Cop Report

A former NYPD narcotics detective snared in a corruption scandal testified it was common practice to fabricate drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas.

The bombshell testimony from Stephen Anderson is the first public account of the twisted culture behind the false arrests in the Brooklyn South and Queens narc squads, which led to the arrests of eight cops and a massive shakeup.

Anderson, testifying under a cooperation agreement with prosecutors, was busted for planting cocaine, a practice known as “flaking,” on four men in a Queens bar in 2008 o help out fellow cop Henry Tavarez, whose buy-and-bust activity had been low.

“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.

“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.

He made clear he wasn’t about to pass off the two legit arrests he had made in the bar to Tavarez.

“As a detective, you still have a number to reach while you are in the narcotics division,” he said.

NYPD officials did not respond to a request for comment.

Anderson worked in the Queens and Brooklyn South narcotics squads and was called to the stand at Arbeeny’s bench trial to show the illegal conduct wasn’t limited to a single squad.

“Did you observe with some frequency this … practice which is taking someone who was seemingly not guilty of a crime and laying the drugs on them?” Justice Gustin Reichbach asked Anderson.

“Yes, multiple times,” he replied.

The judge pressed Anderson on whether he ever gave a thought to the damage he was inflicting on the innocent.

“It was something I was seeing a lot of, whether it was from supervisors or undercovers and even investigators,” he said.

“It’s almost like you have no emotion with it, that they attach the bodies to it, they’re going to be out of jail tomorrow anyway; nothing is going to happen to them anyway.”

The city paid $300,000 to settle a false arrest suit by Jose Colon and his brother Maximo, who were falsely arrested by Anderson and Tavarez. A surveillance tape inside the bar showed they had been framed.

A federal judge presiding over the suit said the NYPD’s plagued by “widespread falsification” by arresting officers.

Link

A new report suggests that the Mile High City’s police don’t arrest off-duty Denver cops for driving drunk unless they are involved in collisions, and a new department policy will help prevent requests for such professional courtesy from being honored.

Since 2005, when Independent Monitor Richard Rosenthal began monitoring police discipline, Denver police have arrested five of their own who were found to be drunk after a collision, he said in his second-quarter police and sheriff discipline and critical-incident report. But none has been arrested solely for driving under the influence.

At the same time, Denver Police Department data show that for about every three of the city’s residents arrested for DUI, there is one resident arrested for a collision in which they were found to be intoxicated.

Colorado jurisdictions outside Denver aren’t reluctant to arrest Denver cops for drunken driving, the report said. “There has been a 4-to-1 ratio of DUI traffic arrests to DUI arrests ensuing from collisions involving off-duty DPD officers in other jurisdictions.”

Based on the 3-to-1 arrest ratio in the general public, it would make sense that roughly 15 Denver police officers should have been arrested for DUI with no collision, the report said.

“During that same time period, however, 10 DPD officers have been arrested for DUI in other jurisdictions, with only two of those arrests ensuing from a traffic collision,” the report said.

Rosenthal concludes that some of Denver’s approximately 1,400 officers expect to be let off the hook by their fellow cops, the report said. And the study suggests they may be having their way.

In response to the report, to be released today, DPD will take steps including requiring an officer who stops an intoxicated Denver cop to call a supervisor to the scene, Rosenthal said in the report.

Denver police union president Nick Rogers called the report “another attempt by Richard Rosenthal to cast a shadow on the department.”

Noting that more than 75 percent of Denver cops live outside the city, he said the statistical analysis is thin. “There are no facts to back this up,” he said. “I think it’s slanderous.”

Denver police spokesman Sonny Jackson referred calls for comment to Manager of Safety Charles Garcia’s office.

“While there have been no reported cases, we take the monitor’s concern related to the absence of arrests of off-duty DPD officers for DUI very seriously,” Garcia said in an e-mailed statement. “Any such reports of these actions would be thoroughly investigated and appropriate discipline applied.”

The report also called too lenient the 26-day suspension of a Denver police officer for driving under the influence and berating the arresting officer for arresting a fellow cop.

Rosenthal said the case didn’t prompt him to study DUI arrests of off-duty cops.

“I have been keeping an eye on this for a long time,” he said.

On April 28, Garcia suspended an unidentified officer for DUI, unlawful possession of a firearm while intoxicated and rude and offensive behavior toward the arresting officers, “along with blatant attempts to obtain preferential treatment based on his position as a police officer,” according to the report.

The officer had a blood-alcohol content of 0.246 percent, three times the legal limit, and a loaded firearm in the vehicle with him when he ran off a mountain road and down an embankment.

When the officer who responded to the accident told him he was arresting him for DUI, the driver launched a profanity-laced and abusive tirade.

Among the comments:

“I started in the suburbs of Chicago and I worked in Chicago, Chicago PD, and I now I work in Denver. I have never, never, ever f—– another policeman, and I don’t know what you guys do up here.

“You’re an a——.”

The officer received a 16-day suspension without pay for the DUI and a 10-day suspension without pay for unlawful possession of a firearm.

Public safety spokeswoman Kathy Maloney said Garcia reviews the facts of each case thoroughly and independently.

“Following his review of this case, the manager applied 26 days, which is within the parameters of the discipline matrix,” she said in an e-mail.

Rosenthal compared the case with two others, including one decided by former Manager of Safety Ron Perea. In that case the officer was driving 80 mph in a 55-mph zone and had a blood-alcohol content of 0.217 percent. The officer begged not to be arrested based on his law enforcement position.

“He did not, however, insult or demean the arresting officer,” the report said.

Perea suspended him for 30 days for improperly attempting to obtain preferential treatment based on his job, the report said. He also received a 14-day suspension for unlawful possession of a firearm.

Garcia has decided to create a new rule specifically prohibiting solicitation of preferential treatment by a Denver cop, Rosenthal added.

“This issue will likely be more appropriately resolved in future cases due to the Manager’s decision to create” the new rule, the report said.

Link

City officials have identified one out of every 17 Denver police officers as having discipline issues serious enough that their courtroom testimony may be suspect.

Those officers were listed as witnesses in more than 1,100 cases in the past 12 months, a review of court data maintained by the Police Department shows.

The names of the officers show up on a list maintained by the offices of the city attorney and Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey. Prosecutors use the list to alert defense lawyers anytime one of the officers might be called as a witness on a criminal case.

But despite safeguards put in place that are meant to ensure defense lawyers know which officers have a history of deception or lawbreaking, the system is not always effective or efficient.

Attorneys say judges are inconsistent when it comes to letting them see the personnel files of officers on the list so they can determine how best to cross-examine them.

And no system is in place to alert defendants when an officer is under investigation for what the Police Department calls “departing from the truth,” and notifications also aren’t sent alerting a defense lawyer if an officer gets fired for such a violation. As a result, defense attorneys never learned about the seven officers who were ultimately fired this year for being untruthful. Meanwhile, even while under investigation for being untruthful, those officers were listed as witnesses in nearly 60 cases in the past 12 months and jurors were never told about the allegations.

“There is no uniform practice in Denver court as to how this information is conveyed,” said Chris Baumann, head of the Denver trial office of the Colorado State Public Defender’s Office. “It’s very frustrating. You know the information is out there, and you know it is in the possession of law enforcement.”

City officials began maintaining the list of officers in 2008 after a year-long debate among city officials over whether defense lawyers should be alerted to police discipline that could be favorable to a defendant.

The list is meant to put the city in compliance with the requirements of a 1963 court case, Brady vs. Maryland. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors are required to divulge evidence favorable to a defendant.

Despite the creation of the list, Baumann said defense lawyers remain frustrated. More often than not, a defense lawyer never will get to see the details of the case that ended up putting a police officer on the list, Baumann said.

If an officer appears on the list, the prosecution alerts the defense.

The notification reads: “The District Attorney has received notice that this officer has been subject to an administrative finding that may or may not prove relevant if he or she testifies in a criminal matter. Information regarding this administrative proceeding should be obtained through the Denver Police Department’s Civil Liabilities Bureau.”

The city has taken the stance that notification is sufficient to meet the city’s requirement to divulge evidence favorable to a defendant. It is left up to a defense lawyer to pursue getting any further information, and that pursuit often is fruitless, Baumann said.

Anytime a defense lawyer tries to use the list to subpoena the personnel files of an officer listed as a witness, the city attorney’s office will fight back and argue the officer has privacy rights, Baumann said. Prosecutors also will seek to block release, saying that the information is irrelevant, he added. Police officers also can have their own personal lawyers fight the subpoena. It is left up to the judge to determine whether the personnel files see the light of day, Baumann said.

“Judges across the board are reluctant to release these personnel files,” he said. “Some of them will release the files. Others are very reluctant to do so, and they will ask us to make certain records to justify our request that we simply can’t make.”

Officers on the list

A review of the list, called the “asterisk list” by defense lawyers and prosecutors, sheds some light on the inner workings of discipline at the Police Department at a time when the city has initiated a new, get- tough policy for officers who engage in wrongdoing.

The list includes the names of about 81 officers still on the force out of 1,434. At least eight officers on the list have two or more violations. One officer has three violations.

The officers on the list have been found to have committed violations in at least one of the following categories: departing from the truth, violating the law, making false reports, making misleading or inaccurate statements, committing a deceptive act, engaging in conduct prohibited by law, engaging in aggravated conduct prohibited by law, conspiring to commit conduct prohibited by law, soliciting or accepting a bribe, removing reports or records, destroying reports or records or altering information on official documents.

At least seven officers are on the list for driving under the influence. At least 13 of the officers are on the list for violations involving dishonesty, considered a fireable offense at many police departments because such a finding could call into question whether an officer would testify truthfully.

And those are just the ones whose cases have been resolved with a finding that the complaint was “sustained.” An untold number of other officers may be under investigation for dishonesty but testifying on any given day with no notice to the defense.

How others handle alert

Defense attorney Darren Cantor said the lack of notification of officers under investigation causes problems. Internal affairs investigations can take years to resolve and, meanwhile, officers could end up testifying in dozens of cases even though their superiors are preparing their justification for firing them, Cantor said. Defendants and jurors may never learn an officer had major credibility issues.

Some jurisdictions have different systems for identifying officers with credibility problems. Carol Chambers, the district attorney for Colorado’s 18th Judicial District, has a committee that regularly reviews the personnel files of officers and alerts defense lawyers to issues.

Chambers, who declined to comment, even was sued once by an Aurora police sergeant after she warned defense lawyers she believed the sergeant “lacks integrity” and is dishonest. A judge in 2005 ruled in Chambers’ favor, finding that Chambers could continue sending the alerts to defense attorneys.

In Los Angeles, after scandal hit an anti-gang unit in the police department, prosecutors began providing to defense lawyers exculpatory evidence involving corrupt police officers.

Prosecutors there also set up a system that dealt with officers who were under investigation for wrongdoing. Once the internal affairs investigation concluded, the prosecution reviewed all the criminal cases that required testimony from the officer. Then prosecutors alerted defense lawyers who handled cases involving the officer, starting from the date the officer engaged in wrongdoing.

When questioned about the lack of providing notifications when Denver officers are under investigation, Lynn Kimbrough, the spokeswoman of the Denver district attorney’s office, said officers also are presumed innocent until found guilty.

She added that prosecutors in Denver actually don’t have possession of the personnel files and therefore can’t provide defense lawyers anything more than a notification that an officer appears on the asterisk list.

“We meet our notification requirements, but we don’t bump up against privacy and personnel issues for having a file we’re not really entitled to have,” she said.

Case dropped over cop

In at least one recent case, Denver’s asterisk list helped prompt the dismissal of criminal charges.

In that case, a defense lawyer saw that an officer listed as a witness in a heroin possession trial was on the asterisk list. The lawyer subpoenaed the officer’s personnel file. The city had suspended the officer, Eric Sellers, for 40 days for misleading internal affairs investigators about what investigators determined was an unwarranted attack on a volunteer firefighter.

Prosecutors moved to drop the heroin possession charge in part because of the officer’s credibility problems, Kimbrough confirmed.

In one instance, defense lawyers prepared for a first-degree-murder trial of Quinn Guytan unaware that one of the officers listed as a witness in their case, Ricky Nixon, was under investigation for “commission of a deceptive act” following allegations of excessive use of force.

The defense only learned the officer might have credibility problems during jury selection when potential jurors were questioned about whether they knew any of the witnesses in the case. At that time a potential juror told the lawyers she couldn’t sit on the jury panel and be impartial. She said Nixon had been deceptive about a conflict with her cousin, an offense that eventually prompted Nixon’s firing this year.

The officer’s misdeeds never ended up as evidence during the trial. The jury convicted Guytan, now 25.

“Mr. Guytan has got a whole host of issues on appeal, and many will deal with discovery violations,” said Barry Lancaster, one of the defense lawyers on the case.

The asterisk list is updated regularly.

The union that represents police officers doesn’t have any quarrel with the list, said Detective Nick Rogers, president of the Denver Police Protective Association.

“It doesn’t automatically disqualify anyone from testifying,” Rogers said. “As far as I know, it’s never really harmed anyone. It’s a lot about nothing.”

Safety Manager Charles Garcia, a former public defender who now runs the Police Department, declined to comment.

The creation of the asterisk list followed criticism from Independent Monitor Richard Rosenthal, who reviews investigations into alleged wrongdoing by police.

Overseer took action

Rosenthal, shortly after his arrival in Denver in 2005, began raising alarms over the city’s lack of a system for dealing with officers who had earned a reputation for dishonesty at their own department.

Rosenthal urged the city to start firing officers who had been found to have “departed from the truth.”

He also said the city needed to develop a system to ensure fairness for defendants in criminal cases when officers with a history of untruthfulness ended up as witnesses.

“In those cases where an officer is ‘sustained’ for such conduct, but is not terminated by the department, there appears to be no current process in place to evaluate whether it is necessary to reassign the officer to a position where the officer would not be needed to testify in future judicial proceedings,” Rosenthal said in one 2006 report.

Since then, the city has put in place a new discipline system that replaced one that largely relied on past discipline decisions to guide punishment for misbehaving officers.

Under the new system, specific punishments are spelled out for specific violations. The city now is supposed to fire officers who are deceptive on the job, unless mitigating factors are found. The Police Department also has agreed to let Rosenthal suggest reassignments for officers with sustained violations for lying.

Link

Dayton police “mistook” a mentally handicapped teenager’s speech impediment for “disrespect,” so they Tasered, pepper-sprayed and beat him and called for backup from “upward of 20 police officers” after the boy rode his bicycle home to ask his mother for help, the boy’s mom says.

     Pamela Ford says her “mentally challenged/handicapped” son Jesse Kersey, 17, was riding his bike near his Dayton home when Officer Willie Hooper stopped him and tried to talk to him.

     The mom says that “Prior to the incident described below, defendant Hooper knew Jesse and was aware that Jesse was mentally challenged/handicapped and a minor child.”

     Nonetheless, Ford says, Hooper “apparently took Jesse’s speech impediment for disrespect … [and] began yelling at Jesse and after Jesse attempted to communicate with him[.] Jesse, being a minor and mentally challenged/handicapped, turned and rode his bike back to his home in an attempt to ask his mother, Ford, to help him communicate with defendant Cooper,” according to the complaint in Montgomery County Court.

     On the way, the mom says, “A neighbor attempted to communicate with Officer Hooper about Jesse’s disabilities and was told to go back into his home, or he would be arrested.”

     As Ford opened her front door, she says, Hooper and co-defendant Officer John Howard, “fired their Tasers, striking Jesse in the back with both probes.”

     ”Once inside the house, defendant Hooper and defendant Howard began to struggle with Jesse, who was standing against the back door with his hands up in front of his face, saying ‘Please quit, please quit.’

     ”On numerous occasions, Ford and a family friend, Christopher Peyton, informed Officer Hooper that Jesse was mentally challenged/handicapped, and that Jesse did not understand what was happening,” the complaint states.

     But the mom says the cops continued their assault: “Officer Howard utilized his Cap-Stun pepper spray and sprayed Jesse … [and] struck Jesse with a closed fist in the upper chest area.

     ”Officer Howard utilized his ASP and repeatedly struck Jesse in the upper left side of his left thigh.

     ”Back-up units were requested to Jesse’s house, wherein upward of 20 police officers from different jurisdictions were present.

     ”At no point, even after being advised of Jesse’s mental challenge/handicap by Jesse’s family and numerous bystanders, did defendant Hooper, defendant Howard, or any other police officer present, attempt to communicate with Jesse or explain in terms he could understand as to why Jesse was being chased.

     ”Jesse was handcuffed and hogtied before being placed in the back of a police cruiser.

     ”Jesse was charged with assault on a peace officer, resisting arrest, and obstructing official business.”

     However, “Jesse was declared incompetent by the Montgomery County Juvenile Court and the charges against Jesse were dismissed.”

     Jesse and his mom seek damages from the city and the two lead officers, for false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault, battery, excessive use of force, infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.

     They are represented by Richard Boucher.

Three members of the Detroit Police Gang Squad have been accused of police brutality. One of the officers has been placed on restricted duty until an investigation is completed. If found factual, these accusations could cost the City of Detroit more than $75,000, as that is what the plaintiff, DeJuan Hodges-Lamar, is seeking in damages.

Thus far, there isn’t any word on whether the other two officers are still with the department, but if they are, hopefully they will also be placed on restricted duty just for watching the incident unfold. Police abusing power isn’t anything new in the country. It seems that giving some people a badge is very dangerous, and this officer seems to be one of those people.

In 2009, three members of the DPGS jumped on Hodges-Lamar at a gas station. He claims the attack was unprovoked and unwarranted. The officers came up to his vehicle, searched it and found nothing. When he asked what the officers were doing, one of the officers put him in a chokehold and threw him to the ground.

That was just a tad on the extreme side, considering Hodges-Lamar simply asked a question. What if this officer asked his superior a question and his superior treated him in that way? More than likely, the DPD would have a complaint filed and another lawsuit to deal with. So, what made this officer think he could get away with this kind of police brutality?

The officer obviously didn’t think his actions through very well, because the attack was caught on the station’s video surveillance system. DeJuan Hodges-Lamar has sued all three officers claiming they violated his civil rights.

In the video, you can clearly see one officer standing near the trunk of the vehicle while another officer tackles the man. Now, if Hodges-Lamar did something that warranted police brutality, wouldn’t that officer have jumped in to help his comrade? It seems that would be the case. But alas, he just stands there while the officer tackles the man.

In a city where violence is the norm, it seems the some members of the police force are falling into a criminal mindset, and some officers are acting more violent than the gang members they try to get off the streets.

Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee has placed an officer on restricted duty as the department investigates the man’s role in a confrontation at a gas station that led to a federal civil rights lawsuit.

DeJuan Hodges-Lamar of Macomb County’s Harrison Township has sued three members of the Detroit police’s gang squad, accusing them of an unprovoked beating that was captured by a security camera.

Godbee reviewed the 2009 confrontation and placed the officer on administrative restricted duty. The department’s Force Investigations unit opened an investigation Thursday.

The chief says in a statement that “alleged behavior of this nature will not be condoned or tolerated by the Detroit Police Department.”

Hodges-Lamar’s lawyer, Jonathan Marko, tells The Detroit News the officer was slamming his client “around like a rag doll.”

Link

A former undercover police officer has confessed his lies in court more than 30 years ago may have sent 150 people wrongfully to prison.

Police said they had started a criminal investigation into the activities of Patrick O’Brien after he wrote to Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias and former Police Commissioner Howard Broad, saying he was racked with guilt after carrying a “dreadful secret” for more than 30 years.

Mr O’Brien, an undercover officer during drugs operations in the 1970s, was the star witness in court trials but he later confessed he lied on oath every time he testified, the New Zealand Herald reported today.

His confession was made in November 2007 and police hired Wellington lawyer Bruce Squire, QC, to investigate.

He interviewed Mr O’Brien in July 2009 and reviewed court files, and a copy of his completed inquiry was now with police.

Detective Inspector Bruce Scott, of Waitemata CIB, emailed Mr O’Brien last week asking if there was any other information he had which “may assist me in determining any criminal liability, or are there other persons that you consider need to be spoken to that could assist an inquiry relating to these matters”?

Mr O’Brien told the newspaper he would co-operate fully with the inquiry and plead guilty to any charges.

In his confession, he said he could not guess the number of people who were sent to prison because of his lies because he stopped counting arrests at 150, half-way through his three-year undercover stint.

He lied to the courts and juries to get convictions in every case, he said. As well, he was often high on drugs, including cannabis, cocaine, heroin and LSD – but never during trials.

Tampering with evidence was common and exhibits before the court were often not the drugs he had bought from the target.

However, the shame and stress of the work broke him and he resigned and fled New Zealand, “haunted, traumatised and scared”.

His life had since been a tragic waste and he had never lost the demons that “rush around in my head.”

Mr O’Brien was an undercover police officer from 1974 to 1977.

Link

Two witnesses to Monday’s fatal shooting on South Beach say police tried to intimidate them and force them to give up an up-close video of the incident. Police officials say the couple has not lodged a complaint.

A West Palm Beach couple who filmed Monday morning’s deadly officer-involved shooting on South Beach has accused officers of intimidation, destroying evidence and twisting the facts in the chaos surrounding the Memorial Day shootings – a charge that police officials say they know nothing about.

Meanwhile, a South Carolina man charged with DUI in a second officer-involved shooting that morning says he is innocent.

On Thursday, The Miami Herald spoke to the couple that saw the end of the 4 a.m. police chase on Collins Avenue, then watched and filmed from just a few feet away as a dozen officers fired their guns repeatedly into Raymond Herisse’s blue Hyundai. They say the only reason they were able to show the video to a reporter is because they hid a SIM card after police allegedly pointed guns at their heads, threw them to the ground and smashed the cell phone that took the video.

The three-minute video captured on Narces Benoit’s HTC EVO phone begins as officers crowd around the east side of Herisse’s car with guns drawn. Roughly 15 seconds into the video, officers open fire.

Benoit filmed the incident from the sidewalk on the northeast corner of 13th Street and Collins Avenue, close enough to see some officers’ faces and individual muzzle flashes.

Shortly after the gunfire ends, an officer points at Benoit and police can be heard yelling for him to turn off the camera. The voices are muffled at times. The 35-year-old car stereo technician drops his hand with the camera and hurries back to his Ford Expedition parked further east on 13th Street.

The video shows Benoit get into the car, where his girlfriend, Ericka Davis, sat in the driver’s seat. He raises his camera and an officer is seen appearing on the driver’s side with his gun drawn, pointed at them.

The video ends as more officers are heard yelling expletives, telling the couple to turn the video off and get out of the car.

“They put guns to our heads and threw us on the ground,” Davis said.

Benoit said a Miami Beach officer grabbed his cell phone, said “You want to be [expletive] Paparazzi?” and stomped on his phone before placing him in handcuffs and shoving the crunched phone in Benoit’s back pocket. He said the couple joined other witnesses already in cuffs and being watched by officers, who were on the lookout for two passengers who, police believe at the time, had bailed out of Herisse’s car. It is still not known whether any passengers were in the car.

Four bystanders were shot in the gunfire and three officers suffered minor injuries.

Benoit and Davis said officers smashed several other cell phones in the ensuing chaos.

Benoit said the officers eventually uncuffed him after gunshots rang out elsewhere and he discreetly removed the SIM card and placed it in his mouth.

Officers again took his phone, demanding his video. He said they took him to a nearby mobile command center, snapped a picture of him, then took him to police headquarters and conducted a recorded interview while he kept the SIM card in his mouth. He insisted his phone was broken.

He was given a copy of a police property record receipt dated May 30. The couple has hired an attorney.

“We just want the right thing to be done,” Davis said. “That was just too much.”

Police Chief Carlos Noriega said the couple’s allegations were the first he’d heard of officers allegedly threatening people or destroying cameras or cell phones. If Benoit made a complaint, Internal Affairs would investigate, the chief said.

The scenes from the couple’s video that a reporter described to Noriega reflect the tension officers went through early Monday morning as they tried to get a handle on the pandemonium..

“I was there during the second shooting and it was quite a chaotic scene,” he said. “We were trying to figure out who was who and it was a difficult process. Not once did I see cameras being taken or smashed.”

He also said “a lot of our officers had their guns drawn, including myself.”

Noriega also noted that Benoit’s video is evidence and that it could help investigators.

But, Benoit said he is considering an offer from a website to sell the video.

Police say the chase Benoit and Davis saw began around 16th Street after Herisse hit a Hialeah officer with his car during a traffic stop and then peeled off down Collins Avenue, hitting or nearly hitting four other officers before skidding to a stop amid gunfire near 13th Street.

Police say they received reports that Herisse was shooting from his car, and on Wednesday they found a black Berretta 92-F semiautomatic pistol in his Hyundai.

Police also learned Thursday that he is believed to be the gunman in a November armed robbery at a BP gas station in which a clerk was shot in the face. Police say the clerk identified Herisse in a photo lineup after detectives recognized the slain 22-year-old in The Miami Herald.

Ballistics tests will be needed to prove that Herisse indeed shot the gun, and could take weeks.

But Benoit and Davis said that while they saw “bullets flying everywhere” as Herisse drove south for two blocks, the only ones they saw doing any shooting were police.

The couple was able to film the shooting because they were slowly driving north on Collins Avenue near 13th Street when gunshots rang out. They reversed east down 13th Street to get away from Herisse’s oncoming Hyundai.

“They were shooting at him the whole time,” Benoit said.

Also on Thursday, police released an arrest affidavit for Carlos King, 45, who allegedly drove his 2007 Mercedes Benz in a drunken stupor into a police perimeter on Washington Avenue, leading an officer to shoot at him before crashing into an empty squad car.

No one was injured.

Police say King, a 17-year-veteran and fire captain with the North Charleston Fire Department, smelled like alcohol and admitted to drinking and crashing after swerving around a car he thought was travelling too slow.

King’s lawyer, Saam Zangeneh, said his client wasn’t guilty of charges of driving under the influence and refusing to take a breathalyzer. He said he expected further probing by himself and others would portray “a more accurate depiction of what transpired that night.”

King said he was shocked by police actions.

“The way these police act is crazy,” he said.

Source