Politics of policework

[NorCalBusa]

If a Supervisor gives an order for a LEO to use force (chase, hostage, etc.), is a LEO compelled to do so?
What if a boss says "PIT" the guy, but you don't feel the chase is at that level?
If the boss says, "arrest that person", do you have to have PC in your own mind or does one just do so?
Can you get popped (internally) for not following the order?

Where are the lines drawn between a militaristic organization and your individual responsibility? Is your official Dept Policy a defense mechanism?

[motorman4life]

Each situation is judged on it's own merit.

If the officer has information their supervisor does not, then they can act or refuse to act, based upon the information they had. Yes, you can get "popped" if you do not have adequate cause for refusing or failing to follow a lawful order.

The important thing to consider is, that the officer will ultimately be responsible for their actions and must act solely upon the information they have at the time. In most all cases, the "want" is something that is communicated early on by anyone "in the know." By "want" I am speaking about the type of crime alleged, involved or suspected.

For example, in a pursuit, any officers (or agencies) being asked to join, aid or participate in the pursuit, will want to know what the driver (or passengers) are wanted for. If the answer is, "expired tabs" or "headlamp out" or "child-support warrant," the response and level of threat to the community may well be considered much lese severe, verses an answer of "in-progress kidnapping" or "armed robbery" or "rape-homicide."


So, to answer your question, just like in the military, "I was following orders" is not going to be a valid defense in a case where the officer knows the order is unlawful. Similarly, if the level of force or danger to the community presented by the use of force exceeds or exceeded the danger the driver or wanted person (potentially or actually) presents to the community, the officer or their passenger(s).

Is there a case where an officer may be justified in ramming a motorcyclist.. of course. Is it the ordinary way we do business? No. It would take an extreme situation where the motorcyclist presents a significant threat to others.

In a case where a supervisor states, "arrest that person," it would be a simple matter of exercising control or asserting authority to get the suspect to submit. It need not be invasive or create a threat to the community or the suspect.. unless they choose to resist, which would be another violation, in and of itself.

It is worth noting that SWAT and many other specialty units operate under a seperate set of rules of engagement when assigned to an authorized SWAT call-out or critical situation where they are under the direct orders of an incident commander.

[antarius]

MM4L put together a very nice and well-written response. I think it pretty much sums it up as far as the legal aspect of it.

All I'd add is that while politics can (and do) cause strife amongst department members, I have yet to see that strife cause an issue out in the field. Yes, it happens, but in my small department it simply does not.

You may have a person say "hook him" and we're close enough and know each other well enough that they wouldn't ask us to do it unless there was a valid reason to do so. You may have a Sergeant or someone higher up on the food chain "jump your call" and decide to be the primary and more or less tell you to hook the person. Fine, so be it, it's your case though -- I'm merely the muscle (BWAHAHAH!) to get him to the station in that case.

Not to mention, the officers on a particular scene are generally briefed about something prior to it happening (if it's that slow-paced of a scene). I've never had a Sergeant walk up to me, in the middle of a call, and tell me to arrest someone. I've had them pull me aside and inform me of what they know and why they want him / her tossed into some nice little handcuffs... but I can't think of a single situation where the officers in the field did not know WHY they were acting the way they were.

In fact, in my opinion, if you are a full fledged police officer -- you should never, under any circumstance, be performing ANY action without knowing full and well WHY you are. That's our job, after all.... to make good decisions.

[NorCalBusa]

Informative answers- thanks. Here's another- if you are on such a scene and another LEO is arresting someone, and you believe the arrest to not be justified, now what? I'd imagine one would talk with that LEO, but let's say that doesn't change anything. Go to the boss, and you then get a rep? Same lines, ever hear of a boss saying "turn him loose" because they didn't feel the arrest was warranted?

[}Dragon{]

. Same lines, ever hear of a boss saying "turn him loose" because they didn't feel the arrest was warranted?

Maybe the boss knows something you don't and sometimes you have to think big picture...

[silverbelt]

Just like any other line of work, things can get political and you need to know how to do your job without falling victim to politics i.e. looking out for your best interest.

[stigeon]

If a Supervisor gives an order for a LEO to use force (chase, hostage, etc.), is a LEO compelled to do so?
What if a boss says "PIT" the guy, but you don't feel the chase is at that level?
If the boss says, "arrest that person", do you have to have PC in your own mind or does one just do so?
Can you get popped (internally) for not following the order?

Where are the lines drawn between a militaristic organization and your individual responsibility? Is your official Dept Policy a defense mechanism?

you're only compelled to follow legal orders. and you can be held liable for following an unlawful order (because he told me to isn't really a compelling argument). so you'd better know the law. and be able to explain why/why not to a review panel.

*edit*
i think maybe you're asking about gray areas, not the black-and-white ones.

b&w would be: sgt says to shoot him in the head. twice. but he's asleep!!

the gray areas are where people get into trouble. so, like people have already said, you'd better know your job.

[motorman4life]

Informative answers- thanks. Here's another- if you are on such a scene and another LEO is arresting someone, and you believe the arrest to not be justified, now what? I'd imagine one would talk with that LEO, but let's say that doesn't change anything. Go to the boss, and you then get a rep? Same lines, ever hear of a boss saying "turn him loose" because they didn't feel the arrest was warranted?
If I roll up on a scene and for some unknown reason, I have no idea why I am there (which would be extremely rare) and an officer is taking someone into custody.. I would have no reason to believe the arrest was not justified. It is his (or her) arrest and they need to justify their actions. I would assist them in their task and ask questions later. If the person is not resisting, then the arrest and any potential 849(b) PC (un-arrest) would be a simple and painless thing. If I had information (say the person being arrested is an undercover officer or an infornformant that I know was working a case, I would not say anything to jeopardize their status or confidentiality. It can all be sorted out at the stationhouse.

If I was present at a scene where I knew basically everything the other officer knew and I felt they had acted inappropriately in arresting a person at the scene, I would not do anything to risk my safety or their safety. I would ensure everything (else) was done by the book (as much as is in my control) and we could deal with it after the scene is stable (like after all parties are neutralized and/or there are an adequate number of units on scene. It could be that I DON'T know ALL there is to know. Maybe this person is on probation or parole and they have been drinking or are otherwise in violation of the conditions of their release. I don't know. I'll find out after the fact, but I would not presume to try to release someone until I have all of the facts.

While it is true that it is better to release a guilty person from custody than to convict an innocent person, from a practical and public safety perspective, it is easier to release a person held/detained or arrested by mistake than to let them go before you have all of the facts and try to catch them later.

Yes, I have seen bosses say, "turn him loose" many times. And, they get turned lose. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. The decision becomes their responsibility.

[RolnCode3]

I've heard "Code3" on the radio, and that's it. I know where the officer is, but not what they're doing - it was self-initiated.

Get there, hop out, and I say "Who?". My partner points, I draw the baton and go after him. He smartly submits to our authority and we detain him. However, had he resisted, I would have gone hands on, knock-down, drag out.

I had zero idea what he had done, what had happened overall, or why my partner even asked for help.

Turns out it was a big fight. But if I show up and another cop is detaining someone, fighting someone, whatever, doesn't matter. We'll figure it out later. Get the situation stabilized and then we'll sort out why things were happening. I have yet to be involved in a situation where another officer asserted authority they did not have.

In conjunction with that, if a supervisor tells me to PIT a car, I'll do it as soon as I can legally do it. I've heard a supervisor say (not mine and not to me) "PIT that car as soon as you can". Normally it's just "PIT is authorized".

If the boss says "Arrest that person", I'll go detain them. If a partner says it, I go detain them. If I say it, I expect them to go do it. There must be a reason. We'll figure that out later. I do not need to generate PC on my own.

Now, obviously there are limits. It's hard to describe them, though. If I came running up and another officer says "Shoot that guy", maybe they're aware of facts I'm not. Maybe it's totally justified...but I still need to justify it myself. Every situation is different (as MM4L said...also just putting my own words out there, he has some excellent points and argues them well).

[NorCalBusa]

Good stuff!

Here's another; you write a case and feel pretty good about it going to warrant. A boss doesn't agree, has ya make some changes. You do, boss looks it over and doesn't think it will fly. Can the boss stop the process and not send it on to the DA? What do you do? Let it go? Throw a penalty flag? I'd likely go talk to some guys I respect and ask see if they agree on the merit, what oif they agree with me- now what? (Not trying to sound like an oral board, but in business- this kind of stuff happens too).

[5MARY4]

Supervisors generally want to help the Officer make their case. Remember, a Sgt. is a former Officer with, more than likely, years more experience than the average patrol Officer. Sergeants have more or less-been there done that. They know what a DA is looking for in a report in order to make it a prosecutable case. Often times they will point out items that may be missing from a report that need to be added prior to shipping it off to the DA. I have never seen a Sgt. round file a report because the elements were not there. That is the DA's job.

I have knowingly forwarded shit cases to the DA knowing they would round file them. I did my job by documenting the incident. I've even made phone calls to DA's in an effort to have them NOT prosecute a case. I have no dog in the hunt. I am here to report the facts of the case,,, period. However, if a case has serious issues with it, an Officer better make damn sure the DA knows about it BEFORE the decision to prosecute is made. If the case is crap,, well then the case is crap. The DA will see it as crap (hopefully). If not, and the DA decides to prosecute on a crap case, I'll probably end up being a better witness for the defense. The facts are the facts. Let the cards fall where they may...

With all this being said,, I have NEVER seen a Sgt. think it's NOT a good idea to take paper on a call.

[motorman4life]

Good stuff!

Here's another; you write a case and feel pretty good about it going to warrant. A boss doesn't agree, has ya make some changes. You do, boss looks it over and doesn't think it will fly. Can the boss stop the process and not send it on to the DA? What do you do? Let it go? Throw a penalty flag? I'd likely go talk to some guys I respect and ask see if they agree on the merit, what oif they agree with me- now what? (Not trying to sound like an oral board, but in business- this kind of stuff happens too).If I write a case, if my boss kicks it back, he is trying to help me out, not shitcan the case.. if they think the case is lacking and the DA will dump it, if they see there is something I could do to salvage the case, maybe more follow-up or having some evidence tested, then they may hold-up the case so those things can be done to bolster the case. If they think the case is weak and for some reason, wanted it to fail, then they would just send it through as-is and let the DA dump it.

I have had cases go over and get dumped and I called the DA and asked what they wanted to see to make the case "solid" in their eyes. Then we go get what they want and re-submit it. Not a big deal. Sometimes, what is needed is not from us, but it turns out THEY need to file the case and subpoena documents (phone records, medical reports) or other exidence (video tapes) to make their case. I must admit, these DDA's don't always think it through. Often they are just skimming through stacks of cases, looking for the best ones and rejecting the rest once the stack has been picked over. Or at least it seems that way.

[NorCalBusa]

Are you guys notified when the DA round files a case?(or do you have to look into it)? Or do you wonder why you haven't been subpoena'd after 6 months or something...and go find out.

[5MARY4]

With our cases, we submit a DA cover sheet. That sheet is returned to us with the disposition of the case and any comments from the DA.

[motorman4life]

We get the DA's copy of the case back with a cover sheet. The sheet eiter has reject checked or a request for follow-up and they list whatever questions they have or what they need to have done before the case can be resubmitted.

Often, it seems the follow-up they request was clearly addressed in the report, so I'm guessing that they are merely skimming the report. I have actually sent back follow-up that answered each of their questions with "refer to page __, line(s) ____" for every single question or request in their follow-up (like 10 or 12 items).

[NorCalBusa]

So if ya notice a particular Assistant/Dep Dist Attorney bouncing cases like Skittles- is there a process for the uh, "coaching opportunity"?