Allen wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:
> ... A police officer is
> required under the law, to identify himself as such if he is asked,
> but of course many do so in a most evasive way, i.e. "Are you a
> police officer?" (and a response being)"Do I look like a police
> officer?" (or) "Why would you say something dumb like that?" (with
> the respondent's hope being you do not pursue the matter any further.)
> ... PAT]
Then you should send documentation of this to http://snopes.com to
inform them of their mistake:
http://www.snopes.com/risque/hookers/cop.asp
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I am not an attorney, and
depending on _who_ precisely you ask, either snopes.com is correct
or they are wrong. I am quite reluctant to give anyone an
authoritative answer on this. Police will never automatically tell
you what they are, and they will fight against that requirement. But
various legal-rights organizations claim the opposite and I guess if
they have the money -- a lot more money than myself -- they will
fuss and carry on about it all the way to a high court, as required.
I'll tell you a quick story from my own past experience, albeit this
_was_ in Chicago, with 'Chicago-style' judges, prosecutors and police.
It dates back to the early/middle 1960's. A friend of mine had gotten
caught up in a 'raid' on a gay bar in Chicago. A 'raid' was one of
those things police would do when the local-area bigshot politician
had not received his regular payoff from the tavern owner, or the
police had not received their regular payoff. In those days, the
raids were always very nasty affairs; police would go huffing and
puffing into a bar, or theatre or other business which was expected
to make payoffs, announce it was a raid, line up all the patrons and
the employees, etc. Tipped off in advance, the Chicago Tribune would
always have a reporter and photographer there as well. After the
Tribune had gotten everyone's name, address, and place of employment
for the next day's paper, police usually allowed all the patrons to
leave, but one or two would be used as 'examples' and arrested, taken
off to the police station in a wagon, etc. The ones who wound up
getting arrested were usually those who had sassed the police, i.e.
insisted on their legal rights, etc. In this instance, my friend had
been hauled off to the police station; I went down and put up the
fifty-dollar fine the police wanted to let him out.
For morale support, I went along with him when he had to appear in
court a month or so later; the charges were 'lewd and disorderly
behavior'. Court started at 9:00 AM on the day in particular, when we
got there the courtroom was quite full; these were folks who had been
caught up in various raids (but made bail) and there for their 'court
appearance'. In the back of the courtroom was a 'bullpen' -- a
holding tank full of the most scraggy women I had ever seen. Most were
black ladies, a few, maybe three or four of the several hundred in the
holding area were white ladies. All had been picked up the sometime
the night before on prostitution charges. Quite a few of the ladies
were, umm, 'unkempt' or just plain dirty. The judge was a sort of
disinterested older guy, apparently anxious to get out for his coffee
and cigarette break. The prosecutor and his two 'witnesses' -- police
officers -- stood in the front next to the judge's bench the entire
time. When the judge told the bullpen guard to bring the prisoners
forward, the women all got in a line and processed forward in a line
in front of the judge, who afforded them each a ten second trial,
banging his gavel rythmetically and saying 'not guilty; case dismissed' to
each lady as she walked past and gave her name. The entire process
of emptying out the bullpen took about 15 minutes, whereupon the judge
decided to call a recess and go for his coffee and cigarette
break. The prosecutor and police 'witnesses' went out, and came back
in about 15 minutes when the judge reappeared. While they were all
gone, some lady working for the court went up and sat at the judge's
bench and rooted around through the judge's files, taking some files
away and leaving a few new ones. When the judge returned, now it was
time to get down to real business.
The cases were called one at a time (each defendant got anywhere from
one to three minutes as needed). Same police officer 'witnesses' stood
there the entire time. Always the same story: "me and my partner were
on purely (I want you to know!) patrol when citizen defendant did
whatever very offensive thing. Me and my partner were so offended by
seeing this, we knew he had to be arrested. The day I went with my
friend, there were perhaps thirty instances of this, same officers
were always the complaining witnesses. How the same two police
officers could be offended that often in a day's time is hard to
believe. After about an hour, my friend's name was called and he went
up to the bench. I would say in about half the cases that day, the
judge found the defendant innocent, in others the defendant was
guilty. No matter to the two police officers standing there the whole
day as the complaining witnesses. They just stood there with a
straight face no matter what verdict the judge gave in the little two
or three minute trials. The ones who were found guilty received as
their punishment 'time served'; and 'one month court supervision'
which was a way of saying nothing more happened.
Even if the payoff (or lack of payoff which caused the raid to start
with) had not been made in a timely way, there still could be hope for
the ones who were there. There was a fellow walking around the courtroom
in sort of an officious manner, who identified himself as an attorney
'for anyone who needs a lawyer' and if you wished, you could walk out
in the hall to his 'office' and make the needed arrangements. After
you gave him money, then he would walk up to the judge when your name
was called and tell the judge that you were represented by 'counsel'.
And the judge then moved your case back to end of his calendar for
that day following another coffee/cigarette break and a chance to have
a conference with this 'attorney' fellow. As the final order of
business in this part of the court day, this attorney would approach
the bench and 'remind' the judge that they would need to have a
conference in chambers regards (the various defendants he named).
Now the second coffee/cigarette break of the session, with the judge
and this 'attorney' and the prosecutor and the police in the judge's
chambers, where I presume they divided up the loot the bag-man lawyer
had collected for them. Then after awhile, court would resume for the third
time that day. These final cases were a bit more elaborate: Prosecutor
would ask the police exactly _how_ they were offended, "me and my
partner witnessed the defendant doing thus and so"; the bag-man lawyer
would mumble a few things after having pleaded you innocent, as often
as not, the lawyer's complaint was the police had failed to ID
themselves, or whatever. And the judge would mumble a few things and
raise some hell with the defendant but invariably find him not guilty
and release him (or occassionally find him guilty with 'time served'.)
I do not know if the findings of innocence or guilt were based on
factual circumstances or if it was because of the 'expert witness' for
the defense of 'Mr. Green' (as they liked to refer to money.) Your
guess on that would be as good as mine. I know that the lawyer did
ask the judge for a continuance telling the judge he had 'not yet been
able to meet with Mr. Green' in one of the cases that day. "It will
be a week before Mr. Green is able to come to my office." PAT]
panoptes@iquest.net