LE Oath

[shaggist]

When someone completes their training and becomes a Law Enforcement officer, do they swear an oath, like the Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment, to uphold the Constitution? If so, why the violation of the 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure that seems to be more prevalent everyday?

 

[M29since14]

Most cops aren't Constitutional lawyers. It's a job - and they do what they are told. As several of our LE members have pointed out, in many cases they do not have the option to use their own judgment and discretion like they did thirty-years ago. We are living in a "cookie-cutter society."

I am not trying to throw cold water on whatever discussion you are starting here. I am simply saying I blame the commanders, chiefs, and - above all - the politicians for what I see going on in LE that I don't like. And I see plenty of it. I try to give the patrol cop the benefit of the doubt until he proves to be a jerk. Luckily for me, that usually doesn't happen, though I did run into one lately who did not seem to be much in the thinking-department.

If you don't like what you see the police doing, start telling your elected representatives.

 

[David LaPell]

I know I had to take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I take it very seriously.

 

[thomasinaz]

I was going to stay away from this one, but I can't: If you think local law enforcement is violating the Constitution, you need to look a little higher up the food chain. Most of us on the front lines take our oath very, very seriously! As a member of the armed forces for 8 years and LE for 21+ (swore an oath for each one) your assertion is extremely offensive....

 

[Marshwheeling]

I was going to stay away from this one, but I can't: If you think local law enforcement is violating the Constitution, you need to look a little higher up the food chain. Most of us on the front lines take our oath very, very seriously! As a member of the armed forces for 8 years and LE for 21+ (swore an oath for each one) your assertion is extremely offensive....

You have to be kidding. One of the most litigated areas in our legal system has to do with violations of the Constitution by law enforcement, particularly the 4th and 5th amendments. I should think the nature of the job leads every officer at least to the brink. Are you immune?

 

[Comrad]

What does swearing an oath have to do with the 4th amendment?

It says "prohibits unreasonable searches"

If there is probable cause, you're probably going to be searched.

 

[Muss Muggins]

What does swearing an oath have to do with the 4th amendment?

It says "prohibits unreasonable searches"

If there is probable cause, you're probably going to be searched.

"Unreasonable" is always in the eye of the searched. . .

 

[dougb1946]

The arrestee may have a different interpretation than the LEO. We have 9-count them- nine experts on law in the SCOTUS, and they disagree frequently. 4 to 5 is not uncommon. As cops are at the sharp end, they tend to run into the fuzzy areas more than most, and as the frequently don't have time to make a phone call, they may step over the line once in a while. Fortunately, CNN is willing to post these and give hours of air time to any infraction that doesn't save the life of a reporter.

Lots of cops never make the news, so you don't hear about the ones just doing a good job. The outliers always make the news.

 

[hoc9sw]

My oath of office was the following. In my role, I supported the decisions of the courts, which were then and now always subject to review by a higher court where appropriate.

"I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of ..., and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ________, upon which I am now about to enter."

 

[feralmerril]

I lived in southern california from 1965 to 2005. Retired here in utah. we live a mile from I-15. I was well used to the Los Angeles area. I have to say that in short order right here in a small city I have seen far, far more car road side searchs than I did in california with 10`s of millions of people!
Right after we moved here I remember harping to the wife about it. Usualy its young people standing scared along the freeway while cops are going through their luggage. Many times I have harped on dont these kids know their rights? I wont say the searchs are illegal as I am sure the officers well know terminology to bluff the kids into complying. I blame the parents that dont know how to tell the kids to stand up for their rights.
First, I believe the young people in california are more street savy. 2nd, I hear I-15 that runs through here is the main drug corridore to most the country. I read the newspaper police blotter here once in awhile and every day see roughly 5 drug busts to all the other crime combined. If drugs were legalized I bet 4 out of 5 cops would be layed off! Know what? I have never seen the cops put the luggage back in their vehicles.
I also searched cars years ago as a guard at a defense plant. Those had different rules. To start with the employees signed their "rights" away when they hired in. I hated it and did a very bad job of it.

 

[Maze 686]

Every officer swears an oath.
NYPD has somewhere around 30,000 officers. Since you believe officers are violating rights everyday, would you care to point out the victims in just this one department, or perhaps the officers involved.

Maybe you can point out the ones in my old department if the NYPD has to many to count, there were only around 6,000 of us.

 

[cowart]

NYPD has somewhere around 30,000 officers. Since you believe officers are violating rights everyday, would you care to point out the victims in just this one department

The courts certainly seem to have had a problem with NYPD's way of searching suspects:

"Finding that New York City's so-called stop-and-frisk program amounted to "indirect racial profiling" by targeting blacks and Hispanics disproportionate to their populations, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered the installation of the department's first-ever independent monitor to oversee changes to its practices."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/12/us-usa-newyork-police-idUSBRE97B0FK20130812

 

[6518John]

http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20072495-StopFriskReport.pdfrisk

Every officer swears an oath.
NYPD has somewhere around 30,000 officers. Since you believe officers are violating rights everyday, would you care to point out the victims in just this one department, or perhaps the officers involved.

Maybe you can point out the ones in my old department if the NYPD has to many to count, there were only around 6,000 of us.

New York City Bar reports 533,000 Fourth Amendment questionable stop and frisk encounters in 2012 ALONE by the NYPD. Only 6% resulted in arrests, only 2% in weapons. Lets assume the 6% arrested had probable cause and resulted in valid, appellate affirmed convictions. Then 94% were in direction violation of the Fourth Amendment. That gives you over 500,000 examples in 2012 alone.

http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20072495-StopFriskReport.pdfrisk

 

[6518John]

The courts certainly seem to have had a problem with NYPD's way of searching suspects:

"Finding that New York City's so-called stop-and-frisk program amounted to "indirect racial profiling" by targeting blacks and Hispanics disproportionate to their populations, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered the installation of the department's first-ever independent monitor to oversee changes to its practices."

NYPD's 'stop-and-frisk' practice unconstitutional, judge rules | Reuters

You were typing at the same time as me!

 

[gregintenn]

I was going to stay away from this one, but I can't: If you think local law enforcement is violating the Constitution, you need to look a little higher up the food chain. Most of us on the front lines take our oath very, very seriously! As a member of the armed forces for 8 years and LE for 21+ (swore an oath for each one) your assertion is extremely offensive....

I read two questions and no assertions. Some of you guys get offended pretty easily.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

During my 24 years on the job there were quite a few occasions when I had to make decisions and take action in seconds, followed by lawyers debating my decisions and actions for years afterward.

If the courts determine that an illegal search was conducted the results of that search are not admissible in evidence. If it can be proven that the officer knowingly, willfully, or negligently violated a person's Constitutional rights then there may be penalties imposed on the officer(s) and their employers.

There are also some mistakes made in a good faith.

None of these matters are decided quickly or easily. But the cops still have to go out and try to do the job as best they can, knowing that there will always be criticism no matter what they do.

By the way, if this was a perfect world there would be no need for cops, or lawyers, or judges.

 

[the ringo kid]

When someone completes their training and becomes a Law Enforcement officer, do they swear an oath, like the Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment, to uphold the Constitution? If so, why the violation of the 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure that seems to be more prevalent everyday?

The Agency I was with--a State Agency--did swear an oath. Once I took it--I figured it was good for life.

 

[the ringo kid]

I know I had to take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I take it very seriously.

Ditto here and you said it better than I could. Im serious about my oath as well. )

 

[jbull380]

Yes I took an oath. Yes I honor it. Have I been faced with situations where it is very difficult to make a quick decision? Yes. My basic rule is this, if I need to ask myself if I should get a search warrant I get the warrant. Sometimes there is no time and you just have to decide if you're going to let it go until next time or act now. It isn't an easy thing. We do our best in the field with the info we have. Sometimes officers make the wrong decision and it costs them in one way if another. Sometimes you ask if any of it is worth the effort. I always answer yes. We aren't nazis or jack booted thugs looking for ways to violate rights. Billions of dollars are spent in the courts on lawyers spending months or years trying to decide if what we do or have done is constitutional. We have to make those decisions right now, not after we have had time to consult with a lawyer. I'm a citizen too and I don't want my rights violated either.

 

[6518John]

During my 24 years on the job there were quite a few occasions when I had to make decisions and take action in seconds, followed by lawyers debating my decisions and actions for years afterward.

If the courts determine that an illegal search was conducted the results of that search are not admissible in evidence. If it can be proven that the officer knowingly, willfully, or negligently violated a person's Constitutional rights then there may be penalties imposed on the officer(s) and their employers.

There are also some mistakes made in a good faith.

None of these matters are decided quickly or easily. But the cops still have to go out and try to do the job as best they can, knowing that there will always be criticism no matter what they do.

By the way, if this was a perfect world there would be no need for cops, or lawyers, or judges.

LEO's have the most thankless jobs in America. Your picture should be beside "damned if you do, damned if you don't" in the book of phrases. And the good ones, like you obviously are, realize that there are abuses, intentional or otherwise. The intentional abusers need to be drummed out of the profession. But when I have one finger pointing at law enforcement, I have three pointing back at my profession.

By the way, you are dead wrong on one thing--if the world was perfect it would NOT do away with attorneys. We would spend the next 20 years litigating the definition of "perfect."

 

[ditrina]

Thank you all