Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Here's a fundraiser worthy of attention | Main | Get out of line in this restaurant and they don't call a bouncer »

SWAT teams as public charities?

Posted by David Hardy · 1 July 2014 09:27 PM

I find this story troubling. ACLU was seeking to compile data on how often SWAT teams are called out in Massachusetts. It found that about 3/4 of LE agencies in the State organize their SWAT teams under "Law Enforcement Councils," which are entirely funded from LE agency budgets, but insist they are separately incorporated as 501(c) tax-exempt charities, and thus are not subject to public records requirements.

Hmmm... so they're private organizations? I suppose then that if they are sued they have only the legal standing of a private security corporation. Such as (1) there is no probable cause defense to a suit for wrongful imprisonment. A police agency is protected so long as its member had probable cause to arrest: in most States, a private party making a citizen's arrest doesn't have that. He is liable for false arrest unless the arrestee is actually guilty, however the suspicious the arrestee was. (2) There is no "qualified immunity" for actions taken when a reasonable officer would not have realized they were unconstitutional, even though they were. (3) There is no, I forget the case, but protection for the agency (as opposed to employees) unless the agency had a "pattern or practice" of violating constitutional rights. A private company is liable whenever its employee does a wrong in the line of duty, whether or not the company had a pattern or practice of wrongdoing.

Why do I suspect that the minute an LEC gets sued, it will discover that it actually is a government agency and not a private corporation?

· General con law

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Flight-ER-Doc | July 2, 2014 2:07 PM | Reply

Seems that the policies and training records are up to the various departments, and if that training is done by a 'non profit' the department is still responsible for it, and producing the records on demand.

Rich | July 2, 2014 2:51 PM | Reply

I would be willing to bet there is a lawyer advising them someplace behind the scenes how how to skirt the law. Experts were there for worldcomm on how to do that type of thing

Starchild | July 2, 2014 5:59 PM | Reply

Just one more example of unaccountable, secretive government.

Vote libertarian for real change.

Michael (Constant Conservative) | July 2, 2014 6:17 PM | Reply

The issue for me is that we have a growing number of people who believe that they are to be treated differently under the law than everyone else. That way lies madness.

Anonymous | July 4, 2014 5:09 PM | Reply

"A police agency is protected so long as its member had probable cause to arrest: in most States, a private party making a citizen's arrest doesn't have that. He is liable for false arrest unless the arrestee is actually guilty, however the suspicious the arrestee was. "

I guess I'm more cynical than you. The judicial prison industrial complex will find me guilty of something if it my innocence threatened the bottom line.

Sorry. That's just how it is.

Deep Lurker | July 5, 2014 1:30 AM | Reply

"That way lies madness."

No, just a bog-standard aristocracy. Which is bad enough.

SPQR | July 5, 2014 5:42 PM | Reply

Its an utterly outrageous argument in the first place, and shows the corrupt nature of Massachusetts government especially.

Leave a comment