# Can someone justify this behavior? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 2, 2017, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288 "2017-09-02T01:16:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2017, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/121 "2017-09-03T21:51:48Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > They changed their policy to conform with _the actual fucking law_? Is that correct? Yeah, basically. > [@kayaker](#): > > And so wrong. ☹ Yeah, this too. They shouldn’t have had to change their policies in the first place. They should have been following the law right from the start and should have been on the same page as the hospital. In fact, the hospital assumed they had an agreement with the police department that the police had signed off on. It’s part of the nurses’ job to be familiar with the law. It’s a shame the cops weren’t familiar with it, too. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2017, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/122 "2017-09-03T21:53:15Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Doesn’t matter. Ignorance of the law is not a defense in court. Isn’t it fairly established case law that police can get away with all manner of depredations if they can but convince the judge that they “thought” they were acting properly? ISTM I see cases like that a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2017, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/123 "2017-09-03T21:59:30Z")
> [@Claude\_Remains](#): > > “color of law”? Please expound upon this. IAAL. A short and simple definition of color of law (sometimes called “color of right”) would be the following: Believing you have the lawful right to do something; when in fact, you do not. So, in the matter being discussed, “The officer arrested the nurse under color of law,” translates to, “The officer believed he could lawfully arrest the nurse, and he did so, but he was ignorant of the fact that arresting the nurse wasn’t actually lawful.” Does that help? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2017, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/124 "2017-09-03T22:21:44Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > IAAL. A short and simple definition of color of law (sometimes called “color of right”) would be the following: > > Believing you have the lawful right to do something; when in fact, you do not. > > So, in the matter being discussed, “The officer arrested the nurse under color of law,” translates to, “The officer believed he could lawfully arrest the nurse, and he did so, but he was ignorant of the fact that arresting the nurse wasn’t actually lawful.” > > Does that help? Not a lawyer here, but can’t “color of law” be done with full knowledge that the act is unlawful, but they claim it is? Your definition seems to suggest that the bad actor’s ignorance is an important element of the crime. ---
**Author:** ![erysichthon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@erysichthon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erysichthon)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2017, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/125 "2017-09-03T22:48:49Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > The unconscious driver was struck by another driver the cops were pursuing. So they were a victim, not a suspect. > > Why did the cop want their blood? Maybe to find something wrong with them, that the cops could use to get off the hook. It sounds to me like standard CYA behavior. The police are likely to get sued if an innocent person is injured or killed during a high-speed chase. The blood might give them a card to play if that happens—i.e., “if that guy had been sober, he would have gotten out of the way.” I’m wondering how many police agencies have unwritten, _sub rosa_ policies about this. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2017, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/126 "2017-09-03T22:59:43Z")
> [@erysichthon](#): > > It sounds to me like standard CYA behavior. The police are likely to get sued if an innocent person is injured or killed during a high-speed chase. The blood might give them a card to play if that happens—i.e., “if that guy had been sober, he would have gotten out of the way.” Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2017, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/127 "2017-09-03T23:02:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Not a lawyer here, but can’t “color of law” be done with full knowledge that the act is unlawful, but they claim it is? Not in my view. It seems to me that we should file this one under _wilful blindness_: “I know what I’m doing is wrong, but I’m going to do it anyway.” If we stop here, we have wilful blindness. Knowledge of the act’s illegality is key in determining wilful blindness. But ignorance takes us into color of law territory. > [@](#): > > Your definition seems to suggest that the bad actor’s ignorance is an important element of the crime. As I said, ignorance is an important element, but it is not the only one. Just as important is the actor’s belief that what he or she is doing is lawful. For example, mopery is perfectly legal in your state. You commit mopery every day; it is part of your routine. You move to another state, get back into your usual routine, and promptly get arrested and charged with mopery. If you knew mopery was illegal in your new state (knowledge), but did it anyway, you are wilfully blind. If you did not know mopery was illegal in your new state (ignorance), but believed that the law was just like back home where mopery was legal (belief), then you were acting under color of law. Of course, ignorance is no defense at any time; and neither is belief. But they can mark the difference between wilfully blind (which is quite serious), and color of law (which is still serious, but not as much as wilful blindness). Can you see the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2017, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/128 "2017-09-03T23:28:18Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > Not in my view. It seems to me that we should file this one under _wilful blindness_: “I know what I’m doing is wrong, but I’m going to do it anyway.” If we stop here, we have wilful blindness. Knowledge of the act’s illegality is key in determining wilful blindness. > > But ignorance takes us into color of law territory. > > As I said, ignorance is an important element, but it is not the only one. Just as important is the actor’s belief that what he or she is doing is lawful. > > For example, mopery is perfectly legal in your state. You commit mopery every day; it is part of your routine. You move to another state, get back into your usual routine, and promptly get arrested and charged with mopery. > > If you knew mopery was illegal in your new state (knowledge), but did it anyway, you are wilfully blind. > > If you did not know mopery was illegal in your new state (ignorance), but believed that the law was just like back home where mopery was legal (belief), then you were acting under color of law. > > Of course, ignorance is no defense at any time; and neither is belief. But they can mark the difference between wilfully blind (which is quite serious), and color of law (which is still serious, but not as much as wilful blindness). Can you see the difference? IANAL, but none of the references I can find make any mention of a restriction to cases of ignorance of the law. According to these articles, the term simply describes actions taken with apparent legal authority. > **[Color (law)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law))** > > In the United States Code, the term color of law describes and defines an official action that has either a “mere semblance of legal right”, or the “pretense of right”, or the “appearance of right”, which adjusts and colors the law to the circumstance, whilst the apparently legal action is itself illegal. In U.S. and U.K. jurisprudence, an action realized under color of law is an act realized by an official as if he or she were authorized to take the apparently legal action not authorized by s Th... > [@](#): > > “Color of law” refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. For example, if a police officer acts with the “color of law” authority to arrest someone, the arrest, if it is made without probable cause, may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the “color of law” does not mean that the action was lawful. > **[Color of Law](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Color+of+Law)** > > Definition of Color of Law in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary > [@](#): > > The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/129 "2017-09-04T06:14:00Z")
From one of the [early articles](http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/01/health/utah-nurse-arrest-police-video/index.html) in CNN. > [@](#): > > Since the incident, Wubbels and her attorney said they have met with the city and police department to encourage them to reeducate their officers about the policy. > > But Porter said they were not encouraged by their discussions with the University of Utah police and the Department of Public Safety, which provides security for the hospital. Officers from both departments were present for the arrest and did nothing to stop it, she said. > > Wubbels said the lack of “forward progress” they felt in those meetings spurred them to come forward this week with the body camera footage. I mentioned this in the Pit thread but I used to work for campus security when I was a student, and worked closely with the University Police Department. We were part of the Department of Public Safety, so our lieutenant reported to the captain of the police department. Hospital security was a sister organization of ours with their own bosses. My sister worked a police dispatcher. Unfortunately, I think that the nurse and her attorney are going continue to be disappointed if they want a different response from the security staff. I hate to use the term “officer” although we were technically some sort of peace officers, we had essentially zero training. Fortunately, we weren’t allowed to carry weapons. Our job was the follow the direction of the police officers and had zero idea if they were acting within reason or not. Had I been there, I would have been completely lost as how to proceed. I wouldn’t have liked how he handled the arrest, but would pretty much be powerless to intervene. The university police department is pretty small and is in its own little bubble mostly solving mostly minor, unsolvable crimes such as bike theft. They would take reports and a detective would look into it. The Salt Lake City police were always thought of as “real police” by the campus cops. The tone of the conversation at the coffee shop would change if they showed up. They had real police stories to talk about. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s realistic to expect security to do anything. They simply will never be trained enough. Obviously, it’s been multiple decades since I was there, but I don’t see how the University of Utah Police would have changed much either. ISTM that the fault here lies with the Salt Lake City Police department in general. With whoever is supposed to be keeping up with changes in the law and with the training department, as well as that particular officer who has anger issues. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/130 "2017-09-04T06:16:27Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > IAAL. A short and simple definition of color of law (sometimes called “color of right”) would be the following: > > Believing you have the lawful right to do something; when in fact, you do not. > > So, in the matter being discussed, “The officer arrested the nurse under color of law,” translates to, “The officer believed he could lawfully arrest the nurse, and he did so, but he was ignorant of the fact that arresting the nurse wasn’t actually lawful.” > > Does that help? I’ve always thought of it in my head as “representing your actions as being lawful by virtue of your position as a duly-appointed (or deputized) enforcer of the law; when in fact, your actions are not lawful.” I have difficulty conceiving of a hypothetical _under color of law_ situation in which a mistaken LEO’s actions were performed with a good-faith belief that they were lawful. ETA: Having read your response to **Hurricane Ditka** , I now find myself wondering If I am mistakenly conflating “under color of law” with “under color of authority.” ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/131 "2017-09-04T08:17:06Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I’ve always thought of it in my head as “representing your actions as being lawful by virtue of your position as a duly-appointed (or deputized) enforcer of the law; when in fact, your actions are not lawful.” > > I have difficulty conceiving of a hypothetical _under color of law_ situation in which a mistaken LEO’s actions were performed with a good-faith belief that they were lawful. > > ETA: Having read your response to **Hurricane Ditka** , I now find myself wondering If I am mistakenly conflating “under color of law” with “under color of authority.” As regards your last point, yes, it is possible to confuse “under cover of law” with “under cover of authority.” But in my jurisdiction, they both amount to the same thing: somebody (authority or not) believes they have the right to do something unlawful, when they actually don’t, and they are ignorant of that fact. Note that “under cover of law” situations arise even in private disputes. The “I thought he was going to hit me so I hit him back first” defense is one such, but it never works. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/132 "2017-09-04T11:19:18Z")
What is it called in your jurisdicion when the LEO intentionally deceives a victim into complying with a demand the LEO knows his position does NOT authorize him to compel compliance to? (As an example, he wants to do a warrantless search of someone’s garage while the owner is on vacation. So he says to the house sitter [who is excellent at collecting the mail, watering the hanging spider plants, feeding the cat, and driving the Bentley around the block every other day; but knows diddly-squat about the Fourth Amendment], “By the authority vested in me as a duly-sworn LEO in this jurisdiction, I am ordering you to open that garage door or face arrest and prosecution.”) ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/133 "2017-09-04T12:28:20Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > As regards your last point, yes, it is possible to confuse “under cover of law” with “under cover of authority.” But in my jurisdiction, they both amount to the same thing: somebody (authority or not) believes they have the right to do something unlawful, when they actually don’t, and they are ignorant of that fact. > > Note that “under cover of law” situations arise even in private disputes. The “I thought he was going to hit me so I hit him back first” defense is one such, but it never works. ``` They may be the same thing in your jurisidiction **spoons** , but they are different in the US. In your jurisdiction, "under color of right" is a defense. ``` Not in the US with “under color of law” or under “color of authority” . In the US it means someone who claims to act with legal authority. Someone earlier linked to the Wiki entry , and here is the definition of “under color of law” regarding civil rights used in the US code > [@](#): > > Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. > For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. It has nothing to do with the official believing he/she has he right to do something unlawful or even being ignorant that that they do not have the right to do something. It requires that the public official (and it must be a public official) act willfully to deprive a person of their rights. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/134 "2017-09-04T12:29:03Z")
What is it called in your jurisdicion when the LEO intentionally deceives a victim into complying with a demand the LEO knows his position does NOT authorize him to compel compliance to? (As an example, he wants to do a warrantless search of someone’s garage while the owner is on vacation. So he says to the house sitter [who is excellent at collecting the mail, watering the hanging spider plants, feeding the cat, and driving the Bentley around the block every other day; but knows diddly-squat about the Fourth Amendment], “By the authority vested in me as a duly-sworn LEO in this jurisdiction, I am ordering you to open that garage door or face arrest and prosecution.”) ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/135 "2017-09-04T13:40:36Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > I think it is interesting to note that the nurse in question was an Olympic athlete. She was a skier in 1998 and 2002. Really? She sure seemed surprised when things went downhill fast. ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/136 "2017-09-04T16:38:23Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Really? She sure seemed surprised when things went downhill fast. _groan_ [2nd Utah police officer put on administrative duty over nurse arrest](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/02/utah-cop-put-on-leave-after-bodycam-video-shows-him-cuffing-nurse-for-refusing-to-draw-blood-on-unconscious-patient.html) > [@](#): > > Police said Friday a second officer was also placed on paid leave. That officer has not been formally identified, but officials have said they also were reviewing the conduct of Payne’s boss, a lieutenant who reportedly called for the arrest if Wubbels kept interfering. So now defective Payne’s lieutenant is sharing some of the scrutiny (maybe). ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/137 "2017-09-04T16:43:39Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Really? She sure seemed surprised when things went downhill fast. She tried to remain calm, but when he manhandled her like that she was piste. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/138 "2017-09-04T16:56:13Z")
On the slalom occasion of being arrested? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/139 "2017-09-04T17:06:23Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Isn’t it fairly established case law that police can get away with all manner of depredations if they can but convince the judge that they “thought” they were acting properly? ISTM I see cases like that a lot. Maybe - that’s more of a Bricker question. But let me count all of the times that defense has worked for non-police. Let’s see … 8 + 3 … carry the 6 … subtract 1 … ZERO ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288/140 "2017-09-04T17:11:12Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > What is it called in your jurisdicion when the LEO intentionally deceives a victim into complying with a demand the LEO knows his position does NOT authorize him to compel compliance to? > > (As an example, he wants to do a warrantless search of someone’s garage while the owner is on vacation. So he says to the house sitter [who is excellent at collecting the mail, watering the hanging spider plants, feeding the cat, and driving the Bentley around the block every other day; but knows diddly-squat about the Fourth Amendment], “By the authority vested in me as a duly-sworn LEO in this jurisdiction, I am ordering you to open that garage door or face arrest and prosecution.”) It’s called 2 weeks paid admin leave, an apology and no official repercussions nor anything in his file. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-justify-this-behavior/795288.md?page=8)