6. Corrupt Police and Kangaroo Courts

“When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken.”

-Benjamin Disraeli

Home | Table of Contents | Next Chapter

The traditional role of police is to protect and serve the public. However, local and state governments changed the role of its police force. Government has encouraged police to write and issue more citations and tickets. Is government pursuing revenue through the criminal justice system? Political leaders assure us that police do not have quotas and issuing tickets is a money loser for government [1]. However, why do police write citations or arrest people for silly infractions of the law? Some examples are:

• In Washington, D.C., the police arrested a woman for eating a candy bar in the subway [2].

• Police in Georgia wrote a citation to a woman for operating a vehicle without a driver’s license. This woman has cerebral palsy and was riding her electric wheelchair to work on the shoulder of a road. The police even threaten to impound her wheelchair [3].

• In New York City, police issued a citation for a pregnant woman sitting on steps in subway [1].

• In Galveston, Texas, code enforcement issued citations to restaurant owners for displaying the hours of operation, because this violated historic preservation ordinances.

• On December 3, 2005, Charles Atherton was walking across a street and was hit by a car in Washington, D.C. The impact was so strong, he was knocked out of his shoes and his head hit the windshield. As he lay there waiting for the ambulance, a policeman wrote Charles a $5 jaywalking ticket. The police claim he was conscious and he was not on the cross walk [4].

• Police in Tenaha, Texas are highway pirates. The police pull over unsuspecting motorist and charge them with a crime. Prosecutors agree not to pursue criminal charges, if the motorists agree and waive their right to their property. The police seized cars, jewelry, cash, cell phones, and even sneakers. The mayor, George Bowers, defends the actions of the police by stating, “It’s always helpful to have any kind of income to expand your police force.” The mayor wants additional money to add a second police car and expand the police department [5]. Then you know what comes next. More police means they can pull over more motorists and seize more property.

These examples illustrate that the police have become more aggressive and have to write tickets for minor offenses. The reason is city, state, and the federal government keeps hiring more police officers and agents. If no criminals are committing crimes, then police cannot sit around and wait. Their job is to arrest people and write tickets. Each person sitting in a jail cell or each ticket sent to a court is proof that police officers are working. The criminal justice system does not care if the violations are minor. Moreover, the criminal justice system can easily classify minor crimes as serious ones. For example, police and prosecutors have charged people for assaulting a police officer. All they did was growl at a police dog. Even an Ohio appeals court ruled that barking at a police dog is not illegal [6].

Why do local, state, and federal governments keep increasing the number of agents and police officers? First, these government agencies keep passing laws and someone has to enforce those laws. Government officials want complete, total compliance to their laws, even though government officials will probably violate their own laws. Second, the media is increasing their focus on crime, scaring the public. The public believes crime is increasing, while in fact, violent crime has been decreasing since the 1990s. Some examples of expanding the size and scope of laws are:

• The City of Canton, Ohio, passed a law, where homeowners can be jailed for not mowing their lawn. A second violation of tall grass is a misdemeanor [7]. How is the city going to enforce this law? Will code enforcement officers go around town and measure the height of everyone’s grass?

• In 2000, the State of Oklahoma expanded the definition of drinking under the influence (DUI). For instance, if you decide to walk home, are intoxicated, and happen to be carrying your car keys, then the state can charge you with DUI. The possession of car keys implies that you had intent to drive drunk. This is unbelievable! If a person does drink too much, then the best thing for society is for that person to walk home and not drive, but Oklahoma is one of those states that like to incarcerate its citizens.

• In many states, police enforce traffic laws and write citations for people who are riding bicycles. In some states, people can fight these types of citation by looking into the legal definition of a vehicle.

Despite what government officials say, writing tickets or arresting people is not a money loser for government. First, government collects taxes to pay for police officers, prosecutors, judges, jails, and prisons. These expenses are already paid. Second, any money collect for fines or fees is extra money for government. City and state governments vary where this money goes. The money could go to general fund or into special accounts to pay for new police equipment. Of course, some states like Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas built massive prison systems, which require lots of funding.

The Race to Incarcerate

A problem evolves when a country’s laws and regulations become too complicated. As the number of laws increases or becomes more complex, the government defines more people as violating the law. Of course, the United States has taken the incarceration approach of punishing people and incarceration rates have skyrocketed by 500% since the 1970s. Some states adopted themes like “get tough on crime,” the “war on drugs,” and “three strikes and you are out,” causing incarceration rates to surge [8]. These catch phrases and slogans suggest states are in a race to incarcerate. How do we know? Just look at the data.

The incarceration and violent crime rates are shown in Figure 6.1. The federal and state governments are incarcerating more people while violent crime is decreasing. The incarceration rate is the number of prisoners serving time in federal and state prisons, and in county jails. The violent crime index is the total number of murders, manslaughter, forcible rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults. Both rates are adjusted for changes in population and are expressed in 100,000 persons.

Figure 6.1. Incarceration Rate versus Crime Rate

Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistic and Federal Bureau of Investigation

The purpose of incarceration is to help society function better by removing individuals who severely violate society’s rules. Originally a prison was a place for criminals to think about their crimes and ask god for forgiveness (penitent is the root word for penitentiary). However, prisons evolved into warehouses to store malcontents and felons. Some states have passed laws requiring inmates to get psychological treatment and offer a chance to complete a college degree. However, it is debatable whether these programs actually work, because the recidivism rate is approximately 67%. On average, seven inmates out of 10 will end up back in prison [9].

Why are federal and state governments intent on locking people up? It is not a vast conspiracy! This is what police, judges, and prosecutors do. Like anyone else, they want job security and higher wages. If the police arrest fewer people, prosecutors file less dockets, and judges hear less cases, then these government workers cannot go to the legislature and ask for more funding. If the amount of work the criminal justice system does is decreasing, then their funding should decrease too. For the criminal justice system to keep expanding, they must arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate more people, so they can beg more money from the legislature. Thus, Parkinson’s Law applies to the criminal justice system too.

The sad truth is incarcerating people imposes large costs upon society. The total costs are:

• The state has to pay for the incarceration with tax revenue. The average cost of incarceration a person is $23,876 per year in 2005 (Aizenman 2008).

• The criminal justice system potentially removes a potential taxpayer from society. This person is no longer earning wages and paying taxes. The key word is potential because some criminals are deadbeats and do not work.

• Government diverts public funds from other programs like education and social programs. Thus, prisons and the criminal justice system compete against other public agencies for tax dollars like schools, parks, universities, and food stamps.

The 2007 incarceration rates are shown for the states that have the five highest and five lowest incarceration rates. The average incarceration rate in 2007 for the United States is 447 per 100,000 persons, excluding the federal government. Now compare the incarceration rate to the percent of high school graduates and average funding per capita. The states with the highest incarceration rates have a lower high school graduation rate except Oklahoma and the lowest school funding per pupil. The pattern repeats itself for states with the lowest incarceration rates. These states have higher graduation rates except Rhode Island and more funding per pupil except North Dakota.

Table 6.1. Incarceration Rates versus Public School Funding in 2007

Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics and 2010 Statistical Abstract of the United States

This pattern repeats itself for higher education and is shown in Table 6.2. States with higher incarceration rates tend to have fewer college graduates as a percentage of its population. However, the relationship between incarceration rates and college funding is weaker. The data is taken at the peak of the housing bubble and state governments greatly increased the funding amounts to colleges and universities. Therefore, states with large prison systems tend to have under educated populations.

Table 6.2. Incarceration Rates versus College Funding in 2007

Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics and 2010 Statistical Abstract of the United States

The pattern between state education levels and crime rates may be more complex. States with higher educated citizens could be more blessed. An educated person may have higher morale development or if he commits a crime, he cannot earn this higher wage while incarcerated. Thus, educated people tend to use less violence and earn higher wages. However, better-educated workers may commit more white-collar crime, such as forgery, embezzlement, fraud, and counterfeiting, but less violent crime like murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults [11].

Another potential problem is state governments build too much prison capacity. When a state builds a new prison, then the state thinks it has an obligation to fill it. Imagine how furious the taxpayers would be if the state built a new prison and the prison was empty! In order to fill these prisons, the criminal justice system may incarcerate innocent people or minor crimes become elevated into major ones, requiring prison sentences. This problem repeats itself for county governments. County governments throughout the U.S. are constantly building new jails and facilities, and they are always overcrowded. Why are states building so many prisons? It cannot be the violent crime rate, since it has been falling since the early 1990s.

State governments may be building more prisons because politicians do not want to appear to be soft on crime and furthermore, states want economic development. Opening a new prison in a small, stagnant community could cause an inflow of federal and state dollars, thus providing jobs and economic growth. However, prisons may not contribute to local economic growth nor help create employment. Prison supplies are specialized and are not usually provided locally. Additionally, prisons hire a limited number of guards and local governments may have to divert funding from other public investments, because they have to invest in roads and utilities for the prison [12].

Administration of Justice

The police are the first contact with the criminal justice system. They investigate crimes, and arrest perpetrators. They provide critical information to the judges and prosecutors. Thus, a natural question arises. If police are protecting the public, why do police violently attack some innocent citizens? Look at some incidences of police brutality:

• Three policemen beat up a retired, black school teacher in New Orleans, Louisiana in October 2005. Police even threw one bystander onto a car, because he was filming the incident. The retired schoolteacher was charge with public intoxication, battery on a police officer, and resisting arrest [13]. The video tape clearly shows the schoolteacher on the ground as four police officers violently kicked and struck him.

• In a small Louisianan town, a white cop tasered a 240 lb black man 9 times, even though the defendant was handcuffed. The officer claimed the man did not move fast enough. The police chief responded by saying the officer could either let him free, taser him, or shoot him. Tasering was the best option, because officers do not let criminals go [14]. Is the police chief stupid? Tasers shoot out probes that stick to a person’s body and jolt suspects with anywhere from 20,000 to 150,000 volts of electricity [15]. How fast could you move if you were tasered multiple times?

• Brothers were filming sheriff deputies as they raided a neighbor’s house in Houston, Texas in 2002. Apparently, the deputies did not like being filmed, so they charged into that family’s house with guns drawn, threaten to shoot the brothers, and took the video tape. The deputies arrested the brothers who filmed them, charged them with resisting arrest. The police even destroyed the tapes. Luckily, the falsely arrested brothers settled a lawsuit from Harris County for $1.7 million [16]. Harris County Sheriff’s Department was so angry over this lawsuit that they put the brothers under police surveillance. This case angered the public so much that the Sheriff’s Department had to disband their surveillance unit [17, 18].

If the police are not doing anything wrong, does it matter that citizens are photographing or videotaping them? If the police are in the right, then a videotape only enhances their actions. Unfortunately, police abuse will get worse, because courts and government are removing the checks on police power. The legislatures are passing more laws, transferring more power to the prosecutors and the police. With this transfer of power, police can more easily arrest a person for minor violations or trump up false charges. Did you notice that each time the police attacked a citizen, the citizen is automatically charged with resisting arrest? The politicians and bureaucrats assure us that they are protecting the public, but security and safety are ancient arguments for government to take over its society, creating a police state. Remember that old adage – power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As the criminal justice system gains more power, you can definitely count on more and more abuse by our judicial system and police.

Why do government and courts keep expanding police powers? This is a gradual process. For example, forty years ago, all states had no seat belt laws. Drivers and occupants could decide whether to wear a seat belt or not. Then legislators and governors passed seat belt laws, because wearing seatbelts increases the chances of a person surviving a car accident. On the surface, this seems like the government cares for its people by helping to protect them. However, seat belt laws have a hidden agenda. First, police can write citations for not wearing a seatbelt, providing another revenue stream for government. (Of course, the court system seems more interested that you pay for the seat belt violation rather the concern for your well-being). Second, one person in the car who is not wearing a seatbelt gives the police the power to pull that car over and investigate them. Then police can determine if the occupants are violating other laws. Whatever happened to educating people about the benefits of using seatbelts and giving them free choice to allow them to use them or not? Therefore, courts have not done a good job in keeping police powers in check. Several reasons explain this.

1. Courts are bloated bureaucracies that need and consume financial resources. It takes time for the police to write reports, it takes time for the prosecutor to review the report, and it takes time for a judge to review a case. All this time is expensive! If the court finds a defendant not guilty, the court has no basis to collect fines. Also, it may not look good for the criminal justice system to have a large percentage of cases where the defendants are found not guilty. How could the criminal justice system keep asking the legislature for more money, if they are arresting innocent people?

2. The press and news give society a false impression that crime is rampant and increasing. Courts may find defendants guilty, so the judges and prosecutors do not appear weak and soft on crime.

3. Courts are like factories. Each day, sheriff deputies around up defendants and bring them in front of the judge, like cattle at the slaughterhouse. With the dockets full, it is easier to get defendants to plead guilty and send them to the numerous agencies, like probation office, counseling programs, and forced volunteer work for non-profit agencies.

4. In small communities, the municipal court, prosecutor's office, and police are housed under the same building. They see each other on a daily basis and may even be friends outside of city government. Defendants are outsiders and have to be found guilty of their crimes.

Municipal and county courts tend to rule in favor of the enforcement agencies. Defendants have to be found guilty. It does not matter if the police lied, withheld evidence, or violated your rights. The courts tend to excuse an officer’s behavior. If the police are never punished for lying, withholding evidence, or violating defendant's rights, then nothing keeps an abusive police force in check. Numerous cases bring this fact into life:

• The City of Houston’s Police Crime Lab has been plagued with problems. The federal government closed the DNA section of the lab in 2003, because 93 cases had “serious issues.” Investigators have also found problems with analysis of firearms, narcotics, and body fluid. Investigators place the blame on incompetent lab technicians and the need to tailor reports to find defendants guilty [19]. It is definitely the latter; a defendant would have to spend thousands of dollars to re-test the evidence, so in most court cases, shoddy, fraudulent lab work would rarely be exposed. This is not an isolated problem. Problems have been found with the City of Oklahoma City Crime Lab, FBI Crime Labs, and state crime labs for California, Florida, Illinois, Montana, and Washington [20].

• In Tulia, Texas, one law enforcement officer wanted an excellent arrest record, and who happens to be also a racist, thief, and liar. He arrested 43 minorities, claiming the minorities sold him cocaine. The officer had no evidence other than his word. The minorities received harsh sentences and the officer even received the Texas Department of Public Safety’s 1999 Outstanding Lawman of the Year. Cracks started to appear in the officer’s story, because charges were drop against five defendants. When the drug sales occurred, two defendants were at work, one was in another state at a bank, and the other two had inaccurate descriptions. Eventually, Rick Perry, the Texas Governor, had to pardon the 35 minorities and the defendants settled for a meager, lump sum of $250,000, agreeing not to sue the county government [21, 22].

• In Berwyn Heights, Maryland, the mayor came home and saw a package on the porch. He carried the package into his home, and seconds later, the SWAT team crashed through the mayor’s front door and shot his two dogs. The reason is someone mailed (or dropped off) a box containing 32 pounds of marijuana outside the mayor’s house [23].

• A similar incidence happened in Dallas, Texas, where a drug informant was planting cocaine into people’s vehicles. However, the cocaine turned out to be crushed sheetrock. Fifty-nine people with Mexican descent were charge with drug charges. Several defendants took plea deals and some were deported, until a couple of defense attorneys uncovered the truth and tested the substances for cocaine [24].

These cases are not isolated, independent examples. The criminal justice system has convicted innocent people for various crimes throughout the United States. Some of the cases above came from police task forces. A task force could involve several police agencies and they form to go after particular crimes, usually drug trafficking and prostitution rings. The problem is task forces get funding from the United States government and property seizures. Thus, a task force has to show results. That is why forming these task forces are dangerous! If a task force forms to find drug traffickers, then agents have to find drug traffickers. Otherwise, a failed mission jeopardizes federal funding and a failure to the government agency [24]. Sometimes, police find it is easier to fabricate evidence and convict innocent people than it is to admit a public failure.

Of course, innocent defendants can appeal their fraudulent convictions to a higher court, because every defendant has the right to an appeal. However, the government does not tell you it takes time and money. Appealing a wrongful conviction could easily cost several thousand dollars and take up to several years. The reason why Tulia, Texas ever came to the spot light was the intense scrutiny caused from articles from The Texas Observer and Time magazine. Another problem, many states give full access to criminal records. A fraudulent conviction still shows up on a person’s criminal record. A criminal record shows a person’s charge, outcome from court, and any appeals. A criminal record never states that police fabricated evidence or a judge railroaded a person to prison. Wrongful convictions can trail a person for the rest of his life.

Judges will not hesitate to throw innocent people into jail, but they will play favorites and exonerate fellow members in the criminal justice system. For example, a judge in Cleburne, Texas threw out the blood alcohol test results for State District Judge Elizabeth Berry. The judge ruled that police did not have sufficient evidence to search this judge, even though she was driving at 27 MPH above the speed limit, had numerous, empty beer cans in her car, and her breath wreaked of alcohol. The charges will have to be dropped because of lack of evidence [25].

State Protection of Children

All states have passed laws to protect its children. Some parents abuse their children and the state should intervene and even possibly remove the children. However, many caring, loving families had their children removed from their care. Unfortunately, case workers have trouble distinguishing between true child abuse or alleged cases of child abuse. Any vindictive, bitter relative or acquaintance can falsely report child abuse to a hotline and a caseworker has to investigate this allegation. Further, the state never releases the callers’ identities. State child-abuse hotlines received 3.3 million reports in 2005 and most reports were found not to be true. Parents have been reported to the state for spanking children, home schooling, or an accidental injury [26]. Four factors cause child protection services to be aggressive with parents.

1. Parkinson’s Law also applied to the child protection agencies. Child protection employs a large number of professionals, like caseworkers, lawyers, and therapists [26]. For these professionals to keep asking for more funding, they have to process more cases. Hence, more and more children have to be in need of services.

2. States leverage funding from federal government. Each case the state processes, the federal government reimburses the states for some of the costs. Thus, the strategy is to maximize the number of child abuse cases and hence the cash flow from the federal government [26].

3. Names of suspected parents are entered into a state database for child abuse. If parents are entered into this database multiple times, then the state may automatically take custody of the kids, even if there is no proof of child abuse.

4. Child protection services and its courts have poor oversight [26]. Since child abuse involves children, many of the standard criminal rights are thrown out the window. Parents are not allowed jury trials or question children on the stand. In extreme cases, case workers can coax or trick children to say anything on video camera. The video tape is presented as evidence, which cannot be cross-examined by the defense.

The current system we have is not necessarily bad. As long as the judges, case workers, and therapists are honest and they truly want to help families. Then courts are not likely to take custody of children for false allegations. However, greed and Parkinson’s Laws still apply. The following cases illustrate this.

• Two judges in Philadelphia received payoffs from a private youth detention center. The two judges received $2.6 million and sentenced juveniles for minor offences to long sentences in this youth treatment facility [27]. Youth detention centers can charge government at least a $100 per day.

• Many blogs on the internet complain about abuse from child protective services. For example, child welfare investigators in one county, Contra Costa County, California, supposedly terrorized families. Once a family was on the radar screen, investigators would continuously harass them. Contra Costa County had a financial crisis in 2008 and supposedly, many families appeared for the county hearings and complained about Child Protective Services. The county commissioners decimated this department, laying off 75 case workers. However, the country decimated other departments too in 2008.

Conclusion

The sad truth is public officials have gotten so worked up over crime and the need to pass laws and hire police officers, they literally destroyed their budgets. For example, Vallejo, California has a population of 120,000 and is located near San Francisco. The city filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy, because city officials cannot control their spending. The city has an operating fund of $87 million with police and fire departments comprising 75% of the city budget [28]. Literally, politicians and bureaucrats will hire more police officers and build more prisons and jails until it busts their budget. Furthermore, government does not understand that incarcerating people for minor offenses can destroy people economically. If a person is incarcerated in jail for a month, because he could not pay his fine like wearing the wrong clothes for jogging (This is a crime in Stillwater, Oklahoma), then that person could lose his job. Then with a job loss, the loss of the car and home will surely follow, and homelessness is right around the corner. Do not forget the bill from government, because they want to be paid for destroying that person’s life. The person still has to pay the court fines and fees, and the cost of his incarceration. Thus, an ever-expanding police state will fuel hatred between the government and its people. Unfortunately, the government does not understand that is cannot lock up everybody, which is why police states have short life spans.

This is why government should not charge inmates room and board for jail. An overzealous and cash hungry judicial system will incarcerate more people for silly infractions of the law. Charging inmates for incarceration has three outcomes.

1. Polices officers have more incentive to take more people to jail. Remember violent crime rates have been falling since the 1990s. Therefore, the judicial system will pack jails for minor infractions.

2. The court system has a stronger financial incentive to find the defendant guilty. If the court did not find the person guilty, then it would not be right to charge room and board for jail.

3. Keeping the jails full could encourage government to build more jails. Then society has a viscous cycle where government keeps building new jails and fills them with more violators, especially with a falling crime rate.

The 2008 Financial Crisis brings another complication. The U.S. economy is shedding jobs, unemployment and poverty are climbing, and people are losing hope. Some inmates do not want to be released from jail, while other people deliberately commit crimes so they become locked up. The state pays for room, food, and in some cases medical care. This is a problem in Detroit, Michigan [29], but will quickly spread to the other cities as the U.S. economy continues to implode.

Home | Table of Contents | Next Chapter

References

[1] Archibold, Randal C. and Nichole M. Christian. June 4, 2003. “To Embattled Mayor, Tickets Are the Hottest Issue in Town.” The New York Times.

[2] Associated Press. July 29, 2004. “Candy bar lands woman in police custody.” Houston Chronicle.

[3] theNewspaper.com. March 14, 2008. “Georgia: Traffic Cop Tickets Wheelchair.” Available at www.theNewspaper.com (access date: 9/25/08).

[4] Associated Press. December 3, 2005. “Man hit by car gets jaywalking ticket.” Houston Chronicle.

[5] Sandberg, Lisa. February 7, 2009. “Property seizure by police called 'highway piracy'” Houston Chronicle.

[6] Loewe, Wayne. April 4, 2003. “Barking at police dogs is not illegal.” Court TV.

[7] Associated Press. June 3, 2008. “Ohio city OKs jail time for failing to mow lawn.” Houston Chronicle.

[8] Shelden, Randall G. 2004. “The Imprisonment Crisis in America: Introduction.” Review of Policy Research 21(1): 5-12.

[9] Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2002. “In a 15 State study, over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years.” Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm (01/09/09).

[10] Aizenman, N.C. February 29, 2008. “The high cost of incarceration.” The Washington Post. Available at http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8400051 (01/02/09).

[11] Lochner, Lance. August 2004. “Education, Work, and Crime: A Human Capital Approach.” International Economic Review 45(3): 811-843.

[12] Hooks, Gregory, Clayton Mosher, Thomas Rotolo, and Linda Lobao. March 2004. “The Prison Industry: Carceral Expansion and Employment in U.S. Counties,1969–1994.” Social Science Quarterly 85(1): 37-57.

[13] Simon, Dan, Alina Cho, Terry Frieden, Rod Griola, Chris Strathmann, Jeanne Meserve, and Susan Candiotti. October 12, 2005. “Beating victim: No anger toward police.” CNN.

[14] Griffin, Drew and David Fitzpatrick. July 22, 2008. “Man dies after cop hits him with Taser 9 times.” CNN. Available at www.CNN.com/Crime (access date 7/11/08).

[15] Harris, Tom. 2008. “How Stun Guns Work.” Howstuffworks. Available at http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/stun-gun3.htm (access date: 12/24/08).

[16] Miller, Carlos. March 9, 2008. “Houston brothers receive $1.7 million in wrongful arrest suit.” Photography is not a crime. Available from http://carlosmiller.com/

[17] O’hare, Peggy. June 3, 2008. “Under fire, Sheriff's Office disbands surveillance unit.” Houston Chronicle.

[18] Texas Cable News. May 19, 2008. “Some lawmakers want Texas AG to investigate Harris County Sheriff's Office.” KHOU News. Available from http://www.txcn.com/

[19] Khanna, Roma and Steve McVicker. May 12, 2006. “Police lab tailored tests to theories, report says.” Houston Chronicle.

[20] Maier, Timothy W. June 2003. “Inside the DNA Labs.” Insight Mag. Available at www.insightmag.com (access date: 7/11/08).

[21] Sherrer, Hans. “Travesty in Tulia, Texas: Frame-up of 38 Innocent People Orchestrated by a County Sheriff, Prosecutor and Judge.” Available at www.forejustice.org (accessed on 7/3/08).

[22] Drug Policy Alliance. 2008. “Drugs, Policy, and the Law – Tulia, Texas.” Available at http://www.drugpolicy.org/law/police/tulia/index.cfm (access date: 02/05/08)

[23] Zongker, Brett. August 8, 2008. “Police clear name of Md. mayor after drug raid.” Yahoo News.

[24] DRCNet Foundation. February 2, 2002. “Backlash Emerges as Texas Drug Task Forces Run Amok.” The Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet). Available at StoptheDrugWar.org (access date 7/11/08).

[25] Associated Press. January 23, 2009. “Texas Judge's Blood-Alcohol Test Inadmissible.” Houston Chronicle.

[26] Hahn, Bill. July 11, 2007. “Family Attorney Blows the Whistle on State Child Protective Services Agencies.” The T.R.U.T.H. Project.

[27] Hurdle, Jon. February 13, 2009. “U.S. judges admit to jailing children for money.” Reuters.

[28] The Canadian Press. May 25, 2008. “California city that is in bankruptcy may become the model for others.”

[29] Crary, David and Corey Williams. December 26, 2008. “Detroit replaces New Orleans as most beleaguered American city.” South Florida Times. Available at http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2273&Itemid=42 (access date 01/02/09).