|
From michiganradio.org:quote:Michigan Supreme Court: Cops can't be prosecuted for false statements The full court opinion can be found here, and the text of the DLEOA can be found here. Act 563 of 2006 posted:Sec. 1. Holy poo poo. I'm not sure what the intent was here (given that we already have a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that covers coerced statements, Garrity v. New Jersey, and the Garrity warning which is analogous to the Miranda warning), but this was written so broadly that it not only protects law enforcement who wish to remain silent during an internal affairs investigation but protects them if they lie under questioning. The court opinion indicates it would even protect them against outright perjury when making a sworn statement in a court of law. It's a good day to be a bad cop in Michigan. Do something wrong? Lie about it to avoid the consequences. Get caught? No problem, you're immune because you would have lost your job if you hadn't lied.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:16 |
|
Mr. Horyd posted:From michiganradio.org: For gently caress's sake. I was born in Florida, yet every state I move to manages to be worse than the last. Edit: That's not fair. It's just Michigan, really.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
How is this not already the case that they are constitutionally protected from having to testify against themselves? Given that there is an incriminating video aren't they now subject to an ordinary set of charges for that crime (not perjury)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
There would seem to be a pretty big difference between refusing to incriminate yourself and actively lying about your colleague assaulting someone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Helsing posted:There would seem to be a pretty big difference between refusing to incriminate yourself and actively lying about your colleague assaulting someone. There is for most people but a cop is "on the clock" while at court testifying. I think it's a poo poo law and if my employee lied I would want to fire them, but these are some interesting details.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
is this a case of politicians taking care of their buddies or them just placating the populaces deification of violent authority its hard to tell with america
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:There is for most people but a cop is "on the clock" while at court testifying. I think it's a poo poo law and if my employee lied I would want to fire them, but these are some interesting details. I would understand this logic of the police in question had refused to testify and invoked the fifth. It's bizarre that this would excuse them from committing an active deception in which they are deliberately misreporting what happened rather than just refusing to say anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Is it bizarre though? To me it seems clear that the law intends to not only remove all incentives to snitch but to protect people who actively cover for their buddies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Well I'm doing that thing where you critique a system by comparing it to it's own stated ideals but sure, it's not actually surprising to learn that the government tries to discourage whistle blowers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I would understand this logic of the police in question had refused to testify and invoked the fifth. It's bizarre that this would excuse them from committing an active deception in which they are deliberately misreporting what happened rather than just refusing to say anything. Consider this: I'm on the clock and my boss is watching me. I'm in court before a judge giving testimony. There are 3 choices, lie, truth, 5th. Truth: I lose my job and am possibly jailed for gross dereliction of duty/being an accessory to an assault. Lie: I am committing perjury and if caught go to jail 5th: I am constitutionally safe from the court but lose my job because I'm obviously guilty as hell. Granted, gently caress these guys, but I'm just making the point that the situation is a little different than if the same law covered non-police. Not that it should exist, it's bad, but it's a little interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Consider this: I'm on the clock and my boss is watching me. I'm in court before a judge giving testimony. There are 3 choices, lie, truth, 5th. Hmm maybe they should tell the truth or take the 5th and not lie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 02:54
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Consider this: I'm on the clock and my boss is watching me. I'm in court before a judge giving testimony. There are 3 choices, lie, truth, 5th. Consider this: everyone has to make tough decisions, and lol that a cop is going to lose his job without actually murdering a civilian.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:How is this not already the case that they are constitutionally protected from having to testify against themselves? Given that there is an incriminating video aren't they now subject to an ordinary set of charges for that crime (not perjury)? After Garrity v. New Jersey in 1967 most internal investigations advise their officers of their right to silence, but are still allowed to take said silence into consideration. "You are being asked to provide information as part of an internal and/or administrative investigation. This is a voluntary interview and you do not have to answer questions if your answers would tend to implicate you in a crime. No disciplinary action will be taken against you solely for refusing to answer questions. However, the evidentiary value of your silence may be considered in administrative proceedings as part of the facts surrounding your case. Any statement you do choose to provide may be used as evidence in criminal and/or administrative proceedings."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Well I'm doing that thing where you critique a system by comparing it to it's own stated ideals but sure, it's not actually surprising to learn that the government tries to discourage whistle blowers. Mr. Horyd posted:After Garrity v. New Jersey in 1967 most internal investigations advise their officers of their right to silence, but are still allowed to take said silence into consideration. Is the fifth amendment supposed to protect worker rights anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Does this mean anything except they don't have to forget about it? I'm far from a legal scholar (and if there's anybody who has studied the Fifth Amendment in earnest I'd be happy to hear an informed opinion) but the most applicable ruling I can find would be Griffin v. California, though that ruling was specifically regarding prohibiting prosecutors commenting on a defendant's silence and instructing jurors to consider that silence as evidence of guilt. I think Garrity specifically protects law enforcement officers from losing their jobs solely due to choosing to remain silent in an investigation, and the line "as part of the facts surrounding your case" implies to me that one would need a larger body of evidence (like, say, video evidence directly linking the officer to a crime  ) to charge them of any crime. One of the main complaints of Griffin is that it does nothing in cases where the judge and prosecutor say nothing about the defendant not testifying in his or her own defense but the jury makes a judgement call on their own.The "Statements made to non-governmental entities" section of the Fifth Amendment page on Wikipedia states "The privilege against self-incrimination does not protect an individual from being suspended from membership in a non-governmental, self-regulatory organization (SRO), such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), where the individual refuses to answer questions posed by the SRO. An SRO itself is not a court of law, and cannot send a person to jail. SROs[...] are generally not considered to be state actors[...] SROs also lack subpoena powers. They rely heavily on requiring testimony from individuals by wielding the threat of loss of membership[...] when the individual asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination." Again, not a legal scholar, but I see this as a dividing line where your refusal to answer question from a non-government entity (such as a private employer) does not protect your job. By definition, law enforcement officers are working for a government entity with subpoena powers, and cannot be questioned by their boss without it automatically being under the umbrella of Fifth Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
this wasn't a constitutional decision it was a statutory decision so this is a dumb conversation when the answer is "the Michigan legislature hosed up and can fix this with the stroke of a pen"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:this wasn't a constitutional decision it was a statutory decision so this is a dumb conversation when the answer is "the Michigan legislature hosed up and can fix this with the stroke of a pen" You've never had to deal with the Michigan legislature, have you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Found a better article with more details. I think I remember hearing about this piece of work before.The Detroit News posted:Hughes, meanwhile, has been sued eight times and has cost taxpayers more than $677,000, according to court records. Hughes had been sued over a beating during the Downtown Hoedown and accused of illegal searches and seizures, falsifying search warrants and assaulting men at gas stations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Mr. Horyd posted:Again, not a legal scholar, but I see this as a dividing line where your refusal to answer question from a non-government entity (such as a private employer) does not protect your job. By definition, law enforcement officers are working for a government entity with subpoena powers, and cannot be questioned by their boss without it automatically being under the umbrella of Fifth Amendment. Aren't you always automatically under the umbrella of the fifth amendment? If your boss asks you something you can be silent, or plead the fifth or whatever. There isn't much point though since he doesn't have the unique authority to take your property or lock you in his basement or execute you. It doesn't disallow him from preventing you from working on his property or wielding his authority. Why does the government have less rights in this regard? Mercrom fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jun 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Aren't you always automatically under the umbrella of the fifth amendment? The Constitution applies to the government. It exists to limit the powers of the government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I'm not even American I'm just curious about the philosophy behind the laws. Because it's the government, the whole point of the constitution is to give the government less rights to limit things like free speech than a private interest can. Many government workers are more protected in this regard, actually, in the sense that it's much harder to fire a government worker for what they said on facebook than a private employer. TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jun 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
If I were a defense lawyer, I'd consider this as a really good way to exclude every bit of police testimony from a case, as there is no penalty to them if they lie in court. Where am I legally incorrect in this theory?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:No. The government (or its agents) can not compel you to testify against yourself. Anyone who isn't, can. If you work for McDonalds they can compel you all day every day to testify against yourself. They can restrict the manner and content of your speech, they could (and in the distopian future, will) quarter troops in your house. The Constitution does not apply to them. It seems to me it only protects against taking away rights that does not originally belong to the person taking them away. I really don't like either example but they make sense. McDonalds has a right to fire you at any time and they give up that right in exchange for a testimony. The government has a right to execute you if they can prove you committed a crime and they give up that right in exchange for a confession. And if McDonalds had the right to imprison you or quarter troops in your house (not their house that you live in), it would mean the government had given some of it's unique authority over to McDonalds, effectively making them an extension of the government and beholden to the constitution. TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Because it's the government, the whole point of the constitution is to give the government less rights to limit things like free speech than a private interest can. Many government workers are more protected in this regard, actually, in the sense that it's much harder to fire a government worker for what they said on facebook than a private employer. And is the second part a good thing? Rather than the first amendment having any part of this, wouldn't it be better to have a law that protects all workers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:this wasn't a constitutional decision it was a statutory decision so this is a dumb conversation when the answer is "the Michigan legislature hosed up and can fix this with the stroke of a pen" Yeah this just sounds like a really bad law. Not sure I trust a state legislature to get anything right, anywhere, but they ought to be able to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Is that the point of the constitution? Or is the point of the constitution to give the government less rights to limit things like free speech using their unique authority to commit violence and take property? I'm honestly asking. The Constitution exists as a check on those powers. It is, at the most basic level, a list of things the government can't legally do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The government doesn't have rights. It has powers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Words have meanings. In this case they have very specific meanings that have been worked out over 200+ years of jurisprudence. If you want to discuss the law you're going to need to concede that words have a legal definition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:If I were a defense lawyer, I'd consider this as a really good way to exclude every bit of police testimony from a case, as there is no penalty to them if they lie in court. Huh, I don't think this was thought through. Well, at least we have the right to resist illegal searches.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Words have meanings. In this case they have very specific meanings that have been worked out over 200+ years of jurisprudence. I'm sorry I didn't notice you were trying to answer my question before about the point of the constitution. Yes I do get that the constitution explicitly prohibits the government from legally doing things. It is those things that it explicitly prohibits I am asking about. The first amendment seems way too broad. It begins with "Congress shall make no law..." that in various ways prohibit freedom of speech. All the laws protecting property indirectly prohibit freedom of speech. Why interpret this to only limit the powers of government institutions? Reading the fifth amendment I see that it actually just uses the word "compel" which clears things up. It is broad but I assume means threatening to do harm not offering incentives. The government has the power to offer you the incentive of a plea bargain. A judge does not have the power to give you the death penalty because you refused a plea bargain, but they certainly have the
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:All the laws protecting property indirectly prohibit freedom of speech Mercrom posted:Why interpret this to only limit the powers of government institutions? Mercrom posted:The government similarly does not have the power to renege on an employment contract just because you plead the fifth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:How do you figure? Rent-A-Cop posted:Because there is no other way to interpret it. The Constitution simply doesn't apply to non-government entities. poo poo, until fairly recently it didn't even apply to states, and parts of it still (debatably) don't. I'm sorry this is getting way off topic but I don't think anyone not even the judges enforcing it believes the Michigan law isn't stupid as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:But far as I can interpret it the first amendment only applies to congress. How can it limit other parts of government except indirectly through law making? And since congress also makes laws for the people, why don't those laws face the same restrictions? A few rights are probably a lot narrower these days too. It's pretty difficult to operate a private warship in 2016 despite the fact that the guys who wrote the Constitution obviously thought people were going to and made arrangements for it. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
The constitution is more than just a document limiting the powers of government you bums.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
But internal affairs isn't a court? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Hmm maybe they should tell the truth or take the 5th and not lie. hobbesmaster posted:But internal affairs isn't a court? The whole issue is that government employees have a rather unique relationship with their employer. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Consider this: I'm on the clock and my boss is watching me. I'm in court before a judge giving testimony. There are 3 choices, lie, truth, 5th. The relevant "constitutional protection" you were alluding to before says that no one can be: "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". I fail to see how actively lying is constitutionally protected. Apparently in Michigan it is statutorily protected for police officers but (and if an actual American lawyer wants to correct me here then please do) that's different than saying they have a constitutional right to lie. Nothing in the 5th amendment would seem to sanction this behavior.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The relevant "constitutional protection" you were alluding to before says that no one can be: "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". I fail to see how actively lying is constitutionally protected. Apparently in Michigan it is statutorily protected for police officers but (and if an actual American lawyer wants to correct me here then please do) that's different than saying they have a constitutional right to lie. Nothing in the 5th amendment would seem to sanction this behavior. In which case the law is unconstitutional and the statements illegally coerced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The relevant "constitutional protection" you were alluding to before says that no one can be: "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". I fail to see how actively lying is constitutionally protected. Apparently in Michigan it is statutorily protected for police officers but (and if an actual American lawyer wants to correct me here then please do) that's different than saying they have a constitutional right to lie. Nothing in the 5th amendment would seem to sanction this behavior. However, the U.S. Supreme Court may have shot down that interpretation in U.S. v Wong, when they held that the 5th doesn't condone perjury. In that case, the defendant claimed that they weren't advised of their right to remain silent, rather than being coerced. Under the DLEOA, any information provided by a law enforcement officer, if compelled under threat of any employment sanction by the officer’s employer, cannot be used against the officer in subsequent criminal proceedings. The act does not distinguish between true and false statements. Therefore, even if false, the officer’s statements cannot be used against the officer in a subsequent prosecution. It looks like the Michigan law offers greater protection than the 5th in that circumstance. The court noted that this was probably not the intended effect, and that, after the court found in a previous case that a grant of immunity did not apply only to truthful answers based on the plain language of the law, the legislature went back and added reference to "truthful information" to the relevant statutes. They failed to do this in the case of the DLEOA, so they should probably go back and do that. Basically: WhiskeyJuvenile posted:this wasn't a constitutional decision it was a statutory decision so this is a dumb conversation when the answer is "the Michigan legislature hosed up and can fix this with the stroke of a pen" Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
Warcabbit posted:If I were a defense lawyer, I'd consider this as a really good way to exclude every bit of police testimony from a case, as there is no penalty to them if they lie in court. The law specifies involuntary testimony. As long as the officer in question gives his testimony volunarily, he's subject to the usual penalties for perjury.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 15:45
|
|
