Stephen Anderson, ex-NYPD, Says Cops Routinely Planted Drug Evidence to Make False Arrests

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for copcovermc.JPG
The disturbing reports today from the trial of a detective on corruption charges once again confirm allegations raised in the Voice's NYPD Tapes series that the quota pressure causes police officers to do bad things.

Former Brooklyn narcotics detective Stephen Anderson testified last week that cops commonly made up drug charges against innocent people to hit arrest quotas, according to reports in the New York Post and Daily News.


 

Anderson himself was arrested for planting cocaine on a quartet of men in 2008 in a bar in Queens to help another officer, Henry Tavarez, meet his buy-and-bust quota.

"Tavarez was ... was worried about getting sent back [to patrol] and, you know, the supervisors getting on his case," he recounted at the corruption trial of Brooklyn South narcotics Detective Jason Arbeeny, the Daily News wrote.

"I had decided to give him [Tavarez] the drugs to help him out so that he could say he had a buy," Anderson testified last week in Brooklyn Supreme Court, the Daily News reported.

In the Voice series, Police Officer Adrian Schoolcraft alleged that officers routinely made up stop-and-frisk reports, dubbed "ghosts," to make their monthly quota. Moreover, precinct commanders are heard haranguing cops to just go out do stop and frisk people, even when there was no crime to respond to. Quotas affected everything from arrests to traffic tickets.

Eight officers were arrested in the probe, and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly ordered widespread transfers in Brooklyn South and Queens narcotics units.

When Judge Gustin Reichbach asked whether this sort of thing was frequent, Anderson replied, "Yes, multiple times."

 "It was something I was seeing a lot of, whether it was from supervisors or undercovers and even investigators," he added, the News reported.

The News reports that the city paid $300,000 to settle a false arrest lawsuit filed by two men against Anderson and Tavarez. A federal judge declared that the NYPD is "plagued by widespread falsification by arresting officers," the News reported.



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
4 comments
Langdon_hates_Disqus
Langdon_hates_Disqus

I watched a show today on the violence related to drug gangs in a Mexican town just south of the border. They were talking about the trade no longer being a billion $ industry but now a trillion $ industry. When asked what could be done about it, the American expert's response was "We need to decrease demand".  I almost choked. How about just giving up the so called 'War on Drugs', legalize it all and deal with addiction as a social issue instead?. But then I realized that there is a parallel billion dollar industry that the drug trade directly supports, namely law enforcement, prisons and the judiciary.

When there is that much money (and so many careers involved), no matter how many '000s are killed in the drug wars,  the chances of a rational intelligent response to the issue of drug usage would appear to be nothing but a pipe dream.

The $$$ involved mean that corruption, injustice and violence will continue. Too much money to be made (on all sides) from a victimless crime to ever make such personal choices legal.

Shame really.

Gavin R. Putland
Gavin R. Putland

We are under a "government of laws", not a "government of men". But if someone can plant drugs among your belongings, and if you are then required to prove that the drugs are not yours (which you can't), then you are under a government of men, namely of those who are willing to plant evidence. Therefore the reverse onus of proof cannot be valid in any jurisdiction. So, if you are on the jury in a drug case, and if you are told that the defendant must prove that his/her possession was unwitting, it is your civic duty to put the onus of proof back where it belongs (on the prosecution), raise it to the proper standard (beyond reasonable doubt), and hand down a verdict accordingly.

More: http://is.gd/noreverse.

Gavin R. Putland
Gavin R. Putland

We are under a "government of laws", not a "government of men". But if someone can plant drugs among your belongings, and if you are then required to prove that the drugs are not yours (which you can't), then you are under a government of men, namely of those who are willing to plant evidence. Therefore the reverse onus of proof cannot be valid in any jurisdiction. So, if you are on the jury in a drug case, and if you are told that the defendant must prove that his/her possession was unwitting, it is your civic duty to put the onus of proof back where it belongs (on the prosecution), raise it to the proper standard (beyond reasonable doubt), and hand down a verdict accordingly.

More: http://is.gd/noreverse.

MorrisWise
MorrisWise

Laws against possession of illegal drugs or guns gives the police tremendous powers. An angry cop can destroy an innocent persons reputation by planting false evidence. The Bible says"Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness", unfortunately cops are no holier than the rest of us.

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...