Glock Talk banner
61 - 80 of 147 Posts
If I recall correctly, two of the cops who hit most of the "home runs"......(a quote from one of the cops) were sentenced to 72 months in Federal prison (after being found "not guilty" by a brain-dead Simi Valley jury that consisted mostly of cops' relatives, cops' friends & cops' neighbors.)
You seem to have forgoten that the make-up of the jury was pretty much dictated by the (IIRC) NAACP interviewing pretty much every perspective juror "of color" in the jurisdiction.

Watch a 30 second clip and you think you should be able to pick the jurors based on your "mean ole po-po" point of view. Are you so blind that you don't see the "federal" BS as politically-motivated salve for the democratic base?
 
OK, bad example on my part. I was looking for something with a low probability of damage that was "impulsive" behavior (instead of systemic) if you will and would cause serious issues for the miscreant. Anyway, moving on...

I could see the gray areas you wrestle with since at least part of their definition involves what is in another human's mind. More along the lines of, did the officer's know that the person they chased and caught was unconscious when they dog-piled him and broke his ribs? That's a toughie since reputations are easily ruined.
I'll give you a real example. A gang officer sees a known gang member standing on a street corner. Upon seeing the gang officer, the gang member takes a step back stoops behind a car and then comes back to the curb. The officer decides to stop and talk to the gang member. The officer also goes over to the car and finds a loaded 9mm Glock on the ground next to the car. The officer never saw the gang member with the gun. The officer never saw the gang member drop the gun. The gang member said he didn't know the gun was there, that he was just stretching his legs.

So now what?
 
I'll give you a real example. A gang officer sees a known gang member standing on a street corner. Upon seeing the gang officer, the gang member takes a step back stoops behind a car and then comes back to the curb. The officer decides to stop and talk to the gang member. The officer also goes over to the car and finds a loaded 9mm Glock on the ground next to the car. The officer never saw the gang member with the gun. The officer never saw the gang member drop the gun. The gang member said he didn't know the gun was there, that he was just stretching his legs.

So now what?

I'm guessing "free Glock" is not the right answer. :rofl:
 
I'll give you a real example. A gang officer sees a known gang member standing on a street corner. Upon seeing the gang officer, the gang member takes a step back stoops behind a car and then comes back to the curb. The officer decides to stop and talk to the gang member. The officer also goes over to the car and finds a loaded 9mm Glock on the ground next to the car. The officer never saw the gang member with the gun. The officer never saw the gang member drop the gun. The gang member said he didn't know the gun was there, that he was just stretching his legs.

So now what?
Personally, I don't see how you'd get a prosecutor to sign off on an arrest for that, but as one of the instructors in the academy said all the time, "you can't have what you can't have." Seize the gun for sure, if you think you've got PC that he dropped it there, put the grabs on him and let the prosecutor figure it out. I guess I'm pretty lucky in some respects since my last department pretty much had a policy that said "throw it against the wall, if it sticks great, if not, that's fine too."

Did we get sued? All the time, mainly for use of force issues, but only once was a lawsuit successful (an incident which took place when I was thankfully not working), and it had nothing to do with search and seizure. You're absolutely right though, use of force isn't supposed to look pretty.

I feel like you and I are on the same page on the omission issue, even though it might might be immediately apparent. I'm saying that if you did something and you write it in professional, technical terms, that's one thing, but doing something (to use your example, punching someone in the throat) that is verbotten, and leaving it out of the report is a whole different can of worms.
 
Depends. Will your evidence tech (whatever name they go by) check for prints? I can articulate probable cause to arrest the guy for (in my state) possession of a handgun by a felon.

Defense will argue thepoint that the turd didnt know it was there. However, if your agency will check for prints, its an easy conviction. If not, then seize the gun, detain the jackleg for a little while, run him for warrants etc, etc, then cut him loose....if you work in an area where making that arrest would jam you up.
 
I'll give you a real example. A gang officer sees a known gang member standing on a street corner. Upon seeing the gang officer, the gang member takes a step back stoops behind a car and then comes back to the curb. The officer decides to stop and talk to the gang member. The officer also goes over to the car and finds a loaded 9mm Glock on the ground next to the car. The officer never saw the gang member with the gun. The officer never saw the gang member drop the gun. The gang member said he didn't know the gun was there, that he was just stretching his legs.

So now what?
My naive answer would be an investigation to see if said gang member's fingerprints were on the weapon would be in order. To my uneducated eye, it seems the officer has done things correctly. Of course, I see where you're going with this one, but at least personally, I wouldn't go there since lying under oath puts you in the same class as the folks you're putting away. Then again, letting him go has a potential for harm to other members of society. Definitely gray, but I am who I am and he'd walk unless I could tie him to the gun with real evidence.
 
OK, bad example on my part. I was looking for something with a low probability of damage that was "impulsive" behavior (instead of systemic) if you will and would cause serious issues for the miscreant. Anyway, moving on...

I could see the gray areas you wrestle with since at least part of their definition involves what is in another human's mind. More along the lines of, did the officer's know that the person they chased and caught was unconscious when they dog-piled him and broke his ribs? That's a toughie since reputations are easily ruined.
Or this.

A woman is getting evicted from her home. The court appointed repossessor is there and so are you (LEO), to keep the peace. You know the woman from the neighborhood as a drug user. You advice her to grab her ID and important documents, etc... and because the repossessor will box all her stuff and put them in storage, she should also grab whatever is important to her.

When she hears this, her eyes immediately goes straight to a small black plastic shopping bag hanging by the chair. Then she looks at you like a 10-year old who got caught. The repossessor also looks at you (he's sizing you up).

There's no 4th Amendment issues here because it is a court ordered eviction. The repossessor is court appointed with instructions to remove everything. He has the duty and authority to catalogue and list things he is removing. He is allowed to look into that black plastic bag.

He's looking to you (LEO) for direction. What do you say or do?
 
There has been A LOT of accusations lately (by you know who...) of a officer KNOWING of fellow officers committing crimes involving "planting evidence, falsifying reports, bad shoots (murder: planting a gun to justify) and so on. My questions are pretty straight forward.....

(1) Would you allow any of the above to happen OR continue to happen if/when you found out what was going on?

(2) Are there any circumstances that might persuade you to overlook the above?

(3) Would you be able to face another day knowing you were able to stop the unlawful actions of a bad officer but allowed him/them to continue their illegal activities?

(4) While I'm sure most/all LEOs here would uphold the law are there ANY reasons you wouldn't?

My naive answer would be an investigation to see if said gang member's fingerprints were on the weapon would be in order. To my uneducated eye, it seems the officer has done things correctly. Of course, I see where you're going with this one, but at least personally, I wouldn't go there since lying under oath puts you in the same class as the folks you're putting away. Then again, letting him go has a potential for harm to other members of society. Definitely gray, but I am who I am and he'd walk unless I could tie him to the gun with real evidence.
My intent in providing this example was not to get an answer, but rather to show the OP that law enforcement is all about the "gray zone." Good, seasoned cops walk the line well. Anyone can work in the black and white.
 
Or this.

He's looking to you (LEO) for direction. What do you say or do?
If you tell him to do anything, he's acting as your agent. Citizens do not fall under unlawful searches and seizure. A private citizen acting on his own cannot violate search and seizure. A citizen acting as your agent can.
 
Or this.

A woman is getting evicted from her home. The court appointed repossessor is there and so are you (LEO), to keep the peace. You know the woman from the neighborhood as a drug user. You advice her to grab her ID and important documents, etc... and because the repossessor will box all her stuff and put them in storage, she should also grab whatever is important to her.

When she hears this, her eyes immediately goes straight to a small black plastic shopping bag hanging by the chair. Then she looks at you like a 10-year old who got caught. The repossessor also looks at you (he's sizing you up).

There's no 4th Amendment issues here because it is a court ordered eviction. The repossessor is court appointed with instructions to remove everything. He has the duty and authority to catalogue and list things he is removing. He is allowed to look into that black plastic bag.

He's looking to you (LEO) for direction. What do you say or do?

He gets to look, then. If its illegal contraband, she goes to jail. Not seeing the gray area, because:

You are in a place you have a legal right to be (were sent there, so that's obvious)

The assessor has the legal right to inventory items. Should those items be inventoried in front of you, in plain view, well....where's the gray area?


That's like our local agency using probation officers or our home incarceration officers Tonga in access to a house. Nothing illegal about it, just using the tools set out by the courts. A condition of home incarceration is that you must allow our officers to enter at anytime. Failure to do so gets your ass brought back to jail....sometimes with your door kicked in. LMPD likes to get into houses for one reason or another, so they work with our HIP folks, nothing gray or shady - all aboveboard and legal.
 
I'll give you a real example. A gang officer sees a known gang member standing on a street corner. Upon seeing the gang officer, the gang member takes a step back stoops behind a car and then comes back to the curb. The officer decides to stop and talk to the gang member. The officer also goes over to the car and finds a loaded 9mm Glock on the ground next to the car. The officer never saw the gang member with the gun. The officer never saw the gang member drop the gun. The gang member said he didn't know the gun was there, that he was just stretching his legs.

So now what?
Many, many years ago, one of my officers was processing an arrest so he placed his Glock 19 in the gun locker. When he was all done, he tried to open the locker but somehow the cylinder was broken. He couldn't get his gun out and for some reason was really worried about it.

I called the SWAT team and asked it they could help. They said sure, will be over ASAP.

In the meantime, the cop was still really worried. So to calm him down I told him that I was sending all available manpower to the streets to arrest anyone carrying a Glock 19. Then he can hold on to the gun until his own was extricated from the locker.

He did not find it humorous.
 
Or this.

A woman is getting evicted from her home. The court appointed repossessor is there and so are you (LEO), to keep the peace. You know the woman from the neighborhood as a drug user. You advice her to grab her ID and important documents, etc... and because the repossessor will box all her stuff and put them in storage, she should also grab whatever is important to her.

When she hears this, her eyes immediately goes straight to a small black plastic shopping bag hanging by the chair. Then she looks at you like a 10-year old who got caught. The repossessor also looks at you (he's sizing you up).

There's no 4th Amendment issues here because it is a court ordered eviction. The repossessor is court appointed with instructions to remove everything. He has the duty and authority to catalogue and list things he is removing. He is allowed to look into that black plastic bag.

He's looking to you (LEO) for direction. What do you say or do?
If I tell him to, or suggest, that he look inside the bag, the court is probably going to rule that he is acting as an agent of the government and could suppress it. More likely is get consent to search the bag. As you know, most dopers will give consent if you have the gift of gab.
 
My answer to the OP's original four questions, especially in a semi- public forum, is of course "No."

Would I flush my career away in protest if the powers that be chose to do nothing about it after I informed them? That answer is also "No."

Which, I suppose, in practice makes my answer to question #3, a "Yes."



Actually, now that I think about it, it was always a "Yes." Sorry, but I don't have it in me to carry around a bunch of guilt for others' bad behavior. I do what's right and set the best example for others that I can and I most certainly would report the misconduct. But the question is phrased as if we'd be expected to either quit or kill ourselves if we couldn't stop all the dirty cops in the world that we knew of. That's not happening. For one thing, if all the good cops quit or kill themselves then where would we be as a society?



I'm going to change my answer here as well. There are, of course, hundreds of reasons why any of us might choose to excercise our discretion not to enforce the letter of the law given the totality of the circumstances. Yes, this applies to fellow LEOs who get a pass on traffic tickets from me, but it also applies to civilians in numerous situations.

The victim of a rape I'm getting ready to interview at the hospital reaches into her purse to get her id card and a baggie of weed falls out. The law demands that she be charged for the offense of possession of marijuana in order for the law to be considered "upheld." I doubt many of us would physically arrest her for it, but how many would still cite her? How many would flush the weed?

Like it or not, this job is about the different shades of gray and the toughest decisions are faced at the lighter end of the scale. Would I help an officer cover up a murder? No, of course not. Would I drive an off- duty officer home who's DUI? Yes. Now that same officer has showed up for duty two days later and you believe that he's intoxicated again, which means he was DUI in a patrol car on his way to work. What would you do?
Good post, and very true.
 
If you tell him to do anything, he's acting as your agent. Citizens do not fall under unlawful searches and seizure. A private citizen acting on his own cannot violate search and seizure. A citizen acting as your agent can.
I see where you where going.


I would tell the guy to do his job. If he needs to open the bag to do it, then fine. If not, oh well. Is this bag inside or outside if the residence, and would using K9 be appropriate?
 
My intent in providing this example was not to get an answer, but rather to show the OP that law enforcement is all about the "gray zone." Good, seasoned cops walk the line well. Anyone can work in the black and white.
SAR, you know I personally became convinced of that about life in general a long, long time ago... :supergrin:
 
I'll give you a real example. A gang officer sees a known gang member standing on a street corner. Upon seeing the gang officer, the gang member takes a step back stoops behind a car and then comes back to the curb. The officer decides to stop and talk to the gang member. The officer also goes over to the car and finds a loaded 9mm Glock on the ground next to the car. The officer never saw the gang member with the gun. The officer never saw the gang member drop the gun. The gang member said he didn't know the gun was there, that he was just stretching his legs.

So now what?
Take the glock have it printed ...
 
He gets to look, then. If its illegal contraband, she goes to jail. Not seeing the gray area, because:

You are in a place you have a legal right to be (were sent there, so that's obvious)

The assessor has the legal right to inventory items. Should those items be inventoried in front of you, in plain view, well....where's the gray area?


That's like our local agency using probation officers or our home incarceration officers Tonga in access to a house. Nothing illegal about it, just using the tools set out by the courts. A condition of home incarceration is that you must allow our officers to enter at anytime. Failure to do so gets your ass brought back to jail....sometimes with your door kicked in. LMPD likes to get into houses for one reason or another, so they work with our HIP folks, nothing gray or shady - all aboveboard and legal.
Yes, the court appointed repossessor absolutely had a legal right to look. And after he looks and says, "oh officer, there appear to be drugs in here" the LEO would have to arrest her. No question.

The gray area is, do you cut the repossessor off at the pass, and say something like "well, she's getting evicted from her home today. That's enough trouble for one day."

Technically, that would be corruption.
 
61 - 80 of 147 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top