray or any member of her committee think if they were contacted by an officer and “without warning or lawful justification violently grabbed [her] and rammed her against the vehicle breaking plaintiff’s upper right arm.”
Further, what if it was Gray or any other female that alleged the hood of the car was hot, and she “pleaded to be taken from the hood and complained of pain to no avail.” Are these not (thee) truly denigrating act(s) that Gray and her committee and the general public should be infuriated about? Do these acts not reflect a lack of respect for women, the police badge and the citizens of our city?
Jane Gray. Genis' attitude and comments are not injuring people! You may not like what he has to say but as I've said before, we don't have to read anything he writes. You may not like the way Genis openly comments about his cases, I may not, but this doesn't appear to be illegal.
In my opinion Jane Gray's disgust is not directed at the right person(s)! I wonder if Gray is "deeply disturbed" by the reported actions of some members of the PD?
Posted on March 19 at 8:42 a.m.
Darryl - What polygraph questions would be asked of DeNunzio and Tudor?
I'll guess that since you offered to have a polygraph test given to DeNunzio you already had him tested and it's likely the results were favorable to DeNunzio. Wouldn't be too good for you to allow your client to be tested by Dudley without knowing the results (of their test) in advance. If you didn't know DeNunzio's results in advance of Dudley's exam wouldn't it be like asking a witness a question during trial to which (you) did not know the answer? I believe someone already posted that law prohibits Tudor from being required to take a polygraph.
Posted on March 18 at 5:01 p.m.
Yeti - If officer's are hitting the streets and doing their job, there are people, justified or not, that may end up filing a complaint against an officer. The more an officer is involved in a negative contact with a citizen, I'm guessing the odds are greater for a complaint against them. Not many people are very happy when stopped/detained by police.
Do you agree we are not discussing minor infractions or minor issues relative to complaints about the officers involved? Sounds like you have a law enforcement background. During your career how many officers were known to have broken a limb of a suspect? How many did you know, without doubt, perjured themselves during court testimony. These are major issues. I agree we are all "fallible human beings." But, how long do we allow major errors by an officer to continue before stepping in and taking corrective action?
If Tudor, or any other officer, has an excessive force issue/problem that has not been addressed and corrected that could affect the general public, are we safe? Or, are we as likely to be injured by this officer during a contact as by an impaired driver? I'll take my chances with the impaired driver. They car can only hit you once. An officer with an attitude, impaired judgement & lack of discipline carries a semi-automatic weapon that can be used against you multiple times in one contact! If they overreact to something you did, something you did not do or something they perceived you did their actions can be as fatal as that of an impaired driver.
I'm not too concerned about the minor issues, although, over time, they will indicate how an officer handles negative contact situations. Once a problem area is identified I suspect you would agree additional training and supervision (at a minimum) should occur.
Someone earlier stated the PD culture has changed over the past two decades which brings to mind a question. Have the hiring standards for police officers been lowered during the past two decades?
Posted on March 18 at 1:40 p.m.
The PD culture has changed as there appears to be a problem with training, supervision and lack of leadership in the command structure.
I'm confident many officers on the PD are competent and dedicated. But, all their efforts and professionalism are in question due to a handful of incompetent officers and a command staff that does not appear willing to correct their problems. Does it make any sense for any agency to retain an officer that lacks credibility?
Posted on March 18 at 12:04 p.m.
Yeti - Seems to me Genis is spending sufficient time preparing his case(s). You may not agree with Genis or believe what he says but you aren't required to read his posts if they irritate you.
There are officers within the PD that have "some people stirred up," not Genis. If the overly agressive acts by police had not occurred the material Genis has to discuss would be minimal. The police officers involved created the problem and should be held accountable if there was wrongdoing. If reported history of certain officers is accurate, it is the officer's, not Genis, that have issues. Those of us that live in the city should be concerned with how the suspected issues are resolved.
Posted on March 17 at 9:32 a.m.
If a defendant is charged with resisting arrest, is it easier for the defense to review the arresting officers personnel file?
Posted on March 17 at 8:57 a.m.
At this point in time I don't forsee that Tudor would be fired. It appears Sanchez isn't the type of person to admit he made a mistake (in his review of Tudor's actions relative to DeNunzio). Sanchez is not a leader and based on all the recent problems it appears he did not surround himself with well experienced leaders. Time for someone with cajones to step in and start cleaning house.
A lengthy suspension for Tudor without pay, a probationary period and mandatory counseling might be possible. But, is the PD and the city in a dilemma by retaining Tudor? If Tudor was involved in other excessive use of force issues that were proven, isn't there a term known as "negative retention" that could haunt the city and Tudor if he remains on the department?
Example: An employer in any business/profession retains an employee they know has a specific problem(s). The employee, after their problem has been identified, is again involved in a similar incident (theft, excessive force, drinking on the job, records fraud, etc.) that has a negative impact on a customer, co-worker or the general public. I suspect the employer is now subject to greater liability for retaining the employee knowing they have a history of similar behavior.
In what police position is Tudor currently assigned?
Sounds like requesting a retrial is simply buying time for the statute of limitations to run out. Can't prosecute Tudor, the primary witness against DeNunzio, while pursuing the conviction of DeNunzio. Then again, I don't see Tudor being prosecuted at any time. If what I read previously is accurate, that Tudor perjured himself, hasn't this person lost all credibility, especially as a police officer?
Posted on March 16 at 3:36 p.m.
If DeNunzio was in violation of his court ordered probation, there were court orders (terms and conditions) with which he must comply to remain on probation, i.e., no consumption of alcohol. Was he ordered not to consume alcohol?
It is also likely DeNunzio received a suspended sentence as part of his probation. For those that want DeNunzio incarcerated (and to save taxpayer's money), why doesn't his probation officer violate his probation and have a judge impose the suspended sentence? Forget the second trial for the current arrest as it appears he is definitely in violation of his probation, intoxicated or not, if court ordered not to consume alcohol at any time while on probation.
Is it possible the DA would like to secure a conviction to minimize or eliminate any liability to the PD (if) a conviction helps the PD liability issue?
Posted on March 15 at 4:07 p.m.
While I applaud the DA's office for trying to support the PD, a second trial is a waste of time and taxpayer's money.
If DeNunzio is the alcohol consuming person described in previous posts he will possibly be stopped for DUI again in the near future and hopefully the PD will have upgraded their officer's training to eliminate the problems created by Tudor. Tudor stopped DeNunzio, the stop turned into a fiasco (primarily due to actions by police) and Tudor does some creative report writing in an attempt to substantiate the arrest.
Chief Sanchez supports Tudor stating "sometimes police work isn't pretty." Unfortunately, issues of this type are showing up too often and are the product of poor training, supervision and leadership.
Given all that has transpired since this case began I doubt there is much more the DA can find to support their contention DeNunzio was driving impaired. All the defense needs is one juror to believe their presentation and DeNunzio walks again. The DA was presented with a case laden with garbage and even though eight jurors in the first trial voted to convict, the vote count was not close enough for a retrial of this type of case. The Judge acquitted DeNunzio of a separate charge of driving with a blood-alcohol level above 0.08 (DeNunzio was not above the legal BA limit).
Retry for murder, yes. DUI, no way. Save the taxpayers money. Yes, I understand I (or you) could be a victim of DeNunzio if he chooses to drink and drive, but, Tudor didn't do his job properly, it doesn't appear the DA has sufficient evidence to obtain a unanimous verdict and the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay (again) for Tudor's poor performance.
Now in its 22nd year at UCSB, Reel Loud is ... Read More
Previous Month | Next Month