US: Video - Undercover police informant plants crack, caught on tape - Polidicks

[url]http://wnyt.com/article/stories/s3107069.shtml[/url] [quote]SCOTIA- Donald Andrews, Jr. operates a so-called smoke shop on Mohawk Avenue in Scotia. It sells incense and other smoking paraphernalia. It's legal stuff, but material that might also be re-purposed for other illicit activities. Scotia and Schenectady County police became suspicious and targeted Andrews' shop, sending an undercover informant in twice in March. The second time, Andrews' attorney Kevin Luibrand showed video of the second visit, which appears to show the informant planting, then photographing crack cocaine that led to Andrews' arrest. "He comes in," Luibrand narrated over video shot on in-store surveillance cameras. "Places the crack on the counter. [U][B]Crack, which under federal sentencing guidelines, would get him four years in jail. Under New York State law would get him two to seven years in jail."[/B][/U] There are seven cameras in plain view in Andrews' small store. Members of the Schenectady chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference viewed the apparent framing of an African-American businessman and were outraged. "It was a set-up and [B]I believe that he was racially profiled and targeted[/B]," said Treasure Clayton. "[B]It would be easy for them to say that he was selling drugs because he was black.[/B]" Neither the Schenectady County sheriff nor the Scotia police chief were available to be interviewed about the apparent planting of evidence. [B]By phone the sheriff acknowledged proper procedures were not followed, but denied his investigators purposely framed the suspect. The sheriff blamed the informant, who has taken flight.[/B] [B]Andrews was arrested, but released when he was able to get police to look at the multiple camera angles.[/B][/quote] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQi0ravgsRM[/media] Former correction officers say that one primary claim they remember echoed from all inmates is their insistence that they "didn't do it," I wonder how many imprisoned people are actually innocent.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;43635188] Former correction officers say that one primary claim they remember echoed from all inmates is their insistence that they "didn't do it," I wonder how many imprisoned people are actually innocent.[/QUOTE] Ask the kid in timeout if he did it. Nobody wants to admit that they have done something wrong. Not trying to downplay cops planting evidence but it's a bit silly to see one instance of the police doing wrong and assume that a lot of people have been wronged in a similiar fashion.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43635333]Ask the kid in timeout if he did it. Nobody wants to admit that they have done something wrong. [B]Not trying to downplay cops planting evidence[/B] but it's a bit silly to see one instance of the police doing wrong and assume that a lot of people have been wronged in a similiar fashion.[/QUOTE] By voicing a dissenting opinion as the first reply, that's exactly what you're doing. "I'm not trying to do X, I'm only going on to do X!" is not a valid reasoning, ever.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43635333]Ask the kid in timeout if he did it. Nobody wants to admit that they have done something wrong. Not trying to downplay cops planting evidence but it's a bit silly to see one instance of the police doing wrong and assume that a lot of people have been wronged in a similiar fashion.[/QUOTE] No, it's not silly. If it happened enough to be caught on tape, you can be 90% certain that it happens to others. With such a staggeringly high incarceration rate in the US, even if it's just a miniscule amount of police informants that do this, there is bound to be a lot innocents in jail for this same reason.

The article is really poorly worded. The guy was an informant, a criminal working for the police in exchange for a reduced sentence, NOT a police officer. He probably planted the evidence in hopes of being rewarded for bringing in a supposed drug dealer, and in the face of contrary evidence the police let the suspect go. Then the informant skipped town, and they're still trying to find him. That's really not enough information to say that it was racially motivated and certainly not enough evidence to say that the police were actively trying to frame him. I have a hard time believing photographs taken by an informant would be enough evidence for a conviction, especially with their known unreliability, so I really can't imagine there are many people in jail solely on account of evidence provided by informants. It's definitely worth reviewing previous cases that have involved this informant, which seems to be what the department is doing. Also, just FYI, the article is six months old.

[B]Wow[/B] Someone gets framed and suddenly RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!1 because he's black? This is where we are right now. We need to stop doing it.

[QUOTE=Worldwaker;43635498]By voicing a dissenting opinion as the first reply, that's exactly what you're doing. "I'm not trying to do X, I'm only going on to do X!" is not a valid reasoning, ever.[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to say you're accusing someone of using weasel words in a way that makes it so anyone who's opinion slightly differs must be backhandedly taking the complete opposite position, but... no wait, I guess I am.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;43635891]No, it's not silly. If it happened enough to be caught on tape, you can be 90% certain that it happens to others. With such a staggeringly high incarceration rate in the US, even if it's just a miniscule amount of cops that do this, there is bound to be a lot innocents in jail for this same reason.[/QUOTE] It doesn't say a cop did this anywhere

[QUOTE=gk99;43636357][B]Wow[/B] Someone gets framed and suddenly RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!1 because he's black? This is where we are right now. We need to stop doing it.[/QUOTE] I notice that every time there's a potentially racist crime, someone is always around to say it's not.

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;43636416]It doesn't say a cop did this anywhere[/QUOTE] Oops. Fixed.

[QUOTE=gk99;43636357][B]Wow[/B] Someone gets framed and suddenly RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!1 because he's black? This is where we are right now. We need to stop doing it.[/QUOTE] what is with people ignoring the blatant racial bias within the justice system?

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;43636547]Oops. Fixed.[/QUOTE] You're all outraged or whatever over criminals acting like criminals though

[QUOTE=gk99;43636357][B]Wow[/B] Someone gets framed and suddenly RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!1 because he's black? This is where we are right now. We need to stop doing it.[/QUOTE] Using the race card is a great way for media to eat it. Since portraying someone doesn't require facts, you can run the story longer.

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;43636648]You're all outraged or whatever over criminals acting like criminals though[/QUOTE] Well, yeah. A police informant, who SHOULD be acting for the law, did the exact opposite. That's pretty good reason to be outraged.

Wow I started watching the video and realized this took place in my county.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43636145]The article is really poorly worded. The guy was an informant, a criminal working for the police in exchange for a reduced sentence, NOT a police officer. He probably planted the evidence in hopes of being rewarded for bringing in a supposed drug dealer, and in the face of contrary evidence the police let the suspect go. Then the informant skipped town, and they're still trying to find him. That's really not enough information to say that it was racially motivated and certainly not enough evidence to say that the police were actively trying to frame him. I have a hard time believing photographs taken by an informant would be enough evidence for a conviction, especially with their known unreliability, so I really can't imagine there are many people in jail solely on account of evidence provided by informants. It's definitely worth reviewing previous cases that have involved this informant, which seems to be what the department is doing. Also, just FYI, the article is six months old.[/QUOTE] I don't really understand how this works So I'm assuming the cops already convicted someone of some minor crime, possibly drug related, to the point that he didn't have to go to prision for it. To make his sentence lighter, they basically just hire him to snoop around this dudes shop. Then the investigator takes initative, plants crack, and hopes that him doing so will get him a light sentencing if he helps "convict someone" even though the cops just want him to snoop, but it didn't work because of cameras Still I question the legality of the police doing this anyways. As wouldn't someone being "hired" by the police to do something, still be an extension of police even if that person they were using wasn't an officer? Is this something that police officers can even do ("hey go do this thing we can't legally do but bascially we are doing it anyways because you technically aren't an officer"). Undercover cops aren't that unusual, what is VERY illegal though is someone who is undercover for the police trying to frame someone to see what their reactions are (aka entrapment).

[QUOTE=KorJax;43636781]I don't really understand how this works So I'm assuming the cops already convicted someone of some minor crime, possibly drug related, to the point that he didn't have to go to prision for it. To make his sentence lighter, they basically just hire him to snoop around this dudes shop. Then the investigator takes initative, plants crack, and hopes that him doing so will get him a light sentencing if he helps "convict someone" even though the cops just want him to snoop, but it didn't work because of cameras Still I question the legality of the police doing this anyways. As wouldn't someone being "hired" by the police to do something, still be an extension of police even if that person they were using wasn't an officer? Is this something that police officers can even do ("hey go do this thing we can't legally do but bascially we are doing it anyways because you technically aren't an officer"). Undercover cops aren't that unusual, what is VERY illegal though is someone who is undercover for the police trying to frame someone to see what their reactions are (aka entrapment).[/QUOTE] Police don't use informants because they can help the police commit entrapment, they use informants because they may be trusted members of a criminal community or less known than the local police officers, or may just know the lingo and rules well enough to blend in, so they stand a better chance of being able to collect information without tipping off criminals. The guy was not supposed to be planting drugs, just taking photos of anything illicit he saw, and once the police learned what he had done the shopkeeper was let go. You see a lot of informants used in sting operations- like, say, one member of a local mafia is captured and bugged. If he plays along with the police and helps catch other members of a criminal ring, he gets a reduced sentence. But informants are kept under close scrutiny because they do have clear self-interest, they're still criminals, and they do lie for their own benefit.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43636145]The article is really poorly worded. The guy was an informant, a criminal working for the police in exchange for a reduced sentence, NOT a police officer. He probably planted the evidence in hopes of being rewarded for bringing in a supposed drug dealer, and in the face of contrary evidence the police let the suspect go. Then the informant skipped town, and they're still trying to find him. That's really not enough information to say that it was racially motivated and certainly not enough evidence to say that the police were actively trying to frame him. I have a hard time believing photographs taken by an informant would be enough evidence for a conviction, especially with their known unreliability, so I really can't imagine there are many people in jail solely on account of evidence provided by informants. It's definitely worth reviewing previous cases that have involved this informant, which seems to be what the department is doing. Also, just FYI, the article is six months old.[/QUOTE] How would one even tell there's coke in a bag just by a photo?

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43637204]How would one even tell there's coke in a bag just by a photo?[/QUOTE] They couldn't. The picture would just be to give them enough reasonable suspicion to arrest him and conduct a proper search. That's why I think the question of 'how many people are in jail because of stuff like this' is a bit inaccurate, because a picture of what is ostensibly coke alone would not be enough to convict someone on drug charges. It is entirely possible that this was a setup organized by the police to give them phony reason to search his business for drugs, but that doesn't seem likely so would require some evidence.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;43636522]I notice that every time there's a potentially racist crime, someone is always around to say it's not.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because there's people who realize that just because a victim has a different race than the criminal, it doesn't mean it's a hate crime. [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] I'd bet $10 that if the races were flipped here, the woman in the video wouldn't have even lifted a finger to complain about hate crimes.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;43636522]I notice that every time there's a potentially racist crime, someone is always around to say it's not.[/QUOTE] Because there's always someone going to say it is, no matter the case.

[QUOTE=gk99;43641570]Yeah, because there's people who realize that just because a victim has a different race than the criminal, it doesn't mean it's a hate crime. [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] I'd bet $10 that if the races were flipped here, the woman in the video wouldn't have even lifted a finger to complain about hate crimes.[/QUOTE] That is most likely because black people are specifically targeted and profiled based on their skin color to an extremely alarming degree. The US justice system is heavily biased against minorities, especially black folk. Your argument that it's not fair to question the racial motivations behind the framing of a black person based on the fact that we likely wouldn't be if it were a white person doesn't hold up because of this obvious discrepancy.