Undercover cops

mariposa420 said:
^^^^ It's not my intent to be a smartass, but just because you saw it on Cops doesn't mean it's legal.


Doesn't mean what is legal?
my statement was: where I live, an undercover cop can not legally say that he or she is not an undercover cop
 
^^^
with respect, I'd be more likely to believe that if you could provide a link to the specific law, than if you were basing it on something you saw on Cops. For all we know, the cop on Cops could have been lying to confuse people, or he could be an idiot.
 
I searched but couldn't find any actual "official" laws. Anyways, just because it's not legal doesn't mean they won't do it. They wouldn't get in trouble for lying about being a UC
 
these two statements seem to contradict each other completely:

In the USA, at least in the great (not) state of South Carolina, an undercover cop can not legally say that he/she isn't an undercover cop.
They wouldn't get in trouble for lying about being a UC

am i maybe missing some double-negative subtlety here?

alasdair
 
You think the average legal system would prosecute a cop for breaking the law to bust criminals?
cops can wiggle their way out of anything....well almost
 
EvMan717 said:
You think the average legal system would prosecute a cop for breaking the law to bust criminals?

what is "the average legal system"?

you have yet to provide any (convincing) back up of your statement.

alasdair
 
I couldn't find any documents to back up my statement. Why don't you back up yours, whatever it was, or are you just more believable than me?
 
sigh. i asked you first... :)

i'm going camping. i'll get to this on monday.

alasdair
 
EvMan717 said:
I couldn't find any documents to back up my statement. Why don't you back up yours, whatever it was, or are you just more believable than me?

ok, with some (actually a lot) of help from our resident butterfly, i can tell you the following:

"The question of whether or not an undercover officer is required to identify him/herself is a complex one, but there is every indication that if the cop has a reasonable belief that identifying him/herself could place the cop in danger, then the officer is not required to identify themself as such. I conferred with a friend who goes to Cornell Law School who has criminal procedure fresh in his mind, and he agrees with this conclusion."

further, this are not entirely right on topic - in that it addresses testifying at trial and not making an arrest - but it addresses the possibility that an undercover officer might be placing him/herself in harm's way by revealing his/her identity:

Should undercover cops be allowed to testify anonymously in court?

and:

UK article on undercover cops & entrapment

there's a lot of relevant (not to mention excellent) reading here:

The Entrapment Debate

also:

POLICE UNDERCOVER WORK

finally, this is an interesting appellate case in which the jury instructions in large part contributed to the decision being affirmed.

that opens up a whole other can of worms and isn't directly relevant to the question of undercover police work, but it's included anyway because it underlies the importance of jury instructions:

People v. Samuels & People v. Henderson

i'd say, in brief summary, that your assertion that "an undercover cop can not legally say that he/she isn't an undercover cop." is simply wrong.

as an aside, mariposa said: "It isn't always that common sense and the law coincide, but this time they do."

i'm inclined to agree.

all the best

alasdair
 
fwiw i watch COPS all the time and i have never seen such an incident. on the contrary, however, i have several times seen police asked if they are officers (to which they have always of course replied in the negative), and once did see a moron say "if you're a cop you have to tell me" to which the cops all had a big laugh.
 
OK, lets think about this logically... Why in the world would they ever bother sending someone on an *undercover* assignment if all those being watched had to do is say "are you a cop"???

Entrapment has nothing to do with it unless they get you to do something that you normally wouldn't do... If you would normally sell to a person who you just met or who happened to have infiltrated your massive drug dealing operation, then sorry but you are hit...

I can not even believe people are disputing this... Stop watching movies and learn the truth... Call your nearest lawyer -- State, federal or whatever you may have... Ask them the question...

My cohorts and I were picked up by the FBI a while back... One of my friends had this particular question in mind... He asked in front of 3 agents and you would have thought it was an evening at the improv... They went on to explain that this was the biggest bullshit urban myth of all time... They even remembered cases in their past where they were asked this question "are you a cop"...
 
In every country that I know of, cops are not required to tell you the truth if you ask them if they are a cop.

We had a long and very informative thread on this about a year ago; maybe somebody (I don't know how) can pull it up.%) %)

If in doubt, ask him or her to show you their genitals before...8)
 
These lines of conversation just don't match up. There are people thinking within the guidelines of the U.S. legal system and other in Australian. There are very few comparisons. We (australians) have a totally different legal system in respect to courts and evidence. Also the crimes acts are totally different. Even in different states of both counries. Ask specifically which police force you are asking about because they are all different.
 
^^^^
Um, if you look at my first post (half way down page 1) I quote from the legislation that applies in Western Australia (the original poster's state).
 
I'm being general sorry. I was referring more to the entrapment in the U.S. conversation. I'm in NSW and the undercover deal is pretty similar. They don't have to say they are. Also, be careful who you are asking for stuff off, it could be a cop.
 
Top