Homeless in Arizona

Remember the cops spy on us for EVERYTHING. You are NOT paranoid. The Phoenix Police ARE spying on YOU. And not just for REAL crimes, but for petty, victimless crimes like marijuana.

According to court documents, Glass became involved after Phoenix police recorded her calling a friend and asking to buy marijuana.

According to the 4th Amendment it's illegal for the police to spy on us without a search warrant, but after Edward Snowden, we know the police and government treat the Bill of Rights like it's toilet paper and routinely use the 4th Amendment as toilet paper to wipe their *sses.

Another problem I have with this article is shows that the Phoenix Police, like most police departments across America are a super secret government agency and they do the best to keep all of their records secret so the people they terrorize won't be able to sue them.

Maybe some of the cops who work for the NSA, CIA, Arizona DPS, Maricopa County Sheriff's Department office and other local police departments who are illegally reading this post or email can make some comments on that.

Don't worry guys it won't blow your cover.

We know you illegally spy on us 24/7. We know you are on Facebook. We know you are on every email listserver on the plant. We know you illegally tap our land line phones. We know you illegally tap our cell phones. We know you illegally read our emails.

Sadly the American police are more like the KGB agents in the Soviet Union or Gestapo thugs in Nazi German who routinely terrorized the law abiding citizens of those countries.

America land of the free may have been true decades ago, but America is now the home of the worlds largest police state.

And a big F*CK YOU to all the cops that are illegally reading this message.

Source

Slain woman's parents sue Phoenix police: 'Get them to open their books so we can see'

Megan Cassidy, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:41 p.m. MST March 1, 2016

The parents of a young woman whose 2010 murder remains unsolved have alleged their daughter was a confidential informant for Phoenix police, a position that may have placed her in direct contact with her killer.

On Tuesday, the family of Nicole Glass filed a wrongful death suit against the city of Phoenix for what they say were officers’ failure to warn the 27-year-old about the dangers of their arrangement.

The lawsuit alleges negligence on the part of the recruiting officers and their supervisors, all labeled as John Does for now.

"Phoenix police officers who recruited and used Nicole Glass as their confidential informant failed to reasonably supervise her services, in order to minimize the risk that she would be harmed or murdered by the dangerous criminals with whom she associated as their confidential informant," the lawsuit said.

The case does not include the family of Melissa Mason, Glass’ roommate, who also was murdered in their home.

Police issued a statement Tuesday that questioned the validity of the lawsuit's allegations.

“The Phoenix Police Department has been aggressively investigating this homicide since it occurred in 2010," the statement said. "Although the case remains open, to date, investigators have not found any evidence to support this recent claim. The Phoenix Police Department will remain focused on the facts surrounding the case and we are committed to solving this crime.”

In an interview with The Republic Tuesday, Rachel said she received word of her daughter’s status as an informant a few months ago and from “a reliable source.”

Rachel Glass said it’s unclear what the nature of her daughter's work was or how she became involved.

“It’s not like we have the details — that’s what the lawsuit’s about,” she said. “Get them to open their books so we can see.”

A few months before her death, Glass had been embroiled in a large-scale wiretapping investigation that resulted in dozens of arrests and charges involving drugs, street gangs, weapons and money laundering.

According to court documents, Glass became involved after Phoenix police recorded her calling a friend and asking to buy marijuana.

Glass pleaded guilty to using electronic communications in a drug transaction. Other charges involving a street gang, money laundering and a marijuana violations were dismissed, and Glass was sentenced to probation.

Rachel Glass said before her daughter died, Rachel had hired another attorney to try to appeal her conviction.

The murder: Bodies found at home

On Dec. 3, 2010, a friend of the roommates stopped by the women’s house near 44th Street and Thomas Road after failing to reach them the previous day. The doors were locked, but the friend called police after catching a glimpse of one of the bodies when peering through the back window.

Both women had been strangled. Mason, also 27, had been eight weeks pregnant, prompting investigators to label the crime a triple homicide.

Police have struggled to produce solid leads in the five years since the murders.

There didn’t appear to have been any forced entry, leading police to question whether the women knew their killer or killers. The doors were locked by the time the roommates were discovered dead.

In a December article about the women's cold case, detectives declined to comment on whether any items were stolen from the home but said they couldn't rule out robbery or any other motive.

At the onset of the investigation, Mason’s friends and family were quick to point detectives to the father of her unborn child and her ex-fiance.

Mason’s mother, Sandra Minjarez, said both men were interrogated, but nothing materialized.

Both mothers have turned to the public in their search for answers. They hold vigils, maintain a social media presence and provide interviews for anyone who will listen.

It's been frustrating having so few answers, Rachel Glass said in December. Her mind has wandered to various scenarios, and none of them can be ruled out.

“That’s really the hard part, because then you suspect everyone,” she said. “A lot of people have reached out to me and told me how sorry they were, and then it just, it’s like, then the thought goes through your mind. One of them? Who? I don’t know.”

Confidential informants in the Valley

Former Mesa Police detective Bill Richardson said informants could be used for any number of reasons and could broker any number of deals with police. Some may talk for money or a deal on their case, others for revenge and others out of the goodness of their hearts.

“It just depends on the type of case,” he said.

“If there’s an arrest made, you’re going to have to get the prosecutors involved, and the prosecutor is going to have to dismiss the charges. If information is retained by police, say I arrest you for possession of heroin, maybe I won’t file the case against you if you help me on five new cases. There’s a lot of options that can come out of it.”

Richardson said it would be common for an informant and police to have some written contract outlining their respective expectations.

To what extent police are held liable for their informant’s welfare is not a well-developed body of law, according to J. Scott Halverson, Glass’ family’s attorney in the case.

“Police don’t have guidelines,” he said. “Most of the time police officers use good common sense — police will tell (informants) ‘we do not want you going out and doing independent work … don’t associate with anybody you don’t normally associate with.’”

The topic has made its way into legal circles across the country — notably in Florida, where 23-year-old Rachel Hoffman was fatally shot during a 2008 sting operation while acting as an informant. The story attracted national attention and helped create “Rachel’s Law,” a body of guidelines regulating how Florida police use confidential informants.

Even if Glass is proven to have worked with police, the unsolved status of Glass’s murder likely will present hurdles for the family’s lawsuit. With no suspect, it’s difficult to draw the conclusion that Glass died for her work.

Halverson, who said he has anticipated this defense, said he hoped the lawsuit would help unearth answers in the women's deaths.

“If you place someone in a situation of grave danger and you don’t take these precautions to protect them or account for that, then you’re responsible for it,” he said. "The standard we believe has been breached here is that something fell through the cracks. That will be the main focus of contention in the case.”