Lt. Farmer Blue was involved in a scandal in 2010 as well, along with Lt. Betty Gause and officer Tyrone Reed.  A woman was involved in a car accident that officer Tyrone Reed responded to, and according to the woman, Reed showed up at her house later that day and raped her.  The woman’s boyfriend called the police and reported the rape, but instead of calling SLED or another outside agency to investigate, Lt. Farmer Blue and Lt. Betty Gause, from the same police department, arrived to investigate.  They read her Miranda rights to her, and, according to the woman, attempted to force her to recant the rape allegation, resulting in a written statement that concluded “Though I didn’t agree or consent to it (it) was not rape.”

When her boyfriend called the police to report the assault by a member of their force, the responding officers, Lt. Farmer Blue and Lt. Betty Gause, treated her like a criminal, reading her Miranda rights and threatening to have her arrested if she didn’t recant her charge. They told her she could land in jail for five years otherwise and wouldn’t it be hard to be away from her four-year-old daughter for that long. Refusing to say she had given consent, the victim was nonetheless pressured into writing that the incident was not rape, resulting in the nonsensical sentence quoted above. . . .

Blue and Gause were also quoted by the victim as saying she didn’t “look like a rape victim,” and “you don’t have a case because rape victims be balled up in a corner or scared to talk.” Always lovely to hear from people who have no idea what they’re talking about making assumption about how a rape victim “should” act. Lisa Hyatt of the Pee Dee Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Assault, on the other hand, says that they have worked with the victim since the attack and that she shows classic post-traumatic symptoms associate with a rape.

Farmer Blue, as the department’s spokesman, went on to tell the media that, although there was initially a rape allegation, the woman had recanted her statement.  Tyrone Reed was temporarily suspended during the investigation, but he was never charged and was reinstated earlier this year.

Gotta love the warning: “TO AVOID SUFFICATING PRISONERS, PLEASE TURN ON VENTALATION FAN PRIOR TO CLOSING CELL DOOR.”

Cottageville is the same town where former officer Randall Price shot and killed the town’s former mayor, Bert Reeves, apparently with impunity although he no longer works for the Cottageville police department.  Price was a gypsy cop, moving from police department to police department over a period of about 11 years – I don’t know if any other small town has decided to hire him again.

Price was fired from the Aiken County Sheriff’s Office in 2001 after he was charged with criminal domestic violence, a charge wiped from his record after he completed a pretrial program. Blackville’s mayor fired Price in 2004 for allegedly slamming a handcuffed suspect against a car and onto pavement, the paper reported.

Allendale police fired Price in December 2006, citing excessive force complaints that included an allegation of pointing his gun at an unarmed driver during a traffic stop that resulted in no arrests. . . .

. . . In February 2010, The Post and Courier of Charleston reported that Price insisted that he had been victimized by vendettas in the small towns where he cycled through eight jobs in 11 years.

“If you make somebody mad, you are going to have to deal with it,” he told the paper. “And I am the poster child for that.”

According to the initial reports, Price and Reeves had had a disagreement when Price arrested an employee of Reeves’ construction business, and Reeves had told a friend, who was an attorney, that “he feared a town cop wanted to hurt him.”  The two found themselves on a dirt road off of Cottageville’s main highway, and Reeves was shot in the chest with Price’s service revolver.  It doesn’t appear that there were any 911 calls.

I find no information in the news articles on why the two were on the dirt road, whether Reeves was in the act of some type of crime, or why the shot was fired.  I suspect that if Price was acting in his capacity as a police officer or if there was justification for the shooting, it would have been trumpeted to news agencies, but what do I know.  Maybe someone else can fill us in.

The most recent article I see reports that the 14th Circuit Solicitor punted and turned the case over to the Feds, sending it to U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles in June of 2011, and then nothing.  The P.O.P. Factor blog picked up the story and noted in January of this year that there was still no news.

So, what happened?  Was it ever presented to a grand jury?  Was there ever an explanation for the shooting?  Did the investigation continue?  Did the feds bury it?

South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense voucher payments suspended until approximately July 1, 2012

The South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense will no longer be able to make payments on vouchers received for Criminal Conflicts, Death Penalty, and Civil Appointment cases. Requests for payments this fiscal year are at or near record levels and SCCID has expended the amount of funds SCCID is authorized to expend as established by State law. Please continue to submit your vouchers and when the FY 2012-2013 budget year begins on July 1, 2012 the Agency will be able to commence payment on those vouchers submitted, barring any unforeseen issues with the current (FY 12-13) budget process.

Nationwide, legislatures continue to devalue and defund services for indigent defense, while law enforcement budgets continue to rise.  Payment of vouchers for federal CJA cases has also been suspended, until Congress approves additional funding.

The State Senate did finally pass the bill adding 9 judges, 6 in family court and 3 in circuit court.  Senator Harvey Peeler, who was obstructing the passage of the bill, removed his objections although he still voted against it, saying “It was obvious that the will of the Senate was to create the nine new judges,” Peeler said. “I didn’t want to be an obstructionist.”

Judge Williams had challenged Bartee’s eligibility for office in a lawsuit claiming Bartee had not been a certified law enforcement officer in South Carolina for one year as required by law.  According to the article, Bartee gave cash to an informant, who was wired, for duct tape and zip ties, to kidnap Judge Williams and take him to Asheville until after the hearing.

Bartee says that he was an agent with the Secret Service for 25 years before retiring in 2000.

According to a recent article at SCNow, Robinson has had a colorful past but has gotten past all of that now:

Robinson has had brushes with the law and been arrested multiple times. He also fathered seven children by an assortment of women. He now describes himself, somewhat ironically perhaps, as a family man who went from being a “loose cannon” to someone who enjoys the quiet life . . .

The article makes no mention of Robinson’s arrest in Myrtle Beach, although the arrest was just a few weeks before the article was published.

Robinson was charged under Myrtle Beach Municipal Code Section 14-63(b), which reads:

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or willfully resist an arrest which is being made by a law enforcement officer, or to hinder or obstruct any law enforcement officer in the act of arresting any person.

Myrtle Beach police use this code section liberally, to arrest people when they refuse to give information or when they give incorrect information.  In fairness to Robinson and everyone else they charge under similar circumstances, there is no requirement in any jurisdiction in South Carolina to identify yourself to law enforcement.

There is no S.C. law that requires a citizen to provide identification to law enforcement, and the language of the code section they cite does not require a citizen to identify themselves to law enforcement.  If it did, it would not be constitutional under state law because it would criminalize conduct that is not criminal under the S.C. Code.

This doesn’t excuse Robinson’s alleged conduct.  It may be they charged him with the wrong thing and disorderly conduct or public intoxication would have been the appropriate charge.  But, from what I see on the face of the incident report, he’s not guilty of resisting arrest.

The intriguing list includes obvious choices such as ‘attack’, ‘Al Qaeda’, ‘terrorism’ and ‘dirty bomb’ alongside dozens of seemingly innocent words like ‘pork’, ‘cloud’, ‘team’ and ‘Mexico’.

Released under a freedom of information request, the information sheds new light on how government analysts are instructed to patrol the internet searching for domestic and external threats.

The Department was then forced to release the 2011 Analyst’s Desktop Binder following a House hearing on the documents that were obtained in the lawsuit; which includes instruction to identify “media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities.”  The dailymail article linked to implies that DHS is expressly instructing employees to monitor dissent and criticism of the government – but I think the Binder makes it clear that one of the goals is to create a spin machine.  They want to know when bad things happen, and they want to know when people are talking trash about them so they can get ahead of them in the media.  That doesn’t mean they aren’t targeting dissent and criticism of the government, they just aren’t being as open about it as the dailymail article implies.

Department chiefs were forced to release the manual following a House hearing over documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit which revealed how analysts monitor social networks and media organisations for comments that ‘reflect adversely’ on the government.

However they insisted the practice was aimed not at policing the internet for disparaging remarks about the government and signs of general dissent, but to provide awareness of any potential threats.

What not to say on the internet:

A unnamed female USC student was in Vick’s car, but she was not charged in the incident. The two had met at Delaney’s Pub in Five Points where they had a few drinks, the police report said. The two then continued drinking at Jake’s Bar and Grill. Vick had offered to give the girl a ride home, the report said.

Vick, who is married with two daughters, also is a lieutenant colonel in the S.C. Army National Guard and a minister, according to his campaign website.

Apparently they didn’t find the gun in Vick’s front pocket until they got to the detention center.  This publicity is probably the worst thing that could happen to him right now, with elections around the corner – even if he is found not guilty, even if he is actually not guilty, the timing could not be worse.

Over the past few years, some of the most prominent members of the state’s judiciary, including seven chief Superior Court judges, have stepped down while facing allegations of misconduct, bringing disorder to the courts. Because of the number of high-profile resignations, more people are filing complaints with the Judicial Qualifications Commission, according to agency records.

Allegations against the judges have included allowing “the prestige of his office to advance his private interests,” pulling out a handgun in court to make a point to a sexual assault victim, meeting with another judge to “promote the interests of a drug trafficker,” making a deal for a convicted sex offender without input from the prosecutor or victim, and failing to follow criminal procedures.

The vehicle [he] was driving was spotted by an officer around 12:17 a.m. Sunday morning on Highway 17 near Surfside Drive. According the report provided by Surfside Beach Police, [he] was driving inside the left traffic lane, swerving, and entered the right lane several times forcing multiple bikers to move further out of the roadway to avoid him.

The report says [he] crossed back into the left lane and then ran off the left side of the highway. An officer initiated a traffic stop, and detected a heavy smell of alcohol on [his] breath, noticing that his eyes were glassed over and his speech was slurred.

He had an Atlantic Beach Police Deputy Chief badge in his possession, told the officer the DUI arrest was “blue on blue,” and refused to take field sobriety tests or the breathalyzer, insisting that they violated his civil rights.

This is only the latest in a long tradition of arrests and controversies surrounding Atlantic Beach, including Mayor Retha Pierce’s recent brushes with the law and the town’s hiring of a police officer last year who has a history of disciplinary actions and allegations of illegal conduct.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda held that, before questioning a suspect who is in custody, the suspect must be advised that: 1) he has the right to remain silent; 2) anything he says can be used against him in a court of law; 3)  he has the right to the presence of an attorney; and 4) if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

The Miranda Court also held that “[o]nce warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear.  If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.”  This, arguably, is the “fifth prong” of the Miranda warnings – it is undisputed that a suspect has the right to stop answering questions at any time; the question is whether an officer is required to advise a suspect of that right.

The S.C. Court of Appeals has approved the five pronged Miranda warning before, in State v. Kennedy, 325 S.C. 295, 303, (Ct. App. 1996):

A suspect in custody may not be subjected to interrogation unless he is informed that: he has the right to remain silent; anything he says can be used against him in a court of law; he has a right to the presence of an attorney; if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning, if he so desires; and he has the right to terminate the interrogation at any time and not to answer any further questions.

But, in State v. Hoyle, the court points out that, technically, this language in Kennedy was dicta and was not controlling, and that the S.C. Supreme Court has previously held in State v. Cannon, 260 S.C. 537, 542-43 (1973), that Miranda does not require an officer to inform a suspect of his right to stop answering questions.