npub1z9…g7jc5 on Nostr: npub1kpwlx…xxzz4 That's only true, legally speaking, if that's what the law says! ...
npub1kpwlxpzkxfmuxjmzc2wp3rf9vjg0sgydmlhsnrgqr3maf59h86qqdxxzz4 (npub1kpw…xzz4) That's only true, legally speaking, if that's what the law says!
Yes, there would have to be a law saying cops owe people compensation for their time. And there's no particular reason that the law can't explicitly say that the compensation takes priority over pay. It might even be implicitly true even if it's not made explicit that way.
Police departments do run out of money in the real world, and they even have to close down and fire all the cops occasionally. I know if at least one instance of exactly that happening, when some officers really screwed up and the costs of dealing with their screw up broke the budget of the department, so they had to fold, firing everybody.
If the department has to give up conveniences and then has salaries at risk because officers are detaining people without justifiable reason, they're going to feel that pain.
Yes, there would have to be a law saying cops owe people compensation for their time. And there's no particular reason that the law can't explicitly say that the compensation takes priority over pay. It might even be implicitly true even if it's not made explicit that way.
Police departments do run out of money in the real world, and they even have to close down and fire all the cops occasionally. I know if at least one instance of exactly that happening, when some officers really screwed up and the costs of dealing with their screw up broke the budget of the department, so they had to fold, firing everybody.
If the department has to give up conveniences and then has salaries at risk because officers are detaining people without justifiable reason, they're going to feel that pain.