How naive can you be?

All state penal codes have written sections that allow cops to commit misdemeanors in the carrying out of their duties. Otherwise no criminals would ever be caught. The legislature has the police departments set up policies and procedures to guide their officers. The reason a case is tossed by the prosecution for an officer having sex is because most policies preclude the officer from doing it. The departments policies and procedures hence is treated like law in the court room. The case is tossed at that time. Now if there is no policy forbidding it go back to cops can commit a misdemeanor in the course of enforcing the law.

Really? "All state penal codes have written sections that allow cops to commit misdemeanors...." I challenge you to prove that statement. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

My fellow Marine, this is one time you are wrong and don’t know what your talking about. It take an exception in the penal code for police officers to enforce traffic laws stings of all types and everything else. God nor the US Constitution give the Police the right to break laws to enforce laws!

Semper Fi!

All state penal codes have written sections that allow cops to commit misdemeanors in the carrying out of their duties. Otherwise no criminals would ever be caught. The legislature has the police departments set up policies and procedures to guide their officers. The reason a case is tossed by the prosecution for an officer having sex is because most policies preclude the officer from doing it. The departments policies and procedures hence is treated like law in the court room. The case is tossed at that time. Now if there is no policy forbidding it go back to cops can commit a misdemeanor in the course of enforcing the law. Originally Posted by Monkey Butt

Here is the code, slick...where is the section that allows police to commit misdemeanors in Texas?

PENAL CODE


TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY


CHAPTER 43. PUBLIC INDECENCY


SUBCHAPTER A. PROSTITUTION


Sec. 43.01. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:

(1) "Deviate sexual intercourse" means any contact between the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person.

(1-a) "Fee" means the payment or offer of payment in the form of money, goods, services, or other benefit.

(2) "Prostitution" means the offense defined in Section 43.02.

(3) "Sexual contact" means any touching of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

(4) "Sexual conduct" includes deviate sexual intercourse, sexual contact, and sexual intercourse.

(5) "Sexual intercourse" means any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 373, ch. 168, Sec. 2, eff. Aug. 27, 1979; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Amended by:

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 685 (H.B. 29), Sec. 35, eff. September 1, 2017.

Sec. 43.02. PROSTITUTION.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly offers or agrees to receive a fee from another to engage in sexual conduct.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly offers or agrees to pay a fee to another person for the purpose of engaging in sexual conduct with that person or another.

(b-1) Repealed by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 685 (H.B. 29), Sec. 44(2), eff. September 1, 2017.

(c) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is:

(1) a Class A misdemeanor if the actor has previously been convicted one or two times of an offense under Subsection (a); or

(2) a state jail felony if the actor has previously been convicted three or more times of an offense under Subsection (a).

(c-1) An offense under Subsection (b) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is:

(1) a Class A misdemeanor if the actor has previously been convicted one or two times of an offense under Subsection (b);

(2) a state jail felony if the actor has previously been convicted three or more times of an offense under Subsection (b); or

(3) a felony of the second degree if the person with whom the actor agrees to engage in sexual conduct is:

(A) younger than 18 years of age, regardless of whether the actor knows the age of the person at the time of the offense;

(B) represented to the actor as being younger than 18 years of age; or

(C) believed by the actor to be younger than 18 years of age.

(d) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a) that the actor engaged in the conduct that constitutes the offense because the actor was the victim of conduct that constitutes an offense under Section 20A.02 or 43.05.

(e) A conviction may be used for purposes of enhancement under this section or enhancement under Subchapter D, Chapter 12, but not under both this section and Subchapter D, Chapter 12. For purposes of enhancement of penalties under this section or Subchapter D, Chapter 12, a defendant is previously convicted of an offense under this section if the defendant was adjudged guilty of the offense or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in return for a grant of deferred adjudication, regardless of whether the sentence for the offense was ever imposed or whether the sentence was probated and the defendant was subsequently discharged from community supervision.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 757, ch. 286, Sec. 1, eff. May 27, 1977; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 987, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1002 (H.B. 4009), Sec. 8, eff. September 1, 2009.

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 515 (H.B. 2014), Sec. 4.02, eff. September 1, 2011.

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1252 (H.B. 8), Sec. 15, eff. September 1, 2013.

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 332 (H.B. 10), Sec. 14, eff. September 1, 2015.

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1273 (S.B. 825), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 685 (H.B. 29), Sec. 36, eff. September 1, 2017.

Reenacted and amended by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 685 (H.B. 29), Sec. 37, eff. September 1, 2017.

Amended by:

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 685 (H.B. 29), Sec. 44(2), eff. September 1, 2017.

Reenacted and amended by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1038 (H.B. 1808), Sec. 8, eff. September 1, 2017.

Sec. 43.03. PROMOTION OF PROSTITUTION. (a) A person commits an offense if, acting other than as a prostitute receiving compensation for personally rendered prostitution services, he or she knowingly:

(1) receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement to participate in the proceeds of prostitution; or

(2) solicits another to engage in sexual conduct with another person for compensation.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony, except that the offense is:

(1) a felony of the third degree if the actor has been previously convicted of an offense under this section; or

(2) a felony of the second degree if the actor engages in conduct described by Subsection (a)(1) or (2) involving a person younger than 18 years of age engaging in prostitution, regardless of whether the actor knows the age of the person at the time of the offense.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 758, ch. 287, Sec. 1, eff. May 27, 1977; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Amended by:

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1252 (H.B. 8), Sec. 16, eff. September 1, 2013.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 685 (H.B. 29), Sec. 38, eff. September 1, 2017.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1038 (H.B. 1808), Sec. 9, eff. September 1, 2017.

Sec. 43.04. AGGRAVATED PROMOTION OF PROSTITUTION. (a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly owns, invests in, finances, controls, supervises, or manages a prostitution enterprise that uses two or more prostitutes.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if the prostitution enterprise uses as a prostitute one or more persons younger than 18 years of age, regardless of whether the actor knows the age of the person at the time of the offense.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Amended by:

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1252 (H.B. 8), Sec. 17, eff. September 1, 2013.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 685 (H.B. 29), Sec. 39, eff. September 1, 2017.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1038 (H.B. 1808), Sec. 10, eff. September 1, 2017.

Sec. 43.05. COMPELLING PROSTITUTION. (a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly:

(1) causes another by force, threat, or fraud to commit prostitution; or

(2) causes by any means a child younger than 18 years to commit prostitution, regardless of whether the actor knows the age of the child at the time of the offense.

(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the second degree. An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a felony of the first degree.

(c) If conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another section of this code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or under both sections.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Amended by:

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1002 (H.B. 4009), Sec. 9, eff. September 1, 2009.

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 24), Sec. 1.03, eff. September 1, 2011.

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1273 (S.B. 825), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2015.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 685 (H.B. 29), Sec. 40, eff. September 1, 2017.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1038 (H.B. 1808), Sec. 11, eff. September 1, 2017.

Sec. 43.06. ACCOMPLICE WITNESS; TESTIMONY AND IMMUNITY. (a) A party to an offense under this subchapter may be required to furnish evidence or testify about the offense.

(b) A party to an offense under this subchapter may not be prosecuted for any offense about which he is required to furnish evidence or testify, and the evidence and testimony may not be used against the party in any adjudicatory proceeding except a prosecution for aggravated perjury.

(c) For purposes of this section, "adjudicatory proceeding" means a proceeding before a court or any other agency of government in which the legal rights, powers, duties, or privileges of specified parties are determined.

(d) A conviction under this subchapter may be had upon the uncorroborated testimony of a party to the offense.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

I'll say it again. PROVE IT! You are absolutely wrong.

Ok slick, the section is not found in the crimes definition. Do more home work. If they added the exception to every definition how big would the book be slick! Now research police officer enforcement.

Luv2luv I respect your opinions, my time on here is not to teach a free law class. Your original topic was on point. What I said is easily found, unless you think like Slick.

I'll just go ahead and say this. I don't need to take a law class. I've already done that. I've had the education, I've had the training, and I've had many years of experience. And I can tell you without any fear of correction that what you say is simply laughable. To think that state legislators would authorize criminal misconduct in the criminal code is just ludicrous. If that were the case, there would be more cases than courts could possibly handle, all filed by those accused of misdemeanors and lower-class felonies, because dismissal of the charges would be simply automatic, as they are when law enforcement officers do break the law in pursuit of evidence. It goes without saying that law enforcement are just folks and they break the law both accidentally and o purpose. When that happens, charges are dismissed. Calm down and think about what you are alleging. Think of the legal ramifications of authorizing criminal activity to gather evidence. Has it happened? Of course. And what has been the result when it has been proven? The charges are dismissed … the evidence is tossed because it was gathered improperly. Don't you understand that? This will be my last comment on this subject because it's just too silly to take it any further.

One last question, why do the police get away with breaking law enforcing it. Why are they not procecuted. With your knowledge and experience it should be simple to say. It is easy enough to find if you do the research in the books you studied to get the education and the experience. It is taught in every Criminal Law class. It’s found in the same section where police are given the right to arrest. I’m out of here.

One last question, why do the police get away with breaking law enforcing it. Why are they not procecuted. With your knowledge and experience it should be simple to say. It is easy enough to find if you do the research in the books you studied to get the education and the experience. It is taught in every Criminal Law class. It’s found in the same section where police are given the right to arrest. I’m out of here. Originally Posted by Monkey Butt

Wow....you make an outrageous claim and refuse to back it up by simply listing the code where it can be found.

Then you ask us to prove how your claim isn't true? Cmon....

Trolling....I'm done.

It is taught in every Criminal Law class. Originally Posted by Monkey Butt

Absolutely false.

Ok slick, the section is not found in the crimes definition. Do more home work. If they added the exception to every definition how big would the book be slick! Now research police officer enforcement. Originally Posted by Monkey Butt

What they normally do is add a cross reference to another statute that attaches it to the statute at hand.

e.g, “the police misdemeanor commission exception applies herein”

It is taught in every Criminal Law class. It’s found in the same section where police are given the right to arrest. I’m out of here. Originally Posted by Monkey Butt

Absolutely false. Originally Posted by Crock

Crock is correct. Statutes are not normally taught in Criminal Law classes. Police training classes? Maybe. I’d assume so. Rarely even taught in academic criminal justice classes. Only mentioned and applied in Criminal Clinic and Advocacy “classes.” Maybe CLEs or Bar Study classes.

Cops can get prior approval to commit crimes to maintain cover or as part of a sting op (sell drugs, bribe politicians, etc.). But in reality, like I stated before, technically most cops can’t even jaywalk without possibly getting a ticket.

Why do I care and dwell on this topic? Because when people take the approach that no matter what they do, cops can and will arrest them, they become careless and complacent.

Don’t commit overtly and obviously illegal acts. Be smart and respectful and behave like appropriately concerning adults and you will likely not run afoul with anyone but perhaps a snooping SO.

Wow....you make an outrageous claim and refuse to back it up by simply listing the code where it can be found.

Then you ask us to prove how your claim isn't true? Cmon....

Trolling....I'm done. Originally Posted by grean

Look! We agree! Xoxo. Lol.

As you can imagine, there are far too many statutes to teach them all in a police academy class. What is taught is the organization of the state statutes manual and how to migrate through it; how to determine whether the necessary elements are present to constitute an offense. The manual is organized by subject matter and, in the relevant classes, instructors take the candidates through examples, often drawn from the daily news, to teach them how to determine if a crime was committed and how to document it. Once in the field, officers use the manual to determine validity of charges. When involved in special operations, briefings will include discussions of the legality of necessary procedures so that the officers do not cross the line to committing a crime themselves, not that it never happens. It does. But it is first, a rarity, and second, ordinarily occurs by accident. Cops who commit crimes on purpose do exist, but they are rare and it is never an approved practice. There is simply no place that one can find legislative "permission" to commit a crime.

And I said I wasn't going to comment any more. Sigh!