Mocek now suing for civil rights violations
#76
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
#77
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
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.
Seems to me that some accountability should result if those acts are proven.
#78
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
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.
Seems to me that some accountability should result if those acts are proven.
#79
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
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.
#80
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
#81
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
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.
#82
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
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.
#83
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
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.
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.
#84
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Southwest Florida
Programs: AA lifetime Gold , DL Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 572
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
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
#85
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Of course not.
Of course they should be, but cops almost never suffer any consequences for this type of thing.
Of course they should be, but cops almost never suffer any consequences for this type of thing.
#88
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
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.
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.
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.
#89
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Southwest Florida
Programs: AA lifetime Gold , DL Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 572
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
Also does anyone know the outcome of the these lawsuits.
Mr. Elliott
#90
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
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.