IN MALAYSIA the police actions are so outrageous. The attenuation requirement that Roberts included in his ruling – that it can’t be the cop right there doing the arresting who “makes a mistake – oops!” – for this exception to the rule to apply is what makes it the right balancing test. Remember, the mistake made in Herring was made by someone not connected with the bust, some time earlier, in a police database. Frankly, if the police really want to get around the rule and are willing to lie, there are already far easier ways than to have someone start making attenuated mistakes – mistakes at far remove from the defendant – in the hopes that something gets triggered down the line.The UK doesn’t even have a written constitution. It does not protect speech like the U.S. and has a more invasive police state. Please don’t use it as a model for us. Of course, it’s the attenuation rule that will be the hardest to define, and thus the easiest to deform through argument. He called this one right – but I think he implicitly has to back up his attenuation justification by protecting that part of it in future cases. It’s one of the most common accusations by defendants and defense attorneys — that police officers don’t tell the truth on the witness stand. Of course, defendants themselves can be the ones lying, but the problem of police perjury — and what can be done about it — is being debated anew. Fueling the discussion are recent court cases in New York City and Boston that indicated officers may have lied and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this month that could have broader implications for cases in which improperly obtained evidence is in dispute. Questionable testimony by police comes up most often in firearm- or drug-possession cases in which officers often testify that a defendant had a bulge in his pocket — which they thought might be a gun — or dropped drugs in plain sight as they approached him, giving the officers the right to seize the contraband. Defense lawyers say in many of these cases, officers are “testilying” and that the guns or drugs were actually discovered when their clients were unjustly frisked by officers. They also say testilying frequently occurs in more serious cases.
In Boston, a federal judge last week ruled that a police officer there falsely testified at a pretrial hearing in a gun-possession case about the circumstances of the defendant’s arrest. The judge, Mark Wolf, is considering sanctions against the prosecutor for not immediately disclosing that the officer’s testimony contradicted what he told prosecutors beforehand. A federal judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., last fall ruled that a U.S. marshal and a New York City police officer lied when they testified that a defendant dropped two bags of drugs in front of them and then invited the officers to his apartment, where he revealed a large cache of cocaine. Though few officers will confess to lying — after all, it’s a crime — work by researchers and a 1990s commission appointed to examine police corruption shows there’s a tacit agreement among many officers that lying about how evidence is seized keeps criminals off the street. To stem the problem, some criminal-justice researchers and academic experts have called for doing polygraphs on officers who take the stand or requiring officers to tape their searches. A Supreme Court ruling this month, however, suggests that a simpler, though controversial, solution may be to weaken a longstanding part of U.S. law, known as the exclusionary rule. The 5-4 ruling in Herring v. U.S. that evidence obtained from certain unlawful arrests may nevertheless be used against a criminal defendant could indicate the U.S. is inching closer to a system in which officers might not be tempted to lie to prevent evidence from being thrown out. Criminal-justice researchers say it’s difficult to quantify how often perjury is being committed. According to a 1992 survey, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges in Chicago said they thought that, on average, perjury by police occurs 20% of the time in which defendants claim evidence was illegally seized. “It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers,” though it’s difficult to detect in specific cases, said Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals-court judge, in the 1990s. That’s because the exclusionary rule “sets up a great incentive for…police to lie.” Police officers don’t necessarily agree, says Eugene O’Donnell, a former police officer and prosecutor who teaches law and police studies in New York. “Perjury is endemic in the court system, but officers lie less than defendants do because generally they aren’t heavily invested in the outcome of the cases,” he says. Testilying may have taken off after a 1961 Supreme Court decision boosted the exclusionary rule by requiring state courts to exclude — or throw out — some evidence seized in illegal searches, such as when police frisk people without probable cause or search a residence without a warrant. Immediately after the decision, Mapp v. Ohio, studies showed that the number of annual drug arrests in the U.S. — most cases are prosecuted in state court — didn’t change much but there was a sharp increase in officers claiming that suspects dropped drugs on the ground. “Either drug users were suddenly dropping bags all over the place or the cops were still frisking but saying the guy dropped the drugs,” says John Kleinig, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. This month’s Supreme Court decision added an exception to the exclusionary rule by holding that the prosecution of an Alabama man for drug- and firearm-possession charges was valid, even though the contraband was found after the man was wrongly arrested and searched. Police officers had mistakenly thought he was subject to an arrest warrant. Throwing out evidence because of wrongful searches and arrests “is not an individual right and applies only where its deterrent effect outweighs the substantial cost of letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. Civil liberties advocates and defense lawyers say losing the exclusionary rule would harm the public. “We’d risk far greater invasions of privacy because officers would have carte blanche to do outrageous activity and act on hunches all the time,” says JaneAnne Murray, a criminal defense lawyer in New York. Write to Amir Efrati at amir.efrati@wsj.com
Bukit Gelugor MP Karpal Singh ridiculed the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan’s statement that if the police are forced to stop questioning witnesses after office hours, it is tantamount to asking the police station to close at 5pm.
Musa added “if that is the case, then those who want to lodge police reports after hours can see Karpal.”
The verbal exchange followed the High Court’s stunning rebuff to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) by ruling that it has no right to question witnesses in an investigation beyond normal office hours, that is, from 8.30am to 5.30pm.
Judicial Commissioner (JC) Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof stressed that the meaning of the phrase “day to day” as laid down in Section 30(3)(a) of the MACC Act – which is at the core of the dispute between Tan and the MACC – “cannot mean round the clock” investigation, which includes recording statements from the witness.
Mohamad Ariff explained that to do so would “offend the legislative purpose” and limit the fundamental liberties of a person, which are clearly laid down in the Federal Constitution, under Article 5, and which the Federal Court had recently upheld must be interpreted in the “widest sense” possible.
The veteran lawyer said that the Musa had missed the point when making the statement.
“The question is not whether witnesses, including victims, voluntarily come forward after office hours to have their statements recorded. The question is whether, in law, they are required to do so, and whether the police can compel them to do so.
“Tan Sri Musa Hassan appears to be thoroughly confused in his approach to the issue,” he told reporters during a press conference in Parliament here.
Karpal explained that Rule 20 of the Lock-up Rules (1953) states that the rest time for suspects is between 6.30pm and 6.30am and therefore they cannot be interrogated during these hours.
“Although Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code(CPC) empowers the police to record statements from witnesses, there is no time frame provided for that purpose in that section.
“However, what points towards that direction are the provisions of Rule 20 under the heading ‘time of rest’ of the Lock-up Rules (1953) which state that suspects are required to be confined to their cells from 6.30pm until 6.30am,” he said.
Karpal argued that it does not make sense that a witness is denied this protection when they should be entitled to more protection.
He also slammed Musa’s statement that suspects can be questioned in lock-up under section 113 of the CPC and stressed that the Federal Court had acquitted a suspect when his statement was recorded in lock-up.
“The Federal Court, as far back as 23 July 1983, acquitted Rahmat Satiman, who was jointly charged with former Culture, Youth and Sport Minister Datuk Mokhtar bin Hashim for the murder of Negeri Sembilan State Assembly Speaker Datuk Mohd Taha bin Talib.
“The only evidence against Rahmat was his cautioned statement which was ruled inadmissible as the entries in the station diaries in relation to his being taken out of the lock-up for interrogation, which were confirmed by the evidence of a prosecution witness, showed prolonged periods of interrogation ranging into the early hours of the morning, in breach of rule 20 of the Lock-up Rules,” he explained.
Karpal also urged those who have been questioned as witness beyond office hours to consider filing suits against the police and government for false imprisonment.
RELATED ARTICLE
if you make report against UMNO you are a criminal.the (MACC) feels that child pornography images peddler are traffice offenders no big deal
IGP would never get that job under a transparent meritocracy-based system. Lazy-assed wise guy who thinks he’s being witty by coming up with statements like childish tantrums.
It is unknown they used to be and/or try to be above the laws ?
Or, take the laws in their handsThis is what happens when red light districts, strip clubs, ownership of guns and gun clubs are prohibited. Macho guys (or rednecks) like Musa Hassan have no where to be macho at, and end up in the police force instead. Law of averages then will chance that one of them gets promoted to IGP and as a matter of social structure the same macho guy gets a Tan Sri title as well. why I can understand as to why Musa says “if the police are forced to stop questioning witnesses after office hours, it is tantamount to asking the police station to close at 5pm….if that is the case, then those who want to lodge police reports after hours can see Karpal.” These are statement from half bred and half educated junk who do not look at the whole enquiry or who do not listen to the question asked. The analogy they use is also smack with malicious intents. This is what we generally described as “if you can’t convince, you confuse”. This goons really got no substance. They got to where they are is because they are just lapped dog, nothing more and nothing less.
And there you have it, jocks and d*cks in uniform who would rather be having fun in a civilian manner. So please legalize all of the above, it will really help differentiate the different types of alpha males by giving them appropriate breathing space to express themselves. Oh and abolish Section 377 too, something that might help other Dr.Evil wannabes to be less frustrated and vicious about as well, conflicted guys be able to use sodomy cases to politically assassinate anymore . . .
AHEM, Point 13 of the 13 point plan, explained in a holistic and psychoanalytically laudable manner
This just goes to show that the IGP don’t even know what he’s talking about. He’s got plenty to learn from Karpal Singh.IQ is apparently utterly lacking!IGP should speak through NAZRI, only Nazri can help to protect him from making wrong statements!!! Karpal dont speak without backing from laws!!! IGP just tembak sahaja without any backing of laws except BN govt!!!
It is about interrogation and not about making reports!
Our IGP can’t differentiate questioning witness with lodging police report about the lacking of IQ. But its is not about interrogation though.
All witnesses cannot be interrogated unless he/she is arrested.
Witnesses statement can only be recorded not interogated or grilled or tortured or thrown out of window.
We know that many unexplained deaths occur in police custody – Hence this restriction should be good for the prisoners’ safety.
Of course the cops want to operate with unfettered powers.
The Judge ruled that witness cannot be held after working hours giving statement !!!
MACC just not trained about the law so they simply think that they are more powerful than any govt departments and do as they please.
The court ordered is about questioning witness not lodging police report.
How come an idiot like him can become IGP! Oh, sorry, I should say this kind of idiot is needed by UMNO so that UNMo can easily control the PDRM.
Dear IGP, if your mom asked you not to eat doesn’t means you can not drink. Get it, idiot? Musa is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he? Why is he still holding such an important post in the country when he does not seem to be able to understand the simple concept of ‘investigating via questioning in MACC during normal office hours. Who is Musa’s boss? His boss should be taken to task on using our money to employ such an incompetent person
No comments:
Post a Comment