JULY 17, 2014






As you read the press release issued by Miami Chief of Police Manny Orosa yesterday, keep in mind that in 6 months he’s going to retire.

Between now and then, he will do absolutely everything he can to keep any investigation into the Jackson/Ramras incident away from the FDLE because the Chief already has a laundry list of bad and stupid things that have occurred during his watch, and the only way to keep this incident from becoming another example of his gross incompetence and biased leadership is to keep the investigation in-house, while trying to smother the press coverage by refusing to make any more comments until the investigation is completed.

You can almost bet a dollar to a donut, that the “investigation” will not be completed for months and months if the Chief and the Mayor have their way, although this case I think might prove to be a bigger problem for the Chief than he thinks.

Jackson’s got a real lawyer, and the last time he went up against the City was when he represented New Yorker, Jesse Campodonico in the ULTRA Music Festival case involving Javier Ortiz, Edward Lugo, Nathaniel Dauphin and Harold James, that resulted in a $400,000 settlement for his client.

Here is the Chief’s press release, followed by a response from Officer Jackson’s attorney, Scott Srebnick.




I would like to clarify several issues that have been discussed in the media regarding the altercation between my two officers. There has been a lot written and said about the incident which is void of perspective. I hope the following will clarify the position taken by my department in this case.


  1. 1.I transferred Ramras to another administrative assignment and the investigation away from Internal Affairs in order to ensure there is no influence from anyone into the investigation.

  1. 2.The investigation is being looked at by the States Attorney’s Office and our Special Investigations Section.

  1. 3.Investigators calculated that Ramras was speeding 9 miles over the limit.

  1. 4.Jackson was not relieved of duty (ROD) because of the altercation. However, the ROD occurred because of his failure to preserve evidence and public records. You see it came to our attention that he was recording many of his traffic stops with citizens and the police department had no knowledge of that. A citizen has the right to request those recordings to prove their innocence. The department could be found in violation of the State Public Records Retention laws because of Jackson’s actions. While on duty the police department is responsible for his actions and therefore set guidelines for his conduct. Furthermore, this action will now open a can of worms regarding Brady vs. Maryland requirements. Thus, attorneys representing people who had encounters with Jackson can claim a violation of their Brady rights, meaning that all cases involving Jackson would be dismissed from prosecution and possible legal action could be taken against the city.

  1. 5. It is a bit of an irony that in January we asked officers to wear a body camera as a study for the possible purchase of same for the entire department and Jackson was one of the officers who refused.

  1. 6.It as been said that Ramras showed a badge that could have been fake. However, the truth is that Ramras displayed his MPD police identification that is unique to our department. Jackson knew this identification since he has a similar one.

  1. 7. After the display of ID, Ramras told Jackson that he needed a shave since Jackson was sporting a beard which is against our policies. Jackson replied with a colorful metaphor and Ramras attempted to exit his car. The rest is what is clearly seen in the video.

  1. 8.Work discipline history, Ramras 28 years – 2 Reprimands for car accidents & 2 citizen complaints.

Jackson  8 years – 4 Records of Formal Counseling (false statements, 2 policy violation, court related) 15 Reprimands (2 discourtesy,4 improper procedures, 5 conduct unbecoming a police officer, 2 court related, insubordination, policy violation) & 20 citizen complaints.

Above includes profanity on a traffic stop with a federal detention officer. A second case where he used profanity in another traffic stop. Insubordination to a supervisor and 2 shaving violations. The above discipline also involves 400 hours of suspension.     


This will be the only comment I provide until such time the investigation is completed.



Manuel Orosa

Chief of Police

Miami Police Department

Statement in response to Chief Orosa:

Officer Marcel Jackson conducted a lawful traffic stop of a speeding motorist (Lt. David Ramras) and acted appropriately to restrain the motorist after the motorist failed to properly identify himself, made a disrespectful comment, and then became physically aggressive and belligerent.  Officer Jackson showed great restraint and professionalism.  No one -- not even a Miami police lieutenant -- is above the law.

Chief Orosa's statement today vilifying Officer Jackson and defending Lt. Ramras validates my request that the Chief recuse himself and the MPD from this investigation.  The Chief has no personal knowledge of the facts, and no formal statements have been taken, yet the Chief has already formed an opinion and publicly taken sides in this matter.  To avoid the appearance, and the reality, that the investigation will be a charade, the Chief should demonstrate leadership and recuse himself and the MPD from the investigation. If not, the City Manager should direct Chief Orosa and the MPD to recuse and the City Manager should request assistance from FDLE.

Chief Orosa claims that Officer Jackson was relieved of duty, not as a result of the incident, but because of his failure to preserve evidence and public records.  Yet, no one has asked Officer Jackson how often he used his personal GoPro camera and what footage Officer Jackson has retained.  The truth is that Officer Jackson used his GoPro sporadically in the past few months and it did not record a single misdemeanor or felony arrest -- not one.  The Chief's rationale for the ROD of Officer Jackson is particularly ironic given that, at approximately 7:00 of the third installment of the videotape of the stop, a high-ranking officer can be overheard directing Officer Jackson to DELETE photographs that Officer Jackson had taken of a vehicle at the scene with his mobile phone.  Indeed, if Chief Orosa intends to discipline Officer Jackson for use of his personal GoPro camera, he better be prepared to discipline the 1100 City of Miami police officers who, in good faith, routinely use their mobile phones to take photographs while on duty and do not turn those photos over to the records department.


Scott Srebnick