Legal System Struggles With How to React When Police Officers Lie

[TravisBickle]

Wait a minute... does this mean that the exclusionary rule is no longer in effect? I swear that's what I read in the article....

[kevindsingleton]

I don't think it's been completely obliterated for all circumstances, but it appears that it's going to be more difficult to invoke, next time you need it!

[WhiteFeather]

In my opinion.

When LEO lie under oath and get caught, they should face the same charges and pentalities that they were going to send someone else to jail for with their false statements and do thier hard time in jail to hold them accountable for their actions......

[JayBell]

So.........when police use the term "civilians".........they get slammed by many non-LEO's who claim........"they are just like us".............meaning there is no difference between the two. Of course until you get a thread like this where they are supposed to be treated different, with different penalties??

So which is it? Are they the same or different? Same crime, same punishment.

Steve, i think you are reading this as an "anti police" statement, but its not.

What I mean by my statement, is that there should be HARSHER penalties for any person we ELECT, HIRE, or put in a position where they have authority over "the rest of us" as it were.

that means politicians, cops, borough managers, code enforcement agents, even dogcatchers.

if a person we choose to put in a position of power chooses to abuse the authority we give them, they should be held accountable to a HIGHER standard for betrayal of the publics trust.

thats all I'm saying.

[Steve in PA]

I didn't mean for my comment to be taken as meaning yours was anti-police.

My point was that on one hand, people will say LEO's are no different than non-LEO's.

But then on the other hand, people will say they should be punished differently........more severe. If that is the case, then LEO's are different than non-LEO's in the grand scheme of things.

It can't be both.

But I do understand how you feel when people in those positions lie or abuse their office. Looks at the Luzerne County judges. They dished out penalties for crimes while they themselves were committing crimes.

If you set up different penalties for people based on their jobs, the line between "us and them" becomes quite defined.

[JayBell]

I dont see a problem with it, if its an offense CONNECTED with thier job.

we already do it with other criminals...its called "enhanced penalties".

such as comitting a crime, but doing it with a gun also, enhanced penalty

shooting someone, but also using AP ammo.... enhanced penalty.

we alreday have many crimes enumerated on the books that have one penalty, but mixed with another condition, it deserves an an enhanced penalty.

also, we already HAVE laws regarding different crimes depending on JOB...so no major change is needed.

a 1983 action would be only possible on a police office or other government agent, "denial of civil rights under color of law"... *I* can't be charged with this, but a government official or LEO definitely can due to thier job in a position of authority.

people in authority need to be held to a higher standard due to the fact that they ARE in authority, thus the abuses that can be made are beyond what someone NOT in authority can accomplish.

[shooter357]

I dont see a problem with it, if its an offense CONNECTED with thier job.

we already do it with other criminals...its called "enhanced penalties".

such as comitting a crime, but doing it with a gun also, enhanced penalty

shooting someone, but also using AP ammo.... enhanced penalty.

we alreday have many crimes enumerated on the books that have one penalty, but mixed with another condition, it deserves an an enhanced penalty.

also, we already HAVE laws regarding different crimes depending on JOB...so no major change is needed.

a 1983 action would be only possible on a police office or other government agent, "denial of civil rights under color of law"... *I* can't be charged with this, but a government official or LEO definitely can due to thier job in a position of authority.

people in authority need to be held to a higher standard due to the fact that they ARE in authority, thus the abuses that can be made are beyond what someone NOT in authority can accomplish.

They should be held to a higher standard not just because they are in authority but because they know or should know the law.
EXAMPLE: A police officer arrests someone for selling drugs, takes the drugs as evidence, and then sells or even uses some that never made it to lockup.

A Judge sentences a man for tax evasion while he is hiding money in secret accounts.

[NY Refugee]

My point was that on one hand, people will say LEO's are no different than non-LEO's.

But yes they are different, That badge gets them a lot of perks that non LEO do not get.
I am very pro LE and feel that many times they get a bad rep for a hard job, but they also have the ability to destroy someones life for the rest of their life.
Because of this LEOs and Judges need to be held to a higher standard.
I also would think that the majority of LEO who are doing the right thing day in and day out would feel the same. No reasonable person likes their profession and themselves getting a bad reputation because of the irresponsible actions of another, look at the bad rep that lawyers have because of ambulance chasers.

[OvadekP]

How about something novel like holding them accountable to the law?

[kevindsingleton]

They should be held to a higher standard not just because they are in authority but because they know or should know the law.
EXAMPLE: A police officer arrests someone for selling drugs, takes the drugs as evidence, and then sells or even uses some that never made it to lockup.

A Judge sentences a man for tax evasion while he is hiding money in secret accounts.

Or, how about, a man cheats on his taxes, then becomes the Secretary of the Treasury!