Officers are not permitted to engage in the above activity on duty or off duty. There are four other important things you need to know about what the cops can and cannot do. Police officers often request to search vehicles during traffic stops. You do not have to consent to the search. Likewise, if the officer comes to your home without a warrant, you do not have to consent to a search.
However, you do not want to argue with the police or put yourself in a situation where you would be resisting arrest. Instead, state clearly and respectfully that you do not consent to the search. Your attorney will argue the legality of the search in front of a judge. Police officers must have a warrant or probable cause to conduct a search.
Any evidence found during an illegal search may be inadmissible in court. There are exceptions, such as seeing dangerous weapons or illegal drugs in plain sight. Police officers can lie, and they do lie to suspects and witnesses.
Officers lie to obtain confessions or information they can use to build a case against a suspect. There may be limits to what they can lie about, but the exceptions are few. For example, a police officer cannot lie about whether he has a warrant. If you are arrested, the best thing you can do is remain silent. Do not answer questions or make a statement without your attorney present.
These laws cover the actions of State, county, and local officers, including those who work in prisons and jails. In addition, several laws also apply to Federal law enforcement officers. The laws protect all persons in the United States citizens and non-citizens. Each law DOJ enforces is briefly discussed below. In DOJ investigations, whether criminal or civil, the person whose rights have been reportedly violated is referred to as a victim and often is an important witness.
DOJ generally will inform the victim of the results of the investigation, but we do not act as the victim's lawyer and cannot give legal advice as a private attorney could. The various offices within DOJ that are responsible for enforcing the laws discussed in this document coordinate their investigative and enforcement efforts where appropriate.
For example, a complaint received by one office may be referred to another if necessary to address the allegations. In addition, more than one office may investigate the same complaint if the allegations raise issues covered by more than one statute. What is the difference between criminal and civil cases? Criminal and civil laws are different. Criminal cases usually are investigated and handled separately from civil cases, even if they concern the same incident.
In a criminal case, DOJ brings a case against the accused person; in a civil case, DOJ brings the case either through litigation or an administrative investigation against a governmental authority or law enforcement agency.
In a criminal case, the evidence must establish proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," while in civil cases the proof need only satisfy the lower standard of a "preponderance of the evidence. In civil cases, DOJ seeks to correct a law enforcement agency's policies and practices that fostered the misconduct and, where appropriate, may require individual relief for the victim s.
It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, theft, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another.
Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed. What remedies are available under these laws? These are criminal statutes. There is no private right of action under these statutes; in other words, these are not the legal provisions under which you would file a lawsuit on your own. This law makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
The First Amendment means police will have to endure some amount of observation and public, verbal challenge. Likewise, they must endure the critical, documentary eye of a recording. However, they don't have to endure the act of recording if it interferes with their ability to do their jobs.
City of Houston v. Hill , U. Cunniffe , supra. Uniformed officers may legitimately order citizens to cease recording if the recording is interfering with or obstructing their law enforcement duties.
You might be obstructing an officer and thereby committing a crime if, for example, you are standing close to him while he is attempting to arrest someone and your recording is clearly provoking the arrestee or other bystanders to become hostile or violent. Gericke v. Begin , F. An audio recording of an officer that you might have the right to make in one state might run afoul of another state's laws. Wiretapping, electronic surveillance, and eavesdropping laws might prohibit you from recording surreptitiously, without the officer's knowledge or consent.
Such laws are meant to protect the privacy interests of citizens—and sometimes even police performing their official duties—in their words that they reasonably believe are and will remain private. In some jurisdictions with such laws, courts have found that police have a reasonable expectation that the oral statements they make to citizens "privately" are confidential. Where this is the case, the officer's right to privacy trumps the citizen's First Amendment right to make a surreptitious recording of the officer.
If you record an officer, these laws might make it critical that you use your recording device in an open and obvious way. If you don't, you could be subject to arrest and prosecution. The right to record doesn't give you a right to break other laws while recording. Among other offenses, your recording could result in an allegation that you have committed disorderly conduct , harassment, stalking , or trespass.
Whether you can be prosecuted for such crimes will depend on the facts of each case. Where there's no evidence that the arrest of a citizen is motivated by, in retaliation for, or meant to suppress the citizen's recording, the arrest may be valid. Recording an officer during an arrest for stalking, for example, might be part of the stalking offense. In that situation, the general freedom to record isn't a defense to stalking.
If the officer has probable cause to believe you are stalking her and isn't motivated to make the arrest because you are recording her, the arrest may well be lawful. But such criminal allegations are unlikely to stick where the courts see them as attempts by officers to retaliate against and suppress the exercise of First Amendment rights. Some jurisdictions may have specific laws, regulations, or state constitutional provisions related to recording officers.
Some states may be more protective of the right to record officers, while others may be less so. If you plan to record officers, whether to report on the actions of your local police, in the course of filming a documentary, or for any other reason, you might want to consult an attorney.
0コメント