Help on a case...

[HookandBook2]

I am doing a debate in a college ethics class. Here is the topic/situation of my debate: A state's highway patrol keeps records of stolen cars in its computer system. A car can be checked by typing in the license plate number. The records are not routinley updated when stolen cars are recovered. A car was still listed as stolen a few years after it had been recovered and later sold. The new owner of the car was shot and killed by a police officer during a traffic stop;the officer thought the car was stolen and that the driver was acting suspiciously. An investigation concluded that the officer "acted in good faith." The family filed a wrongful death suit against the highway patrol and the police officer.

Now, what my professor did was give us a choice on who to defend. I chose to defend the Police Officer. ONLY from the facts stated above I concluded that the officer is not in the wrong. Whether the Highway patrol is, is not relevant here on account my defense is soley or the Police Officer.

I have two requests: One, this scenario is based on a actual case. Does anyone know of, or remember a case lke this? If so, please direct me as so I can look it up. Two, what are your thoughts based ONLY on what you have read above. Remember, my debate/defense is only w/ the police oficer being sued. Your thoughts on the department he works for, or the family won't help me. Also, I only want sincere comments. Whether or not your for the cop being sued or not doesn't matter to me. I'd just like to know what you people think. Real cops here responding too would help. Thanks. :D

[Stump]

Originally posted by HookandBook2
what are your thoughts based ONLY on what you have read above

My only thought would be there was not enough information presented to make any kind of opinion.
We have had 3 police shootings and also one man die in police custody in the last 2 months. We have citizens automatically make it a race issue, and saying that the officers were in the wrong. The "Al Sharpton" of my town is talking out of his *** about these situations because he does not have the facts. That's what your question reminds me of.

[HookandBook2]

Yes, unfortunatley "Race" seems to be the scape goat of choice these days. I really ticks me off at times.

However, just so there is clarity, I am very pro-police. I was an explorer for three years and loved every second.

[Solego]

I don't recall him asking about race issues.

[Charlie]

I think you really need to have a more clear understanding of how the computer system works with regards to entered stolen vehicles. Simple example of the process: Cops see a car's license plate and runs a check on said plate OR VIN number. Car comes back hot. Would be cop shoud request confirmation that the car is hot. This is when the requesting agency contacts the ENTERING agency to verify the vehicle IS still stolen. Entering agency CONFIRMS the vehicle is stolen.

Sometimes what happens, occasionally here in Dallas, the owner reports said vehicle stolen to local police. Owner somehow finds and recovers said "stole" vehicle on their own BUT fails to contact the reporting agency that they have recovered their own vehicle. They don't take any action. Owner is driving car on street. Cop runs license tag. Wouldn't ya know it? The car shows to be stolen!!! Car is VERIFIED as stolen with ENTERING PD (cause dumba$$ owner doesn't contact PD to say "Hey, I got my car back!") Guess what happens next? Felony traffic stop! The officer is acting on good faith that the car is indeed STILL stolen!

Once car is recovered, the vehicle is supposed to be immediately removed from the system by either the entering or recovering agency AFTER confirmation proceedings take place.

So you see, I think it would benefit the defense to have some knowledge on how this generally works to make it more defensible. PLUS, it is definitely going to take some further investigating to determine HOW and WHY the vehicle in your case was STILL in the system as stolen. (One possible is my example about the owner recovered stolen vehicle in previous paragraph as an example).

My point is simply, what are the totality of the circumstances in the case you speak of? It would definitely be an advantage to know all there is to defend the officer in the case. What did dispatch personnel tell the officer? What did dispatch personnel get on the "return" concerning the vehicle? Was it CONFIRMED to be stolen? If everything is being followed according to protocol and policy, then it is reasonable to assume the officer clearly was acting in good faith. Why would the officer NOT believe the stolen vehicle information? It's from a credible source!

Hope this helps.

Charlie