Waka Flocka Flame in Charlotte

WHO IS SHOOTING UP CHARLOTTE’S STREETS? WHY ISN’T OUR “LOCAL PRESS” ASKING?

Citynewswatch has been curious along with any number of other people:  Jeff A. Taylor, formerly of MeckDeck.com, can’t help but ask “Who Shot Antonio Stukes?” once in a while.  Jeff is referring to the wild exchange of bullets between two groups of men on a sunny Charlotte afternoon last year.  (Find Jeff still blogging from GA at thefreelance.tumblr.com)

At the Car Stereo Warehouse on East Independence Boulevard, Antonio Stukes was shot in the shoulder.  Some accounts have Stukes and friends trying to rob rapper “Waka Flocka Flame” of his jewelry.  Glenn Counts of WCNC reported February 25^th, 2011: 

There is surveillance tape of the shootout, which could resolve the question of who shot first. The police have seen the video and so have the employees at the store, but the store won't release the video. The manager says he's been offered $5,000 for the video.

.  .  .

NewsChannel 36 spoke with the rapper's publicist after the shooting. She says the security team followed protocol and the security cameras from the audio store back up the team's story.

There’s a problem, though.  For some reason the press nor the CMPD would release the names, occupations or employers of the “security team” for the rapper.  See more below.

There’s another problem.  Later, District Attorney Andrew Murray dismissed the charges his team did file (against the man who got shot and some who were with him) saying there was no evidence to review.  There was a VIDEO TAPE.  There were witnesses.  There were an untold number of bullets flying around.

Apparently this is not a new kind of incident for Waka Flocka -–involvement in gun fights or walking away with no charges for him or his team.

Under the title “Rapper’s Guard Opens Fire in Atlanta Store,” in a March 5, 2010 article in www.privateofficer.com explains that Waka Flocka Flame, real name Juaqin Malphurs, “is a member of Gucci Mane’s 1017 Brick Squad.  His pseudonym alludes to the sound of cocking a semi-automatic pistol.”  At that time Flame’s unnamed “security guard” was detained, but it’s unknown what happened beyond detention.  The article states, “Shots were fired, though no one was hit, during an altercation between groups affiliated with local rappers Gucci Mane and Young Jeezy that closed Walter’s Clothing in downtown Atlanta for about 30 minutes.”  Poor Walter.  And all the citizens of Altanta who were in the vicinity.

It seems the NC Private Protective Services Board finally did something, though they won’t say why or what investigation went into it (details below).  When the rapper was set to appear in Charlotte March of this year, the NCPPSB sent Cease and Desist notices to Malphurs and two other previously unnamed men who must act as his “backup.” 

The letters finally reveal names of Tyquan Anthony Alexander and John Cornelius Askew.  The letters also clearly state that “This office has obtained evidence to indicate you have been engaging in the private protective services profession in North Carolina without having been properly licensed with the North Carolina Private Protective Services Board.”

Click to enlarge; three identical letters for Malphurs, Askew, & Alexander

DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL?

Why write this story now? Why not… The murder rate in Charlotte is off the chart this year and Chief Monroe is mum.  Crime rates—even as reported by Monroe—are up dramatically, and he still won’t release the Calls For Service which would be a better indicator of true crime rates.  There are more indicators of problems in the CMPD and efforts to suppress the information, so here is just one story that seems in line with the rest and has been on the back burner.  The over-the-top reaction from the state to asking for a few details about any possible relationship to CMPD personnel seems worthy of exploring.  Maybe there is none, but it would have been easy enough to say.  At least the names of the shooters involved are finally released.

Having the names on the cease and desist letters begs the question: if they have evidence why weren’t charges pursued?

The NCPPSB really doesn’t want to answer that question.

Citynewswatch has confirmed that Malphurs, Alexander and Askew were not licensed last year or this year in North Carolina or in Georgia as Private Protective Security Agents.  As a special nod to an undisclosed friend, they were neither then nor now employed by Atlanta PD. 

So far, there is no confirmation whether any of the men had a concealed weapons permit, although it seems unlikely since Malphurs has felonies on his record.  

Citynewswatch confirmed even if any of the men had a weapons permit of any kind in either state, they would not be legally allowed to cross state lines to act as Private Security without proper training and legal certification—which they definitely didn’t have.

You can see in this report by WCNC’s Diana Rugg that some Charlotte men, including Antonio Stukes who was shot, were arrested.  They were later released.  

LEGAL ACTIONS?

It’s obvious that the answers to the questions posed are known to law enforcement and the board involved.  If they weren’t, they could state they don’t know.  Also, surely there aren’t that many guys named “Waka Flocka” in the state database—or Juaquin Malphurs, for that matter.  The next search should go through CMPD records.  But what an awful waste of tax money to avoid a few truthful answers.

With guns, shootouts, some felons, no licenses, and other issues, it’s not surprising that someone might ask a few questions about why nobody was prosecuted for crimes.  The rather abrasive response from one guy with the information is somewhat surprising.  So is the fact that network media and the local paper don’t seem to have reported the answers.  Maybe they got the same response as below and stopped.   Maybe they could ask again because this is really strange.

Whether the intention is legal intimidation or not, it seems to border a line when someone is making a simple request for public records.  So, for the legal safety of the person requesting, the entire exchange is below with the hope for a clearer understanding… and the answers.

-----Original Message-----
From: (name removed)
To: ABonapart <ABonapart@ncdoj.gov>
Sent: Tue, Jul 10, 2012 6:36 pm
Subject: Re: Public Records Request, Cease Desist letter and related

Dear Mr. Bonapart,

Your response to me is unreasonable and not in accordance with the law:

1)  I am not required to provide you personal information about myself, including my address, etc... in order for you to fulfill a public records request.  You must give me the information--which is public, not belonging to you, but only in your current custody-- regardless.  If you feel it is necessary to do so, then you are free to check with legal counsel.  Your ongoing efforts to get more personal information about me are not permitted by law.  I hope I have made myself clear on this.  By law, as the guardian of the public documents, you are the person I am to contact.  

2)  I have not asked you to make photocopies so there is no "copying expense" to incur.  I was interested to see if you believe there to be such an enormous volume of pages of information relating any/all of the referenced men to members of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department that it would be overwhelming for yourself or your staff to explain/supply documentation that you may not accomplish it in under 20 pages.  If that is the case, it seems there is a real problem here and the Attorney General and SBI should be notified to investigate why the CMPD and Mecklenburg County DA did not pursue charges over a gun fight in the middle of the day in Charlotte.  Therefore, either way, please supply the information I have asked for with no further delay.

2)  Continued efforts by you, your department, or other public officials to cause delays of the release of this information, or any intimidation of me to have this information should not be a tactic taken on by my government.  

3)  To my knowledge, none of these men have or had at the time of the gun fight a valid Private Protective License.  Please verify.  Please also verify or correct if they worked for anyone who did and if their employers were noted on any police report.  This should be a one page issue I'm sure you know already.

4)  Did any of these men have licenses to carry guns at the time of the referenced shootout?  This is a very simple "yes" or "no" answer.

Again, thank you so much.  I hope this clears up any misconceptions you may have had about public records law.  If you are still unwilling to release the public records of which you are in possession, please inform your supervisor you are unwilling to do so by email and copy me on the email.  All of this time could have been spent on other government work and I hope this inane back and forth will come to a stop with delivery of the public information (as part of the definition of public records) I have asked for.

Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bonapart, Anthony <ABonapart@ncdoj.gov>
To: (name removed)

Sent: Tue, Jul 10, 2012 5:21 pm
Subject: RE: Public Records Request, Cease Desist letter and related

Hello,

Thank you for contacting the Private Protective Services Board with your Public Records request. 

I responded to your e-mail requesting additional information and advised you that the Board needed your name and address to process the request and prepare an invoice for the copies.  Since you are unable or unwilling to comply with this request, please address all future communications and requests to the Board’s Legal Counsel.  His name and address is:  Jeffrey P. Gray, Bailey & Dixon, LLP, Post Office Box 1351, Raleigh, NC 27601.

Anthony B. Bonapart

Deputy Director

North Carolina Department of Justice

Private Protective Services

Ph: (919) 788-5319 ext. 218

Fax: (919) 788-7145

abonapart@ncdoj.gov

From: (name removed)
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 1:02 PM
To: Bonapart, Anthony
Subject: Re: Public Records Request, Cease Desist letter and related

Dear Mr. Bonapart,

It has been over a week since I sent this last email and I wondered if it may have gotten lost with the holiday on the 4th: 

Are you stating to me that there are more than 17 pages of material that discuss a known relationship of these men with the members of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department?

I look forward to hearing from you today.  Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: (name removed)
To: ABonapart <ABonapart@ncdoj.gov>
Sent: Mon, Jul 2, 2012 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: Public Records Request, Cease Desist letter and related

Dear Mr. Bonapart,

Are you stating to me that there are more than 17 pages of material that discuss a known relationship of these men with the members of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department?

Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bonapart, Anthony <ABonapart@ncdoj.gov>
To: (name removed)
Sent: Mon, Jul 2, 2012 2:49 pm
Subject: RE: Public Records Request, Cease Desist letter and related

Hello (name removed),

Thank you for contacting the Private Protective Services Board with your Public Records Act request per Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Statutes.  I emailed you three cease and desists documents related to the case.  You should note that the Board does provide the first twenty pages of documents provided pursuant to a public records request without charge.  After the first twenty pages, the Board charges five cents per page and charges for the postage required to mail the documents.  

You have requested emails related to this case and the process will be time consuming.  Once this has been completed and copies are made, the cost varies according to the number of documents.  We will need your full name and address in order to create the Bill.  After receiving your contact information, we will certainly provide the documents requested as promptly as possible. 

I look forward to hearing from you.

Anthony B. Bonapart

Deputy Director

North Carolina Department of Justice

Private Protective Services

Ph: (919) 788-5319 ext. 218

Fax: (919) 788-7145

abonapart@ncdoj.gov

From: (name removed)
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:26 PM
To: Bonapart, Anthony
Subject: Re: Public Records Request, Cease Desist letter and related

Dear Mr. Bonapart,

Thank you very much for the cease and desist letters you sent which also clearly state the men are licensed.  These two names (in addition to Malphurs) were not listed in any news report I found earlier.  There are no charges listed against them in the Mecklenburg County Sheriff Department warrant or arrest listing.  Also, Malphurs has a felony record and may be on probation.

The portion of my request I still want to clear up is this part, inclusive of Alexander and Askew (who had an expired security license):

Were any of these men licensed to carry a weapon at all, in NC or in other states?  If no, were weapons charges filed/prosecuted?

Do any of these men have any personal or professional connection you know of to Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department or any of its employees?

If you have basic emails that document the decision process and considerations that went into telling him not to bring a "security" team with him, I would like to see that/those.

Thank you so much.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bonapart, Anthony <ABonapart@ncdoj.gov>
To: (name removed)
Sent: Tue, Jun 26, 2012 12:25 pm
Subject: RE: Public Records Request, Cease Desist letter and related

Hello (name removed),

Please see attached cease and desists letters.

Anthony B. Bonapart

Deputy Director

North Carolina Department of Justice

Private Protective Services

Ph: (919) 788-5319 ext. 218

Fax: (919) 788-7145

abonapart@ncdoj.gov

From: (name removed)]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:49 PM
To: Bonapart, Anthony
Subject: Public Records Request, Cease Desist letter and related

Dear Mr. Bonapart,

I understand that earlier this year, the State sent a cease and desist letter to the rapper/musician known as "Waka Flocka Flame" (Juaquin Malphurs) and his associates informing him not to bring armed security to NC when he performed, or some similar thing.  I suspect it may be related to the midday shootout that occurred in Charlotte, NC the prior year with his entourage.  

I would like a copy of that letter as well as any key correspondence that would answer these questions:

For Waka Flocka Flame, real name: Juaquin Malphurs, unnamed brother of Malphurs, and these other men involved in the shooting: Antonio Stukes, Xavier Hoover, David Bellamy, Antoine Washington, Berry Lawrence or Barry Lawrence and Andre Sellers:  

Were any of these men licensed or working for companies that have licenses to be private protection in North Carolina or any other state that you are aware of?  Were any of these men licensed to carry a weapon at all, in NC or in other states?  If no, were weapons charges filed/prosecuted?

Do any of these men have any personal or professional connection you know of to Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department or any of its employees?

If you have basic emails that document the decision process and considerations that went into telling him not to bring a "security" team with him, I would like to see that/those.

Thank you very much.

SPEEDING BLUE-LIGHT DRIVER CONFIRMED SECRET SERVICE

UPDATE ON BLUE LIGHT DRIVER IN THE BLACK CHARGER:

Stuart Watson and WCNC’s I-team confirmed the vehicle in this video (*warning: contains rough language): UPDATE 5/31/12: the YouTube video has been marked "private", but you can see portions of it on the WCNC report linked below

is assigned to one of their agents.  Spokesman and Special Agent in Charge Russ Nelson of the Charlotte office is quoted by WCNC: “The employee was working on duty in an official capacity in a US Secret Service vehicle at the time of the incident.”   They have referred the incident to Office of Professional Responsibility—their version of Internal Affairs.

WCNC’s report describes the action this way:

Charger appears to travel over 80 miles an hour in a stretch of Interstate 77 near Tryon, Tyvola and Arrowood, where the speed limit is 55 mph. Once the Charger catches up with the SUV, the driver pulls in front of the SUV and then taps his brakes. The SUV passes the Charger in the left passing lane. Then the Charger pulls over the SUV using flashing blue lights in the front grill, and when the sport utility vehicle stops off at the I-485 off ramp before the flyover, the Charger speeds away up the I-485 flyover.

See their full report here.

LICENSE PLATE READERS ALL OVER CHARLOTTE, NO PUBLIC DEBATE, NO PUBLIC POLICY

SMILE, AMERICA.

Come to Charlotte for the Democratic National Convention in September, 2012, and you’ll likely be caught on many surveillance cameras, Department of Transportation cameras, and License Plate Readers mushrooming all over the City.

Total spending on all surveillance cameras, monitors, processors, data storage, IT personnel, maintenance, police and other personnel to operate the equipment, legal costs, and other costs are unknown at this time.  CMPD reports a “new $1.73 million video observation center” in addition to a new multi-agency Command Center similarly outfitted with surveillance and communication equipment.

Car-mounted reader like CMPD uses

Most recently though, Charlotte’s City Council approved $209,268 of Asset Forfeiture spending for License Plate Readers on March 26, 2012. 

Then on Monday, May 14, 2012, Council approved another $606,871 to be spent against a Federal USAI (Urban Area Security Initiative Grant) Grant to purchase automated license plate readers and related equipment from an existing unit price contract with NDI Recognition Systems as well. That contract was approved by City Council on June 9, 2008 and was for an initial three-year term with two additional one-year terms.  That money will be spent on:

·        Five automated license plate processors

·        37 cameras and cables

·        Related equipment

·        Installation

·        Maintenance

·        Site licensing

The new equipment enables CMPD to expand its use of automated license plate readers throughout the city.

The city’s explanation for the AF purchase includes:  Staff Resource: Harold Medlock, Police

  CMPD began using automated license plate readers in 2008 to capture license plate information and vehicle descriptions. The data is used for comparison against stolen or wanted vehicle alerts listed with the National Crime Information Center. The data has proven to be a useful investigative and predictive tool for police.

  Police want to appropriate $209,268 in assets forfeiture funds to purchase four mobile automated license plate readers and two portable “rapid deployment” automated license plate reader systems. These devices are an extension of the automated license plate reader system now being used in four CMPD patrol vehicles. The new technology provides more flexibility in deployment of the license plate readers.

Wording of “and predictive tool” indicates police will use stored data.  If they only stored data of known criminal activity, there wouldn’t be cause for concern.  However, the Automated License Plate Readers, called ALPR’s or just LPR’s, read and take in enormous amounts of data about the travels and associations of innocent citizens.

There was not one minute of public debate, information, or question in advance of these “consent” items to purchase and install surveillance equipment all over the city with absolutely no controls on their use.

There has been no mention in any network news or paper to be found about the installation of these stationary and mounted cameras all over Charlotte, collecting and storing millions of records of travel data of Charlotte’s citizens and visitors.

COSTS

The other interesting note in the city’s explanation for purchase is “The data ‘has proven’ to be a useful investigative and predictive tool for police.”   What use has there been to justify spending this money, nearly a million dollars, plus all the money dating back to 2008 on LPR’s?

May the citizens of Charlotte see this proof that is offered and discuss if it’s the best use of police funds?  Maybe the money could have accomplished the same license benefits and also hired more officers, provided wider training, better safety equipment for officers, raises, or some other good use.  It’s a lot of money.

WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH OUR DATA?

If you read this previous citynewswatch post, you saw that the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for mobile LPR operation is dated 4/29/11 and was only available by searching through a research institution’s web site.  This SOP for car-mounted LPR’s is not located on Charmeck.org in the same area as all other (known) SOP’s. 

There is no known SOP to cover stationary, mounted LPR camera units at all.  Since we are about to purchase at least 5 additional processors along with 37 cameras, you can bet CMPD is planning on collecting lots more citizen records, but they haven’t even proposed what they want to do with them.  No one has asked for any public input, debate or permission—except that City Council has already approved the purchase offline.

There should be debate about whether to store ANY data, and if so, for how long.  Any information not related to a criminal investigation should not be stored and should not be shared.  The car-mounted LPR SOP contains instructions that all records collected will be stored for at least 18 months, which is much too long.

Mounting the units in particular areas brings about yet a new dimension to privacy concerns because the police/government would then be choosing to target certain populations for monitoring and data collection.  If you happen to drive past one of these targeted area cameras frequently, your information will be accumulated faster than that of others.

CITYNEWSWATCH EXPOSED LPR PLANS, CMPD WENT ON PR CAMPAIGN

After citynewswatch exposed plans to purchase and install more cameras just before the very quiet City Council funding actions noted above, CMPD seemed to be on a PR campaign to tell us how much we need the LPR’s and how great they are.  They fed certain limited information to a local television station claiming the cameras were brand new and were being used because of a tremendous spike noticed the prior month in license plate thefts, especially in the North Tryon Division. 

However, no crime statistics were given for the report.  CMPD crime stats found elsewhere are not consistent with that statement.  It would be ludicrous to think they noticed a spike, put out and evaluated competitive bids, then installed and trained on new equipment within a month of “noticing a huge spike in license plate thefts” anyway.

And there is certainly information contradicting the “newness” of the cameras:

The PR campaign continues as CMPD Spokesman Robert Tufano sent out an invitation May 7, 2012.  It read in part:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012, members with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s Auto Theft Unit will unveil the latest vehicle and tag reader donated to the CMPD by Nationwide Insurance. Nationwide Insurance has been a partner in our crime fighting efforts and this is the seventh vehicle Nationwide has donated to the CMPD over the last four years.

The donated vehicle and equipment will be critical tools that will assist our detectives in reducing the number of auto thefts in our community. Please join us on Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. in front of the Police Training Academy located at 1770 Shopton Road.

For additional information please contact Sgt. Rich Tonsberg at 704.336.2292.

CMPD really wants us to focus on car thefts and license plate thefts. 

PRIVATE COMPANIES SUPPLIED RECORDS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS

In many jurisdictions, police collect our data and then upload it to a private company database where it is stored indefinitely, as well as used and shared without proper or agreed-upon restriction. 

This turns the government into an actor in the transaction with the private company obtaining our data and invading our privacy.  This is where Fourth Amendment concerns become most acute.  As you may have read in the last post on this topic, even when there was no agreement for this data upload to occur from police to private company, it has happened such as in Washington, D.C.

Many argue “license plates are property of the government and roads are public.”  Well, that’s true but not the correct point.  Creating a dossier of your activity—tracking your comings and goings—is not the business the government should be permitted to do for innocent citizens with no probable cause to believe you are involved in criminal activity. 


It’s not the mere observation, it’s the accumulation of data by state actors—compounded often by giving that information to a private company—that’s a problem.

The circumstances that would allow surveillance of this type or specific searches and seizures of people suspected of committing crimes require Law Enforcement Officers to SWEAR AN OATH of PROBABLE CAUSE in order to obtain a WARRANT for that activity.

Innocent people (and we are all presumed innocent) walking or driving around our home city or visiting another have the right to do that in privacy which includes relative anonymity.

EXAMPLES OF RECORDS CREATED

Vigilant Video is a private company who is compiling a massive private, national database called National Vehicle Location Service (NVLS), mostly filled with records supplied by Law Enforcement Agencies around the country—sometimes without permission—and storing them in their own, unregulated databases permanently.  Here’s how it works direct from a Vigilant Video presentation to Law Enforcement found in full here.

According to Vigilant Video,

40% of US Vehicle License Plates are Scanned Yearly.

Published reports state there are well

in excess of half a billion records in Vigilant’s database.

Page 2 includes emblems from interested parties such as the Richmond Police Department, Rodney Monroe’s old Stomping Ground, the Dept. of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and a number of finance companies:

Page 7 shows how extensive the information contained on an LPR RECORD is:  The scan takes in the license plate, records the driver’s location, date & time of scan.  This record collection happens whether or not the driver is a wanted criminal or suspected of criminal activity.  Most of the records created are of innocent drivers. 

Page 6 explains that data comes from UPLOADS from Law Enforcement

Page 9 shows how stationary mounted readers and readers in police cars gather data which is collected in a massive warehousing at a private company, Vigilant Video.

OFFICERS, LPR’s, and the CONSTITUTION

Most officers are being given the same line as the public is now fed: these are just efficient electronic checks for illegal behavior, such as stolen cars and plates.

Most officers, if asked to follow innocent citizens and record their movements for a year and a half with no probable cause to believe they are involved in criminal activity, would refuse that unconstitutional order.  They would also ask “why?”  

Just because it’s electronic eyes instead of human eyes, with data fed to an electronic data storage mechanism instead of an officer’s notebook, that doesn’t mean the Constitution should fly out the window.

Are officers who are being asked to feed data into the system unaware that’s what is happening?  Are they solely focused on the instantaneous check, ignoring the year and a half of data collection & storage?  By purchasing and using the LPR’s in the way designed by CMPD Policy, that is exactly what is going on.