Posted on 09/13/2002 7:58:36 AM PDT by Dog Gone
Exactly. Only if officers are made aware that they risk more by following illegal orders than refusing them will they do the latter. Indeed, imposing accountability at the bottom may in some cases work better than imposing it at the top, since those at the top may be able to escape official consequences for their actions not escape having their underlings say, "Sir! [bleep] you, sir!" when given an illegal order.
I'm trying to figure out how this might be addressed in Texas criminal law. Official Oppression is the closest I can find:
§ 39.03. Official Oppression
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
The remainder is probably not relevant, except for:
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
It's looking like this is going to be far more than a civil dispute, even after all the charges have been dismissed. If the article is true, some people in the HPD actively conspired to create a crime where it didn't exist. That isn't an error in judgement or erring on the side of caution (and letting the courts sort it out): it's a deliberate act.
Someone is probably going to be convicted of a criminal offense, but it isn't yet clear how many people might be caught in the net.
My guess is that they'll wait to see how the state prosecution plays out before filing federal charges, but I could be wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.