Police officer doesn't know the knife laws in my state.

[Vinifera]

I've been following qualified immunity for years from both the 14th Amendment and the 4th Amendment perspective since the seminal case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 475 U.S. 800 (1982). I've never seen a case which employs a standard of "overwhelming evidence" and a standard of proof of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or which requires "deliberate and premeditated acts" in order to overcome the qualified immunity defense. Do you have a citation to a reported case for that proposition?

 

[glistam]

I've been following qualified immunity for years from both the 14th Amendment and the 4th Amendment perspective since the seminal case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 475 U.S. 800 (1982). I've never seen a case which employs a standard of "overwhelming evidence" and a standard of proof of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or which requires "deliberate and premeditated acts" in order to overcome the qualified immunity defense. Do you have a citation to a reported case for that proposition?

Even if he did, it's not reasonable to make such a sweeping proclamation regarding the specific situation of an arrest for a knife that is not illegal, in light of the fact that the federal courts have already ruled that yes, this does overcome qualified immunity: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Unpublished/011565.U.pdf

 

[Charlie_K]

I've been following qualified immunity for years from both the 14th Amendment and the 4th Amendment perspective since the seminal case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 475 U.S. 800 (1982). I've never seen a case which employs a standard of "overwhelming evidence" and a standard of proof of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or which requires "deliberate and premeditated acts" in order to overcome the qualified immunity defense. Do you have a citation to a reported case for that proposition?

Even if he did, it's not reasonable to make such a sweeping proclamation regarding the specific situation of an arrest for a knife that is not illegal, in light of the fact that the federal courts have already ruled that yes, this does overcome qualified immunity: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Unpublished/011565.U.pdf

Well we've got a 4th circuit appeals court case holding that a police officer isn't legally responsible for letting a canine unit maul a person they knew was innocent of wrongdoing.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Unpublished/147791.U.pdf

Late on the night of May 4, 2010, Officer Terence Garrison (“Appellee”) and his police dog, Bikkel, tracked a robbery suspect to an apparently abandoned house in High Point, North Carolina. At the front stoop, Bikkel sprang into action, biting an individual crouched behind a nearby bush. Unfortunately, it wasnot the suspect, but instead Christopher Maney (“Appellant”). In the ten or so seconds that followed, Appellee realized Appellant did not match the physical description of the suspect he and Bikkel were tracking. But he nevertheless feared Appellant might pose a threat to the officers, and so ordered Appellant to show his hands before calling off the dog. During that time, Bikkel continued to bite and hold Appellant for a few seconds. The district court concluded that Appellee was entitled to qualified immunity from Appellant’s excessive force claim, and that a similar form of state-law immunity insulated him from Appellant’s battery claim. In reviewing that decision, we must decide whether a police canine handler, whose dog suddenly and mistakenly bites a concealed bystander while tracking the scent of a robbery suspect, clearly violates the Fourth Amendment if he momentarily extends the seizure to assess the potential threat to officer safety. Like the district court, we think the law as it stood on the night in question did not clearly proscribe such conduct. We therefore agree that Appellee is entitled to immunity and affirm.

We've also got a supreme court case, White v Pauly, holding that police can't be held responsible or sued for violating someone's rights, if there were no cases on the books finding an officer liable under the exact same circumstances.

There's also a number of cases, such as Harlow v Fitzgerald, holding that violations of constitutional rights are shielded by qualified immunity unless it can be shown that the right violated was clearly established at the time. That case also held that even if a right qualified as being clearly established, if a police officer can show that they were ignorant of the right being clearly established, qualified immunity applied; meaning that ignorance of the law is indeed an excuse for law enforcement.

Then we've also got this example https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...izen-for-refusing-to-answer-police-questions/ of police officers physically retaliating against a private individual who wouldn't answer any questions, by throwing him to the ground, cuffing him, and arresting him for and charging him with obstruction of an officer. The 5th circuit court of appeals, which is the most recent court to hear the case, said that physical retaliation by an officer for refusal to answer questions does not violate a 5th amendment right, and 1st amendment violations are already barred by qualified immunity.

 

[Man with no name]

John Bad Elk vs. U.S.,177 U.S. 529

 

[Charlie_K]

John Bad Elk vs. U.S.,177 U.S. 529

Overruled by more or less each and every state court since the 1960s, starting with New Jersey in 1965, by removing the right to resist an unlawful arrest as a legal defense. Also overruled by the USSC in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) and again in Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001). No court in the united states regards Bad Elk as being valid anymore, and there's not a single circumstance under which a person is legally allowed to resist arrest by a police officer, even if it's a false arrest. If you do resist, you get killed.

 

[Man with no name]

So according to you, our lives can be extinguished by an agent of the state for no reason and all we are allowed to do is submit?

 

[Rhinoknives1]

Mistake number one. Never, ever, ever rely on a police officer for legal advice. Who cares what the officer or his "captain" said. It isn't worth the time arguing or conversing with them about it. Get over it and don't worry about it. They don't know the law. There is one hell of a difference between law enforcement officers and lawyers and judges who know the law.

^^^ This! There are so many laws on the books and many are rather vague at best! I've had more instances that I can count of discussions with our police where it was obvious, while they had the best of intentions, they were flat out wrong! Be polite & courteous, but realize most just really don't know!

 

[Charlie_K]

So according to you, our lives can be extinguished by an agent of the state for no reason and all we are allowed to do is submit?

That's pretty much what every single court in the united states, including the supreme court, has said on the matter. And as they have final say on the matter, that's pretty much the long and the short of it. If you think the arrest was unlawful or illegal, you have to let the court settle the matter after the fact, you're not allowed to settle it yourself at the time of the incident. If you do try you will die, and the cop involved is legally immune of any wrongdoing since you resisted, which is a crime in itself.

 

[The Zieg]

At the commencement of the UNC-CH Law School in 1992 (I was there to support several friends), the chancellor began his talk about "knowing the law" by making these points:

Ordinary citizens are tasked with knowing all the law.
Lawyers are tasked with knowing most of the law.
Police officers are tasked with knowing some of the law.
Judges are not tasked with knowing any of the law.

Take from this what you will, but it speaks volumes to me.

As for police officers in daily life, I find some of them pleasant to be around, some of them not. I try to avoid them whether they are on the job or not, and I would apply this to a next door neighbor, as well. As Brendan Behan reportedly observed, "There is no situation so dire that the arrival of a policeman cannot make it worse."

Zieg

 

[deltaboy]

Most cops are nearly criminally negligent in their knowledge of the Law. Just be respectful follow their directions and get home alive. Then let your Lawyer and the System figure it out.

 

[Vinifera]

And keep your mouth shut in the interim.

As an aside I once had a client who leased property to a deadbeat tenant. The landlord supplied water as part of the rent which was not metered but service was included in the rent. The tenant didn't pay his rent. My client decides he could get rid of the tenant by turning off his water supply. So where does my client go to get legal advice? As you can guess he goes to the police department. The on duty cop tells my client to turn off the water because if the utilities aren't paid utility providers have the right to turn off the utilities. (The cop should have told the guy it was a civil matter but what the heck he's a cop and knows the law.) Well that may be true but my client was not a private or public utility and he agreed to provide water service as part of the lease. The tenant manages to turn the water back on by finding the shut-off valve in the basement of the apartment. So my client comes in and wants the tenant out. We file suit and of course the tenant files a counterclaim alleging the landlord breached the lease by shutting off the water. We were eventually successful after dealing with the crazy tenant and the counterclaim but my client now realizes not to seek legal advice from the cops.

 

[NMpops]

This is the most anti-cop thread I've seen in a long time. Cops aren't perfect, true, neither are lawyers, neither are average citizens. Since this all started about asking a neighbor cop for legal advice, admittedly, not the smartest move. No one has mentioned whether or not Alabama has a Preemption law or whether or not there was a local ordinance governing knives. Before they passed their Preemption Law, the State of Arizona was a patchwork of knife laws. what was legal in Mesa could land you in jail in Phoenix.

Second, no one expects a Real Estate Lawyer to know Criminal Law, why do we expect a Traffic Cop to know every criminal law? Laws change and yearly updates are needed. Some laws never change and are forgotten. In many states, it's illegal to spit on the street but most people, including cops and lawyers have no idea. Many knives made today really push the limit and come very close to being switch blades. Courts and states can't make up their mind as to the definitions of what a switch blade is yet we expect every cop to know. Not really fair is it.

Rant Over!

 

[The Zieg]

This is not an anti cop thread. It's a talk about the limits of legal knowledge, to which you have added an important point: Knowledge and understanding of the law is related to one's role in society. Now I mean this in all civility so please take it in the calm tones in which I intend it, this conversation is going the way it's going because Americans are ambivalent about police. We want them to be available to save the day and go into harm's way but we don't want them to be a paramilitary presence. We want them to get bad guys but we are uncomfortable (to put it mildly) about the power we have given them, namely that of life and death. The fact is that we have given police the right to kill citizens with near impunity. This is what the current climate of anti police sentiment in America is about, plain and simple. The fact that this conversation looks the way it does on BF is a manifestation of the self reliance and self defense attitude that permeates the knife owning and carrying populace.

So I stand by my original statement: Don't ask cops for legal advice because they aren't attorneys, keep your distance from them at all times because they have a job to do and you don't want to be involved in what that job entails, and beware of the awesome power we have given them to control and end your life should you come face to face with one.

Zieg

 

[Vinifera]

Nice post Zieg. I agree with you about the role of law enforcement. Many people make the false assumption law enforcement officers are legal advisers which they are not. Hopefully this thread will put an end to those who suggest "Check with your local law enforcement official (LEO)" about the legality of anything. That is not what they are employed or trained to do; far from being critical this is simply setting forth the facts. By pointing this out is not "anti-cop" but merely setting forth the relationship between and among law enforcement officers, prosecutorial authorities and the judiciary. Hopefully some reading this thread will now understand the difference.

 

[GrReaper]

Overruled by more or less each and every state court since the 1960s, starting with New Jersey in 1965, by removing the right to resist an unlawful arrest as a legal defense. Also overruled by the USSC in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) and again in Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001). No court in the united states regards Bad Elk as being valid anymore, and there's not a single circumstance under which a person is legally allowed to resist arrest by a police officer, even if it's a false arrest. If you do resist, you get killed.

This summary is perfectly accurate as far as I'm aware. Resisting arrest, even if it is a ridiculously stupid and unjust arrest, is a crime in itself and it's enough justification for the cop to kill you. You have to let them arrest you and then sue them later for false arrest/false imprisonment. Get a good lawyer and you might have a very nice payday a few years down the road.