History
Approximately five years ago, having litigated hundreds of Philadelphia homicide cases, it became apparent to Ms. Himebaugh that some Homicide detectives routinely used unconstitutional interrogation techniques on suspects and witnesses in order to inculpate a particular suspect. These interrogation tactics included targeting of the vulnerable, use of isolation, threats, verbal and physical abuse and the destruction, manipulation and/or fabrication of evidence. Detectives use of these tactics was in fact so regular and widespread that it could be considered a “pattern and practice” of misconduct.
Accessibility
In an effort to make this information easily accessible to stakeholders, Ms. Himebaugh, Managing Director Kathryn Himebaugh and support staff have generated a searchable database, the Unconstitutional Patterns of Practice Database (UPPD) . The database is intended to be an ongoing, long term project. It is the hope that the defense bar, defendants and the public will reciprocate by providing relevant information for inclusion in this database.
Identified Patterns & Practices
Targeting of the vulnerable
The detective(s) target individuals who they perceived to be “weak” such as juveniles, elderly, injured, females, mothers, intellectually limited, etc.;
Isolation
The detective(s) held the witnesses/suspects for long periods of time in an interrogation room. Their requests for attorney or family calls were summarily denied;
Threats
The detective(s) threatened to send witnesses/suspects and/or their family members to jail, take away their children, their homes and their businesses, etc.;
Verbal Abuse
The detective(s) would refer to the witness/suspect (and his/her family/friends) by vulgar and/or demeaning terms (i.e. “bitch”, “whore”, “stupid”), would ‘get in their faces’, sometimes so close as to spit on them;
Physical Abuse
The detective(s) would use various forms of force including but not limited to slapping and punching the witnesses/suspects, inappropriately and/or violently touching their genitals, throwing them against objects or into chairs, etc.;
Manipulation/Destruction of Evidence
The detective(s) moved, altered or lost physical evidence and on occasion, cash had been in a witnesses/ suspects possession;
Ignoring Alternative Leads
Officers receive credible tips of information which they ignore and do not investigate.
Supplying Material Information to Witnesses
The detective(s) would either provide a blank or pre-written statement to the witnesses or would supply important pieces of information to the witnesses/suspect, often by showing them other people’s statements. The detective(s) would demand that the witness/suspect sign the false statement in order to be released, not charged, receive some benefit for their cooperation (lesser sentence, money and/or drugs).
By agreement between the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office and the Philadelphia Police Department, packets previously referred to by the Commonwealth as “Police Misconduct Disclosures” (PMD) will now be referred to as Brady/Giglio Disclosures (BGD)
Database Documentation: Levels of Reliability
Most Reliable to Least Reliable
1). Brady/Giglio Disclosures (BGD)
2). Stipulations between the DA’s office and the defendant
3). Criminal Court findings and court documents to go along with it.
4). Grand Jury Findings
5). Civil Suits
6). Affidavits
7). PTP Intake forms