There is a bizarre case out of Miami where officer Prabhainjana Dwivedi, 33, was arrested by the FBI for allegedly pulling over female drivers solely to look at their breasts and make “sexually suggestive conversations.” What was most striking about the story is that this was an FBI investigation based on the claim of a civil rights violation. It shows how far federal jurisdiction has extended into previously state areas.
The FBI says that it witnessed Dwivedi pulling over women “without probable cause, reasonable [suspicion] or other lawful authority to conduct a stop.” In one incident, he asked a woman to “lower the zipper on the front of her dress down past her breasts to her mid-stomach.” He held her for one hour and 20 minutes before being released without a citation. In another incident, he allegedly noticed a child seat in the car and threatened a 24-year-old woman that, if he arrested her, she could lose her child. When she asked to take a sobriety test to show she was not intoxicated, he refused. He then reportedly discussed the woman’s breast enhancement surgery, and asked “if she had any photographs of her breasts.” She then reportedly let him see photos on her phone. He stated, according to the complaint, that he wanted to see the scars from the surgery and unbelievably “M.F. then lifted her shirt and showed Dwivedi the scar.”
There is also the basis for a tort action in this case. While there is no false arrest, there is the intentional infliction of emotional distress. It would make for an interesting case with the woman who consented to lifting her shirt. To the extent that she felt reasonably compelled by the show of authority, the consent would not be a viable defense. Privacy claims are difficult due to the fact that much of the viewing was in public. However, requiring the unzipping of clothing under the display of authority would raise such a claim. Clearly a veiled threat to one’s custody over one’s child would be sufficient to deny an argument of consent.
In either the criminal or tort case, Prabhainjana Dwivedi will likely argue that the stops were justified and it could come down to any video evidence or witness testimony from the FBI agents.
Source: CBS
Here’s an interesting story for you:
Judge To Woman Sexually Assaulted By Cop: ‘When You Blame Others, You Give Up Your Power To Change’
By Ian Millhiser
Sep 7, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/09/07/809861/judge-to-woman-sexually-assaulted-by-cop-when-you-blame-others-you-give-up-your-power-to-change/
Last summer, a drunk Arizona police officer named Robb Gary Evans drove himself to a bar, flashed his badge to avoid paying cover at the door, and then walked up behind a woman, put his hand up her skirt, and ran his fingers over her genitals. A jury convicted him of sexual abuse, a felony with a maximum sentence of 2 and a half years in prison, and Evans was fired from the police force after an internal investigation.
Nevertheless, Arizona trial Judge Jacqueline Hatch, who was appointed to the bench by Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ), decided that Evans’ actions did not warrant jail time — sentencing him probation and 100 hours of community service. Evans also will not have to register as a sex offender. Yet, while Judge Hatch apparently did not view the disgraced former cop’s actions as particularly serious, she had some very harsh words for the woman he assaulted:
Bad things can happen in bars, Hatch told the victim, adding that other people might be more intoxicated than she was.
“If you wouldn’t have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you,” Hatch said.
Hatch told the victim and the defendant that no one would be happy with the sentence she gave, but that finding an appropriate sentence was her duty.
“I hope you look at what you’ve been through and try to take something positive out of it,” Hatch said to the victim in court. “You learned a lesson about friendship and you learned a lesson about vulnerability.”
Hatch said that the victim was not to blame in the case, but that all women must be vigilant against becoming victims.
“When you blame others, you give up your power to change,” Hatch said that her mother used to say.
The victim, who has not been identified by the press, called for Judge Hatch to apologize for her offensive comments, adding that if she had not been at the bar to be assaulted by Evans, “it probably would have happened to someone else.”
The author of the article omits some things. The Depart of Justice Civil Rights Division has a duty and the authority to investigate and prosecute civil rights violations against this victim. The victim can sue the Law Enforcement Offender (thanks BarkinDog for the name) under the Civil Rights statute 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for damages. And sue the supervisor of the perp and the municipality. It should be no matter of surprise to the civil rights teacher Turley that this county might have been up shi_ creek in the past for civil rights violations. This is a Southern State Mr. JT and we expect lynchings and the like unless the federal government keeps a watch over the governmental trangressors who used to wear Klan robes but now just rely on badges and call themselves LEOs.
Mike, More likely Cop Randy stopped some woman who knows someone in the US Attorneys office. Unfortunately, that’s how our “justice” system too often works. There’s a state law enforcement agency set up for this. The FBI have enough corrupt natioinal politicians to investigate. Hell, Chicago alone can take up several offices! If the FBI did this to try and get Officer Randy to flip on something more important then it was just stupid on their part. Cop Randy will them to go Sh#t in their hat if all they have is this to hold over his head.
I agree with Frankly and BFM, there is more to this story than meets the eye. I understand and agree with others whose position is that it would be appropriate for the FBI to investigate cases in venues where there might be prejudicial behavior performed by local law enforcement. However, what this man’s alleged crimes were, though certainly far overstepping professional bounds, do not seem to be of the nature that would require an FBI team. My guess is that this officer possibly has knowledge of some greater criminal issue and these charges are to pressure him to cooperate with a perceived more important investigation.
All these state troopers, Police officers,etc. etc. must have cameras with the listening devices imbedded in their foreheads. We can can catch these criminals in uniforms like that and hence reduce the crimes.
Wootsy, Thanks for the lengthy civics lesson. If you read my comment I said “usually under the state AG’s office.” I’ve never worked a case in Florida, but having worked cases in 14 states, I know a bit about this. A more thorough check, if you had read my qualifier, “usually” would have lead you to the Florida Dept of Law Enforecement. They investigate statewide and among the lists of offenses within their purview is “public integrity.” I could give you a grade of D or would you like an incomplete like our prez? Just let me know.
There must be more to this. Why isn’t the state doing the investigation? And why are the feds doing it? The officer was patrolling at night so the stops were more scary than if in the daylight.
How hard would it be to see state’s evidence? Is it by cup size?
However, every state has a department of criminal investigations, usually under the state AG’s office. This is a job for them…not the FBI.~nick spinelli
——————————
——————————
No nick, I think you be wrong this time.
The Florida AG website says; What Florida Law Provides
The Attorney General’s Office is an enforcing authority of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, which is meant to protect individual consumers and legitimate businesses from various types of illegal conduct in trade or commerce. Pursuant to the Act, the attorney general investigates and files civil actions against persons who engage in unfair methods of competition, unfair, unconscionable or deceptive trade practices, including, but not limited to, pyramid schemes, misleading franchise or business opportunities, travel scams, fraudulent telemarketing, and false or misleading advertising.
the FBI website says ; The very heart of FBI operations lies in our investigations—which serve, as our mission states, “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.” and lists :
1. Terrorism
– International Terrorism
– Domestic Terrorism
– Weapons of Mass Destruction
2. Counterintelligence
– Counterespionage
– Counterproliferation
– Economic Espionage
3. Cyber Crime
– Computer Intrusions
– Online Predators
– Piracy/Intellectual Property Theft
– Internet Fraud
– Identity Theft
4. Public Corruption
– Government Fraud
– Election Fraud
– Foreign Corrupt Practices
5. Civil Rights
– Hate Crime
– Human Trafficking
– Color of Law
– Freedom of Access to Clinics
6. Organized Crime
– Italian Mafia/LCN
– Eurasian
– Balkan
– Middle Eastern
– Asian
– African
– Sports Bribery
7. White-Collar Crime
– Antitrust
– Bankruptcy Fraud
– Corporate Fraud
– Financial Institution Fraud & Failures
– Health Care Fraud
– Insurance Fraud
– Mass Marketing Fraud
– Money Laundering
– Mortgage Fraud
– Securities and Commodities Fraud
– More White-Collar Frauds
8. Violent Crime and Major Thefts
– Art Theft
– Bank Robbery
– Cargo Theft
– Crimes Against Children
– Cruise Ship Crime
– Gangs
– Indian Country Crime
– Jewelry and Gem Theft
– Retail Theft
– Vehicle Theft
The other news not yet appearing on this blog is that the Leo named Drew Pearson has been convicted in Illinois for the murder of his wife based on the hearsay testimony of dead wife. Ilinois passed some statute (which needs to be examined on this blog) which offends the Confrontation Clause right to confront the witnesses against you in open court and cross examine them before the jury. In Pearson’s case the trial court allowed dead lady’s divorce lawyer to testify as to what dead lady told him. A pastor got up in God’s name and said what dead lady told him. One can hardly cross examine dead lady through the Pastor or divorce lawyer can we? This also offends the due process clause of the 14th Amendment right to a fair trial based on competent evidence and non hearsay evidence. Time will tell if the Illinois Supreme Court is UnReconstructed. This might get to a federal habeas court and eventually to the Supreme Court. My bet is that Justice Scalia would rule in favor of hearing the case. Scalia, the so called Conservative, is a believer in the Confrontation Clause and is against admitting hearsay of the Pastor, the divorce lawyer or the dog. Ask Turley to put this subject on the blog. I am just a dog and no one listens to my bark.
Gee can I testify against the Pearson guy? I overheard him on tv saying something snide about first wife.
I’m surprised there is any question about the FBI being involved in this; it is their job, after all. Federal law prohibits the use of state law to deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. One of those rights is the right NOT to be subjected to sexual harassment in exchange for the privilege of driving one’s own vehicle on public roads. Section 42 USC 1981 would naturally make what the officer is alleged to have done a federal offense AND would give the victims the right to sue the police for (respondeat superior) for damages, right?
If the FBI were doing more of this, we would have fewer police-sponsored beatings, murders, thefts, abuses of all sorts, and the Sanford Police Department would also be indicted (along with several of its officers) for federal crimes because of what they did and tried to do in the Zimmerman case.
As someone who has been victimized by about a dozen “state actors,” I feel very strongly about the fact that ordinarily, the feds hang out protecting their jurisdictional testicles from all suggestion of work on cases like this. Good for these guys that they didn’t do so.
We have the Justice Dept. closing down cannabis dispensaries in California and now FBI agents apparently doing surveillance on a randy cop. I can tell you, the FBI do not do do one person surveillance, it was a team. I guess all the bank robberies and other major crimes must all be solved. This is another example of why Holder is a joke. Now, there’s a good chance the FBI stepped in because the local police were ignoring this. However, every state has a department of criminal investigations, usually under the state AG’s office. This is a job for them…not the FBI.
“He stated, according to the complaint, that he wanted to see the scars from the surgery and unbelievably “M.F. then lifted her shirt and showed Dwivedi the scar.””
——————————-
‘ unbelievably’ “M.F. then lifted her shirt and showed Dwivedi the scar.”…?
why do you ave trouble believing that a woman at the mercy of an armed police officer in the deep South would comply with that request? and BarkinDog I agree with you. The Feds are here because they are desperately needed here.
What do you suppose happens to people who don’t ‘comply’ with those with a Master/Slave, Winner/Loser Top/bottom mind matrix? First of all, anyone who still deploys that fractured mindset has already demonstrated that they are in a low brain developmental position. There is little you can do with sorts such as this when you are in the situation as each ‘noncompliant’ response will elicit anger or frustration which leads to potential for your physical harm. Maybe she, like myself, learned by experience.
@Wooty’s still a Cat “The Feds are here because they are desperately needed here. ”
I agree that the Feds may be desperately needed. But it is not clear to me at all that the desperate need accounts for their presence.
On the contrary I would argue that there are many places were the Fed’s are desperately needed but you are more likely to find big foot or Nessie on the scene.
So, to me, the question still remains, why here, why this local officer, why this series of cases?
The Feds may be doing a good think. It may be very positive that they have stepped in. But how did it happen that their attention was drawn to this situation?
The federal aspect has some historical perspective. Southern states have a history of stomping on civil rights. Local cops in Southern states have a large history of stomping on civil rights and largely upon the civil rights of black folks and other minorities. The reasons are complex but are not just based on inane bigotry. The master/slave dynamic has a lot to underpine this. Low life white trash had a tendency to want to lord it over others. The history of colonialism leaves its mark on the Lord and Lassie aspect. Lyndon Johnson was a southerner who pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Much more than that he pushed the intrusion of federal over sight of local tyranny and Klan activity.
Those who oppose the intrusion of federal police, federal prosecution of civil rights crimes, and the imposition of federal constitutional jurisprudence upon state courts, are UnReconstructed. What is Reconstruction? What is the term UnReconstructed? The post civil war years produced the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution. The so called Radical Reconstructionists were northern Republicans of the party of Lincoln who, having lost 600,000 deaths on both sides in the war, wanted to recosntruct the nation in a manner in which all folks were equal, and that included the poor white trash. They wanted to end not only slavery but the Lord and Lassie complex of the South and the North. The other vestiges of colonialsim and royalty.
Opposition to federal oversight is often articulated with the entre words of Godamn Yankees. Least we focus too much on pigheaded conduct of cops on the beat we must also consider the state courts. Consider places like the former slave state of Missouri where the Missouri Supreme Court has repudiated any reference to federal constitutional jurisprudence when it considers the claim of a criminal defendant in the right to a fair trial under the due process clause– the rigth to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on each element of the crime. State v. Samuel Freeman, was discussed by this dog on this blog as well as State v. Donald Nash. Judges with east coast backgrounds who sit on that Missouri Supreme Court have gone along with the repudiation of the federal Constitution in these matters. Mizzou be UnReconstructed folks.
Normally the Turley blog will castigate some aspect of the Obama administration for being lame on a civil right or particularly on foreign civil rights. Here in the Florida case, for some reason the feds have intervened and we dont hear any credit to Obama. Perhaps when the election is over and The Willard has won or lost, the pro Willard tract will dim. This Florida Law Enforcement Offender (Leo) needs to be prosecuted. Mizzoura and other former slave states need to get ReConstructed. They think that because they talk the King’s English and dont say Y’all in places like Saint Louis, that they are somehow civilized.
It seems rather odd to me that the FBI was involved. I can’t imagine the FBI undertaking an investigation if it were merely someone complaining about a police officer stopping her for too long and asking inappropriate questions. And, if it were just women making complaints to the Miami PD, then you’d expect it to either be investigated by the PD or swept under the rug. Miami is certainly big enough that they have their own internal affairs investigation people. I wouldn’t think they’d ask the FBI to investigate one of their own. Must have been the officer harassed the wrong person as Frankly suggests or perhaps someone had particularly compelling evidence of improper action that she presented the FBI (secret recording of a stop?).
As to consent, the officer allegedly threatened her custody of her child. I wouldn’t think consent would apply to just about any command to a person stopped and detained by the police. Throw in the threat to her custody of her child and consent is a losing argument in this case.
When local police fail to police their own booby police the federal police must police the local booby police.
The suggestion that the woman “consented” is outrageous. A police officer who makes such a demand is likely to be capable of much worse; no reasonable person would suggest consent.
Odd, I wonder how this cop came to their attention. Could he have harassed the “wrong” woman?
Historically I believe the FBI extended its jurisdiction into local affairs because of the large number of gross abuses that kept turning up in local jurisdictions. Freed from the politics of the local government and the petty interests and prejudices of the locals they were able to bring justice to places that could not be bothered to provide it themselves.
“It would make for an interesting case with the woman who consented to lifting her shirt.”
That may be a question under the law.
But I would guess that many today would say that when under control of an officer, as she was during a traffic stop, there can be no meaningful consent.
Immigration, breasts enhancements seems to be the norm for South Florida…..