Mandatory Arrest: "Itinerant Vendors"

[Roycerson]

Seriously, are there any statutes that specify "mandatory enforcement"?

Police discretion by definition does not conform to the letter of the law, that's the whole point.  I think what we might be dealing with here is not a matter of a mandatory enforcement statute but rather PD policy, hence the value of Ian's source.

The corollary being that police are NOT required to enforce the rest of the laws, as a part of their job description?

I trust my source.  Police do not have any obligation to arrest in the supermajority of cases.  Some exceptions noted above.

[FTL_Ian]

No, it's the statutes.  Here's another one from my source:

found another shall arrest law.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/353/353-3-c.htm

There is no rhyme or reason as to which law the legislature chooses to do this in.

[srqrebel]

No, it's the statutes.  Here's another one from my source:

found another shall arrest law.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/353/353-3-c.htm

There is no rhyme or reason as to which law the legislature chooses to do this in.

Indeed -- in this case, as in many others, the law leaves only one enforcement option: Arrest.

Even in this case, police can exercise discretion by refusing to enforce. As in any other case, however, if their superiors find out that they are not "doing their job", they can face sanctions up to and including termination.

My question is, are there laws that specifically state that the statute is to be unilaterally enforced? If not, it would appear that police discretion is exactly as I have been describing it: Far from being SOP authorized by law, it is merely a sort of "default operating procedure" that arises out of the fact that they can get away with it -- as long as there is no backlash from their superiors, or members of the public.

[FTL_Ian]

Discretion is the default except in certain cases, as I have outlined.  That is how I understand it.

The exceptions are, according to my source, completely arbitrary.


Though, I imagine you are correct in your suggestion that the police "superiors" may use discretion as to if they will get the officer in trouble or not.

[mackler]

I am not aware of police officers being prosecuted for not enforcing the law, though they could certainly lose their job.

Can you point to a single instance where this has happened?  Have you ever heard of such an occurrence or are you just imagining it as a possibility?

My understanding is that it is the job of the police to enforce the law.

The question is not whether it is the job of police to enforce the law. The question is whether police are required to enforce every law.  So far you've provided no evidence that that there is such a requirement, though you freely assume as much.

I am not aware of any law relieving them of that job requirement.

Again, you've provided no evidence that such a requirement exists.  Can you point to a single law, statute, regulation, published policy, police department employee handbook, or any other authoritative source that requires police to enforce every law?  I think not, else you would have by now.

As far as a statute "mandating enforcement" of a particular law, can you name one?

Yes.  It's called RSA 321:22.  I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.

It is a built-in presumption of any statute that it will be enforced.

That may be your built-in presumption.  But just because sqlrebel builds in a presumption, doesn't make it the law.

[srqrebel]

I am not aware of police officers being prosecuted for not enforcing the law, though they could certainly lose their job.

Can you point to a single instance where this has happened?  Have you ever heard of such an occurrence or are you just imagining it as a possibility?

I do not know of any specific instances -- it's just a hunch on my part.

Same goes for my own place of employment -- I sort of assume that if I do not do my job, I could be fired.

...but the fact is, I have never actually tested that hypothesis. I could certainly be wrong

The question is not whether it is the job of police to enforce the law. The question is whether police are required to enforce every law.  So far you've provided no evidence that that there is such a requirement, though you freely assume as much.

Why? Says who? I was not aware that was the question, and I most certainly did not assume that a specific RSA or even employee handbook spells out any requirements.

I am also not aware of any law or written employee instructions at my own place of employment that say that I must perform certain duties in order to remain employed there. Does that make it irrational for me to operate on the assumption that there will be repercussions if I do not perform my assigned duties?

The fact that there are no posted rules at work designating specific duties as mandatory, indicates to me that all of my assigned duties are considered mandatory without exception. Since law enforcement is a job, I see no reason why the same would not apply there... unless law enforcement officers are not expected to enforce laws as a part of their job.

Nevertheless, I did my research, and in NH police officers are at least mandated to enforce all highway laws:

106-B:12 Authority and Duties of Police Employees. – Police employees shall be ex-officiis constables throughout the state, shall patrol the highways, enforce the highway traffic laws and regulations, enforce the motor vehicle laws relative thereto and enforce regulations relative to the transportation of hazardous materials, pursuant to RSA 106-A:18 and RSA 106-B:15...

I suppose without the specific provisions of this particular RSA, cops could just sit around all day eating doughnuts, without having to worry about losing their jobs.

It is a built-in presumption of any statute that it will be enforced.

That may be your built-in presumption.  But just because sqlrebel builds in a presumption, doesn't make it the law.

...and nowhere in my posts (until this one) have I indicated that enforcement is mandated by law. My argument has always been that such a law would not even be needed, for it to be understood that the duty of law enforcement is enforcement of all laws within their jurisdiction -- and for officers to be accountable to their superiors for "doing their job".

I have never denied that a breakdown of the law enforcement process occurs routinely: It is called police discretion, and can be engaged in by both officers and their superiors. Mandatory or not -- if the police do not enforce the law, and their superiors do not discipline them for not enforcing the law, then who will hold the police accountable? Conversely, if the police are not mandated by law to enforce the law, yet their superiors want them to enforce the law, what would stop a superior from firing an officer who does not perform his assignments?

[Raineyrocks]

I remember when I got a black eye from my ex boyfriend and went to the police station , (yeah, I know, leave the cops out of it but I was young and didn't know any better), anyways they told me in order for them to arrest him they would have had to see him punch me.   Like somebody is going to wait around for a cop and then punch someone.

This is off topic but I don't know if anybody remembers when the Philly cops went on strike in '86, do you?  Well I went to the police station in Center City to try to have them help me get my daughter back when my mom kicked me out and kept her and tons of cops were picketing.  Inside the headquarters they told me I'd have to get custody of my own child so I went outside and just broke down, crying, about 8 cops came over to me to console me and I'll never forget how nice they were to me.  So there are the good along with the bad as with almost anything in life.

I worked at Dunkin Donuts too so I know a little bit about cops if anybody has any questions, as long as they're not real technical questions.

[lildog]

321:22  Prosecutions.

(Police SHALL arrest Itinerant vendors)

A Itinerant vendor is defined as: "all persons (as defined by RSA 358-A:1), both principals and agents, including those persons whose principal place of business is not in this state, who engage in a temporary or transient business in this state, either in one locality or traveling from place to place, selling goods, wares and merchandise, with a total value greater than $ 500, from stock or by sample for future delivery, and who, for the purpose of carrying on such business, hire or occupy a temporary place of business. A "temporary place of business" means any public or quasi-public place including, but not limited to, a hotel, motel, rooming house, storeroom, building, part of a building, tent, vacant lot, railroad car, or trailer temporarily occupied for the purpose of making retail sales of goods to the public."

Hmm, I wonder if that means people selling large amounts of goods (over $500) on ebay are breaking the law?

I'll have to make sure to only keep $499 worth of baseball cards listed at any time under my account.

[ReverendRyan]

321:22  Prosecutions.

(Police SHALL arrest Itinerant vendors)

A Itinerant vendor is defined as: "all persons (as defined by RSA 358-A:1), both principals and agents, including those persons whose principal place of business is not in this state, who engage in a temporary or transient business in this state, either in one locality or traveling from place to place, selling goods, wares and merchandise, with a total value greater than $ 500, from stock or by sample for future delivery, and who, for the purpose of carrying on such business, hire or occupy a temporary place of business. A "temporary place of business" means any public or quasi-public place including, but not limited to, a hotel, motel, rooming house, storeroom, building, part of a building, tent, vacant lot, railroad car, or trailer temporarily occupied for the purpose of making retail sales of goods to the public."

Hmm, I wonder if that means people selling large amounts of goods (over $500) on ebay are breaking the law?

I'll have to make sure to only keep $499 worth of baseball cards listed at any time under my account.

Could be worse. I heard of a state that was trying to force its residents to have auctioneer's licenses to sell on ebay.

[Raineyrocks]

321:22  Prosecutions.

(Police SHALL arrest Itinerant vendors)

A Itinerant vendor is defined as: "all persons (as defined by RSA 358-A:1), both principals and agents, including those persons whose principal place of business is not in this state, who engage in a temporary or transient business in this state, either in one locality or traveling from place to place, selling goods, wares and merchandise, with a total value greater than $ 500, from stock or by sample for future delivery, and who, for the purpose of carrying on such business, hire or occupy a temporary place of business. A "temporary place of business" means any public or quasi-public place including, but not limited to, a hotel, motel, rooming house, storeroom, building, part of a building, tent, vacant lot, railroad car, or trailer temporarily occupied for the purpose of making retail sales of goods to the public."

Hmm, I wonder if that means people selling large amounts of goods (over $500) on ebay are breaking the law?

I'll have to make sure to only keep $499 worth of baseball cards listed at any time under my account.

Or $499.99!

[J’raxis 270145]

321:22  Prosecutions.

(Police SHALL arrest Itinerant vendors)

A Itinerant vendor is defined as: "all persons (as defined by RSA 358-A:1), both principals and agents, including those persons whose principal place of business is not in this state, who engage in a temporary or transient business in this state, either in one locality or traveling from place to place, selling goods, wares and merchandise, with a total value greater than $ 500, from stock or by sample for future delivery, and who, for the purpose of carrying on such business, hire or occupy a temporary place of business. A "temporary place of business" means any public or quasi-public place including, but not limited to, a hotel, motel, rooming house, storeroom, building, part of a building, tent, vacant lot, railroad car, or trailer temporarily occupied for the purpose of making retail sales of goods to the public."

Hmm, I wonder if that means people selling large amounts of goods (over $500) on ebay are breaking the law?

I'll have to make sure to only keep $499 worth of baseball cards listed at any time under my account.

Could be worse. I heard of a state that was trying to force its residents to have auctioneer's licenses to sell on ebay.

Naturally. The auctioneers' cartel/"professional association" is probably pissed they're being out-competed by eBayers.

[mackler]

I am not aware of police officers being prosecuted for not enforcing the law, though they could certainly lose their job.

Can you point to a single instance where this has happened?  Have you ever heard of such an occurrence or are you just imagining it as a possibility?

I do not know of any specific instances -- it's just a hunch on my part.

Okay,  Well your hunch is wrong.   

Same goes for my own place of employment -- I sort of assume that if I do not do my job, I could be fired.

And if the police do not do their job, they can be fired.  What you're missing is that enforcing every law is not their job.

...but the fact is, I have never actually tested that hypothesis. I could certainly be wrong

You certainly know more about your workplace than I do, but less about the obligations of police officers.   

The question is not whether it is the job of police to enforce the law. The question is whether police are required to enforce every law.  So far you've provided no evidence that that there is such a requirement, though you freely assume as much.

Why? Says who? I was not aware that was the question, and I most certainly did not assume that a specific RSA or even employee handbook spells out any requirements.

If the requirement isn't spelled out, then it isn't a requirement, is it?

I am also not aware of any law or written employee instructions at my own place of employment that say that I must perform certain duties in order to remain employed there. Does that make it irrational for me to operate on the assumption that there will be repercussions if I do not perform my assigned duties?

It's irrational for you to apply the rules of your place of employment to those of the police department unless your place of employment is the police department.   

The fact that there are no posted rules at work designating specific duties as mandatory, indicates to me that all of my assigned duties are considered mandatory without exception.

A duty is mandatory, else it wouldn't be a duty.  To say duties are mandatory is a tautology.  The fact is that enforcing every law every time is not a duty of police officers because it is not mandatory.

Since law enforcement is a job, I see no reason why the same would not apply there... unless law enforcement officers are not expected to enforce laws as a part of their job.

Cleary you have difficulty grasping the distinction between a requirement "to enforce laws" and a requirement "to enforce every law every time."  As well you seem to confuse the concepts of an "expectation" and a "duty."  You may "expect" the police to show up when you dial 911, but that doesn't mean they have a duty to do so.

Nevertheless, I did my research, and in NH police officers are at least mandated to enforce all highway laws:

106-B:12 Authority and Duties of Police Employees. – Police employees shall be ex-officiis constables throughout the state, shall patrol the highways, enforce the highway traffic laws and regulations, enforce the motor vehicle laws relative thereto and enforce regulations relative to the transportation of hazardous materials, pursuant to RSA 106-A:18 and RSA 106-B:15...

You misread that.  The word "all" appears nowhere in the statute you quoted, yet you used it in your paraphrase.  I don't know why you are having such a hard time seeing the difference in meaning between a requirement to enforce laws and a requirement to enforce "all" laws all the time. 

I suppose without the specific provisions of this particular RSA, cops could just sit around all day eating doughnuts, without having to worry about losing their jobs.

I'm not a betting man, but if I had the chance to bet the farm you can't come up with a single instance of a cop being fired for doing just what you suggest, I expect I'd end up with two farms.

It is a built-in presumption of any statute that it will be enforced.

That may be your built-in presumption.  But just because sqlrebel builds in a presumption, doesn't make it the law.

...and nowhere in my posts (until this one) have I indicated that enforcement is mandated by law. My argument has always been that such a law would not even be needed, for it to be understood that the duty of law enforcement is enforcement of all laws within their jurisdiction -- and for officers to be accountable to their superiors for "doing their job".

You are very confused.    A duty is a legal relationship.  No law, no duty, and vice versa.

I have never denied that a breakdown of the law enforcement process occurs routinely: It is called police discretion, and can be engaged in by both officers and their superiors. Mandatory or not -- if the police do not enforce the law, and their superiors do not discipline them for not enforcing the law, then who will hold the police accountable? Conversely, if the police are not mandated by law to enforce the law, yet their superiors want them to enforce the law, what would stop a superior from firing an officer who does not perform his assignments?

Good questions.  What are your answers?

[Free libertarian]

 Perhaps we can gain another perspective on whether or not Police are required to enforce every law or they are "allowed" to enforce using their own discretion... I'd say while  continuing to search for statutes etc, why not talk to some cops about their policy? It would be interesing to hear some of their answers or nonanswers.  I'm pretty sure whether it's stated department policy or not, some cops will continue to exercise discretion and that can be a good thing. For instance we probably all know of instances when cops surely know somebody is breaking the law and look the other way, or let them off etc.  Maybe there really are good cops? Nah...they probably just got lucky last night with a men in uniform loving lady (or man), but anyway that kind of discretionary enforcement is a tolerable thing huh?     

A cop looking the other way is a double edged sword, we all can appreciate the "good cop" who let's us off because enforcement of a particular law is ridiculous, for instance doing 56 mph in a 55 mph zone.
So some misc. "crimes" are from the cops perspective probably not worth putting their donut down to enforce.  l

However, what about selective enforcement of the same "crime"? For instance YOU get a DWI and a huge fine, but because another person may be in good with the local cops they get a chauferred ride home. Therein lies the problem of "discretionary" enforcement. Who's to say how it will be applied? Awhile back some of my fastest rides on a motorcycle were with a group of people, some of whom were law enforcement, (they were intoxicated too!) so we we knew we'd be okay speeding. Heck we were partying with cops!! Talk about hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do, hey let's get some more beer! Yahoo. Weird feeling though. 

A bit off topic but does anybody know about "citizens arrests" etc. I've heard the term for years but didn't know if a regular citizen could apply it to...
a) citizens breaking the law
b) cops breaking the law
c) is just bullshit, put away your phony badge cop wanna be

  I also read something recently and can't remember (NH legislative session?) where but the impersonating a cop thing was going to be more intensely scrutinized and I think broadened to include more instances...so that might be something to look into for those who are considering doing cop watch stuff, those uh activities might fall under some cop impersonating thing ...Wish I could remember where I read it, so take it as rumor only until I can dig it up.
   
 

[NJLiberty]

I can't speak for the police in NH, but I grew up around police officers and detectives here in NJ and the way it works here is that, yes, they are supposed to enforce all the laws, all the time. The reality of course is that this is an impossibility. If they were to do so they would then be spending all day in court testifying and would never be available to enforce the laws. Thus, they selectively enforce the laws to provide the most benefit to the community.

In practical application here that means that as long as traffic is flowing and you are driving with the traffic you are unlikely to get pulled over, even if everyone is doing 15 mph over the limit. If the cops find you urinating along side the road, most of them are just going to tell you not to and ask you to move along. Even when we were younger and having parties, if the neighbors complained about the noise most of the cops would just tell us to quiet down and make sure they didn't have to come back out again. Some of the stricter ones would confiscate the alcohol, but none of us ever got in any real trouble even though they knew we were all underage. I have a wallet full of "get out of trouble" cards from the local and state police, but have never had to use them. The police here tend to be very laid back as long as you aren't endangering someone or stealing something, or give them a hard time of course. Are there some that are a pain in the ass? Of course, just as in any business, but for most of the ones I have known it is just a job like any other. Like most employees they seem to do the least work they have to to keep their jobs. I can tell you from local experience it is hard to fire them for non-performance. There were a pair in the next town over who got caught having sex in the patrol car while on duty. The department promptly fired them and the courts reinstated them with back pay as I recall. Go figure 

As far as citizen's arrests go, here in NJ it is lawful for a private citizen to arrest anyone, police officer or not, without a warrant, if you know that a crime has in fact been committed and have reasonable cause to believe that the individual committed the crime. The criminal must then be taken without unnecessary delay before a judge or other appropriate official, where a complaint will be filed and a warrant issued based on that complaint. The danger of course is that if you are wrong then you may face a charge of unlawful imprisonment. Again I am not sure how that is structured in NH, but I assume it must be the same or no shopkeep could detain someone for shoplifting, etc.

George

[srqrebel]

Okay, I will make one more attempt at explaining my position to mackler.

The only thing I have been arguing all along, is that the law, any law, by reason of its very existence, presupposes enforcement by those whose job it is to enforce law. Laws do not need to state, "It is mandatory for law enforcement to enforce this law", because it is a built-in assumption.

It would be just as absurd as posting a second sign underneath a traffic sign, stating that it is mandatory for motorists to obey the sign. It is presupposed, by the dint of the fact the sign exists in the first place, and the fact that the original sign is clearly directed at motorists.

The same applies to law enforcement: It is a built-in expectation of any law that it will be enforced by law enforcement, by dint of the fact that the law exists in the first place, and the fact that the primary job of law enforcement is to enforce laws. If there is a notable exception, it would be that a particular law does NOT require consistent enforcement -- rather than that it DOES require consistent enforcement.

But just as motorists routinely disregard certain traffic signs, because they can, law enforcement officers routinely ignore certain instances of lawbreaking, because they can. Just because motorists routinely get away with disobeying certain traffic signs, does not indicate that those signs are not "required" to be obeyed; and just because law enforcement officers routinely get away with ignoring certain instances of lawbreaking, does not indicate that those laws do not "require" enforcement.

That is, unless you are speaking from a purely utilitarian perspective... in which case we agree.

P.S.-  I would add that in the case of the motorists, they are actually at the mercy of law enforcement when they are observed to disregard a traffic sign. Law enforcement officers are merely at the mercy of their superiors, and in perhaps rare cases, at the mercy of outraged citizens, when they are observed to disregard lawbreaking. It is generally far easier for law enforcement to get away with disregarding certain instances of lawbreaking, than it is for motorists to get away with disregarding traffic signs -- because law enforcement represents "the end of the line". Yet that does not in any way change the basic requirements, or expectations, on either group. It is just a difference in how much they are capable of getting away with.