Ok, I see what you’re arguing here, and thank you for clarifying. I thought you were still talking about the point you made earlier, that your banks and so on have advised you that sharing personnel information is not a good idea, and therefore you assumed it was illegal. I see your point here that you support such information being protected generally, even though in this case it is a rather limited set of circumstances being dealt with.
Then I would contact a lawyer.
Oh, do we get to add on new facts to hypothetical scenarios? Then let’s say this employee who insulted the cop also raped my sister, and I believed my sister’s allegations. You still want to prohibit me from volunteering information to the police about someone who works for me, but I think raped my sister?
The business owner can fall back on his property rights.
And these agencies that come in and ask for “voluntary” cooperation with their investigations?
If that is the case, then I absolutely agree.
If what they are doing is following the laws that the operate under, along with properly served warrants under due process, then what exactly are you looking to change?
If cooperation is mandatory, as it is with the IRS, and I assume from what you said ATF, then are you saying that they should change it so that it no longer is?
As far as BLM and EPA, I have no idea what their investigation system is, or how it operates, so I can offer no opinion, other than that if they operate largely under a “voluntary consent” system, then that should no longer be.
You need to be more specific. What specific actions of theirs currently require your voluntary cooperation, which you think other people should be prevented from providing?
Yeah, sworn law enforcement officers can ruin people’s lives through their own ineptitude. I wouldn’t answer questions a federal agent asked me without my lawyer present, but I’d happily chat with some random guy on the street.
Nothing “requires” voluntary cooperation. Nothing in California “required” voluntary cooperation either. It’s just that before AB450 it was allowed. I’m proposing that if California’s nutty scheme is allowed to stand, I’ll work to prohibit voluntary cooperation with various federal agencies in my state.
I am going to continue to assume that sharing it with “random people” is illegal. If I published my employee’s personal details on the internet, I’ve gotta be breaking some laws. If not, there should be some laws I am breaking.
And what is a lawyer going to do?
You are welcome to divulge any information that you have about what you witnessed, what your sister told you, even what the employee may have said about it.
What I would prohibit is that you give the police personal employment information without a warrant.
You are raising the nature of the infraction from working without proper paperwork to a serial murderer or a rape of your sister in order to make an emotional plea.
If someone raped my sister, and I could help the police, I would turn over whatever info I could, even if that was illegal and I ended up in jail. If you are trying to make this about emotional pleas, are you saying that fear of legal punishment would prevent you from helping LEO catch your sister’s rapist?
Rights that the federal agents are coercing him into giving up.
When they say “Why won’t you let us take a look around, if you have nothing to hide?” The response “Property rights.” is not going to get you anything.
Well, I’d prefer that leo not pressure people into giving up their rights, but that’s a story for another thread.
As long as they do, then yeah, some measures to protect the public from those who are supposed to protect the public is appropriate.
You are perfectly free to assume that statutes require the application of common sense under penalty of law, but I do not make such an assumption.
Do their magic law-talkin’ thing where they insist that if they want to talk to you, they must do it through your attorney.
You concocted a fanciful scenario as a Hail Mary to make a reasonable situation into an unreasonable one. Now you complain that adding more “facts” to the scenario is unfair? I say, “HA!” Nay, I say “HA-HA-HA!”
I’m saying that you shouldn’t end up in jail for such things. See, I’m trying to save you from resorting to a life of crime.
Rest easy–AB450 doesn’t apply criminal penalties. If you’re that desperate to share other people’s personal information, then go ahead. Worst case, you’ll get a fine.
If you say so. I will look into it later, but I am very surprised that publishing my employee’s name, address, phone number, email address, rate of pay, tax withholding statuses, insurance plans, SSN#, bank routing and account numbers to a public venue would be legal.
You know that only works on TV shows, right?
Harassment has very specific criteria (that do change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction), and as long as they are not visiting more often than the rules call for harassment (often it’s once every other day), your lawyer is just a very expensive was of hearing “There’s nothing I can do.”
No, you created a hypothetical. I did not concoct it. You scenario was that the police told you that your employee is a serial killer. It is not all that fanciful or unreasonable to say that they lie.
Your hypothetical was quite unlikely in the first place. To be honest, it is far more likely that the cops are lying to you than that you know a serial killer.
Your hypothetical was meant to invoke an emotional response. People working without proper documentation doesn’t really get the same visceral reaction as serial killer. And that’s because they are not the same thing at all. You are having to elevate a minor infraction into a capital crime.
If you think that your neighbor is a rapist, so you break into his house and find evidence of such, I think that you are morally on the right side, but legally not so much.
Sometimes you have to decide between what is right and what is legal.
Have you not actually had any interaction with LEO? They don’t take “take a hike” well.
Have you heard the joke – I think it is Woody Allen’s – about the odds of a bomb being on a plane are a million to one… and the odds of two bombs being on a plane are a million times a million to one. So next time you fly, cut the odds and take a bomb.
The odds of me employing a serial killer times the odds that the police are lying about it are the million time a million to one. So no, I don’t take any of your add-ons to my hypothetical seriously. More importantly, I take your scenario less seriously than you take mine, and that’s saying something.
There is “covered entity in good faith believes to be evidence of a crime that occurred on the premises of the covered entity.” but that is only if the crime is against the health provider or premises, and the only evidence that is turned over is what is deemed in good faith to be evidence about that specific crime.
A bit different and much more specific from “reporting evidence of a crime”.
Also in the quote box: you saying not to assume criminal penalties apply. Good news: AB450 doesn’t apply criminal penalties. (What with AB450 being the topic of discussion, that seems relevant).
Well, you made your hypothetical so outlandish that it is hard to really deal with.
I have been lied to by cops. A bunch of times. And they were lying specifically in order to get me to give up information on people or to incriminate myself.
You are claiming that cops lying is as unlikely as employing a serial killer. You have far more faith in LEO than I do.
I am not sure what you mean on the second part, the “odds of me employing a serial killer times the odds that the police are lying about it”, as we are not talking about you employing a serial killer, just that the police are lying about it. There is no multiplication there, it’s just, what are the odds that the police lie to me?
A more reasonable scenario is that they come in accusing your employee of a much lessor crime. And it is still likely that they will lie to you.
I think your view of police and law enforcement is impacting your positions in a way that is unreasonable. You’re views on the 4th amendment and the law as it should be are not in line with current jurisprudence - not even close. You’re welcome to it of course, but it doesn’t match my experience at all. And beyond anecdote, refusal to cooperate or grant consent is pretty widely known bar for law enforcement. The entire jurisprudence around consent, search, fruit of the poisoned tree, etc. is the evidence.