Michigan case offers an example of how public trust suffers when police officers lie
Michigan case offers an example of how public trust suffers when police officers lie
A white officer in suburban Detroit lied to a Black pedestrian by identifying an officer from another force as his supervisor during a 2021 police stop.
Brian Chaney says he asked for a supervisor during his arrest in Keego Harbor, Michigan, and Police Officer Richard Lindquist told him that another officer present was in charge. The problem: That second officer was not a supervisor or even a member of the Keego Harbor Police Department.
Lindquist was never disciplined and his chief says that while a suspect has the right to request a supervisor, what the officer did was OK.
“An officer can lie in the field when he’s not under oath,” Keego Harbor Police Chief John Fitzgerald said in a deposition in Chaney’s $10 million wrongful detention lawsuit.
You're viewing a single thread.
“An officer can lie in the field when he’s not under oath,” Keego Harbor Police Chief John Fitzgerald said in a deposition in Chaney’s $10 million wrongful detention lawsuit.
Their excuse for this is usually that they wouldn't be able to do undercover work if they had to tell the truth. And, to me, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that if they have to lie in the field to do something like undercover work, they have to get a judge to sign off on it first.
I generally agree with the stance that undercover cops should be allowed to lie, since failing to do so would defeat the purpose of being undercover. However, an officer actively arresting someone using their authority as a police officer should be required to be as truthful as possible with the person detained.
I'll stop saying "defund the police" when "protect and serve" is actually what they do.
I agree completely. That's why I said a judge should have to sign off on it. An officer actively arresting someone could not legally lie in that scenario. Only cops in specific scenarios where judges approved of it could lie. That would be far from perfect, there are plenty of rubber stamp judges, but it would also be a lot better than what we have now.
Undercover work is minor for the reason cops like to be able to lie. It's more about obtaining confessions. If cops were punished for lying, it could cause thousands of confessions obtained under false pretenses to be called into question.
And how many of those confessions were of innocent people coerced that way?
A lot more than anyone wants to admit.
And how useful is anyone if everything they say is probably a lie? Is that someone the public should trust?