Reply With QuoteHe should sue the police for taking his phone. They had no right what so ever to do so. For some reasons some police officers think that they are the law.
Texas police erases cell phone evidence
Cell phone evidence in fatal incident allegedly erased by Texas policeSource ArsTechnicaJust after midnight on August 31, Mitchell Wallace was awakened from his home in the Dallas suburb of Mesquite by the sound of gunshots. He heard dozens of rounds being fired and emerged from his house in time to see a police dog bite 25-year-old Michael Vincent Allen in the neck and drag him from his truck. Allen had just led police on a high-speed car chase, and would die from his wounds.
The Dallas Morning News reports (hat tip to Carlos Miller) that after the shooting subsided, Wallace took out his cell phone and began taking photos and videos of the carnage. But the police evidently didn't appreciate the scrutiny. Wallace says the Mesquite police confiscated the phone, deleted the photos and videos, and didn't return the device for four days.
That's a shame, because there are significant unanswered questions about the incident. The police say that officer Patrick Tuter fired his weapon 41 times. The department is conducting an investigation to determine whether the incident was handled properly. While Wallace didn't get video of the shootings themselves, his photos and videos could still have provided crucial evidence corroborating or refuting Tuter's account of the encounter.
......................
He should sue the police for taking his phone. They had no right what so ever to do so. For some reasons some police officers think that they are the law.
Any other witnesses verify the cops took the phone? or do we simply take this guy at his word?
I Love this bit
Monica Zabrano, Allen’s 22-year-old girlfriend, said Tuesday that he had left her house just hours before the shooting, but had planned to return. She said that she never believed the initial police account of what happened.
“I know Michael,” Zabrano said. “He would not try to hit a police car. Violence was not in his nature.”
Allen has had numerous previous run-ins with the law, including arrests for evading police, drug possession and assault. Zabrano said she believes those encounters with police may have played a role in his death.
1 less asshole on the street
If police confiscates something from you, don't they have to file some paperwork? Same thing when they give your stuff back?Originally Posted by LineDoggie
If yes then his story that he got his device after 4 days should be easy to proove.
Unless they confiscated it illegally just like they've deleted stuff on it if the guy tells the truth.
In that case I guess he better have two phones from now on, so he can film the police taking away his first phone with his second phone.
Yeah, case closed. We don't investigate wrongdoing if the victim was an asshole.1 less asshole on the street
Last edited by Xaito; 09-13-2012 at 08:56 AM.
Well maybe in your country you like assholes running wild at high speed through the streets evading police. here we don't aprove.
Yea those guys don't deserve human rights.
Did you even BOTHER to read the Linked Article and what the scumbag had been doing? he wasnt feeding kittens and handing out Icecream cones .
According to authorities, Snider and witnesses, the events leading to the shooting began just after midnight on Aug. 31 when Tuter noticed a white GMC pickup that had been involved in a previous chase with Sachse police.
Officers tried to stop the truck at First Street and Avenue B, but the 25-year-old Allen fled. Dallas County sheriff’s deputies joined the chase when the truck crossed into Mesquite. After a 30-minute pursuit with speeds reaching up to 100 mph, Allen turned into a cul-de-sac in the 3000 block of Monarch Court.
Still doesn't explain why the police took a witness cellphone for four days.
We don't either.
Nor do we aprove police destroying potential evidence.
If you don't either, then we're on the same page.
I don't see why you try to point out that the guy was bad, nobody is arguing about that - but surely you don't mean to say that it was ok for police to help the case along by destroying evidence or similar in that context?
You keep on implying there is no need to investigate this because whether the incident was unjust or not because he deserved it.
I don't care if it was him or Mother Theresa I think there needs to be an investigation (of which the cell phone might have helped).
Last edited by EdisonTrent; 09-13-2012 at 10:00 AM.
I'm not in any way justifying a potential illegal search or seizure by the police in re: the subject's cell phone. However, whatever photos/videos he took aren't necessarily evidence of anything. Was the subject going to surrender the photos and video he took to the cops for evidence? Or was he going to post them on youtube or facebook for "evidence"? Evidence has to be put in context, raw photos/video isn't "evidence" any more than raw photos/video can be considered "intelligence."
Every shooting, discharge, and use of force above simple handcuffing is investigated by people who actually know how to do use of force investigations as opposed to internet know-it-alls who think their experience watching Law & Order and CSI actually equates to knowledge of legal or criminal justice procedure.
??? did you read the article? Did you read all the posts before picking one to throw that statement out?
Maybe think a little before posting what you did.
I was responding to LD.
Do you know what authority they were using? Was it that they just took the phone, or did they seize it as it contained evidence of some nature that was not open to the public? What is Texas' law concerning filming of Police in execution of their duties, or when it comes to perceived evidence recorded? How do you know, from the article provided, that they had 'no right what so ever to do so'? I am curious if you have more information so that a better comment can be given.
Also, it is true that some cops overstep their bounds, we all know that. No one hates that more than other Police, however, your blanket statement of 'For some reason(s) some police officers think that they are the law' is a tad melodramatic.
Posting Permissions
