Law Enforcement Officer's Act

Locked
User avatar
Conti
Retired Administrator
Retired Administrator
Posts: 2510
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:49 am
Location: United States of America

Law Enforcement Officer's Act

Post by Conti » Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:58 am

Law Enforcement Officer Act of San Andreas


The Law Enforcement Officer Act of San Andreas covers the Bill of Rights and statutes an officer is applicable to. It is implicated that the administrative units in charge obey the act, maintain a logical system and provide guidance to officers.

Garrity warning
Garrity Rights protect public employees from being compelled to incriminate themselves during investigatory interviews conducted by their employers. This protection stems from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which declares that the government cannot compel a person to be a witness against him/herself. (— Garrity Rights)

Investigators have to notify the interviewee in interviews or questionings about the Garrity warning before it is actively conducted, which is as follows:
“You are being asked to provide information as part of an internal and 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. You understand that you must now answer questions specifically, directly and narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or your fitness for office. If you refuse to answer, you may be subject to discipline for that refusal which can result in a termination of employment from this agency. You have the right to consult a representative in form of a senior officers and have him or her present during the interview.”

Miranda warning
The Miranda warning is a police warning which is given to criminal suspects (in this scenario a law enforcement officer who criminalized himself under the color of law), who are in the custody of law enforcement in the United States before they can ask questions regarding what took place during the crime.

Investigators have to notify the interviewee in an interrogation about the Miranda warning before it is actively conducted, which needs to cover following:
That they have the right to remain silent;
That anything the officer does say can and will be used against them;
That they have the right to have an attorney present before and during the questioning;
That they have the right, if they cannot afford the services of an attorney, to have one appointed, at public expense and without cost to them, to represent them before and during the questioning.


Summary
  • Law enforcement officers shall, if disciplinary action is expected, be notified of the investigation, the nature of the alleged violation, and be notified of the conclusion of the investigation.
  • Questioning of a law enforcement officer should be conducted for a reasonable length of time and preferably while the officer is on duty unless exigent circumstances apply.
  • Questioning of the law enforcement officer should take place at the offices of those conducting the investigation or at the place where the officer reports to work, unless the officer consents to another location.
  • Law enforcement officers may be questioned by as few investigators as possible at a time, and he or she shall be informed of the name, rank, and command of the officer in charge of conducting the interview.
  • Law enforcement officers who are being interviewed or questioned may request a senior officer or other officer who is experienced and familiar with the interviewee to be his guardian (counsel) who may be present at the interview.
  • Law enforcement officers who are being interrogated (possibly subject to criminal charges) may request a lawyer or a counsel who may be present at the interrogation.
  • Law enforcement officers cannot be threatened, harassed, or promised rewards to induce the answering of any question.
  • Law enforcement officers shall have the opportunity to comment in writing on any adverse materials placed in his or her personnel file; this includes but is not limited additional commendatory on disciplinary actions, update of their private information sequel, demotions, and more.
  • Law enforcement officers cannot be subject to retaliation for the exercise of these or any other rights under Federal, State, or local law in case of interviews turning into interrogations.
  • An investigating officer, no matter of his position, rank or authority, can not ignore the law or bend it for his benefits. This also includes any regulations, rules, protocols or rank authority his or her agency has in place. An investigator has no right or probable cause to persistently target an individual officer without no preset goal or matters. (( Warrants cannot be executed without correct process, e.g. getting an authorization from the correct ends, or placing wiretaps, tracers and similar tools without any actual reason or need for a specific investigation. If however an investigating officer keeps tabs on another officer for questionable reasons or awaiting extensively long until he makes a mistake, then the investigating officer may face charges in fashion of harassment and/or stalking. ))
  • (( LEOs are not currently entitled to view any original internal investigative files. Such disclosure of these documents would be at the discretion of the respective division heads. However reasons why an officer is disciplined will be disclosed by a letter and must be explained generously. ))

User avatar
Conti
Retired Administrator
Retired Administrator
Posts: 2510
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:49 am
Location: United States of America

Re: Law Enforcement Officer's Act

Post by Conti » Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:59 am

Laos_Macen wrote:((There seems to be some confusion about the language and interpretation of the LEO Act and the idea of the Garrity Warning. I have been in close contact with the judges and other parties throughout this trial and I want to throw in my final two cents as an OOC addendum to this precedent for the sake of simplicity and to prevent some concerns that were created during this trial.

The LEO Act and concept of the Garrity Warning is a written extension of the 5th amendment that closes the loophole that a cop, as an agent of the state, can incriminate himself through his status as a voice of the state even if it means he is indicting himself. The garrity warning is a safety that requires IAD and authorities within factions to notify a cop if his own testimony or actions as part of police activities - whether an investigation or otherwise - can be used to indict him criminally. Criminally means jail time and fines, etc related to the Penal Code of San Andreas.

This scenario involed internal faction politics. It is not the responsibility or interests of the Courts to micro manage or even have power over the internal politics of factions like the PD and SD - they are independently operated for that same logic and reasoning. The mayor doesn't pick the chief of police and we don't run like RL - we run what makes the game fun and the faction system is much more clan-like than it is akin to a real life government system. This will never change.

That said, I want to make clear people should not contact the courts when they are a member of the PD or SD and disagree with the actions of their superiors internally. Please contact head of factions who will then handle it or look to other OOC offices like the Governor's Office for input.

This also extends to the concept of investigations in general by IAD with members of the faction. Unfortunately we all have busy lives and cannot be in game 24 hours a day. IC communications via PM and such are, by OOC precedent, perfectly fine. Warmonkey's interpretation is based on the LEO Act which is being OOCly updated to address these inconsistencies. His judgement is not wrong - in fact it's very accurate to my own personal interpretation. It simply is that the LEO Act needs adjustment, which i will be doing as the head of Government Managment OOCly, not through the courts.

Thanks for everyone who took part in this trial and a special thanks to Delanto, Fitzy and Warmonkey to stressing as the chairing judges for this case in the past few weeks))

User avatar
Conti
Retired Administrator
Retired Administrator
Posts: 2510
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:49 am
Location: United States of America

Re: Law Enforcement Officer's Act

Post by Conti » Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:36 am

Nullified by the PSRA.
Retired Game Administrator
Retired Head of Government Management
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Goodman, Lieutenant Governor Emeritus
Hon. Anthony Guidone, Attorney General Emeritus
Lieutenant II Mark Conti, Los Santos Police Department (RET.)

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest