Police policies regarding OCers and people filming the police.

[Citizen]

Terry is entirely consistent with freedom, as well as our constitution.

<chuckle>

I'm gonna make you regret, or at least be more careful about, trying to sneak in PR image comments. You're just giving me more opportunities to highlight the inconsistencies, and derail your own thread.


Regarding your comment on Terry being consistent with freedom, yeah, right. /sarcasm.

That's why so many Terry Stops don't result in arrests: because the police industry doesn't seize a large percentage of innocent people.

Jeez. I've come across court statements that probable cause amounts to a 51% likelihood the suspect did it or has contraband, meaning that of the people seized or searched, the government is willing for almost half of them to be innocent. Terry makes an even lower standard.

Tell us how exactly it is consistent with freedom when government is willing for well over half the people it seizes to be innocent?



ETA: Oh, and are you ever gonna refute my analysis of Terry being invented out of thin air, or are you just going to go on making declarations without supporting them?

 

[Citizen]

SNIP And "all it takes" to help ensure that the ofc's don't seize the video AND that they are held accountable IF AND WHEN they do, is to incorporate that into training and.or policy.

That's my point. And again, it is better to prevent misconduct by teaching ofc's the right thing to do, and that's what policy and training does.

Oh, good. So, starting next week, we'll see your repeated memo's calling for revamping the training and discipline regime so it starts with: "if you don't know to a complete certainty that you have genuine legal authority, you can't act to seize someone or their property. The right thing to do is not seize anyone or their property unless you have complete certainty you have genuine legal authority to act"?

That training point right there is very comprehensive; it would cover a lot of territory. Let you get rid of bad cops a lot faster, too. Heck, why not do something brilliant and have students sign off on having received that training during their academy.

Do us a favor, and post those memo's here for us as you send them.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Attitudes like yours exhibit being part of the problem not part of the solution. Your local PD works for you and serves you. If you don't want to be a responsible member of your community and make an effort to improve the service provided to you, your loved ones, and your neighbors, that's certainly your choice.

You do not need to educate cops ...

I do not tell cops what the law is when they don't know the law. I'm not their momma.

And video taping police is A-OK .. hardly being part of a problem.

And what does "responsible member of your community" mean? I have no legal requirement to improve the services of the local PDs, do I?

Important to attend meetings? What? You are free to do so and maybe you get something out of these meetings but I find most of them to be a joke, at least what I see posted on youtube.

When cops step over the line, I push them back ... I do not explain my actions to them. I assume that they know the law (like they assume of us) and that they are knowingly violating the law (when they do). I need not have a debate about it.

I cannot fix stupid.

 

[()pen(arry]

PALO, I'm going to offer you some avuncular observations.

It isn't that there are a lot of cop-haters here. There are probably a few, but not many. I am not one of them, and I don't think anyone you've been arguing with in various threads is, either. There are, however, a lot of members who are well-educated, observant, discerning, fiercely dedicated to liberty, and very vocal. When we identify problems with modern policing in this nation, we do not take umbrage with policing, per se, but with anything at all that offends liberty. It so happens, of course, that the mere existence of a constabulary is an ever-present threat to liberty, requiring vigilant oversight and action to prevent and correct steps toward tyranny. Just as the founders of this nation recognized that and worked to defend against that threat, we are quick to confront any rhetoric that might further cement the populace of this nation in apathy and complacency with regard to law enforcement.

We are not hostile to police. We are hostile to any forbearance, particularly special forbearance, given to misconduct by a subset of ordinary citizens who have been granted privilege to hold extraordinary influence over the liberty of the populace. We are, by extension, hostile to any policies which in any way increase the likelihood of such misconduct. We are all too aware of the frequent and ubiquitous abuses perpetrated by law enforcement personnel, and have long since dismissed any notion that law enforcement personnel are any more noble, upstanding, or law-abiding than any other sort of citizen. Surrounded by a nation of reflexive "hero" worshipers, we insist that police receive no special recognition, much less allowance.

When, then, you present an argument that, because hundreds of years of institutional abuses have resulted in a law enforcement industry rife with privilege, power, and protection, the rest of the populace should work extra hard to help that industry not make the problem worse, it should come as no surprise to anyone that we see not reasonable advice, but yet more egregious coddling of an industry that has a long-established record of willful recalcitrance. Do not ask us for yet more forbearance. As you so rightly point out, cops work for us. We demand accountability so long absent. Reminding us that that accountability is a pipe dream isn't going to win any admiration.

 

[Citizen]

You do not need to educate cops ...

I do not tell cops what the law is when they don't know the law. I'm not their momma.

And video taping police is A-OK .. hardly being part of a problem.

And what does "responsible member of your community" mean? I have no legal requirement to improve the services of the local PDs, do I?

Important to attend meetings? What? You are free to do so and maybe you get something out of these meetings but I find most of them to be a joke, at least what I see posted on youtube.

When cops step over the line, I push them back ... I do not explain my actions to them. I assume that they know the law (like they assume of us) and that they are knowingly violating the law (when they do). I need not have a debate about it.

I cannot fix stupid.

+1

If cops are not being trained in the academy on what they can and cannot do, especially against seizing or searching without complete certainty of their legal authority, then there is a very big problem. But, of course they're not trained on that, or at least not held accountable.

Its not my job to ensure cops behave and act with decency--like not seizing or searching someone without complete certainty they have genuine legal authority. If cops do seize or search someone without genuine legal authority, it doesn't make me part of the problem. Its them and their command and unions that's the problem.

Its not even qualified immunity. No department need tolerate misconduct because of qualified immunity from civil suit. Quite the opposite. Police have taken qualified immunity case law and perverted it to apply to personnel decisions and discipline in order to protect throwing their weight around, and protect them doing what they want above the law.

Freedom is freedom. Rights are rights. Police who misbehave are the problem, not their victims.

When you think about it, its really just a matter of decency and respect, or lack thereof. Really. What kind of sick bastard would not want to actively avoid searching or seizing someone without clear and unquestionable authority of law? Just how nasty does one have to be in order to be willing to involuntarily seize someone or search them or their car without knowing to a completely certainty that its geniunely legal? How much disregard for his fellow human beings must one possess in order to do that?

 

[Citizen]

SNIP CALEA is not a standards enforcement agency.

You got that right.

They're there for insurance-rate reduction and PR image.

To date, I've seen two police departments tout their CALEA accreditation, while I have personal knowledge of misconduct covered up in both departments. Meaning those police departments tout their CALEA accreditation to mislead.

Moreover, a number of CALEA personnel are former cops. There is just no way in hell they don't know the score.

The proof of CALEA's commitment is in the alternative unused: if they were really serious, they could just insist on reviewing internal affairs complaints and cancelling their accreditation for any cover-up or failure to discipline misconduct. If the loss of accreditation didn't do it, the political fall-out from increased insurance rates would. Especially if the city council took the increased insurance premiums out of the deparment's budget.

 

[Citizen]

PALO, I'm going to offer you some avuncular observations.

It isn't that there are a lot of cop-haters here. There are probably a few, but not many. I am not one of them, and I don't think anyone you've been arguing with in various threads is, either. There are, however, a lot of members who are well-educated, observant, discerning, fiercely dedicated to liberty, and very vocal. When we identify problems with modern policing in this nation, we do not take umbrage with policing, per se, but with anything at all that offends liberty. It so happens, of course, that the mere existence of a constabulary is an ever-present threat to liberty, requiring vigilant oversight and action to prevent and correct steps toward tyranny. Just as the founders of this nation recognized that and worked to defend against that threat, we are quick to confront any rhetoric that might further cement the populace of this nation in apathy and complacency with regard to law enforcement.

We are not hostile to police. We are hostile to any forbearance, particularly special forbearance, given to misconduct by a subset of ordinary citizens who have been granted privilege to hold extraordinary influence over the liberty of the populace. We are, by extension, hostile to any policies which in any way increase the likelihood of such misconduct. We are all too aware of the frequent and ubiquitous abuses perpetrated by law enforcement personnel, and have long since dismissed any notion that law enforcement personnel are any more noble, upstanding, or law-abiding than any other sort of citizen. Surrounded by a nation of reflexive "hero" worshipers, we insist that police receive no special recognition, much less allowance.

When, then, you present an argument that, because hundreds of years of institutional abuses have resulted in a law enforcement industry rife with privilege, power, and protection, the rest of the populace should work extra hard to help that industry not make the problem worse, it should come as no surprise to anyone that we see not reasonable advice, but yet more egregious coddling of an industry that has a long-established record of willful recalcitrance. Do not ask us for yet more forbearance. As you so rightly point out, cops work for us. We demand accountability so long absent. Reminding us that that accountability is a pipe dream isn't going to win any admiration.

Wow!

+1

 

[countryclubjoe]

An in depth study of the United States Constitution would be a great start. You know that document they all swear to uphold.

That document that was around before the term Police officer was ever heard of.

My .02

CCJ

 

[davidmcbeth]

An in depth study of the United States Constitution would be a great start. You know that document they all swear to uphold.

That document that was around before the term Police officer was ever heard of.

My .02

CCJ

That document is just full of suggestions ... right?

 

[Maverick9]

No. Unwillingness to hold cops accountable is one of the biggest impediments to holding cops accountable. Its first cousins to the Blue Wall of Silence.

And, don't try to impress me with CALEA. I have personally witnessed them ignore police misconduct. They're a municipal insurance rate-reducer. They're not going to withhold their imprimatur under any but the very worst circumstances, if ever, because they don't get paid if the PD is not a client.

You are on a roll. Sometimes it is all about the revenue. Though the top cops might want to reign in the loose cannons, they also value the ability to use 'force' off the record. They like the citizens being 'afraid' of their authority, because too few respect them.

I think you've hit on some solutions. In addition I'd say better educated cops, more females, better pay (maybe, that's been refuted here), and good cops getting baddies out of there. It only makes their jobs harder.

Edit to add: AND I think we need to take a serious look at two things.
1. Cops should NOT be allowed to lie to people, perhaps at least those not actually under arrest.
2. We should look seriously at not letting the average cop carry firearms. They have a LOT of other options. Without a gun they'd use them. With a gun...well they shoot everyone and let jesus sort it out. (I kid a little)

 

[OC for ME]

Cops use the "Hey, you did not bust my partner Joe for the same exact thing, so why are you busting me?" defense. No kidding. Who wudda thunk it?

PALO obviously and intentionally leaves the singular issue at arms length. You gig one cop today for 'X' you will have to gig every cop for 'X', even if 'X' isn't exactly like the last 'X' violation. So, LEAs have a vested interest in not have cops punished even if there is bad PR. When the PR is too unfavorable then that cop is terminated and no amount of union thuggery will get that cop his job back. Cop unions must take into account public opinion as well. But it is the rare , very rare case that a cop and his union thug buddies will not get him his job (a job) back.

Once the great unwashed masses start seeing cops being punished for policy violations, let alone criminal violations committed under the color of law, the great unwashed masses will expect that to continue so as to purge the "bad cops" from the public payrolls.

 

[carolina guy]

Well...gotta ask a question (hopefully not too rambling):

How EXACTLY, is it "ok" to EXPECT that ALL citizens are FULLY cognizant of ALL relevant criminal laws and procedures (including internal PD/SO policies), and can be held FULLY criminally liable, YET at the same time, it is somehow "ok" to say that we need to give the LEO the benefit of the doubt that he "wasn't trained" properly? We all know the answer...the states/cities/counties/etc do not want to spend the time and money to PROPERLY train ALL sworn officers and only employ the best of the best.

I hate, really hate, the tired old (and often misquoted) phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse..." but this is one time that I need to say that it should be FULLY applied to a person who has CHOSEN the enforcement of the law as a PROFESSION. There is NO excuse, not one, period (full stop), that a LEO in the age of the Internet should not know the laws of his/her jurisdiction better than the average WELL INFORMED citizen. This is their choice of a profession, and this is one where lives and freedoms are involved. I do not believe there is ANY leeway that should be given on basic KNOWLEDGE and SKILLS. Judgement calls during a "heated" situation MIGHT be something that we would allow "some" leeway...but if the LEO does not have the FUNDAMENTAL understanding of the laws (all relevant ones) and the court decisions that describe and modify them, they need to work harder or select a different profession.

Gone (hopefully) are the days of the ignorant and untrained local/rural cops, or Barney Fife types...but, that might be wishful thinking on my part. I guess the "brute squad" mentality might still be in play after all these centuries.


Grrrrrrrrrr......

 

[sudden valley gunner]

PALO, I'm going to offer you some avuncular observations.

It isn't that there are a lot of cop-haters here. There are probably a few, but not many. I am not one of them, and I don't think anyone you've been arguing with in various threads is, either. There are, however, a lot of members who are well-educated, observant, discerning, fiercely dedicated to liberty, and very vocal. When we identify problems with modern policing in this nation, we do not take umbrage with policing, per se, but with anything at all that offends liberty. It so happens, of course, that the mere existence of a constabulary is an ever-present threat to liberty, requiring vigilant oversight and action to prevent and correct steps toward tyranny. Just as the founders of this nation recognized that and worked to defend against that threat, we are quick to confront any rhetoric that might further cement the populace of this nation in apathy and complacency with regard to law enforcement.

We are not hostile to police. We are hostile to any forbearance, particularly special forbearance, given to misconduct by a subset of ordinary citizens who have been granted privilege to hold extraordinary influence over the liberty of the populace. We are, by extension, hostile to any policies which in any way increase the likelihood of such misconduct. We are all too aware of the frequent and ubiquitous abuses perpetrated by law enforcement personnel, and have long since dismissed any notion that law enforcement personnel are any more noble, upstanding, or law-abiding than any other sort of citizen. Surrounded by a nation of reflexive "hero" worshipers, we insist that police receive no special recognition, much less allowance.

When, then, you present an argument that, because hundreds of years of institutional abuses have resulted in a law enforcement industry rife with privilege, power, and protection, the rest of the populace should work extra hard to help that industry not make the problem worse, it should come as no surprise to anyone that we see not reasonable advice, but yet more egregious coddling of an industry that has a long-established record of willful recalcitrance. Do not ask us for yet more forbearance. As you so rightly point out, cops work for us. We demand accountability so long absent. Reminding us that that accountability is a pipe dream isn't going to win any admiration.

Very well said +1 Would you mind if I jplagerize this a bit , change it a bit and reuse it?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Some people have had negative experiences with the cops while OCing and some have had negative experiences with the cops while filming them. Some have had both!

Considering especially recent case law, cops should not interfere with people filming them (except in very limited circumstances like telling the person to step back from the crime scene etc. which would apply equally to a person not filming), and in states that allow OC, cops should not interfere in any way with an OCer.

Full agreement been there and done that... actually won a little bit of a settlement.

In deciding whether ofc. complaints are valid and also the punishment merited, one of the most important factors that investigators look at is training. Iow, ofc's are generally not responsible for researching case law on their own (I do this but I love reading case law), and keeping updated with it. If an officer engages in misconduct either with an OCer or a filmer and the dept. cannot show that they at least provided roll call training on these subjects OR have written policy governing these issues, often the complaint cannot be sustained for that reason. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse, but in cases like this - frankly, it often is. Whinge about it if you want, but especially when it comes down to binding arbitration this is an incredibly important issue - did the officer act contrary to training? Did the officer act contrary to common practice?

This is not true, although by common law reasoning when a "civilian" breaks a malum prohibitum law ignorance historically is an excuse. The act of an official when it infringes upon the rights of a civilian is not excusable by ignorance especially when they are working under the title of Law EnFORCEment. Federal Judges have ruled so, like in St. John vs Alamogordo, this made up excuse for officers bad behavior of "qualified immunity" or well they didn't know simply doesn't cut it if it is statutory or case law.

ESPECIALLY if an officer can show that not only wasn't he trained to respond to OCers and filmers in a certain way, but that other officers have responded similarly to his response and not been disciplined, the case will almost certainly be non-sustained or exonerated.

It has nothing to do with training and that's a lame excuse by an officer, if you don't know or are in doubt leave the guy alone. State vs. Flora shows this but more explicitly in Johnson vs Sequim directly from the case...(a 9th circuit Federal court decision)

"The principles of Flora and its progeny were well-established at the time of Johnson's arrest. At the very least, these cases stand for the following two propositions: (1) “public officers performing an official function on a public thoroughfare in the presence of a third party and within the sight and hearing of passersby [do not] enjoy a privacy interest which they may assert under the statute”; and (2) the Privacy Act may not be “transform[ed] ... into a sword available for use against individuals by public officers acting in their official capacity.” Flora, 845 P.2d at 1357-58. Any reasonable officer should have understood these rules to preclude Johnson's arrest under the circumstances. Although Flora involved officer statements made during an arrest, no subsequent authority limited its reach to those facts. Moreover, Flora's plain language suggests a broader application sufficient to preclude Chief Nelson from arresting Johnson for recording him during the performance of his official duties in public. Moreover, in light of the many Washington cases dealing with unlawful arrests under the Privacy Act, a reasonable police officer should have been aware of the 1998 Washington Attorney General's Opinion No. 11, which determines that communications over police dispatch radio are not private. See 1988 WL 404817, at *2-3. Finally, even if these two points were not sufficiently clear to preclude Johnson's arrest, any reasonable officer should have known under the well-established precedent of Katz that there could be no reasonable expectation of privacy in the police radio transmissions which Chief Nelson knowingly exposed to the public through his open car windows. No exigent circumstances existed in this case that could justify a reasonable mistake on the part of chief Nelson. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 206, 121 S.Ct. 2151.

Therefore defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. The district court's entry of summary judgment on that basis is reversed"

Police General Orders and Policies and Procedures are PUBLICALLY DISCLOSABLE documents.

Good info although it is often hard to get these records unedited to a lawful extent. A good decision that supports this is YacoBellis vs. City of Bellingham

Imo, one of the most important things a citizen (noncop) can do is attend community meetings that cops attend (at least my agency does) and address these concerns. It's quite possible your local agency HAS NO POLICY regarding OCers or filmers. I recently attended a community meeting to address a sign in a local park that said "firearms prohibited". Needless to say my hometown cannot prohibit firearms in public parks and they took the sign down. Simple.

Thank you, good job!

Police officers are public servants. They work for YOU. And it is incumbent upon the average concerned citizen (not just politicians and cop-o-crats) to assure that their local PD's policies and GO's are consistent with the law AND respectful of the rights of OCers and filmers.

My agency fwiw, has excellent training and policy on both issues, so ofc's CAN be held accountable for acting contrary to training.

How many OCers here have read their local PD's GO manual or Policies and procedures? How many have attended community meetings where the cops are open to citizen inquiry and complaint and made their concerns known?

Grumbling in the echo chamber here amidst fellow travelers is cathartic but it doesn't accomplish anything vs. getting the police to create policy that protects us (OCers and filmers) and ensuring that ofc's who act contrary to same can be held accountable

I would suggest few to none have done this

Cops work for YOU. Considering that, I would argue it's not just a good idea, but it's a civic duty to keep an eye on your local PD and one way you can do that is to get a copy of their manuals and inquire about their training in these areas. It's a matter of taking personal responsibility to oversee those who are serving you every day.

Agree with most of this, would like to point out that the exercise of the right of speech in the form of grumbling does quite a bit, enough people grumble than someone may be motivated enough to do something.
Also when many of us mundanes show up to these meetings those in "positions of authority" will often just give a pretense to paying attention but don't do much other than that.

 

[carolina guy]

Good info although it is often hard to get these records unedited to a lawful extent. A good decision that supports this is YacoBellis vs. City of Bellingham

Thank you, good job!

Agree with most of this, would like to point out that the exercise of the right of speech in the form of grumbling does quite a bit, enough people grumble than someone may be motivated enough to do something.
Also when many of us mundanes show up to these meetings those in "positions of authority" will often just give a pretense to paying attention but don't do much other than that.

Makes me wonder WHY I would want to work "hard" to get a copy of a department policy that SHOULD echo what the LAW says, and if it does not, then the department should update it accordingly. Aren't they PAID to KNOW the laws and figure out how to enforce them within the limits of the Constitution (state and Fed)? Otherwise, isn't that what lawsuits and criminal charges are for??

 

[WalkingWolf]

Makes me wonder WHY I would want to work "hard" to get a copy of a department policy that SHOULD echo what the LAW says, and if it does not, then the department should update it accordingly. Aren't they PAID to KNOW the laws and figure out how to enforce them within the limits of the Constitution (state and Fed)? Otherwise, isn't that what lawsuits and criminal charges are for??

Exactamundo!

 

[PALO]

Exactamundo!

Rubbish. The idea that you would rather let bad policy stand andor no policy stand where they should be one, and instead look to suing etc. as recourse is imo a disgusting attitude. It evidences exactly what I suspect about some people's motivations.

You can either help fix an unjust policy BEFORE it results in people's rights being further trampled or let bad policy sit and wait for bad stuff to happen and then sue?

Imo, that's very revealing

It shows that you have an us vs. them mentality and no sense of civic duty. Cops are public servants. They are supposed to work FOR you and with you. The enemy is the criminals, NOT the cops.

If there is bad policy in your local PD, somebody with civic duty, should want to see those wrong addressed right away so no further harm happens.

Police are FAR from perfect and if you know that your local PD policies are lacking in regards to for example OCing, a responsible person would want to help FIX the problem at the beginning, not wait for it to manifest itself in rights violations.

Again, this attitude is immensely revealing about motive and helping your fellow man.

Sitting back on your heels when you KNOW that bad stuff is going to happen, and wanting to wait for it to happen vs. HELPING?

Seriously, I don't think any post you could make is more revealing of your us vs. them mentality.

I find it quite sad.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Bovine Scatology, it is not my duty or anyone else to make police policy. IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY!

Get it right or get sued or go to jail.

 

[PALO]

Bovine Scatology, it is not my duty or anyone else to make police policy. IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY!

Get it right or get sued or go to jail.

You can offer lame excuses for your lack of civic duty... but they are just that. You are exemplifying the irresponsible us vs . them attitude that I thank god people in my community don't display. Good people want to help work WITH their PD so their PD can better serve everybody. they form block watches, attend citizen academies, offer input at community meetings, etc. My PD works in partnership with the community so that all are better served.


I'm loving the sinner and hating the sin here. Not condemning you, but condemning the reprehensible idea that civic duty doesn't matter, that police are a valuable part of hte community sworn to serve, etc.

It reminds me of the people who complain about the justice system and then brag about "getting out of jury duty"

AGAIN, I am just glad to work in a community where overwhelmingly so people value civic duty and helping their fellow man.

Like the example of MPD posting their GO's on the web for all to see, so people can know what they are AND give valuable input to effect positive change...

Imo, and ime, and per polling data most people respect the police and value their honesty and professionalism and imo and ime, most people will help out when they see wrongs that need to righted.

I've had a lot of people from my community do ride-alongs with me and it's heartening to hear how they value our service and we take constructive criticism very seriously, trying to make our service model better to serve all.

You would rather see wrongs perpetuated and then suing etc. so you can get your pound of flesh and oh boy FIRINGS!! and Money paid out (and as I explained if their aint policy and training, due to qualified immunity etc. individual cops most likely will escape civil and criminal liability in such cases).

Nothing you could say could "out" yourself more than you already have. Thankfully, again, imo your viewpoint is a minority one and the people who want to do good and effect positive change imo are in the strong majority!

cheers

 

[WalkingWolf]

You are the one putting up lame BS. It is not the public's responsibility to babysit the police. If the police need to be babysat to act appropriately they need to be fired. If a cop breaks the law they should not pass go, not collect 200 dollars, and provide their own lube for the prison shower.

I despise crooked cops, don't put the blame on the public for their corruption, it is disgusting.