I’m not sure why you say this. I really don’t know what I have posted that is not in line with the law and constitution.
I’ve had excellent experiences with cops too. I know a couple police officers, and have had them as acquaintances.
That doesn’t mean that I trust all cops.
People don’t know their rights as well as you think, and even if they do, they don’t know how to stand up for them, and even if they do, then it is the cop’s word against theirs.
I’ve mostly stayed away from the drug scene myself, for many reasons, but given my demographics, many of my peers and prior co-workers do get involved in such activities. Yes, police will try to trick you into giving up your rights, whether it be just on your person, your car, or your home.
But I think Bone’s point is that just because you think one thing about cops, doesn’t mean that others who don’t think your way are incapable of making a sound judgment.
Of course I’m not saying that and I don’t see how anything I’ve said would lead you to believe that, especially the quoted part. Police are people and people sometimes lie. Whether or not police lie doesn’t change the assessment in any way.
Because you say you’d support a prohibition on police asking for voluntary cooperation. That’s pretty far afield of where we are today - your view of the law as it should be. I’m not saying this is what you believe the law actually is.
Other than that, I think I’ve exhausted the points I wanted to make. I don’t think AB450 is good law, and I’ll be glad if it is overturned. For now, the status quo is in your favor.
That’s strange because it limits the freedom of Doctors to freely give out information about their patients. Aren’t you against that limiting of freedom?
I do think that the police have no reason not to lie to get you to comply with what they want you to do. If there are people out there that do not think that cops ever lie in order to manipulate people into doing what they want, then I would say that those people are poorly informed and therefore, can be taken advantage of.
I am not sure if that is what you are calling “incapable of making a sound judgement”. If so, then I quibble with the accuracy and the emotional pleading of the specific construction of such a statement, but otherwise agree.
If not, then I disagree entirely that I feel that those who do not thing “my way” are any less capable of making any and all judgments to which they have adequate information and the time and resources to research and make a reasoned decision. When LEO agents are demanding voluntary compliance it is not often that they give you those things.
You said that my view of police is unreasonable. My view of police is that they will do what they need to do in order to get their jobs done.
On a good day, that doesn’t involve them actually breaking any laws themselves, and I will stick with that assumption for the purposes of this discussion, as those who are willing to break the law aren’t going to be deterred by laws anyway.
But it is not breaking the law for a cop to lie to an individual. It is not against the law for a cop to lie not only about the elements of a crime, and it is not against the law for a cop to lie about what your rights during the interaction. It is not against the law for the cop to threaten legal punishment for things that are not crimes, and it is not against the law for a cop to offer a plea deal that he has no authority to offer.
One thing that is against the law is for a police officer to request that you break the law.
I’d rather make a law that forbids police from coercing “voluntary cooperation”, but I’m not sure how that would work.
I think that AB450 is not only a good law, it is a law that should serve as a template for reducing the ability for LEO agents to coerce cooperation in many other areas as well.
HD has said that he is interested in promoting such restrictions against federal agencies in his state, and I thoroughly encourage him to do so.
I did not say that you would go to jail for violating AB450. I said that if jail was the consequence of bringing my sister’s rapist to justice, it is a consequence I would accept.
Just to be clear, I think it’s a shitty (and probably soon-to-be-overturned) law, and represents a shitty way to run a country, but if it turns out that that’s the way we’re going to run the country from now on, I’ll play by those rules in my state too.
We could probably throw in some similar exemptions in AB450 for when a time-critical criminal investigation urgently needs to know how many of a businesses’ employees have the right to work in the U.S. I’m sure that comes up a lot. In fact, I’m shuddering thinking of the number of potential serial killers going free in California because it’s now slightly more difficult for ICE agents to casually browse employment records.
Did you see where I pointed out that they cannot just violate HIPAA to provide evidence of a crime? That those restrictions are very narrow?
I just don’t see what benefit there is in people voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement agencies when those agencies are looking for incriminating information against them. The only reason that I could see someone cooperating is when they do not believe they have a choice, whether that is because they don’t know their rights, or they know that their rights aren’t worth anything when it comes to persistent LEO’s.
The only reason you would invite ICE in to examine your premises and documents is to “prove” that you have nothing to hide. If you have to prove you have nothing to hide, then anyone who does not volunteer to have extra scrutiny looks like they have something to hide. That is specifically what I am against, and it is what I see this law addresses.
I am curious as to what other federal agencies you are thinking of that would operate in a similar manner. I do not believe that there are many agencies that would use such similar techniques as ICE as to be blocked by a similar bill.
You have argued that prohibiting voluntary cooperation with authorities in some circumstances is beneficial because it strengthens the hand for anyone who may be pressured to give voluntary consent to certain searches.
I don’t think this quibble is worth delving into, but I’m sure you would agree that if one is being pressured, caving to the pressure would not be using sound judgment as to the request. I’m saying that the law should not prevent people from using sound judgment, which I would think you’d agree people are capable of if there is no threat of harassment or coercion.
I understand totally what you’re saying, and I’m basically reinforcing it. The other poster accused me making an error that AB450 has criminal penalties. That criticism was off base because you and I were clearly talking about some other hypothetical law that would have criminal penalties associated, and the other poster simply wasn’t following our train of conversation.
Yes, I’m not sure we share the same definition of “very narrow”. It’s not unlimited, but it’s not so restrictive as to effectively prohibit voluntary cooperation with law enforcement, which is what your earlier statement suggested.
By “operate in a similar manner” and “use such similar techniques” are you meaning things like “ask to step into your office” or “ask for information”? Most law enforcement agencies will routinely ask for consent. Earlier I think I called it “mundane”. It’s incredibly common. It happens every single day, in all 50 states (probably hundreds of thousands or millions of times each day).
How do you determine when there is or is not harassment and coercion?
I would say that if a LEO is asking for something that he needs a warrant to demand, that’s a request.
If he asks twice, or in any way indicates that there would be consequences for not complying, that’s coercion and harassment.
(Both definitions are not intended to be legal definitions, but the rather the more colloquial definition, and the definition that matters for how people react to being coerced and harrassed.)
Yeah, sorry, I was reinforcing what you said, as well. It did seem as though he missed something somewhere in the exchange, and made an assumption that one or both of us was indicating that jail was a potential penalty for violating AB450.
I think it depends on the circumstances. If a LEO asks for access a few times, and then says something like, “I won’t be happy if you say no again!” I would not call that harassment.
If there’s something more substantial, like maybe following the business owner home, late night phone calls, or things like that, I think we are crossing into harassment. And once we get into pulling the business owner over and detaining them for “you didn’t stop at that sign,” now we are clearly talking harassment.
I don’t know how my opinion squares with the actual law, but that’s my general opinion.
Yes, it is. The only time it can be given is under those very specific circumstances, which does effectively prohibit voluntary cooperation. It is only if the there is a serious and imminent threat, or the crime is against the actual healthcare provider or premises that the can turn over that information, and that, only what is specifically needed as evidence for that crime.
That’s pretty narrow. If the police ask about pretty much anything else, the healthcare providers may not respond. If they are asking, “Hey, we know that the serial killer last night cut his hand on the window, did this patient have a cut on his hand?” They may only respond with, “We can only provide personal health information of a patient in response to a warrant.”
You were talking about federal agencies like BLM and BATFE (talk about government expansion, I remember when that was a three letter agency), and I don’t know exactly what sorts of things they enforce or their techniques.
If they are going to private individuals or businesses, and putting pressure on them to turn over things that they may not demand without a warrant, then I would absolutely agree that a similar law would protect the people of your state from law enforcement overreach.
If there are laws that require people to cooperate with those agencies, or if those agencies have warrants for the information they request, that’s a whole different matter.
(e) This subdivision shall not apply to voluntary consent provided to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records when an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, in good faith believes the employee records contain evidence of criminal activity that occurred on the premises of the employer’s place of business, or to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of an individual or the public.
I would certainly call that coercion.
The legal definition
is a bit more in line with your opinion than mine, but it doesn’t require that the behavior continue off premises. If they are unwanted and come into your business regularly, that’s harassment.
My personal opinion is that it becomes harassment after the first time you indicate that you will not cooperate with them, and they continue to ask anyway.
(e) This subdivision shall not apply to voluntary consent provided to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records when an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, in good faith believes the employee records contain evidence of a violation of immigration law that occurred on the premises of the employer’s place of business.
Ugh, no. Absolutely no reason ICE couldn’t get a warrant in those circumstances, if the employee’s good faith belief had anything to support it. I don’t see any need for urgency here, either.