More
15. STOCKTON CA ARREST
1 year ago
STOCKTON CA ARREST
Harry Walters, Jr. - County Fair - Stockton CA - Harry buys a beer - Stockton PD Officers ask him for ID - Say they will pour out his beer if he does not show his ID - Harry gives the beer to his girlfriend's father - Harry makes a video recording of what the cops do and say - other cops gather and watch Harry - some cops come over and talk to Harry - He records video of what he says and what the cops say to him - this goes on for some time - the cops later come back and arrest Harry - handcuff him - take him to PD shack at the fair - take his video camera away - then take Harry to the County Sheriff jail in a patrol car - Harry is booked - then later released - charged with California PC 514.3 - "Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction" - Stockton PD Officers write up a police report - send it to the County DA's office the following Tuesday - the DA reads the police report - He decides no charges will be filed against Harry at all - the video recording now shows the Stockton PD officers did rewind the tape to the start of the fair footage - then recorded over prior recorded audio & video of Harry and the PD Officers talking - thus, the Stockton PD officers willfully destroyed the evidence - That conduct on the part of the Stockton PD Officers is unlawful. More soon.
Harry Walters, Jr. - County Fair - Stockton CA - Harry buys a beer - Stockton PD Officers ask him for ID - Say they will pour out his beer if he does not show his ID - Harry gives the beer to his girlfriend's father - Harry makes a video recording of what the cops do and say - other cops gather and watch Harry - some cops come over and talk to Harry - He records video of what he says and what the cops say to him - this goes on for some time - the cops later come back and arrest Harry - handcuff him - take him to PD shack at the fair - take his video camera away - then take Harry to the County Sheriff jail in a patrol car - Harry is booked - then later released - charged with California PC 514.3 - "Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction" - Stockton PD Officers write up a police report - send it to the County DA's office the following Tuesday - the DA reads the police report - He decides no charges will be filed against Harry at all - the video recording now shows the Stockton PD officers did rewind the tape to the start of the fair footage - then recorded over prior recorded audio & video of Harry and the PD Officers talking - thus, the Stockton PD officers willfully destroyed the evidence - That conduct on the part of the Stockton PD Officers is unlawful. More soon.
-
playslikescomments
-
Total
320 
0 
1 -
Dec 6th
0 0 
0 -
Dec 5th 1 0 0
-
Dec 4th 1 0 0
-
Dec 3rd 1 0 0
-
Dec 2nd 0 0 0
-
Dec 1st 1 0 0
-
Nov 30th 0 0 0
-
Nov 29th 0 0 0
Previous Week
Please join Vimeo or log in to download the original file. It only takes a few seconds.
-
Vimeo: About / Blog / Developers / Jobs / Community Guidelines / Community Forums / Help Center / Site Map / Merchandise
/ Get Vimeo
-
In California it is the District Attorney, not the victim or the police, who is responsible for deciding whether or not a person accused of a crime should be prosecuted in court. - District Attorney County of San Joaquin.
1. The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
2. "If truth be sought, spoliation of evidence is its antithiesis" (93-CA-2125-MR)
3. "Spoliation of evidence doctrine... is based on the nature of the conduct of the party who destroyed the evidence and the need to punish such conduct" (21 S. W. 3d 514)
4. "The underlying goals of truthseeking, fairness, and integrity of the judicial system can be served in two distinct ways. First the legal system can seek to remedy the effects of destruction of evidence in the particular case. Second, the system can seek to deter destruction of evidence in future cases, through the imposition of a penalty." (167 F. R.D. 90)