St.Petersburg P.D. Exploit 13 Year Old In ‘Worst Form Of Child Labor’ Then Dump Him

harold-with-statues

A 13 year old is not an adult and is not mature enough to carry the responsibilities of an adult.  It’s an impressionable age, when kids need guidance to prepare them for the world.  This is why we have laws to protect young people from exploitation, child-labour, etc. yet the law failed to protect Harold Hempstead.  From the age of 13 he was employed by various police departments in Florida in multiple, dangerous undercover operations.  Rather than allow him a chance at a normal existence, the police took a vulnerable young person and used him illegally for their own purposes.

In acting as it did, the State did a great disservice to Harold Hempstead and took from him something that can’t be replaced – his youth.  A lot of his problems seem to stem from his willingness to expose crime and wrongdoing within the police departments he was working for. 

Many of the operations he was involved with used entrapment and ‘stings’ to supposedly fight crime.  After he was arrested for allegedly possessing stolen goods, his long history of serving the State as a Confidential Informant was ruled ‘inadmissible’ at his trial, and was kept from his Department of Corrections file for several years, leading to Harold living with the constant threat of retaliation from those prisoners he had brought to justice in the past.

The State broke the law by employing and endangering the youthful Harold Hempstead.  His actions had helped protect society from some very dangerous criminals, yet certain people working for the State saw to it that he was not even afforded the basic minimum protection entitled by his status.

When you consider the sentencing-judge saying “I hope you die in jail” and handing down a one hundred and sixty five year sentence for non-violent property-crimes, with no hope of parole, it poses the question  whether Harold Hempstead was imprisoned for possessing someone else’s property or for daring to expose the crimes of the police. 

SWORN AFFIDAVIT

To:  Julie Brown, 3511 Northwest 91st Avenue, Miami, Florida 33172

Craig Patrick, 3213 West Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33609

Michelle Gillen, 8900 Northwest 18th Terrace, Miami, Florida 33172

Eyal Press, Institute for Public Knowledge, 20 Cooper Square, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10003

Rachel Hoffman (a 23 year old) college student had been a Confidential Informant (CI) for the Tallahassee Police Department (TPD) for 2 weeks when she was killed in an undercover operation gone bad.  Rachel’s murder lead to the Florida Legislature passing Rachel’s Law (Fla. Stat. : 914.28) which governs the usage of CIs in Florida, and to a substantial amount of media attention on college students, etc. being used by law enforcement as CIs.

The St.Petersburg Police Department (SPPD) recruited the affiant to work as a paid CI when he was 13 years old.  The affiant’s juvenile recruitment as a paid CI violated state (Fla. Stat. : 450.012) and federal child labor laws.  Federal law defines affiants’ work as one of the “worst forms of child labor” because the nature or circumstances in which it was carried-out, was likely to harm the health, safety, or morals of the affiant  (19 USC : 2467 (6) (D) ).

From age 13, to age the 23, affiant was involved to some degree or another in dozens of undercover investigations with several different law enforcement agencies in the Tampa Bay area.

Affiant received training by law enforcement in the following areas:  Intelligence gathering, how to protect my identity, undercover operations, street fronts, infiltration, entrapment, debriefing and more.

During affiants’ trial the court prohibited him from introducing into evidence any testimony, or evidence concerning affiants’ prior CI activities even though all the detectives that testified knew affiant was a CI for law enforcement, and 3 of the detectives, the affiant had previously worked for as a CI.

The purpose of this affidavit is to bring to light what I was previously prevented from disclosing, and hopefully to obtain help in addressing events that happened while I was employed as a CI for law enforcement.

CREDIBILITY

1} In 2015, the Pinellas County State Attorney’s Office disclosed a report proving that in 1993 the SPPD arrested affiant on 2 frivolous charges.  The report states that at the time the affiant allegedly committed the charges he was working as a CI for several detectives, and that there wasn’t any evidence to support the charges.  The foregoing frivolous arrest happened within approximately 90 days of affiant reporting that a SPPD detective was committing sexual crimes against children.

2} In 2015, the SPPD disclosed Police Reports from when affiant was working as a CI for SPPD in 1992 and 1993.  Three of these reports list affiant as “completely reliable”.  The facts in the reports further show that affiant was deemed reliable, and that several people were arrested in the investigations that affiant was involved with.

3} In 2000, SPPD Detective John Mosely testified that he confirmed the intelligence affiant provided in 1998 and 1999.  This detective also testified at an evidentiary hearing that the SPPD reinstituted contact with affiant in 1998 based on affiants’ prior work for them in the early nineties.  If affiant was unreliable in the early nineties, Detective Mosely wouldn’t have made this statement.

4} The Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) verified affiants’ employment for the SPPD (going back prior to 1992), the FBI, DEA, etc., and that he was associated with the arrests of dozens of individuals.

INCIDENTS

In 1992 affiant was working the neighbourhood of 9th Avenue North and 9th Street as a CI.  The SPPD was providing affiant with money to aid in paying the rent on a one bedroom apartment in said neighbourhood.  The apartment was being used as a residence for 3 juvenile females (between the ages of 14 and 16) that were acting as escorts.  Two of the juvenile females were runaways.  SPPD detective Michael Brown authorized affiant to use the foregoing apartment, and females as a front to infiltrate criminal activity in the neighbourhood.  Detective Brown and other detectives visited the apartment several times in an undercover capacity.  The SPPD never reported the runaways or charged them with any crimes.  Affiant was 16 years of age in 1992. 

In 1992 and 1993, affiant attended the Police Athletic (PAL) on a regular basis to play pool and basketball.  In 1993, rumors started being spread that SPPD Detective Michael Brown who also frequented PAL was sexually molesting juvenile boys at PAL.  A PAL staff questioned several of the boys who were making the allegations.  In the month that followed nothing happened to Detective Michael Brown. 

After about 6 weeks with nothing being done to Detective Michael Brown, affiant brought up in a conversation with the foregoing detective, while in a vehicle alone with him in an undercover operation, the rumors being spread at PAL and some other matters.  Affiant intentionally did this in an attempt to disclose the foregoing problems to Detective Michael Brown  supervising detectives that were monitoring the recording devises that were in the vehicle with Detective Michael Brown and the affiant.  Detective Michael Brown denied that he was doing anything inappropriate to children to 2 other narcotics detectives from his same unit that questioned him that day.  Affiant was questioned as to why he did the foregoing in an undercover narcotics investigation.  Affiant told said detectives that he felt it was the best thing to do.  These detectives asked affiant if he ever witnessed Detective Michael Brown do anything sexual to a child, and if so, how?  Affiant told them yes and explained how.  These detectives told affiant he was misinterpreting the situations, and making accusations without evidence. 

The next time affiant attempted to go to PAL, he was told that he could no longer attend PAL, and that he would receive a trespass order if he entered back on PAL property.

Affiant later found-out that he was blocked from telephoning Detective Michael Brown at his office and home.

Prior to this incident, Detective Michael Brown was affiants’ handler.  A handler is a law enforcement official who handles all contact and intelligence activities with a CI.  After the aforementioned incidents happened affiant was told that he was being reassigned to a new detective, and that Detective Michael Brown would no longer be affiants’ handler. 

A short time after the above happened, the SPPD Vice and Narcotics Unit discovered that Detective Michael Brown again had contact with affiant in an undercover operation not authorized by SPPD supervisors.  When affiant was questioned about the foregoing, he admitted to such, and that Detective Michael Brown jeopardized affiants’ safety and cover in the operation.  Affiant was later told that a uniform officer who was present in the unauthorized undercover operation confirmed affiant’s foregoing statements as true.

Within 2 months of the foregoing incident, the SPPD maliciously arrested affiant for engaging in a front he was authorized to engage in as a CI.  In 2015, the Pinellas County State Attorney’s Office provided the affiant with a document proving that at the time of affiants’ arrest, he was working for law enforcement.  This document also states that the SPPD arrested affiant on the foregoing charges when there wasn’t any evidence to support the charges.  It is affiant’s position that the SPPD frivilously arrested affiant on the foregoing charges, in retaliation for affiant attempting to expose Detective Michael Brown’s inappropriate activities with minors.

In 2016, affiant was told that Detective Michael Brown had been forced to resign from the SPPD since affiant’s incarceration.  Affiant was told that one of the reasons Detective Michael Brown was forced to resign was because of an outcry that he victimizing minors on a softball team.  If the FBI, FDLE, and DCF have not investigated Detective Michael Brown’s activities going back to 1990, affiant respectfully contends that if an adequate investigation was conducted into the foregoing, it would reveal that Detective Michael Brown had victimized children going back to 1990 and possibly into the eighties.

Following the foregoing incidents, with the SPPD in 1993, the affiant didn’t have any further contact with said agency as a CI until 1998.

Between the years of 1994 and 1997, affiant initiated contact with a law enforcement agency in Tampa, Florida.  Between the years of 1994 and 1998, affiant communicated with an agent from the foregoing agency about the following matters: {1)xxxxxxxx. {2}xxxxxxxx; {3} xxxxxxxx; {4} xxxxxxxx{5} xxxxxxxx; {6} The mysterious disappearance of a guy with the nickname “X” after xxxxxxxx; {7} SPPD Detective Donnie Williams’ personal relationship with xxxxxxxxx in xxxxxxxx, Florida; {8} A murder committed by Z in xxxxxxxx, Florida; and {9} etc..

Affiant was told that in 2015, SPPD Detective Donnie Williams was still under corruptions investigations.

In 1998, some events forced the affiant into being reactivated as a CI for the SPPD.  Within 3 months of affiants’ reactivation, SPPD disclosed his identity as a CI to  xxxxxxxx suspected of committing more than one murder.

In March 1999, the SPPD again arrested affiant for charges he was innocent of.  During the court proceedings in the affiants’ case, the court prohibited him from introducing into evidence anything concerning his prior employment as a CI. 

After affiant was placed in the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), he had years of protection problems that came as a result of his prior employment as a CI.   FDOC records will prove that for approximately 4 years Pinellas Assistant State Attorney Pat Saracusa told FDOC that affiant was never a CI for law enforcement.  If Mr. Sarcusa didn’t do the foregoing, the affiant wouldnt have had the protection problems he had his first 4 years in prison.  In 2004, FDOC verified with the SPPD that affiant had been a CI going back prior to 1992.  In 2011 FDOC verified that affiant was associated with the arrest of more than 70 individuals when he worked as a CI.

Affiant would like to provide the documents his family and him have, and the witnesses and evidence stated herein.

UNNOTARIZED OATH

Under penalty of perjury, I swear that everything stated herein is true, and correct.

Affiant:  (Signature of Harold Hempstead appears here on original hand-written document) 4/5/16

Harold Hempstead, D.C.# 268866, B2-102 Single, Martin Correctional Institution, 1150 Southwest Allapattah Road, Indiantown, Florida 34956

C.C.  Tampa Bay Times, News Service of Florida, Orlando Sun Sentinel, Florida Times Union, Broward Sun Sentinel, Palm Beach Post, New Yorker Magazine, Rolling Stones Magazine, Times Magazine, People Magazine, New York Times, Prison Legal News, 60 Minutes, Inside Edition, 20/20 (Brian Ross), Elizabeth Patty-Lugo, Windy Hempstead, Susan Chandler, George Mallinckrodt, K. Harris (Second Chance Effort Project), Howard Simon (ACLU), Adam Tebrugge (ACLU), Randall C. Berg (Florida Justice Institute), Rev. Russell Meyer (Florida Council of Churches), Steven Wetstein (Stop Prison Abuse Now), Actual Innocence Project (Tallahassee, Florida), Tampa FBI, Tallahassee FDLE, Tampa FDLE, Department of Children and Families (St.Petersburg, Florida), Melinda Miguel (Chief Inspector General for the Governor), Mike Fasano (Senator), Jeremy Schanche.

Note: Some parts of this typescript of the document have been redacted for reasons of public safety.  

Advertisements

Author: hhccblog

I'm the editor of the Harold Hempstead Caged Crusader Wordpress. My name is Jeremy Schanche. You can contact me at the blog. The blog exists to bring justice for the murder of Darren Rainey and to address the numerous human rights violations in the Florida Department of Corrections.

2 thoughts on “St.Petersburg P.D. Exploit 13 Year Old In ‘Worst Form Of Child Labor’ Then Dump Him”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s