Philando Castile's family grieves and builds his legacy



A woman speaks at a podium.

Ten years ago, Philando Castile drove down Larpenteur Avenue in the Twin Cities suburb of Falcon Heights.

His girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, was in the passenger seat. Her 4-year-old daughter was in the back.

Officer Jeronimo Yanez from the nearby suburb of St. Anthony thought Castile, a Black man, resembled a suspect in a gas station robbery a few days before due to his “wide-set nose.” Yanez turned on his emergency lights.

After Castile pulled over, Yanez told him his tail light was out, and asked for his license and registration.

“Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me,” Castile told the officer.

”Don’t reach for it then. Don’t pull it out,” Yanez responded.

“I’m not pulling it out,” Castille said.

Seconds later, Yanez fired seven shots into the car, hitting Castile five times.

Reynolds captured Castile’s final moments on a Facebook Live video that spread quickly online.

“You just killed my boyfriend,” Reynolds said, as a hyperventilating Yanez stood outside the window with his gun pointed at the couple.

July 6 marks 10 years since Yanez killed Castile. His death sparked protests, became a rallying cry for police reform and led to the first prosecution of a police officer for an on-duty killing in Minnesota history.

People kneel across a street.
Protesters stop to take a knee in honor of Philando Castile during a march on the fourth anniversary of his death in St. Anthony, Minn., on July 6, 2020.
Evan Frost | MPR News

His mother Valerie Castile called for calm and pressed for criminal charges against the officer. When a Ramsey County jury acquitted Yanez of manslaughter a year later, Valerie gave voice to the community’s outrage.

“My son loved this state. He had one tattoo on his body, and it was of the Twin Cities, the state of Minnesota with ‘TC’ on it,” Valerie said outside the Ramsey County courthouse following the not guilty verdict. “My son loved this city. And this city killed my son.”

A decade after Philando’s killing, his family and friends are still grappling with the loss, even as the years have cemented his legacy as a symbol of change.

‘The biggest failure in Minnesota history’

Valerie now has three grandchildren, including a 2-year-old boy she says carries himself like Philando. She’ll say “Hi baby” to him, and he’ll say “Hi baby” back. The kids never got to meet Philando, but they adore him, she said.

“I love them with everything I’ve got, but Philando was a one-of-a-kind sweetheart. He was my son, he was my friend, he was my companion, he kept me grounded,” Valerie said. “He was my only child for 10 years. It was always just he and I.”

Realizing Philando has been gone for a decade devastates the family. Valerie still fantasizes about Yanez being charged again in her son’s death.

“There was a preponderance of evidence, yet still this guy went home and my son is dead,” Valerie said. “It's almost as if it's taboo to even speak Philando up. Which, I get, because what happened to Philando was the biggest failure of Minnesota history.”

But Valerie and her family haven’t stood still. She and her brother, Clarence, have worked with prosecutors to help move both Ramsey and Hennepin counties away from what are called pretextual stops, like when her son was pulled over on July 6 for a burned out taillight.

Castile’s alma mater, St. Paul Central High School, established a scholarship in the former cafeteria worker’s honor. Every year the family hosts a candlelight vigil on the day of his killing and, in recent years, a community barbecue. The Falcon Heights City Council has even declared July 6 every year as “Restoration Day” and July 7 as “Unity Day.”

Valerie said her driving forces are her son and her God. She’s seen friends and family change for the better by her son’s example.

”When these bad things happen,” Valerie said, “you have to acknowledge them and admit that harm was done and move forward in trying to design something or create something that will make a difference. And make a change so that these terrible things won't continue to happen to other people.”

‘Do the hard thing’

When Yanez shot Philando, no on-duty police officer in Minnesota had ever been charged for killing a civilian. Community members and activists had pushed for charges in cases like Minneapolis officers’ killing of Jamar Clark in 2015, to no avail.

The consensus from activists was that prosecutors and the police officers were too cozy.

Ramsey County Attorney John Choi broke with tradition after Philando’s killing by announcing he’d decide on charges himself rather than presenting the evidence to a grand jury, a secretive process activists also criticized for lacking transparency.

Four months after Philando’s death, Choi announced manslaughter charges against Yanez for the killing and intentional discharge of a dangerous weapon for endangering Reynolds and her young daughter in the car.

“I have come to the conclusion that there simply was no justification for the use of deadly force by Officer Yanez in this case,” Choi said during the announcement. “No reasonable officer who knew, saw and heard what Officer Yanez did at the time would have used deadly force under these circumstances.”

Ramsey County Attorney John Choi
Ramsey County Attorney John Choi announced that he has charged police officer Jeronimo Yanez in the July 6 killing of Philando Castile during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights on Nov. 16, 2016, at a press conference in St. Paul.
Tim Nelson | MPR News

Choi met with Valerie for the first time that day. He remembers the protesters gathered outside the building. And the Castile family came up, telling him how Philando had used one of Choi’s diversion programs to keep his driver’s license despite accumulating numerous traffic tickets.

Under the law, officers are given wide discretion for lethal force in the course of their duties. On June 16, 2017, jurors found Yanez not guilty on all counts, largely because jurors couldn’t conclusively say whether Yanez could see a gun in Philando’s hand.

Choi said he thinks about Philando’s case every day.

“I'm a different prosecutor today compared to what I was back then,” Choi said. “It changed me as a human being, as a prosecutor, looking at a lot of things and getting to this place where I recognized that it's not right to have the type of policing that resulted in Philando's death.”

In the ensuing years, Choi and local law enforcement departments in Ramsey County have largely moved away from the sort of pretextual stops that led to Philando being pulled over, he said. Preliminary data from a new study shows cities like St. Paul have kept those numbers low.

Now, when officers notice a burned out tail light in Ramsey County, the driver is more likely to get a letter in the mail and a coupon than be pulled over.

Yanez’s prosecution also sent a message to both the wider community and to other local prosecutors, Choi said.

“I think a prosecutor here in this community, meaning the state of Minnesota, recognizes it is their responsibility and their obligation to seek the truth and investigate the facts and do the hard thing,” Choi said, “which is to have accountability and apply the law to anybody, regardless if it's a police officer who was working in the line of duty.”

Choi met with the Castile family on the front porch of their home after the jury’s decision to explain the verdict. As Choi was about to leave, Valerie went inside and got a certificate from Philando’s traffic ticket diversion program graduation and handed it to him. Choi said he cherishes that certificate to this day.

Since then, Choi and Valerie have made a sort of unlikely duo as they speak at prosecutor and police conferences about how to best handle incidents like police shootings.

While Philando’s family didn’t get the result they hoped for from Yanez’s prosecution, there are some signs that the movement built around Philando’s killing may have led to both a greater willingness for prosecutors to press charges against on-duty police officers and for juries to convict.

In 2019, jurors in Hennepin County convicted Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor for third-degree murder and manslaughter in the killing of Justine Damond Ruszczyk, who called 911 for help after hearing what she believed was a woman being assaulted in her alley. The Minnesota Supreme Court later tossed the third-degree murder conviction.

After Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd in 2020, Chauvin and three officers were convicted or pleaded guilty to federal and state charges.

Protesters gather outside Minnesota Attorney General's office.
In wake of George Floyd's death, protesters gather outside Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison's office in downtown St. Paul on June 5, 2020. Protesters demanded the reopening of all cases in which people were killed by police statewide.
Liam James Doyle for MPR News

Although the swing toward prosecuting officers isn’t necessarily echoed nationally, it does show the success the Black Lives Matter movement had influencing the public in Minnesota, according to Michelle Phelps, a University of Minnesota professor who studies social movements and the criminal justice system.

Successful prosecutions of police officers don’t just require the active involvement of prosecutors, but the willingness of jurors to convict an officer.

“The impact of the Black Lives Matter movement has been to try and shift every piece of that process, to try and shift department policies, to try and shift state law, to try and shift public opinion, and to try and shift the politics that insulate the police,” Phelps said.

When Yanez killed Philando, activists in the Black Lives Matter movement were already disillusioned after years of work, Phelps said. Philando’s killing was a turning point in which calls to reform no longer held much appeal.

The movement that developed around Philando’s killing helped set the groundwork for the sometimes controversial discussion about policing following Floyd’s murder in 2020, Phelps said.

“Philando Castile, and then the complicated legal trial that followed, really was a pivot moment and a radicalizing moment, and really birthed what became this push for defund and abolition in the Twin Cities that would hit the national stage in 2020,” Phelps said.

A woman puts her fist in the air in front of a mural.
Valerie Castile stands for a photo in front of a mural of her son, Philando Castile, during a rally on the fourth anniversary of his death in St. Anthony, Minn., on July 6, 2020.
Evan Frost | MPR News

‘None of this was supposed to happen’

Greg Crockett was one of Philando’s best friends. A year after the jury released a not guilty verdict for Yanez, Crockett left Minnesota for good.

He said the state seems to have a dark cloud hanging over it.

Crockett has a tattoo on his arm of Philando. Sometimes people in Arizona ask about it. He still sees his friend’s face on posters and murals.

“I've loved the fact that people still remember,” Crockett said. “But at the same time, it still hurts, because none of them people were supposed to know him, nobody was supposed to know what his name was, because none of this was supposed to happen.”

The loss is deep. Crockett remembers his grandfather in Indiana played his favorite card game — Spades — with his best friend almost every day for 60 years. After his grandfather’s best friend died eight years ago, he never played Spades again.

Crockett feels the same way about his friend. Crockett used to be all about comedy, but said he hasn’t been in a peaceful enough place in his mind to write.

Crockett still plays Xbox every day with the same group of guys who played with Philando. His friend comes up in conversation naturally, although Crockett tries to focus on the good times and not dwell on “the sad stuff.” He knows Philando would have gotten a kick out of the NBA finals this year because he knew Crockett is a Pacers fan.

“He would have been clowning me because we didn't get it done last year, and the Knicks was able to get it done,” Crockett said. “Completely just rubbing it in my face that my team wasn't able to accomplish it last year, and our arch rival was actually able to do it.”

Crockett hopes to make a quick trip back to Minnesota later this summer if he can pull together the funds.

The first item on his agenda? Take a car down Larpenteur Avenue to visit the Philando Castile Peace Garden for the very first time.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


The IRS’s historical abuses led Congress to create specific taxpayer rights, including rights stemming from collection due process (“CDP”) hearings. These administrative hearings are intended to pause IRS collection actions while the IRS Office of Appeals considers whether the collection is both lawful and warranted.

One might assume these rights extend to any liability assessed by the IRS. Since the IRS is part of the U.S. Treasury, it would seem logical that these rights would apply to any liability owed to the Treasury, especially when the Treasury delegates assessment authority for the liability from one of its sub-departments to the IRS, which is another one of its sub-departments.

The fact that a liability originated with another sub-department shouldn’t matter if that original sub-department never handles the liability because it has been fully delegated to the IRS, the other sub-department. However, as the Jenner v. Commissioner, 163 T.C. No. 7, case demonstrates, this assumption is incorrect. The case involves Foreign Bank Account Reporting (“FBAR”) penalties assessed by the IRS.

Facts & Procedural History

This case involves a couple who were assessed FBAR penalties for tax years 2005 through 2009. The penalties relate to foreign bank accounts that were not reported to the Treasury Department.

When the couple did not pay the penalties, the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (“BFS”) informed the couple that funds would be withheld from their monthly Social Security benefits through the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”) to pay these penalties.

In response, the couple submitted Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, with the IRS. The IRS issued a letter to the couple saying that FBAR penalties are not taxes and therefore not subject to CDP requirements.

The taxpayers filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court under the CDP hearing procedures, which was the subject of the court opinion described in this article.

About FBAR Penalties

FBAR penalties can be imposed on U.S. persons who fail to report certain foreign financial accounts to the government. The reporting requirement generally applies if the aggregate value of all foreign accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year.

This reporting is done on FinCEN Form 114 (formerly TD F 90-22.1). The form is due on April 15th and there is an automatic extension to October 15th.

The amount of the penalties can be severe. Non-willful violations can result in penalties of $10,000 per violation. Willful FBAR violations can result in penalties of the greater of $100,000 or 50% of the account balance at the time of the violation. Criminal penalties can also apply in some situations. Notably, for purposes of this article, these penalties are assessed under Title 31 of the U.S. Code (which is the Bank Secrecy Act) and not under the Internal Revenue Code (which is Title 26 of the U.S. Code).

Assessment of FBAR Penalties

While FBAR penalties are not tax penalties, the IRS has been delegated the authority to assess FBAR penalties through a chain of delegation.

The Secretary of Treasury first delegated authority to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). FinCEN is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury that works to detect and prosecute financial crimes and money laundering. FinCEN then redelegated this authority to the IRS for FBAR penalties.

The typical assessment process begins when an IRS agent conducts an audit and proposes penalties. The IRS then issues Letter 3709 proposing the penalties, and account holders have 30 days to either pay the penalty, request an appeals conference, or provide additional information.

The taxpayer may also trigger an assessment by voluntarily submitting FBAR forms after the due date. The IRS will review the late filing and determine whether to impose penalties. When FBARs are filed through FinCEN’s BSA E-Filing System, the IRS receives this information through an information-sharing agreement with FinCEN. The IRS can then review these late filings as part of its normal examination process.

If the taxpayer files a timely request for appeals review

If the taxpayer files a timely request for appeals review, the IRS Office of Appeals has the ability to consider the proposed FBAR penalties, including whether the violations occurred, whether they were willful or non-willful, whether reasonable cause exists, and whether the penalty amounts are appropriate. Appeals officers can sustain, reduce, or eliminate the proposed penalties based on their review of the facts and circumstances.

They can also consider hazards of litigation, meaning they can take into account the IRS’s likelihood of success if the case were to proceed to court. This review is particularly important for willful FBAR penalties, where the government must prove willfulness by clear and convincing evidence in any subsequent litigation. Appeals officers may also consider the ability to pay and can help facilitate alternative payment arrangements if the penalties are sustained.

Remedies After Missing or Unsuccessful Appeal

If account holders miss the appeals deadline or receive an unfavorable appeals decision, there are still several options that may provide remedies.

For example, the account holder can challenge the administrative offset through Treasury procedures. When the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service initiates an offset (such as withholding Social Security benefits), they must provide notice to the account holder. The account holder then has certain due process rights under Title 31, including the right to inspect records, request a review of the debt, and establish a payment schedule. They can also present evidence that the offset would create a financial hardship or that the debt is not valid or legally enforceable.

Account holders can also wait for the government to file suit to collect the penalties and raise their defenses in the collection suit. They do not have to pay the penalty and file a refund claim first with this option. This is different from tax assessments, where taxpayers typically must “pay first, litigate later.” When the government files suit to collect FBAR penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 5321(b)(2), the account holder can raise defenses such as reasonable cause, lack of willfulness, statute of limitations, or constitutional challenges. The government bears the burden of proving its case, including proving willfulness by clear and convincing evidence for willful FBAR penalties.

Collection Due Process Not Allowed

Notably absent from the discussion above are the IRS collection programs and procedures. That is the issue in this Jenner court case.

In Jenner, the tax court answers the question as to whether the traditional CDP hearings and rights are available for FBAR penalties. As noted by the court, FBAR penalties are not “taxes” under the Internal Revenue Code and CDP rights only apply to collection of “taxes.”

The court emphasized that the IRS’s authority to assess FBAR penalties does not convert them into tax liabilities. Instead, Title 31 provides its own separate procedures for assessment and collection. The collection mechanism for FBAR penalties is through civil action or administrative offset, not through IRS liens and levies that would give rise to CDP rights.

Thus, while the IRS may assess these penalties, they remain non-tax debts subject to Title 31’s collection procedures rather than the Internal Revenue Code’s collection provisions. The CDP hearing is not a viable option for contesting the assessment or underlying liability for FBAR penalties.

The Takeaway

Unless Congress changes the law, account holders who are assessed FBAR penalties by the IRS do not have fundamental rights, such as CDP rights, that are afforded to taxpayers for tax balances. This is the case even though the same agency whose abuses gave rise to the CDP hearing and CDP rights for taxpayers, the IRS, is involved in assessing FBAR penalties. The remedies outside of the IRS are there, even though they do not afford taxpayers the rights and remedies available for taxes. Account holders have to contend with this when assessed FBAR penalties by the IRS and do not agree with the assessments.

Watch Our Free On-Demand Webinar

In 40 minutes, we’ll teach you how to survive an IRS audit.

We’ll explain how the IRS conducts audits and how to manage and close the audit.  



Source link