The Shoe on the other foot

I am often asked how I would like it if I were the victim of a crime and the accused had a defense attorney that tried to get their client out of trouble in the same manner in which I might. Generally these people are mad at me for something I've done while defending my client. Well, it appears we now get to find out.

Wednesday evening, I met my wife and son for dinner. Within the hour it took us to be seated and eat, someone broke into my car and pulled my briefcase out. Within my briefcase was my MacBook Pro, an iPod, a pair of Mosely Tribes, a client's file and a pile of research I was doing for a paper I am writing for a presentation in December. Needless to say, I was not happy.

Aside from possibility of the moron that stole everything being stupid enough to actually try to pawn either the laptop or the iPod (I gave the police the serial numbers for each), I doubt I will see any of my stuff again. But I knew this just as quickly as I knew they were stolen. Oddly, I found myself within the system for which I work on a daily basis, but more of a chess piece than the player. I thought this would be interesting. It has been.

I called the police upon my discovery of the incident. They advised me that because of the value of the items taken (over $5000) they were required to send an officer to investigate personally. This was a relief, since apparently the alternative is to not send an officer to investigate. I waited patiently for the Arlington Police Officer to arrive. I waited some more. I waited even more. No officer arrived.

Since I was simply standing in the parking lot of a restaurant waiting, I decided to call the police again to find out when they might arrive. I was told that since it was a non-emergency emergency, it might take an officer up to an hour to respond to my initial call. This was 90 minutes after the initial call mind you. As I sat there waiting, I wondered what a non-emergency emergency was. Would I be met by a non-officer officer? Would he do a non-investigating investigation? Was their any non-evidence evidence for him to collect? Strangely, I became dissatisfied with the level of investigation.

I drove the 10 minutes to the Arlington Police Department. Upon arrival, I was met with a woman who had as much business being a police officer, whether a real officer or a non-officer officer, as I had telling someone not to wear a bowtie.

The level of investigation was pathetic. Actually, the level of mere observation was pathetic. It made me wonder how officers arrest anyone that doesn't commit a crime directly in front of them. And then personally tell the officer about it.

You see, during my 90-plus minute wait for the non-officer officer, I decided I would write down everything that happened, everything that was stolen, and everything else that I remembered. You see, it seems that I recall hearing somewhere that the initial memory of a crime is usually the freshest, and if a witness remembers something differently later on, it is not as accurate as what was told to the investigating officer, and what eventually makes it into the police report. Where did I hear that? Oh yeah, the last officer I questioned on the stand about inconsistent statements.

Anyway, I prepared my list. I finally presented it to the officer at the police department. In reality, I did the officer's job for her. I described the scene, the items and their location. I laid out a diagram of the parking lot and the location of my car. I indicated the lights in the parking lot and the lack of cameras. All the officer really had to do was copy my "report" for her non-emergency emergency non-investigation investigation. But alas, perhaps only in my dreams.

No, the officer discounted what I saw. Questioned the value of my items, and generally shrugged off the report as another headache she was to endure at the end of her shift. This report, like so many would be put in a pile and dealt with appropriately. Perhaps when the officer had some non-down time down time.

The lack of effort was troubling, to say the least. But then I realized this was not necessarily unusual. After all, I read police reports on a daily basis that leave me scratching my head. It's nice to know that this level of non-investigating investigating is an every day occurrence with the Arlington Police Department.

I feel safer already.

Comments

[Windypundit]

Par for the course, I think. They can't realistically catch the guy based on anything you give them. Maybe some day they bust a guy and check serial numbers, but that's only possession at worst, right? They have no reason to hurry.

Your report does affect their stats, however, and you're giving them a crime they can't solve. This is probably why the officer was trying to discount the value of your property---they're trying to reduce the crime rate on paper.

I had my leather jacket stolen from off the chair at a bar a few years ago, and the Chicago cop who took the report said that because I didn't see the thief take it, it was a "lost item" and not a theft. I guess the boss thought their theft numbers were too high.

(These days, Chicago cops seem eager to take crime reports. It affects district budgeting and contract negotiations. More crime equals more budget equals more cops.)

Realistically, you file a police report because your insurance company won't buy you cool new stuff unless you have paperwork showing that your cool old stuff was ripped off. They assume you are less likely to lie to the cops.

[shg]

While true, Windy, Shawn's point that they can't investigate their way out of a paper bag is one that has long been the rule.

The reason cops go out and create crimes (i.e., buy and busts) is because they can't do anything about the ones that happen naturally, and need to do something to justify their existence. If you can't find the criminals, make them.

The secondary point, that our police may not really exist to protect and serve, but instead to survive and collect pensions, also serves to undermine our collective devotion to law enforcement. If we as a society come to the conclusion that cops just don't to a very good job of police work, then why have them?

They are pretty good security guards, but we can rent guards for less. They get angry and frustrated by their inability to actually catch anyone, so they take it out on civilians to prove their machismo. They are motivated by media reports, and find someone ASAP, less concerned about the accuracy than the expediency. And, at the end of the day, not all of them are very smart, though they think they are.

Shawn got smacked with the irony, for he deals daily with their "effectivenes" as shown by their having arrested the per, while personally enjoying the reality that he, as crime victim, barely exists.

[Joel Rosenberg]

Sorry that you got hit; that sucks.

As a friend often remarks, if the police were there to stop crime, instead of "detectives" taking reports later, we'd have "defenders," showing up to stop the bad stuff from happening.

Which does happen from time to time.

FWIW, the cops I know -- both serving and retired -- really, really like arresting people who (they think) have done bad stuff and getting them, to use the usual cliche, "off the street."

(They do tend to get irritated with things like concurrent sentencing. To quote one from this weekend: "I swear to God I don't understand why the second, third and fourth rapes shoulda been free.")

Just did my yearly carry class for the retired guys from one department, and a bunch of them went out for lunch after; I came along. A lot of the walking down memory lane was about memorable busts, and I'm not talking about what you'd find on the front of Amber Lee Ettinger, either.

But, realistically, that's not likely to happen in this sort of case.

Even assuming that the thief does try to pawn the laptop (and there's a fair number in my local pawnshop; I'm not entirely sure that all of them were pawned by folks who were the actual owners, skeptic that I am), and even assuming that the shop owner immediately runs the serial number (depends on your local laws and enforcement, I'd guess), and it comes back hot (how good is the database there?), and successfully stalls the seller long enough for a squad to arrive (been known to happen), and even assuming that the moron trying to pawn the hot laptop is in fact the guy who stole it . . .

. . . the only way that they'll make that case as a theft is if the guy confesses.

Now, I know that the smart thing for somebody arrested in that (or, well, just about any) situation (no matter what they did or didn't do) is to shut up and lawyer up, but the prisons are not exactly filled with Lex Luthors; tricking somebody into talking is pretty basic police work, and often involves some creative lying.

But let's take that a bit farther, as I'm curious.

Let's assume that all the above happens, and the cop is sitting in the room, "interviewing" the guy who actually stole your laptop, and the cop snickers and says something like, "We gotta make this go away. The guy who you ripped off is Shawn Matlock -- and he's a criminal defense lawyer; I hate those scumbags. Last thing I want to do is make him happy by putting you in prison, so lemme tell you what: you just write down, in your own words, that you're sorry that you did it, and I'll have a word with the prosecutor; we should have you out of here by lunch."

So, the confession gets written; the guy gets prosecuted, with that as the centerpiece, and gets convicted.

Now, how do you feel?