Check out the video of Chief Wiles on the front page of my website. Scroll down below my family video and click on the Chief Wiles wording in blue. You will be AMAZED. Chief Wiles has publicly stated at a city council meeting that, "I'll tell you want my men don't like. They don't like magistrates..." And he appears to be proud of that fact. For the lay readers, a magistrate is a judge who, amongst other things, reviews an officer's reason to arrest and sees if there is "probable cause" to arrest. A magistrate is supposed to be a NEUTRAL and DETACHED person who acts as a "check and balance" to law enforcement. For example, when an officer wants to search a home, he has to go to a magistrate to have the search warrant signed. If the magistrate does not believe that the officer has proper grounds to search the house, the magistrate declines to sign the warrant and therefore the house is not searched. The magistrate is there to protect us and the constitution.
Up until my opponent put into effect his crazy DIMS program, police officers would follow the law, make an arrest and then take the arrestee to a magistrate and the magistrate would then review the probable cause. If the magistrate said no probable cause, the person was set free. Now under Esparza's crazy DIMS program, the police officers skip the magistrate and go straight to their buddy the District Attorney and the District Attorney reviews the arrest and decides if the person goes to jail or not. Esparza and Wiles simply erased the magistrate. Keep in mind that the District Attorney is NOT a neutral and detached person. The DA is not a judge but is a party. The DA has a different role from a magistrate and being neutral and detached is not part of it. Under the crazy DIMS system this is how so many innocent people ended up arrested by the El Paso Police and in jail. The checks and the balances of the magistrate had been removed prior to booking. Esparza foisted this on us in conjunction with his willing partner, Chief Wiles.
In the video I have posted for your viewing pleasure and edification on the front page of my website, you can see that Chief Wiles has taught his men to dislike the constitutional checks and balances of the the American system. He proudly and emphatically states that his officers do not like magistrates because sometimes the magistrates don't find probable cause, unlike the prosecuting attorneys who find "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" when the magistrates find nothing. Do you think Chief Wiles might ponder that the very fact that the DA finds reason to arrest when the magistrate finds no reason to arrest illustrates the need to have magistrates reviewing arrests? That maybe this is the very reason why we have magistrates? If it were left up to the DA everyone would go to jail?
Chief Wiles' statement is so outrageous that when it has been played in court, judges drop their mouths open in shock. It is like the chief of police publicly stating that his men don't like juries because sometimes they find people not guilty! Lay people who have seen this tape cannot believe that Chief Wiles would make himself look so anti-constitutional and therefore absurd and depict his men as being so ill trained and brutish, but then again his audience was the El Paso City Council and the City's brilliant, honest and ethical city manager, Joyce Wilson. While Chief Wiles is telling us his men don't like checks and balances on their power and to therefore remove these checks and balances, Jaime Esparza made a quick getaway to the other side of the pillar behind Chief Wiles and that is where he slunk while Chief Wiles, unknowingly, stripped Jaime bare when he made this remarkable, scary and terrible statement that shows exactly how crazy DIMS is. I surmise that most officers if they were ignorant enough to have thought what Chief Wiles said, they would at least be saavy enough not to go public with it.
What follows is a bit of a legal analysis for those interested. For those who are not, stop here and be sure to see the video on the front page before checking out.
I'd like to introduce Chief Wiles to a little document known as "The United States Constitution." The 4th Amendment states: "... no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that a "detached and neutral magistrate" must find probable cause to determine whether a warrant will be issued. (a) The prosecutor's assessment of probable cause, standing alone, does not meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and is insufficient to justify restraint of liberty pending trial. Pp. 116-118. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975)
"The rule of probable cause is a practical, nontechnical conception affording the best compromise that has been found for accommodating these often opposing interests. Requiring more would unduly hamper law enforcement. To allow less would be to leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the officers' whim or caprice." Id., at 176.
"To implement the Fourth Amendment's protection against unfounded invasions of liberty and privacy, the Court has required that the existence of probable cause be decided by a neutral and detached magistrate whenever possible.
"The classic statement of this principle appears in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948): "The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." [Page 420 U.S. 103, 113]
Ok Austin, are you ready for some Chief Wiles? Ready for no Magistrates before booking because it takes too much time? And believe me, he has lots more in store for you.
Up until my opponent put into effect his crazy DIMS program, police officers would follow the law, make an arrest and then take the arrestee to a magistrate and the magistrate would then review the probable cause. If the magistrate said no probable cause, the person was set free. Now under Esparza's crazy DIMS program, the police officers skip the magistrate and go straight to their buddy the District Attorney and the District Attorney reviews the arrest and decides if the person goes to jail or not. Esparza and Wiles simply erased the magistrate. Keep in mind that the District Attorney is NOT a neutral and detached person. The DA is not a judge but is a party. The DA has a different role from a magistrate and being neutral and detached is not part of it. Under the crazy DIMS system this is how so many innocent people ended up arrested by the El Paso Police and in jail. The checks and the balances of the magistrate had been removed prior to booking. Esparza foisted this on us in conjunction with his willing partner, Chief Wiles.
In the video I have posted for your viewing pleasure and edification on the front page of my website, you can see that Chief Wiles has taught his men to dislike the constitutional checks and balances of the the American system. He proudly and emphatically states that his officers do not like magistrates because sometimes the magistrates don't find probable cause, unlike the prosecuting attorneys who find "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" when the magistrates find nothing. Do you think Chief Wiles might ponder that the very fact that the DA finds reason to arrest when the magistrate finds no reason to arrest illustrates the need to have magistrates reviewing arrests? That maybe this is the very reason why we have magistrates? If it were left up to the DA everyone would go to jail?
Chief Wiles' statement is so outrageous that when it has been played in court, judges drop their mouths open in shock. It is like the chief of police publicly stating that his men don't like juries because sometimes they find people not guilty! Lay people who have seen this tape cannot believe that Chief Wiles would make himself look so anti-constitutional and therefore absurd and depict his men as being so ill trained and brutish, but then again his audience was the El Paso City Council and the City's brilliant, honest and ethical city manager, Joyce Wilson. While Chief Wiles is telling us his men don't like checks and balances on their power and to therefore remove these checks and balances, Jaime Esparza made a quick getaway to the other side of the pillar behind Chief Wiles and that is where he slunk while Chief Wiles, unknowingly, stripped Jaime bare when he made this remarkable, scary and terrible statement that shows exactly how crazy DIMS is. I surmise that most officers if they were ignorant enough to have thought what Chief Wiles said, they would at least be saavy enough not to go public with it.
What follows is a bit of a legal analysis for those interested. For those who are not, stop here and be sure to see the video on the front page before checking out.
I'd like to introduce Chief Wiles to a little document known as "The United States Constitution." The 4th Amendment states: "... no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that a "detached and neutral magistrate" must find probable cause to determine whether a warrant will be issued. (a) The prosecutor's assessment of probable cause, standing alone, does not meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and is insufficient to justify restraint of liberty pending trial. Pp. 116-118. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975)
"The rule of probable cause is a practical, nontechnical conception affording the best compromise that has been found for accommodating these often opposing interests. Requiring more would unduly hamper law enforcement. To allow less would be to leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the officers' whim or caprice." Id., at 176.
"To implement the Fourth Amendment's protection against unfounded invasions of liberty and privacy, the Court has required that the existence of probable cause be decided by a neutral and detached magistrate whenever possible.
"The classic statement of this principle appears in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948): "The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." [Page 420 U.S. 103, 113]
Ok Austin, are you ready for some Chief Wiles? Ready for no Magistrates before booking because it takes too much time? And believe me, he has lots more in store for you.
on April 10, 2007, 8:05 am
Just to get this straight, is Wiles saying that his men should arrest everyone they think committed a crime and throw them in jail? If and when the courts finds that person innocent, oh well justice was served whether the arrestee's life is tarnished forever even though he/she may have done nothing to justify probably cause! Let's shove our problem to Austin! Let them deal with corruption over there. We should all put in a good word about Wiles so he gets the job and they get the problems!
Reply to this comment