Everyone knows that some “cops” “don’t need no stinking badges.”
Anyway, to what extent is this true in real life?
If J. Random BeatCop decides to leave his badge at home (or destroy it, or pawn it, or throw it in the ocean, etc.) but is otherwise a fully valid and sworn Law Enforcement Officer, does the fact that he is not in physical possession of his badge result in any theoretical difference in his legal capacity to execute his duties? E.g. can a defendant go free by claiming that the LEO who arrested him left his badge at home, and therefore he wasn’t a legal LEO and thus the arrest was unlawful or should be recharacterized as a Citizens Arrest?
Conversely, does physical possession of a LEO badge actually give the possessor legal powers, at least in theory? E.g. if a cop lets me “borrow” his badge, has he legally deputized me or otherwise delegated to me some or all of the powers of an LEO?
Has there ever been a case where physical possession or lack thereof of a LEO badge has been material in such a way, separate and distinct from whether the person was explicitly authorized by such and such law enforcement agency or by statute? E.g. is a police badge considered to be a legal document, or is it simply a traditional part of the uniform?
A badge has no inherent powers. The important point of becoming a police officer is swearing the oath not receiving the badge. (It is, however, illegal in many places to carry a badge unless you are a sworn police officer.)
A police office is required to have his badge while on duty (unless there is a special situation like being undercover) but there’s no loss of legal powers from not having the badge. The officer might be subject to internal disciplinary action for not being properly equipped while on duty but it wouldn’t negate any duties he performed.
Where I’m from the rules governing the wear and display of badges are internal to each department. Each department is different. In fact the NJ State Police do not have a badge as most departments think of them, they only have a hat badge. The legal power for police in my state is derived from statute and certification by the Police Training Commision. The badge is just part of the uniform.
I can only answer as a police officer in Wisconsin. YMMV depending on location.
Most of this falls under individual department policies. Every agency is required by law to have policies on things like pursuits, use of force, etc., but they also have policies about off duty arrests, sleeping on duty, and such things.
Depends. A defendant might successfully argue that a uniformed cop that was sans badge was not on full duty and had no authority to arrest. This has had some success in some cases. It uses the same type of arguments people have used when fleeing unmarked squads. Depending on their departments policies, off duty officers do not need their badge to effect an arrest. Only their issued ID card. In fact, many cops purposely do not carry their badges off duty, including me. When we do we carry it in a case separate from our regular wallet.
No. In Wisconsin an officer can temporarily deputize a citizen. But no badges are involved. Simply giving someone your badge doesn’t confer anything. But it would land the officer in hot water. Badges are specifically issued to specific officers and they are numbered.
It’s mostly just symbolic. Some agencies don’t even issue badges to their plain clothes (not undercover, just not in uniform) investigators. They issue a set of ID cards.
More and more agencies are going badge-less for uniformed officers also. The “badge” is embroidered on the uniform itself during production. This is much cheaper than buying expensive metal badges. Plus it prevents an officer from misplacing a badge or forgetting to put it on a uniform shirt.
Or external disciplinary action. From what I understand, some jurisdictions require police officers to identify themselves on request. Police officers who remove their badges or nameplates so that they can assault civilians with anonymity have been the subject of legal proceedings (if they’re ever identified, that is).
In my state, certain warrantless arrests or summons are valid only if the arresting officer is “in uniform and displays his badge of authority.” See, e.g., Va Code § 46.2-882.
For this reason, every single Commonwealth’s Attorney is programmed to elicit testimony from their police witnesses to that effect, to protect their record:
It was my understanding that cap device pertained to military head-wear. Around here on police uniforms it’s always referred to as a hat badge.
But hat badges are fading too. More and more agencies are going to baseball style caps with patches where the hat badge would be. And thank goodness for that. For a huge chunk of my career I had to wear a straw stetson. I hated that thing!
I was stuck with those stupid old-fashioned hats (we called them garrison hats, even though they were different from a military garrison hat). Hated that damn thing. They looked stupid, I could never get one to fit right, they’d blow off your head in the wind, and they’d look like shit because you couldn’t find anyplace to clean them.
I suppose it is state specific, as Bricker points out his authority. What he cites is a procedural remedy if not complied with. If someone refused to acknowledge authority when the statute is not complied with, will end them up in legal trouble.
In my state the Evidence Rules (and a section of statute) states if an officer is not in uniform and in an unmarked car issues a citation, they are not competent to be a witness against you.
I have not read any case law on the badge part, as specific to the Q, but I remember but the case law in Ohio is, he need not be wearing his hat.
This means there were some challenges to an officer, while in uniform, except not wearing a hat, that the citations were invalid because he was not wearing a “distinctive uniform”, not making this up either.
Those cases were seperate from the non uniform officers.
The Appeals courts ruled, although the hat was not on while a citation was issued, the slight difference in a “distinct uniform” is de minimus, not legally relevant.
Don’t LEOs have to carry some kind of picture ID? If, for example, someone knocks on my door and tells me to “open up, it’s the police” I would want to see some proof before I open the door. Anybody can make a badge that would fool me but an offical picture ID would be harder.
If they intend to have you open up as in a “knock and talk” type secenario, they had better have proper ID.
With a warrant, or in emergency/exigent circumstances, they don’t need your consent to enter.
I disagree. Everyone knows what a badge should look like, almost nobody knows what a police ID card looks like. I could go to any office supply store and buy printable ID cards, and make a convincing fake. I wouldn’t even know where to begin to make a fake badge.
Aside: Maybe I just play too much D&D, but the thread title gave me a mental image of each badge having at its core a small piece of pure crystallized Law.
[QUOTE=New York Times]
Though fake badges violate department policy, they are a quirk deeply embedded in the culture and history of the New York Police Department. Estimates of how many of the city’s 35,000 officers use fake badges vary from several thousand to several hundred — roughly 25 officers are disciplined each year for using them — but the practice has become more sensitive since 9/11 and the heightened concern about police impersonation.
[/QUOTE]
