LogFAQs > #885921281

ParanoidObsessive posted...

To be fair, literally everything you just described WAS his behavior.

I'd say that his behaviour was the manner in which he conducted himself, rather than the actions he undertook. Even if he was polite and courteous during the whole thing (and he was anything but), I'd still be in favour of charging him; on the other hand, if he was a complete asshole about it but left without arresting anyone, I'd say he deserved nothing worse than a reprimand.

That's the distinction I'm drawing between behaviour and actions.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The point I assume he was trying to make was that, perhaps, depending on the officer's prior history, it would be entirely possible to emphasize acceptable behavior for the future and reinforce the idea of patient privilege (which it's entirely possible he and other officers in his region haven't been sufficiently educated about - which in itself should spur an investigation of its own), especially if it IS determined that he was being explicitly ordered by a superior to take the actions he was taking (in which case disciplinary action should go higher than simply throwing one scapegoat to the masses and fucking him over when the real fault lies elsewhere).

Well, I did say in my post that the lieutenant that gave the order should face the same charges/discipline that the officer in question does.

Regardless, I think that charges are still warranted regardless - ignorantia juris non excusat applies to everyone, and I would posit it applies even more to those whose entire job is enforcing the law (how, exactly, are you supposed to enforce the law if you don't even know what it is?). This officer, near as my armchair-law degree can tell, broke or attempted to break multiple "unlawful search and seizure" laws and he should be held responsible for that.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

And before some clever ass in the topic decides to pull the Hitler card and sarcastically point out that "I was only following orders" isn't a valid defense, when placed in a position where you are being asked to accept what your superior is telling you versus what you are being told by a civilian in a situation where you may have no prior reason to believe what they're telling you DOES make that scenario a hell of a lot murkier.

Here's the thing, though - he's dealing with multiple medical professionals who are explaining what the law is. And I can say this as a professional myself - every competent professional is very familiar with the laws that govern their profession; the odds that 3-4 of them are all lying to you are almost nil. If I was in this officer's shoes at the very least I would have raised the situation with the lieutenant and requested additional legal clarification as to the validity of his orders (it's not like the victim and his blood were going anywhere at that point).

If the lieutenant sticks to his original orders, the cop has a much stronger legal and moral defence at that point, but as it was he ignored the advice of multiple competent professionals and proceeded with a questionably legal activity. Even then, the "most" correct action would have been refusing an illegal order - after all, if your boss told you to murder someone and that they authorized you to do it, you would still be in a rather significant amount of trouble if you carried that order out.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!