# "There is no such thing as an unlawful order".



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 9, 2012)

Had a long conversation today with a NY State Trooper. While discussing some particulars, the trooper made the statement "There is no such thing as an unlawful order".

I'm curious on the opinion of this statement by the LEO's here.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Had a long conversation today with a NY State Trooper. While discussing some particulars, the trooper made the statement "There is no such thing as an unlawful order".
> 
> I'm curious on the opinion of this statement by the LEO's here.



He's incorrect.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2012)

Troopers.....


----------



## seasoned (Aug 9, 2012)

I would go along with ballen0351 on this one.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> He's incorrect.



Very incorrect.

But, assuming good and well trained professional supervision -- there should be no unlawful orders issued.  

I wonder if there are, perhaps, some semantics involved in the trooper's statement.  For example, maybe he's saying that if ordered to do something unlawful, the person issuing the order no longer has the authority to give it, and the order loses its force?


----------



## elder999 (Aug 9, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Very incorrect.
> 
> But, assuming good and well trained professional supervision -- there should be no unlawful orders issued.
> 
> I wonder if there are, perhaps, some semantics involved in the trooper's statement. For example, maybe he's saying that if ordered to do something unlawful, the person issuing the order no longer has the authority to give it, and the order loses its force?



Nah. It's NY, the Troopers-not really just "state police," but a really paramilitary organization-a virtual state militia-sort of likw the RCMP for the wilds of upstate NY, or the Texas Rangers, and they are trained to really, really, believe that they are 

*THE MAN.* :lfao:

Oh, and that boots on the ground grunt trooper? Usually not the brightest light on the state's front porch. :lfao:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 9, 2012)

The explanation when pressed was that LEO's know what is right and what they can and can't do. 

Comment came as a result of my asking if the NYSP had received the DOJ recommendations on how to deal with photographers and idiots with cameras (please note the differentiation) and if so, if they had issued any specific guidelines.
I was told they had no knowledge of such. 2 other troopers also chimed in stating ignorance of such.
The position given was that all orders from LEO's are lawful, and that a LEO would never ever give an unlawful one.
The impression I got was one of 'cops dont make mistakes'. It was a rather, unnerving 45 minute discussion.

My wife dragged me away before they could invite me out to play with the K9 officer. 

I like to think that my word choice might have come off more 'confrontational' than I intended (been nursing a migraine all day so somewhat muddled in the mind) and that a little longer chatting would have cleared things up better.  Most of what was mixed in are cases we've bounded around here in the past, but the NYSP seemed to not be in sync with the LEO consensus I've seen here.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2012)

They may be confusing the concept of "On the street the cop is always right"...for your own good. i.e. don't argue law with the big man pointing a gun at you...with being legally correct.

....but in the courtroom they could be proven to be very wrong.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Nah. It's NY, the Troopers-not really just "state police," but a really paramilitary organization-a virtual state militia-sort of likw the RCMP for the wilds of upstate NY, or the Texas Rangers, and they are trained to really, really, believe that they are
> 
> *THE MAN.* :lfao:
> 
> Oh, and that boots on the ground grunt trooper? Usually not the brightest light on the state's front porch. :lfao:



Part of that is a survival mechanism..sometimes they are the only LE for MILES around. Responding alone to rural (and gun owning) calls alone with back-up 30-40 minutes away at times.

But...a few...well....Ill refrain from taking shots at fellow LE in a public forum.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 10, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Troopers.....


Same thing I thought.  We call them brown clowns here


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 10, 2012)

You can add me to the list of not knowing about the DOJ recommendations.  Honestly I've learn more about dealing with cameras from people on this forum then I ever did at work.  My new fav trick is to take out my camera and pretent to take pics of people taking pics of me.  For some reason most cuss at me and walk away hiding their faces


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 10, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The explanation when pressed was that LEO's know what is right and what they can and can't do.
> 
> Comment came as a result of my asking if the NYSP had received the DOJ recommendations on how to deal with photographers and idiots with cameras (please note the differentiation) and if so, if they had issued any specific guidelines.
> I was told they had no knowledge of such. 2 other troopers also chimed in stating ignorance of such.
> ...


Sounds like you're talking about something different than I thought you were...  My answer was aimed at the concept of a LEO receiving an unlawful order from a superior, like if my sergeant told me to walk up to a house at random, and kick the door in.   Seems like you were asking "can a LEO give a citizen an unlawful order."

Yeah, they can, and, honestly, I'd recommend complying unless it would put you into a dangerous situation.  You push the cop into a corner, and you may find yourself being arrested, and even though the initial act wasn't within his authority -- the arrest may still be.  Work out the problem later, through the complaint mechanism or even simply meeting with supervisors.

By the way -- I've never heard the DOJ recommendations at work, either.  Common sense takes care of it...  If they aren't breaking the law, leave the photographer alone.  If they're causing a problem, ask them to move along and explain why...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 10, 2012)

Like others, I mistakenly thought you were referring to the concept of an order from a superior to commit a crime.

In the context you explain, so we can understand more where you are coming from, as well as the troopers you spoke with.  I will add my opinion that the troopers are incorrect.  They are not insulated from mistakes any more than others.  Police, like other professionals, often take the word of those senior in experience, without checking with superiors (who may have done the same), or reading the law themselves.  Therefore, they may think they are in fact not issuing illegal orders.  Sad when they learn something is illegal while in court, trying to defend themselves.

As to the federal guidelines, I hadn't heard of them myself, which I find interesting since I live in northern Virginia.  And that assuming you are referring to the incident and involvement of the Justice Department mentioned at URL http://www.pixiq.com/article/department-of-justice-slaps-baltimore-pd which lead me to URL http://www.pixiq.com/sites/default/files/united_states_letter_re_photography_5_14_2012_0.pdf which is apparently the letter sent by the Justice Department to Baltimore.  I got the two URLs from a google search.

Is that what you are referring to?  It doesn't seem to have been sent anywhere but to Baltimore.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 10, 2012)

Pretty much.  My understanding (which may be incorrect) was that general guidelines were issued/suggested, and that numerous departments were updating their 'rules of engagement' accordingly, based on other articles I've read (a few below).

http://www.pixiq.com/article/washington-dc-police-once-again-confiscate-camera
http://www.pixiq.com/article/dc-cops-confiscate-phone-steal-memory-card
http://www.pixiq.com/article/jerome-vorus-wins-settlement

I've seen other articles, but can't find them on a quick search now.


edit:
http://aimfortheheart.com/2012/05/21/doj-issues-guidelines-for-photographing-cops/ 
http://firephotomagazine.com/2012/0...tographers-warns-police-about-violating-them/
references Baltimore.

http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-la...lice-follows-us-justice-department-guidelines 
references DC

http://boingboing.net/2009/09/01/dhs-photography-guid.html 
DHS guidelines 2004

http://www.pixiq.com/article/florida-cops-distributing-false-legal-guidelines
Florida dept giving wrong advice to street officers.


Still, thought something might have gone out broader. Looks like I misread something. damn it. >_<

Though that's just on the interaction with photographers bit.
The 'cant give an unlawful order' thing still annoys me.
I wanted to ask if the NYSP could order me to delete a photo.
My position is, no.  Because if it's of a crime, then I'd be destroying evidence, which is a crime, and a LEO can't lawfully order me to break the law.
Right?


----------



## Carol (Aug 10, 2012)

So far after a little over 2 years of "serious" photography, I have only had one police officer tell me to leave and that was photographing art in the Boston subway.  There is a policy in place...photogs need a permit, which they can have for the asking provided the photog hands over a copy of a photo ID.  I didn't want to do that and the MBTA Police caught up with me at Harvard.  Nothing got confiscated or deleted, but my companion and I chose to leave the station and not push it the issue.

Ironically, I now have every public safety agency in Boston and Cambridge -- including the MBTA police -- as a client at my real job, so I don't expect to be going toe to toe with any LEOs around Boston anytime soon.  New Hampshire is prettier anyway


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 11, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Though that's just on the interaction with photographers bit.
> The 'cant give an unlawful order' thing still annoys me.
> I wanted to ask if the NYSP could order me to delete a photo.
> My position is, no.  Because if it's of a crime, then I'd be destroying evidence, which is a crime, and a LEO can't lawfully order me to break the law.
> Right?



A cop can ASK you to delete a photo.  Let's say I get a call to one of the parks in town.  A guy's been taking pictures, innocent of ill intent, but accidentally caught a pic of someone's kid.  That someone didn't want some stranger running around with a picture of their kid.  (A concern I can absolutely understand...  though I try not to be that paranoid.)  So, I can ASK the guy to delete that picture.  I'd probably phrase it pretty much that way; "sir, you accidentally took a picture of someone's child, and they'd really appreciate it if you deleted it..."  If the guy tells me to pound sand -- that's his right.  But, generally, if you explain things reasonably and are reasonable in what you ask, I find most people cooperate with understandable requests.

Can I ORDER you to delete that photo?  Probably not, except in some weird circumstance.  At which point it may be a question of "do I seize the camera or media card and all pictures as evidence, or do I solve a problem and get rid of the photo?"  That'd depend on the underlying issue.  Accidentally capture a picture of a 3 year old who stripped at the park?  Most will cooperate reasonably in the first place; a few might push it and have to be threatened along the lines of "you either delete it, or I start investigating why you refuse to, and are we talking child porn?"  A very few will push it all the way...   Same thing might apply for a handful of other circumstances, like sensitive tactical techniques, classified information/facilities, or victims of crimes.  But we're talking *very *rare circumstances.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 11, 2012)

The 'cant give an unlawful order' thing still annoys me. I wanted to ask if the NYSP could order me to delete a photo.


Was it worded that way?  Because as I read that you could take it as I can't order you to do something unlawful


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 11, 2012)

The gist of the comments made by the trooper were that NYS police can not possibly give an unlawful order because they know where the lines are and what they can legally do, so therefore all orders given by them are lawful.

I wish I'd recorded the conversation, but it wasn't supposed to be a deep discussion.

Now slight tangent here.
NYS is now deploying unmarked vehicles in their new war against 'distracted drivers'.  Currently it's a GM SUV. Big, tall, don't recall the name.
If they think you're playing with an electronic device, they claim to be able to see into your car and will pull you over and cite you.

I don't like unmarked vehicles. Too easy to visit an electronics store or flea market and get all the gear needed to mock up a car and play copper. (as a rapist in Florida did for a while).  So I asked, if I see an unmarked car behind me, do I pull over or continue to a public area for my safety? The concern being if it is a cop, ending up with 6 angry troopers with guns drawn and nostrils flaring. Their reply was that I should call 911 and verify it's a cop, and that in that case, I wouldn't get in trouble for using my phone while driving.

So....true or not folks?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 11, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The gist of the comments made by the trooper were that NYS police can not possibly give an unlawful order because they know where the lines are and what they can legally do, so therefore all orders given by them are lawful.
> 
> I wish I'd recorded the conversation, but it wasn't supposed to be a deep discussion.
> 
> ...



We tell people to turn on you flashers and move to the right lane to acknowledge you see the officer and your not running.  Slow down and if you can get to a public place somewhat quickly then go there and stop.  If you cant say your out in the middle of no where and you know where you are you can call the police department dispatcher tell them your concern and make sure its a real officer stopping you.  The problem with that is you may not know what agency is stopping you.  In my city there are 6 different police agencies that can be there and stop you and none of us talk to each other or share a dispatch center so chances you call the right place are well slim.  On the plus side chances its a fake cop are VERY slim so if you cant get someplace safe quickly your better off pulling over and only rolling down you window after your sure its an officer.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 12, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The gist of the comments made by the trooper were that NYS police can not possibly give an unlawful order because they know where the lines are and what they can legally do, so therefore all orders given by them are lawful.


So, no NY State Trooper has ever been disciplined internally for doing something he thought he could, or thought was within the law, but turned out he was wrong?  NY Troopers are human.  They'll make mistakes, and I'm sure they've given orders to people that were illegal or simply not in the scope of their authority.





> Now slight tangent here.
> NYS is now deploying unmarked vehicles in their new war against 'distracted drivers'.  Currently it's a GM SUV. Big, tall, don't recall the name.
> If they think you're playing with an electronic device, they claim to be able to see into your car and will pull you over and cite you.
> 
> ...





ballen0351 said:


> We tell people to turn on you flashers and move to the right lane to acknowledge you see the officer and your not running.  Slow down and if you can get to a public place somewhat quickly then go there and stop.  If you cant say your out in the middle of no where and you know where you are you can call the police department dispatcher tell them your concern and make sure its a real officer stopping you.  The problem with that is you may not know what agency is stopping you.  In my city there are 6 different police agencies that can be there and stop you and none of us talk to each other or share a dispatch center so chances you call the right place are well slim.  On the plus side chances its a fake cop are VERY slim so if you cant get someplace safe quickly your better off pulling over and only rolling down you window after your sure its an officer.




Not giving legal advice, but most states do allow an exemption for using a cell phone while driving in an emergency.  Someone trying to abduct you (and if you are detained and prevented from leaving without legal authority, you are abducted) is an emergency.  So I think that part of your question is pretty easy to answer.

Regarding unmarkeds...  My current primary cruiser is an unmarked.  I'm conscious of that when I'm stopping someone or chasing someone.  And, with the end of the Crown Vic Police Interceptor line, you'll see more and more unmarked cars (and marked cars, though that's less of a problem) that don't "look like" police cars.  (Let's be honest; an unmarked CVPI is about as nondescript as a Federal Air Marshal...)

I give similar advice to ballen's for people unsure if the car is actually a cop car -- with a small twist. Don't drive too far, as in more than a minute or two.  Call 911, and try to tell them as specifically as you can where you are.  Pull over, lower your window a bit, and keep your car on, but put it in park. (I don't like cars in drive when I walk up; a slip of a foot, and my toes are being run over...)  Put your hands on the steering wheel -- but be ready to put it in drive.  Ask the officer to get a UNIFORMED backup unit there, especially if he asks you to step out of the car.  How many impersonators have a second person ready?  Or 3 or 4?  Yeah, once there are a couple of cars pretending to be Christmas trees behind you -- that's probably a clue that the first one was real.  

It's important to realize that, though impersonators are out there, most times when an unmarked car tries to stop you, it IS a police officer.  So, if you are scared, use that cell phone to talk to 911 dispatchers.  If you get scared enough to drive off after someone's approached your car, leave that 911 call active and tell them what's going on.  At least that way, you're creating a record about what you're doing, and you're letting someone know what's up.  Even if it's the wrong agency, we do have ways to get word to each other.

Don't be afraid to ask for a cop's credentials, even if they're in uniform.  They should be able to provide them, and it is possible to acquire all the badges, pins, etc. to look pretty convincing.  If it's a cop in plainclothes -- don't be afraid to ask for a uniformed officer, too.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2012)

Then there are the knuckleheads who KNOW you are a plainclothes officer but want to play games....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Instructor (Aug 13, 2012)

Going back to the OP.  I was a prior Security Policeman and have served in a couple of different military branches.  I don't know how it is with state troopers but I've been given unlawful orders and told the person ordering me to pound sand.  I've also been given some pretty nice attaboys from high ranking folks for doing so.  Nobody should be above the law including the law enforcers and people ordering the law enforcers.


----------



## Cougar (Sep 6, 2012)

This is an issue that has come to light more often than not, recently. The initial comment from the trooper was ill advised. While the position, and the attitude, of most street officers is that they must seize control of the situation and then attempt to sort it all out prevailing today, it is usually best to go along as well as you can with the officer on the scene. Police officers are human and we are prone to the occaisional mistake just like everyone else. Case law has supported an officer making a decision on the street that maybe should have been done differently, but stod in court because the officer was able to verbalize the intent, the situation as they saw it and whether or not they felt they were in danger. Remember that intent has a lot of weight in court. Do police officers overstep their authority? Every day. The over stepping of authority is where the legal vs illegal order comes into play. If an officer tells you to do something that you believe to be wrong, it is best to comply and wait for the opportunity to voice any objections at such time that you can do so safely. I have backed up fellow officers and observed them taking actions or saying something that I would not, but helped them until such time as i could point it out to them safely. Usually after the subject was restrained and in the back of the patrol car. SCOTUS has ruled that an individual can be placed in restraint and placed in a position/place of safety while an officer investigates a situation. Then, the subject can be released if the officer determines no wrong doing has occured. Meanwhile, it is entirely possible an unlawful order has been issued by the police officer.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 7, 2012)

Of course cops can make unlawful statements directing citizens to do something...we do hear of a cop abusing his authority in some way (e.g., sexual assault under color of law happens) more often than we care to think. But yeah...as a rule of thumb, comply first and sue later if you're not being placed in danger.


----------

