The Rodney King Matter March 2, 1991 Rodney King led police in car chase at over 100 MPH; King and his two passengers were ordered to exit the car and lie down; King did not comply and became combative. The events of March 2, 1991, the Rodney King affair, are etched in the minds of all who viewed the videotape, played over and over by the media (Linder). King and two friends had been drinking for hours before King began to drive on the CA highway (Linder). When officers viewed King’s car driving erratically, they tried to pull him over (Linder). King then sped up, exceeding speeds of over 100 MPH, reaching 117 MPH at one point, and several police units began to chase him (Linder). When King finally came to a stop, he and his passengers were ordered out of the car and told to lie down on the ground (Linder). The two passengers did as instructed (Linder). King got out of the car but did not lie down, at most he only got on all fours on the ground (Linder). Awakened by the noise, a resident, George Holliday, began to videotape the events from his window with his new video camera (Linder). The tape shows, in a fuzzy view, Holliday had not yet adjusted the lens, King seeming to charge the officer (Linder). What is clear, immediately after, however, is that officers then proceed to tackle King, to beat him over 50 times over his entire body and head, with their batons, and to kick and stomp on him until he cries out for them to “Please, stop,” (Linder). Following the arrest the officers involved in the beating reported their behavior using the following terms (Linder): Koon typed a message into his in-car computer: "U just had a big time use of force. Tased and beat the suspect of CHP pursuit." Powell typed, "I haven't beaten anyone this bad in a long time.“ (from that same night investigators would discover Powell had described the scene of a domestic disturbance involving African-Americans as right out of "Gorillas in the Mist.“) Holliday, who had been shocked by what he saw that night, took his tape to the local Los Angeles station, who played the tape on the evening news (Linder). CNN played it the next day. The tape was now famous (Linder).

The Trouble Begins National outcry: Excessive Force; Racism; Police brutality. Demand for justice. Community and national reaction was swift and strong. “A poll taken in Los Angeles after the tape had been running showed that 92% of those polled believed that excessive force was used against Rodney King,” (Linder). Oddly, enough, few thought race was an issue, until the taped messages of Office Power became public knowledge. After that, the city and the nation instantly became polarized along color lines and many felt race had been the cause (Staten). Within days the Police Chief launched an internal investigation and the District Attorney soon filed charges against four of the officers, Powell, Koon, Wind, and Briseno (Linder).

The Trouble Erupts Racial tensions explode. Crowd outside courthouse shouts "Guilty! Guilty!“ Riots begin 62 minutes after verdict is announced. When a Korean store owner tries to get payment for liquor, he is smashed on the head - “That’s for King.” The jury acquitted all four officers of all charges of excessive force at 3:15 P.M. on April 29, 1992 (Linder). Just over an hour later angry crowed began to riot, burn, and destroy the city of Los Angeles. By the time it was over, 54 persons, mostly Koreans and Latinos, were dead; hundreds injured; some 7,000 arrested; and about $1 billion dollars in damages were done to the city, mostly in the south central area of Los Angeles (Gray).

Federal Case In a May 1 televised address President Bush all but promised federal prosecution of the officers. Charges, 18 U.S.C. § 242, “Deprivation of rights under color of law” Case begins on February 25, 1993 The violation of state laws, including police procedures and state “excessive force” laws is a purely state matter and, under the Constitution, the federal government has no authority to act due to the Tenth Amendment (Findlaw). Moreover, the Constitutional protections against double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment “prohibits the government from prosecuting individuals more than one time for a single offense and from imposing more than one punishment for a single offense,” (Findlaw). However, precisely because the state charges or excessive force are state charges, the federal government could try to prosecute the officers for their actions with King as long as they did so under a different law, as that would NOT be prosecuting them twice for the same offense. The state law was about “excessive force,” the federal law was about depriving someone of their civil rights “under color of law” which is not an excessive force law (Findlaw).

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law “It a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,” (King). The four officers were charged with depriving Kings civil rights under “color of law” under 18 U.S.C. § 242 (King). The officers were said to have violated Kings right to Due Process under the Fifth Amendment and his right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment (King). The court determined that Officer Koon had violated King’s right to due process because he had failed to stop the officers from beating him and that Power was guilty of violating the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures because he used excessive force, which was unreasonable at the time, to arrest King (King). Officers Wind and Briseno were acquitted (King).

References Double Jeopardy. (NA). Findlaw. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/double-jeopardy/ Gray, M. (2007). The L.A. Riots: 15 Years After Rodney King. Time Magazine. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/la_riot/article/0,28804,1614117_1614084,00.html Linder, D. (2001). The Trials of Los Angeles Police Officers' in Connection with the Beating of Rodney King. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/lapdaccount.html Rodney G. King. (NA). Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://law.jrank.org/pages/7999/King-Rodney-G.html Staten, C. (1992). L.A. POLICE ACQUITTED, Rioting Strikes S.E. Los Angeles. EmergencyNet. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.emergency.com/la-riots.htm References Double Jeopardy. (NA). Findlaw. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/double-jeopardy/ Gray, M. (2007). The L.A. Riots: 15 Years After Rodney King. Time Magazine. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/la_riot/article/0,28804,1614117_1614084,00.html Linder, D. (2001). The Trials of Los Angeles Police Officers' in Connection with the Beating of Rodney King. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/lapdaccount.html Rodney G. King. (NA). Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://law.jrank.org/pages/7999/King-Rodney-G.html Staten, C. (1992). L.A. POLICE ACQUITTED, Rioting Strikes S.E. Los Angeles. EmergencyNet. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.emergency.com/la-riots.htm