Are Cameras the new Guns? [Archive]

eskachig

06-23-2011, 12:41 AM

Indeed, but I assume you can envision the practical difficulties in allowing charged criminals being arrested to videotape that arrest at the scene of the incident, no?
If the person video taping is following all of the officer's (legal) commands, then no. If they are not following commands then the video will make a great piece of evidence for their resisting arrest charge. I grant you, it's probably hard to get decent footage of your own arrest while complying with all of the instructions, but it's not hard to get bad footage and audio.

But anyway, using wiretapping laws that way applies to bystanders as well.

Also, there are cases like this where nobody actually got arrested, but got charged with wiretapping after the fact - from the article:

A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

Mu-Meson

06-23-2011, 12:42 AM

Indeed, but I assume you can envision the practical difficulties in allowing charged criminals being arrested to videotape that arrest at the scene of the incident, no?

In the majority of these camera cases, it is not the person being arrested who is doing the recording. I've read dozens and dozens of articles where bystanders recording the police are harassed, arrested, and have their confiscated, the film deleted, and charged with some retarded crime - all because they were recording police behavior.
In Illinois, that law about recording the police is solely and expressly for the purpose of shielding cops for having evidence of brutality, incompetence and other bad behavior become available from bystanders recording it. Illinois in particular has an atrocious record for investigating or disciplining their own police.

SoftLion

06-23-2011, 12:49 AM

As far as the person being arrested is concerned, it would seem quite difficult to comply with the officer's instructions while playing George Lucas. Regarding bystanders, the prohibition seems overarching.

eskachig

06-23-2011, 01:04 AM

As far as the person being arrested is concerned, it would seem quite difficult to comply with the officer's instructions while playing George Lucas.
I completely agree - but charging someone under wiretapping statutes for something like that is still wrong.

HK in AK

06-23-2011, 01:15 AM

So it is okay for police to use a dashcam video, but it isn't okay for the public to tape. I think there is something wrong with any law that would infringe on the right of a person to video the police if: the police are on duty, in a public area, and the person making the video does not interfere or obstruct the police in carrying out their duties.

Jobu

06-23-2011, 01:33 AM

This is what we get for electing and re-electing bad judges and politicians who do not have the citizens' best interests at heart. They'll keep taking more power for themselves and personal liberty away from you, it's what government does. It's what the Greeks did, it's what the Romans did, it's what the English have been doing, and it's what we're doing.

dunemetal

06-23-2011, 02:25 AM

randir14

06-23-2011, 03:03 AM

Woman arrested for filming police from her own front yard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7ZkFZkejv8&feature=player_embedded

eskachig

06-23-2011, 03:18 AM

Woman arrested for filming police from her own front yard
I think that's a lot more questionable - because it makes sense to me that cops may ask people to back away, even if they are in their front yard. And they didn't arrest her for wiretapping, she ended up with some sort of misdemeanor obstruction charge. The situation is pretty peaceful overall. Honestly, I don't see anything worth getting worked up over in this video, she should've just filmed from her window or porch. Though the "I don't feel safe with you there" does come off a little strange.

Stuff like this annoys me more I guess:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT6WsScC67o

Violet Fashion by Mindy

06-23-2011, 03:30 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/emily-good-arrested-videotaping-police-rochester_n_882122.html

http://rochester.indymedia.org/newswire/display/27018/index.php

Violet Fashion by Mindy

06-23-2011, 03:38 AM

I think that's a lot more questionable - because it makes sense to me that cops may ask people to back away, even if they are in their front yard. And they didn't arrest her for wiretapping, she ended up with some sort of misdemeanor obstruction charge. The situation is pretty peaceful overall. Honestly, I don't see anything worth getting worked up over in this video, she should've just filmed from her window or porch. Though the "I don't feel safe with you there" does come off a little strange.

Stuff like this annoys me more I guess:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT6WsScC67o

If you read the comments according to the guy who made that video the commander of the unit thanked him for it and will use it to better train his guys. Awesome stuff .

ltrowley

06-23-2011, 03:47 AM

I got told off for taking a picture of a cop car in L.A when I was over there. Guess he thought it'd be too much hassle with a tourist.

INAT

06-23-2011, 03:55 AM

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

Makes sense as videos of police brutality must result in expensive lawsuits.Without video evidence it is your word against theirs.
If there is an incident where you have to deal with the cops and they are not doing anything wrong then they have nothing to worry about when you film them.

Jippo

06-23-2011, 03:58 AM

What about having a recording CCTV in your own home. If you then are arrested, or actually even talking to officer in your own home they could charge you for 4-15 years for having a CCTV installed.

Think about that and tell me it is not absurd.

Reaper171

06-23-2011, 04:05 AM

It is absurd. Now all those news cameramen and women shall be arrested!

martinexsquaddie

06-23-2011, 06:16 AM

Reaper171

06-23-2011, 07:19 AM

think LEO are going to have to learn to live with the fact that camera's are everywhere these days fact of life.
several thuggish drivers have found even cyclists have helmet cams.
You might not like it but its a fact of life.

Yup, my brother has a dash cam in his truck because so many people drive like crap and cut him off, also those cut off insurance scam groups. He drives LA.

harryc

06-23-2011, 07:33 AM

If the person video taping is following all of the officer's (legal) commands, then no. If they are not following commands then the video will make a great piece of evidence for their resisting arrest charge. I grant you, it's probably hard to get decent footage of your own arrest while complying with all of the instructions, but it's not hard to get bad footage and audio.

But anyway, using wiretapping laws that way applies to bystanders as well.

Also, there are cases like this where nobody actually got arrested, but got charged with wiretapping after the fact - from the article:

Been there, charged with that, in Illinois the officers command is presumed legal. The time to debate the legality of the command is after you have complied with it, in a court of law if necessary (yeah sure). In practice this law seems to apply in many other US states. It is easy to see how you can get busted for not putting down the camera when told, in Illinois yes you can be busted for filming the police even with their apparent consent. Technically I could be busted for my copious number of photos taken and posted from demonstrations and daily street life, in practice the law is only used when you really piss them off (at the time) or catch something embarrassing (harder to do as the level of training and professionalism rises).

http://inlinethumb36.webshots.com/45923/2960751520102798085S425x425Q85.jpghttp://inlinethumb36.webshots.com/42787/2741177870102798085S425x425Q85.jpghttp://inlinethumb39.webshots.com/47142/2830030160102798085S425x425Q85.jpg
</civil disobedience >

The one on the right is telling a news cameraman that if he goes out in the street one more time he WILL be arrested, this was after 3 previous warnings, and during a scramble to keep the priests and high school kids from blocking a downtown street.

Noons86

06-23-2011, 09:32 AM

So the police can record us on cctv, but we can't record them with our phones? Got it.

Kinda like how if you lie to a congressman about a question he shouldn't have been asking you in the first place, you get 30 years in jail, but if a congressman lies to you, he gets reelected. Just checking.

Parx400

06-23-2011, 09:43 AM

Hopefully one of these cases goes to the supreme court and they put an end to this.

eskachig

06-23-2011, 12:55 PM

Topical:
http://www.pixiq.com/article/massachusetts-case-will-set-precedent

Four years ago, Boston police officers arrested a man for videotaping them making an arrest in a public park.

They charged Simon Glik with felony wiretapping, disturbing the peace and aiding the escape of a prisoner – even though all he did was hold up a video camera – and the man they were arresting did not escape.

The charges were quickly dropped and Glik eventually filed a lawsuit for false arrest, claiming his First and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated.

The police officers filed a motion to dismiss his complaint on the basis on “qualified immunity,” which is their way of claiming they had no idea videotaping cops in public was completely legal.

Ok so, ignorance of the law for the citizen is no excuse, but ignorance of the law for cops connotes immunity?

Wimbly

06-23-2011, 01:58 PM

Ok so, ignorance of the law for the citizen is no excuse, but ignorance of the law for cops connotes immunity?

That seems to be the case in every one of these videos I see. Especially all those boarder and DUI checkpoint videos. The cops never have any clue about the law or the constitution. I've always defended police officers, but its getting tougher. Its almost like they're purposely putting morons with inferiority complexes in to the positions.

Sarig

06-23-2011, 02:27 PM

So as an amateur photographer and video-maker, I should not study abroad in the US. Gotcha.

Ceriy

06-23-2011, 03:58 PM

Who is going to jail for filming police using city cameras?

Laworkerbee

06-23-2011, 10:17 PM

Whoever films the next Rodney King beating will be jailed and his or her recording confiscated (to be lost or destroyed while in storage p-)) as evidence.

IconOfEvi

06-24-2011, 05:55 AM

Who is going to jail for filming police using city cameras?

A neverending cycle?

Anyways, I generally never trusted da po po, so meh, nothing new for me

eskachig

06-24-2011, 12:57 PM

Woman arrested for filming police from her own front yard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7ZkFZkejv8&feature=player_embedded

Even though I'm not particularly bothered by what happened on that video - Rochester PD is displaying some serious pettiness in the aftermath.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/24/rochester-police-use.html

A followup on Emily Good, the woman who was arrested for video-recording a police stop from her front yard: during a neighborhood meeting in support of Ms Good, Rochester Police came out with a ruler and measured the parking-distance of the attendees' cars. Cars that were more than 12 inches from the curb (even by half an inch) were ticketed. Needless to say, the 12 inch ordinance isn't normally enforced with this kind of vigor.

Laconian

06-24-2011, 03:09 PM

eskachig

06-24-2011, 08:37 PM

No, cameras are not the new guns.

Are there legitimate concerns over the filming of police? Yes, I believe there are. Uniformed officers operating nowadays have to realize and be cognizant that everything they do is going to wind up on the net or on TV. They should be taught that at the academy, by their FTOs and reinforced by their chain of command. You shouldn't be doing anything you couldn't show your chief or your mom, anyway. The flipside is that videos only show what the camera sees and not what the officer(s) sees/knows - to the uneducated/untrained even legitimate police uses of force look bad.
That's pretty legit. And even things that 'look bad' are analyzed and usually explained by experts, usually other cops - in context of internal reviews or trials. Overall the review system is pretty charitable to the cop's point of view, which is reasonable from my perspective, and having extra physical evidence isn't something that should be considered threatening. Indeed, hopefully it only clarifies confusion.

I have never heard of videos of police encounters get officers in trouble who didn't deserve to get in trouble - but there are quite a few incidents where officers made statements that conflicted with video, or outright lied, and where video vindicated citizens (whose statements don't hold much weight in regards to the officer's). It's often the best and only defense for ordinary citizens who come up against people who probably shouldn't be cops.

The filming of UC personnel is different and can present both OPSEC and PERSEC problems/concerns.
One one hand I sympathize - but someone breaking cover in public doesn't seem like something that supersedes the First Amendment. I'd expect most people and news organizations to be sympathetic though, and redact or withhold any such footage.

If on the other hand there are statutes that prohibit recording/videoing subjects without their knowledge, or a court order based on probable cause then the statute has to be modified to allow the filming/taping/broadcasting of public officals without their consent, enforced or stricken from the books.

Quoting from the OP:

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.
Illinois sounds like a place that's either unfriendly to press or extremely protective of privacy. But to me what's in public is in public, and if you're in public you can be recorded. I wonder what they do about CCTVs there.

Wimbly

06-25-2011, 05:40 PM

Oh geez, now those same cops are giving tickets to every car on that street as an act of intimidation. What the hell?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqPZxRWxxm4

HGRazorR

06-25-2011, 11:39 PM

Oh geez, now those same cops are giving tickets to every car on that street as an act of intimidation. What the hell?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqPZxRWxxm4

Speechlessly baffled by such blatant display of cops being tools.

HGRazorR

06-25-2011, 11:51 PM

Interfering with an officer arresting you for a crime is not a constitutional right, which is what the example cited in the article represents. I wonder if resisting arrest in that jurisdiction is also a felony.

However, you are allowed to resist an unlawful arrest.

There's NO WAY an ADA is going to go near this. She's going to walk away from this and these three cops probably just cost the Monroe County millions in a civil suit (most likely will settle). I'm going to assume at least one of the three RPD officers involved here is going to be spending the rest of his career tucked away behind a desk, filing papers.

Hollis

06-25-2011, 11:54 PM

However, you are allowed to resist an unlawful arrest.
.

I would check that out. Some states that use to allow that, has change the law. Also the determination of a lawful or unlawful act is done in a court of Law.

HGRazorR

06-26-2011, 12:03 AM

I would check that out. Some states that use to allow that, has change the law. Also the determination of a lawful or unlawful act is done in a court of Law.

Very true, Hollis. Thanks! It's the majority rule in the U.S.; however, some states, like NY where Monroe County exists, does not allow you to resist an arrest even if unlawful. Also, again, lawful and unlawful are determined after arrest in a court of law.

Hollis

06-26-2011, 12:18 AM

Very true, Hollis. Thanks! It's the majority rule in the U.S.; however, some states, like NY where Monroe County exists, does not allow you to resist an arrest even if unlawful. Also, again, lawful and unlawful are determined after arrest in a court of law.

We had a thread on this, I think it was Ohio. The supreme court in Ohio, changed the view on this. Also there are legal inconsistencies with allowing resistance. A LEO can make arrest whether or not a actual crime was committed. It is all on PC. The Courts will later decide on whether a crime was committed or not. Even then the first court may not have the final say. So for a determination on the street as to legality would be very risky.

So should Miranda have fought his arrest?

eskachig

06-26-2011, 01:01 AM

We had a thread on this, I think it was Ohio. The supreme court in Ohio, changed the view on this. Also there are legal inconsistencies with allowing resistance. A LEO can make arrest whether or not a actual crime was committed. It is all on PC. The Courts will later decide on whether a crime was committed or not. Even then the first court may not have the final say. So for a determination on the street as to legality would be very risky.

Your right of defense against an illegal arrest is not something that states can overturn, as far as I understand.

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

But of course it's tricky when it comes to actually invoking that right of self defense. Nevertheless, anyone who is ever assaulted by a police officer has the same rights as anyone else, including defending themselves.

So should Miranda have fought his arrest?
In that case the problems were with interrogation, not the actual arrest. But yeah, people should defend themselves and others against illegal actions of police officers, or criminals for that matter. It's not always practical, and it doesn't always pay off on a personal level, but life is just better when people don't take abuse lying down.

Tankard

06-26-2011, 04:43 AM

There is something inherently wrong with law enforcement (the people supposed to uphold the law) wanting to hide from the public eye.

Wimbly

06-26-2011, 07:44 AM

Speechlessly baffled by such blatant display of cops being tools.

They actually staked out the community meeting as a form of intimidation. All of these guys needs to lose their jobs.

Laconian

06-26-2011, 07:45 AM

Laconian

06-26-2011, 07:47 AM

They actually staked out the community meeting as a form of intimidation. All of these guys needs to lose their jobs.

There certainly is a need for an investigation and the ones guilty should be punished, not sure it warrants firing.

usa320

06-26-2011, 10:10 AM

I live in rochester so ive been looking at this closely... And also ill say upfront where i work its wrung into our heads since the first day of training that every single thing you do WILL at some point be on camera, be it a civilian's iphone or CCTV...

A few things to mention.... First off, before she began recording, the woman came out of her house yelling at the cops calling them pigs and the like while they were trying to conduct their investigation. From the reports ive seen and heard she was pretty mouthy and aggressive, which is why the officers felt there was an issue of officer safety... which caused them to repeatedly ask her to move away. Keep in mind this neighborhood is a pretty big dump to begin with...

The woman repeatedly refused to move away, even after the cops explained to her that they had no problem with her filming, just with her being so close and standing behind them during the t-stop.

While they were trying to investigate the male they had intitially stopped, the woman continued to create a distraction and take their focus off of 1) their investigation and 2)their safety and situational awareness.

They gave her a ton of warnings to back away, and she didnt heed any of them. IMHO they certainly had grounds to arrest her, or at the very least cuff her, search her and secure her so they could conduct their stop without having to be concerned that she posed a threat to their safety. To me, its a clear cut case of obstructing governmental administration.

That being said, i dont think it was a reasonable move for them to go back and ticket the **** out of each car in the neighborhood... IF it was in fact an act of retaliation then someone should face disciplinary action. If it was a coincidence however, which it very well maybe, seeing as different units handle parking and code enforcement, then i dont think anything should be done. It deff is worth loooking into though.

EDIT**** i looked at the listing of 911 calls made on the day the parking tickets were issued (its posted on the monroe county website), and there is in fact a listing for "parking complaint" on troup street.... so chances are some of the neighbors complained about all the unfamiliar vehicles parking in their area, which initiated the ticketing.

Dominique

06-26-2011, 10:28 AM

How does an individual KNOW the arrest is unlawful, there hasn't been a warrant issued based upon probable cause? I have worked many, many cases where the target had little to no idea he was being investigated, had no idea he/she had been indicted and a warrant issued. So after working a case and the target is to be arrested because he/she didn't think the arrest was lawful they had a right to resist? Or a drunk subject acting the idiot about to be arrested for disorderly conduct has the right to resist if they think the arrest is unlawful? I wouldn't recommend that. I'm not an attorney and don't practice law, but from a practical matter resisting is going to up the ante and use of force is going to come into play. IMO, it would be better to submit and sort it out afterwards. YMMV.

tankard, it may be arrogance or it may be a misunderstanding (or even ignorance) of the law. There are however a number of very good reasons why LE don't divulge tactics, training, plans and procedures (and even sometimes their identities) to the public.

Just to piggy back on Laconian, or the idiots who tell me I can't arrest them becuase 1) I had no jurisdiction over them (they found out they were wrong), 2) I didn't read them their rights (since I didn't question them, and had a valid warrant, I didn't have too), 3) Just flat out believe they're in the right (and they're not), etc. etc. Trying to resist arrest by force is not the way to go. Wait until you see a magistrate, or judge, and then let they'll explain exactly what's going on.

bobunio

06-26-2011, 10:40 AM

This scenario happens a lot these days. I work in the hood, and everyone I pull over is on the phone with their mom or aunty before I even get up to the car. Mom or aunty usually shows up on the scene before I am done writing the ticket.

I can't tell you how many times I've been on a traffic stop over the years and while I'm doing a search, residents/passers-by stroll right over to see whats going on, and have absolutely no reservation about coming up and standing DIRECTLY behind me. And I'm talking like RIGHT behind me, like we're in line at McDonalds. It's even worse in the projects because normally everyone is ALREADY outside, and when people flee, that's usually where they head to.

People video taping doesn't bother me, it's the ones who come right up to you for the money shot like they're on assignment filming an episode of Cops. Asking people nicely to tape from across the street or other suitable distance usually works. People that I have NOT asked nicely seem to understand after I explain why them being so close subjects me to additional risk. I had not had to hook anyone up for this, and hope I don't have to. Watch what you say/do, and assume you're being taped at all times.

Wimbly

06-26-2011, 12:54 PM

The woman repeatedly refused to move away, even after the cops explained to her that they had no problem with her filming, just with her being so close and standing behind them during the t-stop.

Move away? She was on her porch and the officers were on the street. It was the officer who closed the distance and entered her porch.

EDIT**** i looked at the listing of 911 calls made on the day the parking tickets were issued (its posted on the monroe county website), and there is in fact a listing for "parking complaint" on troup street.... so chances are some of the neighbors complained about all the unfamiliar vehicles parking in their area, which initiated the ticketing.

Why did they continue to stay on the scene during the community meeting?

2nd video: http://blip.tv/indy-tv/davy-v-exposes-rochester-police-intimidation-tactics-in-front-of-285-clarissa-st-5313263

eskachig

06-26-2011, 02:26 PM

How does an individual KNOW the arrest is unlawful, there hasn't been a warrant issued based upon probable cause?
That's the kicker huh?

An example from the past:

Three policemen in South Dakota attempted, under verbal orders, to arrest another policeman for an alleged violation of law when no charge had been formally made against him and no warrant had issued for his arrest. Those attempting to make the arrest carried arms, and when he
refused to go, they tried to oblige him to do so by force. He fired and killed one of them.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/177/529/case.html

Basically, an officer that's carrying out an illegal arrest, or in general abusing his authority, ceases to be under the protection of the state laws that give special powers to peace officers.

"Where officers do not conform to the 'law of the land' they have
no authority and the right to resist them exists. A Public Officer,
as with a citizen, who unlawfully threatens life or liberty, is
susceptible to be injured or killed; for by such acts 'they draw
their own blood upon themselves' As stated in some cases, 'where
a peace officer has no right to make an arrest without warrant he
is a trespasser and acts at his own peril." 6A CJS., "Arrest"
Section 16 page 30; A sheriff who "acts without process," or
"under a process void on its face, in doing such act, he is not to
be considered an officer but a personal trespasser." Roberts v. Dean,
187 So. 571, 575 (Fla. 1939)

But things have changed, there are more protections for people who are arrested, etc. So many states make it illegal to resist arrest even it is unlawful in the hope that it will decrease potential for violence in these situations. The reasoning laid out in this case from Washington's supreme court is interesting and in depth - and it even goes into the common law origins of right of self defense against illegal arrest, as well as some other cases from around the country:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1250487.html

Note, that this decision limits the right of self defense when the only consequence is loss of freedom, due to the various protections they outline earlier. It maintains a person's right to use self defense in order to safeguard themselves against injury.

While defendant's rights are no doubt violated when he is arrested and detained a matter of days or hours without probable cause, we conclude the state in removing the right to resist does not contribute to or effectuate this deprivation of liberty. In a day when police are armed with lethal and chemical weapons, and possess scientific communication and detection devices readily available for use, it has become highly unlikely that a suspect, using reasonable force, can escape from or effectively deter an arrest, whether lawful or unlawful. His accomplishment is generally limited to temporary evasion, merely rendering the officer's task more difficult or prolonged. Thus self-help as a practical remedy is anachronistic, whatever may have been its original justification or efficacy in an era when the common law doctrine permitting resistance evolved․ Indeed, self-help not infrequently causes far graver consequences for both the officer and the suspect than does the unlawful arrest itself. Accordingly, the state, in deleting the right to resist, has not actually altered or diminished the remedies available against the illegality of an arrest without probable cause; it has merely required a person to submit peacefully to the inevitable and to pursue his available remedies through the orderly judicial process.
...
In sum, we hold that, although a person who is being unlawfully arrested has a right, as the trial court indicated in instruction 17, to use reasonable and proportional force to resist an attempt to inflict injury on him or her during the course of an arrest, that person may not use force against the arresting officers if he or she is faced only with a loss of freedom. We explicitly overrule Rousseau and other cases that are inconsistent with our holding in this case.

So looking around, the old common law right to defend yourself against illegal arrest has been eroded, but not when it comes to undue violence. There are states where it's still on the books however. People who experience police brutality do have the right to defend themselves, and others have the right to come to their aid. I can't find too many court cases on this one way or another, because generally if officer's conduct was clearly outrageous, charges of resisting arrest or assaulting an officer are simply dropped or not brought by the DA to be begin with.

eskachig

06-26-2011, 02:36 PM

EDIT**** i looked at the listing of 911 calls made on the day the parking tickets were issued (its posted on the monroe county website), and there is in fact a listing for "parking complaint" on troup street.... so chances are some of the neighbors complained about all the unfamiliar vehicles parking in their area, which initiated the ticketing.
Hahaha - here in SF, if I called 911 with a parking complaint, I'm pretty sure the dispatcher would tell me to f**k off and hang up. Rochester must be a quiet place or something.

Ought Six

06-26-2011, 02:41 PM

Cameras only work on people who care what the rest of the world thinks. In North Korea or Zimbabwe, a camera is not so potent a weapon.

Lazy Lob

06-26-2011, 03:06 PM

This is very wrong.

eskachig

06-26-2011, 03:36 PM

Cameras only work on people who care what the rest of the world thinks. In North Korea or Zimbabwe, a camera is not so potent a weapon.
The rest of the world is part of it - but the most important audience for these things is internal. Certainly, in North Korea censorship is ubiquitous - so they at least consider camera a very potent weapon. Not sure about Zimbabwe.

Ought Six

06-26-2011, 04:11 PM

The rest of the world is part of it - but the most important audience for these things is internal. Certainly, in North Korea censorship is ubiquitous - so they at least consider camera a very potent weapon. Not sure about Zimbabwe.Do you seriously think that the North Koreans are unaware of what is going on in their own nation? That they do not know about the concentration camps, and the lavish lifestyles of their leaders while the people literally starve to death? Do you think that the norks stay up at night worrying that the rest of the world might be offended by their ruthless suppression of their own people? Do you think that things are significantly different in Zimbabwe?

Hollis

06-26-2011, 04:27 PM

In that case the problems were with interrogation, not the actual arrest. But yeah, people should defend themselves and others against illegal actions of police officers, or criminals for that matter. It's not always practical, and it doesn't always pay off on a personal level, but life is just better when people don't take abuse lying down.

Still, to be interrogated, he was under arrest. So should he have resisted his arrest. This is sort of a loaded question. It is not about lying down, standing up, or what ever, it is about understanding the elements of arrest, a crime and how our legal system works. Those elements have to be in place for every situation. Miranda was about self incrimination, prior to that it was Escobedo VS Ill.

On your quote, As I already mentioned, Ohio Supreme Court will tell you, that you are wrong, especially in a the Police making a unlawful entry into your home. Arizona, did the same. Problem and it is probably the crux of the situation, one would not know if a arrest is legal or unlawful until it is review by the courts. The remedy is in the courts, not on the street. It is something a citizen should just not do, unless they have a very good understanding of the law. Our battle ground is really in the courts. Just like civil disobedience, we can do it, but it is not without it's possible down side.

ON Rochester, to ****s do not make a right. One of the best comments and simplest ones that I have read, was that both the women and cop were ****s. Also the department seems to be not much better.

Lazy Lob

06-26-2011, 04:58 PM

But police officers should not be pushing the limits of the law so it has to be reviewed at the expense of the citizen.

Jobu

06-26-2011, 06:13 PM

The remedy is in the courts, not on the street.

Too bad your word doesn't mean jack sh1t in court against the word of an officer.

HGRazorR

06-26-2011, 07:25 PM

Hahaha - here in SF, if I called 911 with a parking complaint, I'm pretty sure the dispatcher would tell me to f**k off and hang up. Rochester must be a quiet place or something.

I agree. Also, who says a cop didn't just call that in on his own cell phone before they started the ticketing. Sketchy man, sketchy.

Also, Rochester is not a quiet town and there's parts of it that I was not even comfortable being around in during the day. Sad that they had 4 RMPs at such a location over a petty gripe. There's probably a whole lot more these guys could of, and should of been doing. Definitely comes off as the RPD = Gestapo.

Wimbly

06-26-2011, 08:57 PM

Too bad your word doesn't mean jack sh1t in court against the word of an officer.

Hence the need for the video taping officers.

usa320

06-26-2011, 09:23 PM

I agree. Also, who says a cop didn't just call that in on his own cell phone before they started the ticketing. Sketchy man, sketchy.

Also, Rochester is not a quiet town and there's parts of it that I was not even comfortable being around in during the day. Sad that they had 4 RMPs at such a location over a petty gripe. There's probably a whole lot more these guys could of, and should of been doing. Definitely comes off as the RPD = Gestapo.

Gestapo? far from it... theyre actually one of the laziest PD's in the area... which is pretty bad considering the amount of crime in the urban areas. Most the time i see RPD cops theyre either at the beach hanging out checking out the girls, or standing in front of the bars on main street checking out the girls, or at the donut shop checking out the girl working there...etc... And lately the trend is for them to recruit jersey shore look-a-likes. THe whole ticketing of cars thing... either total coincidence, or an unprofessional vengeful lapse of judgement on some cops part. Either way i completely agree their time could better be spent preventing crime, seeing as weve had 3 arsons with injuries and 2 stabbings 1 fatal in the past 16 hours.

I actually entered into the recruitment process for RPD, but even their recruitment officers were so disorganized and grouchy it left such a bad taste in my mouth i never went past the written exam, not to mention unless your hispanic or italian you pretty much stand a 0% chance of being hired to be frank.

Pooterman

06-27-2011, 02:59 AM

I agree with the arrest of the woman. The cop was nice, respectful, and gave her several warnings. If you're in the ghetto and somebody is standing in close proximity to you and creating a distraction, that is a classic case of obstruction. It doesnt matter where she is technically standing. Besides, there is a little rule or analogy called the girl scout rule. An officer can go anywhere a girl scout can go without a warrant. Which pretty much includes all of a front yard that isnt fenced in and up to the front door. Although her lawn may be deemed "property" its still in view of the public and is a public place in my state. In other words, there is no expectation of privacy in your front yard. It is considered a public place. If she were drunk on her front yard, she would still be subject to arrest for public intoxication because our statute reads in public or in view of the public.

If an officer doesnt feel like he can safely conduct a traffic stop than he has every right to make his stop as safe as possible. He attempted to do that by asking her to return to the privacy of her own home. She refused by her words and actions. I personally wouldnt have arrested in this situation, but I think he will be fine in the long run. Especially since she expressed hostility prior to turning the camera on.

As far as the Florida Command Center gas station filming incident, that guy is just a ****. The troopers asked him several times not to film them. Whether or not they were in uniform or just a family on vacation in a huge RV, this guy is a **** for disrespecting a common courtesy. The only reason this guy is filming them is to piss them off. He gives a valid reason for why he doesnt want to be on camera and why he doesnt want the command center on camera. The cop asks very nicely several times for him to stop and he refuses citing his rights. You all are so quick to call the cop a douche because you dont like getting speeding tickets and you dont like somebody having authority over you. If you ignore your predispositions to hating cops, you would quickly recognize that the guy with a camera is simply filming two people that dont want to be filmed and hes beeing an a$$hole about it. But the cop is automatically a douche because he asked the guy to stop right??? Who cares if he was legally right in what he did, hes an a$$hole. Just like Westboro protesting military funerals. They are doing something absolutely legal right??? But they are still a$$holes.

Pooterman

06-27-2011, 03:08 AM

I can see where this Rochester cop is coming from. I dont let anybody stand behind me. Ever. Even when Ive had a civilian ridealong that I knew and trusted, I wont even let them stand behind me when Im working. One of my training sergeants use to say "keep all your threats in front of you and no distractions behind you".

And its all ridiculous, abuse of power, small man syndrome, and whatever else you may think about these situations but from the perspective of a cop, you only have to be wrong once and you die.

I dont even know why im typing this, its not like any of you are going to change your minds. The cop is already guilty in your minds.

eskachig

06-27-2011, 03:33 AM

As far as the Florida Command Center gas station filming incident, that guy is just a ****. The troopers asked him several times not to film them. Whether or not they were in uniform or just a family on vacation in a huge RV, this guy is a **** for disrespecting a common courtesy. The only reason this guy is filming them is to piss them off. He gives a valid reason for why he doesnt want to be on camera and why he doesnt want the command center on camera. The cop asks very nicely several times for him to stop and he refuses citing his rights.
He did not ask nicely, he said things like "you can't do that", and "we're asking you nicely" (this implies that they don't have to ask nicely, and in all honesty doesn't sound very nice at all). Seriously - at 0:10 the cop is yelling "you can't take pictures". That is not a polite request, that's throwing authority around - and it's authority he simply doesn't have. I'd understand your point if the trooper said something along the lines "I understand you have the right to do this and I can't stop you, but we'd appreciate if you stopped", but that's not what happens. From the very start the cop is acting as if he has the right to make that command, and any grown man is going to get pissed off at being treated that way.

Maybe this is an occupational hazard of your job or something - but yelling and telling someone they can't do something is not how you "ask very nicely", that's a good demonstration of how not to do it.

You all are so quick to call the cop a douche because you dont like getting speeding tickets and you dont like somebody having authority over you.
Projecting much?

eskachig

06-27-2011, 03:34 AM

I can see where this Rochester cop is coming from. I dont let anybody stand behind me. Ever. Even when Ive had a civilian ridealong that I knew and trusted, I wont even let them stand behind me when Im working. One of my training sergeants use to say "keep all your threats in front of you and no distractions behind you".
I don't much care about that lady, her and the cop were both idiots - but he was in front of her when he said that, she was not behind him.

Wimbly

06-27-2011, 07:32 AM

I agree with the arrest of the woman. The cop was nice, respectful, and gave her several warnings. If you're in the ghetto and somebody is standing in close proximity to you and creating a distraction

The officer had no legal right too give warnings and she was nowhere near the police. It is not illegal to video tape police officers.

that is a classic case of obstruction.

No, that requires a distance of 20 ft or less. She was more than 50 yards away.

It doesnt matter where she is technically standing.

Yeah, it does. This is America, not China or North Korea.

In other words, there is no expectation of privacy in your front yard. It is considered a public place.

This is utter nonsense.

Some of you seem to think police officers have endless powers and that when they give you a command, all your rights go out the window. That's not the case and those of you who think it should be, probably need to move to another more jack booted country. The fact these officers are now attempting to intimidate the neighborhood, might clue you in to the fact they're corrupt and idiotic.

eskachig

06-27-2011, 12:28 PM

And its all ridiculous, abuse of power, small man syndrome, and whatever else you may think about these situations but from the perspective of a cop, you only have to be wrong once and you die.
I've been thinking about this - the idea of officer safety motivates a lot of how police do things, and also how police interactions have changed over decades. But being a police officer isn't particularly unsafe. Rate of on-the-job deaths for farmers is several times higher, ditto for pilots and flight engineers - and workers in the fishing industry die at the rate of almost 20 times higher than cops. About half of cops that die on the job do so in traffic accidents as well, not violence. But of course, the psychological impact of violent death is very different than that of an industrial accident.

In the course of the last 15 years or so I've seen everything about policework go EXTREME in the name of officer safety (and to fight drug smuggling), but in our steadily less violent society police fatalities (and shootings) are only going up, and ordinary people are more and more losing r a p p o r t with police. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but it seems to me like some of the measures cops are taking to make their jobs safer, end up backfiring in terms of community relations and the like, which probably makes their jobs harder and less safe in the long run. And something that seems like it might cause the most damage for least benefit is seemingly ever more aggressive attitude when communicating with civilians, including bystanders.

Pooterman

06-27-2011, 03:09 PM

Well Wimbly it would help for you to know the state law where you live. Where I live, the front yard is a public place. Whether she was in the street or in her grass, it doesnt matter. There is no expectation of privacy in a front yard and an officer can make a PC / warrantless arrest in a front yard. A person can be a nuisance or obstruct justice just as easily from their grass as they can a public sidewalk.

50 yards? Half a football field? Hardly. Watch again.

Pooterman

06-27-2011, 03:15 PM

This is the same ideology for searching a car without a warrant. There is less expectation of privacy in your vehicle than your home. Thats why case law and the Carol Doctrine provides the legal basis for searching a car without a warrant. If you are standing in your front yard and engaging the police in a consentual or mutual conversation and asked nicely to go back to your home until the conclusion of the traffic stop, it does not matter whether you're standing in the street or your yard. In other words, she asked for it.

And if you watch the video, she is behind them at the beginning and an officer has his back to her for some time at the passenger window. Apparently she called them pigs in a hostile manor prior to turing the camera on and in a high crime area. Thats reason enough for them not wanting her to stand in close proximity to them during what they deamed as a higher risk traffic stop.

She threw rocks at the hornets nest and she got stung. Gimme a break. She could have filmed from her front door just as easily. She was pushing it. Like I said, I wouldnt have made this arrest but the officer will be fine.

Ought Six

06-27-2011, 03:18 PM

P:
This is the same ideology for searching a car without a warrant. There is less expectation of privacy in your vehicle than your home.False. The SCotUS ruled that cursory searches of autos can made only so the officer can determine for their own safety that there are no weapons concealed in the vehicle. It has nothing to do with privacy. If your car is parked and nobody is in it, the police may not search it without a warrant, just like your home.

Laconian

06-27-2011, 03:38 PM

I know I'm going to regret this, but:

I've been thinking about this - the idea of officer safety motivates a lot of how police do things, and also how police interactions have changed over decades. But being a police officer isn't particularly unsafe. Rate of on-the-job deaths for farmers is several times higher, ditto for pilots and flight engineers - and workers in the fishing industry die at the rate of almost 20 times higher than cops. About half of cops that die on the job do so in traffic accidents as well, not violence. But of course, the psychological impact of violent death is very different than that of an industrial accident.

By your own admission of the stats, LEO stand a 50% chance (approx) of dying due to felonious assault and you think officer safety shouldn't motivate somebody out on the street. Of all those professions with higher death rates, how many of them are from people purposefully killing fisherman, farmers or pilots? Industrial/farming and other accidents are all investigated to see if practices need to change to make the workplace safer. Should LEOs not do that? Changes in officer safety practices/tactics result from the unpleasant study of what gets cops killed in the line of duty.

An officer goes to work with the 100% chance that he will have to use force to go home to his family every shift, every duty day. If he uses force one day, it does not diminsh the chance that he will have to use it the next day or the day after that. It is a constant companion.

In the course of the last 15 years or so I've seen everything about policework go EXTREME in the name of officer safety (and to fight drug smuggling), but in our steadily less violent society police fatalities (and shootings) are only going up, and ordinary people are more and more losing r a p p o r t with police. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but it seems to me like some of the measures cops are taking to make their jobs safer, end up backfiring in terms of community relations and the like, which probably makes their jobs harder and less safe in the long run. And something that seems like it might cause the most damage for least benefit is seemingly ever more aggressive attitude when communicating with civilians, including bystanders.

Been studying LE use of force since you were 13, huh? Certified trainer in use of force, defensive tactics, firearms? Any practical experience riding in a beat car? Tell me what extreme measures are allowed in the name of officer safety. The standard for use of force is still "objective reasonableness" as set forth in Graham v. Connor (a SCOTUS case) in '89. They still need reasonable suspicion for a frisk/pat down as made the standard in Terry v. Ohio ('68(?)). In the last 15 years what in LE has changed to make officer safety extreme? More cops wear body armor? Cops have adopted pistols over revolvers? Patrol rifles have been added alongside shotguns? Trained groups of officers serve high risk warrants, instead of 5-6 patrol guys and detectives going up and kicking on doors?

There haven't been EXTREME measures to insure officer safety.

Jobu

06-27-2011, 04:19 PM

I don't mean to answer for eskachig but I can't help myself since we've already been over a lot of this stuff.

#1. An industrial farming accident may lead to a change in procedures but those are not likely to have any impact on the general population. Adding a shield to cover a thresher blade has no effect on my rights as an American. A change in procedures to address officer safety is a lot more likely to have an impact on the rest of us. Take the "no filming in public" argument that's currently going on as an example. Cops feel uncomfortable being filmed in public while doing their jobs. That's understandable. But the constitution is more important isn't it? Are we going to keep eroding the rights of the citizens so that government agents are or maybe simply feel better protected? Where do we draw the line? In my opinion the constitution is a pretty goddamn big line to cross.

#2. In the last 15 years we've seen an explosion of "no knock" home invasions performed by government agents. Isn't one of the primary justifications given for that officer safety? If LEO's don't see that as extreme, maybe you've been on the job too long and forgotten what it's like to be a regular citizen. Citizens should not live in fear of their own government but that's exactly what's happening now. You're losing the trust and support of the very people you're supposed to be serving and protecting. That's not healthy.

It's time to start rolling back this militarization of our domestic law enforcement before it's too late.

Laconian

06-27-2011, 04:25 PM

Jobu

06-27-2011, 04:32 PM

A no-knock warrant issued by a magistrate isn't a home invasion, it's a no-knock warrant. Officer safety is only one of the reasons for a no-knock, the other is the destruction of evidence. Have an infraction for the imflammatory comment.

If a SWAT team kicking someone's door in and raiding his house with weapons drawn is not a home invasion then what is?
I'm pretty sure most people would consider that extreme.

Laconian

06-27-2011, 04:41 PM

If a SWAT team kicking someone's door in and raiding his house with weapons drawn is not a home invasion then what is?
I'm pretty sure most people would consider that extreme.

You don't get it do you? It's not a home invasion because they got there by a duly issued warrant based upon probable cause and signed by a detached magistrate.

If SWAT teams showed up and started taking doors (with or without a knock and announce clause) without a warrant then it would be a home invasion and if no exigent circumstances exist that nullify the warrant requirement, I would be asking for an investigation and prosecution.

You have a problem with no-knock warrants? Take it up with the magistrates that sign the warrant and authorize, not with the cops that present facts to the judge and he authorized it.

Jobu

06-27-2011, 04:56 PM

You don't get it do you? It's not a home invasion because they got there by a duly issued warrant based upon probable cause and signed by a detached magistrate.

If SWAT teams showed up and started taking doors (with or without a knock and announce clause) without a warrant then it would be a home invasion and if no exigent circumstances exist that nullify the warrant requirement, I would be asking for an investigation and prosecution.

You have a problem with no-knock warrants? Take it up with the magistrates that sign the warrant and authorize, not with the cops that present facts to the judge and he authorized it.

You're arguing the legality of it. I'm arguing the extremity of the act.

It's not only the magistrates. It's also the law enforcement departments who are requesting so many of these warrants.

We've gone from 2000-3000 per year to well over 50,000 per year according to the criminology professor at Eastern Kentucky U. His latest figures put it at somewhere between 70,000-80,000 now. That's not reasonable. You're giving people seconds to decide whether they're facing a legal or illegal home invasion with their lives depending on the choice. Sometimes the choice doesn't even matter since we've got criminals performing fake LEO entries now. A man in Alabama was killed in his own home by a fake ATF criminal assault last year.

It needs to be rolled back to justifiable levels.

harryc

06-27-2011, 05:10 PM

I know I'm going to regret this, but:

By your own admission of the stats, LEO stand a 50% chance (approx) of dying due to felonious assault .....

An officer goes to work with the 100% chance that he will have to use force to go home to his family every shift, every duty day. If he uses force one day, it does not diminsh the chance that he will have to use it the next day or the day after that. It is a constant companion.

...snip...

The poster said that 50% of the LEO deaths were due to vehicle accidents, not that there is a 50% chance of death for each LEO, the poster also pointed out that LEO (in the US ?) is not the most hazardous job around.

I know many LEOs and none of them use force 100% of the days, or weeks, or months. (well maybee some of them every month).

The standard for use of force is still "objective reasonableness"
As I said back on page one - In the USA, Chicago in particular, you do what the LEO tells you, quickly and without argument. They ARE the law, the courts will back them, and on a more abstract level it is the only way to keep society moving. Somebody has to be in charge and around here it is the man with the gun -AND- bage.

You have a problem with no-knock warrants? Take it up with the magistrates that sign the warrant and authorize, not with the cops that present facts to the judge and he authorized it.
100% agreed - too often we blame the men/women enforcing the rules they did not make without the resources they need.

Laconian

06-27-2011, 06:09 PM

The poster said that 50% of the LEO deaths were due to vehicle accidents, not that there is a 50% chance of death for each LEO, the poster also pointed out that LEO (in the US ?) is not the most hazardous job around.

50% approx of the deaths are traffic accident related, the other 50% approx come from from felonious assaults.

I know many LEOs and none of them use force 100% of the days, or weeks, or months. (well maybee some of them every month).

Please read what I wrote again. I didn't say "they use force 100% of the days" I said there is a 100% chance that they will have to use force everyday. Most days/shifts you don't need anything more than your pen (or computer nowadays), your car keys and your brain to make it through a watch; that doesn't negate the fact that that as an LEO you need to be prepared physically, mentally, emotionally and tactically to fight for your life on every call, every encounter, every contact. Complacency kills. In other high risk jobs the danger of death or injury is from carelessness or accidents caused by machinery, etc. Not too many fisherman are attacked by violent tuna, farmers assaulted by runaway beanstalks. The guy a copper pulls over for a tag light out may just be a good dude with a tag light out. Or he could be a multi-convicted felon in a stolen ride that hasn't been discovered/reported yet and who just hit the local stop-n-rob and doesn't want to go back to the joint.

@ Jobu, you're right I am talking about the legality of it because HOME INVASIONS are crimes and when a bunch of cops show up somewhere with a warrant in hand it's legal. Your little comment was flame bait and you know it. You want to debate the use of no-knocks, fine; but the insinuation that an issued warrant is the same as a home invasion robbery is bullsh!t.

Criminals have been disguising themselves as LE and doing bad things for quite a while - the St. Valentine's Day Massacre was done by gangsters dressed as Chicago PD; the Hillside Strangler had a reserve cop badge and used it to pull over cars to get victims. There are crews that disguise themselves as PD/FBI/SO/ATF whatever. That wasn't caused by LE.

Violet Fashion by Mindy

06-27-2011, 06:23 PM

You have a problem with no-knock warrants? Take it up with the magistrates that sign the warrant and authorize, not with the cops that present facts to the judge and he authorized it.

But you must admit that since they are allowed to be used LEO will try to use these type of warrants as much as possible?

From my countries perspective. Jobu is right. There has been an increase in the militarisation of police and security.

Police used to wear this as a general uniform
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y149/Minardiau/86188f05.gif

Now might as well look like thugs. Very intimidating which they shouldn't be.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y149/Minardiau/b895fdcb.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y149/Minardiau/51a3475c.jpg

Jobu

06-27-2011, 06:36 PM

@ Jobu, you're right I am talking about the legality of it because HOME INVASIONS are crimes and when a bunch of cops show up somewhere with a warrant in hand it's legal. Your little comment was flame bait and you know it. You want to debate the use of no-knocks, fine; but the insinuation that an issued warrant is the same as a home invasion robbery is bullsh!t.

Criminals have been disguising themselves as LE and doing bad things for quite a while - the St. Valentine's Day Massacre was done by gangsters dressed as Chicago PD; the Hillside Strangler had a reserve cop badge and used it to pull over cars to get victims. There are crews that disguise themselves as PD/FBI/SO/ATF whatever. That wasn't caused by LE.

The argument wasn't what was legal. The argument was what has changed over the last 15 years that's been extreme. It was your own question.
You took offense to the "home invasion" characterization, that's fine. You actually have to do that stuff. But I hope you realize that a lot of the general public don't see it that way. LEO's may not see it the way we do because they've crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's and got the warrant they requested from the magistrate but that's a matter of procedure, not a matter of right and wrong.

I think your examples of impersonating officers miss the point. The Hillside Strangler posed as a cop and pulled people over in fake traffic stops. These are normally not extreme tactics when cops do 'em. Obviously the people being pulled over were not in what they thought were life/death situations. You cannot say the same for "no knock" entries. Whether it's an actual SWAT team or a bunch of criminals, it is a life/death situation. The fake raids were not caused by LE but the more common actual warranted raids get the easier it will be for the criminals to pull 'em off. Are people just supposed to assume the armed men kicking their doors in have a warrant? It's not a traffic stop.

The St. Valentines Day Massacre was a bunch of criminals killing another bunch of criminals. I couldn't care less about that. Let 'em kill each other as long as nobody else was in any danger. Then deal with the rest.

Kilgor

06-27-2011, 06:41 PM

High quality camera phones, 3G connections and widely available social media are making a huge impact on many societies. From Arab springs all the way to law enforcement.

LS1 Miata

06-27-2011, 07:00 PM

...................

LS1 Miata

06-27-2011, 07:03 PM

High quality camera phones, 3G connections and widely available social media are making a huge impact on many societies. From Arab springs all the way to law enforcement.

And authoritarians, no matter who they are, do not like it one bit.

Laconian

06-27-2011, 07:05 PM

But you must admit that since they are allowed to be used LEO will try to use these type of warrants as much as possible?

From my countries perspective. Jobu is right. There has been an increase in the militarisation of police and security.

From a supervisor's perspective I want my people to accomplish the mission as safely as possible for all concerned; my folks, the subject's and surrounding people as well. There are times when a no-knock is the best tactical solution. There are times when it is not. If I think the facts and circumstances warrant an application for a no-knock clause I will tell my folks to request one and see what happens. That does not happen very often and in the 2+ years at the helm we've done it once. Even working with SWAT w/local warrants there is a knock and announce. 95+% of my office's warrants are gun/violent crime related.

I like the fatigue type uniform, but do no like the bloused boots, bellows cargo pockets trousers. Pants in the same material without the cargo pockets & bloused boots with a tucked in shirt and sewn on everything (badges, nametapes, etc.) is functional comfortable and professional without being over the top, IMO. The polyester dressy uniforms I wore on the street were hot as Hades, not functional and showed wear horribly; runs and snags ruined the whole thing and they were expensive. Several companies make trousers that look casual but still professional and polo-style shirts that are functional and professional without being too militaristic.

Violet Fashion by Mindy

06-27-2011, 07:25 PM

don't get me wrong. Even though I'm not big fan of cops. I do understand that in the ideal world they should be given the tools and backing to do the job at maximum efficiency. Unfortunately to do the job at maximum efficiency requires to much personal freedom violations. I wont use "Rights" because Australian's don't have rights. We have privileges but anyways.

It's like the TSA. Dammed if you do. Dammed if you don't.

I think we may need to take it back a little bit. Lose a little efficiency to ensure our privileges/rights are not to infringed and LEO lose a little bit of efficiency. In the name of fighting terror we have slipped a little to far in favour of LEO instead of creating the balance.

Wimbly

06-27-2011, 07:49 PM

I wont use "Rights" because Australian's don't have rights. We have privileges but anyways.

Is that something you all are working on, because it sounds pretty outrageous?

eskachig

06-27-2011, 08:01 PM

I know I'm going to regret this, but:
Hopefully not, it wasn't a flame.

By your own admission of the stats, LEO stand a 50% chance (approx) of dying due to felonious assault and you think officer safety shouldn't motivate somebody out on the street.
As it was pointed out, LEOs don't stand a 50% chance of dying due to homicide, that's like Armageddon or civil war level casualties. And of course safety should motivate somebody - and that goes for any dangerous job. All the same, I hope you guys are putting a lot of effort into preventing accidental and traffic deaths as well. In my anecdotal experience, the cops I personally know are risky drivers, on duty and off - and they say that there is no way they'll get a ticket so they can speed as much as they want. They are all pretty young, that might be part of it.

Of all those professions with higher death rates, how many of them are from people purposefully killing fisherman, farmers or pilots?
I'm not including this because I'm trying to say cops are wimps - but just because it's so curious. Here are some professions where homicide is one of the leading causes of death. Disclaimer, this is from 1995, the table was very easy to copy. I'm sure some things have changed - a newer report is linked below.

Occupation | Fatality Rate (per 100,000) | Leading fatal event (percent)
Supervisors, proprietors, sales 4.7 Homicide (63)
Police, detectives, and supervisors 16.6 Homicide (47); Highway (28)
Cashiers 4.3 Homicide (92)
Guards 11.2 Homicide (58)
Taxicab drivers 46.5 Homicide (70) *Holy s**t
Auto mechanics 5.7 Highway (21); Homicide (13) *Huh?

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf
More recent report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

Industrial/farming and other accidents are all investigated to see if practices need to change to make the workplace safer. Should LEOs not do that? Changes in officer safety practices/tactics result from the unpleasant study of what gets cops killed in the line of duty.
You're right, of course cops should do what they can to decrease fatalities.

An officer goes to work with the 100% chance that he will have to use force to go home to his family every shift, every duty day. If he uses force one day, it does not diminsh the chance that he will have to use it the next day or the day after that. It is a constant companion.
I don't think anyone claims that it's an easy job.

Been studying LE use of force since you were 13, huh? Certified trainer in use of force, defensive tactics, firearms? Any practical experience riding in a beat car? Tell me what extreme measures are allowed in the name of officer safety. The standard for use of force is still "objective reasonableness" as set forth in Graham v. Connor (a SCOTUS case) in '89. They still need reasonable suspicion for a frisk/pat down as made the standard in Terry v. Ohio ('68(?)). In the last 15 years what in LE has changed to make officer safety extreme? More cops wear body armor? Cops have adopted pistols over revolvers? Patrol rifles have been added alongside shotguns? Trained groups of officers serve high risk warrants, instead of 5-6 patrol guys and detectives going up and kicking on doors?

There haven't been EXTREME measures to insure officer safety.
Nothing you're saying is particularly extreme (the caps was me being tongue-in-cheek, not sure if that came across right), and I'm not a professional. But I do live here, and I do keep eyes open. The things you mentioned don't affect the kinds of things which would make me change my personal opinions about police. I'm not sure what exactly changed, but since I've been able to observe these things cops have gotten more aggressive in their citizen interactions, and are putting a bigger value on intimidation - even (and maybe especially) in smaller and quieter towns. I'm not even talking about the situations where there was use of force, because I haven't really seen anything memorable in person - just in the way offers address the public. The flipside of this, is that in my personal experience, the average person trusts the police less. Further down the socio-economic scale, mistrust of police has hardened into a powerful ethos. I don't know what's feeding this vicious cycle, but I know that the cops are losing the PR war. There is widespread perception that officers are full of anger, quick to use force, and are functionally above the law. I might be wrong in thinking that "officer safety justifies everything" attitude, if it exists, plays a part in this - and I'm willing to concede that. But it seems like along the way a lot of officers that their jobs are easier and safer if people, you know, didn't hate them.

Why does this cop stand out so much?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9yIBOnbJjY

Violet Fashion by Mindy

06-27-2011, 08:23 PM

Is that something you all are working on, because it sounds pretty outrageous?

What's outrageous by living under a situation where an unelected person can tell you what you can and can't do?

SBL

06-27-2011, 08:42 PM

Why does this cop stand out so much?

Does he ?

Wimbly

06-27-2011, 09:01 PM

Why does this cop stand out so much?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9yIBOnbJjY

The Marine style rank insignia?

eskachig

06-27-2011, 09:39 PM

Does he?
In my experience he does. Considering the number of people who saw this video and expressed that it totally changed their view on cops, I'm not alone. Looking at other Anonymous protests, it also seems that way.

Another example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njb6X-nmW2M

Edit: Seems like a few states still respect First amendment and constitutional law. Go Wahpeton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK1NEQGy8vc

Wimbly

06-28-2011, 07:23 AM

To all those who said the woman deserved to be arrested:

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S2174896.shtml?cat=566

Case dismissed against woman arrested while videotaping police

Good's attorney, Stephanie Stare, had asked for the charges to be dismissed. In court Monday, the District Attorney's office says based on a review of the evidence, there was no legal basis to go forward. The charge was withdrawn and the judge dismissed the case.

Just as I predicted. You cant charge someone for something that isn't illegal.

harryc

06-28-2011, 09:36 AM

To all those who said the woman deserved to be arrested:

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S2174896.shtml?cat=566

Just as I predicted. You cant charge someone for something that isn't illegal.

You not only can charge somebody with something that isn't illegal, you can arrest them, book them, and make them post bail. Then they may need to come back (repeatedly) until the charges are dismissed. A saying I have heard all too often "charges are dropped, bail forfeit"

Wimbly

06-28-2011, 09:37 AM

You not only can charge somebody with something that isn't illega

Sure, but its going to get thrown out. Its not lawful to arrest someone for something that isn't illegal.

Laconian

06-28-2011, 10:06 AM

The statement says whatever the specific circumstances that led to Good's arrest, they see no purpose in pursuing the criminal charges.

The statement never says the officers acted illegally. The statement says there is no purpose in takng the case forward. You can read that anyway you want. However, there are often times when a subject is arrested for disorderly conduct, breach of the peace, or obstruction and the charges are subsequently dropped by the prosecutor because the arrest solved the immediate problem, kept the peace and there is no need to press prosecution. That doesn't in any way infer that the arrest was illegal or unreasonable or without probable cause, it's just that the case doesn't warrant further prosecution.

Now Rochester PD is going to launch an internal review which may/may not result in disciplinary action for the officer, retraining for the offcer/PD and a change in policy and procedure; a combination of those or none of those.

Pooterman

06-28-2011, 12:30 PM

Ought Six.... You should brought up a cursory search for weapons and then used an unoccupied car in the same sentence. Those are two very different things. A cop can search your car without a warrant and the reason for that is because there is less expectation of privacy in an automobile. You should read some supreme court rulings on these types of cases and you will find that the phrase "less expectation of privacy" is found in numerous opinions written by judges. There are way more ways to get inside a car and search it other than a cursory search for weapons. In fact there are 12. There are 12 well defined exceptions to the search warrant rule. One of the exceptions is the Carol Doctrine which clearly states that you can search a car with probable cause without a warrant. You dont have to like it, you just need to know it.

Using your example, if you were a cop and stopped a guy that had a single traffic warrant and valid drivers license and you arrest him, its difficult to explain why you would need to search his car. But AHHH. One of the 12 exceptions is an inventory of the vehicle prior to tow. So you will end up searching his car anyways when you are towing it but its technically not a search based on probable cause, its and inventory of items in the vehicle prior to tow.

If you stopped a guy and arrested him for something and then find a wad of 5,000 dollars in his pocket, no job, and a prior narcotics arrest, you can articulate the probable cause to search his vehicle if you can explain that through your training and experience you know that 5,000 dollars in mixed denominations and in two different pockets (which is indicative of hand to hand transactions and money changing hand frequently) combined with the high crime area and previous narcotics arrest etc.... you can build the probable cause to search his vehicle without a warrant. Like I said, you dont have to like it...you just need to know it because its the law.

Laconian

06-28-2011, 12:59 PM

Pooterman, an administrative inventory of an impounded vehicle is not a search and cannot be used as an excuse to get around PC or a search. It is merely an administrative process to document the contents of the impounded vehicle or conveyance to protect the property rights of the owner and the liability exposure of the impounding agency. Additionally an administrative inventory cannot occur unless there is a policy establishing it as a practice in the agency.

Pooterman

06-28-2011, 01:00 PM

There are actually 13 exceptions but my state doesn't border another country so I dont worry about the "border searches" exception.

I will add this... There are circumstances when officers will get a warrant to make prosecution easier or just to be cautious. There are lots of grey areas in a cops job. So another example is... Lets say a shooting took place inside a vehicle and you already have arrested the suspect. While you may inventory that vehicle or your search may be covered by an exception, there is to reason to rush. If you have the car impounded and the suspect in custody, the evidentiary items inside the vehicle will not get up and walk away. A growing trend in cases like this is to have the warrant for the vehicle to eliminate any doubt in court as to the probable cause of searching and collecting evidence inside the vehicle. When in doubt, get a warrant. Having a warrant in a case like this makes the prosecution so much easier because it takes one more argument away from the defense team and pretty much assures that evidence wont be thrown out in the case.

As long as I am on a tangent, I think we should legalize pot. Knowing what I know, we would save a A$$ ton of money just by not prosecuting simple possession cases across the nation. If people want to smoke weed, they are going to do it no matter if they are in jail for 2 weeks or a year. We waist so much money in court prosecuting a victimless crime and incarcerating people for it when they really wont stop and it really doesnt hurt anybody. Imagine if we cleared our prisons across the country of just people caught with weed. There might actually be room for that violent offender or 3 time burglar that cant stop stealing peoples schit.

Pooterman

06-28-2011, 03:18 PM

I know Lac... Its not a search. Its an inventory prior to tow. And it is covered in the 13 exceptions. So while it is technically not a search and you will get chastised in court for calling it a search, I was just calling a spade a spade.

And if by chance you find contraband during your inventory, and you can articulate why you think it belongs to the driver, its still PC for an arrest.

Violet Fashion by Mindy

06-28-2011, 05:01 PM

You not only can charge somebody with something that isn't illegal, you can arrest them, book them, and make them post bail. Then they may need to come back (repeatedly) until the charges are dismissed. A saying I have heard all too often "charges are dropped, bail forfeit"

And with society being society. Simply having the stigma of being locked up on trumped up charges is enough to effectively destroy a person's life as they know it.

eskachig

07-02-2011, 02:24 AM

And this is exactly why these attempts to make recording cops illegal need to be fought.

Victim of police beating says he was sober
Retired teacher, 64, struck by New Orleans officers; cops plead not guilty

NEW ORLEANS — A retired elementary teacher who was repeatedly punched in the head by police in an incident caught on videotape said Monday he was not drunk, put up no resistance and was baffled by what happened.
...
Two city officers accused in the beating, and a third officer accused of grabbing and shoving an Associated Press Television News producer who helped document the confrontation, pleaded not guilty Monday to battery charges.

Trial was set at a hearing Monday for Jan. 11. Afterward, officers Lance Schilling, Robert Evangelist and S.M. Smith were released on bond. They left without commenting.
...
Police Superintendent Warren Riley said any misconduct would be dealt with swiftly. He noted the video showed “a portion of that incident.”
“The actions that were observed on this video are certainly unacceptable by this department,” Riley said.
...
Mayor Ray Nagin said, “I don’t know what the gentleman did, but whatever he did, he didn’t deserve what I saw on tape.”
...
During the arrest, another officer, identified as Smith, ordered APTN producer Rich Matthews and a cameraman to stop recording. When Matthews held up his credentials, the officer grabbed the producer, leaned him backward over a car, jabbed him in the stomach and unleashed a profanity-laced tirade.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9645260/from/toolbar
And we all know what would have happened without the tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIQp5SMzbIo

Edit: this seems to have happened in 2005, oops - the complete story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Davis_(New_Orleans)

In other related news:

D.C. Police Violated Photographer's Rights: ACLU

The District of Columbia is facing a lawsuit that could have national implications.

Several D.C. police officers violated a young man's constitutional rights when he tried to photograph them last summer, according to the ACLU. Officers lied when they told a photography student he needed permission to take their pictures.

The ACLU believes that with cell phone technology getting better, some police are getting worried that their actions will be preserved and used against them in ways that weren't possible just a few years ago.

...

"They told me to put the camera away, to stop audio recording and that I am being detained ... and that it is unlawful within the District to photograph and audio record police officers without prior consent," Vorus said.

"That's part of our right of free speech, and the police ought to know that citizens can do that just as the police can take pictures of citizens out on the street," said Arthur Spitzer, of the ACLU.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Police-Violated-Photographers-Rights-ACLU-124821489.html

Sort of surprising to see the lawsuit considering he wasn't arrested, but an hour is a long time to be detained for... nothing.

Laconian

07-02-2011, 07:21 AM

eskachig wrote
And we all know what would have happened without the tape.

I can't vouch for NOPD's process, but in every agency I have worked for (2 state/local, 2 federal) complaints of excessive force, unlawful arrest or other officer misconduct is investigated by the agency's internal affairs; if the agency doesn't have an IA it goes to a state investigative agency, whether the AG's office, state police or state bureau of investigation. Your inference that nothing would have been done without this videotape or that Mr. Davis' complaint would have been poo-pooed and shoveled under a rug is BS. The vast majority of agencies really do care about officers acting within the law because it's their job to enforce the law, they know that bad cops make the whole profession look bad, they know they need the public's support and that to condone criminality exposes the chain of command, the agency and the political sub-division they work for to civil and criminal prosecution.

Police misconduct is not as widespread you and others seem to think. Yes, any police misconduct from illegal searches to excessive force is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. But a bigger problem is people who have no concept of what policing is like but feel free to accuse, condemn and convict based on a clip of videotape that shows a small snippet of the totality of circumstances.

Wimbly

07-02-2011, 08:22 AM

Police misconduct is not as widespread you and others seem to think. Yes, any police misconduct from illegal searches to excessive force is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. But a bigger problem is people who have no concept of what policing is like but feel free to accuse, condemn and convict based on a clip of videotape that shows a small snippet of the totality of circumstances.

Hey, people go to prison everyday based on nothing but the word of a police officer. At least a video tape shows the unvarnished truth. In a battle between the officer's word and the accused, the officer is going to win every time and you know it. It seems odd to me that you would think the video tape is somehow inferior to nothing but the word of an officer.

Skippy_Doolittle

07-02-2011, 08:46 AM

But you must admit that since they are allowed to be used LEO will try to use these type of warrants as much as possible?

From my countries perspective. Jobu is right. There has been an increase in the militarisation of police and security.

Police used to wear this as a general uniform
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y149/Minardiau/86188f05.gif

Now might as well look like thugs. Very intimidating which they shouldn't be.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y149/Minardiau/b895fdcb.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y149/Minardiau/51a3475c.jpg

Thugs my a$$. Uniforms have changed to suit the needs and times and threats the officers are facing now. In the old days, light blue shirts were fine, or white. Now, a more tactical appearance makes sense given the amount of times officers are in IRD situations without SWAT-like backup on scene. Pants went from dress pants with no side cargo pockets to proper tactical pants. I am sorry you think 'thugs' wear such, but my note book, gloves, notes, evidence, first aid kit, spare mag for carbine, etc, need to go SOMEWHERE.

Our gun belts have expanded to where mine is about 16 lbs on my hips now. I need more than a pair of cuffs, my baton, my 80's era radio, ammo, flashlight, OC, sidearm, knife, etc. So please explain how we became thugs? Oh yeah, I have Police on the front and the back of my uniform.

Skippy_Doolittle

07-02-2011, 08:48 AM

You're arguing the legality of it. I'm arguing the extremity of the act.

It's not only the magistrates. It's also the law enforcement departments who are requesting so many of these warrants.

We've gone from 2000-3000 per year to well over 50,000 per year according to the criminology professor at Eastern Kentucky U. His latest figures put it at somewhere between 70,000-80,000 now. That's not reasonable. You're giving people seconds to decide whether they're facing a legal or illegal home invasion with their lives depending on the choice. Sometimes the choice doesn't even matter since we've got criminals performing fake LEO entries now. A man in Alabama was killed in his own home by a fake ATF criminal assault last year.

It needs to be rolled back to justifiable levels.

And what is a justifiable level? Who sets it? In my province (to only what I can speak of), no-knock warrants are RARE and HARD to get. They are used for only the most violent suspects where firearms are KNOWN to exist.

Skippy_Doolittle

07-02-2011, 08:50 AM

And authoritarians, no matter who they are, do not like it one bit.

I have no issue with being filmed, but then I am content with not going into UC or DC work. But then, as well, I don't have a family to worry about... remember you are quoting 'nice people' filming. What about the Hells Angels who post photos of officers with their names and home addresses?

Skippy_Doolittle

07-02-2011, 09:01 AM

Wimbly, here in Ontario an officer's word is NOT the be all and end all. In fact, I know a few 'anti-police' JP's who even when given best evidence will side with the suspect. Upon appeal, it is noted by the other JP or Judge of this. I cannot speak for your area though.

Pooterman, again, here... vehicle searches are not all encompassing and are fairly limited in either scope or the legality to do so.

I will not respond to your 'legalize pot' tangent cause there are MORE than enough threads you can raise here to continue that argument.

Jobu

07-02-2011, 09:47 AM

And what is a justifiable level? Who sets it? In my province (to only what I can speak of), no-knock warrants are RARE and HARD to get. They are used for only the most violent suspects where firearms are KNOWN to exist.

You just answered your own question.

Laconian

07-02-2011, 10:47 AM

Hey, people go to prison everyday based on nothing but the word of a police officer.

You show me a prosecutor that will take a criminal prosecution to trial or to a plea agreement in front of a judge with nothing but an officer's word and I'll show you an unemployed prosecutor. A testimony without corroborating evidence wouldn't make it past the prosecutor's supervisor.

At least a video tape shows the unvarnished truth.

No, it doesn't show the truth, it shows what the camera is seeing at the time the camera is seeing it. It shows nothing of the facts known or believed by the officer or anything that happens before or after the camera rolls. All of which is relevant.

In a battle between the officer's word and the accused, the officer is going to win every time and you know it. It seems odd to me that you would think the video tape is somehow inferior to nothing but the word of an officer.

No, I don't know it. And jury instructions for the last 10 years or so in every federal and state trial I have sat in on, the judge tells the jury that the word of an officer is to be given no more weight than the weight of any other witness. In several jurisdictions I have worked the word of an officer was viewed with skepticism to say the least, hostility was more like. I've (& my guys) lost dead bang cases because the jury didn't want to believe what was said by either the officer or other witnesses.

Video is not necessarily inferior, nor did I say it was; but video in and of itself is not proof of anything unless it is put in context of the event. That goes for whether it is a use of force incident, a filmed transaction or a surveillance tape.

Skippy_Doolittle

07-02-2011, 10:51 AM

You just answered your own question.

Not really... I only stated about no-knock warrants here... you were the one with the numbers and stating they needed to be brought to justifiable levels. I am curious what is justifiable and who sets - that you would agree with?

Jobu

07-02-2011, 11:08 AM

Not really... I only stated about no-knock warrants here... you were the one with the numbers and stating they needed to be brought to justifiable levels. I am curious what is justifiable and who sets - that you would agree with?

Rare and hard to get would be the generic standard. We don't have that now. We have ~200+ of these warrants being issued every day in this country when it used to be ~5 per day. It's absurd.

Ideally the courts would set the terms but I don't believe most judges give a crap about our rights. It appears law enforcement agencies are asking for these "no knocks" with great regularity and judges are handing 'em out like candy. Maybe not every agency and maybe not every judge but you can't argue with 70,000-80,000.

Is it worth storming someone's home in the middle of the night and maybe killing whoever is inside (whether it be the actual target of investigation or not) over the possibility of some pot being flushed down the toilet? It's disgusting to me that this is considered by anybody, especially a judge, to be a reasonable use of force.

Limit these warrants to known violent offenders who are believed to be armed. That's it.

Laconian

07-02-2011, 11:15 AM

Rare and hard to get would be the generic standard. We don't have that now. We have ~200+ of these warrants being issued every day in this country when it used to be ~5 per day. It's absurd.

Ideally the courts would set the terms but I don't believe most judges give a crap about our rights. It appears law enforcement agencies are asking for these "no knocks" with great regularity and judges are handing 'em out like candy. Maybe not every agency and maybe not every judge but you can't argue with 70,000-80,000.

Is it worth storming someone's home in the middle of the night and maybe killing whoever is inside (whether it be the actual target of investigation or not) over the possibility of some pot being flushed down the toilet? It's disgusting to me that this is considered by anybody, especially a judge, to be a reasonable use of force.

Limit these warrants to known violent offenders who are believed to be armed. That's it.

Search warrants can be served from 0600-2200. Nobody is doing no-knocks at 0-dark-30.

Jobu

07-02-2011, 11:24 AM

Search warrants can be served from 0600-2200. Nobody is doing no-knocks at 0-dark-30.

The main point was the rest of the bolded sentence. Not sure why you'd ignore that and focus on the time?
But since you brought it up:
Is that year-round? Around here it gets dark around 1600 and the sun doesn't even come up until past 0700 in the winter. A 10pm or 6am raid is 0-dark-30.

Dominique

07-02-2011, 11:30 AM

Wimby and Jobu, since the two of you seem to know better than everyone else how it's should be done, how about the two of you pony up and head down to your local LE agency, and sign up? If nothing else, the two of you can get on as auxiliary/reserve personnel. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to snap up the two of you with your wealth of experience. And lets not mention the fact, that with your undying support of citizen's rights, you'll be sure to keep them from getting sued. Hell, I'm sure the two of you will rapidly advance to a supervisory role, or better yet, work in the agency's training dept. so you can help mold young recruits and prevent them from becoming like so many of these thugs with badges the two of you claim fill the ranks of today's law enforcement ranks. And after a few years of doing this, why not come back hear and share your experiences with the rest of us. What do you say guys?

Now does this mean I think the police can do no wrong, and everything they say should be taken at face value, HELL no. But the simple fact is that there are thousands of police/public interactions every day of the week, and yet you want to cherry pick a few cases where people fvcked up, and use them to paint very negative image of everyone in law enforcement, and that gents, is BULLSH*T any way you cut it.

Dominique

07-02-2011, 11:34 AM

Limit these warrants to known violent offenders who are believed to be armed. That's it.

OK, if they're limited to the parameters you've just established, what percentage of criminals do you think fall into that category? 5%, 10%?

Jobu

07-02-2011, 11:44 AM

Jobu

07-02-2011, 11:49 AM

OK, if they're limited to the parameters you've just established, what percentage of criminals do you think fall into that category? 5%, 10%?

I'm not going to guess, and I don't see how this is relevant to my point. Explain please.

Dominique

07-02-2011, 11:49 AM

I'm not cherry picking a few bad cases. I'm saying the whole system as it relates to "no knock" warrants stinks.

And as I said, when are you and Wimby heading down to sign up? I can put in the good word for you with my Sheriff, we're short handed, could use more aux. Deputies (unfortunately, do to budget cuts, the PD took over our warrant unit last year, so we no longer serve criminal warrants). Seriously, you two talk a whole lot of sh*t, are quick to point fingers, and accuse everyone of being fvcked up, but I don't see either of you stepping up to the plate.

Jobu

07-02-2011, 11:54 AM

And as I said, when are you and Wimby heading down to sign up? I can put in the good word for you with my Sheriff, we're short handed, could use more aux. Deputies (unfortunately, do to budget cuts, the PD took over our warrant unit last year, so we no longer serve criminal warrants). Seriously, you two talk a whole lot of sh*t, are quick to point fingers, and accuse everyone of being fvcked up, but I don't see either of you stepping up to the plate.

Since my wish is to change the rules, it would be a waste of my time to join your force. It's not going to change from within.
I let my wallet do the talking. This is how it works in America. You get your man elected and make sure he knows future contributions rely on fulfilling his promises. That goes for politicians and elected judges alike.

Dominique

07-02-2011, 12:02 PM

And you still haven't answered my question, by limiting no knock warrants to "known violent offenders who are believed to be armed" how many warrants do you think will be eliminated?

Jobu

07-02-2011, 12:04 PM

Thanks for promoting more bickering and controlled anarchy. Alway's a treat to hear a person's view's on law and authority when they despise it with contempt.

Not sure why you would think that. All I want are laws that make sense. So much of what we have today does not make sense whether it be the explosion of "no knock" warrants being issued to the humiliation people have to endure at airports. There's no need for us to accept bad behavior from the people we task with protecting us. We issue them the badges and titles. We give them the right to kill, arrest, etc. We pay them. We are responsible for making sure they don't go to far.

They're not going to do it themselves.

Jobu

07-02-2011, 12:05 PM

And you still haven't answered my question, by limiting no knock warrants to "known violent offenders who are believed to be armed" how many warrants do you think will be eliminated?

I told you I'm not going to guess. If I see a valid source with that kind of information I'd be glad to cite it.

Jobu

07-02-2011, 12:11 PM

Yes, there's contempt, a whole lot of it you have. Just for argument's sake, were you ever in anything uniformed?

Whether I was or wasn't is immaterial. My points stand on their merit either way.

Jobu

07-02-2011, 12:22 PM

No, it's not immaterial. Your just not seeing this fully, or just avoiding what you think I'm after. This isn't a witch hunt, but a fact finding understanding.

Obviously I disagree. If you want to argue my points, go ahead. My background makes no difference. I've given up some personal info before and regretted it so whether I were a 4-star or a rock star, the ideas stand on their own merit.

Jobu

07-02-2011, 12:38 PM

I want to know if you've ever served. If so, how long? Did you stay for awhile, retire, or left early due to life's circumstances...

That's none of your business.

You're very against these people sworn by an oath or by job position whom are there to protect and serve. Safety to them and us is a genuine concern that goes with the job.

I'm not against them at all. I just want the job done right.

But if you've never done anything being told what to do, and all you want is controlled anarchy, further tearing our country apart, then you must be some wildcard when the cops show up and "spoil" the retardedness. I leave that note with this photo. I believe you can find similarities there on your general outlook at life.

I'm an anarchist now? LOL

Jobu

07-02-2011, 12:47 PM

Instead of trying to argue my points, you're writing my biography according to your own imagination.
What was in that coffee?

Dominique

07-02-2011, 12:57 PM

They're not going to do it themselves.

Really? So I guess all of the internal investigations, investigations by local oversight boards, state/commonwealth attorney's, state and federal regulatory and LE agencies aren't self policing? If not, then what are they?

My background makes no difference.

Your background makes a whole hell of a lot of difference, and you know it. Are you basing your opinions, and that's what they are, on some actual knowledge, and experience, or on your personal feelings? Its no different than someone who's never fired a weapon trying to tell someone who makes their living using firearms, how they should be doing it.

Jobu

07-02-2011, 12:58 PM

Ah, so you know what Chapter 11 is then. Hmn...

Yea that's where Ralph takes the conch shell to castle rock.

Water, coffee grinds, milk, and one cube of white sugar.

Maybe the milk was spoiled.

Can we get back to the topic now. i.e. cameras and policework?

Jobu

07-02-2011, 01:04 PM

Really? So I guess all of the internal investigations, investigations by local oversight boards, state/commonwealth attorney's, state and federal regulatory and LE agencies aren't self policing? If not, then what are they?

Your background makes a whole hell of a lot of difference, and you know it. Are you basing your opinions, and that's what they are, on some actual knowledge, and experience, or on your personal feelings? Its no different than someone who's never fired a weapon trying to tell someone who makes their living using firearms, how they should be doing it.

#1. Self-policing is usually not a good idea. It's not good for accounting firms and it's not good for law enforcement. You've got conflicting interests, or at least the appearance of it in play.
#2. It wouldn't matter if I based my opinions on something I read off the back of a cereal box. If you don't like my ideas argue against them. If you don't like me personally, take it to PM's instead of derailing this thread.

Jobu

07-02-2011, 01:30 PM

A topic of contempt for you? Stop running away from matter's to figure out where your POV lies.

I'm not even sure what that meant.
I'm pretty sure my POV has been clear from the start, that of a concerned citizen.

These days there's no hiding from cameras. Everybody and their dog has a camera phone able to take pictures and/or movies. If you're out in public you're probably on camera. That's true whether you're a hot dog vendor or a policeman.

eskachig

07-02-2011, 03:53 PM

I can't vouch for NOPD's process, but in every agency I have worked for (2 state/local, 2 federal) complaints of excessive force, unlawful arrest or other officer misconduct is investigated by the agency's internal affairs; if the agency doesn't have an IA it goes to a state investigative agency, whether the AG's office, state police or state bureau of investigation. Your inference that nothing would have been done without this videotape or that Mr. Davis' complaint would have been poo-pooed and shoveled under a rug is BS. The vast majority of agencies really do care about officers acting within the law because it's their job to enforce the law, they know that bad cops make the whole profession look bad, they know they need the public's support and that to condone criminality exposes the chain of command, the agency and the political sub-division they work for to civil and criminal prosecution.
You might be right about investigation, and I'm sure most agencies do care. But you guys work in a hostile environment, there is a natural impulse to watch out for one another - and you often work with dirtbags so it's rational on your part to give greater credence to the words of a cop than a suspect. Hell, the system would grind to a halt if that wasn't the case, because everyone who gets busted up for any reason cries police brutality. Maybe at trials the jurors are instructed to weigh the testimony equally, but most allegations never get to trial because there is no real evidence of anything except for the words of those who were directly involved. This isn't something that can be remedied, nor is it an indication that cops are bad or something - without additional evidence it's insane to take the word of a suspected criminal over that of an officer. Seriously.

In that beating I posted both of the officers told their superiors that they used appropriate force, there were three other LEOs on the scene. What IA investigation would put mr Davis's testimony over that of 5 cops? Absent a video the rational thing is to assume that things went down like the officers said they did. That video is precisely what resulted in the arrest and assault charges for the officers. Which is why I'm so concerned about the attempts to abridge the rights of citizens to film cops in public. Not because cops are evil, or misconduct is widespread (though there appears to be more of it than you claim, every major city in my state seems to be dealing with scandals), but because citizens are at an extreme disadvantage when they interact with police. That's why when it comes to the fiasco in NO what worried me more than the actual beating was the assault on the AP camera man who was trying to film it.

There are plenty of situations where an investigation was initiated after a video has made its way out on the internet, or where a surfaced tape called police reports into question. Here's another one, from a month back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdkJxw1mPoM

The charges of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer were dropped, and the cops were put on administrative leave pending an investigation - after the video made rounds on youtube.

Police misconduct is not as widespread you and others seem to think. Yes, any police misconduct from illegal searches to excessive force is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. But a bigger problem is people who have no concept of what policing is like but feel free to accuse, condemn and convict based on a clip of videotape that shows a small snippet of the totality of circumstances.
No matter what, civilians who are enraged by a video tape are not a "bigger" problem than people who abuse the authority of their badge. It's absurd that you'd even say something like that. Police misconduct is one of the great evils of a modern nation state, incredibly damaging not only to your profession, but to the fabric of democracy and the civilized way of life. I've lived somewhere where law was meaningless and cops were beholden to nobody, 90's Russia - without trustworthy cops everything falls apart. I think we have some of the best cops in the world, and I'd like to keep it that way.

eskachig

07-02-2011, 05:28 PM

What about the Hells Angels who post photos of officers with their names and home addresses?
You work in public with a name tag on. Your name and badge number are on every ticket you write. Yeah I can see how there would be privacy issues, but that's sort of the job. Judges are even more exposed and easy to find. Public servants in general are typically known to the, well, the public. UC personnel don't have any special protections against being filmed in public either - but they're supposed to be, you know, undercover.

I'm sure that part of your job is getting more dangerous - because the same tools that help you catch criminals better can be used by the criminals themselves. Police class graduation photos, press conference photos, etc - all can be used to build a database that, in conjunction with face-recognition software can be used to screen members of criminal organizations for cops. Hell if I can propose a system like this (could probably build it too), someone already has one. Privacy is tenuous thing in the modern world, it's frightening how quickly groups like 4chan can trace an anonymous photo on the internet to its source - we're lucky that this usually only ends up with a flood of emails to some luckless parents, showing them just what kind of photos their daughter has been sending out.

But nevertheless cops have no right to anonymity in public - I still remember how during one set of Vancouver's riots there was clear video evidence of excessive force (as described by the police spokesman), but nothing could be done about it because the cops took off their name tags and are wearing masks.

And what is a justifiable level? Who sets it? In my province (to only what I can speak of), no-knock warrants are RARE and HARD to get. They are used for only the most violent suspects where firearms are KNOWN to exist.
That's not how it works here - in US no-knock warrants are typically issued to prevent destruction of evidence - drugs. This is why they aren't all that rare here, 70,000 to 80,000 annually, to be more precise.

A bit of history context from Cato institute's white paper on the topic:

But at least until the 1980s, SWAT teams and other paramilitary units were used sparingly, only in volatile, high-risk situations such as bank robberies or hostage situations. Likewise, “no-knock” raids were generally used only in situations where innocent lives were determined to be at imminent risk. America’s War on Drugs has spurred a significant rise in the number of such raids, to the point where in some jurisdictions drug warrants are only served by SWAT teams or similar paramilitary units, and the overwhelming number of SWAT deployments are to execute drug warrants.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/13673446

You show me a prosecutor that will take a criminal prosecution to trial or to a plea agreement in front of a judge with nothing but an officer's word and I'll show you an unemployed prosecutor. A testimony without corroborating evidence wouldn't make it past the prosecutor's supervisor.
Here is an example:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-01-02/news/os-orlando-copwatch-arrest-20110101_1_police-officer-john-kurtz-watchdog-group

The camera with the footage that John Kurtz was filming disappeared from police custody, and the trial really was a "my word against his" situation. He got convicted. I suspect that a lot of convictions for things like resisting arrest are facilitated through witness testimony alone.

Conviction just happened, no discussion in mainstream media yet and I don't like the source where I read about it, but destruction of the camera is an awfully concrete thing to make up.
http://orlandocopwatch.com/tag/john-kurtz/

No, it doesn't show the truth, it shows what the camera is seeing at the time the camera is seeing it. It shows nothing of the facts known or believed by the officer or anything that happens before or after the camera rolls. All of which is relevant.

Nobody says that the camera shows *EVERYTHING*, but it dramatically clarifies things, and sheds light on statements by both parties. Certainly, it easier to ascertain the truth with the video, than without it. It might be limited, but it's reliable in a way that witness testimony, or indeed human memory itself, is not. In the end, any video will be evaluated and acted on by other LEOs or DAs, who will behave with due charity toward their colleagues, and who understand the job.

No, I don't know it. And jury instructions for the last 10 years or so in every federal and state trial I have sat in on, the judge tells the jury that the word of an officer is to be given no more weight than the weight of any other witness. In several jurisdictions I have worked the word of an officer was viewed with skepticism to say the least, hostility was more like. I've (& my guys) lost dead bang cases because the jury didn't want to believe what was said by either the officer or other witnesses.
I don't doubt that it happens, especially because juries represent the common man whose view of police has changed quite a bit over the last twenty years. But nevertheless, in general it seems that juries are rather charitable to cops. Remember this incident?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PawqEigSes

All the officers involved were quickly fired and two were charged, but were found not guilty. Here are some of the comments in the wake of it:

"Cases like that are always very, very, difficult for the government to bring," said Doug Jones, a Birmingham attorney and former U.S. Attorney. "People don't want to second-guess their doctors and police officers," he said.

Jones said there's no question in his mind there was probable cause that a crime occurred in the arrest. But at the end of the day, he said, it is hard to prove any case of an officer using excessive force. Jones said he would not have been surprised if they had been found guilty or if there was a hung jury, and he was not surprised by the not guilty verdict. "Nothing would have surprised me," he said.

John Carroll, dean of the Cumberland School of Law, said that depending on the circumstances, it is very difficult for prosecutors to get convictions of a police officer. An officer yanking a person out of a car for no apparent reason and beating them would be perceived as different than police chasing a fleeing suspect, he said.
"It's sort of law enforcement on a mission to protect the public rather than law enforcement on a mission of their own," Carroll said. "The juries are always going to give the police officers the benefit of the doubt."

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/01/juror_seeing_whole_chase_led_t.html

And I think that's normal, though I absolutely disagree with the jury's decision. Indeed, the fact that you say that it seems to be changing is very worrying - people are supposed to trust cops.

eskachig

07-02-2011, 07:10 PM

Thanks for promoting more bickering and controlled anarchy. Alway's a treat to hear a person's view's on law and authority when they despise it with contempt.
I'm sorry you have no faith in the democratic process - but yeah that is how it works. It's not perfect, but everything else is worse. Jobu does seem really angry about this stuff but he's right, institutional change is much more likely to happen through outside pressure.

Really? So I guess all of the internal investigations, investigations by local oversight boards, state/commonwealth attorney's, state and federal regulatory and LE agencies aren't self policing? If not, then what are they?
Some of what you describe are examples of independent oversight, not self policing. And the process doesn't always function smoothly. Certainly, our SF police oversight is lacking.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-01-23/bay-area/17229200_1_police-commission-citizen-complaints-city-controller-s-office

In 53 percent of its cases between 2003 and 2006, the agency failed to meet its deadline to complete and report its investigations within nine months. Meeting those deadlines is crucial because under law the police chief and Police Commission in most cases have only a year to file charges upon learning of officer misconduct.

But regardless of the details, there is a widespread perception out there that cops routinely get away with violating the law. This perception is incredibly damaging to public perception of police, and it's hard to claim that it's completely unwarranted. As we move into the 21st century I hope cops remember that appearances are important and public's trust is hard to build and easy to lose.

Your background makes a whole hell of a lot of difference, and you know it. Are you basing your opinions, and that's what they are, on some actual knowledge, and experience, or on your personal feelings? Its no different than someone who's never fired a weapon trying to tell someone who makes their living using firearms, how they should be doing it.
Your analogy is missing something - actions of cops affect citizens and their quality of life directly, it's not a matter of someone doing their job in a vacuum, and a citizen's perception of police is valid and important regardless of whether they have experience or not. Say you have a surgeon operating on your heart - you're not a doctor, but if you have question and the doc is unwilling or unable to explain, or if you get a sense that he's not looking out in your best interest - you can and probably should fire his ass and hire someone else. In the end, it's the citizens who decide how we should be treated by cops, not the cops.

harryc

11-26-2012, 02:03 PM

SCOTUS weighs in, my small town in the news again.

Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-prohibit-taping-of-police-20121126,0,686331.story)

sgt_G

11-26-2012, 02:28 PM

Got a link there?

Ought Six

11-26-2012, 03:08 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-prohibit-taping-of-police-20121126,0,686331.story

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from the Cook County state's attorney to allow enforcement of a law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job.

The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free speech rights when used against people who tape law enforcement officers.

The law set out a maximum prison term of 15 years.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in 2010 against Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez to block prosecution of ACLU staff for recording police officers performing their duties in public places, one of the group's long-standing monitoring missions.

Opponents of the law say the right to record police is vital to guard against abuses.

Last May, a federal appeals court in Chicago ruled that the law “likely violates” the First Amendment and ordered that authorities be banned from enforcing it.

The appeals court agreed with the ACLU that the "Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests.”

The appeals court ruling came weeks before the NATO summit when thousands of people armed with smart phones and video cameras demonstrated in the city. Officials had already announced that they would not enforce the law against summit protesters.

Public debate over the law had been simmering since last summer.

In August of 2011, a Cook County jury acquitted a woman who had been charged with recording Chicago police internal affairs investigators she believed were trying to dissuade her from filing a ****** harassment complaint against a patrol officer.

Judges in Cook and Crawford counties later declared the law unconstitutional, and the McLean County state's attorney cited flaws in the law when he dropped charges this past February against a man accused of recording an officer during a traffic stop.

Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois, said the organization was "pleased that the Supreme Court has refused to take this appeal. . .The ACLU of Illinois continues to believe that in order to make the rights of free expression and petition effective, individuals and organizations must be able to freely gather and record information about the conduct of government and their agents – especially the police. The advent and widespread accessibility of new technologies make the recording and dissemination of pictures and sound inexpensive, efficient and easy to accomplish."