All uniformed police, on duty, shall be granted a new power to â€śQuasi Detainâ€ť a person, under the described parameters.
Quasi Detainment – tool for police to use to now legally demand that person(s) be in quasi custody/not free to leave, only in the rare specified circumstances stated further herein, based on possible cause/whereby the threshold of reasonable suspicion evidence has not yet been acquired, and either a specific crime of violence or death just occurred/or the strongly deemed immediate massive life threatening matter occurred/(no more than 7 minutes prior), – such as a building just blew up, a person just landed from a fall from atop of a 7 story building, gunshots directly heard within the last 2 minutes from obviously not a gun target shooting area, etc…, Mild violence is not sufficient for Quasi Detainment (someone allegedly punched another person in the nose), (somebody threatened to kill someone), (someone stole a car), none of these suffice for this legislation. Furthermore the massive violence and or death had to have been no longer than 7 minutes ago. This quasi detainment is merely a tool for police, briefly in an emergency that just occurred, to help find a killer, kidnapper, etcâ€¦ In a QuasiÂ Detainment persons are not required to show identification, police may not ask for identification more than once to a person/if 2 different police ask the same person at different times for their identification, this double asking is a violation of Quasi Detainment. In a Quasi Detainment police must let any and all persons be free to leave after 20 minutes, regardless of the investigation of the outcome, unless police acquire evidence to fully detain or arrest that person(s). It is the responsibility of the police to monitor the 20 minute mark, and clearly and concisely inform the person(s) that they are free to go. If the police fail to let the person go, and they are not then detained officially, or arrested officially, then the person is free to go without the police officerâ€™s permission. If a person leaves after 20 minutes because the police did not mention to them that they were free to go, and the police did not officially detain or officially arrest that person â€“ and then goes and arrests the person for walking away, the person must inform the officer that 20 minutes had expired and that they must let them go immediately/to that effect/so the police officer has 1 warning, if within 2 minutes, they are not set free to go, then there will be civil liability against the officer(s)/no qualified immunity, and the officer(s) will be fired for at least 1 year without pay. If a police officer lies about a Quasi Detainment, and there was no such emergency, than each and every police officer that is complicit shall be fined $30,000 each, plus legal fees, and costs. Any person and or police officer to phone in a quasi-detainment type of emergency, that is false, whether likely done to allow police to illegally detain certain people, or otherwise, shall face a prison sentence no less than 5 years and no more than 20 years, and any and all police found to be involved in this illegal scheme shall face the same prison sentence, sentence must be served in prison. No outside type of house arrest, or other, allowed. Police can also be whistleblowers if they witness such a violation of this legislation. The offender(s) qualified immunity (if such person was/is a government employee/elected official/appointee) is stripped, without exception, for violating this legislation. The offender shall have any and all assets frozen, all fines/fees/legal fees, other costs, shall be paid by the offender. The offender will either be payroll deducted/garnished if still employed/and all assets shall be frozen until the whistleblowers monies are paid in full/if applicable, also, these fines and fees against the offender is not eligible to be discharged in bankruptcy, or any other manner, there is no statute of limitations, there are no bank accounts, monies, property, retirement accounts, trust funds, or other property or accounts that can be protected, as all these accounts are subject to be frozen/seized/sold if necessary, until such time as all fines, fees, costs, legal and other, are fully satisfied. The government/tax payers shall not pay for the legal defense of the person alleged to have violated this legislation. Any attorney working for or representing the government shall not be permitted to represent the person(s)(government employee/elected official/appointee) accused of violating this legislation.Â This action can be brought in local, State, and or Federal court, of the relevant region, for enforceable court action. A small claims court, shall now have an exception for these whistleblower type cases as included/defined herein, to expand the limit to $200,000, including all costs/fees/ legal fees/interest/penalties/ damages/etcâ€¦whereby a whistleblower could have their matter heard. All small claim whistleblower matters shall be heard, in 4 months or less for the trial. Whistleblowers receive their 50% of the monies/as it comes in/half is continually diverted to the whistleblower. If the (whistleblower and or plaintiff loses â€“ the whistleblower is only at risk if they were the sole plaintiff/if the whistleblower was not the sole plaintiff/the solely direct injured party/then the whistleblower has qualified immunity protection from all costs, fees, of any sort, in any capacity), the defendant and or government employee (herein defendant) fully prevails by judicial verdict/is victorious/found not to be liable in any capacity, by a judgeâ€™s order and verdict/jury verdict, then the defendant is entitled to be awarded all of their legal fees, costs, and all eligible awards and monies that they were facing/at risk to pay/in this legislation/and, the judge shall be eligible to award these monies to the defendant/and, fine these costs upon the Plaintiff. (government employee only)Â The government may reimburse solely the government employeeâ€™s legal fees/legal fees only/nothing else of any sort, so long as the government employee prevailed by judicial verdict as described herein. The Plaintiff in this same scenario/if the judicial verdict is in favor of the government employee/the plaintiff would face all the same collectability risk(these monies/debts/ shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, all bank accounts and pensions are subject to being seized and or garnished, etcâ€¦). The onus for the defendant to prevail, to be awarded monies, is a burden of proof upon the government employee, therefore a verdict/decision, signed by a judge, declaring that the defendant/government employee was absolutely free of all liability/wrong doing, is required for the defendant to be eligible to be awarded and collect monies. Any form of settlement, does not meet this threshold for any award of monies on either side beyond the terms and conditions agreed upon in the executed settlement agreement.