 |
| A liar at work: Officer Michael Reichert (back to camera) harasses Terrance Huff. |
“Cops lie. Most of them lie a couple of times per shift, atleast.”
This assessment was offered not by an embittered critic ofthe police, but by Norm Stamper, former Chief of the Seattle Police Department,in his 2005 memoir Breaking Rank(page 129, to be precise). Stamper supports the use of tactical dishonesty indealing with certain kinds of violent suspects, but he has no tolerance for thecasual mendacity that is ubiquitous in the profession of law enforcement.
Police consultant and former prosecutor Val Van Brocklinoffers a similarly blunt perspective. “Police lie. It’s part of theirjob,” she wrote Val Van Brocklin in an essay entitled “Training Cops to Lie,”which was published in the November16, 2009 edition of the online journal Officer.com.
Habitual lying cost Officer Michael Reichert of theCollinsville, Illinois Police Department his job nearly a decade ago. With the helpof the police union, he was able to get it back -- at which point he resumedhis career of officially sanctioned perjury. In January 2011,Reichert, who is now assigned to K-9 patrol, was one of four Collinsvilleofficers given the “Chief’s Award of Merit” for performance “exceptional innature or above and beyond normal performance.”
In April, Reichertwas singled out again for his exceptional work by being named “Officer of theMonth.” The department lauded Reichert for reflecting “the proactive andinnovative philosophy of law enforcement prescribed to [sic] by theCollinsville Police Department. He has demonstrated this by his aggressiveapproach to drug trafficking in the area.”
“Officer Reichert had 166 total incidents with 6 arrests and7 citations in 13 working days,” continued the department’s report. “Inaddition to this he had 3 self initiated significant incidents that is veryworthy of praise [sic.]”
 |
| Reichert (left) receiving "Award of Merit." |
To someone who doesn’t belong to the coercive caste, a totalof 6 arrests out of 166 “total incidents” isn’t an impressive ratio. Theconcept of a “self-initiated significant incident” seems downright ominous.This is the portrait of a government-licensed bully bent on manufacturingcases, rather than a peace officer devoted to protection of persons andproperty. A brief examination of Reichert’s past supplies that portrait withadditional detail.
In 2006, Reichert was fired by the Collinsville PD “after afederal judge ruled he lied during a drug trial,” reportedthe April 19, 2009 edition of StLtoday.com. “They also cited a convictionon federal charges that he sold knockoff designer sunglasses." Irrespective of the merits of the federal case, Reichart was consciouslydefrauding consumers.
With the help of his union, Reichert appealed that ruling,and was he was reinstated in March 2009. However, about a month later theCollinsville Police and Fire Board suspended him without pay after “federalprosecutors … raised new concerns against Reichert again questioning histrustworthiness.”
Despite his track record as a proven perjurer and conartist, Reichert was re-hired by the Collinsville PD. He was promptly assignedto counter-narcotics duty once again – and he immediately resumed the sametactics that had resulted in his well-deserved but tragically temporaryunemployment.
Officer Reichert’s routine is described at length in aNovember 2005 ruling by U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan in the case U.S. v. Zambrana.The defendant was one of two suspects arrested on narcotics charges by Reichertduring a traffic stop in 2002. Zambrana filed a motion to suppress the resultsof a canine-assisted narcotics search, insisting that Reichert didn’t haveprobable cause to conduct the search.
Judge Reagan keyed on “Reichert’s lack of credibility as awitness,” describing him as a “polished performer” – a term not intended as acompliment.
“One reason this Court rejected Reichert’s testimony as notcredible was because it was so rehearsed, coached and robotic as to be rote,”observed Judge Reagan. “It was a generic, almost default performance notdependent upon the facts of this case, but suitable for any case in whichReichert might testify to having found `reasonable suspicion. When questioningrequired him to temporarily stray from this rehearsed script, away from thesecurity of his default testimony, he was caught off-guard.”
When required to deal with “objective verifiable facts” –events captured in audio or video recordings, for instance – Reichert wasequivocal and self-contradictory. He was clear and emphatic, however, regardingmatters that “were not objectively verifiable” – such as his “conclusions fromreading body language `thrown off’ involuntarily from people `trafficking innarcotics.’” Judge Reagan astringently referred to this as Reichert’s conceitthat he could behave as a “human polygraph” – an approach that “is whollysubjective and fraught with potential for guess, speculation, conjecture, andeven deceit.”
“Reichert made clear that he understands what a Judge mightfind persuasive in making a reasonable suspicion determination,” Reagancontinued, noting that “he teaches this principle in his classes.” That’sright: Reichert is not only a professional liar, he also tutors other policeofficers in his methods of mendacity.
At this point, it’s useful to remember Ms. Van Brocklin’sobservation: “Cops lie. It’s part of their job.”
“By simply adding up `suspicious’ factors while ignoringnon-suspicious or mitigating factors [in the Zambrana traffic stop], Reichertmisused the `totality of circumstances’ principle as a sword to unjustly pierceZambrana’s cloak of Fourth Amendment protection,” concluded Judge Reagan.
Reichert claimed that Zambrana came to his attention when henoticed the driver’s rental car – with out-of-state plates – “crossing thewhite divider line.” However, he also used the expression “hit” to describethis entirely trivial infraction. He claimed to have become suspicious whenZambrana “continued down the highway in a completely normal manner,” notbothering even to make eye contact with Reichert after the officer pulledalongside him in a police cruiser. This prompted him to pull Zambrana over.
Once the pretext stop was made, Reichert claimed thatZambrana and his passenger appeared “nervous” – which is an entirelyunderstandable reaction to the presence of an armed stranger who considershimself entitled to kill you at his discretion. He then barraged them with whatJudge Reagan called a series of “rolling no” questions. This is a tacticdesigned to elicit permission to search the vehicle. After inquiring aboutdrugs, weapons, or cash, and getting negative responses, the officer will posesome variation of this question: “Hey,this will only take a minute – do you mind if I just take a look before lettingyou go?”
Regardless of Reichert’s perception “that Zambrana’s repliesand lack of eye contact during this questioning were `suspicious,’ Reichert’ssubsequent actions indicate that he knew that he still had no `reasonablesuspicion’ to search Zambrana’s car,” notes Judge Reagan. “At that point,rather than simply informing Zambrana that he would be searching his car,Reichert requested Zambrana’s permission to conduct a search. Inexplicably(yet, not surprising to this Court, Reichert viewed Zambrana’s denial as `suspicious’and advised Zambrana that he was detaining his car for a canine search.”
Narcotics were found, and both Zambrana and his passenger, aman named Babar Shah, were maneuvered into a plea bargain. Despite Reichert’sobvious and documented dishonesty, those convictions stuck.
Last December, Reichertfollowed exactly the same modus operandi in conducting a pretext stop – and illegalsearch – of a vehicle driven by Terrence Huff and John Seaton of Hamilton, Ohio.Huff and Seton had traveled to the St. Louis Science Center to attend a StarTrek exhibit. Their return trip, unfortunately, included a stretch along I-70that was polluted by Officer Reichert, who was loitering in the median attaxpayer expense awaiting his next victim. The sight of two men in an SUV without-of-state plates proved irresistible, so Reichert pulled out behind them andpaced them for a few miles before pulling them over.
Once the pretext stop was made, Reichert – following exactlythe same script described by Judge Reagan – claimed to have noticed anotherwise undetectable traffic infraction. He obtained Huff’s driver’s licenseand asked the passenger for ID. When he ran Huff’s license, he found a recordof a previous arrest (without conviction).
“That mother****r,” sneered Reichert as he reviewed theinformation on his computer terminal. After calling for backup and resuming hispretense of professionalism, Reichert told Huff that he would let him off witha “warning” – and then began the “rolling no” routine.
“This highway, we have a major problem with people runningguns and drugs and illegal stuff up and down the highway,” Reichert told Huff. “Youguys don’t have anything like that in your car, do you?
“No,” replied Huff, adding, “I could show you the photos wetook at the Star Trek convention. We’re not drug runners. It’s my birthday.”
“There wouldn’t be any marijuana in there right now?”Reichert persisted.
“No,” Huff responded.
“No cocaine in there?”
“No.”
“Any heroin?”
“No.”
“Any guns in there?”
“No.”
“How about any large amounts of U.S. currency?” Reichertprobed, thereby revealing the true purpose of the stop: He was trawling forassets subject to confiscation in the name of “asset forfeiture.” If Huff orhis friend had been carrying cash, Reichert – assisted by the second officerwho had materialized during the questioning – would have stolen it, and mostlikely the car, as well.
When Huff pointed out that all he was carrying was a creditcard, Reichert moved to close the deal:
“Would you have any objection to us searching the car realquick to make sure that there’s nothing illegal inside the car?”
Reichert had neither probable cause nor “reasonablesuspicion” to conduct a search. If Huff and objected, however, Reichert wouldhave arrested him – and then stolen his car.
When Huff briefly hesitated,Reichert deployed yet another lie:
“Now, let me tell you something, OK? I’m not overlyconcerned about personal amounts or stuff like that. If you have a little bit …I’m not worried about that, OK?”
Remember that line; we’ll revisit it shortly.
“There are no drugs in the car, and I’d just like to go onmy way, if I could,” Huff said in the forlorn hope that he would be set free.
“Well, I don’t have a problem with that,” Reichert lied onceagain. “I’m just a little
apprehensive about how your buddy’s acting, he’s alittle bit nervous.”
“I’ve got a canine in the car,” Reichert continued. “What I’mgoing to do is detain the car long enough to run the dog around it.” He madethat announcement in a tone intended to convey the impression that this was amere formality – if not an actual favor he was doing on Huff’s behalf.
“That’s fine,” Huff – an unarmed man confronting two armedand thoroughly amoral strangers – conceded.
“If the dog alerts, I will search your car,” Reichertadmitted, now that Huff had been manipulated into consenting. “And anything illegalI find I will charge you with.”
“Anything” would include the “personal amounts of marijuanaor cocaine” to which Reichert had referred so dismissively just seconds earlier.
When Huff pointed out that Reichert had lied about thereason for the traffic stop – a point he did not contest - -the uniformed liarabandoned the façade of professionalism:
“I’m asking for your consent to search the car,” he toldHuff. “If your answer is `no,’ I’m going to detain the car long enough to runthe dog around it. I can get you a ride” – an invitation that, in context, hasto be considered an ill-disguised threat to arrest Huff and his friend (videthe foregoing business about “personal amounts”).
“If I’m free to go, can I go?” Huff asked.
“Not in the car,” Reichert curtly replied.
In other words: Huff was under arrest. He was entirely atthe mercy of a cynical, impenitent liar armed with a gun and clothed inimpunity.
Reichert retrieved his dog, and – with the practiced guile ofa veteran con artist – went through his charade, tapping and prompting theanimal to “alert” as if the vehicle were containing contraband. Once at thefront of Huff’s car – which concealed his actions from the dashcam – Reichert claimedthat the dog had “indicated” that there was something in the vehicle.
He informed Huff that the dog – which “is trained to smellmarijuana, cocaine, heroin, and meth” – had “started scratching” at the frontof the car. “I am going to search your car,” he continued. That search wasutterly futile. Reichert, who appears to be a mucosal personality composed of unctuous malicet, emitted one last lie to cover up his criminal misconduct.
“Inside your car, under your seat and under the back seat, there’sshake – marijuana shake,” lied Collinsville, Illinois’s April 2011 Officer ofthe Month. “A little bit all over the car. That’s probably what the dog’salerting to.”
Of course, there was nothing of the sort to be found – in fact,Huff’s vehicle didn’t even have a back seat.
Despite the devoted obstruction of the Collinsville PD, Huff-- who owns a small, independent film production company called T-MinusEntertainment-- obtained the dashcam video of the episode. He used it toproduce "Breakfast in Collinsville," a brief and thoroughly infuriating documentary of Reichert’s attemptedcarjacking and extortion:
“I am usually rather suspicious of authority, and this wassomething of a reality check,” Huff told ProLibertate in a telephone interview. “It’s pretty clear that what Reichertis doing is generating revenue for his department. This kind of thing ishappening all over the place – federal, state, county, or city, they’re allusing asset forfeiture to collect revenue.”
Although he has been contacted by lawyers and civilliberties activists who want to help him mount legal action against Reichertand his department, Huff simply wants to use the video to “expose this abuseand get people to look at what’s happening in this country.”
Huff is too busy doing work for paying clients to invest thetime, money, and frustration that a legal battle with Reichert and the policeunion would require. Unless the officer’s superiors can be shamed into firinghim permanently – an unlikely outcome, given previous performance – Officer Michael“Third” Reichert will continue to prey on the innocent and perjure himself, andteach the relevant skills to other cops. After all, as his awards andcommendations attest, Reichert is the pride of the Collinsville PD.
Your donations are vital to help keep Pro Libertate on-line. Thank you!
Live Long, and Prosper!
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar