Can we press charges against police officers when they break the law?

imported post

In the case that a police officer says something along the lines of:

"If it did go to court, yeah, it would probably wind up in your favor, but you really don't want it to have to go that far, do you?"

Click to expand...

This is acknowledging that OC is legal, but threatening to arrest you and book you anyway. This is a violation of several laws, but here are the main ones that interest me:

RCW 9A.36.070
Coercion.
(1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he has a legal right to engage in.

(2) "Threat" as used in this section means:

(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or

(b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25) (a), (b), or (c).

(3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

[/quote][/b]And

[/b]RCW 9.62.010
Malicious prosecution.

Click to expand...

Every person who shall, maliciously and without probable cause therefor, cause or attempt to cause another to be arrested or proceeded against for any crime of which he or she is innocent:

Click to expand...

(1) If such crime be a felony, is guilty of a class C felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five years; and

Click to expand...

(2) If such crime be a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

So here it is in black and white. It is a crime to threaten to arrest you when the cop knows that you haven't broken the law. It's not just unethical, or against procedures. It's a crime.

How do we go about prosecuting these thugs that think they can subject us toa lengthy processwith the legal system for doing something they don't approve of?

imported post

Although I read the original (now deleted post) I don't remember it all. Was there mention of a possiblearrest?

imported post

There was an implied threat of arrest.

I'm no expert, but I suspect there is a difference between exceeding authority and committing a crime.

An assault by a police officer would be actionable by pressing charges, I would think. For example, having clearly no reason for a non-consensual stop, a police officerpunches a stoppee. Or the stop Unrequited experienced in Barnes and Noble where the cop reportedly told him to come outside or something very bad was going to happen. (Personally, I would have gone straight to a magistrate from Barnes and Noble and pressed charges on that one, but that's just me.)

Whereas, in the middle of anarrest, the same punch may become "excessive force."Against which there may not be a criminal or official oppression statute, leaving only lawsuits as an option.

imported post

Thanks Citizen, regarding the statement made by the Officer, it appears that a hypothetical situation is being imposed (IF it went to court), and the second half is a question for the subject.

I don't see how Expvideo deduces aTHREAT of arrest from apurely hypothetical statement.

Also to help clarify, Officers do not press charges, nor do citizens. The prosecuting attorney is the only person who FILES charges. An Officer recommends charges by articulating facts in the form of a report.

One of the big problems with real threats is that usually one person is alleging that they were threatened, and the other is denying threatening. Usually there are two different stories as to what was actually said, anda prosecutor WILL NOT file charges based on hearsay.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Thanks Citizen, regarding the statement made by the Officer, it appears that a hypothetical situation is being imposed (IF it went to court), and the second half is a question for the subject.

I don't see how Expvideo deduces aTHREAT of arrest from apurely hypothetical statement.

Also to help clarify, Officers do not press charges, nor do citizens. The prosecuting attorney is the only person who FILES charges. An Officer recommends charges by articulating facts in the form of a report.

One of the big problems with real threats is that usually one person is alleging that they were threatened, and the other is denying threatening. Usually there are two different stories as to what was actually said, anda prosecutor WILL NOT file charges based on hearsay.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand what you mean by that. It sounds very much like a threat to me, even if it is mearly implied. If I were to say the same thing, I would mean it as a threat, and I can't see how that direct quote would be taken as anything else.

"If it did go to court, yeah, it would probably wind up in your favor, but you really don't want it to have to go that far, do you?"

That suggests to me, and I would think that it would suggest to any normal person, that the officer is acknowledging that the act is not illegal, but suggesting that he will attempt to prosecute the citizen anyway, if he continues to do what is bothering the officer.

Let's look at it in a different light. If I were to be OCing and I told someone that asked me why I was carrying a gun like that "A guy could get himself killed asking questions like that. not saying whether I would, but you don't want to find out,do you?" No I haven't directly threatened him, but I think it's pretty clear that it was meant that way.



So Let's get to the real issue. Let's get past this particular incident and be more direct. Let's say an officer says "It doesn't matter if it is legal, I'm still arresting you, and we'll see if you can convince a judge". How can we go about prosecuting the hypothetical officer?

imported post

I would hope to God I never hear those words from an Officer. But if that were to happen, and the incident went to court, you would have your opportunity to convince the jury of what had happened. If it was found that there were no legal grounds for the arrest, you would be exonerated. If you could prove that the Officer had said these words, The Prosecutor COULD charge him. Keep in mind that taped conversations are not admissible, and recording a conversation without all the parties consents is illegal.

Any Officer that would take such actions should not be in Law Enforcement, and probably would not last long, let alone be hired in the first place.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

I would hope to God I never hear those words from an Officer. But if that were to happen, and the incident went to court, you would have your opportunity to convince the jury of what had happened. If it was found that there were no legal grounds for the arrest, you would be exonerated. If you could prove that the Officer had said these words, The Prosecutor COULD charge him. Keep in mind that taped conversations are not admissible, and recording a conversation without all the parties consents is illegal.

Any Officer that would take such actions should not be in Law Enforcement, and probably would not last long, let alone be hired in the first place.

Click to expand...

Actually that is a common mistake. State v. Flora says that police officers are considered public officers perfoming public duties, therefor their conversations are not considered private. It is legal to record a police officer, because the law only requires that you inform all parties in "private" conversation. Look up State v. Flora, and you'll see what I mean. It very clearly says that a civilian can record a conversation with a police officer without letting the officer know. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I've heard the same thing you're saying from high ranking police officers, but they were wrong, and I think it's in your best interest as an LEO to be aware of this case ruling.

imported post

Even if so, if the courts won't accept the recording, how can it help your cause.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Even if so, if the courts won't accept the recording, how can it help your cause.

Click to expand...

CNN will accept it.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Even if so, if the courts won't accept the recording, how can it help your cause.

Click to expand...

CNN will accept it.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Even if so, if the courts won't accept the recording, how can it help your cause.

Click to expand...

CNN will accept it.

Click to expand...

If that's what it takes then so be it. I have a personal policy of: act as if wherever you go, you are being voice and video recorded. If you follow this even if someone is actually filming, you have nothing to worry about.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Even if so, if the courts won't accept the recording, how can it help your cause.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how you think that the recording is inadmissible. Can you cite the court case that states this?

I do you one better:

RCW 9.73.050:
Any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 or pursuant to any order issued under the provisions of RCW 9.73.040 shall be inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction in this state, except with the permission of the person whose rights have been violated in an action brought for damages under the provisions of RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080, or in a criminal action in which the defendant is charged with a crime, the commission of which would jeopardize national security.

Since State v. Flora makes recording law enforcement in their duties legal, this can be used in civil court and criminally.

imported post

I'm glad Lonnie is on our side.

He's pretty handy with the legal stuff.

imported post

Lonnie

One day I need to take a trip to your beautiful state, so I can shake your hand.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

If that's what it takes then so be it. I have a personal policy of: act as if wherever you go, you are being voice and video recorded. If you follow this even if someone is actually filming, you have nothing to worry about.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately from what I've seen of the bad open carry encounters, these officers do NOT make that assumption.

This is much to their detriment, because their reaction to being told that they're being recorded, in most cases, is "stop recording or I will arrest you for violating RCW 9.73.030".

Despite the fact that there's been clear case law (in the form of the Flora case) stating that one may overtly or covertly record them as they are public officers, these cops assume two things: That all recording of conversations must have consent (this is not true, only private conversations are) and that it's a consent law, not a notification law, and that one being recorded may "refuse consent" to the recording and therefor threaten to arrest private civilians.

This is not true, as the law states that notification is all that is required. Your only choice, at that point, if you don't like being recorded, is to keep your mouth shut, and walk away from the situation.

Seattle Photographer Unlawfully Detained awarded $8000

Unfortunately, some will not tolerate having to shut up and walk away, they will be embarassed that their words can be used against them since they are public servants.

What every officer in this state, or hell, this entire country, needs to understand that when they wear that uniform, they are held to a higher standard of behavior than me as a citizen. By all definitions, you are a peace officer, and you are there to keep the peace.

When certain officers unlawfully detain, unlawfully arrest, and threaten people for doing lawful activity (photography, open carry, peaceful protest, etc etc) because they don't personally like it, it damages the standing of all officers in the eyes of the larger community.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

I would hope to God I never hear those words from an Officer. But if that were to happen, and the incident went to court, you would have your opportunity to convince the jury of what had happened. If it was found that there were no legal grounds for the arrest, you would be exonerated. If you could prove that the Officer had said these words, The Prosecutor COULD charge him. Keep in mind that taped conversations are not admissible, and recording a conversation without all the parties consents is illegal.

Any Officer that would take such actions should not be in Law Enforcement, and probably would not last long, let alone be hired in the first place.

Click to expand...

You are very naive if you think cops never threaten citizens. Hell,cops lie all the time. Cops claim to hate being lied to and then turn around and lie to get the citizen to respond likethey want, thencops are two faced andare lower than any criminal out there lying to them.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

CNN will accept it.

Click to expand...

... or you can be a YouTube star and get fired.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

I would hope to God I never hear those words from an Officer. But if that were to happen, and the incident went to court, you would have your opportunity to convince the jury of what had happened. If it was found that there were no legal grounds for the arrest, you would be exonerated. If you could prove that the Officer had said these words, The Prosecutor COULD charge him. Keep in mind that taped conversations are not admissible, and recording a conversation without all the parties consents is illegal.

Any Officer that would take such actions should not be in Law Enforcement, and probably would not last long, let alone be hired in the first place.

Click to expand...

You are very naive if you think cops never threaten citizens. Hell,cops lie all the time. Cops claim to hate being lied to and then turn around and lie to get the citizen to respond likethey want, thencops are two faced andare lower than any criminal out there lying to them.

Click to expand...

Bear,

I am sorry that your attitude is such toward Police. I personally have not been offended by your comments and names, as they don't apply to me. I can tell you that the vast majority of Officers are far above your negative generalizations.

I would urge you and anyone else interested to go through any Dept's Citizen's Academy. You would meet a great bunch of guys, and might even make a good friend. Most people who have done this gain a new perspective on Police, and have a far better understanding of how and why we do the things we do.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

I would urge you and anyone else interested to go through any Dept's Citizen's Academy. You would meet a great bunch of guys, and might even make a good friend. Most people who have done this gain a new perspective on Police, and have a far better understanding of how and why we do the things we do.

Click to expand...

Will it help me to understand why police officers lie on police reports? Will it help me to understand why they falsely prosecute people? Will it help me to understand why I am threatened with force when I'm not even breaking any laws? Will it help me to understand why that kid was tased when he wasn't being violent or threatening in any way and was just speaking?

Perhaps it will help me to understand why I get ridiculed and threatened by police officers about half the time when I'm pulled over and they find out that I'm carrying a CONCEALED firearm.

Or maybe it will help me to understand why the police thought it was ok to stop and search my friends' car while we were driving down the street carefully obeying the speed limit, because we knew the cops were behind us. They pulled us over, claiming that we were going 35 in a 25. When they first saw us we were stopped at a light, just after leaving mcdonalds, and we saw them too. We carefully watched our speed, but they pulled us over and lied to us about it anyway. We were friendly and didn't do anything to upset the officers. We were dressed normally and not acting or looking like criminals or "pot-heads". They said they were going to search the car, and when we asked if they had a warrant or probable cause the one officer said "You know what; I don't have probable cause, but I think you have pot in the car, so I'm going to search it." He searched the car and found nothing, because we had nothing (I don't smoke pot, or do any other drugs for that matter). He then searched us. This was before I had a CCW permit, so I was unarmed. They didn't find anything and told us to drive carefully and left.

Will citizens academy help me to understand this?

imported post

Expvideo,

If you were to actually sign up and do it, yes it would help.They areset up to build better relationships with the public, and to form ties with citizens who are wanting to further their understanding of police work. It's a chance to go inside of a world that you have only seen from the outside. You would be free to ask q's and not be ridiculed for your comments (unlike this forum). Sound like something you would like to do?.

The other option is continue to collect all the negative stories, and draw broad uninformed conclusions as to how ALL Officers act.