Can Police Officers Lie to You?

Here is an old question that just will not go away. And it is amazing how many people will ask this question and then argue with you about the correct answer. The answer is absolutely the police can lie to you. 

They can lie to you about the evidence they have, about people statements and when undercover they can lie to you about even being a police officer.

No this will not result in a case being dismissed because they lied. It is perfectly legal and the courts have consistently ruled it is a non issue for police to lie.  I have even done it to gain evidence.

The only problem with lying as a police officer is if the suspect knows your bluffing you have pretty much shown your hand that you do not have a case against them.

Disability Insurance and Erisa

Here is a link to a very detailed blog about disability insurance http://cleascam.blogspot.com/.  Although this blog is about a specific company, California Law Enforcement Association that only serves police and fire in California, it discusses some common issues with disability insurance.

Many disability plans are governed by ERISA, which can be a nightmare of restrictions and rules that protect insurance companies.  This blog discusses some of the dangers and pitfalls you might encounter when trying to collect a legitimate disability claim.  These plans are so restrictive it might be best for you to opt out of an employee sponsored plan and seek disability insurance on your own.  Take a look at the blog and decide for yourself what is the best course of action.  But whatever you do, make sure you have disability insurance, it is one of the best investments you can make to protect you and your family.

Can Citizens Record Police?

http://copwatcher.info/2014/03/video-recording-police/

Above is a great link to a video and in depth discussion of the legality of recording police on duty.  Several different cases of recording police conduct are discussed and video is provided.

Despite some law enforcement agencies claims, it is legal to record police in public in all 50 states as long as you are not intering with the performance of their duties.  What constitutes interfering with police is open to debate and advice and tips are given by Cato.org as well as CopWatcher.info.

Make sure you are recording in a public place, as opposed to private property not accessible by the public or in an active crime scene.  Also make sure you stay a safe distance away from police while they do their job.  Not only is it distracting to them to have someone in their personal space, it is a legitimate safety issue for police.  Police by nature are suspicious of everyone, and to an extent they have to be.  As a result they do not want anyone nearby when they encounter a suspect.  Police most likely do not know who you are and if you might end up being a threat.

Police also have a responsibility to provide a certain level of privacy to both suspects and victims. Certain personal identifying information can not be released to the public among other privacy concerns.  A video recording of a sexual assault victim being interviewed by police posted on Youtube could pose legal issues for police.  So use some common sense and decency when recording.  Also use some discretion if a police officer asks you to stop recording.  He may not be in a position to explain to you the exact nature of the request.

Turn Signals Are Not Required in by California Law

Unknown to most motorists, a lot of police officers, a few attorneys and even the California vehicle code, you are not required to use your turn signal every time you make a turn in California.

The Department of Motor Vehicles tells you that you must signal 100 feet before you make a turn on any roadway in California. This is the way it is taught to all drivers.  It is not what the courts required of drivers.

California courts have ruled consistently that motorists only have to use their turn signals if there turning movement affects the flow of traffic. So if you're are driving and no other motorists are on the road, legally you do not have to use your turn signal in California. However this is something most cops are not aware of and frequently issue citations for violating a law the court says is being misread.

Are Police Required to Read Miranda Rights?

Do police officers have to read Miranda Rights to you if you are arrested?  I used to hear this question all the time from people who thought they were going to use this as a technicality to get out of whatever criminal charges they were facing.  The police are not required to give you Miranda Warnings as a condition of arrest.

Police only have to give Miranda if they intend to ask you questions about the crime.  For example, if a police officer responds to a domestic violence call and sees a man striking a woman repeatedly, and he knows the woman is the mans wife, he may make an arrest by only interviewing the woman.  While this is not the best approach to police work, it often times happens that the suspect, regardless of what he may or may not say will have little impact on the outcome of the case.  As long as the officer does not ask the suspect any questions, he technically does not have to read Miranda.

In addition to not asking any questions, the officer can not make any statements trying to incite the suspect into making statements about the crime either.  For example, in the above scenario, if the officer said "that was real tough, beating up a woman for no reason" it is likely the suspect would respond by offering some defense for his actions.  Any statements made in response to the officers comment, would likely be suppressed by the court as they were not voluntary and free statements.

Miranda can become complex, but it really requires two things, custody and interrogation.  If you have one and not the other Miranda Warnings are not required.

"Copyright" refers to the right to copy and display, distribute, or sell a creative work (like a painting, movie, song, video game, novel or other creative work).  The copyright in any creative work is first owned by the person who creates it (like the artist or writer).  

But the copyright can also be sold or given away by its owner. (Example musicians often sell the copyright to a song recorded to a record company.) The owner may also give other people  permission to temporary sell, display, or give away the work.

Sometimes called "piracy," the crime of internet copyright infringement is basically copying, uploading, or sharing a creative work without the permission of the owner.  It does not matter if the person sharing the work profits from the distribution of the material or not.  

Statutes of Limitations

A statute of limitations is the deadline for filing a lawsuit.  If you do not file not your lawsuit by the end of the statute you can no longer sue the person or entity.  Here are some common time limits for various disputes:

Personal Injury.  In most cases it is a two years limit from the time it was discovered.  However, some situations may only be one year.

Breach of a written contract.  Four years for the date the breach occurred.

Breach of oral contract.  Two years from the date of the breach.

Damage to personal or real property.  Three years from the day the damages occurred.

Claims against government agencies.  This are a little different the other lawsuits.  Before you can sue a government entity you must file a claim with the agency first.  Then they will decide if they should pay you or not.  Once they decide not to pay you and reject your claim, you are then free to file a lawsuit.  Your initial claim with the agency must be filed within six months of the incident.

Collecting a debt with a court ordered judgement.  Ten years from the date the judgement is issued.

Intentional Torts and Punitive Damages

Intentional torts are those in which a person deliberately means to damage your property or physically hurt you. If someone deliberately strikes you with a car or their fist, these are intentional torts. With intentional torts the persons mindset is crucial. For example if I intended to hit you, it is a form of battery. But if I am simply careless and hit you it is negligence.

Proving a person acted intentionally as opposed to negligently can be a big deal.  The reason it becomes so important because if it is done intentionally the victim is entitled to recover punitive damages.

Punitive damages are designed to punish the wrongdoer. And deter them from doing it again. It is also meant to compensate the victim financially. Punitive damages can be anywhere from one dollar to the multimillion dollar suits you hear about on TV.

Abuse of process

Abuse of process is the misuse of the judicial process in order to achieve an improper goal. This differs from malicious prosecution where there is no justification for filing a lawsuit. Abuse of process there is a legal justification for filing a suit but the the abuser, is abusing the process to try and gain some sort of advantage end result. 

This would be a person who files repeated court motions in an attempt to get you to settle the case, rather than deal with the multiple hearings.

What is the difference between a tort any crime?

A lot of people get confused on the difference between a tort in a crime. A single act can be both a tort and a crime which is the source of a lot of confusion. But a tort is a civil action where you're trying to gain something financially for what occurred. By comparison a crime is when the community as a whole seeks justice for some wrongdoing. The end result would not be financial but incarceration.

For example, assault can be both a tort and a crime. You can sue the person for your injuries and the community can prosecute them as well.

Negligence is the most common tort.  Negligence is simply defined as being careless. Not paying enough attention for the circumstances in which you are surrounded.

Examples of negligence would be automobile accidents caused by speeding or failing to stop at stop signs or signals.  It can also be caused by failing to maintain your vehicle.  For example, not keeping your brakes in working order would be a case of negligence should you be in an accident that would have been prevented if the brakes worked properly.

The difficulty with negligence is determining whether or not the person was actually negligent. "Due care" is the term used to figure out if someone was doing what they should have been doing to otherwise prevent an accident.  Due care is dependent on a number of factors. The circumstances of the situation, the age of the parties, whether anyone had any mental or physical disability and the list goes on. In order to determine if someone was negligent you first have to determine what a reasonable person would've done in the same set of circumstances.

This is where the law becomes very convoluted and the reason why there are so many court cases, is trying to determine what amount of action or lack of action is required in order to determine negligence.

Torts

What is tort law?

Tort law is fairly simple to understand, when someone does something wrong and either hurts you or damages your property that person has to pay for what they have done. When I say pay I mean it financially, not in some physical way.

The however the simple fact that someone injures you or damages property does not mean they have committed a tort and have to pay for the damages. A person has to pay for the damages only if it was their fault. Some accidents are truly accidents. They are unavoidable. No one is at fault for what happened. When that happens each party involved is responsible for the cost of their own injuries or damage.

A person is responsible for your losses only if their conduct is of a "tortious" nature. The three types of Tort conduct are negligence, intentional misconduct, and strict liability.

How a reasonable person would have acted in a similar situation is usually up to the jury to decide based on all the facts presented at trial. The standard of care is often determined by simple common sense.

The classic case it is often cited to students is of a man walking down the street with a piano falls out of a window above a store seriously injuring him. The injured man cannot prove how the piano fell out of the window. The owner of the shop will not admitted any fault in the piano falling out of the window. Because of this type of incident will not occur on its own without someone being negligent and the store owner who has the ability to figure out why the accident happened, it is up to the store owner to prove that he was not at fault for the person's injuries. Without this role the store owner would be able to avoid responsibility simply by remaining silent and pretending to be ignorant about the cause of the accident.

This is called the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur". It literally means the thing speaks for itself. It only applies when the accused has exclusive control of the item that hurts you and you did not contribute in any way to the accident and the accident would not have happened unless someone was negligent.