SLPD

Aug 172013
 

Should San Leandro Council Members be next?

As you know, a couple of weeks ago the Oakland City Council voted to create a “Domain Awareness Center” to pull together the feeds of surveillance and license plate scanners throughout town, so as to be able to track the movements of anyone who goes to Oakland. In other words, they agreed to be the eyes of the NSA on the ground.

Now, Oakland activists are tacitly challenging other Oaklanders to give City Council members a taste of their own medicine. They’ve started by publishing the addresses of the Councilmembers. This is public information, after all.

Not yet on the site but also public information (if obtained through licit means): their phone numbers, their e-mail addresses, photographs of themselves, their homes, their cars, their license plate numbers.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if these were published and people started taking pictures of their cars and where were parked when they chanced upon them. Surely the Council members would welcome having their every move be recorded and made public.   I mean, surely they don’t expect more privacy than what they’re willing to grant anyone else living or driving through Oakland.

But why should we just focus on Oakland? Sure, the San Leandro City Council did not pass a resolution authorizing a similar policy, but they haven’t done anything to stop the Police from determining that every person who drives a car in San Leandro is a potential terrorist and sharing information about their movements with the Feds.

So, shall we start publishing the personal information of our own City Council members? I have asked them and await answer to this question:

Should your privacy be given any more consideration than ours? I mean, if we don’t watch you all the time, record your movements and share them with others over the internet, how can we possibly know you are behaving yourselves? Surely, if we as citizens cannot be trusted, neither can you. Right?

Jul 222013
 

slpdbadgeThe San Leandro Police Department should send its press releases directly to The Onion.  They don’t even need to be edited.   This latest one is a prime example.

First of all, has anyone at the SLPD looked up the meaning of the word “proactive” in the dictionary?  What exactly is proactive about arresting someone who has committed a crime? “Proactive policing” would mean setting things up so that crimes are not committed in the first place, and that is something that the SLPD certainly is not doing.  Crime has gone up significantly since Chief Spagnoli took over in 2011.

But that is not the actual funny part.  The SLPD is trying hard to make the case for installing surveillance cameras, and their strategy seems to be to talk about the needs for technology.  So in this press release they talk about several arrests which “would not have been possible without the use of technology”.

So, what technology are we talking about? Well, the first case involved a policeman patrolling and seeing a guy he knew had committed crimes in the past, whom he then arrested.  It’s not clear what the technology is, but maybe the police officer was wearing contact lenses and he couldn’t have identified him without them? I’m sure the car was helpful to transport him to jail, but I’ve watched enough westerns to know horses work as well.

In another case, a witness heard the noise of glass breaking, went outside and saw someone breaking into a vehicle. He called the police, and the police was able to find him walking nearby.  I guess here the technological marvel known as the telephone saved the day, though I can’t help but note that there wouldn’t have been a crime if cars had not been invented 🙂

Finally, in an incident Police Chief Sandra Spagnoli denied having taken place (I think from now on I will call her Chief SpagLiar), police stopped a man for no apparent reason, chased him around the vehicle, tackled him rendering him unconscious (hopefully not dead, as witnesses believed).  I’m not sure what the technology here is. Maybe the ambulance that took him to the hospital? A witness did capture the incident with her camera phone, but the Police took it.  If they do release the video will actually have a fairly good idea of what took place, so perhaps here, they will be proven right in their invocation of technology.
Doublespeak was a very powerful tool in George Orwell’s 1984, and I can understand why the SLPD is working so hard to try to adopt it.  They just shouldn’t be so obvious and pathetic at it 🙂

Jul 202013
 

The following note was left by San Leandro neighbor Tom Kunich as a comment to a previous article on the San Leandro Police Department.  I think his story deserves more prominent attention.  Ultimately, it’s the story of how the SLPD lost the trust of yet another San Leandro citizen.

handcuffedhandsOn Saturday July 6, 2013, I received a doorbell around 8 PM. I opened the door and it was a young Hispanic woman of perhaps 18 or so who asked to use my phone. I was reserved but let her in and let her use my phone making sure to lock the door. The person she called went to voicemail and she hung up. She was crying so I asked her what was happening and she said she went to visit her sister or girlfriend or some such that was difficult to understand because of the crying. She said that her sister’s boyfriend lived several houses down from me.

She said that he was there alone and demanded sex from her and when she refused he said that he was calling someone that would come over and beat her up. She believed this a credible threat so she ran down the street ringing doorbells and I was the only one to answer.

When she didn’t get an answer and explained to me I called 911 and gave them all of the pertinent information. The operator asked to talk to her and she told the same story over again.

While waiting, here I was lecturing her that in order to remain out of trouble she must avoid all people that are trouble. Only minutes later I discovered something a lot more frightening than that.

We waited approximately 10 minutes and the doorbell rang. Because of the threats to her I looked first through the peephole. There was no one within sight. So I walked around to my bedroom and looked out of the drawn curtain and there was no one on the porch. Fearing that someone might be coming around back or some such, since she had been threatened, I pulled my .38 revolver and took it out of it’s holster and looked out of several windows from drawn curtains until finally I saw an officer standing out in my driveway. His car was parked down the block in a position that wasn’t obvious.

I went over and opened the door with relief and told him he could come in. He saw me placing my pistol back in its holster and taking it back into my bedroom. Apparently he told me to stop and drop my gun from out in the driveway but I was too far away to hear him with the TV on and the young woman crying. I came back out and he was still standing outside so I went our to explain what was going on. I was wearing a T-shirt and pants and it was obvious that I didn’t have any sort of weapon on me. He drew his large caliber pistol and pointed it at my head from about a foot away. He demanded that I sit on the lawn until other officers appeared and then they HANDCUFFED ME!!! And made me sit out on the curb with all of the neighbors looking out and seeing the police leading me around in handcuffs. If they were so afraid that I might have a hidden weapon why didn’t they frisk me or even ask for an ID? This was done for one reason only – to give themselves time to ransack through my home looking for other possible weapons or drug or some such. And yet without a search warrant this was completely and totally illegal.

They angrily asked me where my gun was and I explained where I keep it. Three different officers asked me this same question and since I almost had to shout it through my anger, now half of the neighborhood knows where I keep my gun. Again the fact that I own a weapon is none of the police’s business in a case like this.

Several officers went into my house and the sergeant finally appeared and asked if he could check the serial number to assure it wasn’t stolen. Since the pistol is probably 100 years old I certainly don’t know how they would ever be able to assure themselves that it was registered to me. It might have belonged to my father since I can’t remember ever buying it. The pistol was patented over 100 years ago.

After perhaps 10 minutes or more they came out and released me and then started talking to the girl as an afterthought. As far as I know they didn’t even try to question the perpetrator of the threat.

This is my home and I have the right to have any legal weapon and brandish it as long as I do not threaten anyone save for legal protection. Not only did the police check my pistol but they, without permission, ransacked all of the drawers in the bureau, the closets in two rooms, the hallway closets and down into my garage. And left things in a mess and me so upset that I cannot go to sleep any more than an hour or two at night. They had no right whatsoever to ask for my pistol let alone look for more weapons. This was simply illegal. It was a criminal action committed by the police who are supposed to be trained to know what a criminal action is and so have no excuse.

The police were fully informed of the situation from the 911 call. They never once asked me for identification and treated me in this manner. They almost didn’t bother with the girl who was the subject of the entire episode.

Is this what happens when you attempt to do a good deed in San Leandro? I wonder what became of the neighbor who offered sanctuary to the women who escaped from ten years of imprisonment under Raul Castro. I suspect that the San Leandro Police would have beat him senseless with nightsticks and stuck a gun in his face and jailed him while looking the other way while claiming that there was no evidence to question Castro.

The actions of the police department of San Leandro were little more than that of a gang and they committed a criminal act against my person and property.

When I contacted the Chief of Police she turned it over to an assistant. After he heard my story what he essentially said was that once the police officer saw a gun he had free rein to do anything he and his gang members wished. This was entirely supported by the duty sergeant that was on the scene. The Chief’s assistant stated that I could lodge a formal complaint on a form if I wished and that he would send me one. He was polite but was nothing but another member of the gang. They have more than enough information to take this to a higher level and are accomplishing nothing more than a delaying tactic.

I have also contacted the San Leandro Mayors office and it was demoted to being “overseen” by the City Controller. I never heard from them again.

There needs to be major changes in the management of the police department and possibly the other city offices as well. Having a police force that believes that they are above the law cannot be allowed to stand.

Questions that come to my mind:

1. If the police had ANY reason to be worried about me in the first place they could have listened to the 911 recording. If they still had misgivings the single officer only had to wait a minute or so for the other cars to show up. Why did he ring the doorbell if he was frightened?

2. When I came out he acted as if he was frightened that I might have a gun on me still. If that was the case why even after handcuffing me was I never searched? The only reason has to be that because I was wearing a t-shirt and pants and it was obvious that I was unarmed and no threat. So WHY was I handcuffed?

3. Why was I never once asked to provide an ID? Obviously because I gave my name and address on the 911 call and was looked up.

4. Since I was outside of my home why did they not call the woman outside instead of illegally entering my home? Of what interest was my gun to the police? And why was my home illegally ransacked? Does anyone believe that after having a gun placed to my head and being handcuffed by little more than a gang that I should have refused them anything they were demanding?

5. Why was the man who provided safe haven and called 911 the person that suffered from this act of kindness and as far as I could tell the instigator of the threat left entirely alone?

6. Of what use at all is a 911 call system that results in this sort of police action? It is bad enough that it takes so long for police to arrive. In a serious case they could only arrive after any actions. Would I ever call such a so-called “service” again? A resounding NO! So why are we paying for it?

I do not know about the rest of this city but I do not want to pay my taxes to hire a police force that is so frightened that they act irrationally. This appears to be a matter for the state Attorney’s office to investigate since there’s no local actions equivalent to the seriousness of the crime.

And who am I? I am retired and living on Social Security. I was an engineer and scientist who spent the better part of my life developing medical instruments some of which may save your life some day. I’m a Vietnam Veteran.

Is this what you expect from San Leandro City officials and police?

Jul 162013
 
Police Chief Sandra Spagnoli

Police Chief Sandra Spagnoli

Racial tensions in San Leandro don’t seem to be high enough for Police Chief Sandra Spagnoli.  To fuel them, today the San Leandro Police Department issued a press release about a residential robbery, specifying that the suspects were two, young, black males and the victim was a Chinese family.

There is no legitimate reason for the race of the victims to be mentioned.   Indeed, a quick look through other SLPD press releases on robberies and burglaries shows that while they always mention the race of the suspect, they never mention the race of the victim.  There sole exception was a press release about two robberies perpetrated last April in which the perpetrators were described as black males and the victims as Asian females.

There are many petty reasons why the SLPD maybe trying to exacerbate racial tension on the wake of the Zimmerman verdict.  But it is unconscionable that they do.  San Leandro residents, of all races, deserve much better.

Jul 102013
 

watimesheadlinesLast year, City Manager Chris Zapata abrogated his responsibilities for running much of the city by giving carte blanche to the Police Chief to set public policy both for her department, and the City. Now, he has decided to become the Chief’s propaganda minister.

In today’s City Manager Bulletin, Zapata direct readers to an article praising the use of surveillance cameras that appeared in the Washington Times.  As I’m sure he knows, the Washington Times is a Moonie (as in Rev. Moon’s church) owned newspaper, founded with the expressed goal of disseminating Moonie and far-right propaganda.  In comparison to the Washington Times, Fox News can actually make a case for being “fair and balanced”.

That said, it perhaps should not surprise us that Spagnoli and Zapata would look at the arch-conservative Washington Times for support with their own arch-conservative public policy.  The Times position on gay-rights (against them) seem consistent with the anti-gay policies that have gotten the SLPD sued; but they are not positions that reflect a majority of San Leandrans.

Meanwhile, in the last couple of weeks there has been a plethora of newspaper articles, by trustworthy publications, on how police surveillance of individuals violates basic civil liberties.  Several of those articles, including one by the San Francisco Chronicle and one by the Oakland Tribune, referenced San Leandro.  As you would expect, neither was mentioned in Zapata’s weekly bulletin.

I don’t expect much of our current City Council.  Neither Mayor Cassidy nor City Council members Michael Gregory, Ursula Reed, Benny Lee, Diana Souza and Pauline Cutter have much of a backbone, but 2014 is around the corner.