...or immediately going to the FBI.

So that they can make an end run around the 14th amendment, deny all the blacks, deny all the mexicans, deny all the chinese while the state looks the other way, or at least that's what the tacit understanding was ~70yr ago when people were voting for politicians who supported these policies.

I simply went to court and the officer never showed up, but I didn’t see any of the other people pulled over that day in court either (while reasons could explain this away I find it hard to believe of the 7 people I observed none of them paid the fine or took a driving course from the comfort of their own home to be done with it)

IMO, discretion for this sort of thing should be with a judge, not a cop.

How would a judge or a cop have any impact on a situation without a conviction? They wouldn't know any better without additional data.

“Guns for Thugs - Sheriff Arms Pimp”

Oh they just weren't "supposed" to ask for bribes. Nothing illegal here, just a honest guy going above and beyond on his job to keep America safe.

Federal judges have consistently ruled that recording public officials in the performance of their duties is a right under the first amendment. As a member of the public, you can record your interactions with police without their consent.

You can do it without their consent, but can you do it without their knowledge?

It is much less clear that it applies to a private conversation with a senior officer in a police station.

> conversation with a senior officer in a police station

Are you seriously suggesting that conversing with a public official at their place of work about official business doesn't qualify as part of their official duties?

(Aside, two party consent is a genuinely broken system for a wide variety of reasons. I consider violating it to be a laudable act of civil disobedience.)

Attorneys argue things like this all the time. And Judges rule on their arguments.

What I’m asking about is whether any existing ruling makes this point clear.

I think it would be hard to argue that a conversation with a CCW applicant in which you ask for stuff in exchange for issung a CCW isn't acting in an official capacity. The only person who can issue it is the person holding that office. Not to mention, the calendar/schedule/sign-in book should have a memo a out the purpose of the visit (the pretext he was called down to the station).

You do sometimes see cases where a police union defends an officer accused of some crime, but that's usually because they're putting up some BS story about how they actually were doing their duty, eg an officer busted in possession of drugs who tries to argue it was actually an undercover investigation of the drug scene.

Edit: Since you wouldn't respond... denying a permit under a shall-issue scheme would require proof that they didn't meet the statutory requirements instead of providing the issuer with the ability to hide their reason behind an arbitrary excuse.

I didn't respond because I was asleep (??)

> Please explain how this same scenario would work under a shall-issue scheme?

It doesn't matter: Soliciting bribes is against the law.

Everything else is just arguments about if a particular arrangement makes bribery more or less likely.

If you bribe someone to get something that you're not qualified for, that is clearly wrong on the part of both the applicant and the permit approver.

But if you're being denied something you should get, unless you bribe them, I am more sympathetic to the applicant.

He was the chief security officer of the biggest company in the world. He absolutely had many other options.

I don't see any Apple apologists here in the comments. Who are you referring to?

You do realize that your comment here is exactly what "apologists" means, right?

The only legal option I can see is "move out of CA", which probably means get another job. Which, you know, people sometimes do if they feel strongly about the right to carry, but likely wasn't in his set of considered options.

> He was the chief security officer of the biggest company in the world.

Oh, you're suggesting he use Apple to, uh, "lean on" the sheriff? That seems much worse. One might even hope that was not one of his possible options, even as CSO...

You didn't consider "report it to the DA, state police, or FBI" as an option?

> Oh, you're suggesting he use Apple to, uh, "lean on" the sheriff? That seems much worse. One might even hope that was not one of his possible options, even as CSO...

I absolutely did not read this in the GP's post. Whether it is what he meant or not, it's an ungenerous take. A more generous take is that with the resources available to him, reporting a bribe solicitation to the appropriate authorities is much less risky than it would be for (say) a random citizen of San Jose.

To say the least! He has the entire weight of the Apple legal department behind him, and that isn't something any sheriff's department would take on lightly.

> I absolutely did not read this in the GP's post. Whether it is what he meant or not, it's an ungenerous take.

I can confirm I didn't mean this! That's a stupid idea.

I don't really understand how randallsquared got that from what I said.

> the employee was put in the unfortunate immediate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe

In this context, "options" mean "options to fulfill the CCW licensing goal".

Reporting it to the DA, state police, the FBI, or anyone else wouldn't further the CCW licensing goal (though it might fulfill others, and I'm certainly not arguing against it!).

Similarly, saying he had other options (for "getting their lawfully permitted license") because he was the CSO of the biggest company in the world may well have other meanings I didn't catch, but reporting bribe solicitations is not one, unless the dialogue had already veered from it's previous aim.

I think that is artificially closing the options.

Firstly, and most obviously - he could report the illegal activity by the sheriff and wait.

Secondly, he could sue, and ask the court order the licenses be granted immediately if there was a time-critical need.

There's probably other options available for relief too, and I'm pretty sure the Apple legal department could think of them!

Ah. I took the quote to be the prompt for your reply, as mentioned above.

> Secondly, he could sue, and ask the court order the licenses be granted immediately if there was a time-critical need. There's probably other options available for relief too, and I'm pretty sure the Apple legal department could think of them!

In spite of Moyer being CSO for Apple, I hadn't realized that Apple Corporation was paying the bribe!

You are right that with the company directly involved, there are more options, and it was my misreading/skimming of the article which led me to the wrong conclusions, there.

How could that possibly be the only option?

Sue the sheriff's department is an obvious one, as is contact the FBI.

> Oh, you're suggesting he use Apple to, uh, "lean on" the sheriff? That seems much worse. One might even hope that was not one of his possible options, even as CSO

What?

No of course not.

Off the top of my head:

* Get Apple's lawyers advice (which would not be "pay an illegal bribe")

* FBI