Info on a local (dirty?) cop

[mvpel]

Oh, I see what you mean - the issue isn't getting someone to admit to something that's not illegal, it's using that as a basis to get a search warrant, yes?  So perhaps the issue is the judge that's signing the warrants as well as the overzealous cop who's trying to catch predators.

[ArcRiley]

... and the fact that they used what he said, embellishing it greatly and mixing in blatant lies, to get his name in the newspapers next to the title "child pornographer" and get his employers to fire him lest they be protecting an accused pervert.

It's one thing to mistakenly conduct a search warrant, or question you about things that are irrelevant to wether you committed a crime or not, but then to spin and spread details irrelevant to the case to the public..

This officer used his position to violate his privacy and engage in a smear campaign because he didn't want a gay man teaching children in the local school.  That's what this case is really about.  Officer McGlaughlin already won in that - it's very likely he'll never be able to teach in public school again.  That's what he went to school for, that's his passion in life.

[J’raxis 270145]

Even if what this cop did isn't illegal conduct for a police officer, he's still a slimebag and needs to be removed or otherwise neutralized: A public pressure campaign on the Keene PD to get them to remove him from this division, trying to find some dirt on him to put him through the same ringer he's putting innocent civilians through, advertising the guy's tactics all over these gay sex websites to the point where he's no longer effective at his job, and so on.

[J’raxis 270145]

Sounds like this individual desperately needs to be exposed to the services of an honor rating company, as being discussed here:

http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11006.msg188537#new

The world needs to be shown how many lives he has ruined through his dishonest crusade against perfectly harmless lifestyles.

I am currently trying to work out the details of how such a business would operate profitably.  I will be posting my ideas on the following thread (A Stateless Society By 2020), and any constructive input would be appreciated:

http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10944.0

Great idea. (Just made me delete the last sentence of the post I was writing.)

I also like the idea of a site like www.whosarat.com, but for undercover cops who pull shit like this. The idea would be something like, "these are cops who tried to wreck the lives of the innocent," and eligibility for the database would be based on whether or not any stings the cop engaged in resulted in a non-guilty verdict. This is something I'd work on myself but I'm already stretched a bit thin between the activist sites I'm doing, the Manchester newspaper, and a potential business I may be starting up soon.

[srqrebel]

OOPS!  I accidentally removed this post after J'raxis posted above, thinking it was a double post.    Here it is again:



Sounds like this individual desperately needs to be exposed to the services of an honor rating company, as being discussed here:

http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11006.msg188537#new  (top of page)

The world needs to be shown how many lives he has ruined through his dishonest crusade against perfectly harmless lifestyles.

I am currently trying to work out the details of how such a business would operate profitably.  I will be posting my ideas on the following thread (A Stateless Society By 2020), and any constructive input would be appreciated:

http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10944.0

[ArcRiley]

Even if what this cop did isn't illegal conduct for a police officer, he's still a slimebag and needs to be removed or otherwise neutralized

Exactly, and doing so would greatly help people such as Bryan who's trials are still pending.

Also it'd be good to find a lawyer interested in going on the offensive vs the Keene PD and the Sentinel re: the false and slanderous information that was printed and syndicated about the case.  There's a fairly severe difference between soliciting sex from a 14 year old and having an adult conversation online with someone posing as a 21 year old.

A likely outcome of this would be the Sentinel testifying that they were merely reporting what the Keene PD (specifically this officer) gave them, which gives even more weight toward going after him directly.  It doesn't let the Sentinel off the hook, they still printed and syndicated libel without checking the facts,  but an out of court settlement could include a written statement as to the source of it.

[J’raxis 270145]

Even if what this cop did isn't illegal conduct for a police officer, he's still a slimebag and needs to be removed or otherwise neutralized

Exactly, and doing so would greatly help people such as Bryan who's trials are still pending.

Also it'd be good to find a lawyer interested in going on the offensive vs the Keene PD and the Sentinel re: the false and slanderous information that was printed and syndicated about the case.  There's a fairly severe difference between soliciting sex from a 14 year old and having an adult conversation online with someone posing as a 21 year old.

A likely outcome of this would be the Sentinel testifying that they were merely reporting what the Keene PD (specifically this officer) gave them, which gives even more weight toward going after him directly.  It doesn't let the Sentinel off the hook, they still printed and syndicated libel without checking the facts,  but an out of court settlement could include a written statement as to the source of it.

Right, they'll claim they checked facts by talking to Officer Scumbag, and then the responsibility for the libel falls to him. A large financial settlement against the paper isn't the end of the world for them, and won't serve much purpose for our goal here, but could make life very difficult for the cop here.

[ArcRiley]

could make life very difficult for the cop here.

And if he's implicated in spinning lies about the evidence every case he testifies in thereafter, well, his credibility is lost.

[J’raxis 270145]

could make life very difficult for the cop here.

And if he's implicated in spinning lies about the evidence every case he testifies in thereafter, well, his credibility is lost.

Maybe. But most people have an incredibly easy time accepting pretty much anything a cop does, so long as he's "protecting society" from all the bad guys out there. Either his continued employment by the Keene PD has to make them look so bad they have to fire him, or he has to be ruined as a result of the lawsuit against him (sort of like what he did to this Farr guy).

[LaurieP]

The officer can certainly be held in a civil suit for this behavior.  If I understand correctly, the 'search' came before the arrest in this case.  IN other words, there wasnt enough evidence to outright arrest him from their IM chats, but there was now 'probably cause' take your belief to a judge to issue a warrant for kiddie porn, based on the premise that he was allegedly pretending to be a child to this teacher... or based on questionable conversations perhaps that may be indicative of child porn?  It be interesting to see what the search warrant request was drawn up.. and I am sure the defense atty has this information.  Depending on what the probable cause determinations were, the judge may have issued a warrant for a search that may not be legal if the probable cause of the alleged crime was misrepresented by the officer.  The judge issues the warrant in good faith and cannot be sued.  Warrants can only be granted for probably cause (4th amendment) and generally those are based on the idea that under a given set of circumstances a reasonable person would have reasonable cause to believe that a particular person has committed a specific crime.  But even if the judge issued a warrant on 'bad' probable cause... and items were found that constituted a crime.. the case can still go forward.  Google the case of US vs Leon and you will see this exact scenario played out already for drugs.  And even when the affidavit for the warrant was found to be baseless and unsupported by the original 'probable cause' the US Supreme court upheld Leons conviction against him for the drugs that were recovered from his home. 
So the government still has a case against the teacher even if the warrant was bad, as far as a crime being committed (allegedly) goes.  But that doesnt mean the teacher does not have a potential civil case against the officer, especially if the case is tossed or found to be unsupported by the facts and that the officer should have known this and was negligent in disregarding this information and  you would need to prove police misconduct during the 'investigation'.  The teacher probably didnt save his IM messages... and I wonder how much of the cops message is in its totality.  After all, any discrepancies cannot be disputed unless the defendent/teacher saved his own copies. 

The only way for the teacher to win this case (now that so called evidence of KP has been seized) is to prove these arent children.  That's an awfully expensive defense.. or to suppress the evidence by saying the state has not proved it's case that this constitutes KP.  Both of those are dicey gambles.  It is not clearly defined who has the burden of 'proof' when it comes to KP images.  Generally the state always has the burden of proof beyond a 'reasonable doubt'.  The state's argument is correct, let reasonable people determine if they reasonably believe these are minor children and this would constitute kiddie porn.. however.. the defense has an equally accurate poosition in saying that these could just as easily be adults who look young and therefore pose as minors would pose.  I'd really have to see the photo to say anymore..  /my 2 cents

[ArcRiley]

The only way for the teacher to win this case (now that so called evidence of KP has been seized) is to prove these arent children.

They are pushing on the basis of a single photo, the same one sent to Officer McGlaughlin online after he repeatedly asked for photos of young guys.  It's the only thing they found on his laptop and something he likely downloaded that night to fulfill the cop's request.

Using the porn terminology, the photo in question is of a "barely legal twink"; some skinny 18 or 19 year old guy, likely with blond hair and shaven body.  These photos are everywhere, it's hard not to stumble across them.  Lets see what I can find in under 5 minutes (NOT WORK SAFE, just nudity no sex pics):

• http://teenboydirectory.com/alltwinks77.htm - by a company based in Texas
• http://www.hotmuscleboyz.com/2003cfm/twink/5/1/index.htm - by a company based in Massachusetts

What they're charging him on is that the man in the photo could be a minor.  In New Hampshire, that's 15 or younger.  After being sent the photo Officer McGlaughlin then complained that he wasn't young enough - even he knew the photo wasn't illegal - and continued to use his offer for sex as a lure to get a photo that looks younger.

The search warrant was obviously an attempt to gain a photo which was illegal using the photo which likely wasn't as probable cause, ie "he has a photo of a young man maybe he has younger ones too!", but still they didn't find anything more than the one they already had.

Generally the state always has the burden of proof beyond a 'reasonable doubt'.  The state's argument is correct, let reasonable people determine if they reasonably believe these are minor children and this would constitute kiddie porn.. however.. the defense has an equally accurate poosition in saying that these could just as easily be adults who look young and therefore pose as minors would pose.

I'm shocked they're not pursuing entrapment as a defense, given the cop bluntly and repeatedly asked for the photo he was sent.  They're charging him with "trafficking child pornography" for the act of sending it to Officer McGlaughlin when he, himself, asked for it.

It's not like Mr Farr was online for the purpose of trading these photos, to be blunt he was online looking for sex with another adult, Officer McGlaughlin claimed to be interested in the same, and asked for porn of young guys to get turned on (or whatever).  This is exactly where the legal term "entrapment" comes from, a possibly illegal act committed only because the arresting officer asked.  It would be an undercover cop offering some guy desperate for money five thousand dollars to kill some guy, then arresting him when he agreed.

[LaurieP]

 I dont agree with what the State is doing.. it's shocking and senseless to go forward with something like this that is based more on emotion than fact, but the defense can show that the state CANT prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt since they cannot prove the age of the individual in the photo.  A seasoned defense attorney will make a fool out of this vigilante cop on the stand (and I'd pay money to watch!!), making it clear, line for line, that his inquiry was to elicit an illegal photo with the lure of having sex.  Trying to comply without doing anything illegal, the teacher sends the youngest looking male photo he can scrounge up in a matter of minutes.  Another huge part of the teachers defense, should he go to trial even, is to pick a reasonable jury.  It's a costly defense, one he can't likely afford given the damage to his reputation for just having the accusations tossed at him.  (which is the problem with ANY sexual assault accusation nowadays, you have NO rights left just because of an accusation which may or may not be supported by facts).  A jury of fairly intelligent people who arent likely to be bowled over at the emotionally charged dual topics of homosexuality and KP would probably see this case for what it is...  As for the teacher not going to trial yet, do you know if he was officially indicted by the Grand Jury? 

As for entrapment, it's a tricky term.  It seems it could hold up in this case at first pass.  In order for entrapment to be successfully used, you have to prove 3 things generally.  1) that the idea originated with the 'govt' or in this case 'officer'.  2) that the govt persuaded him to committ the 'crime' rather than just 'afford him the opportunity to committ the 'crime' and 3) the teacher wasnt ready or willing to committ the crime until the government planted the idea in his head.  All of that seems to be the case here... but again.. was the teacher actually indicted or just arrested?  Before the state can move forward to prosecute, there has to be an official indictment that the crime occurred as charged and that the needed evidence is there to move forward.  If the teacher hasnt gone to court yet or heard more... it makes me wonder if the case ever got off the ground. 

[mvpel]

... in Sorrells v. United States (287 U.S. 435 (1932)) unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer's repeated entreaties to get him some liquor. It identified the controlling question as "whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials".