To File, or Not to File
...by Mark Drake
"During drug-eradication efforts in Mendocino County last year, California Highway Patrol officers illegally searched the cars of at least five people, according to local defense attorneys." So began an article in the Ukiah Daily Journal last November, describing results of the survey we mentioned briefly on page 5 of our Fall '97 issue. It reported that a poll of Mendocino County lawyers regarding CHP road stops in the last quarter of 1996 (during "Operation North Coast") had brought to light eight cases in which these lawyers had filed motions for suppression of evidence on the basis of irregularities in the circumstances of searches, five of which motions were granted by the judges who heard them.
All five of the cases thrown out involved Officer Glenn Revheim, the handler of the Ukiah CHP office's only drug-sniff dog. The CHP responded to that article by giving their side in the December 12/13 issue of the paper. It included a couple of insight-provoking statements attributed to Sgt. Carfi (who had been in charge of one of the two "North Coast" teams). For instance: "CHP spokesman Sgt. Ron Carfi said that just because a motion to dismiss is granted doesn't mean a search is illegal...Carfi said different judges are likely to make different calls on searches that are challenged, and that it's largely a matter of opinion. 'Although we have to accept the judges' decisions in these cases, we do not necessarily agree with them,' he said. 'These cases would not have been filed by the (District Attorney) if the search was illegal as Mr. Nelson alleges,' he said."
So it apparently no longer embarrassees the State Police agency to say essentially: Just because a judge thinks something's illegal doesn't mean it actually is. Various judges will make arbitrary decisions based on whim or personality defect -- in contrast to the District Attorney and our Officers, who fall under an expanded version of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
But on to the point here. Officer Revheim is quoted in the article as feeling that the earlier piece has unjustly tarnished his reputation, and states: "I personally have not received one citizen's complaint as a result of a traffic stop while involved in the highway drug interdiction operations in 17 years." This seems to suggest a significant weakness in the CHP's complaint process. CLMP has heard complaints from two citizens regarding Revheim's work, with respect to incidents in 1996 alone.
The simpler one took place during "North Coast." A local resident reported having been stopped and being irked at the aggressive way Revheim tried to invite himself into the stopped car without cause or explanation. Perhaps in response to the driver's assertion of his rights, the dog was sent around the outside of the car and Revheim announced that it had alerted to dope in the trunk. The driver knew that there was a box in there which had recently contained a quantity of fresh meat, and told the officer that if the dog was excited, that was what it must be smelling. The response was that this dog had thousands of dollars worth of training and doesn't make mistakes, and if the driver wouldn't open the trunk the cops would force it open now that they had "probable cause." So it was opened and a thorough search turned up -- yeah, a box in which fresh meat had been recently carried. The driver contacted CLMP, conveying that he was annoyed at the way the stop had been conducted and the arrogance surrounding the Doctrine of Canine Infallibility, and that he intended to file a complaint with the CHP. When later asked for a copy of the complaint for CLMP's records, he said he'd thought better of it and wasn't going to stick his neck out.
The more offensive incident involved a 50ish hippie who lives in southern Oregon and has occasion to drive to the Bay Area for work from time to time. As he described his experience, he had been stopped twice within two months while passing through the Ukiah strip (in his Oregon-registered small pickup -- which is undoubtedly relevant) -- both times by Revheim, neither time for any plausible reason. The first time Revheim was alone and he excused the stop by claiming to have thought the driver wasn't belted. But on seeing that he certainly was, instead of sending him on his way, Revheim went on to engage him in extended conversation, look around the truck, and request permission to search. When that permission was not granted, he allowed the driver to leave after 10 minutes or so.
A few weeks later, the same guy in the same truck was again stopped by Revheim, this time with a backup officer and the dog. No plausible reason was offered for the stop, but this time when permission to search was denied, Revheim insisted on inviting himself and the dog to snoop around the truck for a considerable time, eventually claiming the dog had alerted to drugs in the truck and sending it into the cab in direct conflict with the victim's stated objections. The dog was unable to find anything.
This put Revheim in a slightly awkward position if the driver were to make a complaint -- and since he'd been obliged to stand out in a cold wind for the better part of an hour by now, this was not altogether unlikely. There had been an alleged "enforcement stop" with no apparent justification, followed by a very long detention and a futile forced searched which could only be justified ex post facto by producing something that would pass for probable cause -- yet the dog had failed to vindicate its alleged alert. But these guys go to classes and apparently learn a kit of fallback positions; he asked the driver if there was cash in the truck. To which the driver replied that there was (quite unnecessarily -- after all, what the hell responsibility was it of the driver's to satisfy the cop's expressed puzzlement that his dog had alerted inappropriately?).
He mentioned the money he had earned working in the Bay Area. Revheim went back in and looked around the small truck cab for it, then gave up and asked the driver to produce it, which he did. Revheim made a show of counting it out, solemnly declaring that the money must have been what the dog "smelled" from outside the vehicle -- thereby covering himself for the intrusive search. What remained unexplained is how Superhound, who can smell money zipped in a plastic pouch in the bottom of a trash bag from outside the car, could have failed to find it while romping around all over it once inside the cab. Probably disoriented by the overwhelming stench of filthy lucre that close up, right?
The victim deserves full points for even mustering the spine to stand up for his rights in denying permission to search in the first place. When he contacted CLMP, it was because he had to make another trip to the Bay Area and wanted advice on his rights, the probable consequences of asserting them, and alternative routes to avoid Ukiah. He said Revheim's parting remarks had implied that the latter would be watching for this driver to come through again, and the emotional upset of expecting to be "ambushed" a third time was taking a toll on him. (For perspective, consider that this guy has been subjected to exactly three traffic stops in over 30 years of driving; two of them being Revheim's as described.) After we dealt with his questions, we pointed out that it would be well for him to file a detailed statement of the facts of the two stops while they were fresh in his mind, so that if a third were to occur, he would be in a solid position to establish that he was being harassed. He did so, and asked us for a copy of the CHP's complaint form so that he could file a formal objection with a copy of his statement.
Guess what? -- he never followed through. That's understandable in view of the awkward fact that he lives out of state, and his lack of confidence in the integrity of the system.
So here's the rub. CLMP's address is a damned sight harder for a citizen to find than a CHP station. But the two people who happened to stumble on us after their bum Revheim searches and bent our ear at some length to describe them and ask how to complain about them formally, didn't file. How likely is it that these are the only two false searches that Schniffenhundt has ever provoked -- or been used as an excuse to engage in?* It's beyond question that if victims of questionable searches who come across us and cry on our shoulder and take away the information they request of us on the CHP's complaint procedures don't file, there must certainly be others who are imposed on and, with less support and information, don't file either.
The upshot seems to be that even officers who work in specialty career areas where job advancement essentially requires them to "push the envelope" and engage in activities the legality of which is "largely a matter of opinion," can count on good Americans to emulate the "good Germans" of the 40's -- who were later to be universally reviled for having kept their heads down and not asking questions. Not a complaint in 17 years.
We hope it's not necessary to point out that we're not trying to make some idiotic comparison between the CHP's playful envelope-stretching and the evil of the Third Reich; the thing to note here is only that getting a population used to kunckling under to the former is an absolute prerequisite to establishing conditions for the later.
* Bear in mind that although the first event was excusable if we grant that it may be impractical to train a dog so finely as to be able to make the distinction between hashish and hamburger, the second is more troublesome -- what did the dog "alert" to? Or whose word must we take that it "alerted" at all?
|
|
|
