The Arrest of Marc Perkel by Springfield Police on 09-08-98 Request to Reconsider Control Number - M98-90 Internal Affairs Decision
The Arrest of Marc Perkel
by Springfield Police on 09-08-98
Request to Reconsider
Control Number - M98-90
Internal Affairs Decision
I have received the decision of the internal affairs unit dated September 15th 1998. According to the decision, you determined the complaint to be "Unfounded" and that the allegations I made did not occur. It also stated that "The investigation into this incident revealed the actions of the officers were in full compliance with current policy and/or state law." According to your literature on the complaint process, the term "Unfounded" means that; "The incident did not happen … " This is different from "Not Sustained" which means; "There is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the complaint." What you are saying is that you determined that I lied. I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion.
I have since received the police report. In reviewing it I will say for the record that it contains many statements that are untrue and a lot of unfounded allegations and slanderous statements from Michael Slack's case which are unrelated to a charge of trespassing. Having said that, I'm not going to argue here about who's lying and who's telling the truth. I'll save that for another day.
The Police Report Speaks for Itself
In my complaint I made a case for false arrest and false imprisonment. The police report, which includes my complaint substantiates a prima facia case for false arrest and false imprisonment. In my complaint I assumed that you and the officers would see this but you didn't. So I'll now spell it out for you.
Let's assume for the purpose of argument that everything in the police report is true. Officer Hollie indicates a dispatch at 09-08-98 at 10:36pm, the same time he arrived at my house to arrest me. The infraction occurred on 09-05-98 at 7:30pm according to his report. This was three days earlier. In his report Officer Hollie claims to have been paged about the infraction after it occurred. He is therefore admitting that he did not witness the infraction. Missouri Statute Section 544.216 states that for infractions and misdemeanors, an officer can only arrest if it occurred "on view". In other words, the officer must have been present and seen the infraction occur to be able to arrest without a warrant. Officer Hollie admits in his report that he did not have a warrant and that a warrant had not been issued. He didn't arrest me at the scene of the crime, but three days later at my home. Thus he had no legal basis for arresting me or imprisoning me.
Additionally, he admitted that I "immediately began questioning the arrest". This corresponds with my account where I demanded to know what I was being arrested for, who made the complaint, was there a warrant, and that I wanted to see the paperwork. Although he states that he showed me the summons, he also admits that he did not let me read the summons. He also confirms my demand to "see the warrant" which indicates that my account is true in that I wanted to be advised of the nature of the charges against me.
As a citizen being arrested, I have the right to read the paperwork and the charges against me and to know the nature of the complaint and who made the complaint against me. The arresting officer has a duty to inform me of these things whether or not I ask for them, and as the police report indicates, I asked for them.
Although Officer Hollie read my statement before preparing his police report, he doesn't dispute that he never read me my rights. I refused to talk to him so I'm not claiming that there was any testimony that should be excluded because we both agree there was not testimony. However, I would think the proper police procedure and policy would require the reading of rights, that I have the right to remain silent and have an attorney present before questioning. Although failing to read a person their rights isn't illegal, it certainly isn't proper police procedure. Had this arrest been about something real and I had confessed to a real crime, my confession would have been excluded at trial.
Officer Hollie also stated in his report that he "had not yet completed the summons". At the jail I was not shown the summons, however, I got the yellow copy in the morning when I was released. The "yellow copy" is a carbon copy of the white copy, which was the original. I am confused as to what Officer means by "I attempted to complete the summons (yellow copy) for trespassing.", when he must have really meant completing the white copy. Except for the first 5 digits of my drivers license, the yellow copy was not written on directly, but was a carbon of the white copy.
Officer Hollie admits that on 09-08-98 that he initiated contact with Ms. Montgomery asking her if she wanted to pursue trespassing charges against me. He then claims that he and Officer Shipley went to her residence and had her sign the summons for trespassing. The summons number, 960682427 corresponds with the number on my yellow copy. Based on the order of events listed in the police report, the implication is that she signed the complaint before the arrest.
Since Officer Hollie also states that he didn't complete the summons until I was taken to the jail, one has to conclude that Ms. Montgomery signed a summons that wasn't completed. Thus Officer Hollie is admitting that he added to and/or altered the statement on the summons after it was signed. I contend that the practice of having a victim sign a sworn statement on a summons that has not been filled out by an officer is at least improper procedure and probably illegal.
Additionally, the yellow copy of the summons lacks the signature of any officer, prosecutor, judge, and lacks the victims signature. The lack of the victims signature on the yellow copy disputes the police report indicating that the victim signed the statement. I performed a high resolution scan of the yellow summons and used computer image enhancement techniques to see if there is any indication that there is a signature and there is not.
Thus it appears that Officer Hollie is not being truthful in his police report that he had a signed summons. Based on the yellow copy, I was arrested on a complaint that was fabricated by the arresting officers.
I had the right to an attorney and the right to make bond. I had $200 on me at the jail, twice what was needed to make bond. I was denied my right to a phone call. Officer Hollie indicated that I was put into the intoxication tank because I refused to answer any questions. The questions I refused to answer were Officer Hollie's questions about Michael Slack and not information required for booking and release. I obviously had no wish to spend the night in jail.
I believe Mr. Hollie did hold the summons briefly up to the glass of the intoxication tank as he states. His statement that he showed it to me is accurate. But I wanted to read the summons, which I couldn't do. He did state the address for the first time where the trespass supposedly occurred. He still wouldn't say who made the complaint or when it occurred. The address wasn't familiar to me until the next morning when I saw the description of the violation. However, by admitting that he showed me the summons through the glass of the intoxication tank he is confirming my complaint that I was not allowed to read the charges against me. And it's a violation of my civil rights to be arrested without being advised as to what I'm being arrested for.
Additionally, Officer Hollie included unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations about my involvement with Michael Slack and several women, many of whom were or are now working for Ms. Montgomery. In my complaint my unnamed friend I referred to is Michael Slack. It is true that I am his friend and as I said I was assisting his legal team with research and writing a brief as to why an escort service is not a prostitution business. Not every exchange of sex for money is prostitution. If it were then my ex-wife would be in trouble. I published my brief on the internet at http://sex.perkel.com/escort/legal.htm however, Mr. Slack decided to plead guilty rather than to use my arguments. I am one of the nations foremost authorities on prostitution and legal issues and in 1997 I attended the International Conference on Prostitution and appeared on the Sally Jesse Rafael show with Xaviera Hollander, the Happy Hooker. I also am an advocate of the legalization of prostitution for reasons that include what is happening here and it is part of my campaign platform as the Democratic Candidate for the United States House of Representatives.
By including the allegations in his police report, Officer Hollie is attempting to smear me politically and to portray me as some sort of sex stalker pervert. However, I was not arrested, in theory, for any sort of sex related offense. I was arrested for trespassing and even if everything Officer Hollie said is true, it has nothing to do with what I'm charged with.
For example, Officer Hollie states in his report that, "Kimber spoke to us and advised that she would not do a "call" with PERKEL because he had a tendency to "stalk" women after they had sex with him." I fail to see where a statement like this, even if it were true, is relevant to my trespassing charge.
The police report states that I had an interest in the outcome of the trial of Michael Slack. I have already admitted to that. In fact I have an interest in helping everyone these cops are harassing from being convicted of a crime. As I indicated in my complaint, I was concerned for Ms. Montgomery as well and had hoped that, in addition to buying my computer, that she would invite me in like she did the last time and that I would be able to express my concerns about her running an escort service in partnership with Officer Hollie. I'm encouraging people to obey the law. Michael Slack would likely be in jail today if not for my urging him to comply with the terms of his bond. The police report also mentions Ms. Roach and Mr. Cermak, who are still my friends in spite of having supposedly "fucked her on the living room floor" as Officer Hollie suggests. They have pending charges against them and a condition of their bond is that they are prohibited from talking to the State's witness es, including Officer Hollie. Nonetheless, Officer Hollie on several occasions, after being bonded out of jail, came by their home to harass them and try to get them to violate the terms of their bond. Ms. Roach is pregnant and is having medical problems besides being dirt poor. She really doesn't need, nor does it serve the interests of society, for Officer Hollie to persecute a sick pregnant woman. I ask you, is this in compliance with department policy? And what does any of this have to do with trespassing?
According to the police report, the phone number listed for Ms. Montgomery is the same phone number for "Night Moves" which I believe is an escort service that members of the Springfield Police Department, including Officer Hollie are involved with. As I advised the City of Springfield and the Springfield Police Department in my original complaint, if this is true, and I believe it is, it is a bad idea for you to be running a whorehouse. If you want to legalize escort services I would be all for it. But you can't prosecute people like Michael Slack for running an escort service just to open up a city run escort service. I don't think the City of Springfield, even if prostitution were legalized, should be involved in this business. Just as I warned Mr. Slack and Ms. Montgomery, I warn you. Attached it the business card for Night Moves.
I also want you to know that I'm not going to apologize to anyone for trying to keep my friends from going to jail. I believe these people are fine productive members of society and the taxpayers are better served by having more free people who are working for a living than doing time in jail at the taxpayers expense. And I won't apologize for advising people, including the police department to obey the law.
The police report does substantiate my claim that this arrest had nothing to do with trespassing and was really about my relationship with Michael Slack. Officer Hollie has also harassed several of the women named in the police report in the same manner that he harassed me. It's clear from this report that I wasn't arrested for trespassing but was arrested for associating with Michael Slack, and that's not a crime. What is a crime is the police arresting me on a false charge and using their power to falsely imprison me for failing to give them confidential information about a case between a defendant and his lawyer.
I think it looks bad that Officer Hollie and Officer Shipley have apparently never been trained as to what is and is not legal for an officer to do. It causes me to wonder if anyone down there knows, or even cares to know, what proper police procedure is. I'd like to believe the Internal Affairs is more interested in solving the problem that covering it up. That is why I am attempting to work with you and City Council to resolve this matter.
Based solely on Officer Hollie's account outlined in his police report, he arrested me and imprisoned me for a charge that was not committed in his presence. Under Missouri law, you can't do that. I therefore ask that you reconsider your decision.
Marc Perkel * 09-23-98