http://www.npr.org/2011/01/18/13300...officials-looking-for-bad-pennies?ft=1&f=1001 So them searching people . . . and then claiming 'probably cause' Them wanting to go into people's Financial records with out a warrent is ok . . but them getting searched and probed . . .well that is a different story Hypocrits! Rocket River
for the officers who follow the law, how are they hypocrites by not allowing their finances to be picked apart with a fine tooth comb?
Well, I think they're right that it is an unwarranted invasion of privacy. No employer dhould be able to demand that as a term of employment. Whatever resentment you feel about cops getting into other people's business is a separate deal. (Btw, that was a terrible copy-and-paste job.)
Anyone who is given power to regulate the public should be subject to tighter scrutiny than those who do not have that degree of power.
So because they may be innocent of wrong doing they shouldn't be subjected to an unwarranted intrusion of their privacy? Presumption of innocence? Pffft, who ever heard of such things?
I think this is too far but I do believe that police officers should get double the normal punishment if they commit a crime using their power.
There are some jobs where the employer has a legitimate interest in knowing this type of financial information. For example, I believe football refs must agree to provide this type of information. The individual then has the right to choose whether or not to agree to allow that access to the information. Of course, if the individual does not agree, then they will not become an employee. It is a tougher call when the individual already has the job and the rules are changed, which is what is happening here. I do not think it is appropriate for police officers to give detailed access to their finances, but there may be middle ground where the police provide some information like federal judges must do.
