scdub said:
As a Peace Officer I'm required by law to arrest anyone that has committed a felony. If I don't I can be fired and possibly sued. There's no way I'm going to risk my carreer just because I find an illegal knife on someone that's polite and looks harmless. I'll let a judge/jury decide if it was O.K. or not.
Keep in mind, if an Officer is in a position to ask you about weapons, he/she probably already has some suspicions about you. Having said that, I'll also warn you against saying to yourself "Well, I'm not going to be arousing suspicion so I should be fine." You'd probably be right, but you might just find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time and end up going to jail.
Since you're a rookie, and attempted to answer this question in a polite and respectful manner, I shall also attempt to be polite and respectful.
As Tom said, your current attitude is a direct result of your Academy training combined with growing up in an era where youngsters look at things like metal detectors, CCTV cameras, Internet monitoring, random searches, and prescription happy pills for all as somehow "normal." Folks who grew up in the 50s, 60s, 70s, or even the early 80s know that this state of affairs never was considered "normal" in the past -- you can blame some of it on technological advances or the ever-present threat of "terrorism", or you can blame it on a corrupt system afraid of it's own citizenry. There are valid reasons why the mainstream citizenry no longer trusts their elected officials -- in earlier decades, such a mindset was considered fringe or paranoid, but now it is the norm. The folks who run the Academys are typically not the best and the brightest -- they tend to be "politicians" rather than cops -- and the training you receive tends to reinforce their elitist mindset that "anyone can be a criminal", "everyone has secrets", and "it's Us versus Them." Young impressionable rookies -- who, themselves, are accustomed to having no "right to privacy" -- thus feel compelled to pull over every car they see going 8 mph over the speed limit, playing loud music, or "weaving within the lane" momentarilly -- then asking the driver, "Do you have any contraband or weapons in this vehicle? Do you mind if I take a quick look?
Why not???" This is considered by more experienced cops, as well as the media and the general public to be unnecessary and counter-productive. It is meaningless harassment and abuse of power, that, rather than inspiring respect for the law, will promote contempt and resentment of it.
The same goes for police (as well as "peace officers") who decide that they are going to inflict their own, personal, idea of "Zero Tolerance" on the public. This is known as being a "Supercop" (not a compliment). Supercops tend to amass stacks of complaints against them early in their short careers -- after a few major complaints (from "supercitizens" up the food chain a few notches from the average LEO), they may not lose their badge, put they'll certainly be pulled off the street and placed somewhere (like Corrections or the motor pool) where they can do far less damage to Public Relations. Other Supercops push the wrong person at the wrong time, and an "incident" ensues -- this may result in either Supercop in ICU, or facing an IAD investigation for shooting a respected citizen whom he had chosen to provoke into a physical confrontation.
I do not think that the typical Supercop set out to be bad, or even made a conscious decision to be bad -- but the "Rules" they've been taught to follow all their lives were valued above all else (i.e., compassion, fairness, common sense) -- and now
they have been appointed an official "enforcer of the Rules"! What a great honor that is!
In conclusion, as most older and more experienced cops will tell you, sure -- lots of people break the law. Even cops, judges, DAs, and members of the President's Cabinet. There are many, many laws, and most of us have broken a few -- even without realizing it. If you demand to search a vehicle without probable cause, thus recieving implied "consent", and find an "unlawful" knife (say, an inch above legal limit), and the individual has co-operated fully, obviously isn't a scumbag, and can even provide a valid reason for possessing the knife (which might've been dropped on the floorboards and forgotten after a recent camping trip), then you're telling us that you're in favor of arresting the guy, leaving his car on the side of the road (is he with his family?), taking him downtown to process him, locking him in a holding cell with the local degenerates until he can contact his lawyer and make bail, then post his name in the paper for his neighbors and co-workers to see, and subject him to the time/expense/humiliation of our modern court system? That, sir, would make you a Supercop -- whom no-one likes -- not the public, the courts, your supervisor,
his supervisor, or other cops. Supercops make everyone else look bad.
In decades past, when a rookie was fresh from the Academy, he's immediately be assigned to a more experienced street cop who would drive him around and explain how things were
really done. Nowadays, this isn't always done. If the local PD isn't overly concerned with Public Relations, this can be a nightmare.
Don't worry, no-one is gonna "fire or even sue" you for using your discretion to let someone off for a minor violation (even if it does happen to be a "felony" in your jurisdiction). Letting a drunk driver go, or letting a druggie drive off with half his stash could get you in serious trouble. Allowing an old man with arthritis to carry a small fixed-blade will not. If you're unable to tell who the REAL "bad guys" are, you shouldn't be in law enforcement.
