Sheriff Hiding Footage of Abuse?

[JBeukema]

In the available footage, Ms. Steffey is forcefully held down and stripped of her clothing, including undergarments, by male and female police officers while clearly distraught. The sheriffs written policies state that, if a strip search is to be performed, it must be done only by officers of the same sex as the subject.

The Steffeys allege that officers repeatedly slammed Ms. Steffey to the ground, both prior to and after her being taken into custody. Questions have been raised regarding a camera that appears to have been filming during some of the events, the footage from which has not been made available to Ms. Steffey's attorney. Also being questioned is why the dashboard cam of the responding officer was not turned on when he arrived and does not appear to have been turned on until just before she was places in the vehicle.

One should be forewarned that the video, while blurred by the network to conceal Ms. Steffey's body, is disturbing.

Ms. Steffey would be charged with misdemeanor resisting arrest and disorderly conduct after being left in a cell, totally nude after what was surely a traumatizing experience, for six hours.

Based on what we've seen thus far, however, the true criminals could be the ones in uniform.

NBC's interview with Mr. Steffey (Ms. Steffey's husband), which includes clips of aforementioned footage, can be seen here

 

[TheBrain]

IF true, some LEOs need to lose their jobs. Now that doesn't make the "victim" any less culpable for her own actions, but nothing she may have done justifies some of the allegations, if true.

 

[JBeukema]

IF true, some LEOs need to lose their jobs. Now that doesn't make the "victim" any less culpable for her own actions, but nothing she may have done justifies some of the allegations, if true.

See the video.

Also, she was the one who contacted police for assistance in the first place.

 

[Sallow]

In the available footage, Ms. Steffey is forcefully held down and stripped of her clothing, including undergarments, by male and female police officers while clearly distraught. The sheriffs written policies state that, if a strip search is to be performed, it must be done only by officers of the same sex as the subject.

The Steffeys allege that officers repeatedly slammed Ms. Steffey to the ground, both prior to and after her being taken into custody. Questions have been raised regarding a camera that appears to have been filming during some of the events, the footage from which has not been made available to Ms. Steffey's attorney. Also being questioned is why the dashboard cam of the responding officer was not turned on when he arrived and does not appear to have been turned on until just before she was places in the vehicle.

One should be forewarned that the video, while blurred by the network to conceal Ms. Steffey's body, is disturbing.

Ms. Steffey would be charged with misdemeanor resisting arrest and disorderly conduct after being left in a cell, totally nude after what was surely a traumatizing experience, for six hours.

Based on what we've seen thus far, however, the true criminals could be the ones in uniform.

NBC's interview with Mr. Steffey (Ms. Steffey's husband), which includes clips of aforementioned footage, can be seen here

Wow.

Just wow.

 

[Samson]

IF true, some LEOs need to lose their jobs. Now that doesn't make the "victim" any less culpable for her own actions, but nothing she may have done justifies some of the allegations, if true.

See the video.

Also, she was the one who contacted police for assistance in the first place.

She has a nice tramp stamp.

 

[George Costanza]

In the available footage, Ms. Steffey is forcefully held down and stripped of her clothing, including undergarments, by male and female police officers while clearly distraught. The sheriffs written policies state that, if a strip search is to be performed, it must be done only by officers of the same sex as the subject.

The Steffeys allege that officers repeatedly slammed Ms. Steffey to the ground, both prior to and after her being taken into custody. Questions have been raised regarding a camera that appears to have been filming during some of the events, the footage from which has not been made available to Ms. Steffey's attorney. Also being questioned is why the dashboard cam of the responding officer was not turned on when he arrived and does not appear to have been turned on until just before she was places in the vehicle.

One should be forewarned that the video, while blurred by the network to conceal Ms. Steffey's body, is disturbing.

Ms. Steffey would be charged with misdemeanor resisting arrest and disorderly conduct after being left in a cell, totally nude after what was surely a traumatizing experience, for six hours.

Based on what we've seen thus far, however, the true criminals could be the ones in uniform.

NBC's interview with Mr. Steffey (Ms. Steffey's husband), which includes clips of aforementioned footage, can be seen here

Resisting arrest for WHAT? Not clear from the news clip video.

Why wasn't this video shown at trial? Did she have defense counsel? Did defense counsel even try to show the video at trial? If not, why not? If so, was it ruled inadmissible by the court? If so, on what basis? It seems to me that this video would be highly relevant to a resisting arrest charge - because it is not illegal to resist an illegal arrest, and if the officers are acting illegally, as they appear to be doing here, that would be a defense.

The cops appear very dirty here. Of course, we don't have the entire story, but I'm betting they still look dirty when it all comes out.

 

[George Costanza]

IF true, some LEOs need to lose their jobs. Now that doesn't make the "victim" any less culpable for her own actions, but nothing she may have done justifies some of the allegations, if true.

See the video.

Also, she was the one who contacted police for assistance in the first place.

She has a nice tramp stamp.

I noticed that too. But tramps can still be victims of police brutality.

 

[TheBrain]

In the available footage, Ms. Steffey is forcefully held down and stripped of her clothing, including undergarments, by male and female police officers while clearly distraught. The sheriffs written policies state that, if a strip search is to be performed, it must be done only by officers of the same sex as the subject.

The Steffeys allege that officers repeatedly slammed Ms. Steffey to the ground, both prior to and after her being taken into custody. Questions have been raised regarding a camera that appears to have been filming during some of the events, the footage from which has not been made available to Ms. Steffey's attorney. Also being questioned is why the dashboard cam of the responding officer was not turned on when he arrived and does not appear to have been turned on until just before she was places in the vehicle.

One should be forewarned that the video, while blurred by the network to conceal Ms. Steffey's body, is disturbing.

Ms. Steffey would be charged with misdemeanor resisting arrest and disorderly conduct after being left in a cell, totally nude after what was surely a traumatizing experience, for six hours.

Based on what we've seen thus far, however, the true criminals could be the ones in uniform.

NBC's interview with Mr. Steffey (Ms. Steffey's husband), which includes clips of aforementioned footage, can be seen here

Resisting arrest for WHAT? Not clear from the news clip video.

Why wasn't this video shown at trial? Did she have defense counsel? Did defense counsel even try to show the video at trial? If not, why not? If so, was it ruled inadmissible by the court? If so, on what basis? It seems to me that this video would be highly relevant to a resisting arrest charge - because it is not illegal to resist an illegal arrest, and if the officers are acting illegally, as they appear to be doing here, that would be a defense.

The cops appear very dirty here. Of course, we don't have the entire story, but I'm betting they still look dirty when it all comes out.

I honestly wish this were not the case. Most people either have no idea what constitutes an illegal arrest, or simply misuse the term for their own reasons. I much prefer that people don't resist arrest and then sue if someone acted improperly.

 

[George Costanza]

In the available footage, Ms. Steffey is forcefully held down and stripped of her clothing, including undergarments, by male and female police officers while clearly distraught. The sheriffs written policies state that, if a strip search is to be performed, it must be done only by officers of the same sex as the subject.

The Steffeys allege that officers repeatedly slammed Ms. Steffey to the ground, both prior to and after her being taken into custody. Questions have been raised regarding a camera that appears to have been filming during some of the events, the footage from which has not been made available to Ms. Steffey's attorney. Also being questioned is why the dashboard cam of the responding officer was not turned on when he arrived and does not appear to have been turned on until just before she was places in the vehicle.

One should be forewarned that the video, while blurred by the network to conceal Ms. Steffey's body, is disturbing.

Ms. Steffey would be charged with misdemeanor resisting arrest and disorderly conduct after being left in a cell, totally nude after what was surely a traumatizing experience, for six hours.

Based on what we've seen thus far, however, the true criminals could be the ones in uniform.

NBC's interview with Mr. Steffey (Ms. Steffey's husband), which includes clips of aforementioned footage, can be seen here

Resisting arrest for WHAT? Not clear from the news clip video.

Why wasn't this video shown at trial? Did she have defense counsel? Did defense counsel even try to show the video at trial? If not, why not? If so, was it ruled inadmissible by the court? If so, on what basis? It seems to me that this video would be highly relevant to a resisting arrest charge - because it is not illegal to resist an illegal arrest, and if the officers are acting illegally, as they appear to be doing here, that would be a defense.

The cops appear very dirty here. Of course, we don't have the entire story, but I'm betting they still look dirty when it all comes out.

I honestly wish this were not the case. Most people either have no idea what constitutes an illegal arrest, or simply misuse the term for their own reasons. I much prefer that people don't resist arrest and then sue if someone acted improperly.

Yes - but here, on the facts before us, the defendant was actually the VICTIM of a crime, and the police were treating her as if she had been the PERPETRATOR of the crime, and were (apparently) attempting to arrest her for the crime they (wrongly) thought she had committed. Not too hard to figure out that that's an illegal arrest. She had every right to resist.

I find it interesting that she was apparently only charged with two crimes when she went to trial: resisting arrest and disorderly conduct - both charges that would seem to stem entirely from her conduct at the hands of the police, rather than any alleged crime she committed at the scene of the arrest, prior to their arrival. That only bolsters the idea that the prosecutor is merely seeking to cover the asses of the cops with the charges that were filed.

My personal experience has been that invariably, when the cops throw a little extra street justice into an arrest, a charge of resisting arrest always gets tossed in with the other charges in order to protect the police.

 

[George Costanza]

IF true, some LEOs need to lose their jobs. Now that doesn't make the "victim" any less culpable for her own actions, but nothing she may have done justifies some of the allegations, if true.

Yes, it does make the "victim" less culpable. In fact, it is a complete defense if the cops were acting illegally and, if they were conducting themselves in a way sufficient to cause them to lose their jobs over it, it is pretty certain they were in fact acting illegally.

 

[TheBrain]

IF true, some LEOs need to lose their jobs. Now that doesn't make the "victim" any less culpable for her own actions, but nothing she may have done justifies some of the allegations, if true.

Yes, it does make the "victim" less culpable. In fact, it is a complete defense if the cops were acting illegally and, if they were conducting themselves in a way sufficient to cause them to lose their jobs over it, it is pretty certain they were in fact acting illegally.

I trust you understand that I was talking about any crimes she may have herself committed, which are not simply negated if the LEO behaved illegally.

 

[George Costanza]

IF true, some LEOs need to lose their jobs. Now that doesn't make the "victim" any less culpable for her own actions, but nothing she may have done justifies some of the allegations, if true.

Yes, it does make the "victim" less culpable. In fact, it is a complete defense if the cops were acting illegally and, if they were conducting themselves in a way sufficient to cause them to lose their jobs over it, it is pretty certain they were in fact acting illegally.

I trust you understand that I was talking about any crimes she may have herself committed, which are not simply negated if the LEO behaved illegally.

Oh, OK - no, I didn't get that. Yes, if someone commits a crime and then the police try to effect an illegal arrest (kind of hard to imagine how that could happen, but I suppose it could), and the person ends up being charged for the original crime plus resisting arrest, they would be acquitted of the resisting, but convicted of the original crime.

Problem is, in the example given in the OP, she wasn't charged with any original crime - only with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. I am assuming the disorderly conduct was related to what she did during the arrest, rather than to her actions prior to the arrival of the cops.