Can a law enforcement officer temporarily &#39;grant&#39; his authority to another? The emergency services dispatch of Small-town, USA receives a call from a citizen near city limits. The citizen placed the call after he drove past a roadkill deer off to the side of the road. It is clearly mortally wounded, and will not survive, but was not killed in the impact, and is slowly dying. To my knowledge, a LEO is the only one with the authority – save a wildlife related authority – who could discharge a firearm for the purpose of euthanizing a wounded animal. So my question here is: Can an officer legally authorize the citizen to shoot the animal instead? (Since the call is so far out it may not be worth the police resources if there are other calls to handle.) If so: Does this apply to dispatch as well? Can the officer allow dispatch to tell the citizen that he has permission?
Short Answer This is governed by state law (for state law enforcement officers granting this authority) or federal law (in the case of authority granted by a federal law enforcement officer), so the details may vary from case to case. In many circumstances, however, a law enforcement officer has the authority to temporarily 'grant' his authority to another private citizen in order to deal with a specific incident. When this is done one says that the law enforcement officer &quot;deputized&quot; the person who was given this authority. Long Answer The Power To Deputize Civilians Most states have statutory circumstances under which certain kinds of law enforcement officers can deputize a non-law enforcement officer to carry out a law enforcement function under the supervision, direction and control of a law enforcement officer, on an incident by incident basis. For example, if a single sheriff responds to a bar fight with several people who need to be arrested, under most state's law, the sheriff could authorize a bouncer or patron at the bar who wouldn't have the power to make a citizen's arrest under the circumstances (e.g. because the patron arrived at the scene after the alleged fight took place) to detain a suspect whom the sheriff has the power to arrest, until additional law enforcement personnel can come to the scene to assist. Colorado Revised Statutes § 16-3-202 is typical of such a statute. It states: (1) A peace officer making an arrest may command the assistance of any person who is in the vicinity. (2) A person commanded to assist a peace officer has the same authority to arrest as the officer who commands his assistance. (3) A person commanded to assist a peace officer in making an arrest shall not be civilly or criminally liable for any reasonable conduct in aid of the officer or for any acts expressly directed by the officer. (4) Private citizens, acting in good faith, shall be immune from any civil liability for reporting to any police officer or law enforcement authority the commission or suspected commission of any crime or for giving other information to aid in the prevention of any crime. Further, another Colorado statute provides that &quot;conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when it is required or authorized by a provision of law or a judicial decree binding in Colorado,&quot; including laws &quot;defining duties of private citizens to assist public servants in the performance of certain of their functions.&quot; Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-1-701 (in pertinent parts). The exact details of how someone is deputized, who may deputize someone, and what authority this conveys varies in detail from state to state. Also, often this is done piecemeal, rather than globally, or is implied in part under common law agency principles. The power of a law enforcement officer to deputize someone to kill a dying deer hit in a car accident is likely to be in a different statutory section than the power of a law enforcement officer to deputize someone to make an arrest. People who are deputized by a law enforcement officer in this fashion are collectively called a posse. The posse was heavily used in rural areas and frontier areas into the early 20th century, but this authority is now, while still utilized, much less commonly used, and less familiar, especially in urban areas with large professional police departments. In these areas, it is more common for police to resort to mutual aid agreements with regional law enforcement agencies to seek reinforcements who are law enforcement officers at some other agency, rather than seeking help from private citizens. Other Solutions Often, conduct that literally fits the definition of prohibited conduct, like possession of a wildlife carcass without a license, is resolved in regulations or definitions in a statute or regulation that exclude the conduct in question from what is prohibited. For example, in Colorado, the definition of hunting, which is what you need a license to do, is defined in such a way as to exclude road kill related incidents. See, e.g., Colorado Revised Statutes § 33-1-102(25.5), (29) and (43). The Legal Doctrine Of Reliance On Official Authority There is also another legal doctrine that can make it possible to achieve almost the same result. As a matter of U.S. Constitutional law, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a criminal defendant may not be punished for actions taken in good faith reliance upon authoritative assurances that the defendant will not be punished for his actions. See U.S. v. Laub, 385 U.S. 475 (1967); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965); and Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959). For example, suppose that a 911 dispatcher tells a passing motorist that she has the authority to authorize the motorist to shoot and kill the deer because she is deputizing the motorist to do so, and that the applicable state law actually provides that a private citizen may be deputized to euthanize a deer struck in a car accident when a law enforcement officer deputizing the citizen is physically present. Despite this fact, if the motorist has no reason to believe that the dispatcher doesn't have this authority (even though the dispatcher does not have this authority under state law), the motorist is immune from criminal liability for shooting a deer out of season without a license pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court cases cited above. And, while the dispatcher's conduct may have technically violated state law by directing someone to violate the law under circumstances when the dispatcher did not have the authority to do so, the District Attorney is likely to decide that this technical violation of the state's hunting laws by the dispatcher, whether or not the dispatcher knew that the dispatcher did not have the authority to deputize the motorist, is not an offense that warrants prosecution. Indeed, prosecutors routinely overlook technical violations of the law by law enforcement officers who are carrying out their duties in good faith or for other non-selfish reasons (e.g. out of a desire to treat the downed deer humanely without diverting law enforcement resources urgently needed elsewhere at the time).
The legal question here is whether police have an enforceable power to enjoin a person from visiting a particular person or from entering a particular jurisdiction (especially the one where they have police powers). The obligation to obey police orders generally ends at matters regarding arrest, traffic orders, or crowd control. Freedom of travel is a fundamental constitutional right, along with freedom of association. That does not mean that you can go absolutely anywhere you want and do anything you want with whoever you want, but it does mean that any restriction have to be encoded in law, and such laws have to pass strict scrutiny. Any enforceable legal restrictions would have to emanate from the courts.
In general, police have no special protection from being recorded; if it is legal to video or audio record a person in that jurisdiction then it is legal to record a police officer in that jurisdiction. Anything that it is legal to do with the recording of a person is legal even if that person is a police officer. As to if it is legal to record a person see: Is it legal to post a photograph that I captured of a stranger in the street? Model release for image without faces How do laws affect photography of non-humans in public when people may be in the frame? What are the legal repercussions of taking a stranger&#39;s picture in public? What is considered &quot;public&quot; in the context of taking videos or audio recordings?
united-states It is not required for a person to formally assert a fifth- or a first-amendment right when questioned by the police. One can simply be silent, refuse to answer any questions, without giving any reasons. But probably more effective and just as legal is to say &quot;I won't answer any questions until I have talked with a lawyer. I want a lawyer, now.&quot; That is perhaps less likely than using the words &quot;plead the fifth&quot; to be assumed to be a confession of guilt, although some people and some police may take almost anything as a confession of guilt. By the way some of the points you distilled from the video (which I have not watched yet) are correct, some are half-truths, and some are quite incorrect. For example: The 5th amendment was not designed as a shelter for the guilty (despite it often being used as such). It was designed to help prevent you from unknowingly incriminating yourself. As a matter of history, this is quite incorrect. It arose historically out of a reaction to government procedures deemed oppressive. See https://law.stackexchange.com/a/63690/17500 for more detail. But helping people avoid unintentionally incriminating themselves is one of its major current functions. You can't talk your way out of getting arrested. Sometimes you can, but it is never safe to count on it. You can't know in advance if it will work, and more often than not it doesn't. Everything you tell the police can be used against you but not to help you. Not quite. If your statement is recorded, as is likely nowadays, the whole statement must be given to your lawyer and entered into evidence if you are eventually charged. (See Brady vs Maryland) Things said in your own favor may be discounted as self-serving, but the judge and jury will still hear them. But they can be very risky.
Try the phone or email contacts at Florida Department of Law Enforcement - Home. The state of Florida doesn't appear to maintain a statewide officer registry, but that department should be able to verify someone is or isn't a officer in conjunction with the police department closest to your location. If this neighbor is threatening or attempting to enforce the law while not showing ID that proves he/she is an officer, that's serious, and you should call the local police department. Talking about being a LEO while drinking beer at a BBQ is less serious, but still could be a third degree felony. See Statutes &amp; Constitution - Florida State Statutes: 843.08 False personation.—A person who falsely assumes or pretends to be a firefighter, sheriff, officer of the Florida Highway Patrol, officer of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, fire or arson investigator of the Department of Financial Services, officer of the Department of Financial Services, officer of the Department of Corrections, correctional probation officer, deputy sheriff, state attorney or assistant state attorney, statewide prosecutor or assistant statewide prosecutor, state attorney investigator, coroner, police officer, lottery special agent or lottery investigator, beverage enforcement agent, or watchman, or any member of the Florida Commission on Offender Review and any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission, or any personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement, or a federal law enforcement officer as defined in s. 901.1505, and takes upon himself or herself to act as such, or to require any other person to aid or assist him or her in a matter pertaining to the duty of any such officer, commits a felony of the third degree,
If someone attacks your dog, or the dog of a third person, you may use force to defend property rights, see ORS 161.205 and ORS 161.229. This does not apply to a person attacking their own animal. Force may also be used to effect an arrest by a private person (ORS 133.225) – you &quot;may arrest another person for any crime committed in the presence of the private person if the private person has probable cause to believe the arrested person committed the crime&quot;. You would need to study up on ORS 167.320. Assuming that the abuse is less than causing death, for first degree animal abuse, it is when one &quot;causes serious physical injury to an animal&quot;. The child actually becomes relevant because the misdemeanor becomes a felony when The person knowingly commits the animal abuse in the immediate presence of a minor child. For purposes of this paragraph, a minor child is in the immediate presence of animal abuse if the abuse is seen or directly perceived in any other manner by the minor child. So in fact, no amount of force can legally be used to prevent a person from hitting their dog. Force can be used to arrest a person (which prevents any further beating), if the person causes serious physical injury to the dog.
The standard for stopping someone and requesting their ID under the limitations in the U.S. Constitution is &quot;reasonable suspicion.&quot; For example, if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that you are taking pictures for the purpose of a secure location for purposes of espionage, or to case the location for a future crime, reasonable suspicion is probably present and you can probably legitimately be asked for you ID. A creative and intelligent officer can almost always conjure up some reasonable suspicion in the situation that you identify to question you and demand ID. For example, she could state that no one else has taken a picture of that location in weeks and that is is very unusual behavior, that your demeanor or the time of day you were present doesn't seem to be that of someone taking a picture for artistic or journalistic purposes, that you seemed nervous, that a previous criminal engaged in similar behavior before committing a crime fourteen years ago, that a confidential informant (e.g. a nosy neighbor) advised him that there was someone engaged in suspicious behavior at that location, that she read in a police anti-terrorism bulletin that terrorist favor that model of camera, etc. The nature of the suspicion doesn't have to be shared with you until you challenge it in court. A dumb cop won't come up with any colorable reason, demands ID for a stated reason (&quot;before you have to do whatever I say&quot;) that is inaccurate, admits he has no reason to stop you in a conversation captured by a body camera, and doesn't come up with pretext after the fact before going to the court. In that case, the stop is a de minimis violation of your civil rights justifying a nominal damages award of $1 to you and your attorneys' fees and costs and maybe a consent decree ordering the agency not to do that in the future.
Questions about whether a certain action is "just" tend to be maters of opinion, politics and philosophy, but it can be addressed from the perspective of legal theory (especially following the model of common law, where legal principles are based on concepts of just and proper action). Whether or not a certain action is actually legal in a certain jurisdiction depends on the laws of that country -- I suspect that the answer is different for the US versus China. The first question would be whether those government officials have the legal authority – I assume they do. Such authority is generally governed by some specific circumstances, for example, "poses an imminent and grave threat to public health". It is basically not a legal question whether quarantining in the face of this viral threat is necessary from a public health perspective, that is a medical question. What the law would say is that if this is a serious threat, then a person's liberty can be curtailed to a limited extent, because a person does not have the right to harm others because they don't want to do some thing that protects the rights of others (be vaccinated, stay in quarantine until it is safe). However, principles of legal justice also say that the government's response should be proportionate, e.g. shoot-on-sight in response to a sneeze is not proportionate. Quarantining has long been recognized as a valid, just and legal response to such extreme medical threats. Historically speaking, quarantining used to be the only effective action that a government can take against e.g. smallpox, plague, Spanish flu, Ebola.