Is it ethical for cops to lie, coerce?

[skippy740]

in the same way i advocate shooting an intruder whom i have made it quite clear you are not welcome on my property. if there is no probable cause and there is no search warrant a cop is not welcome on my property without my invitation(as is anybody that steps foot on my property yes i use judgement i wont just blindly shoot) and i see no foul in my logic of shooting the intruder cop or otherwise.

Shooting at a uniformed peace officer is against the law. Suggesting that you will do so is reckless and greatly irresponsible. You will be arrested for opening fire on a peace officer. And jury would have you hung for doing so.

Article of Faith 1:12

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

[Hala401]

Wow, I'm kinda surprised that pulling over someone who (presumably) passed the field sobriety test resulted in having probable cause to search the car.

Well, being from Oregon, the weed capitol of the US, the presence of brownies means that there very likely is weed in them, at least in Oregon.

LESSON 1:

Get wipers fixed.

LESSON2:

Get GPS and learn to use it. AND GPSs will work in Utah, you just have to learn to enter addresses in a protocol that it likes. :)

[PeterVenkman]

Setting aside the issue with you advocating shooting cops for a minute, you also happen to be factually incorrect. Armed or unarmed, power hungry or not, law enforcement personel are trained in what they can and can't do in regards to search and seizure. They've got a pretty good idea of what will make it to court, what won't, and what will land them in hot water or lose their department a lawsuit.

Your general statement seems to convey the mindset of "whoever has the gun makes the rules and it's pointless to pretend otherwise". That mindset is not true in a land ruled by a constitution based on separation of powers.

Gripe about the sorry state of our nation if you wish, but griping about mostly honest good folk doing a dangerous job so we can sit there and enjoy civilization? Come on.

Here's a question for you kayne - do you actually personally know any law enforcement folks? Related to any? Friends and neighbors with any?

The question of the topic is whether it is ethical for the cops to lie or coerce. The answer, for me, is clearly no. Reading through this thread I see a lot of faith and trust in law enforcement, but my personal belief is that we should be skeptical of all concentrations of power, whether it be in an individual, a group, a state, or a corporation. Police have power, and that power often gets used in ways that oppress citizens.

I only chose your comment to respond to because of the phrases near the bottom about police being "mostly honest good folk doing a dangerous job", but it reflects a common theme of a lot of people in this thread that we should be grateful for the police. I'm not so sure...The utilitarian way to think about it is to ask whether the police as they currently exist actually prevent more violence than they cause (directly and indirectly).

You ask Kayne if he personally knows any law enforcement officers. My family is filled with police officers. As someone that has such an exposure, my belief is that some good and honest people are cops, but not all cops are good and honest people. On top of that, there is something about putting on a uniform that seems to change someone's personality. Wearing a uniform causes people to behave differently, and the police uniform tends to entitle one to a level of power that is highly uncomfortable and yet intimately protected.

Honestly, every day I wake up and read more stories of police corruption, brutality and violence.

Cop stops Ambulance and yells at medics while patient is inside -

Patrick Meighan describes police brutality and his arrest at Occupy LA - My Occupy LA Arrest, by Patrick Meighan: My Occupy LA Arrest, by Patrick Meighan (UPDATE: 12/9/11)

Police shoot nonviolent dog for not doing anything -

UC Davis Pepper Spray incident -

29 year old homeless woman forcibly removed from the hospital and abandoned in prison cell by police, she dies 2 hours later from blood clots - Homeless woman's death in custody stirs anger in St. Louis - chicagotribune.com

BART police shoot an unarmed man on a subway platform - BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New York police department corruption so bad that it causes politicians to dmeand an investigation - Politicians Demand Investigation of N.Y. Police Corruption - NYTimes.com

Law school professor gives excellent lecture about why you should never talk to the police under any circumstances, even if you are completely innocent -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Let’s not forget the police department’s decision not to even arrest the man that murdered Trayvon Martin, or "Don't Taze Me Bro", or Rodney King, or really the entire structure of racism that is built into the American justice system. Not to mention the militarization of police departments through sale of tanks, surveillance drones, rocket launchers and assault weapons. I read about more of these instances of power and repression every. single. day.

99% of the interactions I've personally had with the police involved intimidation of some sort. You might say that intimidation is necessary to do their job. I believe the opposite, once one becomes a cop then everyone looks guilty in their eyes, it's just a matter of finding out the crime. Lawyers are trained about the constitution, police are trained to gently move around it so they have more freedom. My law school studies involved several conversations with justice department attorneys that make no secret about the fact that police have an arsenal of tricks up their sleeve for sidestepping constitutional protections.

@Kayne - Violence is not the answer. I understand that you think you have a right to defend yourself if a police officer oversteps their authority, but that's not the way it works. I mean, are you so sure that you understand your rights more than the officer? Do you trust your knowledge of your rights enough to shoot another armed person to "defend" them? I think you need some more ghandi in your life. Love will overcome.

[Dravin]

Well, being from Oregon, the weed capitol of the US, the presence of brownies means that there very likely is weed in them, at least in Oregon.

Like I said earlier, I understand why they might want to test the brownies, but finding the brownies came after the search so couldn't have been a factor in probable cause. Which it's been clarified they didn't have, they just used the straight forward tactic of asking for consent.

[NeuroTypical]

let me ask you does it matter what if i do or not? does my statement mean more if i do?

Yes, I believe it does matter if you know any personally or not. I believe that if you knew someone in law enforcement personally and well, several of the extreme fringe reactionary negative beliefs you hold would not have such a death grip on your psyche as they do now.

Yes, I suppose if you knew any personally, and had firsthand experience to back up your statements, your statements would mean more than they do now. Because what they mean now, really isn't that much to me.

Ok kayne, I've answered your two questions, so let me ask a 2nd time - do you know anyone in law enforcement personally? Related to any? Neighbors and friends with any?

[mirkwood]

UC Davis Pepper Spray incident -

BART police shoot an unarmed man on a subway platform - BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let’s not forget the police department’s decision not to even arrest the man that murdered Trayvon Martin

I'm going to pick at the three of your examples that I am most familiar with. I really don't like reactionary accusations and three of your choices are.

The UC Davis pepper spray incidenet. What really happened:

Still think it was unjustified? Those guys were a lot more patient that I would have been.

BART: A horrendous tragedy. Beyond words a tragedy. It was also an accident. Officer Mehserle intended to use his taser and due to a set of terrible circumstances used the wrong tool for the situation. Guilty of murder...no...but certainly of involuntary manslaughter. This article explains what happened: The BART shooting tragedy: Lessons to be learned

A horrible tragedy...words don't even express it. A man is dead and an officer's life ruined over an accident. A horrible, horrible accident. I carry my taser in an off hand holster because I never want this to happen to me. This incident solidified my decision/belief and some departments now require this, because of this accident.

Treyvon Martin. The media has so distorted the facts in this case that anyone trying to use this as an example of what is wrong with policing makes themselves laughable. At least one media outlet has already admitted to "doctoring" the story.

I've been in law enforcement for 15 years. I am the typical officer. I respond to thousands of calls for service every year. I write hundreds of reports. I interact with thousands and thousands and thousands of people yearly. We don't shoot people very often, we don't tase people very often, we don't pepper spray people very often, we don't use force on people very often. My philosophy and that of the vast majority of my co-workers: Treat people with as much respect as they allow me to.

The myth of police brutatlity, promoted by the leftist media is exactly that...a myth. Are there unjustified incidents? Of course. They are the exception, not the norm. But they sure make great media don't they.

The police make unpopular decisions. Everything from writing tickets, to making arrests, to not doing what someone wants you to do, even if it is unjustified or illegal. Yes, we get people all the time who want us to break the law, "just for them." It makes them mad when we don't. The bad apples are a problem for us. We do our best to get rid of them and where appropriate charge them. Fortunately they are far fewer then the media portrays.

Edited April 3, 2012 by mirkwood

[mirkwood]

@ kayne: I'd suggest you start reading the deadly force statutes for your state. You clearly have no clue about when you can and cannot use deadly force.

[Hala401]

Like I said earlier, I understand why they might want to test the brownies, but finding the brownies came after the search so couldn't have been a factor in probable cause. Which it's been clarified they didn't have, they just used the straight forward tactic of asking for consent.

Well, lets look at this from the point of view of the poor plod. First you have a female driver who is apparently operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous and unsafe manner, in the rain, and probably posing a hazard to other motorists. She did not excercise a lot of common sense by going out at night in a vehicle with bad wipers. And, I am sorry, her lame excuse would be doubly lame if she got in an accident and had to face the consequences of such activity.

Her Father is also partially culpable for allowing said juvenile female on the road in a defective vehicle. It is an amazingly distasteful stereotype that has women unable to find their way around the area where they live. Poppy ****! It is no excuse at all in my estimation.

The fact remains that this young woman escaped a traffic stop with out a citation and to me that amounts to neglect of duty by the police. So, lets not be too harsh on the people sent out there to protect us from our stupid selves.

[guast]

The problem with these types of threads is that they tend to be a lot of people talking about law they don't know in the context of a legal system they don't understand and making all sorts of conclusions. It's kinda like adding and coming up with the answer without actually knowing any of the numbers that are being added.

Disclaimer - I am a prosecutor who has handled everything from little traffic offenses to, say, the first degree murder trial I am prosecuting right now.

Ok it was obvious why she was driving slow. If she was driving fast with no wipers in the rain then they would have had even more reason to stop her.

Do people with bad wipers tend to be drunk or stoned? If not then what was the probably cause to harass her into letting them search her car?

She didnt smell like a drunk since she didnt drink. She proved she was not drunk with the test. If they thought she was impaired they can do the walking the straight line etc.

I think they wanted to justify having four cop cars there to check out her driving. Lying or not it was a misuse of authority.

Why was it obvious why she was driving slow? My hunch is they probably pulled her over to find out why she was driving slow. Do people with bad wipers tend to be drunk or stoned? I don't know the stats on that but people driving unusually slow, even in whatever weather, is frequently a sign of impairment, among other things.

For the record, it isn't a matter of whether there was "more reason" to stop her. The issue is whether there was enough reason to stop her. And the standard isn't probable (not probably) cause for traffic stops. Never, never has been. The standard is reasonable suspicion, which is much lower than probable cause. I'm not going to comment on the probable cause for the search because I have no idea what their basis was and if it was a consent search, for example, probable cause is unnecessary.

I have had my fair share of dealing with officers imo abusing power - pulled over for going 51 in a 50, not having my headlights on when the sun had yet to dip below the horizon, for having my hand outside the window weaving it through the air, once for "turning too wide" onto a one lane road (you only have so much room hehe so?) and then once for cutting through a parking lot to "avoid a red light" (we were going to a blockbuster on the otherside of that lot..lol) In my 13 years of driving I have never gotten an actual ticket though.

It sounds like everytime you were pulled over for some sort of actual traffic offense. Granted some of them are pretty stupid but if it is illegal to go 51 in a 50 then it may be stupid to get a ticket for something like that and I'd personally dump the case but how is that an abuse of power? I've seen abuse of power and it doesn't look like that.

The fact remains that this young woman escaped a traffic stop with out a citation and to me that amounts to neglect of duty by the police. So, lets not be too harsh on the people sent out there to protect us from our stupid selves.

Discretion. Police generally aren't required to ticket anyone for something like this in most jurisdictions.

However, the one thing that does bother me is the cops apparently insisted to her they smelled alcohol on her... when she did not drink.

I figure this just might get a technique to get an actually drunk person to admit to drinking, but it also is essentially a lie.

How appropriate is that?

I think it's important to distinguish between what the police are doing: are they lying about evidence they found or what a person was doing? Not appropriate and police (rightfully) lose their jobs over such things.

Are the police saying things to lead a suspect to be more open or truthful? What's wrong with that? The example you gave not only isn't improper for police to do but a necessary function of their job. I work with a lot of UC (undercover officers) who are very good friends of mine and who I can honestly say are as ethical and as good of people as they come. But their job would be non-existent if everytime they went in to make a drug purchase they lead into the conversation with "My name is _______ and I AM a police officer."

I realize that your sister wasn't selling drugs but frequently police will say things like what was said to your sister in DUI stops because if officers say "have you been drinking" most drunks are going to say, "nooooooooooo" (not always) but if the officer leads the person to believe that the officer already knows that the person has been drinking the person is more likely to be honest about it.

There seems to be more going on with the story then included in the description. Four police officers, searching the vehicle, testing brownies for drugs...? That's incredibly unusual and it's hard to make a judgment call without knowing all of what was going on and why the police did what they did (sometimes there is a lot more behind police behavior than the person pulled over is aware of).

And to kayne, ehh... nevermind. I'm just going to wait until you show up on CNN in custody or dead.

Edited April 3, 2012 by guast

[MarginOfError]

Hey, I'm glad they pulled her over and I agree about the windshield wipers. But I also doubt lives were at risk--slowing down, as my sister did, is usually recommended in inclement conditions.

Slowing down doesn't mean much to the pedestrian about to get hit by a one and a half ton piece of steel.

[Dravin]

The fact remains that this young woman escaped a traffic stop with out a citation and to me that amounts to neglect of duty by the police. So, lets not be too harsh on the people sent out there to protect us from our stupid selves.

I'm not sure what is sparking the generation of the content of your post. In response to being surprised at having probable cause you brought up the possibility of weed brownies. To which I responded with:

1) I understand why they might want to test the brownies.

2) The brownies have pretty much nothing to do with probable cause because they would have come after, not before the search.

3) Provided the development that they asked for, and received, consent to perform the search as opposed to it being conducted under probable cause.

I realize you have people like Kayne in this thread, or even Bensalem where I can understand someone classifying them as being harsh on cops. I am not one of those people. I even made a point to say:

I'm not accusing the cops of procedural malfeasance, it's just as explained I suspect something wasn't recounted. The simplest thing being that they simply asked her for permission to search the car and she consented.

I can't help but think you haven't paid particular attention to my posts but have decided to attribute to me a general attitude expressed by some others in this thread. If you don't think this is the case please kindly point out where I have been 'too harsh' on the police.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Dravin

[FunkyTown]

I suspect that the two sides arguing this are arguing two entirely separate points.

The question, "Is it ethical for cops to lie and coerce" is clearly weighted depending on where someone is coming at it from.

The people who are answering, "Yes." are referring to those cops who use things like interrogation rooms and techniques, or are working undercover. Clearly, the answer to that is 'Yes. Yes, it is ethical.'

The people who are answering 'No.' are discussing egregious violations of principle, such as vicious assaults on undeserving people or corruption on a grand scale. Clearly, the answer to that is 'No. No, it is not ethical.'

In order to protect society, police officers are often placed in unenviable positions where some acts that wouldn't normally be tolerated should be tolerated. This doesn't excuse corruption in the execution of those duties.

[pam]

We all know that there are those few renegade cops that give all the rest of the honest and hardworking men and women in their profession a bad name.

Cops put their lives on the line every single time they pull a car over for nothing more than a missing tail light. They never know what they might encounter when doing so.

I think of the 6 Ogden police officers who in the line of duty delivering a search warrant had a gunman open fire on them killing 1 and wounding the other 5.

I think of the West Valley City police officer who crawled under a bus at his own personal risk (knowing the bus could come down on him at any time) to comfort a lady who was trapped underneath it while others worked to free her.

I think of the Murray City police officer who would come and sit outside where I worked every night he was on duty and wait for me to get off at midnight so that he knew I got to my car safely. (It wasn't the best of areas) He didn't have to do that nor was he asked to. But he knew it was extremely dark in that area and there was a lot of drug dealers in the area.

These men are heroes in my eyes. They care about the people they serve. Most cops that I have known, and I've known a lot, do care.

I have a son currently serving a 180 day jail sentence. I go to the jail once or twice a week to visit him. I sit and listen to the conversations of those also there to visit. It is amazing the derogatory remarks I hear about police officers. How much they hate police officers. The ironic thing is, they also sit and compare notes about their own jail times and crimes they have committed. Well duhhhh...because a police officer arrested them and they were convicted it makes police officers the bad guys.

My experience has been, those doing the most bad mouthing are the ones that have had run ins with the law themselves.

Edited April 3, 2012 by pam

[Backroads]

Well, lets look at this from the point of view of the poor plod. First you have a female driver who is apparently operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous and unsafe manner, in the rain, and probably posing a hazard to other motorists. She did not excercise a lot of common sense by going out at night in a vehicle with bad wipers. And, I am sorry, her lame excuse would be doubly lame if she got in an accident and had to face the consequences of such activity.

Her Father is also partially culpable for allowing said juvenile female on the road in a defective vehicle. It is an amazingly distasteful stereotype that has women unable to find their way around the area where they live. Poppy ****! It is no excuse at all in my estimation.

The fact remains that this young woman escaped a traffic stop with out a citation and to me that amounts to neglect of duty by the police. So, lets not be too harsh on the people sent out there to protect us from our stupid selves.

I'm quite surprised she didn't receive a violation. Then again, I'm frustrated on the wipers... which the cops didn't seem to care about. So I think it would have served her right to receive at least a citation for the wiper incident. I do have trouble faulting her for driving slow, though if she had been thinking [like me] she would have spent the night at her friend's when she saw the inclement weather or at least pulled over when she realized she had difficulty driving.

Dad actually isn't culpable for anything. My uneducated guess is they simply figured she was neither drunk or high (and still didn't do anything about the wipers and clearly didn't care about the slow driving) and figured he could get her home safely. He is not culpable because, to make this story this story more interesting, my sister is a 20-year-old college student and is not really a juvenile. Sigh. (To further the story on the bad driving, she didn't bother getting a license until she was 18 and usually had her boyfriend drive, but he left on his mission three months ago).

[Vort]

Poppy ****!

Ha! "Poppycock" gets censored? That's pretty funny.

[Windseeker]

I've had very good and not so good experiences with police officers. I have a friend who is canine officer in Washington and I can understand the struggles they have. So far I've had some good experiences with the police officers in Florida but they don't have the best reputation. The missionaries here have had very poor experiences with the Police which is unfortunate. They say they avoid them at all costs.

[Backroads]

I have a fear of cops because I think they'll all pull me over, but I've never had a cop be mean to me.

[john doe]

Ha! "Poppycock" gets censored? That's pretty funny.

When you separate it into two words the filters think you're trying to say something else entirely.

[Hala401]

I was worried that it was swearing in the UK and I did not know it. LOL I know that Bl***y is, so refrain, even though I know people who use it with abandon.

Hala

[Hala401]

I have a fear of cops because I think they'll all pull me over, but I've never had a cop be mean to me.

I have this Authority, fear, obedience thing conditioned into me from my years of living with a very authoritarian non practicing Amish man. So when that man in blue shows up, there is no chance that I will do anything but what he asks.

[NadiaStar]

I guess Im one of the few that don't consider this a big deal and if your sister is a ditz like you say, I can see the humor in it. If she slowed down in order to see, that's smart though she should have pulled over or stayed at the friend's. But slowing down isn't necessarily dangerous. If I saw someone going really slow, yeah, I'd probably call the cops, but not out of fear of my life. From what the OP said it sounds like this girl gets it. If we spent all our time worrying about what could have happened we would be wasting a lot of time.

I'm curious to know if the accusations continued after she passed all the tests. I see how that could be justified to get someone you really do suspect of high/drunk driving to confess, but after awhile you should probably look at other factors.

[Hala401]

I guess Im one of the few that don't consider this a big deal and if your sister is a ditz like you say, I can see the humor in it. If she slowed down in order to see, that's smart though she should have pulled over or stayed at the friend's. But slowing down isn't necessarily dangerous. If I saw someone going really slow, yeah, I'd probably call the cops, but not out of fear of my life. From what the OP said it sounds like this girl gets it. If we spent all our time worrying about what could have happened we would be wasting a lot of time.

I'm curious to know if the accusations continued after she passed all the tests. I see how that could be justified to get someone you really do suspect of high/drunk driving to confess, but after awhile you should probably look at other factors.

I thought it was funny, cute and lovable for her Father to come and rescue her from the policemen. :) Many of us never had a father like that, and this example just gives me the warm fuzzies.

[Colirio]

I'm pretty sure that coercion is justified in order to get some brownies.

I'm also pretty sure that coercion should be justified to get Kayne's Browning.

[Hala401]

I think I saw that in the field manual.

[Magen_Avot]

I really don't know what the big deal is in this case.

It seems to me this is an over reaction of a parent. In some aspects it seems understandable but it's not, IMO. Our children should be allowed and need to take responsiblity for their own actions. People need to get the heck off the ball field and let the players and refs do the best they can. Things like this weakens the fabric of our otherwise free and safe society when elevated to the courts. I don't think thats the case here though.

And anyone who thinks it's ok to kill someone (let alone a police officer) for searching their vehicle (with or without permission) is a danger to every society except maybe Darfur... no,... even there.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Magen_Avot