 |
| A liar at work: Officer Michael Reichert (back to camera) harasses Terrance Huff. |
“Cops lie. Most of them lie a couple of times per shift, at
least.”
This assessment was offered not by an embittered critic of
the police, but by Norm Stamper, former Chief of the Seattle Police Department,in his 2005 memoir Breaking Rank
(page 129, to be precise). Stamper supports the use of tactical dishonesty in
dealing with certain kinds of violent suspects, but he has no tolerance for the
casual mendacity that is ubiquitous in the profession of law enforcement.
Police consultant and former prosecutor Val Van Brocklin
offers a similarly blunt perspective. “Police lie. It’s part of their
job,” she wrote Val Van Brocklin in an essay entitled “Training Cops to Lie,”
which was published in the November
16, 2009 edition of the online journal Officer.com.
Habitual lying cost Officer Michael Reichert of the
Collinsville, Illinois Police Department his job nearly a decade ago. With the help
of the police union, he was able to get it back -- at which point he resumed
his career of officially sanctioned perjury. In January 2011,
Reichert, who is now assigned to K-9 patrol, was one of four Collinsville
officers given the “Chief’s Award of Merit” for performance “exceptional in
nature or above and beyond normal performance.”
In April, Reichert
was singled out again for his exceptional work by being named “Officer of the
Month.” The department lauded Reichert for reflecting “the proactive and
innovative philosophy of law enforcement prescribed to [sic] by the
Collinsville Police Department. He has demonstrated this by his aggressive
approach to drug trafficking in the area.”
“Officer Reichert had 166 total incidents with 6 arrests and
7 citations in 13 working days,” continued the department’s report. “In
addition to this he had 3 self initiated significant incidents that is very
worthy of praise [sic.]”
 |
| Reichert (left) receiving "Award of Merit." |
To someone who doesn’t belong to the coercive caste, a total
of 6 arrests out of 166 “total incidents” isn’t an impressive ratio. The
concept of a “self-initiated significant incident” seems downright ominous.
This is the portrait of a government-licensed bully bent on manufacturing
cases, rather than a peace officer devoted to protection of persons and
property. A brief examination of Reichert’s past supplies that portrait with
additional detail.
In 2006, Reichert was fired by the Collinsville PD “after a
federal judge ruled he lied during a drug trial,” reported
the April 19, 2009 edition of StLtoday.com. “They also cited a conviction
on federal charges that he sold knockoff designer sunglasses." Irrespective of the merits of the federal case, Reichart was consciously
defrauding consumers.
With the help of his union, Reichert appealed that ruling,
and was he was reinstated in March 2009. However, about a month later the
Collinsville Police and Fire Board suspended him without pay after “federal
prosecutors … raised new concerns against Reichert again questioning his
trustworthiness.”
Despite his track record as a proven perjurer and con
artist, Reichert was re-hired by the Collinsville PD. He was promptly assigned
to counter-narcotics duty once again – and he immediately resumed the same
tactics that had resulted in his well-deserved but tragically temporary
unemployment.
Officer Reichert’s routine is described at length in a
November 2005 ruling by U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan in the case U.S. v. Zambrana.
The defendant was one of two suspects arrested on narcotics charges by Reichert
during a traffic stop in 2002. Zambrana filed a motion to suppress the results
of a canine-assisted narcotics search, insisting that Reichert didn’t have
probable cause to conduct the search.
Judge Reagan keyed on “Reichert’s lack of credibility as a
witness,” describing him as a “polished performer” – a term not intended as a
compliment.
“One reason this Court rejected Reichert’s testimony as not
credible was because it was so rehearsed, coached and robotic as to be rote,”
observed Judge Reagan. “It was a generic, almost default performance not
dependent upon the facts of this case, but suitable for any case in which
Reichert might testify to having found `reasonable suspicion. When questioning
required him to temporarily stray from this rehearsed script, away from the
security of his default testimony, he was caught off-guard.”
When required to deal with “objective verifiable facts” –
events captured in audio or video recordings, for instance – Reichert was
equivocal and self-contradictory. He was clear and emphatic, however, regarding
matters that “were not objectively verifiable” – such as his “conclusions from
reading body language `thrown off’ involuntarily from people `trafficking in
narcotics.’” Judge Reagan astringently referred to this as Reichert’s conceit
that he could behave as a “human polygraph” – an approach that “is wholly
subjective and fraught with potential for guess, speculation, conjecture, and
even deceit.”
“Reichert made clear that he understands what a Judge might
find persuasive in making a reasonable suspicion determination,” Reagan
continued, noting that “he teaches this principle in his classes.” That’s
right: Reichert is not only a professional liar, he also tutors other police
officers in his methods of mendacity.
At this point, it’s useful to remember Ms. Van Brocklin’s
observation: “Cops lie. It’s part of their job.”
“By simply adding up `suspicious’ factors while ignoring
non-suspicious or mitigating factors [in the Zambrana traffic stop], Reichert
misused the `totality of circumstances’ principle as a sword to unjustly pierce
Zambrana’s cloak of Fourth Amendment protection,” concluded Judge Reagan.
Reichert claimed that Zambrana came to his attention when he
noticed the driver’s rental car – with out-of-state plates – “crossing the
white divider line.” However, he also used the expression “hit” to describe
this entirely trivial infraction. He claimed to have become suspicious when
Zambrana “continued down the highway in a completely normal manner,” not
bothering even to make eye contact with Reichert after the officer pulled
alongside him in a police cruiser. This prompted him to pull Zambrana over.
Once the pretext stop was made, Reichert claimed that
Zambrana and his passenger appeared “nervous” – which is an entirely
understandable reaction to the presence of an armed stranger who considers
himself entitled to kill you at his discretion. He then barraged them with what
Judge Reagan called a series of “rolling no” questions. This is a tactic
designed to elicit permission to search the vehicle. After inquiring about
drugs, weapons, or cash, and getting negative responses, the officer will pose
some variation of this question: “Hey,
this will only take a minute – do you mind if I just take a look before letting
you go?”
Regardless of Reichert’s perception “that Zambrana’s replies
and lack of eye contact during this questioning were `suspicious,’ Reichert’s
subsequent actions indicate that he knew that he still had no `reasonable
suspicion’ to search Zambrana’s car,” notes Judge Reagan. “At that point,
rather than simply informing Zambrana that he would be searching his car,
Reichert requested Zambrana’s permission to conduct a search. Inexplicably
(yet, not surprising to this Court, Reichert viewed Zambrana’s denial as `suspicious’
and advised Zambrana that he was detaining his car for a canine search.”
Narcotics were found, and both Zambrana and his passenger, a
man named Babar Shah, were maneuvered into a plea bargain. Despite Reichert’s
obvious and documented dishonesty, those convictions stuck.
Last December, Reichert
followed exactly the same modus operandi in conducting a pretext stop – and illegal
search – of a vehicle driven by Terrence Huff and John Seton of Hamilton, Ohio.
Huff and Seton had traveled to the St. Louis Science Center to attend a Star
Trek exhibit. Their return trip, unfortunately, included a stretch along I-70
that was polluted by Officer Reichert, who was loitering in the median at
taxpayer expense awaiting his next victim. The sight of two men in an SUV with
out-of-state plates proved irresistible, so Reichert pulled out behind them and
paced them for a few miles before pulling them over.
Once the pretext stop was made, Reichert – following exactly
the same script described by Judge Reagan – claimed to have noticed an
otherwise undetectable traffic infraction. He obtained Huff’s driver’s license
and asked the passenger for ID. When he ran Huff’s license, he found a record
of a previous arrest (without conviction).
“That mother****r,” sneered Reichert as he reviewed the
information on his computer terminal. After calling for backup and resuming his
pretense of professionalism, Reichert told Huff that he would let him off with
a “warning” – and then began the “rolling no” routine.
“This highway, we have a major problem with people running
guns and drugs and illegal stuff up and down the highway,” Reichert told Huff. “You
guys don’t have anything like that in your car, do you?
“No,” replied Huff, adding, “I could show you the photos we
took at the Star Trek convention. We’re not drug runners. It’s my birthday.”
“There wouldn’t be any marijuana in there right now?”
Reichert persisted.
“No,” Huff responded.
“No cocaine in there?”
“No.”
“Any heroin?”
“No.”
“Any guns in there?”
“No.”
“How about any large amounts of U.S. currency?” Reichert
probed, thereby revealing the true purpose of the stop: He was trawling for
assets subject to confiscation in the name of “asset forfeiture.” If Huff or
his friend had been carrying cash, Reichert – assisted by the second officer
who had materialized during the questioning – would have stolen it, and most
likely the car, as well.
When Huff pointed out that all he was carrying was a credit
card, Reichert moved to close the deal:
“Would you have any objection to us searching the car real
quick to make sure that there’s nothing illegal inside the car?”
Reichert had neither probable cause nor “reasonable
suspicion” to conduct a search. If Huff and objected, however, Reichert would
have arrested him – and then stolen his car.
When Huff briefly hesitated,
Reichert deployed yet another lie:
“Now, let me tell you something, OK? I’m not overly
concerned about personal amounts or stuff like that. If you have a little bit …
I’m not worried about that, OK?”
Remember that line; we’ll revisit it shortly.
“There are no drugs in the car, and I’d just like to go on
my way, if I could,” Huff said in the forlorn hope that he would be set free.
“Well, I don’t have a problem with that,” Reichert lied once
again. “I’m just a little
apprehensive about how your buddy’s acting, he’s a
little bit nervous.”
“I’ve got a canine in the car,” Reichert continued. “What I’m
going to do is detain the car long enough to run the dog around it.” He made
that announcement in a tone intended to convey the impression that this was a
mere formality – if not an actual favor he was doing on Huff’s behalf.
“That’s fine,” Huff – an unarmed man confronting two armed
and thoroughly amoral strangers – conceded.
“If the dog alerts, I will search your car,” Reichert
admitted, now that Huff had been manipulated into consenting. “And anything illegal
I find I will charge you with.”
“Anything” would include the “personal amounts of marijuana
or cocaine” to which Reichert had referred so dismissively just seconds earlier.
When Huff pointed out that Reichert had lied about the
reason for the traffic stop – a point he did not contest - -the uniformed liar
abandoned the façade of professionalism:
“I’m asking for your consent to search the car,” he told
Huff. “If your answer is `no,’ I’m going to detain the car long enough to run
the dog around it. I can get you a ride” – an invitation that, in context, has
to be considered an ill-disguised threat to arrest Huff and his friend (vide
the foregoing business about “personal amounts”).
“If I’m free to go, can I go?” Huff asked.
“Not in the car,” Reichert curtly replied.
In other words: Huff was under arrest. He was entirely at
the mercy of a cynical, impenitent liar armed with a gun and clothed in
impunity.
Reichert retrieved his dog, and – with the practiced guile of
a veteran con artist – went through his charade, tapping and prompting the
animal to “alert” as if the vehicle were containing contraband. Once at the
front of Huff’s car – which concealed his actions from the dashcam – Reichert claimed
that the dog had “indicated” that there was something in the vehicle.
He informed Huff that the dog – which “is trained to smell
marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and meth” – had “started scratching” at the front
of the car. “I am going to search your car,” he continued. That search was
utterly futile. Reichert, who appears to be a mucosal personality composed of unctuous malicet, emitted one last lie to cover up his criminal misconduct.
“Inside your car, under your seat and under the back seat, there’s
shake – marijuana shake,” lied Collinsville, Illinois’s April 2011 Officer of
the Month. “A little bit all over the car. That’s probably what the dog’s
alerting to.”
Of course, there was nothing of the sort to be found – in fact,
Huff’s vehicle didn’t even have a back seat.
Despite the devoted obstruction of the Collinsville PD, Huff
-- who owns a small, independent film production company called T-Minus
Entertainment-- obtained the dashcam video of the episode. He used it to
produce "Breakfast in Collinsville," a brief and thoroughly infuriating documentary of Reichert’s attempted
carjacking and extortion:
“I am usually rather suspicious of authority, and this was
something of a reality check,” Huff told Pro
Libertate in a telephone interview. “It’s pretty clear that what Reichert
is doing is generating revenue for his department. This kind of thing is
happening all over the place – federal, state, county, or city, they’re all
using asset forfeiture to collect revenue.”
Although he has been contacted by lawyers and civil
liberties activists who want to help him mount legal action against Reichert
and his department, Huff simply wants to use the video to “expose this abuse
and get people to look at what’s happening in this country.”
Huff is too busy doing work for paying clients to invest the
time, money, and frustration that a legal battle with Reichert and the police
union would require. Unless the officer’s superiors can be shamed into firing
him permanently – an unlikely outcome, given previous performance – Officer Michael
“Third” Reichert will continue to prey on the innocent and perjure himself, and
teach the relevant skills to other cops. After all, as his awards and
commendations attest, Reichert is the pride of the Collinsville PD.
Your donations are vital to help keep Pro Libertate on-line. Thank you!
Live Long, and Prosper!
