Ari

You're kidding, right?

Boggie Dog

Perhaps I don't understand the finer points of law but it does seem that the police attempted to destroy evidence, were not truthful in their testimony, and may have arrested a person under false charges.

Seems to me that some accountability should result if those acts are proven.

DeafBlonde

I think that accountability is what Phil is trying to invoke in this civil action. Hopefully by means of receiving a chunk of the offending police officers paycheck for the rest of his natural life!

Boggie Dog

That may be but in my mind what the police officers did, in particular Officer Dilley, seems of a criminal nature to me.

I would think all of these people are still in the same positions ready to abuse other innocents and that should not be the case.

Financial penalty is appropriate but also being removed as a LEO and having a criminal record would also be appropriate in my opinion.

Ari

Cops are rarely held accountable for perjury (they can get away with a lot of other stuff too).

greentips

Probably too true, but the ex-Mayor of Detroit spent 18 months in prison for perjury in a civil trial and is now being hounded for $1M in restitution and fines by Detroit, lost his bar card and now graces the Texas parole system.

I would think that lying under oath (perjury) in a criminal case would be sufficient grounds to have Officer Dilley and the others prosecuted, and if convicted, imprisoned and fined.

He destroyed exculpatory evidence, he lied with apparent impunity based on his belief he had destroyed exculpatory evidence, and attempted to send a man to jail or prison who had done no wrong other than to insist that the government abide by the law.

Ari

Bad cops routinely get away with the above and worse. What you describe isn't an uncommon tale and what I'm trying to tell you is that cops don't usually get in any trouble for framing innocent citizens, and it usually involves perjury and playing with evidence. It happens all the time and there are almost never consequences to the individual officer when it happens.

This is Diley's 6th or 7th time as a defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit; you wanna bet he perjured himself during the events giving rise to those other civil actions as well? Judges frequently find police witnesses not credible on motions to suppress-- this is not news to the system.

Boggie Dog

Not arguing with what you're saying but should it be that way?

I think LEO's should be held to a very high standard of conduct. Destroying evidence and perjury does not meet that bar. Penalties in such cases should be severe.

Mr. Elliott

Wouldn’t it be up to the prosecutor or district attorney’s office, or whatever they call them in New Mexico to determine if criminal charges are warranted against these officers.

I would have assumed that Phil’s lawyers contacted this office to file a criminal complaint, if the office didn’t pursue the complaint, then the LEO’s will not face criminal charges.

Remember O.J .Simpson, (lets not turn this into a O.J. Simpson argument), he was found not guilty in the criminal charges, but in a later civil trial he was found guilty and was libel for the amount awarded by the court.

Hopefully this will be the same with Phil, even though the officers get to keep their jobs, they will have to suffer financially for the rest of their careers, unless the City or the union picks up the court awarded damages

Mr. Elliott

Ari

Of course not.

Of course they should be, but cops almost never suffer any consequences for this type of thing.

Boggie Dog

Demonstrating that our society is in self destruct mode.

Ari

That's why we have a Second Amendment.

(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes).

greentips

Ari, I agree with you 100% No argument from me here.

But, eventually it does catch up with them and Mocek v. Albuquerque may be the roll of the dice that trips him. He screwed up pretty badly from everything I read, and then having him testify in a criminal trial falsely to save the city's face and getting caught in the act may ultimately prove to be his undoing. It also may not and he may continue to misbehave indefinitely. With six or seven priors and documentary evidence likely to be displayed in federal court of his present malfeasance, that is a bet I wouldn't take either way. Absent the film, I'd give 2:1 or better that he would have gotten away with it.

If Mocek v. Albuquerque does proceed, loose cannons such as Dilley may prove to be unpalatable to the city/county/state risk managers and quietly retired to move on to do mischief elsewhere. Or maybe not. As you suggest, I think most evildoers in uniform are more subtle or at least more careful.

I used to live in Bernalillo County and worked for UNM. New Mexico and I think its political subentities are self-insured and for big cases like this retain very excellent private attorneys who are quite aggressive in defending potentially large claims, as they view these cases as a potential future precedent. This means if Phil does make it past summary motions, if Phil does win a substantial judgment, the taxpayers of NM will foot the bill, more or less directly, including defense costs.

Many will be watching closely.

Mr. Elliott

Can the plaintiff’s use Diley’s previous civil rights lawsuits as evidence of his character.

Also does anyone know the outcome of the these lawsuits.

Mr. Elliott

greentips

Probably someone with more legal smarts/resources could. From the NM Case Lookup system here's what I found regarding Robert F. Dilley:

Case D-202-CV-198907272 , 1990 Pounds and 8 other plaintiffs v. City of Albuquerque, County of Sandoval, and Dilley, Robert F. among others
Type: Civil Rights.
Several defendants dismissed and some plaintiff's claims dismissed, City obtained a protective order at some point
A Settlement was stipulated in favor of plaintiffs on 4/03/1991
link

He appears on the NM Courts case lookup a bunch of times, mostly divorces and an auto accident. The one cited above stands out. He was sued by the State of NM in BCMetro Court for a parking violation and appeared in the same court on a domestic violence case (NM v. Dilley) in 2006.

So, one civil rights case settled in state courts, a bunch of divorces, parking issues and a domestic violence case charges were domestic violence, criminal damage to property, all charges dismissed in 2006 with the notation, "Pros Unwilling" and no plea.

There may be others, in federal courts, including Mocek v. Albuquerque et al.