Does Law Enforcement make law or enforce it?

[LCPLPunk]

The posted thread question seems obvious at first glance, but I am having trouble figuring out what LE really does. As i was glancing into my Criminal Law and Motor Vehicle handbook I noticed two sections that caught my eye. There was a section about unmarried cohabitation and lewd contact between two individuals. The other section was about lewdness and it mentioned that any two people who commit unnatural and lascivious acts (could be married/unmarred i would assume) together commits a misdeameanor. The rest of that particular statute was short and had no further information on the law.

So i guess i am wondering how we have laws/statutes in our Criminal statute books, but they will never get enforced. Officers may see them, know they are illegal but due to modern society realize that just about everyone does it and decide not to enforce them. If this is true, how are we to not enforce these, but we enforce speeding tickets which just about everyone does too? I mean, I have read posts on these forums about people doing 5 over and posting in the 'Ask A Cop' section if they would get pulled over. Most people reply that 'You are still breaking the law, so yes I could give you a ticket', but what about the above mentioned laws? If i asked if I would get a ticket for having unnatural/lascivious acts with my wife would i get the same response?

For note, i found the second one in the 2006 Florida Criminal Law and Motor Vehicle Handbook in section 800.02 and the first one i saw a little ways back, but can't remember exactly where it was.

[winq]

Speeding and most traffic violations involve public safety and are infractions which consitute a fine at best.

Unnatural and lewd acts commited in the privacy of ones home, married/unmarried, whatever.........2007, who cares.....

[StudChris]

Well you have to realise that there is State Law, which you will learn in the Academy, and then there is judicial discretion which the judges in your specific judicial jurisdiction will decide on. For instance, in the jurisdiction that I work in the judges have decided that we cannot testify about horizontal gaze nystagmus. Obviously you can still use it in your FSTs, but because we're "not optimitrists", we're not allowed to explain it in court.

[Redders]

Well you have to realise that there is State Law, which you will learn in the Academy, and then there is judicial discretion which the judges in your specific judicial jurisdiction will decide on. For instance, in the jurisdiction that I work in the judges have decided that we cannot testify about horizontal gaze nystagmus. Obviously you can still use it in your FSTs, but because we're "not optimitrists", we're not allowed to explain it in court.

[SgtScott31]

Don't act surprised Redders....HGN cannot be testified to in trial court in Tennessee either. They are trying to get it changed, but only DRE's, Optometrists, and other "experts" can testify to it in trial court. We are ok to testify to it in General sessions (prelim hearings) and grand jury.

Speeding and most traffic violations involve public safety and are infractions which consitute a fine at best.

Unnatural and lewd acts commited in the privacy of ones home, married/unmarried, whatever.........2007, who cares.....

Couldn't have put it better winq.

[1042 Trooper]

Those laws you choose to enforce - you enforce with complete disinterest and nutrality.

Those law you choose to ignore, you must ignore in the same manner.

[LCPLPunk]

But how can we choose to enforce some laws and not others? I know it comes down to discretion and public safety, but what about those crimes that don't involve public safety like prostitution?

I mean, it is technically against Florida statute to commit the acts i mentioned above, but it is also against Florida statute to be a prostitute. Doesn't not enforcing all the laws reduce the laws legitimacy?

The way i see it, people on here sometimes ask stupid questions about breaking the law, and sometimes others will respond that 'if they don't like the law they should get it changed/write a congressman, etc.' but then there is a double standard. Aren't LEO's responsible for enforcing the law and not deciding which ones to enforce and which ones not to? If they don't think the law should/shouldn't be enforced shouldn't they do like regular citizens and write their congressman instead of not enforcing it?

[Redders]

But how can we choose to enforce some laws and not others? I know it comes down to discretion and public safety, but what about those crimes that don't involve public safety like prostitution?

I mean, it is technically against Florida statute to commit the acts i mentioned above, but it is also against Florida statute to be a prostitute. Doesn't not enforcing all the laws reduce the laws legitimacy?

The way i see it, people on here sometimes ask stupid questions about breaking the law, and sometimes others will respond that 'if they don't like the law they should get it changed/write a congressman, etc.' but then there is a double standard. Aren't LEO's responsible for enforcing the law and not deciding which ones to enforce and which ones not to? If they don't think the law should/shouldn't be enforced shouldn't they do like regular citizens and write their congressman instead of not enforcing it?

Well I'll put it to you this way. How in gods green earth did you get into that couples home to watch them commit that act? I'm pretty sure if their doing something that involves a goat, a 9 iron, 2 midgets and a barrel of baby oil they probably would have noticed you standing there noticing them. It's hard to enforce a law if you don't have evidene that the law was broken.

As far as do police "make" or "enforce" law. When was the last time you were in the state capitol to sign a law into the books? Me, never, when was the last time I put someone in jail because I had evidence that they had broken said law? Last night. We don't make, we enforce.

[Bing_Oh]

I think your question is more along the lines of, "how is officer discretion legitimate in our governmental system?"

In return, I'll ask you this question: would the average citizen want officers to have absolutely no discretion in enforcing the law? In other words, each and every time that a law enforcement officer sees a violation of law, that law is enforced the the fullest extent. No warnings on minor traffic violations. No slack cut when the letter of the law is violated, but the spirit remains intact. No second chances when the violator legitimately just made a mistake and shows remorse for minor infractions.

Now, you can answer that question however you like, but I believe that we have a public mandate as LEO's to use discretion. The public doesn't want strict enforcement of all laws at all times, and the citizenry is supposed to create the law in a democracy (at least in a perfect democracy).

In the end, I think it's a relatively simple thing. The government isn't perfect because the people who created it aren't perfect. If it was a perfect world, then strict enforcement of the law would be reasonable. It's not...as LEO's, we deal with the real world that politicians and judges don't get to see. So, in the end, officer discretion is a legitimate extention of working within an imperfect system.

[leopold99]

Officers may see them, know they are illegal but due to modern society realize that just about everyone does it and decide not to enforce them. If this is true, how are we to not enforce these, but we enforce speeding tickets which just about everyone does too?

speeding has the potential of harming others.

[Nightshift va]

Good point

The posted thread question seems obvious at first glance, but I am having trouble figuring out what LE really does. As i was glancing into my Criminal Law and Motor Vehicle handbook I noticed two sections that caught my eye. There was a section about unmarried cohabitation and lewd contact between two individuals. The other section was about lewdness and it mentioned that any two people who commit unnatural and lascivious acts (could be married/unmarred i would assume) together commits a misdeameanor. The rest of that particular statute was short and had no further information on the law.

So i guess i am wondering how we have laws/statutes in our Criminal statute books, but they will never get enforced. Officers may see them, know they are illegal but due to modern society realize that just about everyone does it and decide not to enforce them. If this is true, how are we to not enforce these, but we enforce speeding tickets which just about everyone does too? I mean, I have read posts on these forums about people doing 5 over and posting in the 'Ask A Cop' section if they would get pulled over. Most people reply that 'You are still breaking the law, so yes I could give you a ticket', but what about the above mentioned laws? If i asked if I would get a ticket for having unnatural/lascivious acts with my wife would i get the same response?

For note, i found the second one in the 2006 Florida Criminal Law and Motor Vehicle Handbook in section 800.02 and the first one i saw a little ways back, but can't remember exactly where it was.

Laws are passed and they are on the books. Its the way it's always been, ask any worthless lawyer since they think they know them all. Remember the Spirit of the Law and the Letter of the Law." That is what most reasonable people look at. Ofcourse what you say is resonable today may be criminal tommorow or accepted. Our laws are something that has evolved from Christian Beliefs put into action to what we have left of them today. Just something to think about. The more felons and non-english illegal aliens and thugs with political power, liberals etc..the more our laws will change. Its the way it is and has been since the beginning of time.

[Nightshift va]

Furthermore

I think your question is more along the lines of, "how is officer discretion legitimate in our governmental system?"

In return, I'll ask you this question: would the average citizen want officers to have absolutely no discretion in enforcing the law? In other words, each and every time that a law enforcement officer sees a violation of law, that law is enforced the the fullest extent. No warnings on minor traffic violations. No slack cut when the letter of the law is violated, but the spirit remains intact. No second chances when the violator legitimately just made a mistake and shows remorse for minor infractions.

Now, you can answer that question however you like, but I believe that we have a public mandate as LEO's to use discretion. The public doesn't want strict enforcement of all laws at all times, and the citizenry is supposed to create the law in a democracy (at least in a perfect democracy).

In the end, I think it's a relatively simple thing. The government isn't perfect because the people who created it aren't perfect. If it was a perfect world, then strict enforcement of the law would be reasonable. It's not...as LEO's, we deal with the real world that politicians and judges don't get to see. So, in the end, officer discretion is a legitimate extention of working within an imperfect system.

That includes individual Officers. Each of us have our own opinions and enforce what we deem important to us as well and use our own descrestion. I think drugs are a terrible plague on society and drug dealers are domestic terrorist some think they are opprotunist and would rather write a grey hair a speeding ticket than get out on a corner with a drug dealer and see what you can do to get them in a cage. tomato tomahto. that i think is where things get interesting when you have officers tht aren't even on the same page it's hard to think that laws are any different as far as the way people disregard them.

[irishdep]

A goat, a 9 iron, 2 midgets and a barrel of baby oil? I'm sure when that scenario plays out the hospital will call and notify us. LOL

[LCPLPunk]

Redders - "Well I'll put it to you this way. How in gods green earth did you get into that couples home to watch them commit that act? I'm pretty sure if their doing something that involves a goat, a 9 iron, 2 midgets and a barrel of baby oil they probably would have noticed you standing there noticing them. It's hard to enforce a law if you don't have evidene that the law was broken."

So what about when i'm a Deputy and me and my wife do our business? I know the law, and know that it was broken, so do I give myself a ticket?

[ofc129]

Just because a law is still on the books does not mean it is constitutional. Many of the old "moral" laws are still there but not enforced because over the years SCOTUS and lower courts have overturned them. Most state legislatures do not bother rewriting large portions of their criminal code, it's just understood that DAs will not prosecute them because of the unconstitutionality.

Many times it's less about officer discretion on the scene than knowing what your local DA is willing to prosecute.