From my neck of the woods...3rd Amendment lawsuit.

[Dan F]

Here is an article from the American Bar Association Journal that addresses some of the issues this thread is discussing.

In particular the article discusses the ramifications of the "militarization" of police forces, and their accountability (or lack thereof).

Personally, I'm actually as concerned or more about a police raid stemming from bad information as I am about some random burglar breaking in. More, because if I shoot in the former case the likelihood of my survival is almost nil, but I'm actually optimistic about my chances with the burglar.

[KyJim]

ABA Journal article already discussed in this thread --- http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=528194

[Conn. Trooper]

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/22799...ndment-lawsuit

There is a lot more to this story.

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by Conn Trooper

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/22799...ndment-lawsuit
There is a lot more to this story.

Thanks for the link, CT. How valid are police reports in a criminal or civil trial? Do they hold as much weight as, say, forensic evidence?

I ask because of this section from your link:

According to police reports obtained by FOX5 on Tuesday, both Michael and Anthony Mitchell had been in contact with the barricaded suspect on that day, alerting him to police activities.

The reports further indicate Anthony Mitchell refused orders from SWAT to vacate his house, instead putting on a ballistic vest and loading ammunition into a rifle magazine.

If a "report" is just some policeman inputting his hunches / suspicions into a database so the next detective on the case can come up to speed on the previous detective's mindset, then I would think they're not worth much in a court, but if they're the same as sworn testimony they would have a lot more weight.

[csmsss]

Police officers put all kinds of interesting things in their reports. Sometimes those interesting things vanish when the officer is directly questioned under oath (whether in a deposition or court testimony).

It's highly unlikely that a police report alone would be entered into evidence and no testimony from the officers involved would be taken to bolster/refute it.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by speedrrracer

...If a "report" is just some policeman inputting his hunches / suspicions into a database so the next detective on the case can come up to speed on the previous detective's mindset, then I would think they're not worth much in a court, but if they're the same as sworn testimony they would have a lot more weight.

First, a report is part of written documentation of who, what, when, where, and how. The purposes of writing reports are to (1) create a permanent record of what happened, what was seen and heard, what was done, etc., and all other material facts and details instead of leaving such to the vagaries of memory; and (2) make the information available and useful to others. A properly written report should clearly and complete document, without editorial comment, facts. It could also contain impressions, opinions and conclusions properly identified as such.

A police report will rarely be admissible as evidence in court. The officers involved will need to personally testify. When an officer is testifying, a report he wrote could be used to refresh his recollection (or to impugn his testimony). A report might also be used to show state of mind.

But a police report is hearsay and may only be used under the various exceptions to the general rule that hearsay is not admissible.

[rwilson452]

as I recall police report are written after the fact thus no admissible. A journal written as It happens is admissible. But that was some years ago and my memory could be faulty.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by rwilson452

...as I recall police report are written after the fact thus no admissible...

Nope, that's not the reason.

Originally Posted by rwilson452

....A journal written as It happens is admissible....

Nope. The journal would be hearsay and therefore admissible only under an exception to the hearsay rule -- just like the report.

[allaroundhunter]

Frank, if an officer is called to testify (say the one who wrote the report), and then went completely against what he wrote in his report, would he have committed perjury?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by allaroundhunter

...if an officer is called to testify (say the one who wrote the report), and then went completely against what he wrote in his report, would he have committed perjury?...

1. There's really no way to answer that sort of a vague questions. The details matter.
   
   
2. This is getting off topic, so this digression ends here.

[MLeake]

Frank, I don't think it is off-topic.

I think allaroundhunter is suggesting that the police reports included the claims about the Mitchells as a CYA move against possible repercussions for police actions in the case.

I think he is asking what additional penalties might attach, should this prove to have been the case; and I think he is asking what, if any, standard of proof would be applied to the report beyond the testimony of the officer in court - considering the officer would be one of the defendants in a civil suit.

[Conn. Trooper]

As others have posted, testimony counts. I have used my reports to refresh my memory, but my testimony is what counts. However, I swear to my reports when I sign them. The form we submit has an oath on the bottom that I am swearing to the accuracy and content of the report when I sign it.

I did not believe any part of this story from the very start. It is probably the most bizarre thing I have ever read. None of the complaint made any sense. Just very strange from start to finish. I will be very curious to see how this shakes out. Very odd.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by MLeake

...I think allaroundhunter is suggesting that the police reports included the claims about the Mitchells as a CYA move against possible repercussions for police actions in the case.

I think he is asking what additional penalties might attach, should this prove to have been the case;...

There is no basis for any such discussion other than assumption, supposition and guess work. So we're not going to go there.

[alan]

Spats McGee wrote:

Wow. I know what the 3A is, but I can't recall ever hearing of another suit filed under it.

I have no good idea as to how this case will end, I suspect "settlement" with the payment of some amount of money in the offing.

Otherwise, re Spats's comment, there is a first time for everything. Al Norris had an interesting post on this matter too.

[maestro pistolero]

Some questions to ponder:

1. Was there any analog to the present day police force at the time of ratification?

2. Does present day law enforcement substantially occupy any role of founding era soldiers (i.e. to quell unrest, put down insurrections, etc.?

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

1. Was there any analog to the present day police force at the time of ratification?

How far can you stretch the definition of 'analog', and the various duties of the present-day police? There's the US Marshals, they've been around since 1789, and according to the wiki, they were involved in police-like activities such as manhunts.

2. Does present day law enforcement substantially occupy any role of founding era soldiers (i.e. to quell unrest, put down insurrections, etc.?

I'm not sure quelling unrest was ever a duty of founding-era soldiers, but if it was, then I think we can all agree on the quelling unrest part -- just look at the police in the aftermath of the GZ verdict. They're all over the place, and their bosses are on every radio station, calling for calm and warning that violent acts will be treated very seriously.

Again, the police --> soldiers conversion doesn't seem like a legal stretch, but quartering? I don't see how that requirement could ever be satisfied (from what little I've read of this case).

[maestro pistolero]

There may be other areas of overlap in function, purpose, and duty between founding era soldiers and modern LE . . . or not. I just think it's an interesting area of inquiry if one has a case attempting to resurrect the 3rd amendment.

We know federal troops cannot ordinarily be compelled to fire on US citizens, but I doubt that LE would be restricted from quelling an external threat such as a terrorist attack.

That LE is involved and integrated to whatever extent in homeland security, anti-terrorism etc., would seem relevant to any argument that the 3rd amendment applies to LE.

[JimDandy]

You folk might way to check out Post #24 where I did some of the research on this. Both a little on soldiers vs police, as well as recent case history. There has been at least one, and probably at most 1 3A case.