Police Education

[Ed_S]

There is a reason why cheat sheets are banned in my industry – they’re notoriously hard to control! Try explaining a cheat sheet to an FDA inspector! I probably spend an hour per week training on new regulations and yes I’m expected to know and follow them.
As for should a cop know all the laws, no I don’t expect, that but I would expect them to know the basic ones? I think open carry in CO would be a basic one?

[Byte Stryke]

OK. You win. You obviously get punished more than anyone else ever will for making a mistake at work. Congratulations.

that's not what I said
but not going to let you suck me into the anti-cop thing...

keep paying them higher taxes though... because insurance is going up!
Start another thread complaining about how high taxes are

[BushMasterBoy]

I posted this article originally so that EVERYBODY that reads it can cite the law if in a similiar situation. These excerpts are pasted from Lexis/Nexis which claims to be the official publisher of Colorado Law. Why the state can not publish it own laws baffles me! These following laws concern local governments and what they can and cannot do;



Colorado Revised Staute 29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration

(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:

(a) Section 3 of article II of the state constitution, the article referred to as the state bill of rights, declares that all persons have certain inalienable rights, which include the right to defend their lives and liberties;

(b) Section 13 of article II of the state constitution protects the fundamental right of a person to keep and bear arms and implements section 3 of article II of the state constitution;

(c) The general assembly recognizes a duty to protect and defend the fundamental civil rights set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection (1);

(d) There exists a widespread inconsistency among jurisdictions within the state with regard to firearms regulations;

(e) This inconsistency among local government laws regulating lawful firearm possession and ownership has extraterritorial impact on state citizens and the general public by subjecting them to criminal and civil penalties in some jurisdictions for conduct wholly lawful in other jurisdictions;

(f) Inconsistency among local governments of laws regulating the possession and ownership of firearms results in persons being treated differently under the law solely on the basis of where they reside, and a person's residence in a particular county or city or city and county is not a rational classification when it is the basis for denial of equal treatment under the law;

(g) This inconsistency places citizens in the position of not knowing when they may be violating the local laws and therefore being unable to avoid violating the law and becoming subject to criminal and other penalties.

(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that:

(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;

(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.


Colorado Revised Statute29-11.7-102. Firearms database - prohibited


(1) A local government, including a law enforcement agency, shall not maintain a list or other form of record or database of:

(a) Persons who purchase or exchange firearms or who leave firearms for repair or sale on consignment;

(b) Persons who transfer firearms, unless the persons are federally licensed firearms dealers;

(c) The descriptions, including serial numbers, of firearms purchased, transferred, exchanged, or left for repair or sale on consignment



Colorado Revised Statutes 29-11.7-103. Regulation - type of firearm - prohibited

A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.


Colorado Revised Statute 29-11.7-104. Regulation - carrying - posting

A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.

[10mm-man]

I posted this article originally so that EVERYBODY that reads it can cite the law if in a similiar situation. These excerpts are pasted from Lexis/Nexis which claims to be the official publisher of Colorado Law. Why the state can not publish it own laws baffles me! These following laws concern local governments and what they can and cannot do;



Colorado Revised Staute 29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration

(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:

(a) Section 3 of article II of the state constitution, the article referred to as the state bill of rights, declares that all persons have certain inalienable rights, which include the right to defend their lives and liberties;

(b) Section 13 of article II of the state constitution protects the fundamental right of a person to keep and bear arms and implements section 3 of article II of the state constitution;

(c) The general assembly recognizes a duty to protect and defend the fundamental civil rights set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection (1);

(d) There exists a widespread inconsistency among jurisdictions within the state with regard to firearms regulations;

(e) This inconsistency among local government laws regulating lawful firearm possession and ownership has extraterritorial impact on state citizens and the general public by subjecting them to criminal and civil penalties in some jurisdictions for conduct wholly lawful in other jurisdictions;

(f) Inconsistency among local governments of laws regulating the possession and ownership of firearms results in persons being treated differently under the law solely on the basis of where they reside, and a person's residence in a particular county or city or city and county is not a rational classification when it is the basis for denial of equal treatment under the law;

(g) This inconsistency places citizens in the position of not knowing when they may be violating the local laws and therefore being unable to avoid violating the law and becoming subject to criminal and other penalties.

(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that:

(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;

(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.


Colorado Revised Statute29-11.7-102. Firearms database - prohibited


(1) A local government, including a law enforcement agency, shall not maintain a list or other form of record or database of:

(a) Persons who purchase or exchange firearms or who leave firearms for repair or sale on consignment;

(b) Persons who transfer firearms, unless the persons are federally licensed firearms dealers;

(c) The descriptions, including serial numbers, of firearms purchased, transferred, exchanged, or left for repair or sale on consignment



Colorado Revised Statutes 29-11.7-103. Regulation - type of firearm - prohibited

A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.


Colorado Revised Statute 29-11.7-104. Regulation - carrying - posting

A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.

In regards to the last part I thought posting of sings in parks was illegal as well. I remember reading (maybe here) about someone calling local jurisdictions complaining about there no guns policy was against state law. OC in this case....... And didn't a city in the mountains have to pay in a civil case for their rights being violated by two cops who hit the guy and tackled him for OC in a park??
Local jurisdiction was apologizing and removing said sign from parks. Maybe that's why the cheat sheet was out of date??? At one time it was legal but now it is not?

[WETWRKS]

I posted this article originally so that EVERYBODY that reads it can cite the law if in a similiar situation. These excerpts are pasted from Lexis/Nexis which claims to be the official publisher of Colorado Law. Why the state can not publish it own laws baffles me!

lexis/nexus is one of several companies that publish the state laws. The state could...but it would cost money.

Pretty much it all boils down to what the lawyer prefers. Some like one company, some another. Some like it in soft bound. Others want a nice hard bound. Some want a hard copy. Others are ok with doing it all on line.

[lead_magnet]

These cops made one of the biggets ut-ohs you can make as a cop. You NEVER arrest (or write a ticket) unless you are absolutley positive you are correct in your findings.

[WETWRKS]

Ok, here is my thoughts on all of this.

My job is not in law enforcement. I am required by my employer to know not just the company rules but also what I am allowed to do legally.

According to the government and these officers...I am required to know the law. Not just what applies to me at the minute. I am required to know all law.

Officers...under their same requirements of my knowing the law also are required to know the law. But moreover...it is their JOB to know the law. They have even more of a requirement to know what the current law is. Someone mentioned that it changed 9 years ago. Would I be able to get away with the excuse that I knew what the law WAS and was acting based on that? I would still be arrested.

They held someone against that persons will...this would be kidnapping or unlawful detainment.

They took someone's personal property...this would be theft.

Those are both criminal actions. These officers need to be arrested and charged. If I failed to follow the law...if I did either of these actions I would be arrested.

[Bailey Guns]

Ok, here is my thoughts on all of this.

My job is not in law enforcement. I am required by my employer to know not just the company rules but also what I am allowed to do legally.

According to the government and these officers...I am required to know the law. Not just what applies to me at the minute. I am required to know all law.

Officers...under their same requirements of my knowing the law also are required to know the law. But moreover...it is their JOB to know the law. They have even more of a requirement to know what the current law is. Someone mentioned that it changed 9 years ago. Would I be able to get away with the excuse that I knew what the law WAS and was acting based on that? I would still be arrested.

They held someone against that persons will...this would be kidnapping or unlawful detainment.

They took someone's personal property...this would be theft.

Those are both criminal actions. These officers need to be arrested and charged. If I failed to follow the law...if I did either of these actions I would be arrested.

The officers appeared to be acting in good faith based on information provided by their department. There is ample case law that protects them from liability in these circumstances. Ultimately, though, a civil court will decide.

Just one example:

Officer not liable for false arrest and false imprisonment. Where police officer had both probable cause to believe that an offense had been committed and that the plaintiff was the person who had committed it, he was not civilly liable for false arrest and false imprisonment. Beyer v. Young, 32 Colo. App. 273, 513 P.2d 1086 (1973).

And from 18-8-103 Resisting Arrest (I know the guy wasn't resisting...just for reference)

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A peace officer acts "under color of his official authority" when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him.

If a peace officer is acting in good faith, based on information provided by their department policies and training, and they make an arrest based on the information/training they believe to be valid, they're given certain protections, even when that information/training was wrong.

If it wasn't that way, then every time a jury acquitted someone of an offense they could claim they were arrested falsely.

[WETWRKS]

The officers appeared to be acting in good faith based on information provided by their department. There is ample case law that protects them from liability in these circumstances. Ultimately, though, a civil court will decide.

Just one example:

And from 18-8-103 Resisting Arrest (I know the guy wasn't resisting...just for reference)
If a peace officer is acting in good faith, based on information provided by their department policies and training, and they make an arrest based on the information/training they believe to be valid, they're given certain protections, even when that information/training was wrong.

If it wasn't that way, then every time a jury acquitted someone of an offense they could claim they were arrested falsely.

Ok...under that same idea...say I was told in my ccw class that it is ok to ccw a machine gun...do I get off under good faith? Would an officer let me walk under that good faith? Would a DA?

They stated that ignorance of the law is no excuse....that is a 2way road.

[Whistler]

The officers appeared to be acting in good faith based on information provided by their department. There is ample case law that protects them from liability in these circumstances. Ultimately, though, a civil court will decide.

Just one example:

And from 18-8-103 Resisting Arrest (I know the guy wasn't resisting...just for reference)
If a peace officer is acting in good faith, based on information provided by their department policies and training, and they make an arrest based on the information/training they believe to be valid, they're given certain protections, even when that information/training was wrong.

If it wasn't that way, then every time a jury acquitted someone of an offense they could claim they were arrested falsely.

I think I'd struggle somewhat with a "good faith" defense - this change in the law is nine years old. That's a stretch even when applied to LE after nine years they were completely unaware and considered their "information/training [they believe] to be valid". I'm afraid I agree it's a double-edged sword - if I'm accountable they are accountable.

edit: for knowing the law and their actions