Naughty NM State Police Officer Won't Be Charged
- Thread starter MA-Caver
- Start date
Archangel M
Senior Master
Unless it was rape or some "deal" to get out of an arrest/ticket I cant see how it would be a crime.
It should be pretty serious violation of dept policy though.....
It should be pretty serious violation of dept policy though.....
JohnEdward
2nd Black Belt
It's only a crime if he paid for it. 
OP
OP
So sex in public is not illegal?? Hmm. So I didn't really have much to worry about that one time I ....
Archangel M
Senior Master
You've never had sex outside?
It's "public lewdness" only if the "public" observes it. And there is typically an element of "you should have known people could see you" involved. Such as in a public park during normal hours.
A security camera he was obviously unaware of doesn't normally qualify. State laws may vary.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
'In public," covers a lot of ground-especially in NM. I've been where they were filmed; it's more like 'in the woods," with cameras, apparently. The laws on lewd behavior (sex "in public") also vary pretty widely from state to state.
Archangel M
Senior Master
oftheherd1
Senior Master
That certainly be in violation of department rules. Doing that while he was on duty, depending on State law, might make him in violation of some law for accepting his duty pay while not performing his duties. It would probably be a stretch, and only used to encourage him to resign, rather than being prosecuted, but might actually be a violation of law. Don't really know their laws there though.
Aye, a bit naughty if he was on duty, so to speak .
What makes me more annoyed is the way the media worms it's way around things - what's the point of trying not to embarrass the officer more than he already is if the media just goes on it's merry way releasing such details as this:
Johnson declined to release the name of the officer, but KQRE-TV reported (http://bit.ly/qOPJ6t ) he is an eight-year veteran of the department who's currently on administrative leave. The Albuquerque television station also reported he was state police officer of the year in the Santa Fe district in 2010.
.What makes me more annoyed is the way the media worms it's way around things - what's the point of trying not to embarrass the officer more than he already is if the media just goes on it's merry way releasing such details as this:
Johnson declined to release the name of the officer, but KQRE-TV reported (http://bit.ly/qOPJ6t ) he is an eight-year veteran of the department who's currently on administrative leave. The Albuquerque television station also reported he was state police officer of the year in the Santa Fe district in 2010.
Archangel M
Senior Master
I think the issue here was if what this guy did was illegal or not. You don't have to commit a crime to get fired.
Let me take this as an opportunity to highlight the difference between "wrong" as in illegal, and "wrong" as in against policy. In this case, the activity was reviewed by the prosecuting authority who declined to press charges. The officer was still subject to discipline, being fired in this case, probably under something like "conduct unbecoming." What's unusual here is that you heard about the discipline; often they aren't -- and sometimes cannot by law -- be released to the public. So, sometimes, when people flip out and complain that the cop got away with something because he wasn't criminally charged, that doesn't really mean that "he got away with it." In fact, sometimes, the cop loses his job over something that a civilian's boss wouldn't even touch... (How'd you like to be demoted or even permitted to resign in lieu of termination for having an affair with someone from the same employer -- but not in your chain of command? I know several cops who have run into that little trick bag.)
OP
OP
Well question is will this officer be able to find work in another department or another department in a different state? Sad that he may have to do that, pull up roots and move, but something like that would follow him undoubtedly. People screw up, make mistakes. I've several past employers that I do NOT add to my resume just for that reason. Can't find a job because I screwed up and got fired. To me it's stupid but as a former manager I do understand the importance of policy adherence. What ticks me off is the idea that there are no 2nd chances to do it right.
Article stated that the officer can appeal. IME appeals don't add up to squat, no matter how good the employment record or customer service reports are.
Hope this cop (who was a past award winner) will find something somewhere else if he cannot get back on with his old dept.
Maybe; maybe not. Depends on the agencies he applies to. Some will take this to be an indication of questionable judgement. Others will look at his response and how he handles it.
Omitting the job isn't a practical solution; he'll be subject to a background check, and lying on the application is grounds for termination.
So basically, it's not illegal because he didn't get caught during the act by an actual person's eye? Or, does it depend on who owns the camera? For example, what if a camera used to detect those that run yellow/red lights or a speed enforcement camera caught this image? Would that be different?
Archangel M
Senior Master
A remote area not normally travelled by the public doesn't typically count as "public", even if there is a camera there. "Public lewedness" doesn't mean "if you get caught its public". Even if a live person stumbled by and saw them it may not apply.
Public lewedness is two people having sex on a picnic table in a public park...not two people in the woods somewhere who happen to be caught by a camera they didn't know was there.
Of course different states my have different legal definitions of what "public view" means.
Public lewedness is two people having sex on a picnic table in a public park...not two people in the woods somewhere who happen to be caught by a camera they didn't know was there.
Of course different states my have different legal definitions of what "public view" means.
I think you'll find this to be the common principle; whether or not the area is reasonably open for people to observe the activity. Two people wilderness camping in the Shenandoah National Park, in a campsite they selected to be reasonably off the trail, decide to take advantage of a hammock for some personal relations... It's not their fault that someone else also looking for a campsite stumbles across them. But... if that same couple is in one of the large, established campgrounds along Skyline Drive, and string up their hammock... then they're going to have a problem.
Agreed. Pretty poor decision on his part though.
Similar threads
