MINNESOTA BOARD OF

PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING

Paul Monteen, Standards Coordinator
1600 University Avenue, Suite #200
St. Paul, MN 55104-3825
Phone (651) 643-3060

COMPLAINANT: Most Recent Occurrence:

Joshua J. Israel, P. X. Box XXX January 11, 2010
Shakopee, MN XXX Shakopee Police Officers
Phone (XXX) XXX-XXX SXXXXXXX SXXX
Race: Black American Citizen Numerous Incidents

ALLEGED PEACE OFFICER MISCONDUCT

The alleged misconduct consists of a series of falsified police reports, a series of retaliatory
actions against the witness of disorderly conduct, retaliation against the witness of domestic
violence, and retaliation against the witness of a hit-and-run auto accident. Moreover, these
actions of misconduct are considered to be “classroom discrimination,” based on race, where the
inaction of peace officers have deprived the Complainant of public assistance, which created the
opportunity for third persons to “aggravate” their disturbances and to “aggravate” their
disorderly conduct, so as to create violent situations for Complainant. In addition since the peace
officers are presumed to know the law, these officers knew that they were in collaboration with
the biased motives of the property owner who desires to retaliate against the Complainant.
Therefore, this collaboration has deprived Complainant of access to the courts and the equal
protection of laws, in violation of the 14th Amendment, and this deprivation has also deprived
Complainant of liberty without due process, and to demonstrate, Complainant states as follows:

The Statutes Violated and Conduct Prohibited, under Rule 6700.1600(A)

Minn. Stat. 626.862(1) Powers of Law Enforcement Officers: Except as specifically provided by statute,
only a peace officer and a part-time peace officer may: (1) issue a citation in lieu of arrest, or continued
detention, unless specifically authorized by ordinance.

Minn. Rule 6.01(1) Mandatory Issuance of Citation: Law enforcement officers acting without a warrant,
who have decided to proceed with prosecution, shall issue citations to persons subject to lawful arrest for
misdemeanors *** Ordinarily, for misdemeanors not punishable by incarceration, a citation shall be issued.
Case Law Precedent: Generally, law enforcement officers do issue citations to people subject to lawful
arrest for misdemeanors, unless it reasonably appears that (1) arrest for detention is necessary to prevent
bodily harm to the accused or another or to prevent further criminal conduct; or (2) there is a substantial
likelihood that the accused will fail to respond to the citation State v. Richmond (Minn. App. 1999) 602
N.W.2d 647.

Minn. Stat. 609.43(1)(4) Misconduct of Public Officer or Employee: A public officer or employee who
does any of the following *** may be sentenced to imprisonment or pay a fine of both: (1) intentionally fails
to perform a known mandatory nondiscretionary or ministerial duty of the office or employment within the
time or manner required by law; or in the capacity of such officer, makes an official report having knowledge
it is false in any material aspect.

1
 Minn. Stat. 609.72 Disorderly Conduct: Whoever does any of the following in any public or private place,
knowingly, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger, or disturb others
or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor.

Minn. Stat. 626.5531(1) Reporting of crimes motivated by bias: A peace officer must report to the head
of the officer’s department, every violation of chapter 609, or a local criminal ordinance, if the officer has
reason to believe, or if the victim alleges, that the offender was motivated to commit the act by the victim’s
race *** The reports must include…

Minn. Stat. 609.745 Permitting Public Nuisance: Whoever having control over real property, permits it to
be used to maintain a public nuisance or lets the same knowing it will be so used is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Minn. Stat. 609.498(1)(f) Tampering With Witness: (1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of
tampering with a witness in the first degree: (f) Intentionally causes injury or threatens to cause injury to any
person or property in retaliation against a person who has provided information to law enforcement
authorities concerning a crime within one year of that person who provided the information.

18 USCA 1512(b)(1)(A)(2)(C) Obstruction of Justice: Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or ***

corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another
person, with intent to – *** prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; cause or induce
any person to – withhold testimony, or withhold a record, or document, from an official proceeding; evade
legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, or document, in an
official proceeding.

Narrative and Summary of Events

1. During the late summer season, in the year 2003, the Complainant was a witness to a black
semi-tractor hit & run accident. The black semi-tractor did rear-end a red corvette that was
parked in the parking-lot of the property owner causing substantial damage to the corvette.
Complainant did notify the property management, and did notify the owner of the corvette,
and when the corvette owner sought the identity of the semi-tractor driver, the management
of the property did withhold the identity of the semi-driver. Thereafter, the investigating
police officer, at that time, did take a witness-statement from this Complainant, which did
contradict the claims of the property management; and thereafter, the Complainant has not
been involved in the matter since that time.

2. In retaliation to being a witness to said hit & run accident, and in retaliation for being
required to give a statement to the investigating police officer, the property management did
retaliate against the Complainant, which caused Complainant to file a housing discrimination
complaint (Case No. 05-04-0639-8; Barbara M Knox, Director). After being coerced to
accept a conciliation agreement (A-1), (by Thomas Leach, Field Director), and during the
one year duration of this settlement agreement, the property owner was abandoned by the
Villager Franchise system, (Case No. 05-CV-00279-JMR-FLN) & (70-2005-03211).

3. As consequence, the Shakopee police began to withhold public assistance from Complainant
for his property damage, for the nuisances, for the distress, and the for retaliations that were
perpetrated upon Complainant thereafter (Report 07-011466).

4. On 4/02/10, after the property management allowed a dog nuisance problem to escalate,
Complainant did file a police report on this dog nuisance problem (A-2). After this dog
nuisance did escalate into a disturbance, the Complainant did relocate away from the
disturbance. However, the property management assisted the perpetrator, allowed them to
follow the Complainant, and to again relocate near the Complainant (A-3).

2
5. After a complaint was filed with the Shakopee Police Department concerning the property
management’s actions that escalated and perpetuated the dog nuisance problem, the police
refused to investigate or issue a citation to the property management for permitting their
property to be used to maintain a dog nuisance (A-4) - (Minn. Stat 609.745).

6. After the perpetrator of dog-disturbance began to intimidate the Complainant, the Shakopee
police refused to issue a citation for “aggravated” disorderly conduct even when the
perpetrator admitted that he was threatening to the Complainant (A-4). Moreover, the police
falsified their reporting because their report did omit the many admissions made by this
perpetrator, which did detail that this perpetrator was upset with the Complainant for calling
the police, and reporting his conduct. Even though there was the substantial likelihood that
the perpetrator would continue to threaten the Complainant, the Shakopee police still refused
to issue a disorderly conduct citation (A-5) Minn. Crim. Rule. 6.01(1)(1).

7. After another complaint was filed with the Shakopee Police Department (A-5), Sgt. Ryan did
contact the perpetrator, did identify Complainant to this perpetrator, and did inform the
perpetrator that no citation would issue (A5); therefore, at this time, the Shakopee Police did
escalate the “aggravation,” made worse this situation, and created the situation which
afforded the perpetrator an opportunity to retaliate and commit an act of violence against the
Complainant (A-6), City of Birmingham v. Benson, (Ala. S. Ct. 1993) 631 So.2d 902, 906.

8. Since the Shakopee police refused to issue a citation to the perpetrator of “aggravated”
disorderly conduct, this perpetrator escalated his retaliation against Complainant, and began
to utter the word “nigger,” which occurred on the very same day that Sgt, Ryan did inform
this perpetrator that no citation would issued for his dog nuisance problems, that no citation
would issued for any disorderly conduct, and that no citation would issue for “aggravated”
threats made against the Complainant (A-6) City of Birmingham v. Benson, (Ala. S. Ct. 1993)
631 So.2d 902, 906.

9. Therefore, the Shakopee Police created the opportunity for this perpetrator to commit an act
of race hate violence against the Complainant, and the police refused to comply with the
Mandatory Rule of Criminal Procedure to issue citations for misdemeanors when the
perpetrator has “escalated” disorderly conduct Minn. Crim. Rule 6.01(1)(1)(a), State v.
Richmond, (Minn. App. 1999) 602 N.W.2d 647, 653.

10. On the date of 5/23/09, the Complainant filed a police report with Shakopee police and did
report the drunk and disorderly conduct, from a White Male Adult (WMA) resident of the
property owner, who was trying to duel and fight with the Complainant, and Complainant did
inform this police officer that this threat is motivated by racial bias; however, this police
officer did failed to document that Complainant alleged racial bias, as is required and defined
by Minn. Stat. 626.5531 (A-7).

11. On 7/23/09, the Complainant filed another police report on this same WMA, for drunk and
disorderly conduct, and this WMA was again directing hostility and aggression to the
Complainant (A-8). On 7/26/09, Complainant filed another police report on the drunk and
disorderly conduct from this same WMA, and his girlfriend (Report # 09-010505); however,
after Shakopee police did perform an arrest, the police willfully falsified their arrest report to

3
 exclude the Complainant from access to the courts, and these officers additionally falsified
their report to prevent any testimony from the Complainant, and the initial material facts
leading up to the arrest is based upon false statements (A-9 to A-12). Moreover, these police
officers did know that their statements were false in all of the material aspects of the event
before the intoxicated-female became violent with her WMA-boyfriend and his mother
United States v. DiSalvo, (U. S. Dist. 1986) 631 F.Supp. 1398,1402.

12. Thereafter, this WMA-boyfriend began to hit on the door of the Complainant, and did utter
the word “nigger” (A-13). At this time, the Complainant sought to obtain, and was refused, a
copy of his police report that led to the arrest of this WMA’s-girlfriend; however, the Scott
County Attorney’s office did suppress this police report, and did falsely inform Complainant
that Complainant was not considered to be a witness nor a potential witness, and that
Complainant’s initial police report was null and void and was superseded by the officer’s
arrest report United States v. Disalvo, (U. S. Dist. 1986) 631 F. Supp. 1398, 1402. However,
Complainant’s initial police report is conclusive evidence of a falsified arrest report that was
used to arrest and convict a person for drunk and disorderly conduct (A-12).

13. Since this WMA did escalate his race-biased hostility toward Complainant, and since the
Shakopee police falsified their arrest report and denied Complainant access to the courts, the
police created the situation which afforded the WMA an opportunity to escalate his
“aggravated” disorderly conduct against the Complainant. On 8/29/09 this WMA did
challenge the Complainant and did state that he was tired of Complainant calling the police
on them. When the police arrived, again, this WMA was drunk and disorderly and the police
refused to issue a citation (A-14), even thought Complainant did point-out that this WMA
was drunk and disorderly. As a result, since the police officers are trained to recognize the
harm that could develop, and since the police did perform a previous arrest for drunk and
disorderly conduct, the failure of the police to issue a citation demonstrates a willful intent to
direct a violent injury upon the Complainant (A-13) City of Birmingham v. Benson, (Ala. S.
Ct. 1993) 631 So.2d 902, 906.

14. On 12/11/09, the Complainant filed a Shakopee police report on a loud domestic disturbance
where the Complainant did hear the sounds of a struggle (A.15), and these residents did
admit to the loud disturbing argument; on 12/18/09, Complainant filed another police report
on a loud domestic disturbance where sounds of a struggle were witnessed again (A-16); on
1/1/10, the Complainant filed a police report on another loud domestic disturbance where the
sounds of a struggle was heard again; and at this time, the Shakopee police officer did falsely
identify the Complainant in his report, did the police did alter the type of the incident, and
then the officer failed to issue a citation (A-17); on 1/4/10, Complainant filed another police
report on another loud domestic disturbance where a struggle was heard again (A-18), and
even though this couple admitted to the loud argument, the Shakopee police falsified the call
priority and still refused to issue a misdemeanor citation Minn. Crim. Rule 6.01(1)(1)(a),
State v. Richmond, (Minn. App. 1999) 602 N.W.2d 647, 653.

15. On the day of 1/10/10, the Complainant filed another police report on another domestic
disturbance from the same aforesaid couple; and this time, the Shakopee police officers did
knock on the door of Complainant, and did request for Complainant to reiterate his call to
police dispatch about the domestic disturbance. After informing these two police officers

4
 that the loud whack and boom sounds on the wall between the two suites was very
disturbing, these police officers immediately went to the party causing the disturbance.
These police officers did identify Complainant as the witness who complained about their
disturbance, and the police did inform this couple that their strikes on the wall between the
two suites are disturbing to the Complainant. Then the police altered the nature of the call,
altered the incident information, altered the call priority, and then refused to issue an
“aggravated” disturbance misdemeanor citation, where the police could anticipate that this
couple would continue to argue and fight and create a disturbance (A-19) Minn. Crim. Rule
6.01(1)(1); In The Welfare of T.L.S. (Minn. App. 2006) 713 N.W.2d 877, 881-882 .

16. Thereafter, this couple did get into their own car, did leave the property only to return two
hours later; and at this time, someone began hitting on the wall, with the intent to alarm,
anger, and disturb the Complainant. After another police report was filed again, a Shakopee
officer did arrive, did knock on their door of the perpetrator, and after there was no-answer,
this officer did leave. However, the report filed, by the police, did make the false claim that
Complainant’s report was “unfounded” (A-20);” in addition, and the report completely
omitted the material fact that two police officers did meet with the Complainant, did request
information, and then the police did use this information to create the situation which
afforded an opportunity to the arguing-couple to retaliate against Complainant with an
“aggravated” disturbance. Furthermore, it is now the Shakopee police who are endangering
the Complainant with the threat of violence Minn. Stat. 609.498(1)(f); City of Birmingham v.
Benson, (Ala. S. Ct. 1993) 631 So.2d 902, 906 .

17. In all aforesaid circumstances, the perpetrator of loud disturbances and disorderly conduct
did know that their behavior would disturb the Complainant, and the Shakopee police
officers did know that Complainant was adversely affected by said nuisances, by said
disturbances, and by said disorderly conduct that was intentionally “aggravated” into a
dangerous situation for the Complainant. However, no public assistance was carried-out in
accordance with the minimum standards of law enforcement, mandated by Minn. Crim. Rule
6.01(1)(1; and, since the falsification of police reports, the declassification of call priority,
and the alteration of incident-based information is alleged to be “classroom discrimination,”
under Minn. Rule 6700.0100(25), it is the legislative requirement for all of the aforesaid
peace officers to report their reasons to the for failing to issue a citation to a court of law,
Minn. Crim. Rule 6.01(1)(1); 7 Minn. Practice, Ch. 4.18, p. 109.

18. During training, a police officer must be certified as capable to recognize the “escalation” of
a misdemeanor offense, and the “aggravated” elements of the misdemeanor offense; where
the conduct is made worse, by continued and repeated behavior, when the perpetrator is not
likely to discontinue the conduct; and, where a misdemeanor becomes a gross misdemeanor
by the utterance of race hate bias; and additionally, where there is a clear and present
escalation of misdemeanor conduct could be anticipated to become a felony crime Achilli v.
United States, (S. Ct. 1957) 1957 WL 87625-page 7, 77 S. Ct. 1391.

19. Since the Shakopee police officers did refuse to provide public assistance, did refuse to
enforce the law, and did refuse their mandatory duty to issue citations for misdemeanors, this
willful neglect of duty imposed by law upon peace officers is a gross misdemeanor; in itself,
because the police knowingly failed to take appropriate action which would “de-escalate” the

5
 hostility. Therefore this disregard of public assistance afforded an opportunity to the
aforesaid perpetrators to “escalate” misdemeanor offenses against the Complainant State v.
Brattrud, (Minn. S. Ct. 1941) 297 N. W. 713, 715; City of Birmingham v. Benson, (Ala. S.
Ct. 1993) 631 So.2d 902, 906-907.

20. Furthermore, since the property owner is motivated by retaliatory bias, for the Complainant’s
police witness statement, in the year 2003, and the HUD protected activity, in the year 2004
(A-1); since Shakopee police are engaged in a practice of falsifying police reports and
refusing public assistance (A-5); and since it is the mandatory duty of Shakopee police
officers to issue citations for misdemeanor offenses, a collaboration with the property owner
and a retaliation against Complainant’s witness of misdemeanor offenses is hereby affirmed
State v. Raasch, (Minn. S. Ct. 1937) 275 N.W. 620, 622.

21. These statements, these reports, this complaint, and the attached evidence exhibits are true
and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I am aware that Minn. Stat.
609.505(2) does make it a criminal offense for any person to make any false report of police
misconduct; however, the severity of this misconduct overrides the chilling effect of this
statute Zanders v. Swanson, (8th Cir. 2009) 573 F.3d 591, 594-595.

By: _____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Complainant
1/ 21/2010

Certified Mail No. 7007 1490 0003 0616 2363

cc: twh/BO
cc: uss/AF
cc: uss/AK