Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Can't sue cops *personally* for requesting ID (Score 1) 154

On the other hand: Two weeks after a police station in Dallas is shot at, a guy is hiding in bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas. Cops approach to see what's going on. The guy is filming the police station (casing it?). Cops ask for ID. The guy asks to speak to a supervisor. The cops call their supervisor to come over, handcuffing the guy for five minutes until the supervisor arrives. Did they violate his Constitutional rights? Maybe. Does every reasonable officer *know* that what they did violates his civil rights? No, an officer might reasonably *think* it's okay to cuff the guy for five minutes. There's not *clearly established law* that in the situation described, they can't cuff him while awating the supervisor he requested. Therefore he can sue the city the cops work for, but can't sue the individual cops personally.

The second scenario above, in which a reasonable cop might mistakenly think cuffing him for a minute is okay, is patterned after the actual events in this case. In reality, he wasn't hiding in the bushes. I added that to make it a better example, an example of a scenario where a reasonable cop might be unsure of what they can and can't legally do.

Actually, I don't think that would be legal, and there is clearly established law that the cuffing is at least a detention requiring reasonable suspicion. It's been well established that they can pat the guy down for weapons legally, and that should be sufficient to assuage their concerns - cuffing someone simply because they refuse to give their ID would be unreasonable.
In this particular case, you'll note that the officers actually won the appeal (affirming qualified immunity) on the first amendment claim and the fourth amendment claim for unlawful detention, but lost on the fourth amendment claim for unlawful arrest. As the court noted, "an investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.” Specifically:

... the officers were not taking investigative steps to determine who he was (aside from repeatedly asking him for identification) or what threat he might have posed. Neither does anything in the amended complaint suggest that Turner had a weapon, was using his hands in a threatening way, or otherwise posed a threat that required such restraint. The officers’ handcuffing Turner and placing him in the patrol car, as alleged in the amended complaint, were not reasonable under the circumstances. We conclude that a reasonable person in Turner’s position would have understood the officers’ actions “to constitute a restraint on [Turner’s] freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest.”

In your hypothetical, the cops handcuff the guy while waiting for the supervisor that he asked for. They're not taking further investigative steps to determine who he is or what threat he might have posed, and he hasn't done anything to indicate he poses a threat. Just like in this case, handcuffing the guy would be unreasonable, and would likely be considered retaliation for 'being uppity' and 'contempt of cop' for daring to ask for a supervisor.

Comment Re:Cake or death (Score 1) 904

What's wrong with that? Does she want this guy immediately fired no question asked? If it really is a first offence tell him to knock it off and move on from there,

You did not read the article, did you?

It wasn't his first offence, although HR lied about this, claiming that it was.

He didn't knock it off. Also, her career at the company was affected because she made the report.

What he did should have resulted in an instant dismissal. Retaliation should have resulted in dismissals. Covering up the prior acts by the man should have resulted in dismissals in HR.

Yep. Heck, even if it was his first offense, the subsequent retaliation is where the company crashed and burned.
IAAL, and I've studied sexual harassment law. Contrary to popular belief, it's actually really difficult to prove harassment, since you need a repeated series of events. Even if the same guy propositions a bunch of different people, if he only does it once to each, it's arguably not harassment, since he's apparently taking no for an answer from each of them and just being persistent generally. However, where companies end up killing themselves is the subsequent retaliation. Here, they explicitly told her that she could keep working for the guy, but he would give her bad reviews and there's nothing she could do. They also berated her for reporting things to HR, which is another no-no. A harassment suit might not succeed, but a retaliation suit is a slam dunk.

For example, one of my professors in law school was the attorney for a group of city employees bringing a harassment and discrimination suit against their boss. The suit initially ended in a deadlocked jury... however, every time the boss had to do something related to the suit - answer discovery questions, give a deposition, even talk to his lawyer - he'd do something nasty, like move someone's office to the basement or strip someone of a project they'd be working on. It was like clockwork.
So, after the deadlock, they amended the complaint to add retaliation claims. Next trial, got a unanimous verdict on those and judgement for $8 million.

Comment Safety... for the rich (Score 1) 209

In remarks made to the North American Broadcasters Association yesterday, Pai said that it's a public safety issue... Although Pai thinks smartphones should have the FM chip turned on, he doesn't think the government should mandate it: "As a believer in free markets and the rule of law, I cannot support a government mandate requiring activation of these chips. I don't believe the FCC has the power to issue a mandate like that, and more generally I believe it's best to sort this issue out in the marketplace."

It's a public safety issue, but it should be left to the marketplace, and if you can't afford an extra $10 per month for this "public safety" feature, then you deserve to die in an emergency?

Comment Re:Anthropological principle (Score 1) 187

as the bible dictates the universe being created by God for man

I think that you're making assumptions about what the Bible actually says.

Earth was made for man.

I'm not a Christian but I know their book. It does not preclude intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, in fact, it might even suggest that there is. John 10:16 mentions "Other sheep" who are "not of this sheep pen(or fold)". Could those other sheep or the other fold refer to non-humans who are not on this planet? It's debatable.

LK

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Working...