[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Recording Police Action (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 3/7/2014 5:12:56 AM EDT
|
There was a recent thread here in GD about police being recorded and whether or not they were allowed to confiscate recorded material. I thought it might be helpful to share some policy verbiage regarding this matter from my department. As you will see, it isn't something we are normally allowed to do and when we are there are very strict limitations and involving the court to obtain a warrant is necessary to even view the evidence on the seized item.
Policy: Individuals have a First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties. The right to record is not limited to streets and sidewalks -- it includes areas where individuals have a legal right to be present, including an individual's home or business, or other private property. Officers must not search or seize a camera or recording device without a warrant except under very limited circumstances described herein. A person may record public police activity unless the person engages in actions that jeopardize the safety of the officer, the suspect, or others in the vicinity, or if they violate the law, or incite others to violate the law. The warrantless seizure of material protected by the First Amendment (photos, videos, etc.) will be strictly scrutinized by a court. In ordinary circumstances, the seizure of cameras or recording devices without a warrant will not be reasonable. Cameras or recording devices will not be seized without a warrant unless: 1. Officers have probable cause to believe that critical evidence of a felony crime is contained on/in the camera or recording device; and 2. Officers first have explained the circumstances and have unsuccessfully attempted to get the consent of the person in possession of the recording device; and 3. The seizure of the camera/recording device is for no longer than reasonably necessary for the officer, acting with diligence, to obtain a warrant to seize the evidence. If a camera/recording device is seized without a warrant officers are prohibited from seizing or viewing the evidence contained in the device until a warrant is obtained for that seizure. |
|
http://www.bambuser.com
Too late...smash the phone if you want, the video is already on the interwebz. |
|
Quoted:
Make sure your device loads directly to the cloud! If an officer decides to violate policy/law and seize/destroy your camera there will be evidence of the criminal wrongdoing. Otherwise it will be your word against theirs and we all know how that will work out. That is certainly a good way to protect yourself in the unlikely event that you run across a cop willing to destroy evidence. Obviously I can't say it hasn't happened, but I can tell you that I have no problem with being recorded or with those recordings going to the cloud. |
|
Quoted:
That is certainly a good way to protect yourself in the unlikely event that you run across a cop willing to destroy evidence. Obviously I can't say it hasn't happened, but I can tell you that I have no problem with being recorded or with those recordings going to the cloud. Quoted:
Quoted:
Make sure your device loads directly to the cloud! If an officer decides to violate policy/law and seize/destroy your camera there will be evidence of the criminal wrongdoing. Otherwise it will be your word against theirs and we all know how that will work out. That is certainly a good way to protect yourself in the unlikely event that you run across a cop willing to destroy evidence. Obviously I can't say it hasn't happened, but I can tell you that I have no problem with being recorded or with those recordings going to the cloud. If memory severs me right, Ben Franklin said "One rotten apple spoils the barrel full". |
|
Quoted:
Would be my guess that you are and exception to the rule or at least not in a overwhelming majority, unfortunately there are always a group of bad apples in every barrel. If memory severs me right, Ben Franklin said "One rotten apple spoils the barrel full". Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Make sure your device loads directly to the cloud! If an officer decides to violate policy/law and seize/destroy your camera there will be evidence of the criminal wrongdoing. Otherwise it will be your word against theirs and we all know how that will work out. That is certainly a good way to protect yourself in the unlikely event that you run across a cop willing to destroy evidence. Obviously I can't say it hasn't happened, but I can tell you that I have no problem with being recorded or with those recordings going to the cloud. If memory severs me right, Ben Franklin said "One rotten apple spoils the barrel full". If I'm understanding you correctly, we'll have to disagree on this point. In over a decade of work in LE at a medium sized agency I have yet to witness a single act carried out by a fellow officer that violated constitutional rights. I am aware of only one that took place at my department, and resulted in the termination of the officer involved. In my experience, both with my department and others I've worked with, is that those bad apples are exceptionally rare. They just offer great media stories and get lots of press, increasing the perception that it is common place. It also seems that people who have gotten into trouble like to claim the officers involved acted illegally or inappropriately, but I've seen plenty of cases where people made these claims later and every one I've been privy to has been a completely false claim. Of course, I'm sure their drinking buddies believe them and so the perception spreads. |
|
Here's where the disconnect comes in. In virtually every video where police harass an individual filming them, It's not an "individual officer" it's every officer on the scene.
Videos show that so often that it gives the distinct impression that the issue is widespread among the LE community. At the very least one has to assume that if one cop on the scene has an issue with it, the rest of them will join in. That's not the way a disciplined and professional group conducts themselves, that's how street gangs do things. On the spot corrections for peers should be common for actions like this, yet I can't recall ever seeing a single one that was caught on video. It may exist but I haven't seen it. I'm perfectly clear on the seizure of evidence aspect of video on the scene, it's a plausible excuse but it should be quite rare. |
|
Quoted:
Here's where the disconnect comes in. In virtually every video where police harass an individual filming them, It's not an "individual officer" it's every officer on the scene. Videos show that so often that it gives the distinct impression that the issue is widespread among the LE community. At the very least one has to assume that if one cop on the scene has an issue with it, the rest of them will join in. That's not the way a disciplined and professional group conducts themselves, that's how street gangs do things. On the spot corrections for peers should be common for actions like this, yet I can't recall ever seeing a single one that was caught on video. It may exist but I haven't seen it. I'm perfectly clear on the seizure of evidence aspect of video on the scene, it's a plausible excuse but it should be quite rare. Perhaps true but consider this, for every video you see how many thousands of interactions do police have with the public? I'll grant you that this can vary, possibly substantially, by region. |
|
Quoted:
You and I must have worked at completely different departments... Quoted:
Quoted:
In over a decade of work in LE at a medium sized agency I have yet to witness a single act carried out by a fellow officer that violated constitutional rights. You and I must have worked at completely different departments... Or have different interpretations of individual constitutional rights. |
|
Quoted:
 can't blame the guy for trying. Winning of hearts and minds ya know...Quoted:
Quoted:
You must be bored and have the day off. can't blame the guy for trying. Winning of hearts and minds ya know...The one time I know I was being video recorded it never made it to youtube. 
|
|
Quoted:
The one time I know I was being video recorded it never made it to youtube. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You must be bored and have the day off. can't blame the guy for trying. Winning of hearts and minds ya know...The one time I know I was being video recorded it never made it to youtube. Needed more night stick. 
|
|
Quoted:
That is certainly a good way to protect yourself in the unlikely event that you run across a cop willing to destroy evidence. Obviously I can't say it hasn't happened, but I can tell you that I have no problem with being recorded or with those recordings going to the cloud. Quoted:
Quoted:
Make sure your device loads directly to the cloud! If an officer decides to violate policy/law and seize/destroy your camera there will be evidence of the criminal wrongdoing. Otherwise it will be your word against theirs and we all know how that will work out. That is certainly a good way to protect yourself in the unlikely event that you run across a cop willing to destroy evidence. Obviously I can't say it hasn't happened, but I can tell you that I have no problem with being recorded or with those recordings going to the cloud. Yup, record me all you want. My camera in the car is running anyway. In the past when I had folks recording and thought there may have been footage that could help in court I have just asked them to make a copy for me. Never been turned down. |
|
Quoted:
Perhaps true but consider this, for every video you see how many thousands of interactions do police have with the public? I'll grant you that this can vary, possibly substantially, by region. Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's where the disconnect comes in. In virtually every video where police harass an individual filming them, It's not an "individual officer" it's every officer on the scene. Videos show that so often that it gives the distinct impression that the issue is widespread among the LE community. At the very least one has to assume that if one cop on the scene has an issue with it, the rest of them will join in. That's not the way a disciplined and professional group conducts themselves, that's how street gangs do things. On the spot corrections for peers should be common for actions like this, yet I can't recall ever seeing a single one that was caught on video. It may exist but I haven't seen it. I'm perfectly clear on the seizure of evidence aspect of video on the scene, it's a plausible excuse but it should be quite rare. Perhaps true but consider this, for every video you see how many thousands of interactions do police have with the public? I'll grant you that this can vary, possibly substantially, by region. I get that the odds of a bad interaction are low, however no one knows which interaction will be bad. No different than cops cautiously approaching every vehicle they stop. Odds are that nothing bad will happen, one in a million stops a bad guy shoots the cop. As long as those odds are, cops don't go around telling others to just disregard the 1 in a million, everyone tells everyone else to approach with caution, even though it's very rare for cops to get shot during a traffic stop. |
|
Quoted: Here's where the disconnect comes in. In virtually every video where police harass an individual filming them, It's not an "individual officer" it's every officer on the scene. Videos show that so often that it gives the distinct impression that the issue is widespread among the LE community. At the very least one has to assume that if one cop on the scene has an issue with it, the rest of them will join in. That's not the way a disciplined and professional group conducts themselves, that's how street gangs do things. On the spot corrections for peers should be common for actions like this, yet I can't recall ever seeing a single one that was caught on video. It may exist but I haven't seen it. I'm perfectly clear on the seizure of evidence aspect of video on the scene, it's a plausible excuse but it should be quite rare. This goes to the whole us versus them mind set we see so much. The LEO's really need to start correcting in public their fellow officers when they cross the line, and start pressing charges and getting rid of the bad apples who violate the constitutional rights of citizens. Public relations between citizens and LEO's will continue to degrade until you police your own in a significant and public manner. I do appreciate you posting some actual policy, but the constitution trumps policy in my book, and its what I and many others both in the military and public service swear to uphold, not some ever changing policy of politicians. |
|
Quoted:
That is certainly a good way to protect yourself in the unlikely event that you run across a cop willing to destroy evidence. Obviously I can't say it hasn't happened, but I can tell you that I have no problem with being recorded or with those recordings going to the cloud. Quoted:
Quoted:
Make sure your device loads directly to the cloud! If an officer decides to violate policy/law and seize/destroy your camera there will be evidence of the criminal wrongdoing. Otherwise it will be your word against theirs and we all know how that will work out. That is certainly a good way to protect yourself in the unlikely event that you run across a cop willing to destroy evidence. Obviously I can't say it hasn't happened, but I can tell you that I have no problem with being recorded or with those recordings going to the cloud. And for that, I thank you. 
|
|
Quoted:
A person may record public police activity unless the person engages in actions that jeopardize the safety of the officer, the suspect, or others in the vicinity, or if they violate the law, or incite others to violate the law. How do you think your department would interpret that part? Could filming by a third party be called a distraction that jeopardize the officer's safety? |
|
Quoted:
How do you think your department would interpret that part? Could filming by a third party be called a distraction that jeopardize the officer's safety? Quoted:
Quoted:
A person may record public police activity unless the person engages in actions that jeopardize the safety of the officer, the suspect, or others in the vicinity, or if they violate the law, or incite others to violate the law. How do you think your department would interpret that part? Could filming by a third party be called a distraction that jeopardize the officer's safety? Or the person "violates the law" ... or the cop thinks the camera contains evidence of a felony ... That policy has so many outs as to be worthless. |
|
Quoted:
How often has a cop seized a video and destroyed it? Sounds like its a big concern, but it appears to be a very rare event. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile They shouldn't be seizing it without a warrant in the first place. Whether they later destroy or alter its contents is beside the point. |
|
I wonder what the ratio of pics/videos taken by uninvolved bystanders helps police matters vs causes a headache for the police. This past new years eve, we were on a balcony on Bourbon St and my buddy was taking random video of our shenanigans on said balcony and randomly getting video of the scene on the street below. He just so happened to get video of a cop arresting a guy for what we later found out was assault on the chick that was with him. As the cop is arresting him, some dude comes out of the crowd and sneaks the officer in the back of the head and tries to jump back into the crowd. Of course, the other cops converging on the scene saw this and grabbed the guy. Long story short, we walked down to the street and offered the video to the cops, which showed the entire event unfold. Buddy texted them the video and filled out a piece of paper (not sure what it was, I was drunk and not paying attention at this point  ). They seemed rather thankful and I'm sure the douchebag got what was coming to him. |
|
Quoted:
I wonder what the ratio of pics/videos taken by uninvolved bystanders helps police matters vs causes a headache for the police. This past new years eve, we were on a balcony on Bourbon St and my buddy was taking random video of our shenanigans on said balcony and randomly getting video of the scene on the street below. He just so happened to get video of a cop arresting a guy for what we later found out was assault on the chick that was with him. As the cop is arresting him, some dude comes out of the crowd and sneaks the officer in the back of the head and tries to jump back into the crowd. Of course, the other cops converging on the scene saw this and grabbed the guy. Long story short, we walked down to the street and offered the video to the cops, which showed the entire event unfold. Buddy texted them the video and filled out a piece of paper (not sure what it was, I was drunk and not paying attention at this point ). They seemed rather thankful and I'm sure the douchebag got what was coming to him. Probably your buddy's name and contact information, so they can subpoena him to come testify if needed. Always a good time. |
|
Quoted:
With video and the guy caught at the scene the chance of being called to testify is very slim Of course. They'll just subpoena you 7 times in a row, fuck up your schedule, and cancel at the last minute (sometimes after you show up at court) because Pookie's hearing/trial got continued, or he finally pled out. |
|
Quoted:
Of course. They'll just subpoena you 7 times in a row, fuck up your schedule, and cancel at the last minute (sometimes after you show up at court) because Pookie's hearing/trial got continued, or he finally pled out. Quoted:
Quoted:
With video and the guy caught at the scene the chance of being called to testify is very slim Of course. They'll just subpoena you 7 times in a row, fuck up your schedule, and cancel at the last minute (sometimes after you show up at court) because Pookie's hearing/trial got continued, or he finally pled out. Had that happen before. The DA called but didn't leave a message that the perps went with a plea deal. 
Could be another reason why people don't want to get involved. 
|
|
Quoted:
Looks like a good policy. If you directly violate policy such as this, would you lose qualified immunity? Not necessarily (for the individual officer). Also, if a policy itself is found to be inconsistent with clearly established law, then the entire locality/state behind the agency can lose immunity. |
|
Quoted:
Had that happen before. The DA called but didn't leave a message that the perps went with a plea deal.
Could be another reason why people don't want to get involved.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With video and the guy caught at the scene the chance of being called to testify is very slim Of course. They'll just subpoena you 7 times in a row, fuck up your schedule, and cancel at the last minute (sometimes after you show up at court) because Pookie's hearing/trial got continued, or he finally pled out. Had that happen before. The DA called but didn't leave a message that the perps went with a plea deal.
Could be another reason why people don't want to get involved.
Happens all the time, and yes, it is a reason why people who know how all of this works don't get involved. Where's Extorris today, he can explain all of this. |
|
Quoted:
Would be my guess that you are and exception to the rule or at least not in a overwhelming majority, unfortunately there are always a group of bad apples in every barrel. If memory severs me right, Ben Franklin said "One rotten apple spoils the barrel full". Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Make sure your device loads directly to the cloud! If an officer decides to violate policy/law and seize/destroy your camera there will be evidence of the criminal wrongdoing. Otherwise it will be your word against theirs and we all know how that will work out. That is certainly a good way to protect yourself in the unlikely event that you run across a cop willing to destroy evidence. Obviously I can't say it hasn't happened, but I can tell you that I have no problem with being recorded or with those recordings going to the cloud. If memory severs me right, Ben Franklin said "One rotten apple spoils the barrel full". It would be my guess that you are overreacting. |
|
Quoted:
I have also never seen a case where a second officer said "Hey we can't do that" to his partner or in any way tried actually enforce the law around recording by restraining his partner in any way.
You've probably got a better chance of getting a chupacabra on video. The number of cops who are assholes and would take a camera to cover something up is pretty small. The number who would watch them do it and not call them out is much, much bigger. |
|
Quoted: Make sure your device loads directly to the cloud! If an officer decides to violate policy/law and seize/destroy your camera there will be evidence of the criminal wrongdoing. Otherwise it will be your word against theirs and we all know how that will work out. |
|
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/ http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/03/07/baltimore-police-still-havent-learned-respect-rights-photographers/ Still not having finalized the $250,000 settlement for deleting a man’s images from his phone, the Baltimore Police Department continues to harass and intimidate photographers, including a photojournalist from the Baltimore Sun last month who was trying to photograph the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting. http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/03/07/new-york-man-fighting-still-fighting-unlawful-charges-despite-recovered-video/ Even after Mark Lambrych recovered the footage that had been deleted after his arrest, showing a volatile deputy storming up to him and yelling "get the fuck out of here” before pouncing on him and arresting him, ordering him to "stop resisting” as Lambrych pleads that he is not resisting, his lawyer still believes he is guilty. Guilty of video recording the cop from a public street instead of leaving as he was told. Guilty of harassing a neighbor for pointing a camera towards his home. And guilty of pretending to be a journalist when he doesn’t even work for a television station or newspaper. But obviously you get what you pay for when you opt for a public defender in Oneida County in upstate New York, one who specializes in divorce law. Especially when your alleged "victim” is one of the most well-connected and influential men in town. http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/03/06/journalist-sues-bart-police-retaliatory-arrest/ After being penned like an animal and arrested inside an official "free-speech zone,” a San Francisco-area journalist has filed suit against BART, the Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department, for planning his arrest ahead of time. http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/03/05/massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-upskirting-legal/ Massachusetts, which currently has the toughest wiretapping law in the country, forbidding you from secretly recording cops even if they have no expectation of privacy, is now one of the only states that allows you to secretly record up a woman’s skirt. http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/03/04/baltimore-police-pay-250000-settlement-video-deletion-incident/ The City of Baltimore is set to dish out a $250,000 settlement to a man whose footage they deleted after he video recorded them making an arrest at the Preakness Stakes horse race in 2010. And so on, and so on... |
|
Quoted:
I get that the odds of a bad interaction are low, however no one knows which interaction will be bad. No different than cops cautiously approaching every vehicle they stop. Odds are that nothing bad will happen, one in a million stops a bad guy shoots the cop. As long as those odds are, cops don't go around telling others to just disregard the 1 in a million, everyone tells everyone else to approach with caution, even though it's very rare for cops to get shot during a traffic stop. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's where the disconnect comes in. In virtually every video where police harass an individual filming them, It's not an "individual officer" it's every officer on the scene. Videos show that so often that it gives the distinct impression that the issue is widespread among the LE community. At the very least one has to assume that if one cop on the scene has an issue with it, the rest of them will join in. That's not the way a disciplined and professional group conducts themselves, that's how street gangs do things. On the spot corrections for peers should be common for actions like this, yet I can't recall ever seeing a single one that was caught on video. It may exist but I haven't seen it. I'm perfectly clear on the seizure of evidence aspect of video on the scene, it's a plausible excuse but it should be quite rare. Perhaps true but consider this, for every video you see how many thousands of interactions do police have with the public? I'll grant you that this can vary, possibly substantially, by region. I get that the odds of a bad interaction are low, however no one knows which interaction will be bad. No different than cops cautiously approaching every vehicle they stop. Odds are that nothing bad will happen, one in a million stops a bad guy shoots the cop. As long as those odds are, cops don't go around telling others to just disregard the 1 in a million, everyone tells everyone else to approach with caution, even though it's very rare for cops to get shot during a traffic stop. Agreed. |
|
Quoted:
This is what upsets me the most about a lot of these videos. Sure there are a few where its just one officer by himself, but in a lot of the cases its two or more all breaking the law in the same way. I have also never seen a case where a second officer said "Hey we can't do that" to his partner or in any way tried actually enforce the law around recording by restraining his partner in any way. This goes to the whole us versus them mind set we see so much. The LEO's really need to start correcting in public their fellow officers when they cross the line, and start pressing charges and getting rid of the bad apples who violate the constitutional rights of citizens. Public relations between citizens and LEO's will continue to degrade until you police your own in a significant and public manner. I do appreciate you posting some actual policy, but the constitution trumps policy in my book, and its what I and many others both in the military and public service swear to uphold, not some ever changing policy of politicians. Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's where the disconnect comes in. In virtually every video where police harass an individual filming them, It's not an "individual officer" it's every officer on the scene. Videos show that so often that it gives the distinct impression that the issue is widespread among the LE community. At the very least one has to assume that if one cop on the scene has an issue with it, the rest of them will join in. That's not the way a disciplined and professional group conducts themselves, that's how street gangs do things. On the spot corrections for peers should be common for actions like this, yet I can't recall ever seeing a single one that was caught on video. It may exist but I haven't seen it. I'm perfectly clear on the seizure of evidence aspect of video on the scene, it's a plausible excuse but it should be quite rare. This goes to the whole us versus them mind set we see so much. The LEO's really need to start correcting in public their fellow officers when they cross the line, and start pressing charges and getting rid of the bad apples who violate the constitutional rights of citizens. Public relations between citizens and LEO's will continue to degrade until you police your own in a significant and public manner. I do appreciate you posting some actual policy, but the constitution trumps policy in my book, and its what I and many others both in the military and public service swear to uphold, not some ever changing policy of politicians. The point in posting the policy is to show that it is at least, if not more, restrictive than existing case law. Policy won't matter any more than constitutional case law if the particular cop you are facing is willing to break one, as he'll be willing to break either. Since the questions of when and how officers can confiscate recording devices recently I thought it would be helpful to show exactly what at least one departments rules are on the matter. |
|
Quoted:
If I'm understanding you correctly, we'll have to disagree on this point. In over a decade of work in LE at a medium sized agency I have yet to witness a single act carried out by a fellow officer that violated constitutional rights. I am aware of only one that took place at my department, and resulted in the termination of the officer involved. In my experience, both with my department and others I've worked with, is that those bad apples are exceptionally rare. They just offer great media stories and get lots of press, increasing the perception that it is common place. It also seems that people who have gotten into trouble like to claim the officers involved acted illegally or inappropriately, but I've seen plenty of cases where people made these claims later and every one I've been privy to has been a completely false claim. Of course, I'm sure their drinking buddies believe them and so the perception spreads. When the barrel is the entire law enforcement community across the entire nation .... you can't possibly win. Perfection fails as soon as humans are introduced to the system. |
|
Quoted:
The one time I know I was being video recorded it never made it to youtube. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You must be bored and have the day off. can't blame the guy for trying. Winning of hearts and minds ya know...The one time I know I was being video recorded it never made it to youtube. Count yourself lucky. I didn't do anything wrong just got myself turned into a Youtube star. |
|
Quoted:
How do you think your department would interpret that part? Could filming by a third party be called a distraction that jeopardize the officer's safety? Quoted:
Quoted:
A person may record public police activity unless the person engages in actions that jeopardize the safety of the officer, the suspect, or others in the vicinity, or if they violate the law, or incite others to violate the law. How do you think your department would interpret that part? Could filming by a third party be called a distraction that jeopardize the officer's safety? It has come up once, actually. Two officers were fighting with a guy and his wife was taking still photos. It wasn't an issue until she came up and stuck the camera between the officer and her husband and used the flash, which blinded the officer momentarily in the dark. She was arrested and the camera was seized. We got the warrant, downloaded the photos, and gave her the camera back with all the photos on it. They wound up on the web under a "police brutality" heading with the usual cop bashing in the comments. The photos were quite useful in the man's prosecution and he was guilty on all counts. To date that is the only time we've seized a recording device to obtain images that I'm aware of. Typically bystanders are not involved and are more than reasonable about providing the files so it hasn't come up any other time. |
|
Quoted:
They shouldn't be seizing it without a warrant in the first place. Whether they later destroy or alter its contents is beside the point. Quoted:
Quoted:
How often has a cop seized a video and destroyed it? Sounds like its a big concern, but it appears to be a very rare event. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile They shouldn't be seizing it without a warrant in the first place. Whether they later destroy or alter its contents is beside the point. Officers can lawfully seize property that has evidentiary value. This is nothing new, and it can't be any other way. If we couldn't seize it without a warrant it would no longer be available by the time we had the warrant. That is why we can take control of the evidence (in this case a camera) but still have to get the warrant to take search it for the evidence. |
|
Quoted:
Of course. They'll just subpoena you 7 times in a row, fuck up your schedule, and cancel at the last minute (sometimes after you show up at court) because Pookie's hearing/trial got continued, or he finally pled out. Quoted:
Quoted:
With video and the guy caught at the scene the chance of being called to testify is very slim Of course. They'll just subpoena you 7 times in a row, fuck up your schedule, and cancel at the last minute (sometimes after you show up at court) because Pookie's hearing/trial got continued, or he finally pled out. Or because pookie's ambulance chasing lawyer didn't get the judge he wanted in the rotation that day, so he asks for a continuance and racks up more billable hours while waiting on a more leniant judge... 
|
|
Quoted:
When the barrel is the entire law enforcement community across the entire nation .... you can't possibly win. Perfection fails as soon as humans are introduced to the system. Quoted:
Quoted:
If I'm understanding you correctly, we'll have to disagree on this point. In over a decade of work in LE at a medium sized agency I have yet to witness a single act carried out by a fellow officer that violated constitutional rights. I am aware of only one that took place at my department, and resulted in the termination of the officer involved. In my experience, both with my department and others I've worked with, is that those bad apples are exceptionally rare. They just offer great media stories and get lots of press, increasing the perception that it is common place. It also seems that people who have gotten into trouble like to claim the officers involved acted illegally or inappropriately, but I've seen plenty of cases where people made these claims later and every one I've been privy to has been a completely false claim. Of course, I'm sure their drinking buddies believe them and so the perception spreads. When the barrel is the entire law enforcement community across the entire nation .... you can't possibly win. Perfection fails as soon as humans are introduced to the system. I will never claim that all LEOs are upright people. It would be impossible with a pool of people that large to guarantee that none would do anything against law or policy. |
|
Quoted:
Or because pookie's ambulance chasing lawyer didn't get the judge he wanted in the rotation that day, so he asks for a continuance and racks up more billable hours while waiting on a more leniant judge... Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With video and the guy caught at the scene the chance of being called to testify is very slim Of course. They'll just subpoena you 7 times in a row, fuck up your schedule, and cancel at the last minute (sometimes after you show up at court) because Pookie's hearing/trial got continued, or he finally pled out. Or because pookie's ambulance chasing lawyer didn't get the judge he wanted in the rotation that day, so he asks for a continuance and racks up more billable hours while waiting on a more leniant judge... I don't even know where to begin addressing the onion-like layers of stupidity in this post, but I'll try. 1. Criminal defense lawyers don't chase ambulances, unless perhaps the cops beat the shit out of Pookie. 2. Pookie probably has a public defender, who doesn't get paid shit (let alone hourly) 3. If Pookie does have a private attorney, it's probably a flat fee, not hourly 4. It's usually the prosecutor who asks for the continuance, and it's their responsibility to manage their witnesses anyway 5. I don't know how it works on your planet, but around here you don't get to play musical judges unless you happen to get a substitute |
|
Quoted:
So are these isolated incidents or not? I think they are, but I guess it depends on the department. I can only think of one instance in the last several years, when filming cops has become pretty common due to the proliferation of camera phones, at the department where I work where an officer let it get to him and screwed up. That said, our dept has done multiple trainings on the rights of individuals filming interactions. Some agencies don't, I'm sure, and it shows. I've never seen it personally, and this comes from a unit working a large housing project where people hit record on their iPhone pretty much as soon as you get out of the car. Only time I've made it to YouTube was when a couple of guys showed me and my partner on foot walking through the cut in their rap video. |
|
Quoted:
Officers can lawfully seize property that has evidentiary value. This is nothing new, and it can't be any other way. If we couldn't seize it without a warrant it would no longer be available by the time we had the warrant. That is why we can take control of the evidence (in this case a camera) but still have to get the warrant to take search it for the evidence. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How often has a cop seized a video and destroyed it? Sounds like its a big concern, but it appears to be a very rare event. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile They shouldn't be seizing it without a warrant in the first place. Whether they later destroy or alter its contents is beside the point. Officers can lawfully seize property that has evidentiary value. This is nothing new, and it can't be any other way. If we couldn't seize it without a warrant it would no longer be available by the time we had the warrant. That is why we can take control of the evidence (in this case a camera) but still have to get the warrant to take search it for the evidence. What, does Spock beam down and vaporize it if you don't immediately seize it? ID the person with the camera and go get a warrant for it. If you can't ID the person then oh well, tough shit. Make your case without it. And the standard for warrantless seizures is not "officers can seize property that has evidentiary value." Not even fucking close. |