Palo- Thank you for your reply. I have read your post on police procedure and policy however tyrants that swear an oath to uphold the US constitution then violate that oath could care less about procedure or policy. They feel they are above the law. Procedure and policy enforcement should take a back sit to the sworn oath. When a leo violates a citizens rights they should be terminated and sued not cuddled by some union because of procedure and policy that is or not in place.
Palo, I understand your on the job. So let me ask a question if I may. How many hours of training/study do Leos receive regarding the US Constitution? Are new recruits tested on the Constitution?
I look forward to your reply and I have learned a lot from your previous post.
Best regards
CCJ
There are two classes of ofc. that harass/mess with OCers and people filming police.
1) those that honestly don't know the state of the law regarding same. This group is becoming smaller, but trust me - I have personally educated MANY leo's on current law and my agency also has policy about filmers (not messing with same). Constitution doesn't change, but const. law DOES and of course there is state const. law which is much more restrictive on LEO power than the federal const.
2) those who know the law and CHOOSE to disobey it.
Group (1) WILL change their behavior and ime they VASTLY out# group 2 given training and/or official policy. I have seen it firsthand since we instuted roll call training on OCers and instituted firm policy on filmers. It has made a VAST difference. And of course it is better to PREVENT misconduct than to wait for it to occur and sue after the fact. Imo, that is a firm moral and practical rule
Group (2) if they continue to harass OCers and filmers will be on MUCH shakier ground in terms of avoiding punishment up to and including personal civil liability and suspensions/firings
There is an immense body of labor law that says ofc's do not have to know every nuance of const. law especially stuff that has just changed.
Ofc's are under NO obligation to even read the LEd's in my agency. Sad but true.
*if* you want ofc's to be held accountable AND want to diminish these violations in the first place, your local PD *must* have relevant policies and./or training. Our chief has made it exquisitely clear that he draws a very firm distincion in terms of punishment between ofc's who make honest mistakes (group 1) and those who intentionally violate rights (group 2)
I have no idea how many hours of const law ofc in this state have. I lateralled. I do know that it's not just about training in const. law. it's about keeping up to date. REcent court decisions are what makes messing with filmers absolutely invalid - case law that says filming cops in public is a first amendment protected right. That is a RECENT case. Many ofc's are unaware of it
It's not so much tested on the constitution during field training, its being tested on applying const law. A recruit can easily get through probation and fiedl training without ever seeing an OCer, so unless his FTO decides on his own to teach the recruit proper procedure regarding same (our manual does not address it but roll call training did but only relatively recently.) he will never learn
I probably disagree with you in that I think ofc's acting in good faith should not be fired. But as loing as we ensure our local PD has policy/training regarding OC/filming then BY DEFINITION any violation of OCer or filmers rights is ipso facto NOT good faith, since it's contrary to training/policy
Every time I make a seizure, search, arrest etc. I am applying const. law. And many applications of same are noit clearly in accord with the const/case law or not in accord
Remember, tons of JUDGES disagree about interpretation of same (lots of 5-4) decisions and in cases like that you can't expect to punish the ofc, when judges can;t even agree on it. Lots of other stuff is bright line, though and judges will be unanimous and ofc's CAN be punished given training/policy
Not every terry stop I've made has been upheld. That's ok. A stop I make that 1 judge might find ok, another judge won;'t. Happens all the time.
however, if I act in gross negligence or inconsistent with the const. such that it can be shown no reasonable ofc. would act that way, THEN I am subject to punishment and sometimes civil liability
contra what most people think, being a cop is not about being a const. law wonk. And many lawyers even don't know the law that well. The lawyers have the advantage of they can take their time and look stuff up, research etc. A cop doesn't have that option (usually) in the field. He often has to make split second decisions for everything up to shoot/don't shoot
Imo and ime, ofc's that willfully violate rights are a tiny minority. And sometimes a good ofc. can just go overboard (like the guy who slapped the kid I was interviewing and got a 5 day suspension).
Imo, termination should be for egregious offenses and/or because of progressive discipline (ofc. continues to screw up and doesn't respond to lower discipline/training)
Because of due process, CBA's etc. *if* you want ofc's held accountable, you need to ensure they have policies/training to limit their behavior.
My agency is excellent and I can state with no hesitation that willful violations are very rare, and unwillful unknowing violations, while more common are still rare
We've had well trained ofcs have to school PROSECUTORS on the law sometimes. It happens.
So, again in regards to fealty to the constitution, what constitutes constitutional law is CONSTANTLY changing. a couple of years ago we could search motor vehicles incident to arrest. Doing so was ruled constitent with our restrictive state constitution
NOW, we can't. Our constitution didn't change. INTERPRETATION of it changed. And when it changed, we had roll call training EXPLAINING the change. ThAT is why ofc's can be held accountable for violating same
Until recently, a WA officer could go years without seeing either an OCer or a person filming them (prior to cell phone cameras). And the case law wasn't crystal clear on either.
If you want ofc's held accountable for violations of the constitution AS CURRENTLY INTERPRETED, you need to ensure your local PD has policies/training consistent with same OR I can guarantee you, an ofc. will be minimally punished, if at all, and often he will be able get same overturned through binding arbitration.
In my agency, no officer is REQUIRED to read the LED's. We are required to read new policy (which comes via email) and attend required training.
I go out of my way to read LED's and scotusblog, etc. But that's me. Most ofc's don't. Heck I know a few lawyers who are cops who don't even bother.
So, for the hopefully last time
you want officers held liable - you need to make sure they are receiving proper training and are held in check by policy or it won't happen, and if it does, they will likely get it overturned.
cheers