Read Judge Kapala's decision this week in the Pavlin case in U.S. District Court in Rockford. This is a civil rights lawsuit against the McHenry County Sheriff's Department.
You can read Judge Kapala's decision here on Cal Skinner's second blog.
Read especially the part about the instructions to deputies to come back the next day to write their reports, when Deputy Zane Seipler was not around. And what Zane observed when he reported early for duty?
From Judge Kapala's decision:
"Under plaintiffs’ version of the facts, when Shepherd arrived at plaintiffs’ house, he gave Jones
instructions about how to write his report to justify how the officers got into plaintiffs’ house.
"At the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department, Jones told Mandernack to have Lambert put false information in his report.
"When Jones observed Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler at the patrol office, he instructed the other defendants to finish their reports the next day when Seipler would not be present.
"The next day, on March 15, 2008, Seipler went to work early and observed Jones, Bruketta and Mandernack working on their reports together."
Who is Shepherd? David Shepherd, Star (Badge) 142
Who is Jones? Deputy Christopher Jones, Star 1877
Who is Mandernack? Deputy Kyle Mandernack, Star 1726
Who is Bruketta? Deputy Jeremy Bruketta, Star 1909
Here is why some deputies don't like using the MCSD police radio communications system and why they must use it, not their cell phones.
From Judge Kapala's decision: "They state that Bruketta kneed Jerome in the back and that Bruketta claimed in his deposition that he was outside the house at the time of the incident, but was recorded telling a dispatcher he was “on the ground cuffing people” at the time."
You cannot be in two places at the same time. You cannot be outside the house at the time and inside "cuffing people." If an audio recording includes Bruketta's telling a dispatcher that's he's inside "cuffing people", then why would Bruketta give a sworn statement that he was outside at the time?
An interesting side-by-side picture would be Mr. Pavlin and Deputy Kyle Mandernack. If you knew the relative size of these two men (Mr. Pavlin is 80 years old), just picture Deputy Mandernack taking Mr. Pavlin down to the floor with an "arm bar."
Don't know what an "arm bar" is? Watch this 2009 YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Zub3HsCLw Notice in the video that that officer is slightly smaller than his demonstration subject, who knows what's coming. Now, again, picture a large, muscular deputy and a slight, senior citizen.
Mrs. Pavlin's description of seeing Mandernack "slam Jerome to the ground" sounds right to me.
Oh, yes, the MCSD report says the deputy "assisted" Mr. Pavlin to the ground. What do you think?
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
11 comments:
Seipler says he saw them writing their reports on March 15 and 16, 2008. I remember all this back and forth over the years that Seipler was a liar and that they did not do that. In May of 2009 this Wendy person comes forward and says that Lambert told her that they got together and basically scripted their reports. So I guess Seipler was telling the truth. How is it this Bruketta guy is at the center of all these cover ups? Chicago Tribune writes a big article about him this year and now he is going to Federal Court with evidence to again show he is involved in another conspiracy. How long will this person be patrolling our streets before Nygren decides to protect the public from him.
Ok, so in all due respect, don't ya think people should respect Police Officer's authority? The Deputys were there to take the son into custody for Battery of his wife. Right? When the cops came to the door and he was identified, then tried to push the door closed to avoid arrest, don't ya think that was criminal, or at least wrong? If they let him "barricade" himself in his parent's house, that would probably be reason to break out MARV, and then you'd be busting MCSD for driving an unlicensed vehicle on public roads! DOH. Anyway, after they arrested the son and were trying to leave, what are the chances of the Deputy of deciding to lay the smack down on the elderly folks? Really? Come on now... I think mom & pops were pretty upset at their son getting hauled away and they exascerbated the situation by abusing the officers. I think the officers used restraint up to a point that the Seniors crossed the line, so they too got hauled in. Sad situation that could have been completely avoided if the Seniors just let the officers do their duty. IMHO... doh.
Mad Bulldog, if you'll read the judge's ruling, you'll see that the deputies had no legal right to enter the residence.
There was a rumor flying around that one deputy (new to the Department) was told to say that he had seen the son in the residence through a window. The son was in the living room, which can't be seen through the window by the front door. The son opened the door and tried to close it. It wasn't criminal; it wasn't wrong. The judge ruled that the deputies did not have lawful reason to enter the house.
After the son was removed to a squad car, the deputies refused to leave the house. They no longer had any right to remain in the house, but they wanted to search it (illegally). The Pavlins didn't want their home torn up, like the son's home on an earlier occasion (according to Mr. Pavlin).
The deputies weren't trying to leave. The deputies refused to leave. At that point they were trespassers and should have themselves been arrested. Mrs. Pavlin called for police help, which was refused because the deputies were already there.
Gus, it sounds suspiciously like you are taking the wife beater's side on this? Wife beaters aren't typically your most honest sort of people nor are those who enable them. You are talking about a grown man trying to barricade himself behind his parents to avoid facing wife beating charges.
No sides here, except the side of what is legal.
The deputies did not have a warrant that was valid at the parents' home.
The deputies entered the Pavlin home illegally.
The deputies conspired illegally in their reporting of the incident.
Frankly, the son should have fought his arrest procedure. Aggressive lawyering, rather than a plea bargain, might have gotten him off. Of course, then, there is the matter of $$$s. Lots of them.
Too many defendants agree to deals 1) to avoid the risk of a trial and 2) because they can't afford the fight.
All due respect Madd ... and I do respect your posts, you stated, "Really? Come on now... I think mom & pops were pretty upset at their son getting hauled away and they exascerbated the situation by abusing the officers".
Abusing the officers? Are there etiquette laws I don't know about?
Every cop I've known (and loved) has said domestic calls are the worst ... things get out of control quickly because emotions are running high. That being said, this story leaves me wondering why the hell the officers remained in the home after the son was cuffed and in the car? Did these officers feel "dissed" by things an emotional and angry father SAID?
I've had cops freak out on me a few times because they didn't like my "tone" or my "attitude". Tough shit! It was their tone and attitude I was responding to.
I've known a few good cops. Sadly, they've become the minority. These days, you get bullies, and macho shitheads with an attitude problem that think their all powerful and treat you as if you're nothing but a pos that better respect them ... or else.
If these officers did nothing wrong, why the need to "fix" the reports? You don't need a good memory if you speak the truth.
Thanks for your comment, Karen.
I'm often reminded of the Royal Canadian Mountie who flew his seaplane to an island to arrest a man for whom he had a warrant. He walked to the guy's cabin and knocked on the door. He explained he was there to arrest the guy and asked him if there would be any trouble. When the guy said No, they walked back to the plane and flew back to the office.
Respect. The Mountie respected the guy he was there to arrest, and he got respect back.
Today we send S.W.A.T. in camo gear and with guns drawn, when a person has overlooked $300 in court fines.
I'm always respectful to ALL people, unless they give me a reason not to be ...
I remember being pulled over in Prairie Grove because of my 100+ parking tickets (in Cook Co.). The officer pulled us over, came back from his car, told us to get out, place our hands on the hood, and we were cuffed and placed under arrest. At that time, the cop took us back to his house (no police station at that time). When he found out the warrant was for parking tickets, he uncuffed us and stated "Hell, I didn't know what the warrant was for, you could have been Bonnie and Clyde for all I knew". Bail was posted, and we left ... later on beating the parking tickets with our lawyer, Gordon Graham.
Do you think this would happen in these times? Would we have been treated like violent criminals had this happened last week? You bet. I was treated like a criminal for "rolling a stop sign" in my neighborhood, and literally in my face, a yelling macho shithead telling me off because of MY attitude. My attitude? Yeah, ok, he disrupted my hap hap happy drive home from work to my gingerbread house on lollipop lane and I wasn't smiling or doing a buck and wing for him.
I have to say, I feel bad for this couple. Their door was shattered, and they were bullied after their son was cuffed and no longer in the house (if I read the statements correctly).
Did Mr. really spit on the officer? I don't know why, but I don't buy it.I've heard that excuse, or justification for "throwing the first punch" so many times it's laughable.Even if he did, does he then deserve to be thrown to the floor, a knee in his back, tightly cuffed, and thrown into a squad car? This is a senior citizen for crissakes!
If I say "s-s-sufferin' s-s-succotash" and a little slobber hits the cop, will I face the same fate as Mr. Pavlin?
Goon convo on this post. I respect all yalls' opinion... and I may even stand corrected. Doh. Anyway, what I don't get is if the son pushed the door closed on the officers after being identified, why couldn't they go in and get him? Otherwise he barricades himself in his parents house and then we have a standoff... and bring in MARV!
I agree emotions running high and the cops should have left right after arresting the son, but i have to believe the Pavlin's really started givin it to the coppers.
Whatever... I wasnt there so its all he said, she said, what ifs.
Can there really be that many dirty cops in McHenry County??? Doh.
Madd Bulldog, you might want to read Judge Kapala's ruling.
It has to do with illegal entry. The deputies did not have the legal right to entry the senior Pavlin's resident. They had an arrest warrant, but it wasn't for service at the senior Pavlin's home. They just went there because the guy's ex-wife (or ex-wife-to-be) said he was there.
Had he gone out on the porch, the deputies could have grabbed him. Possibly even if the door had opened out, instead of in, if he had stepped through it toward or onto the porch.
Under-trained deputies, or those who just disregard the law, would not pay attention to such a "fine point."
Post a Comment