Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
Jan 30, 2011, 7:12 am
#1636
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Jan 30, 2011, 11:01 am
#1637
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,653
Wow; that's really silly.
Here in Cook County they have microphones in the courtrooms you go to if you just have a speeding ticket. The City of Chicago uses microphones in the parking ticket hearing rooms-- parking tickets! How states continue to permit criminal trials without any record in this day and age is incredible-- it isn't like the olden days where you had to hire a stenographer.
Here in Cook County they have microphones in the courtrooms you go to if you just have a speeding ticket. The City of Chicago uses microphones in the parking ticket hearing rooms-- parking tickets! How states continue to permit criminal trials without any record in this day and age is incredible-- it isn't like the olden days where you had to hire a stenographer.
It has been many years since I have seen a criminal court without a court reporter present and taking notes of everything that is being said.
Some courts, mostly those hearing traffic infractions and small claims actions, use electronic recording devices from which transcripts can be prepared.
Jan 30, 2011, 11:03 am
#1638
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ R.I.P. Super Plats
Posts: 25,415
Jan 30, 2011, 11:18 am
#1639
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Department of Homeland Security
Attn: Office of Inspector General
245 Murray Drive, SW, Bldg. 410
Washington, DC 20528
[email protected]
Attn: Office of Inspector General
245 Murray Drive, SW, Bldg. 410
Washington, DC 20528
[email protected]
Jan 30, 2011, 12:52 pm
#1640
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
ABQ arrest video: deleted while held at police department, recovered later
My camera had lots of photos and video on it when Officer Dilley confiscated it. He later told me that the county jail would not accept my belongings because I was being "booked as a John Doe" so he would place my belongings in "safe storage" there at the airport police department. Officer Dilley and I left the airport around 4:30 p.m. Sunday without any of my belongings except for those on my body. I was released around 10:00 p.m. Monday. Tuesday morning, I returned to the airport police station, explained the situation, and requested my belongings. The officer I spoke with retrieved my two bags. I took a quick look, found the most important things to be there, thanked him, and left. In the hallway just outside the door to the police, I removed my camera from my bag, powered it on, and found that it reported "no images". I immediately returned to the police and reported that my camera had been tampered with while it was under their control and that images were missing. The officer told me he had not been involved and that I could file a report. There is a record of my contact with him and my claim that someone tampered with my camera in the police file.
It's often possible to "undelete" a file from a computer disk. In a nutshell: With most computer file systems, including that which most cameras use on their memory cards, saving a file causes the data to be written somewhere in a pool of "unused" space, then the name of the file and the location of the data within that pool are recorded in an index. To read a file, the computer looks up the index, then goes to the location of the data and reads it. To delete a file, the computer removes the index entry and marks the space where the data from that file was written as unused. It doesn't actually overwrite or erase the data, so until something new is saved that overwrites the data from the "deleted" file, it's all still there.
I ran some forensic analysis software on the memory card while I was on the plane flying home. Finding that video among the recovered items and watching it for the first time was one of the most joyous moments of my life.
Jan 30, 2011, 12:58 pm
#1641
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Jan 30, 2011, 2:40 pm
#1642
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York City/NY22
Programs: AA Platinum 2.3MM (Lifetime PLT)
Posts: 5,285
They played a large part. I was very happy with them.
I was somewhat involved as well, taking my attorney a bit by surprise early on. I'm no legal expert, but I know the evidence extremely well, and became familiar with transcripts of witness interviews (which I'd happily publish someday, along with audio, but only after I get some legal advice on whether that's advisable), so if nothing else, I was a very good index of material that they just weren't likely to learn as well as I did (and Molly may have done so by the time we were finished). I put an enormous amount of effort into transcribing all the audio. It was very useful to me, and all of us used my transcripts for quite some time before we had any of it transcribed by a court reporter (which was terrible before we sent it back with notice of such, and still far less accurate than mine, though not in ways that were of significant concern). The subtitles are helpful with hearing and comprehending what is said in my video, and I did all that myself. And apparently it's not just a given that the client go with his attorney(s) at lunch to talk about the trial. I don't know what else someone who's on trial would want to do. I was welcomed openly to go with them instead of with my family, and am glad that I did (helped a bit, didn't get in the way, was extremely fascinated), but I don't think it was expected until I asked.
Having a videorecording of what happened was also very significant. I would almost certainly have been convicted were it not for my video. Juries tend to give police the benefit of the doubt. Police don't always have an accurate memory of what happened, and I have a theory that when you annoy them or in any way question their authority, their memory gets worse. I suspect that if they arrest you first, then figure out what to charge you with afterward, their memories are pretty rotten.
I've nothing but good things to say about Molly and Nancy. However, I think videotape and no lawyers might have been better than lawyers and no videotape. I'm fortunate to have had both. That absolutely unbiased third party is hard to beat when there's a conflict between two people who were there. I wish I could wear one any time there's someone around who has the ability and authority to hold me at gunpoint and/or to lock me in a cage, based solely on his word.
I was somewhat involved as well, taking my attorney a bit by surprise early on. I'm no legal expert, but I know the evidence extremely well, and became familiar with transcripts of witness interviews (which I'd happily publish someday, along with audio, but only after I get some legal advice on whether that's advisable), so if nothing else, I was a very good index of material that they just weren't likely to learn as well as I did (and Molly may have done so by the time we were finished). I put an enormous amount of effort into transcribing all the audio. It was very useful to me, and all of us used my transcripts for quite some time before we had any of it transcribed by a court reporter (which was terrible before we sent it back with notice of such, and still far less accurate than mine, though not in ways that were of significant concern). The subtitles are helpful with hearing and comprehending what is said in my video, and I did all that myself. And apparently it's not just a given that the client go with his attorney(s) at lunch to talk about the trial. I don't know what else someone who's on trial would want to do. I was welcomed openly to go with them instead of with my family, and am glad that I did (helped a bit, didn't get in the way, was extremely fascinated), but I don't think it was expected until I asked.
Having a videorecording of what happened was also very significant. I would almost certainly have been convicted were it not for my video. Juries tend to give police the benefit of the doubt. Police don't always have an accurate memory of what happened, and I have a theory that when you annoy them or in any way question their authority, their memory gets worse. I suspect that if they arrest you first, then figure out what to charge you with afterward, their memories are pretty rotten.
I've nothing but good things to say about Molly and Nancy. However, I think videotape and no lawyers might have been better than lawyers and no videotape. I'm fortunate to have had both. That absolutely unbiased third party is hard to beat when there's a conflict between two people who were there. I wish I could wear one any time there's someone around who has the ability and authority to hold me at gunpoint and/or to lock me in a cage, based solely on his word.
Had you gone pro se, the odds are very good you would have been found guilty. Yes, it was great to have the video evidence, but not so great that the judge would dismiss the case the moment it was presented.
You owe a great deal to your lawyers. Best just to leave it at that instead of thinking you're ready to start trying cases.
Jan 30, 2011, 3:05 pm
#1643
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Whoa! Please take my words here at face value. Someone wrote that my acquittal is owed entirely to my lawyers, and I pointed out that I played an active role and that my video was also important.
I agree. And even with the best lawyers I could find (whom I hired), had there not been video evidence of what happened, the odds are very good that I would have been found guilty.
Yes, I do, both literally and figuratively.
Yes, I do, both literally and figuratively.
Jan 30, 2011, 3:27 pm
#1644
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MSY
Programs: NW Gold and now Delta Gold
Posts: 3,072
Really? Phil was wrongfully arrested and put in a jail. It seems to me that in many cases such an assault would be worth a lot of money. But it must go state by state and case by case.
My blackjack partner won a lawsuit in Las Vegas, Nevada, for wrongful detention, receiving a 6 figure award, and he was not arrested or jailed, although the head of security at the casino in question stupidly knocked off his hat. It may this physical assault that made the difference to the jury? But I wouldn't want to guess, myself; I'd like to see Phil talk to someone qualified, especially since it sounds like he has suffered severe financial harm as a result of all this nonsense.
You may be an attorney and already know what such a case is worth. I have no idea, myself. I thought my friend's case was worth a few hundred dollars, and the arbitrator originally suggested that the casino pay him $1,000. Ultimately, the jury ruled otherwise, and the casino did not appeal, choosing to pay out around $125,000 to my friend and his attorney. Far from working pro bono, my friend's attorney had a very nice payday. But that's just one case, one time. And the illegal detention was by private security. Not by government officials. So I just don't know. In his shoes, I'd sure do a couple of interviews with litigators, just to see what they think. I wouldn't just throw up my hands and try to raise money on the internet from strangers, while the persons who did the actual injury pay nothing. But I realize that we don't always get justice in this world.
My blackjack partner won a lawsuit in Las Vegas, Nevada, for wrongful detention, receiving a 6 figure award, and he was not arrested or jailed, although the head of security at the casino in question stupidly knocked off his hat. It may this physical assault that made the difference to the jury? But I wouldn't want to guess, myself; I'd like to see Phil talk to someone qualified, especially since it sounds like he has suffered severe financial harm as a result of all this nonsense.
You may be an attorney and already know what such a case is worth. I have no idea, myself. I thought my friend's case was worth a few hundred dollars, and the arbitrator originally suggested that the casino pay him $1,000. Ultimately, the jury ruled otherwise, and the casino did not appeal, choosing to pay out around $125,000 to my friend and his attorney. Far from working pro bono, my friend's attorney had a very nice payday. But that's just one case, one time. And the illegal detention was by private security. Not by government officials. So I just don't know. In his shoes, I'd sure do a couple of interviews with litigators, just to see what they think. I wouldn't just throw up my hands and try to raise money on the internet from strangers, while the persons who did the actual injury pay nothing. But I realize that we don't always get justice in this world.
Last edited by peachfront; Jan 30, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Jan 30, 2011, 4:10 pm
#1645
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
They are just trying to save the cost of preparing transcripts in misdemeanor cases where it is possible to present a condensed narrative of the proceedings that give rise to the issues that the appellant is raising on appeal. (California Rule of Court 8.837).
You know that the video was deleted when the camera was in police custody, right?
It's often possible to "undelete" a file from a computer disk. In a nutshell: With most computer file systems, including that which most cameras use on their memory cards, saving a file causes the data to be written somewhere in a pool of "unused" space, then the name of the file and the location of the data within that pool are recorded in an index. To read a file, the computer looks up the index, then goes to the location of the data and reads it. To delete a file, the computer removes the index entry and marks the space where the data from that file was written as unused. It doesn't actually overwrite or erase the data, so until something new is saved that overwrites the data from the "deleted" file, it's all still there.
I'm glad it was recovered; how come you didn't bring up anywhere that the video was deleted while the camera was in police custody? It was clearly tampered with . . . this seems like very serious conduct and I'm surprised it hasn't been brought to light.
Last edited by Ari; Jan 30, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Jan 30, 2011, 5:16 pm
#1646
Join Date: Dec 2005
Programs: AA XP, MR Plat
Posts: 36
Jan 30, 2011, 5:54 pm
#1647
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek: no discussion of tampering with the video allowed
You know that the video was deleted when the camera was in police custody, right?
Whoever deleted it probably did. It must have been quite a surprise to the prosecutor to find that we had video evidence that contradicted almost everything his witnesses planned to testify to.
Imagine being a prosecutor faced with going to trial after dragging the thing out for over a year, then finding -- upon the defendant's voluntary disclosure of that which he probably planned to use as rebuttal evidence -- that about half of your witnesses perjured themselves and planned to do it again on the stand. I'd expect the case to be dropped at that point, but maybe the state would instead bring on a second prosecutor and try even harder. Somebody might think that even though the video didn't show any wrongdoing, it would make the defendant look like a troublemaker whom a jury would think should be convicted of something, even if he clearly didn't do what he was accused of. You never know when a real a.....e is going to get involved and push for a trial that shouldn't even happen. He gets paid whether he wins or loses, and the defendant loses no matter what.
Boy, howdy!
Bottom line: Someone tried to destroy the recording, but I was able to recover it in its entirety, and it was the best evidence available of what happened that day.
Jan 30, 2011, 7:02 pm
#1649
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
Correct. It was deleted (in a reversible manner) between the time it was confiscated from me by Officer Dilley and when it was returned to me by another officer (I forgot his name) two days later.
Whoever deleted it probably did. It must have been quite a surprise to the prosecutor to find that we had video evidence that contradicted almost everything his witnesses planned to testify to.
Imagine being a prosecutor faced with going to trial after dragging the thing out for over a year, then finding -- upon the defendant's voluntary disclosure of that which he probably planned to use as rebuttal evidence -- that about half of your witnesses perjured themselves and planned to do it again on the stand. I'd expect the case to be dropped at that point, but maybe the state would instead bring on a second prosecutor and try even harder. Somebody might think that even though the video didn't show any wrongdoing, it would make the defendant look like a troublemaker whom a jury would think should be convicted of something, even if he clearly didn't do what he was accused of. You never know when a real a.....e is going to get involved and push for a trial that shouldn't even happen. He gets paid whether he wins or loses, and the defendant loses no matter what.
Boy, howdy!
There wasn't any need to do so in defense of the criminal charges, and we agreed not to do so. During preliminary motions (beginning at 17:04 in the audio file), both sides agreed that there was to be no discussion of any tampering with the video the state planned to enter as evidence. This was suggested by the prosecution. We were concerned that they might claim that the video had been tampered with, and they were presumably concerned that we'd let the jury know that it seemed that someone with access to the "safe storage" area at the airport police station tried to destroy evidence.
Bottom line: Someone tried to destroy the recording, but I was able to recover it in its entirety, and it was the best evidence available of what happened that day.
Whoever deleted it probably did. It must have been quite a surprise to the prosecutor to find that we had video evidence that contradicted almost everything his witnesses planned to testify to.
Imagine being a prosecutor faced with going to trial after dragging the thing out for over a year, then finding -- upon the defendant's voluntary disclosure of that which he probably planned to use as rebuttal evidence -- that about half of your witnesses perjured themselves and planned to do it again on the stand. I'd expect the case to be dropped at that point, but maybe the state would instead bring on a second prosecutor and try even harder. Somebody might think that even though the video didn't show any wrongdoing, it would make the defendant look like a troublemaker whom a jury would think should be convicted of something, even if he clearly didn't do what he was accused of. You never know when a real a.....e is going to get involved and push for a trial that shouldn't even happen. He gets paid whether he wins or loses, and the defendant loses no matter what.
Boy, howdy!
There wasn't any need to do so in defense of the criminal charges, and we agreed not to do so. During preliminary motions (beginning at 17:04 in the audio file), both sides agreed that there was to be no discussion of any tampering with the video the state planned to enter as evidence. This was suggested by the prosecution. We were concerned that they might claim that the video had been tampered with, and they were presumably concerned that we'd let the jury know that it seemed that someone with access to the "safe storage" area at the airport police station tried to destroy evidence.
Bottom line: Someone tried to destroy the recording, but I was able to recover it in its entirety, and it was the best evidence available of what happened that day.
Jan 30, 2011, 8:40 pm
#1650
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SEA
Posts: 398
I am wondering the same question, why can't the defense wait until the witnesses testified? Will that get the lawyers into trouble? What if Phil "unable" to recover the video until the last minute? Will the judge disallow it?