SWAT Team Concealing Identity What gives SWAT team members legal cover to conceal their identities by wearing balaclavas or similar?
This web site has collected up a number of state anti-mask laws. It is useful to know that the purpose of the tactical balaclava is face protection. The anti-mask law of California prohibits mask for escaping identification in the commission of a public offense; Florida likewise limits it to criminal-like conduct and some sketchy "equal protection" situations (presumably anti-Klan legislation). Georgia generally prohibits masks but takes the tack of listing exceptions, including "traditional holiday costumes" and "for safety reasons". In Louisiana it is prohibited to wear a mask to conceal identity, but there are enumerated exceptions, including Halloween and Mardi Gras (no surprise), or for religious reasons; we can assume that if Lousiana SWAT teams wear tactical balaclavas, the legal basis is face-protection. It would appear that in Minnesota, SWAT team members cannot wear a mask until winter: A person whose identity is concealed by the person in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise, unless based on religious beliefs, or incidental to amusement, entertainment, protection from weather, or medical treatment, is guilty of a misdemeanor In New York, the anti-mask law seems to be subsumed under loitering, which includes Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place; except that such conduct is not unlawful when it occurs in connection with a masquerade party or like entertainment if, when such entertainment is held in a city which has promulgated regulations in connection with such affairs, permission is first obtained from the police or other appropriate authorities; which could be narrowly construed to outlaw wearing of balaclavas by SWAT teams (they are masked, they congregate and remain in public with others masked men, it is not in connection with entertainment.
Police can lie However, in the United States they have to read you your Miranda warning (most other democratic countries have similar warnings): You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time. They have told you everything they are required to tell you - effectively “we are not on your side.” After that, they can lie their asses off. Of course, they wouldn’t ask you for a DNA sample - they’d ask you if you’d like a glass of water. Then they’ll take the DNA from that.
Yes, you can ask but if they don’t they can come in anyway. The law gives them the right to enter in certain circumstances. Notwithstanding, any government employee that disclosed confidential information that they got in the course of their employment could be sued and possibly prosecuted.
Yes, A First Amendment defense would apply. This is no longer a crime. Schacht In Schacht vs. United States, 398 U.S. 58 (1970) the US Supreme Court held the final clause of 10 USC 772(f) unconstitutional on just this ground. In that case anti-war protesters rehearsed and performed a skit in which soldiers shot and killed a character dressed as a member of the Vietcong, only to discover and proclaim that the character was a pregnant woman. One of them, Daniel Jay Schacht, was indicted in a United States District Court for violating 18 U.S.C. 702, ... He was tried and convicted by a jury, and on February 29, 1968, he was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 and to serve a six-month prison term, the maximum sentence allowable ... In the opinion by Justice Black, the Court held; This clause on its face simply restricts 772 (f)'s authorization to those dramatic portrayals that do not &quot;tend to discredit&quot; the military, but, when this restriction is read together with 18 U.S.C. 702, it becomes clear that Congress has in effect made it a crime for an actor wearing a military uniform to say things during his performance critical of the conduct or policies of the Armed Forces. ... ... it follows that his conviction can be sustained only if he can be punished for speaking out against the role of our Army and our country in Vietnam. Clearly punishment for this reason would be an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech. The final clause of 772 (f), which leaves Americans free to praise the war in Vietnam but can send persons like Schacht to prison for opposing it, cannot survive in a country which has the First Amendment. To preserve the constitutionality of 772 (f) that final clause must be stricken from the section. Hamilton In United States vs Hamilton (2012) the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals limited 18 U.S.C. § 702 (wearing a military uniform without authorization), and 18 U.S.C. § 704(a) and (d) (wearing military medals and other insignia without authorization). Hamilton had, among other actions, appeared at a Vietnam Veterans’ Recognition Ceremony in the dress Uniform of a Colonel of US Marines, wearing numerous medals and awards including two Navy Crosses, four Silver Stars, one Bronze Star, and seven Purple Hearts. He had in fact been medically discharged years earlier with less than 1 year of service, after an accident to his hand, with the rank of Private First Class (PFC). He had not been awarded any of the medals or decorations that he wore. (He had previously been apprehended on military bases three times wearing the uniforms of a colonel (once) and a lieutenant general (twice), but was not charged on those occasions.) The Fourth Circuit wrote: We observe that the Ninth Circuit applied such a limiting construction to Section 704(a) in United States v. Perelman, holding that the statute created a criminal offense prohibiting the unauthorized wearing of military medals only when the wearer &quot;has an intent to deceive.&quot; (658 F.3d at 1137-38) In our view, the imposition of a limiting construction requiring an &quot;intent to deceive&quot; is appropriate with respect to both Sections 702 and 704(a). ... Accordingly, we hold that persons violate the insignia statutes if they wear a military uniform without authorization, or wear military medals or imitations of such medals, respectively, only when they do so with the intent to deceive. The Fourth Circuit went on to hold these provisions constitutional when so limited, and to uphold the convictions under them, quoting Schacht is support of this holding.
(Assuming the jurisdiction is the US.) Your question I was wondering whether there are any limitations on using photos of private individuals on websites. is the least of your potential problems. Photos of the public taken in public are mostly legal to use and publish, and you own the copyright on the photo, and generally don't need a model release. But your plan of posting the photo with accompanying information about (alleged) fraud: There's a fraud conducting business in my state and I want to create a website that warns others of his fraudulent practices. is potentially legally problematic. As phoog indicates in his comment, you need to be aware of defamation, both at the federal level and among states, as some have criminalized defamation (Wikipedia). Libel is the publication of provably false facts by one person about another person. For a full outline of defamation (libel and slander, and including private and public figures), see Libel and Slander | Nolo.com. What you want to do is publish "facts" about this alleged fraud on the website with a photo of the individual, linking the fraud allegations to them. That is potentially libelous. The facts of the fraud may be provably true, or they may be provably false; that remains to be seen. But the facts don't matter when considering what actions the person can take against you if you publish such information on your website. If this business and the individual(s) feel they are not committing fraud, they can sue you for libel in civil court, alleging that you have damaged their reputation and impacted their business by publishing those facts on your website with the photo identifying the person and their business. If they take legal action, and you can prove the business and the individual(s) are committing fraud with provable facts - hard evidence of fraud, such as legal documents and court judgments - than you should (no guarantees) be able to successfully defend yourself in a libel suit brought against you by that person. Even if the business and the individual(s) are aware of facts that prove their fraud, and know they will probably not prevail in court, they can still take you to court, and it will cost you whatever time and money it takes to defend yourself. My responses above concern what legal actions the alleged could take against you if you published the website with the photo and information about the alleged fraud. No one here is advising you to put up the website with the photo and the "facts" as you see them, even if you have hard proof of the facts of the fraud; you should find legal representation before taking any action with the website. And, no one here is advising you to open any legal action against the person; that's your choice in terms of determining your case and if you can show actual harm that was caused by the alleged fraud by the individual, and you should find legal representation before taking any action.
No. Self-defence law does The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life (self-defense) or the lives of others, including –in certain circumstances– the use of deadly force. Whether you would succeed in such a defence depends on the exact circumstances. Good Samaritan laws protect you from trying to help, screwing up, and causing further damage.
The legal division is between law enforcement officers (or some similar expression, defined by law), and everybody else. A security guard falls in the category &quot;everybody else&quot;, so like everybody else, they can use force to defend themselves from an attempted murder. Nevada law simply defines &quot;security guard&quot; as &quot;a person employed as a watchman, guard, security consultant, patrol officer or in any other similar position&quot;. The main reason for mentioning them at all is to exclude them from license-related laws applicable to private investigators and security consultants. This section of Nevada law defines those who have &quot;powers of peace officers&quot; – it doesn't include security guards or private investigators. One important distinction, stated here, is that If necessary to prevent escape, an officer may, after giving a warning, if feasible, use deadly force to effect the arrest of a person only if there is probable cause to believe that the person: 1. Has committed a felony which involves the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm or the use of deadly force; or 2. Poses a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or to others. An ordinary person cannot do this, instead that can use deadly force in self-defense, and not to effect an arrest. The law does not allow anybody, including officers, to do otherwise-prohibited things unreasonably. The law does allow everybody to discriminate, except in specific cases such as you cannot discriminate based on race when hiring or beating a person (in the later case, it's called a &quot;hate crime&quot;). Questions about trespassing generally arise in connection with a rowdy person in a public place such as a bar, which are deemed to be &quot;public accommodations&quot;. You are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race in access to public accommodations, therefore you cannot eject a person for being the wrong race. However, your home is not a public accommodation, so you are not required to be racially-neutral w.r.t. your home. There is no LEO exception with respect to non-discrimination requirements.; there is no ordinary-person exception either. As for trespass warnings, the law says A sufficient warning against trespassing, within the meaning of this section, is given by any of the following methods:...By the owner or occupant of the land or building making an oral or written demand to any guest to vacate the land or building.
No The term "sword and shield" is allegorical rather than legal and may be called up in any number of contexts. Such as ... Waiver of privilege In the particular instance, Anthem was claiming that the reports were privileged and hence protected from discovery, presumably because they were prepared in contemplation of litigation - this litigation, one supposes. However, privilege is lost or waived if the privileged information is disclosed, as it was by relying on the conclusion of the report in its defense. As such, the entire suite of reports is no longer protected. Basically, if you want to keep privilege you have to keep what is privileged secret. Note, the could have lost privilege if they had disclosed the findings of the report in any way such as by press release or by simply leaving the document in a public place. In this context, the judge is stating that they cannot use the "shield" of privilege to protect a report that they have used as a "sword" to make a attack their opponent.