Sure, so you didnt beat your coworker. But maybe you do steal office supplies.
I mean it could be my friend decided to take his car on a joyride, cause a bunch of damage (like 6 figures, enough that it raised this above the usual San Francisco PD interest level of level of: pay the impound fee, fill in the form online and stop talking to me), get in a police chase, and the abandon it on the beach and leg it, but I seriously doubt it. It’s much more likely the cop decided he was a suspect (he looks like a stoner) and decided if he worked on him for long enough he’d confess.
The only bit if the story that’s surprising to me is a SF cop took that much effort over a car crime case even a more dramatic one.
So how does that conversation go? “I was loading my car full of printer cartridges and reams of paper when I saw the suspect go into the building”?
That’s like people who say “everyone unknowingly commits felonies regularly”. Um. No they do not. Laws in most jurisdictions are generally pretty codified. Chances are if you aren’t going around robbing, raping, racketeering, murdering, assaulting, arsoning, involving yourself in illegal substances or endangered species, or committing other acts that are generally known to be illegal, it’s unlikely you accidently committed a felony.
I would agree, but minor trespasses? Certainly.
If police have ever interviewed anyone at a workplace of mine while I was working there, I’m certain that I had no knowledge of how it was conducted.
I can’t see what right they would have to be in the room while I was being questioned. They are a party with a stake in the outcome of the investigation. They are not law enforcement, and they wouldn’t be acting to represent my interests. I’d be going, ‘get me a lawyer, then GTFO of the room.’
Interesting that this sort of happened to me. An employee committed suicide on the job one Friday. Turns out she was ‘radicalised’ online and voluntarily gave some hackers access to our system. This was around the time of the Occupy Wall Street rubbish, we worked for a financial services firm.
I barely knew her, but didn’t like her. But that was just due to her and I clashing over stupid stuff on the employee events committee as it was always her way or ELSE!!!
Just told police and regulators the very little I knew.
Can you quote what legal basis you would have to tell anyone to GTFO of a room on their premises?
You can say, I’m not going to talk to the police, either here or anywhere. Then you get fired. Unless you have some contract that says they can’t, they can.
Everything that your employer can “compel” you to do that the government can’t, is predicated on you not wanting to be fired, and possibly blackballed.
I think you mean “let me get myself a lawyer” because it sure doesn’t sound like you want a lawyer they would provide!
But do you have any reasonable expectation of continued employment after saying that?
Seriously any employee that under any circumstance told me to “GTFO” is not working for us anymore if I have any say in it at all.
The quotation marks there are apt. They cannot compel; they can attempt to coerce. Maybe I am a valuable enough employee or the need for my cooperation as a potential witness is so inconsequential that they would either not even do more than request or would not follow through with termination for lack of cooperation. Maybe my position is such that I can’t be terminated for that.
But my fevered imagination isn’t going to get concerned that I am a suspect for anything or will get myself into suspicion by cooperating with the investigation.
The right that comes with being your employer in an ar will state. You could of course tell them to leave, and they can say “of course, though when your done you’ll be escorted off the property as you don’t work here any more”
Considering your hypothetical: if you clam up and refuse to talk to police about violence against your coworker leading to her attacker escaping arrest, and he then comes back later and seriously injures or kills her, you’d bear substantial responsibility.
Your non-government employer absolutely can require you to talk to the police and fire you if you don’t unless for some reason you have a contract that says they can’t.
In fact, there is a Supreme Court decision that held that if a government employer compels an employee to make statements under threat of termination, then the compelled statement and any evidence derived from it can’t be used to prosecute the employee. Two things are implied by this decision - first , that since it doesn’t prohibit compelling the government employee to give a statement by threat of termination, there is nothing illegal about such a threat. Second, since the opinion states that compelling the statement and using it against the employee is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment , it’s only an issue when the government (as an employer) compells the statement - only the government can violate a person’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. And even then, it just means the statement can’t be used to prosecute the employee - it’s not like the employee can sue for wrongful termination.
What legal basis would I need? What’s controlling the use of the room is that it’s being used for an investigation by law enforcement into a crime. Just because a crime occurred on your property doesn’t give you the right to watch the police interview other potential witnesses to the crime.
As you say, they already have the right to fire you for any reason or no reason at all. They still don’t have a right to be in the room. They just can use the powers they already had before the crime was committed to compel me to testify to the police while they’re in the room, or get fired.
Tell me though: why doesn’t this mixing of private and police powers bother you more than it seems to? It’s one thing for my employer to insist that I cooperate with a legitimate government function (which is what the OP is about), but IMHO it crosses a serious line when the employer is directly involved with and effectively overseeing that function, especially when the function in question is law enforcement.
You conveniently snipped the very next sentence in my post. And the one after that. You can assert a lot of “rights” but none of them will trump the employer’s ability to dismiss you unless you’re in a government job, or in a union that has a contract that gives you these rights. Thats the rub.
You’re not interested in the rights you have with respect to the government entity involved, you’re asking about the rights you have with respect to your employer. You can walk out any time you like. And then either continue the conversation at the police station or on the sidewalk, whatever the police decide. And of course come back for your personal belongings, because you absolutely will not be working there.
If you want to assert rights against your employer, you can quote a statute in ANY of the fifty states that gives you these rights.
If the police want to kick them out of the interview, they can. If the police suspect that you’re being pressured into giving less than fully truthful answers because an employer’s representative is present, I’m sure they would kick out that representative. It’s never happened in any case I know of personally.
Perhaps there should be more employment protections. Maybe I’m mistaken and there are. That’s why I’m asking you to cite something. A statute, a regulation, a court ruling. Something beyond, this seems really unfair so it must be illegal.
At least in the United States, there don’t appear to be such protections even in the most employee friendly states.
True just like they can’t “compel” you speak to the police but they can fire you if you refuse.
It bothers me more that the cop wouldn’t ask them to leave. On paper they should not have someone else in the room who could for all they know be a co-consprirator in the crime you are a witness to.
In practice the cop will consider the employer their assistant in solving the crime (or even vice versa). That does bug me.