|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Testimony began Monday in the criminal case of a man who allegedly became violent and was shot by a Taser by Palo Alto police officers last March after he was lured into opening the side door of his parked van then pulled out of the van, according to testimony of one of the officers involved, Manuel Temores.
Joseph Anthony Ciampi faces a felony charge of assaulting a police officer for the March 15 incident.
Temores used a Taser on Ciampi twice to subdue him during his struggle with Temores and two other officers, Temores testified Monday afternoon before Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Thang Nguyen Barrett in Palo Alto.
Testimony in the case is scheduled to continue Thursday afternoon.
Barrett is hearing testimony on a defense motion to exclude audio and visual recorded evidence form the case — the motion must be decided before the case goes to trial. (Video is taken by a camera mounted in the police car while the audio is picked up from a remote microphone on the officer’s uniform.)
The defense is seeking to exclude certain evidence in its claim that recordings from “TaserCams” on the Tasers were were tampered with by police because they didn’t match the timing of a recording from the camera in the police car, according to a defense witness. (See separate story.)
Ciampi’s lawyer, David Beauvais, contends that Ciampi’s 4th and 14th Amendment rights were violated by what was an illegal search of Ciampi and the van in which he had been sleeping for weeks.
The March 15 incident was triggered by a call to police from Ken Alsman, who lives near Ramona Street and Lincoln Avenue. In a 911 recording played in court, Alsman said a man had been living in his van outside Alsman’s home for as long as three weeks at a time and refused to leave. Alsman told a police dispatcher that the man “scares the daylights of out my wife” by the way he looks at her.
Temores arrived at the scene shortly after 10 a.m., closely followed by police Agent April Wagner and Officer Kelly Burger.
Under direct testimony to Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Javier Alcala and cross examination by Beauvais, Temores described how the officers tried to convince Ciampi to get of his van to talk with them. He initially refused to open the van door but did so after Temores used a ruse of calling a tow truck, Temores testified.
When Ciampi opened the side door of the van, Burger grasped Ciampi’s arm and pulled him out, Temores said. There was a brief melee when Ciampi broke away from Burger and wrestled with and struck both Burger and Wagner before Temores used his Taser on Ciampi twice, Temores said.
He testified that Ciampi became aggressive, swinging his fists and feet at the officers. Temores also testified that Ciampi had “pop” marks on both arms, which are often an indication of intravenous drug use, and said he believed Ciampi was under the influence of stimulants because of his aggressive manner.
“He was screaming at me,” Temores testified. “I told him to calm down.”
The officers briefly wrestled with Ciampi on the ground before Temores used his Taser a second time, directly on his skin, and Ciampi said, “‘OK, OK, I’ll stop,'” Temores said.
Testimony on the defense motions to exclude evidence is scheduled to continue Thursday afternoon.
In an interview with the Weekly, Ciampi said he has health problems that have led him to live in his van rather than in an apartment. He has been receiving health care at the Palo Alto VA Hospital for 15 years, eight of those for a chronic condition that causes marks and sores on his skin, he said.
He works part-time as a gardener and was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army, he said.
He is also a member of the YMCA since 1997 and has volunteered at the downtown food closet.
After his arrest, several Palo Alto residents wrote letters of support on his behalf to the City Council.
Related story:
Why would the defense want to exclude the audio/video? Possibly because it shows the TRUTH??
Here is a link to the other articles, discussions, and the actual motion to suppress:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.homeless/browse_thread/thread/8f50efbb5fc071b5
This might help answer the above question.
They’re not just trying to exclude the videos. They’re trying to exclude police testimony as well. I am NOT a lawyer, but I think the idea is that if you can exclude all evidence, then there isn’t any choice but to acquit.
First of all Tony is NOT Homeless. He rents a room in a house nearby and sleeps in his van because he has a medical condition (the “pop marks” on his arms are not from drugs but from a candida like infection) that is aggravated by sleeping in recycled air.
I sure wish, the PAPD would do its homework before it profiles in such a way (sound familiar?)
In addition, the Weekly owes Tony an apology. He grew up in this area and is so far from being homeless that his roommates make jokes about the rent he pays for a room he rarely sleeps in….
Not to mention the fact that Tony is a tremendous athlete. The star of our football league, he is also a basketball powerhouse (he is only 5’7″) at the local YMCA. It is this will he is using to battle a sickness that would have most people flat on their backs taking drugs. As the winner that he is, Tony has refused to be violated by our Taser toting “peace keepers” as they doctor the evidence so they can laugh at what they thought was some poor homeless guy who could never challenge what they did to him……
Tony can open a window in his bedroom and get plenty of fresh air that way. Mine are open 365 days a year. Sometimes my room is cold as a meatlocker but I love fresh air.
I posted yesterday so won’t go all through it again but I lnow from experience that it’s positively creepy to have someone living in their van in front of your home. A real invasion of privacy and sense of security.
If Tony didn’t want to bother anyone he could have parked in front of a City park. If Tony doesn’t wish to be tasered he should get out of his vehicle when requested by law enforcement.
Tony was aware of the homeowners concerns. He parked there anyway. Tony refused to get out of his vehicle. Tony has a room. Tony chooses not to use his room. Police seldom cruise around entering random peoples rooms and tasering them for no good reason. At least, not in Palo Alto. Tony escalated matters. Tony took these risks when he made these choices. Therefore isn’t Tony largely responsible for what wound up happening?
Under what circumstances can you refuse the order of an officer to get out of your car?
Food for thought. If Ciampi was african american, would this be a racial issue? Was Ciampi racially profiled? Where is the outcry???? Should the caucasian public orchestrate a march to city hall because of racial profiling and cost the city thousands of dollars. We should march to EPA to Mayor Foster’s office!!!! See how ridiculous this is getting????
Ready to March against Political Correctness for the mere sake of political gain. Ready to march against the City Council. Ready to march against Mayor Foster’s interference. Just let me know when and where.
Kudos for the PAPD again ! Thank you for responding to the needs of the homeowners – these are the right kind of people in palo alto, and deserve to be protected.
Here is a thought, if you don’t want to get Tasered; try cooperating with the police. Obviously the cops got a call about this guy and had to respond. What are they suppossed to do when the guy inside wont come out? So they made hm belive his van was going to get towed, big deal? It worked pretty good in my eyes. If you really thini the cops care enough about this guy to alter the Taser recordings then you watch too much TV. No cop is going to loose his job over some non-homeless guy who sleeps in a van.
Better taser than shot. Also, I have walked by these vans that people live in 24/7. Many times when their bathroom bucket is filled, they just leave it outside the van. Nice sight to walk by.
Dear Food ….for hate,
Marching(?), not for me. Fear based lifestyle, police state PA is soooo old. We’re supposed to be smarter than that. Why the aggression? Why the fear from the homeowners? It would seem that the homeowners are the profilers!
It’s all very silly and suspect. I think that more folks should start speaking to one another. It was 10a.m. in the morning. Ask the man to move his van. Surely there’s enough parking space in that area to accommodate this man.
GET OVER YOURSELF PALO ALTANS. You’re just simply not that speacial. Don’t take out your problems of being house poor out on those who appear to have less than you. Think about joining them in their peace.
BTW – I met with the outbound PA Police Chief She told me that you do not have to provide identification to an officer unless they consider you a suspect in a crime. There is no requirement to comply unless their work is official.
So the question is — Officer am I suspected in a crime?
Hey candyface, grow up!
get a grip on reality-
this ain’t some john lennon song babe-
it’s more like
a sucker for you to chew on
Palygirl,
Ciampi did not have to provide identification. But he attacked and assaulted an officer. So this poor guy who was living in his van who was not homeless who you are defending is just misunderstood i take it? Shame on those cops for contacting him and forcing him to assault them. They should be fired and he should be payed out $140,00 just like hopkins. Wake up you hippie!
hey there dirt munchin’tree hugger can’t we all just get along and drink the kool-aid together: google Terry vs. Ohio, then take it from there to find out the stop and identify laws in California.
This guy WAS asked to park elewhere more than once. You are right, there is a lot of parking in some areas. Some on here even offered for Tony to park in front of THEIR homes. But he wouldn’t. So who was being unreasonable now?
Why is it with people like you that you think the people on the fringe have more rights than the more stable citizens?
You attended Jordan and Paly and lived in Crescent Park before moving to Mountain View and now that entitles you to indulge yourself in an us against them mentality? Who said we thought we were special? The homeowner was defending HIS rights.
And, join him in his PEACE? Sorry, I stopped hanging out in Vans in the 70’s.
As to that guy who is ‘storing’ vans around town, is anyone monitoring that? I too have seen human refuse both in buckets and not…it’s pretty repulsive.
“Officer, an I a suspect in a crime?”
Try that when you go through a checkpoint.
The problem here is that Ciampi has a reasonable case for describing his actions as self-defense. The cops didn’t have any cause to detain him, and they used first lies and then force to do so. Quite frankly, if anybody other than a cop did what they did, that person would have been arrested, not Ciampi.
Cescentparkjordanpalygirl writes:
> Fear based lifestyle, police state PA is soooo old.
What Palo Altans really need to do is oppose the construction of that new military-base Police station on Park Boulevard. It never should have been approved by those overclass autocrats.
The issue was not detention. The officers wanted to talk to him and he acted just like Hopkins and became belligerent. That was still fine up until he got in an officer’s face and assaulted the officer. That’s why he got tasered. Why is it so hard to just be civil and talk to cops when they stop you instead of flying off the handle?
“Cops” do a pretty thankless job of responding to citizens’ phone calls about almost anything …. some as mundane as barking dogs to actual violent situations. They put their own personal safety on the line every day, but most folks just take them for granted.
A thought….perhaps the neighbor who requested that the “van dweller” move to another location did it in a confrontational way. There are nice ways and then there are demanding ways to ask someone to do something. He was parked on a public street…. which does not give him the right to stay there for several weeks at a time, however, as a home owner I can see where the actions of others may appear to infringe on your own quiet enjoyment of your property. It is a quandry of our society these days to accept others’ choices. His choice was to stay put when asked to move. The property dweller had a choice to call the cops. The rest is history.
Maybe this could’ve been avoided with a good talk with people who lived near where he was parking. It’s a weird situation.
“Presentation of Evidence of Registration:
Vehicle Identification Documents: Unlawful Use or Possession
4462. (a) The driver of a motor vehicle shall present the registration or identification card or other evidence of registration of any or all vehicles under his or her immediate control for examination upon demand of any peace officer.”
Just curious.
Wow, it’s really fun reading your responses to my post!
Luring him out of the van was really a no-no, and not at all playing fair.
By the rules of the game, at the point he refused to come out the police were required to either (their choice) a)draw a ‘Chance’ card and follow the instruction or b)throw the dice a maximum three times. If they get a double they are allowed to remove him. Otherwise after the third throw he is home free.
get these bums out of their cardboard curtained vans and off the streets, and I’m glad the officers did this. we need to start taking back our neighborhoods and streets, one run-down van and street punk at a time. it’s time to show a little strength and law and order – how would they feel if someone pitched a tent right next to their van, just feet away? residents have a psychological border for their property. letting strangers park in front of our homes is too much. we need a new law. Hey Ciampi, please park in front of my house, and “make my day”!
Palo Alto is becoming a Mecca for the homeless. With places like the Opportunity Center, we see every homeless person from San Diego to Seattle, San Francisco to New York come to town. Drive down El Camino and look at the homeless van encampment that has sprung up on College, Oxford, and Cambridge. They hang out all day smoking pot and peeing in the bushes in front of people’s homes and nothing can be done! They probably even have “medical” marijuana cards! HA, what a joke! By the time Palo Alto finally decides to take a stand against the agressive, mentally unstable, drug and alcohol addicted homeless population in town, it wil be too late. But I’m sure Ciampi will be paid out by the city to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars to avoid litigation, so maybe he won’t be homeless for long! It’s great to see that some greedy attorney has made this mentally unstable, dangerous, van-living, homeless guy a pawn in his desire to make money! Alas, but have no fear, taxpayers will soon be paying Ciampi thousands. Who needs libraries, paved streets, or a new police building when we can instead pay Ciampi thousands for a new van! YAY!!
Mike, don’t criticize the police without knowing all the facts. The police did indeed follow the rules. They chose a) and the card said lure him out of the van.
Tim…honestly, you sound like the aggressive, mentally unstable one and it’s clear from your post you have no clue about this case.
There is an easy way to stop these strangers from parking in our midst by requiring parking permits for all public street parking within the city. We also need to strictly enforce the 72 hour parking law. Permits would mean extra revenue for the city and help pay for the additional enforcement. Neighborhood association volunteers may also be used to track all of those who park on public streets to ensure permit documents are in order. We need to get a handle on this overwheleming problem in our city as the current situation is intolerable.
It would be excellent to have the recordings as how can justice be properly decided when there is no real evidence to back up either story.
My real hope is we do less tasing and more counceling. Since this fellow is a vet, why can’t we WORK COPERATIVELY WITH THE VETERIANS HOSPITAL AND SET ASIDE A PLACE FOR HOMELESS VETS TO LIVE, RIGHT THERE ON THE HOSPITAL GROUNDS. Set aside a parking lot, or designate another area for homeless vets, and help them with their problems. Let them live in their vans at the Palo Alto VA Hospital under supervision and with social services being provided, this would be reehabilitative, yes?