|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|