4 ms·

I don't get the logic. When executing a warrent is the 4th amendment the only law that must be followed? If I murder someone while executing a warrent, is it un

I don't get the logic. When executing a warrent is the 4th amendment the only law that must be followed? If I murder someone while executing a warrent, is it unclear whether I broke the law, because the court has never declared that murder violates the 4th amendment?

lsiebert 6y ago
This is a civil rights lawsuit, not a criminal case.
- pas 6y ago
  How come the officer isn't charged with theft/larceny?
  - TheMagicHorsey 6y ago
    Because the district attorney would have to bring those charges, and he doesn't want to, because it's his homies.
    - pas 6y ago
      Tough on crime, as long as it wasn't perpetrated by mah buddies in blu?
    - thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
      Which is interesting given his civil defense was “you can’t sue me because I stole the money from the police department/city not you”.
tehwebguy 6y ago
I mean, that's why this is in the news right now. Yes, this one cop has now been charged, but it's not the norm.
gowld 6y ago
The theory is that the coins were legally seized, then illegally stolen by the police officer. So the crime is theft (and various other things relating to a police officer stealing from "the system", like abuse of office), but not an illegal seizure.
- antishatter 6y ago
  Ah but if the defendant is later found innocent or charges dropped, who is sued to recover the property? The police officer or the department. Presumably the department because deeper pockets etc.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    But from what I understand the department doesn't have the allegedly stolen property - the officers themselves do. Which is why the (innocent, I might add) individuals are left without recourse for action undertaken by government agents.
    - Enginerrrd 6y ago
      Certainly in many other contexts, the parent organization has been found responsible for negligent or illegal behavior by their employee for civil damages. That's one of the reasons for drug testing and background checks.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    The police department is also the party who was legally responsible for those goods at the time, so obviously the defendant's case would be against the police department. The department is the one who was wronged by the officer, so they are the ones who have cause against him personally.
    - nybble41 6y ago
      The defendants could make a reasonable case against both the officer who stole the property out of police custody and the police department that failed to protect it. The former for theft and failure to return the property to its owner, and the latter for negligence. I believe the term is "jointly and severally liable"? The police department has its own separate claim against the officer, of course, for the costs they have incurred (separate from the value of the stolen property, which wasn't theirs to begin with) as a result of the officer's actions.

lsiebert 6y ago

This is a civil rights lawsuit, not a criminal case.

pas 6y ago
How come the officer isn't charged with theft/larceny?
- TheMagicHorsey 6y ago
  Because the district attorney would have to bring those charges, and he doesn't want to, because it's his homies.
  - pas 6y ago
    Tough on crime, as long as it wasn't perpetrated by mah buddies in blu?
  - thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
    Which is interesting given his civil defense was “you can’t sue me because I stole the money from the police department/city not you”.

tehwebguy 6y ago

I mean, that's why this is in the news right now. Yes, this one cop has now been charged, but it's not the norm.

gowld 6y ago

The theory is that the coins were legally seized, then illegally stolen by the police officer. So the crime is theft (and various other things relating to a police officer stealing from "the system", like abuse of office), but not an illegal seizure.

antishatter 6y ago
Ah but if the defendant is later found innocent or charges dropped, who is sued to recover the property? The police officer or the department. Presumably the department because deeper pockets etc.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  But from what I understand the department doesn't have the allegedly stolen property - the officers themselves do. Which is why the (innocent, I might add) individuals are left without recourse for action undertaken by government agents.
  - Enginerrrd 6y ago
    Certainly in many other contexts, the parent organization has been found responsible for negligent or illegal behavior by their employee for civil damages. That's one of the reasons for drug testing and background checks.
- Talanes 6y ago
  The police department is also the party who was legally responsible for those goods at the time, so obviously the defendant's case would be against the police department. The department is the one who was wronged by the officer, so they are the ones who have cause against him personally.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    The defendants could make a reasonable case against both the officer who stole the property out of police custody and the police department that failed to protect it. The former for theft and failure to return the property to its owner, and the latter for negligence. I believe the term is "jointly and severally liable"? The police department has its own separate claim against the officer, of course, for the costs they have incurred (separate from the value of the stolen property, which wasn't theirs to begin with) as a result of the officer's actions.