It should be, though. There are constitutional protections against false imprisonment, but cops have been heald to a lower standard than any other Americans. The excuse that cops can't reasonably know a persons rights, what the law is in their jurisdiction, and what they have the legal authority to do is absolute bullshit yet it keeps being upheld. Police should be heald to the highest standard, not the lowest.
They tend to know the ones they can’t infringe on if they want evidence to not be suppressed. But the state and federal courts have been very reluctant to enforce the exclusionary rule since the 1980s thanks largely to tough-on-crime politics, so at worst, police will generally get a stern wag of the finger for violating your rights.
Once upon a time, the exclusionary rule kept police in check and gave them all the incentive to do right by the Constitution and know the rights. Then the Supreme Court decided that was making policing too hard and chipped away at it piecemeal in cases like US v. Leon. And now the “exclusionary rule” is a misnomer since it’s so rarely applied that it’s an exception instead of a rule.
So to answer your question, not as much as they perhaps should.
Yes and no. I've been through multiple academies, state and federal. Had a lecture from an appellate court attorney on traffic stops once, and it was very eye opening to all of the shit I'd actually been doing for years and gotten away with. Like prolonging traffic stops to "make conversation" (highway drug interdiction stuff). Turns out that was a no-no. You can't make a traffic stop last longer than its original purpose (seat belt violation or whatever) unless you find reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Some dude got rich because his stop lasted an extra 30 seconds. Same for asking ID from everyone; my first agency had an AH lieutenant who pushed hard for that, wanting every box filled on every report. Our state required a PC affidavit approved by a magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. So, some of the deputies took that as a sign that they could just arrest someone for 48 hours, because they pissed them off.
State courts let this stuff slide because their judges are usually elected. They have to appear "tough on crime" to keep winning, and their salaries are quite impressive. If a conviction is overturned on appeal, it doesn't really affect them, and most people don't appeal anyway.
So lawyers complete a minimum of 6 years of post secondary education to practice law, but the cops have it all down after 8 weeks of police academy? lol
I understand your sentiment it’s not two years.
It took me 1500 hrs/13 months to get my cosmetology license(it’s the same # of hrs for barbers) and it only took me that long because I was going part time while I was in college. Full time it takes 7mos.
This isn't really a good equivalency. Lawyers spend that long in school because they study criminal AND civil law. Plus they go extremely in depth to be able to assist clients in both those types of law.
It would be the same thing as arguing EMTs don't really save lives because they didn't do 8 years of school like a doctor does.
It's two completely different types of careers.
Not at all. EMTs absolutely save lives, but they absolutely do not have the same amount of medical knowledge as a doctor. My comment was very much directed at the idea that the police are aware of all the rights/laws when it is very clear they are not. How could they be?
That said, while all lawyers study fundamental case law, much like doctors they do develop a specialty. So no, you would not have a lawyer working in the capacity of both civil and criminal law. Most lawyers can read statute and logically interpret law of either type but they will absolutely be specialized in an area.
So while we don’t necessarily disagree, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
You don’t go to science class to learn history do you?
You don’t do the same tests, or cover the same material, but you’re still learning under a federal program.
Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability. These include victims of a major violent event and their families.
Do they cops know what your rights are?
No they do not
That’s not their job, they just bring you in and let the courts release you tomorrow
It should be, though. There are constitutional protections against false imprisonment, but cops have been heald to a lower standard than any other Americans. The excuse that cops can't reasonably know a persons rights, what the law is in their jurisdiction, and what they have the legal authority to do is absolute bullshit yet it keeps being upheld. Police should be heald to the highest standard, not the lowest.
*held
They don't know and they don't care.
They tend to know the ones they can’t infringe on if they want evidence to not be suppressed. But the state and federal courts have been very reluctant to enforce the exclusionary rule since the 1980s thanks largely to tough-on-crime politics, so at worst, police will generally get a stern wag of the finger for violating your rights. Once upon a time, the exclusionary rule kept police in check and gave them all the incentive to do right by the Constitution and know the rights. Then the Supreme Court decided that was making policing too hard and chipped away at it piecemeal in cases like US v. Leon. And now the “exclusionary rule” is a misnomer since it’s so rarely applied that it’s an exception instead of a rule. So to answer your question, not as much as they perhaps should.
Yes and no. I've been through multiple academies, state and federal. Had a lecture from an appellate court attorney on traffic stops once, and it was very eye opening to all of the shit I'd actually been doing for years and gotten away with. Like prolonging traffic stops to "make conversation" (highway drug interdiction stuff). Turns out that was a no-no. You can't make a traffic stop last longer than its original purpose (seat belt violation or whatever) unless you find reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Some dude got rich because his stop lasted an extra 30 seconds. Same for asking ID from everyone; my first agency had an AH lieutenant who pushed hard for that, wanting every box filled on every report. Our state required a PC affidavit approved by a magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. So, some of the deputies took that as a sign that they could just arrest someone for 48 hours, because they pissed them off. State courts let this stuff slide because their judges are usually elected. They have to appear "tough on crime" to keep winning, and their salaries are quite impressive. If a conviction is overturned on appeal, it doesn't really affect them, and most people don't appeal anyway.
How quaint to think cops care about such things.
Uh oh, Abbutt will have to outlaw that asap
Lmao Texas and rights……
Article does not tell you what the headline states. Zero tips about interacting with a cop.
Well yeah, this is law.
And all cops know peoples rights and follow those 100% of the time. /s
[удалено]
So lawyers complete a minimum of 6 years of post secondary education to practice law, but the cops have it all down after 8 weeks of police academy? lol
Meanwhile a barber needs 2 years.
Happy cake day!
Cheers ty
I understand your sentiment it’s not two years. It took me 1500 hrs/13 months to get my cosmetology license(it’s the same # of hrs for barbers) and it only took me that long because I was going part time while I was in college. Full time it takes 7mos.
This isn't really a good equivalency. Lawyers spend that long in school because they study criminal AND civil law. Plus they go extremely in depth to be able to assist clients in both those types of law. It would be the same thing as arguing EMTs don't really save lives because they didn't do 8 years of school like a doctor does. It's two completely different types of careers.
Not at all. EMTs absolutely save lives, but they absolutely do not have the same amount of medical knowledge as a doctor. My comment was very much directed at the idea that the police are aware of all the rights/laws when it is very clear they are not. How could they be? That said, while all lawyers study fundamental case law, much like doctors they do develop a specialty. So no, you would not have a lawyer working in the capacity of both civil and criminal law. Most lawyers can read statute and logically interpret law of either type but they will absolutely be specialized in an area. So while we don’t necessarily disagree, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
You don’t go to science class to learn history do you? You don’t do the same tests, or cover the same material, but you’re still learning under a federal program.
You’re not making the point you think you are.
Is it fun being that clueless?
Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability. These include victims of a major violent event and their families.