fail.
the cops had no idea what drugs he just put in his mouth, there was a very real chance of him dying of a OD.
Last edited:
That man with the drugs did NOT deserve to be violently punched in the face like that! It was totally uncalled for! Hell, let him swallow the drugs......they have to come out in the other end sometime! Why punch him like that in the face??
Please tell me what law gives a cop the right to take my property without a warrant.
Why should they? They are public servants right? Why do they get to cover up what they do when they are working?
I highly doubt it.
He does not speak from experience, rather out of his ass. He is an ignorant troll who spews drivel into every thread like this.
Plus his ignorance towards electronics tells me that he is older. My guess is he is a retired slob whose only enjoyment comes from the magic of seeing his words appear on the internet.
cops do not need a warrant to seize a item linked to a crime.
Video recording is not a crime.
I don't see anything wrong with that. The police were called, so they came and checked things out. The cop didn't seem to think there was an issue, but states that if someone called and explained why he was there and that they need to look into it. They even give each other a high-five.
- Merg
I didnt say it was.
exactly!!Right. You said they could if it was linked to a crime. Filming the police is not a crime. They cannot size it.
This is an issue I feel very strongly about. Cops continue to do this after numerous court cases all ending in it being said that we have the right to record cops in public. If cops don't want to be recorded, they should find a new job.
Or stop beating people and shooting unarmed black kids. Whichever works out better for them.
Your ignorance is that even when confronted with proof that the police cannot take your cell phone recording without a warrant as evidence, you still believe otherwise, showing not one instance where the Police actually did confiscate a cell phone for purely evidenciary purposes....instead you continue to skirt the issue with nothing backing up your contentions....What ignorance of electronics have I shown?
Sorry my video recording of anything is not related to that crime. Just because I am video taping does not mean they can confiscate my cell.cops do not need a warrant to seize a item linked to a crime.
Cops throw pregnant woman to the ground, and punch man repeatedly, try to delete evidence.
nah these cops weren't the least bit over aggressive...
they took the phone from the witness recording and tried to delete the video, but it was already uploaded to a cloud service.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GncaM_lt3-E
Your ignorance is that even when confronted with proof that the police cannot take your cell phone recording without a warrant as evidence, you still believe otherwise, showing not one instance where the Police actually did confiscate a cell phone for purely evidenciary purposes....instead you continue to skirt the issue with nothing backing up your contentions....
Yes, because police officers should have no privacy at all when they are working,<-- the Supreme Court says that Officers have no right to privacy while working! to include personal conversations with family or when they have to go to the restroom, right? <---now you are blabbering like somebody who knows he is trying to blow smoke!
This would also mean they would be recording others in the restroom, which courts have stated is illegal.<---again why take your word when you don`t back it up with anything?? Even in the bathroom they are still in the public eye if they decide to use a public restroom!
Your ignorance is that even when confronted with proof that the police cannot take your cell phone recording without a warrant as evidence, you still believe otherwise, showing not one instance where the Police actually did confiscate a cell phone for purely evidenciary purposes....instead you continue to skirt the issue with nothing backing up your contentions....
If the officer thinks it contains evidence of a crime and there's a danger that the evidence is about to be destroyed, he or she should seize and hold it, according to an OPD training bulletin from November.
The Supreme Court has came out and stated that the Police have no expectation of privacy...why are you making yourself look dumb?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocking the enforcement of an Illinois eavesdropping law. The broadly written law -- the most stringent in the country -- makes it a felony to make an audio recording of someone without their permission, punishable by four to 15 years in prison.
Many states have similar "all-party consent" laws, which mean one must get the permission of all parties to a conversation before recording it. But in all of those states -- except for Massachusetts and Illinois -- the laws include a provision that the parties being recorded must have a reasonable expectation of privacy for it to be a crime to record them.
The Illinois law once included such a provision, but it was removed by the state legislature in response to an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that threw out the conviction of a man accused of recording police from the back of a squad car. That ruling found that police on the job have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The Illinois and Massachusetts laws have been used to arrest people who attempt to record on-duty police officers and other public officials. In one of the more notorious cases, Chicago resident Tiawanda Moore was arrested in 2010 when she attempted to use her cell phone to record officers in a Chicago police station.
Moore had come to the station to report an alleged sexual assault by a Chicago cop, and says she became frustrated when internal affairs officers allegedly bullied her and attempted to talk her out of filing the report. Moore was eventually acquitted.
The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is planning a police accountability project in Chicago that will involve recording police while they're on duty. The organization wanted to be sure its employees and volunteers wouldn't be charged with felonies.
The 7th Circuit Court found a specific First Amendment right to record police officers. It's the second federal appeals court to strike down a conviction for recording police. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled that a man wrongly arrested for recording cops could sue the arresting officers for violating his First Amendment rights.
That decision also found a broad First Amendment right to record on-duty government officials in public: "Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting 'the free discussion of governmental affairs.'" And in fact, in that it strips police who make such arrests of their immunity from lawsuits, it's an even stronger opinion. Of course, the police themselves rarely pay damages in such suits -- taxpayers do.
The Supreme Court's refusal to grant certiorari in the case doesn't necessarily mean the justices endorse the lower court's ruling. But it does mean that at least six of the current justices weren't so opposed to the ruling that they felt the case needed to be heard.
The 1st and 7th circuit decisions mean that it is now technically legal to record on-duty police officers in every state in the country. Unfortunately, people are still being arrested for it. Police officers who want to make an arrest to intimidate would-be videographers can always use broadly written laws that prohibit public disorder, interfering with a police officer, or similar ordinances that give law enforcement wide discretion.
The charges are almost always either subsequently dropped or dismissed in court, but by then the innocent person has been illegally detained, arrested, sometimes jailed, and possibly paid expensive legal fees.
Journalist Carlos Miller, who has been arrested multiple times for recording police, documents such cases on a daily basis. He has also documented countless cases in which police officers have deleted incriminating video from cell phones -- a crime in and of itself.
http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2011_recorded.shtml
http://americancopmagazine.com/expecting-privacy-in-public/
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...ivacy-blocks-sidewalk-car-conduct-speed-trap/
The Supreme Court's refusal to grant certiorari in the case doesn't necessarily mean the justices endorse the lower court's ruling. But it does mean that at least six of the current justices weren't so opposed to the ruling that they felt the case needed to be heard.
More double speak...when is standing 20 ft or even further away interfering with the Police Performance?/The rulings were also based on the ability of other people to be able to record a police officer without their consent. It does not mean that the police have NO expectation of privacy. Are you saying that if a cop goes in to use a public restroom that a citizen can just start filming them in there?
I agree that people should be able to record the police without issue as long as they don't interfere with the performance of the officer's duties.
- Merg
Quote:
If the officer thinks it contains evidence of a crime and there's a danger that the evidence is about to be destroyed, he or she should seize and hold it, according to an OPD training bulletin from November. [/QUOTE]<--seize illegally....of course the Police academy would try to do this shit...they also teach cadets to say they were in fear of their lives if they shoot somebody..lolol
Did you take a look at the two search warrants that I posted? In both cases, the phones were already in the hands of the police as evidence. The search warrant was issued so they could search the contents of the phone related to the crime they were investigating.
If the police feel there is evidentiary items on a cell phone, they can seize the phone. They CANNOT SEARCH it until they have search warrant though. All the court rulings have to do with searching the phone and not the seizure of the phone.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/To-p...olice-can-seize-your-cellphone-191323791.html
From an Orlando PD training guide:
As I stated, at a minimum, the police can hold you there with your cell phone until they get the search warrant, but they don't have to.
I'm not following what you want me to show you with regard to "not one instance where the Police actually did confiscate a cell phone for purely evidenciary purposes". Are you saying that the police have never confiscated a cell phone for evidentiary purposes?
What do you want me to show you that proves that police have properly seized a phone as evidence? Do you really think that a criminal that has incriminating evidence on their phone is going to post on the Internet that the police properly seized and searched their cell phone pursuant to a search warrant?
- Merg
Show me anything the Supreme Court or any other court says that backs up your saying the Police can blatantly violate your rights in relation to video recording! You can`t!! As a shill for the Police you probably already know you are wrong!
You keep repeating #4 over and over in these threads. You have been told that does not happen in the real world yet you refuse to admit it.
I can link to at least 100 youtube videos right now of cops trying to intimidate people into not recording them or into deleting what was recorded. Please post even one instance of what you said happening.
And just because I don't like you: even if the guy hadn't "sync'd to an electronic cloud", the video was not gone. Recuva is free and more people should use it. Also. why would you put it into airplane mode before turning it off? That makes zero sense.
I welcome the police to try and take my property without a warrant. That will be a fun day indeed.
More double speak...when is standing 20 ft or even further away interfering with the Police Performance?/
Nobody in this thread has stated you can record and interfere.....that's a no brainer..stay out of the way!!
You are right the Police had the phones before they had the warrants thus they illegally took or confiscated the phones from the people recording!...duh....or the people did not know their rights as citizens!
Also this is a clear violation of the law--<--seize illegally....of course the Police academy would try to do this shit...they also teach cadets to say they were in fear of their lives if they shoot somebody..lololQuote:
If the officer thinks it contains evidence of a crime and there's a danger that the evidence is about to be destroyed, he or she should seize and hold it, according to an OPD training bulletin from November.
Bakersfield police Sgt. Joe Grubbs said there are numerous variables in these types of
situations. If police believe someone has videotaped a crime on his or her cellphone, they'll ask for the phone and try to work with the person in order not to seize it as evidence.
"In most cases we ask for consent," Grubbs said.
If a person willingly hands over a phone, an officer can usually upload the needed information relatively quickly from either a patrol car computer or at headquarters, Grubbs said.
But if a person refuses to give up his phone and police believe it contains evidence of a crime, then officers can seize it. Grubbs said a search warrant isn't needed at the time officers seize the phone, but one is in order to download information from the device.
Show me anything the Supreme Court or any other court says that backs up your saying the Police can blatantly violate your rights in relation to video recording! You can`t!! As a shill for the Police you probably already know you are wrong!
The cop told the guy he was called to check him out. Did you miss the part where the cop says he's there because he was called there? The cop doesn't seem to have an issue with the guy at all. In the article about the stop, it even says:
Someone called the police and they responded. They determined the call was without merit and moved on.
- Merg
So all public servants (firefighters, court employees, judges, government employees) should have cameras on them at all times since we pay their salaries? We need to make sure that they are working all the time and not wasting our money, right? So that means we should have cameras in the restrooms they use and the locker rooms they change in? Just because they are public servants does not mean they do not also have a right to privacy.
And cops have discretion in whether they give a ticket to someone or not. If they decide they don't want to give a ticket, they don't have to. I know plenty of people that have been stopped and have gotten warnings instead of tickets.
- Merg
In the first year after the cameras' introduction, the use of force by officers declined 60%, and citizen complaints against police fell 88%.