[SumAznGuy]

Didn't want to post this in the George Floyd thread, but police brutality is a big issue. Let's see what happens with this case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqmzqjibncY

https://vancouversun.com/news/kelowna-woman-sues-rcmp-officer-alleging-police-brutality-during-wellness-check

[hal0g0dv2]

desk job for the next two years

[68style]

I hate video snippets... and I did read an account of what transpired in the unit and it wasn't a good look for the girl being arresdted on that side of things...

But the actions of this officer seem... out of line... you shouldn't have to drag someone to the lobby, just wait for someone else to come help you carry them or something. And the boot to the head/hair pulling at that point when someone is prone seems like she's just pissed at the chick for pulling a box cutter on her earlier. Need to let that shit go and act more professional.

[underscore]

Report finds not one police department in the 20 largest American cities are compliant with international rights laws

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/22/us-police-human-rights-standards-report

Police in America’s biggest cities are failing to meet even the most basic international human rights standards governing the use of lethal force, a new study from the University of Chicago has found.

Researchers in the university’s law school put the lethal use-of-force policies of police in the 20 largest US cities under the microscope. They found not a single police department was operating under guidelines that are compliant with the minimum standards laid out under international human rights laws.

Among the failings identified by the law scholars, some police forces violate the requirement that lethal force should only be wielded when facing an immediate threat and as a last resort. Some departments allow deadly responses in cases of “escaping suspects”, “fugitives”, or “prevention of crime” – all scenarios that would be deemed to fall well outside the boundaries set by international law.
Top UN human rights expert urges US to listen to demands of protesters
Read more

In other cities, police guidelines failed to constrain officers to use only as much force as is proportionate to the threat confronting them.

Remarkably, the researchers from the law school’s international human rights clinic discovered that none of the 20 police departments were operating under state laws that were in accord with human rights standards.

America’s biggest police forces lack legality, the study finds, because they are not answerable to human rights compliant laws authorizing the use of lethal force.

“The fact that police forces in the biggest US cities don’t meet very basic human rights standards is deeply concerning,” said Claudia Flores, the clinic’s director.

The Chicago study underlines how far policing in America is adrift from international norms, making the US a lonely outlier on the world stage. Across Europe, policing policies are much more closely aligned with human rights directives.

In Spain, for instance, officers have to use verbal cautions and fire warning shots before they are permitted to aim at anybody. Chokeholds have been banned in Europe for many years.

The Chicago researchers conclude too much deadly discretion is given to police officers in the US. The use of force, they say, is a form of “state-sanctioned violence” that society only grants police officers as part of their responsibility “to protect public safety and enforce the law when necessary”.

The lax framework of US policing has contributed, the authors say, to the spate of police killings of unarmed black people. Victims include George Floyd whose death in police custody in Minneapolis in May sparked weeks of protests around the country.

In an interview with the Guardian this week, Agnès Callamard, the UN monitor on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said she was “horrified because we are watching people dying in public at the hands of those who are supposed to protect us.” Callamard’s comments came as the UN human rights council in Geneva held an urgent debate on racism and police conduct in the US.

The need for restrictions on police power has been recognized in international law for 40 years. Two basic human rights are involved: the right to life and personal security, and the right of freedom from discrimination. Those rights have also been enshrined in core United Nations standards. All 193 member nations of the UN, including the US, have signed up to a code of conduct for law enforcement officials adopted in 1979.

Recent deaths in police custody have underlined the fatal results of officers applying lethal force in situations that do not conform to “last resort”. Floyd died after he was pinned down under an officer’s knee for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, though he had not appeared to resist arrest.

Rayshard Brooks died when he was shot twice in the back as he was running away from an Atlanta police officer earlier this month, though prosecutors said he posed no threat. The officer, Garrett Rolfe, was charged this week with felony murder.

When things go wrong, the Chicago study also found that police use-of-force policies fall woefully short on accountability. All 20 city forces were found to have internal systems for reporting the deployment of lethal force, but only two – Los Angeles and Chicago – require independent external investigations to be carried out in tune with international standards.

Houston, San Antonio, San Diego, Austin, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Seattle and El Paso had no external reporting requirements.

The Chicago report covers many of the largest and best known police forces in the country. They include the NYPD, which came under the spotlight with the 2014 chokehold death of Eric Garner; the Chicago PD, whose officer killed Laquan McDonald that same year; and Fort Worth PD, whose officer shot and killed Atatiana Jefferson last October as she was babysitting her nephew in her own home.

Of the 20 cities, the police forces of Chicago and Los Angeles are at the top end of the table in terms of the degree to which they comply with human rights laws. At the bottom is Indianapolis, in the state of Indiana whose governor between 2013 and 2017 was Mike Pence, Donald Trump’s vice president.

The Indianapolis PD ranks so badly because it breaches international standards on numerous counts. It allows the use of lethal force to prevent a felony being carried out – without specifying what kind of felony.

Its rules carry no mention of the need for force to be proportional to the danger. It also makes no requirement on police officers to apply an escalating set of measures before they reach the point of lethal force – Indianapolis only talks about issuing a “verbal warning, if feasible”.

[68style]

The lack of training and requirements that need to be met to become a police officer in most parts of the USA are pretty shocking. There's no doubt about that.

Even less in rural areas full of deputies... anyone ever read about the rampant vehicle stop/seizure issues in the USA and how deputies in small towns do it to fund their police offices/salaries? It's an interesting read, no warrants and no crimes... just take your money and leave you fighting the legal system for years to get it back:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

[bcedhk]

ouch that rug burn must have caused some nasty bruising.

I'm going to be this case will drag on for 5+ years. She will request sick leave, get pregnant and drag it on for a couple more years.

[SkinnyPupp]

This happened in HK a few weeks before George Floyd

https://twitter.com/RaptorBuzz/status/1275041966258917378

The police system all over the world is broken.

However as much as people shit on the US, I think they have the ability to fix it. Other countries, not so much...

[twitchyzero]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/007/582/tumblr_lmputme3co1qa6q7k_large.jpg

[280ZX]

Dana White's newest addition!

[Traum]

It boggles my mind to this day that body cameras are still not mandatory for on-duty police officers. A lot of the he-says-she-says bullshxt would easily get dispelled by the body camera + audio, although once it gets into a scuffle, the effectiveness of the video foot diminishes.

If the front line cops are resisting its use, then it means they are afraid they'll get caught on camera for some sort of wrong doing.

[68style]

There’s quite a few cons to body cams if you care to google about the pluses and minuses.... it’s not so cut and dried as you might think

[SumAznGuy]

I hate video snippets... and I did read an account of what transpired in the unit and it wasn't a good look for the girl being arresdted on that side of things...

But the actions of this officer seem... out of line... you shouldn't have to drag someone to the lobby, just wait for someone else to come help you carry them or something. And the boot to the head/hair pulling at that point when someone is prone seems like she's just pissed at the chick for pulling a box cutter on her earlier. Need to let that shit go and act more professional.

Agreed. The video snip only shows what happened then and there and not of what happened leading up to it.
But in this case, it appears that a lot of things were done incorrectly. For one, why is she alone when doing a well being check. And it has nothing to do with her being a female. Should always have 2 officers.
Person is in cuffs and looks to be out cold. Why is the officer dragging the person down the hall way. where is the paramedics or back up officers?

I love the part where the officer claims the person is on meth and nothing is found after doing tests.

[6793026]

But the actions of this officer seem... out of line... you shouldn't have to drag someone to the lobby, just wait for someone else to come help you carry them or something. And the boot to the head/hair pulling at that point when someone is prone seems like she's just pissed at the chick for pulling a box cutter on her earlier. Need to let that shit go and act more professional.

No doubt, the kicking of head to stay down.. i can understand it was poor judgment. Girl is mentally "unstable" hence the health check, bf called as he found pills + lying in bathroom.

How about a diff perspective: Cop comes, calls ambulance & cuffs her (which is legit and fair, in case she wakes from and becomes aggressive).

To save time, and for safety of the girl's health (could be OD, could be drunk), cop makes a "bad" judgment call and drags her downstairs lobby outside; instead of the ambulance having to gain access to apartment's front door by property manager and elevator without a key fob, cop DRAGS the girl down the front door so critical time can be saved for the girl's life.

So yes, cop could have easily walked away, do nothing and let the girl wait for an ambulance to comes 45 mins later and die. BF could have left the building after he says fuck off to a druggy gf...

Many sides of the story.

It boggles my mind to this day that body cameras are still not mandatory for on-duty police officers. A lot of the he-says-she-says bullshxt would easily get dispelled by the body camera + audio, although once it gets into a scuffle, the effectiveness of the video foot diminishes.

As stated in other thread, the cost to maintain is huge. As of 2018, 5800 RCMP in BC. Maybe 1/5 are on the field? Each carries a camera? How do they charge batteries? Do they swap? How do they retain the footage, the the storage of 1,2,3,4 5+ yrs... the storage capacity is huge.

It all comes down to their budget so with infrastructure + encryption + cost.. I can't see this being a cheap program to maintain. We're talking about petabytes of data ...

[whitev70r]

Really simple actually, have police trained in wellness check procedures. Or, someone mentioned this in another thread, what you need here is a empathetic, kind, gentle social worker or trained counsellor. Hell, hire a few of these on the police force and on calls like these, bring one of these SW or counsellors along (in plain clothes, not uniform) with an officer to deescalate the situation.

[Manic!]

So yes, cop could have easily walked away, do nothing and let the girl wait for an ambulance to comes 45 mins later and die. BF could have left the building after he says fuck off to a druggy gf...

Many sides of the story.



As stated in other thread, the cost to maintain is huge. As of 2018, 5800 RCMP in BC. Maybe 1/5 are on the field? Each carries a camera? How do they charge batteries? Do they swap? How do they retain the footage, the the storage of 1,2,3,4 5+ yrs... the storage capacity is huge.



Why would it take 45 minutes for an ambulance to come?

All the problems with cameras have pretty much been salved. The company that makes the taser has a complete system. https://www.axon.com/products/osp

[underscore]

Even if the ambulance had to come from the hospital it's not 45 minutes to UBCO, with lights and sirens it'd be 15 minutes.

Really simple actually, have police trained in wellness check procedures. Or, someone mentioned this in another thread, what you need here is a empathetic, kind, gentle social worker or trained counsellor. Hell, hire a few of these on the police force and on calls like these, bring one of these SW or counsellors along (in plain clothes, not uniform) with an officer to deescalate the situation.

I believe that's what people are suggesting with the "defund the police" idea. Have social workers specialized in a few different things that go to calls like these. A police officer should probably be nearby but not directly involved unless called on by the social worker who is completely in charge of the situation.

[Xu.Vi]

Really simple actually, have police trained in wellness check procedures. Or, someone mentioned this in another thread, what you need here is an empathetic, kind, gentle social worker or trained counselor. Hell, hire a few of these on the police force and on calls like these, bring one of these SW or counselors along (in plain clothes, not uniform) with an officer to deescalate the situation.

POCO RCMP has two clinical counselors that are apparently in their offices for the most part of the day, despite the number of calls related to mental health that general duty officers attend to. My neighbour wished they had gotten educated in understanding and supporting these folks in a more meaningful way during their 6-month training because it would make their day-to-day much more pleasant. There needs to be something to bridge this gap for policing (or re-distribute to fund other solutions as mentioned above). SW's within the communities I work in are swamped with enough cases, resulting in some being neglected or ignored overall. This affects officers directly because they are stuck with trying to deescalate situations they're uncomfortable/uneducated in doing, but have no choice as the SW can't attend.

Pretty shitty for both ends...but when organizations or certain sectors within the province aren't allocated enough funds to support vulnerable folks within communities, you'll potentially get an officer with a great amount of resentment, misunderstanding, frustration, and incompetence from the years of not knowing how to handle someone with mental health struggles. This officer in the video seems to be an example of that. We don't hear about 24/7 counseling or bigger SW teams on the clock. Our society believes that mental health problems only occur during working hours. Lol.

Regarding bodycams, finding a solution to store an enormous amount of data for a minimum of 2 years is a current barrier they're facing...many officers are open and welcome the idea.

[SkinnyPupp]

Really simple actually, have police trained in wellness check procedures. Or, someone mentioned this in another thread, what you need here is a empathetic, kind, gentle social worker or trained counsellor. Hell, hire a few of these on the police force and on calls like these, bring one of these SW or counsellors along (in plain clothes, not uniform) with an officer to deescalate the situation.
This is literally what "defund the police" means

It's poorly worded though, because people seem to believe it means "eliminate the police"

[mikemhg]

That's pretty egregious, what in the hell made her think to drag someone by cuffs through the hallway like that? Not the worst video I've seen, but it's pretty damn bad.

I won't go fully into my career background, but I did work in the RCMP and Corrections prior to running my ass back into IT within the private sector.

One thing I did notice with some female officers, as an excuse for her, was that female officers tended to have this feeling of "proving themselves". Policing is a very male driven sector, so for women that get into the career, they almost have to be twice as "hard", twice as "tough" to be accepted, which is totally unfair IMHO. Not to give this officer an excuse, but I wonder if she felt she had to handle the situation to prove herself?

Who knows, I'm just spitballing here.

In terms of cameras I'm fully for it. Some allege though that it can be used against us as in the general public. The cameras can be used to infringe on our rights, and in some situations, used completely against us, as the camera does not show the entire perspective, which could lead in the cop's favor.

That's why they see police dashcams are a better way of surveying an entire interaction.

[T4RAWR]

All forces across the country should have body cams and dash cams.

It has to be tit for tat though, the public has to lower their expectation of privacy when interacting with the police.

[underscore]

In terms of cameras I'm fully for it. Some allege though that it can be used against us as in the general public. The cameras can be used to infringe on our rights, and in some situations, used completely against us, as the camera does not show the entire perspective, which could lead in the cop's favor.

That's why they see police dashcams are a better way of surveying an entire interaction.

Which rights exactly? I only ask because a lot of the time people worrying about "their rights" don't even know what they are.

Without a camera it's already a he-said-she-said with the cop so it would be difficult for a camera to make that much worse for someone.

[SkinnyPupp]

Which rights exactly? I only ask because a lot of the time people worrying about "their rights" don't even know what they are.

Without a camera it's already a he-said-she-said with the cop so it would be difficult for a camera to make that much worse for someone.
I think it's mostly about privacy - ie being somewhere privately that you don't necessarily want getting out. Something like a cop's footage catching you walking into a dispensary, or a gay bar, or something like that. For many people this is irrelevant, while for others it could put them at risk professionally or even physically.

[underscore]

Fair point, but won't whatever charges already mention the location you're being arrested at?

[SkinnyPupp]

Fair point, but won't whatever charges already mention the location you're being arrested at?
What if you're not the one being arrested, just someone who was at the scene of a crime?

[tiger_handheld]

This is literally what "defund the police" means



was about to say the exact same thing! literally.

[GLOW]

It boggles my mind to this day that body cameras are still not mandatory for on-duty police officers. A lot of the he-says-she-says bullshxt would easily get dispelled by the body camera + audio, although once it gets into a scuffle, the effectiveness of the video foot diminishes.

If the front line cops are resisting its use, then it means they are afraid they'll get caught on camera for some sort of wrong doing.

ya i was reading a few articles and the officer and the student have conflicting accounts regarding the box cutter

[underscore]

What if you're not the one being arrested, just someone who was at the scene of a crime?

How often is that going to be an issue? You're talking about during the few times body cam footage is seen outside of court, someone who sees that footage may see someone else in the background that does not want to be known as having been there. Compared to all the times people have taken issue with the actions taken by police.

If people are really worried just make a requirement that all background parties must be blurred out before footage is released to the public.

[mikemhg]

Which rights exactly? I only ask because a lot of the time people worrying about "their rights" don't even know what they are.

Without a camera it's already a he-said-she-said with the cop so it would be difficult for a camera to make that much worse for someone.

Trust me, I don't buy into that narrative, but Skinny mentioned one point.

Another point is facial recognition, there is some concern that such cams would have the ability to amass a facial database of sorts (which I also think is silly, we have cameras everywhere at this point with such tools).

One point was made that the cameras could be used to protect an offending officer by parsing the recorded clips in a manner in which makes the officer's appear legitimate.

For example, often times officers will turn their cameras off during certain parts, so for example, if the officer turned their camera off during the initial arrest, removing the context of the situation. If the camera is turned on only during an ensuing struggle, it would appear the officer's actions are valid, however leaving out the vital points preceding the interaction.

Thus the recording could be used to protect the officer, meanwhile he might've been kicking the guy in the head, or planting fake evidence, you name it prior to the camera being activated.

Ultimately I think those instances pale in comparison to the positives of forcing the officers to carry cams. I'm just fielding some counter arguments I've heard against the cams.

[underscore]

Trust me, I don't buy into that narrative, but Skinny mentioned one point.

Another point is facial recognition, there is some concern that such cams would have the ability to amass a facial database of sorts (which I also think is silly, we have cameras everywhere at this point with such tools).

One point was made that the cameras could be used to protect an offending officer by parsing the recorded clips in a manner in which makes the officer's appear legitimate.

For example, often times officers will turn their cameras off during certain parts, so for example, if the officer turned their camera off during the initial arrest, removing the context of the situation. If the camera is turned on only during an ensuing struggle, it would appear the officer's actions are valid, however leaving out the vital points preceding the interaction.

Thus the recording could be used to protect the officer, meanwhile he might've been kicking the guy in the head, or planting fake evidence, you name it prior to the camera being activated.

Ultimately I think those instances pale in comparison to the positives of forcing the officers to carry cams. I'm just fielding some counter arguments I've heard against the cams.

The easy fix for that is don't allow them to be turned off. Legally require any presentation of the video, be it in court or in the media, to have the complete, uncut footage of the interaction. If they were in the cruiser probably start with the in car footage right from when they got the call.

Though maybe for the first bit, let the officers think they can turn them off (have the light go out but it's still recording). It'd make it really easy to find and fire a lot of the shitty cops right off the bat if they think they can avoid being recorded when they break the law.

[SkinnyPupp]

How often is that going to be an issue? You're talking about during the few times body cam footage is seen outside of court, someone who sees that footage may see someone else in the background that does not want to be known as having been there. Compared to all the times people have taken issue with the actions taken by police.

If people are really worried just make a requirement that all background parties must be blurred out before footage is released to the public.
I'm not sure, I'm just saying that is one issue that I thought of. I'm sure there are solutions to it, such as something like google's face blur technology, etc.

I am 100% in favor of cameras on cops, I was just bringing up some issues people have with it. Remember it's important to not only think of yourself (almost certainly, you or I would probably never have an issue with being spotted on a cop's camera) but as many people as possible that it would affect negatively.

[SolidPenguin]

Almost 100% of frontline officers I've spoken with are all for body cams on calls.
Of course within reason, ie: on during the call itself when on scene, not 100% on all the time and invades everyone's privacy. No one needs or wants their private conversations on down time or them going to the bathroom recorded etc etc.

Body cams in, at least the big centers in Canada, are due to cost. The cost of buying 1000 body cams themselves is not the big issue, although that in itself would cost a pretty penny. Its the IT side, storage, cloud services, etc etc. The amount of data and space/servers needed to store these would be immense for a department like Vancouver, or Surrey.

It comes down to a dollars issue. Officers I know have no issue wearing body cams, a lot of them actually want to.

[SkinnyPupp]

Almost 100% of frontline officers I've spoken with are all for body cams on calls.
Of course within reason, ie: on during the call itself when on scene, not 100% on all the time and invades everyone's privacy. No one needs or wants their private conversations on down time or them going to the bathroom recorded etc etc.

Body cams in, at least the big centers in Canada, are due to cost. The cost of buying 1000 body cams themselves is not the big issue, although that in itself would cost a pretty penny. Its the IT side, storage, cloud services, etc etc. The amount of data and space/servers needed to store these would be immense for a department like Vancouver, or Surrey.

It comes down to a dollars issue. Officers I know have no issue wearing body cams, a lot of them actually want to.
FUND THE POLICE! Kappa

[Nlkko]

Statistically, body cams and more training have no effect on reducing police brutality. Read this thread which includes a study: https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1180655701271732224?s=20

What works is to "defund" (people love riling up over this term) them. What it essentially means is transferring many of police's responsibilities to other social service workers who are more qualified and equipped to do them like mental health services. Many countries do this. And "demilitarize" them, i.e. removing the ability to use lethal force and weapons of war for the majority of them. Many countries also do this. This is not new.

Additionally, there needs to be more accountability. "Desk job" aint cutting it. Imagining you and me walking into a client's office, drag them through the hallway, put a boot in their head and justify it with "oh she was hysterical". Not only that they would get fired from their job, it's likely nobody would ever hire them again in that town. Then why do we afford officers so much immunity? That has gotta change. I can't help but keep thinking about the smug face of Derek Chauvin as he has his hands in his pockets and threaten to mace the bystanders pleading to him while slowly killing George Floyd. That's the kind of immunity that needs to put in check.

[Mikoyan]

Though maybe for the first bit, let the officers think they can turn them off (have the light go out but it's still recording). It'd make it really easy to find and fire a lot of the shitty cops right off the bat if they think they can avoid being recorded when they break the law.

They already do that. Officer below didn't know about the 2 minute buffer.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-13/lapd-officers-own-body-cam-captured-him-allegedly-touching-dead-womans-breast
Rojas and his partner responded to a call about a possible dead woman in a residential unit, sources said. Once the two officers determined the woman was dead, Rojas’ partner returned to the patrol car to retrieve something. During that time, LAPD officials say Rojas turned off his body-worn camera and fondled the woman’s breasts.

Although the officer deactivated his camera, a two-minute buffer on the device recorded the incident, officials say. In addition to allegations of assault, the department also is investigating Rojas’ work history.

[underscore]

It boggles my mind (but isn't really a surprise) that the when Americans look at ways to change up their policing they never seem to look beyond their own borders. I agree the first thing they should be doing is defunding but I find it difficult to believe more training has no benefit when in European nations it takes several years to become an officer.

Statistically, body cams and more training have no effect on reducing police brutality. Read this thread which includes a study: https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1180655701271732224?s=20

That tweet links to the other tweet which links to the study on BWC (no actual source on the training claim btw): https://www.pnas.org/content/116/21/10329.short?rss=1

Police departments are adopting body-worn cameras in hopes of improving civilian–police interactions. In a large-scale field experiment (2,224 officers of the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, DC), we randomly assigned officers to receive cameras or not. We tracked subsequent police behavior for a minimum of 7 mo using administrative data. Our results indicate that cameras did not meaningfully affect police behavior on a range of outcomes, including complaints and use of force. We conclude that the effects of cameras are likely smaller than many have hoped.

While that is a large department, it's still one one city in one country over a very short timespan. I wouldn't write them off just because of that.

They also list this as part of their "measurement strategy"

i) Police use of force was based on officers’ self-reported use of force (in accordance with MPD policy). It included a count of all use of force incidents as well as measures of serious uses of force (as defined by MPD policy), nonserious uses of force, and use of force incidents by the race of the subject of force.

ii) Civilians can file complaints in two ways: with MPD itself or with the independent Office of Police Complaints. Our measure was the total number of complaints associated with an officer from both sources. We also disaggregated the complaints by disposition: sustained, not sustained, or unresolved due to insufficient facts.

Based on what we've been seeing out of the US lately, I'm pretty doubtful as to how much useful data you're likely to get out of those when cops seem to have no issue beating the shit out of people and numerous civilians have documented how hard it can be to actually file a complaint.

[6793026]

Privacy or not on body cams... it's an issue.
We couldn't even get people to wear wrist bands AND / OR have an app to track where newly landed visitors into BC during COVID due to location pin pointing is considered invasive.

Body cams versus video at EVERY intersection having a camera..... same privacy issue. We're playing with fire.

Oh, so it's OK to have body cams and NO cameras at every intersection of just taking pics of your car....

[CivicBlues]

REFUND THE POLICE

I mean seriously, can I get my money back? it's not doing what I expected it to do, I think it might be defective or something. I might come back and buy something else later. Can I speak to the manager? Thanks!

[twitchyzero]

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-13/lapd-officers-own-body-cam-captured-him-allegedly-touching-dead-womans-breast


wrong place to check for pulse

[SumAznGuy]

They already do that. Officer below didn't know about the 2 minute buffer.

I saw another one where the officer purposely contorted his body in a certain way to obstruct the camera when he "found" drugs in the car.

Turns out the officer had a history of doing that and making drug "finds".

Supposedly he was fired and charged with many drug offenses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/11/florida-cop-meth-drugs-arrests-scandal/