Florida

Florida Judge Sentences Corrupt Cops to Prison, Slams Prosecution for "Slap on the Wrist"

Former Biscayne Park Officers Charlie Dayoub and Raul Fernandez are going to prison after pinning burglaries on innocent black men.

|

|||Jay Weaver/TNS/Newscom
Jay Weaver/TNS/Newscom

In an effort to boost his department's standing in the local community, a Florida police chief found a way to solve every robbery case in his town. Former Biscayne Park Police Chief Raimundo Atesiano enlisted the help of two officers, Charlie Dayoub and Raul Fernandez, to arrest innocent black men for robberies that occurred in the area in 2013 and 2014.

In July, the U.S. Department of Justice charged all three men with conspiracy to violate civil rights. When it came time for Dayoub and Fernandez to face their actions in court, however, a judge criticized prosecutors for being too lenient.

U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore sentenced both Dayoub and Fernandez to one year in prison for making false arrests. The men were hoping to avoid prison time by helping prosecutors make their case against Atesiano, who pleaded guilty to civil rights conspiracy last month. Judge Moore reportedly told Assistant U.S. Attorney Harry Wallace that allowing the former cops to avoid jail time would have sent a terrible message to minorities, was "insulting" to others in law enforcement, and would have amounted to a "slap on the wrist."

Department of Justice attorneys recommended eight months of home confinement for Dayoub and one year probation for Fernandez. Moore said the prosecution's recommendations were "sentencing manipulation."

The Biscayne Park Police's arrest conspiracy affected residents as young as 16. The unnamed teenager was arrested for four previously unsolved burglaries without evidence. In another arrest, the department pinned five separate vehicle burglaries on a 35-year-old; the charges were eventually dropped when the department did not provide sufficient evidence to prosecutors.

Officer Anthony De La Torre reportedly told an internal affairs investigator that officers instructed to collar any black person with "somewhat of a record," and charge them with the burglaries.

From 2013 to 2014, the department boasted a 100% clearance rate for 30 burglary cases. In 2015, the year after Atesiano stepped down as chief, not a single one of 19 burglary cases was cleared.

NEXT: Forget Trump. The 2018 Midterm Election Is a Fight About Obamacare's Pre-Existing Conditions Rules

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Would the people whom (whomst?) they tried to frame have gotten a year in prison? If so, ok. But whatever the maximum sentence for the burglary charges are, that’s what the cops should serve (at least).

    1. “whomst”?

        1. Urban Dictionary, the go-to-source to corroborate insanity.

    2. I don’t see the equivalency there. To me a police officer framing someone for burglary is a much worse crime than burglary.

      1. ^ This.

      2. exponential.

  2. Is this the same judge that will sentence the Chief?

    1. Yes. Atesiano’s sentencing is Nov. 27 before U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore. He faces between 2 and 2 1/2 years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines. The U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed to recommend two years under Atesiano’s plea agreement, though the final decision is up to the judge.

  3. Former Biscayne Park Officers Charlie Dayoub and Raul Fernandez are going to prison after pinning burglaries on innocent black men.

    What difference does it make that the victims were black, or men for that matter?

    1. Because the cops conspired to arrest black men for the crimes?

      1. You can’t trust those white Hispanics. Such bigots.

        1. Dayoub? Sounds like a White Arab to me.

          1. Raul Fernandez

      2. Perhaps then more attention should be payed to everyone’s race in this story, or does that fuck up too many narratives?

        1. That would only be reasonable if there was no cause to bring up race in the first place. But in this case, there was, because the officers themselves targeted people by their race, and mentioning that is proper journalism. The race of the other participants is irrelevant.

          1. “The race of the other participants is irrelevant.”

            Why, because it is not proper journalism for readers to be informed of possible instances of intra-racial racism because whitey should just take the blame to perpetuate a consistent narrative that suits a certain agenda? Additionally, deprive readers of real life examples of police psychology and dynamics that could impact the reader’s life and liberty. That kind of proper journalism?

    2. The importance of that is that they deliberately chose to target Black men for framing. Or perhaps you think racial discrimination by the police is unimportant.

      1. Racial discrimination by the police is a hoax.

        This is because Attorney General Kamala Harris said, “Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon”.

        We certainly can not trust cops with that discretion if they engaged in racial discrimination.

        Since the Attorney General, who by virtue of her station speaks ex cathedra on matters relating to law enforcement, aid this, trusts them with this discretion, we have a contradiction, and as such we must conclude that cops do not engage in racial discrimination.

        1. Racial discrimination by the police is a hoax.

          Our society’s stale-thinking bigots can’t die off fast enough.

          1. Kamala Harris is a stale-thinking bigot? After all, she said that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon”

    3. By focusing on the focus on the wrong details you are focusing on the wrong details?

  4. Interestingly…

    The crime of framing someone was known in Biblical times as bearing false witness.

    According Old Testament law, if someone bore false witness that led to the conviction and subsequent punishment, that false witness would be sentenced to the exact same punishment.

    So, a lying cop who gets someone sentenced to life imprisonment he should get the same. If his lying results in someone being executed, then he should get the same.

    Maybe if we do this, then we would not have to deal with lying POS cops.

    1. If a cop lies and gets someone convicted of ANY crime, he should be severely punished, even if the potential punishment for the crime is not severe. A police officer framing someone is an outrageous and intolerable offense on its own.

  5. But.but Kamala Harris said we can trust “local law enforcement” with “discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon”.

    She was the Attorney General when she said that, so she is right by virtue of her position. Trusting local law enforcement with “discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon”. implies that law enforcement never misbehaves. Therefore, these accusations must be hoaxes, as otherwise we would never be able to trust local law enforcement with “discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon”, and the Attorney General would never have said that. Since she did say that, we have a proof by contradiction.

  6. This is horrible.
    Policemen should be able to frame anyone they want, any time they want.
    How else are we to populate our prisons?
    How else are we to keep the prison industrial complex moving?
    How else are we to keep the streets empty?
    How else are we to keep judges, lawyers, DA, etc. rolling in money?
    How else are we to show the world America believes in justice?

    1. Enacting common sense, sensible gun legislation perhaps?

  7. “The chief of police was a person who he looked up to for guidance as a senior officer; however in this instance, respect for the law should have come well before any notion of obedience to authority,” Dayoub’s defense attorney, Ana Davide, wrote in the filing.

    That’s not how police are trained.

    1. A big part of how police are actually trained is that if the senior cops are corrupt, the younger cops learn that they can get away with being corrupt too. And if the senior cops let younger cops get away with being abusive, the younger cops learn that being abusive is ok.

      I agree that the minimum sentence for false arrest should be “whatever the maximum penalty for the crime the victim was arrested for is”, and since they did it to multiple people, they ought to get sentenced to serve those consecutively.

    2. I thought they were trained to respond to these sorts of situations (read: got caught doing something illegal) by saying they weren’t properly trained and need additional funding for more training.

  8. I’ll give you three principal suspects for those unsolved burglaries

  9. I think the most important question is why did the Judge accept the plea agreement in the first place?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.