The Courant has an article today about the legislative hearing looking in to the Ken Krayeske arrest during the inaugural parade. Its an interesting article (go read the whole thing) that neatly points out the discrepancy between the police version of events and that of witnesses and the photographic evidence (also outlined here).
I wanted to pull out one small part of the article, lest it slide into history without comment:
[Hartford Police Chief Daryl K. Roberts] said Hartford police decided on their own to set bail of $75,000 for Krayeske, which kept him locked up until a state bail commissioner ordered him released without bail.
Roberts said his officers set a high bail because Krayeske was “evasive” and “uncooperative” after his arrest. Krayeske, an anti-war demonstrator who once taught protesters how to behave if arrested, had asked for a lawyer and refused to answer questions.
First of all, this explanation of why the HPD set the bail so high is at odds with the explanation HPD spokesperson Nancy Mulroy gave me on January 9th:
Ms. Mulroy indicated that the original bail was set with an eye toward Mr. Krayeske’s previous criminal record. But his criminal record contains only three arrests for non-violent civil disobedience - hardly the stuff that makes for high bail.
So, which is it? Was the bail set high because Mr. Krayeske had previous convictions for acts of non-violent civl disobedience or because he was “evasive” and “uncooperative”?
Assume that the statement of the HPD chief is the correct one for the moment. Requesting that you have access to an attorney before an interrogation takes place is a constitutionally protected right. Here, it seems that the HPD gave Mr. Krayeske received a higher bail because he exercised that right. Is the HPD in the practice of doling out higher bail amounts as punishment for suspects who know and exercise their Constitutional rights? Does anyone else have a problem with that?
10 responses so far ↓
Cops Lie.
You’re suprised?
Wow, sounds like the Hartford PD might be getting caught in its own web. Let’s not forget that someone is still responsible for printing fliers of this guy. The right to an attorney must remain sacred even if we are sure we have caught a criminal. The actions of the certain officers in this case are disgraceful.
Being evasive and uncooperative is the whole point of the right to remain silent. The point is you don’t give potentially damaging information unless you want to do so without the help of counsel. What danger did Ken pose for snapping pictures of our elected officials without incident until officers decided to handcuff him?
Any first year Law student will tell you NEVER answer ANY questions if you are arrested. Ken did what any person with an IQ above 80 would do.
For the Cheif of the Hartford PD to call keeping quiet and asking for an Attorney acting “evasive” and “uncooperative” shows he should never have been promoted past patrolman.
The only thing that was more disgusting than the Hartford Cheif was the Committee Chairs and the Republican members of the committee pandering their asses off and acting as if asking the cops to explain their obvious mistakes makes you a terrorist or something.
After watching Sen. Collins and Sen. Hagel slap Lieberman silly for calling anyone who disagreed with him Treasonous you’d think these idiot pols would get a clue.
Most people in this state have no idea what the process is for an arrest warrant or how bail is set..they think its how Law and Order portrays it…which in this state is nothing how it really is.
It’s human nature for people not to understand fully how things work unless they themselves have been caught up in the system.
My biggest problem with this is that whatever resources were used on this particular case were a waste of time. I want the police to deal with real threats not ones they have to make up contrary to eyewitnesses and then waste my money on the court system to sort it out.
What we have here is a security detail that makes the keystone cops look like a swat team…
I am a big supporter of law enforcement, but I have seen first hand how police do lie and manipulate to suit their own purposes - it’s happened to me.
The Hartford Police Chief should be publicly reprimanded for his supposed explanation and all hartford police officer - cincluding the Chief - should have to take a manadatory class teaching them what is in our Constitution.
So who’s fibbing?
From the AP:
[Hartford Police Chief Daryl] Roberts said his officers didn’t know who Krayeske was until after he was arrested.
From the arrest report:
I immediately recognized the accused as Kenneth Krayeske from the photograph provided by the State Police.
The officer clearly reports recognizing Krayeske before arresting him.
So who’s making stuff up?
Here’s the video of the hearing.
Easy, Roberts.
this really looks on the surface like someone is trampling rights. How come no groups like the ACLU have become involved, to give it more legs?
I’ve asked this high low and all over and all I’ve gotten in return is NADA.
I know this is a big deal on blogs, but most of the voting public has no clue…
>> But his criminal record contains only three arrests for non-violent civil disobedience
“Only” three arrests?
Civil disobedience is hardly anything I would consider honorable, let alone getting arrested.
It’s not like this guy was staging a sit in at a Selma diner or something.
The only does not refer to the number of arrests, but to their type. Regardless of your feelings about non-violent civil disobedience, bail is raised because of the danger of the suspect and the potential for flight. Here, the HPD pointed to Mr. Krayeske’s record as the reason for setting bail roughly 100 times higher than the normal disturbing the peace bail - and there is nothing in his record to even hint at violence (or to flight risk for that matter). So, leaving aside your view on the social utility of non-violent protest, $75,000 bond for disturbing the peace is patently absurd. This was borne out by the actual judge lowering the bail to a promise to appear.
By the way, congratulations for completely missing the point(s) of the post: that the HPD have given at least two conflicting reasons for the outrageously high bail and that the reason advanced by the HPD Chief seems to be punative towards suspects who exercise their constitutional rights to remain silent and have an attorney present.
You must log in to post a comment.