Please note the following suspect standards / controlling language used by Lt. Tim Morgan in the creation of this "new' PAPD *interviewing policy* of reporting PAPD police misconduct and corruption as it relates to the very protection of their own officers. It suggests; *Total and complete control of the interviewing process!*

(b) The public safety officer under investigation shall be informed prior to the interrogation of the rank, name, and command of the officer in charge of the interrogation, the interrogating officers, and all other persons to be present during the interrogation.

All questions directed to the public safety officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through no more than two interrogators at one time.

*However, what is extremely important information for the community too know is, did PAPD IPA officers - Mr. Miller / Genneco, were they aware of this new policy and as attorney's did they approve it? *

*Police Officers Bill of Rights

CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 3300-3311 *3303. When any public safety officer is under investigation and subjected to interrogation by his or her commanding* *officer, or any other member of the employing public safety department, that could lead to punitive action, the* *interrogation shall be conducted under the following conditions.

For the purpose of this chapter, punitive action means any action that may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in salary, written reprimand, or transfer forpurposes of punishment.

(a) The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time when the public safety officer is on duty, or during the normal waking hours for the public safety officer, unless the seriousness of the investigation requires otherwise. If the interrogation does occur during off-duty time of the public safety officer being interrogated, the public safety officer shall be compensated for any off-duty time in accordance with regular department procedures, and the public safety officer shall not be released from employment for any work missed.

(b) The public safety officer under investigation shall be informed prior to the interrogation of the rank, name, and command of the officer in charge of the interrogation, the interrogating officers, and all other persons to be present during the interrogation. All questions directed to the public safety officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through no more than two interrogators at one time.

(c) The public safety officer under investigation shall be informed of the nature of the investigation prior to any interrogation.

(d) The interrogating session shall be for a reasonable period taking into consideration gravity and complexity of the issue being investigated. The person under interrogation shall be allowed to attend to his or her own personal phys ical necessities.

(e) The public safety officer under interrogation shall not be subjected to offensive language or threatened with punitive action, except that an officer refusing to respond to questions or submit to interrogations shall be informed that failure to answer questions directly related to the investigation or interrogation may result in punitive action. No promise of reward shall be made as an inducement to answering any question. The employer shall not cause the public safety officer under interrogation to be subjected to visits by the press or news media without his or her express consent nor shall his or her home address or photograph be given to the press or news media without his or her express consent.

On 6/5/08, restorative.justice.for.all@gmail.com < restorative.justice.for.all@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Aram:
>
> Thank you for sharing this newly proposed police interview / interrogation
> policy as indicated below: No doubt the creation of this new policy stems
> form the reluctance of certain "Children Theater" staff and personnel from
> "freely" coming forward in light of detective Michael Yore's handling of the
> case.
>
> Historically, police departments including the PAPD wish to acquire the
> upper "hand". In other words, controlling the entire interview /
> interrogation process right down to the placement of tables, chairs,
> lighting and air conditioning. (See Criminal Interrogation and
> Confessions Fourth Edition, Fred E. Inbau, John E. Reid, Joseph P. Buckley
> and Brian C. Jayne )
>
> Lt. Tim Morgan, is only one such individual within the department, who is a
> highly skilled master in the art of deception, and this new policy,
> illustrates this point rather nicely. *Total and complete control!*
>
> Aran, Consider the following quote taken from this same fourth edition and
> I quote;
>
> "In most instances these interrogations *(including interviews)*,
> particularly of the suspect, must be conducted under conditions of privacy
> and for a reasonable period of time. *They also frequently require the use
> of psychological tactics and techniques that could well be classified as
> "unethical," if evaluated in terms of ordinary, everyday social behavior".
> *
>
>
> (Criminal Interrogation and Confessions Fourth Edition, Fred E. Inbau,
> John E. Reid, Joseph P. Buckley and Brian C. Jayne)
>
> Clearly, this new policy is indeed the work of skilled masters in the art
> of deception and plays upon the use of *"**psychological tactics"* which,
> more and more often results in tragic consequences. i.e. Children's Theater
> and others.
>
> Most Palo Alto community members are "unsuspecting" of there deceptive
> techniques, and I appreciate your sharing this information as a seasoned
> criminal defence attorney *to protect* the "unsuspecting" in exposing and
> further revealing the contents of there 'little bag of dirty tricks".
>
>
> Mark Petersen-Perez
>
>
>
>
> "The Palo Alto Police Department understands and agrees with the need for
> community members to be comfortable with police interviews about police
> misconduct. With this understanding in mind, the police department allows
> for community members to have a support person present. This support
> person, who may be an attorney, cannot interfere, provide additional
> comment, provide direction to the investigator, nor are they allowed to
> interrupt the interview.
>
> The purpose of the attorney, at this type of interview is to protect the
> rights of their client, not investigate the alleged misconduct. Attorneys,
> who may be present, may ask limited clarifying questions at the end of the
> interview.
>
> If the support person or attorney interferes with the interview, and
> refuses to stop, the interview will be stopped and the support person will
> be asked to leave. The community member can then decide if he/she wishes to
> continue the interview."
>
>
>
> On 6/4/08, abjpd1@juno.com <abjpd1@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> June 4, 2008
>>
>> Lt. Tim Morgan:
>>
>> As I indicated in my previous e-mail I am in contact with the Palo
>> Alto City Attorney's Office re issues related to your proposed protocol for
>> interviewing my client re his complaint against members of your department.
>> Until I am able to have a full discussion/clarification with the city
>> attorney re the potential legal implications of such a proposal I am not
>> prepared to have my client file a compliant with your department.
>>
>> I have been in contact with my client re this subject and he is in full
>> agreement. I am hopeful my conversation with the city attorney will take
>> place in the next several days. In addition, I will be registering a
>> complaint with the IPA (Independent Police Auditor) re your proposed policy
>> in hopes that I may receive additional guidance re my legal concerns re your
>> proposed interview protocol/technique. Finally, in this regard-- I have and
>> will copy into this discussion Santa Clara County District Attorney Dolores
>> Carr re my concerns in hopes--yet again--to clarify the legal issues
>> surrounding your proposed interview protocol.
>>
>> Although your department may prefer *not* to characterize the complaint
>> process as a "criminal investigation" from my perspective the conduct of
>> your officers in the current matter may well raise to the level of criminal
>> misconduct--- with at least the potential of criminal charges being filed
>> against one or some of your officers. In addition, in my experience as a
>> criminal defense attorney (30 years) -representing a client who is filing a
>> complaint against the police has the potential for serious adverse
>> consequence to the client as such requiring full vigilance by diligent
>> defense counsel.
>>
>> Although a client who comes into file a complaint against the police may
>> not be charged with a crime before or at the inception of the
>> interview--depending on how the interview process proceeds--clients can and
>> have been charged with crimes not anticipated at the outset of the
>> interview.
>>
>> To avoid even the potential of such adverse consequence to my client it is
>> critical that the complaint being filed against the police be handled
>> consistent with my legal training, ethical responsibilities pursuant to my
>> membership in the California State Bar, and any and all legal
>> privileges that attach to the attorney-client relationship including, but
>> not limited to, the attorney client privilege, my client's rights pursuant
>> to the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the California equivalent,
>> the 6th amendment to U.S. Constitution, etc.
>>
>> Often clients who wish to file complaints against your department have
>> been subject to prior police misconduct/brutalization/racially
>> discriminatory law enforcement, etc., by members of your department-- and
>> are unwilling to come forward with their current complaints due to fear or
>> intimidation etc., unless represented by counsel who is able to set down the
>> guidelines re how the client's complaint is presented.
>>
>> In addition, it is not uncommon for a client who is currently on probation
>> or parole to be the victim of repeated police misconduct by your department
>> and absent tight guarantees that the police will not attempt to run
>> roughshod over their constitutional rights they are unwilling to come
>> forward with their complaints against bad acting/corrupt police officers. As
>> such it is critical that the defense attorney in consultation with his/her
>> client be allowed to determine the format in which the complaint is
>> presented.
>>
>> Okay, Lt. Morgan I look forward to your timely response.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Aram B. James
>>
>> Attorney At Law
>>
>> State Bar # 80215
>>
>> (415) 370-5056
>>
>> P.S. While drafting this letter I did receive a phone call from senior
>> Palo Alto City Attorney Don Larkin. Per my brief conversation with attorney
>> Don Larkin I understand the two of you had at least some conversation re my
>> concerns. In addition, I understand that Mr. Larkin-- in conjunction with
>> your department-- *may*--consistent with some of the issues I have
>> raised-- make some modifications to your proposed interview protocol. *Mr.
>> Larkin --if I have mischaracterized or left out any relevant portion of our
>> brief conversation please feel free to add to or correct my statement in
>> this regard.* *Mr. Larkin --I look forward to further discussion with you
>> re this issue and to reviewing any proposed modification to the interview
>> protocol that may mitigate my legal concerns.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- "Morgan, Tim" <Tim.Morgan@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
>> Aram, I listened to your voice mail, and believe that you asked me to
>> send this information to you via e-mail as you were going to be on vacation
>> until June 2, 2008. I am willing to meet with you regarding this issue if
>> you would like, however this is not a criminal investigation and is not a
>> deposition. If your client wishes to be interviewed to shed further light
>> on what happened on this day, I would be grateful, however if he does not
>> wish to be interviewed under the conditions that I set forth, I understand
>> and will continue my investigation without his statement.
>>
>> I do understand that you wish to conduct further research on this issue.
>>
>> Thanks for getting back to me so quickly.
>>
>> Lt. Tim Morgan
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: abjpd1@juno.com [mailto:abjpd1@juno.com]
>> Sent: Wed 06/04/2008 11:17 AM
>> To: Council, City; Burns, Dennis; denzen@umich.edu; Larkin, Donald;
>> dtomkins@da.sccgov.org; Benest, Frank;
>> friendsofpachildrenstheatre@gmail.com; r1miller@laoir.com;
>> R1Miller@lasd.org; restorative.justice.for.all@gmail.com; Morgan, Tim;
>> Tom.Connelly@ci.los-altos.ca.us
>> Subject: Attorneys present during interviews of police misconduct
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> June 4, 2008
>>
>> Lt.Tim Morgan:
>>
>> I called you yesterday and was advised by dispatch that you would be out
>> of the office until at least Thursday. I left you a rather long message
>> explaining some of my legal concerns with your (PAPD's) proposal re
>> interviewing one of my clients and my need to do some additional legal
>> research re the PAPD's proposed protocol for interviewing clients.
>>
>> The new proposed protocol raises a wide variety of legal concerns some of
>> which do not lend themselves to a quick off the cuff answer. I also have a
>> call into the city attorney re my concerns with PAPD's-- apparently-- new
>> proposed protocol.
>>
>> I fully intend to have my client file a complaint against the PAPD re the
>> incident you refer to--- but need to do the necessary legal research to
>> protect my client's legal rights before proceeding. I suggest you give me a
>> call when you return to work to discuss this critical matter.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Aram B. James
>>
>> Attorney at Law
>>
>> State Bar # 80215
>>
>> (415) 370-5056
>>
>> P.S. I do not recall requesting the below protocol --my recollection is
>> you called me re the interview in question and on your own sent the below
>> PAPD proposed protocol. If your recollection is different-- so be it.
>>
>> -- "Morgan, Tim" <Tim.Morgan@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
>> Aram, I have not heard from you about the interview of ( Client's named
>> redacted--by attorney Aram James) regarding a complaint about police
>> misconduct at ___-( address of alleged incident of misconduct redacted by
>> attorney Aram James) . If I do not hear from you by the end of the week, I
>> will assume that he does not wish to be interviewed regarding the events of
>> that day and will continue my investigation into the matter without his
>> statement. Please let me know by Friday June 6, 2008.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lt. Tim Morgan
>>
>>
>>
>> Aram,
>>
>>
>>
>> Below in bold is the information that you requested regarding attorneys or
>> other support persons being present during the interview process of persons
>> who witness or allege police misconduct. I understand that you will not be
>> returning until June 2, 2008 from vacation. Please contact me as soon as
>> possible, but prior to June 8, 2008 to set up an interview with ( Client's
>> name redacted by attonrey Aram James)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim Morgan
>>
>>
>>
>> The Palo Alto Police Department understands and agrees with the need for
>> community members to be comfortable with police interviews about police
>> misconduct. With this understanding in mind, the police department allows
>> for community members to have a support person present. This support
>> person, who may be an attorney, cannot interfere, provide additional
>> comment, provide direction to the investigator, nor are they allowed to
>> interrupt the interview.
>>
>>
>>
>> The purpose of the attorney, at this type of interview is to protect the
>> rights of their client, not investigate the alleged misconduct. Attorneys,
>> who may be present, may ask limited clarifying questions at the end of the
>> interview.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the support person or attorney interferes with the interview, and
>> refuses to stop, the interview will be stopped and the support person will
>> be asked to leave. The community member can then decide if he/she wishes to
>> continue the interview.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power
> attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things
> than power."
>
> David Brin quotes (American science-fiction writer b.1950

-- 
"It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power
attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things
than power."

David Brin quotes (American science-fiction writer b.1950