Citations: Police Duties and Limits of Authority

Tell your children and others around you:

"Remain alert. Behave graciously. Obey the law. Demand respect for your rights. Do Not Tolerate abuse from police, Sheriffs, deputies, judges, conservators of the peace, or other law enforcement officers. Report every instance of abuse to the State Attorney, Grand Jury, and (for judges) the House Judiciary Committee, and vigorously prosecute a law suit for any damages you suffer from such abuse." See citations below.

S.O.S. (Son Of Stroller)

=================

"An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government." - Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp. 94.

"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." - In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

"Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen, under our constitution and laws, consists of the right to locomotion,- to go where one pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one's business or pleasure, only restrained as the rights to others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. One may travel along the public highways or in public places; and while conducting themselves in a decent and orderly manner, disturbing no other, and interfering with the rights of no other citizens, there, they will be protected under law, not only their persons, but in their safe conduct. The constitution and the laws are framed for the public good, and the protection of all citizens from the highest to the lowest; and no one may be restrained of his liberty, unless he transgressed some law. Any law which would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and destroy all rights which our constitution guarantees." - Pinkerton v. Verberg* 99 S.Ct. 2627 (1979)

"Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers (People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434, 437 [282 P.2d 905, 50 A.L.R.2d 513] [former Pen. Code, ' 653h "could" not authorize violations of the Constitution]), must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights." -Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com*., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.]

"The duties of police officers are many and varied. (21 Cal.Jur. 400 et seq.) Such officers are the guardians of the peace and security of the community, and the efficiency of our whole system, designed for the purpose of maintaining law and order, depends upon the extent to which such officers perform their duties and are faithful to the trust reposed in them. Among the duties of police officers are those of preventing the commission of crime, of assisting in its detection, and of disclosing all information known to them which may lead to the apprehension and punishment of those who have transgressed our laws. When police officers acquire knowledge of facts which will tend to incriminate any person, it is their duty to disclose such facts to their superiors and to testify freely concerning such facts when called upon to do so before any duly constituted court or grand jury. It is for the performance of these duties that police officers are commissioned and paid by the community, [33 Cal.App.2d 568] and it is a violation of said duties for any police officer to refuse to disclose pertinent facts within his knowledge even though such disclosure may show, or tend to show, that he himself has engaged in criminal activities." - Christal v. Police Commission*, 33 Cal.App.2d 564 [Civ. No. 11003. First Appellate District, Division Two. June 29, 1939.]

"Having made no showing that Officer Erickson had a warrant for the arrest or search of defendant, the burden to demonstrate justification for the police conduct rested on the prosecution. (Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272 [294 P.2d 23]." - People v. Superior Court (Simon), 7 Cal.3d 186 [L.A. No. 29881. Supreme Court of California. May 19, 1972.]

"...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'individual', not his official capacity..." - 70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability.

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or territory, or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States, or other person within the jurisdiction thereof, to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceedings for redress. ..To maintain an action under 42 USC 1983, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the defendants intended to deprive plaintiff of his Constitutional rights or that they acted willfully, purposefully, or in a furtherance of a conspiracy. . . it is sufficient to establish that the deprivation. . . was the natural consequences of defendants acting under color of law. . . ." - Ethridge v. Rhodos*, DC Ohio 268 F Supp 83 (1967), *Whirl v. Kern CA* 5 Texas 407 F 2d 781 (1968)

Title 18 USC Section 241, provides that... "any person who goes on the highway in disguise to prevent or hinder the free exercise and enjoyment of any right so secured by law...shall be fined not more than *$10,000.00*or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.