2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber language law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Isn't it true that police are legally considered public figures, the same as elected officials, and therefore have a legally diminished expectation of privacy? By virtue of the fact police are entrusted with lethal power, ie guns, courts have repeatedly held that they are legally public figures. If the specific circumstances require privacy, such as a confidential conversation with a witness or victim, the police are always free to move the interaction somewhere other than the street.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context