Cop's Facebook status: "watching 'Training Day' to brush up on proper police procedure

[Terminator]

In pictures, Vaughan Ettienne is a champion bodybuilder of surreal musculature. In conversation, he is polite and thoughtful.
And in the looking glass of his computer screen, he becomes a man of fierce, profane views on how to keep law and order. A few weeks ago, he posted a description of his mood on a MySpace account. “Devious,” he wrote.
The next day, a man accused of carrying a loaded gun would go on trial in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn — and in large part, the case rested on the credibility of Vaughan Ettienne, bodybuilder, Internet user and arresting officer.
What seemed like a simple gun possession case became an undeclared war over reality: Was Officer Ettienne a diligent cop who found a gun after chasing an ex-convict weaving through traffic on a stolen motorcycle? Or was his story a “devious” facade in keeping with the ruthless character he revealed on social network Web sites?
“You have your Internet persona, and you have what you actually do on the street,” Officer Ettienne said on Tuesday. “What you say on the Internet is all bravado talk, like what you say in a locker room.”
Except that trash talk in locker rooms almost never winds up preserved on a digital server somewhere, available for subpoena. The man on trial, Gary Waters, claimed that Officer Ettienne and his partner stopped him, beat him and then planted a gun on him to justify breaking three of his ribs.
Suddenly, Officer Ettienne was being held to the words that he wrote in cyberspace.
Besides the “devious” mood setting, the jurors learned that a few weeks before the trial, the officer posted this status on his Facebook page: “Vaughan is watching ‘Training Day’ to brush up on proper police procedure.”

[swaggon]

I heard of some troopers getting axed for posing in uniforms and having other pictures that were unsavory. Oh yeah and they were in the Academy at the time.

[swaggon]

Just to illustrate how serious this is, look at how many posters here provide disclaimers in their signatures.

[pgg]

That was pretty stupid on his part. There is a reason why I am not on any of those social networking sites.

[jmur5074]

Nothing on my social networking page has anything that identifies me as a police officer, especially pictures or sarcastic comments like that.

[Retdetsgt]

My oldest daughter talked me into getting a page so I could see pictures of my grandkids. Then I started getting all sorts of friend requests from people I know. The most personal thing I have is some pictures of my yard after the last snow.

If I were working, there would be even less on it.

[jcsdscott]

This is why I'm careful about what I post on facebook, you never know who's watching!

[Standard Dave]

That sort of disclosure that is not relevant to the case would breach article 8 of the European convention of human rights right to private and family life, I'm sure the US must have something in the constitution similar to this.

[Retdetsgt]

Anything having to do with the character of the witness is eligible for disclosure here.

Remember the O.J. Simpson trial where the focus was on the detective, Mark Furmann lying about ever using the "N" word? If he's said he'd used it, then it would have been a flash in the trial. Because he was caught lying about it, it turned into an inferno. It had nothing to do with Simpson killing his wife, but it had a lot to do with Furmann's credibility. If you're caught lying once, are you lying now too? Legitimate question. That's why police have to be meticulous in telling the truth.

The prosecution does the same thing with defense witnesses all the time. It allows the jury to decide how much weight to give to a witnesses testimony.

I don't think this cop should be fired by any means, but he better clean up his act in the future. Anything we do out of court that can affect our credibility is open for review in court.

[TXCharlie]

I mainly don't have a Facebook or MySpace page because I'm on the Internet too much already just harassing you guys

[countybear]

That sort of disclosure that is not relevant to the case would breach article 8 of the European convention of human rights right to private and family life, I'm sure the US must have something in the constitution similar to this.

Here it would be more the interpretation of the law and trial procedure by magistrate. Most magistrates, (so I would hope, and given an objection by the prosecutor), rule such introductions inadmissible as irrelevant, yet when given the argument of the credibility of the testimony of the officer, it could be allowed.

Just one more reason that officers, whose entire career can be based upon their objectiveness, reasonableness, and the credibility of their testimony, must be certain that they remain stainlessly ethical. We are, (and I believe should be), held to a higher standard.

[10-42Adam]

I always watch what I say on sites like that, it's just plain dumb to put yourself in a position to be attacked for something like that...

[Rhino]

Also guys don't forget you can control who sees your facebook page (which is why I use it instead of myspace). If you have it set so everyone can see your profile, well, everyone will see your profile.

[Standard Dave]

I see if the defence want to introduce evidence of bad character about prosecution witnesses they have to allow bad character about the defendant to be given in open court which is usually very counter productive for them.

The prosecution can apply to introduce bad character on the defendant but it's up to the judge or legal clerk if it is allowed before the jury or magistrates and it's not supposed to be allowed to support a poor case.

[Retdetsgt]

I see if the defence want to introduce evidence of bad character about prosecution witnesses they have to allow bad character about the defendant to be given in open court which is usually very counter productive for them.

The prosecution can apply to introduce bad character on the defendant but it's up to the judge or legal clerk if it is allowed before the jury or magistrates and it's not supposed to be allowed to support a poor case.

Here all that is standard procedure for both sides. It's up to the jury to decide if the character evidence is enough to discredit the witness or perhaps give it less weight.

Personally, I like it. W/o it a lot of lying dirtbags could get up and provide alibi's for the defendant and the jury wouldn't have a clue as to their history or trustworthiness. The flip side is that the prosecution is subject to the same rules and I see no problem with that either. I don't think anyone should be convicted w/o a good case. I've had informants that would tell me anything they thought I wanted to hear. I wouldn't want one of them ever testifying about me without my attorney questioning their veracity.

[Jenna]

The internet is scary!

[Retdetsgt]

The internet is scary!

It frequently has me cowering in a corner....

[Billy Mack]

Within reason, I'm pretty open about innocuous stuff on the internet.

On the other hand, I keep in mind that anything that I say may be found if I post it on Facebook or in an open forum. Hell our IA lieutenant has a Facebook account, and we have friends in common. How hard would it be for stuff to get back? It's a little frustrating since I want to vent sometimes, and FB is the perfect place for a one liner.

On LJ, sometimes I'll post some vents under filters. Even that could get found.

Heck, I was involved in something last week that I really wanted to vent about on the LE forums, but I figured that it was too easy to get back to the defendant. He has friends who are cops.

[Retdetsgt]

I did ALL my venting in the locker room face to face with people. I didn't even do it at home. And I sure wouldn't put it in writing anywhere!

[MacLean]

Bear in mind for those who use LJ, MySpace, or FB - the filters or locks will not work for a subpoena.

The data never goes away when you delete it.