Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

Photography Is Not A Crime

Recommended Posts

Well the cop is an idiot for saying it was illegal to film him. He needs an education.

 

As for the "punch a number" that sounds like a junior officer asking if he needs to do a report to document the interaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ACLU is suing the officers

 

In a complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut (ACLU-CT) contends that three state police troopers illegally retaliated against a protester by searching and detaining him, confiscating his camera, and charging him with fabricated criminal infractions. On behalf of Connecticut resident Michael Picard, the ACLU-CT alleges that John Barone, Patrick Torneo, and John Jacobi, all employed by the state police division of Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, violated Picard’s First Amendment rights to free speech and information and Fourth Amendment right against warrantless seizure of his property.

 

On September 11, 2015, Picard was protesting near a police DUI checkpoint in West Hartford. Barone approached him under the pretext of public complaints and confiscated Picard’s legally-carried pistol and pistol permit. Barone then claimed that filming the police is illegal, and took Picard’s camera. Unbeknownst to the troopers, the camera was recording when Barone brought it to Torneo’s cruiser. With the camera rolling, the officers proceeded to: call a Hartford police officer to see if he or she had any “grudges” against Picard; open an investigation of him in the police database; and discuss a separate protest that he had organized at the state capitol.

 

After Barone announced “we gotta cover our ass,” either Torneo or Jacobi stated “let’s give him something,” and the three settled on fabricating two criminal infraction tickets that they issued to Picard. Torneo drove away with Picard’s camera on top of his cruiser, upon which the camera fell onto the hood of the car, Torneo stopped, and Jacobi returned the camera to Picard. In July of this year, the criminal charges against Picard were dismissed in the Connecticut Superior Court.

 

 

They mention his first and fourth amendment rights but there might have been a second amendment problem here too. Unless there was some basis for taking his gun and permit?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CT State Troopers: Gotta Cover Our Ass

 

...

According the lawsuit, Connecticut state trooper John Barone confronted Picard, saying he had received complaints from passing motorists that Picard, who also open-carries a handgun, was waving his gun in the air. (The ACLU says there were never any such complaints and that Picard kept his gun holstered at all times.) After claiming it was illegal for Picard to film him, Barone snatched the camera and put it on the roof of his police cruiser while he and other officers discussed what charges to hit Picard with.

 

"You want to punch a number on this either way?" Barone asked one of his supervising officers, police slang for opening an investigation and entering a case number. "Gotta cover our ass."

 

...

 

In the lawsuit, the ACLU says the three state troopers retaliated against Picard, violating his First Amendment rights to protest and film the government, as well as his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

 

"Community members like me have a right to film government officials doing their jobs in public, and we should be able to protest without fearing political retribution from law enforcement," Picard said in a statement.

 

 

How do we still have cops who think it's illegal to film them doing their jobs?

 

I think they will learn quickly now. Last year during a USCG boarding of my boat, I asked one of them if I could take his picture. He said "No."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think they will learn quickly now. Last year during a USCG boarding of my boat, I asked one of them if I could take his picture. He said "No."

 

 

If you decide to do it anyway, make sure to loudly proclaim that you're doing it for the purpose of criticizing them.

 

No, really.

 

Otherwise there may be no first amendment right to film officers.

 

Lower federal courts have generally said that the First Amendment protects a right to record and photograph law enforcement in public view.

 

Some restrictions may be constitutional, but simply prohibiting the recording because the person is recording the police can’t be constitutional. While the Supreme Court hasn’t specifically considered this question, this is the general view in the federal appellate decisions that have looked at it.

 

But that may have changed last Friday in the case, Fields v. City of Philadelphia. That case takes a different, more narrow approach. There is no constitutional right to video-record police, the court says, when the act of recording is unaccompanied by “challenge or criticism” of the police conduct.

...

 

 

Of course, if you film them and they respond by taking your camera, Riley v California comes into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US 3rd Circuit: Photographing Police Is Protected By The First Amendment

Quote

"This case is not about whether Plaintiffs expressed themselves through conduct," the appeals court says. "It is whether they have a First Amendment right of access to information about how our public servants operate in public….Recording police activity in public falls squarely within the First Amendment right of access to information."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have found the one thing that can make this thread interesting to someone other than myself.

You guessed it.

Gun Cams!

Quote

A small number of police departments are showing interest in a new type of video camera that can be mounted directly on officers' guns, saying it may offer a better view of officer-involved shootings than body cameras. Some law enforcement officials and civil rights groups are skeptical.

A gun cam turns on (and can alert dispatchers and nearby cops) when the gun is drawn from its holster.

The concern of civil rights groups is that these should be used in addition to, not instead of, body cameras. The reason is because nothing about the reason the gun was drawn from the holster will be recorded by a gun cam.

A gun cam will, however, be pointed in a relevant direction, something that might not be true for a body cam.

I agree that both types would be best but one or the other still seems better than nothing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CT State Police Ignorance/Incompetence And Coverup

A guy was holding up a sign warning motorists of a sobriety checkpoint ahead, and...
 

Quote

 

Notwithstanding the fact that Picard was doing nothing illegal, a trooper stomped over to him and seized his gun and camera without probable cause, telling him with a straight face that, “It is illegal to take my picture!” This was a brazen lie emphatically told to a citizen whom the trooper was sworn to protect. Either that, or the trooper was ignorant of the law. I’m not actually sure which is more disturbing.

Fortunately for Picard (and for us), the trooper was technologically illiterate and did not realize the camera was still rolling even after he seized it from a law-abiding citizen. So we were treated to the spectacle of troopers, two of whom were supervisors who should be setting an example, conspiring about what to charge Picard with after they were disappointed to learn that he was licensed to carry a pistol in Connecticut.

“Have that Hartford lieutenant call me,” one trooper said in the video. “I want to see if he’s got any grudges.” Another trooper added, “Gotta cover our ass!” The troopers sounded like they were kids who had made a mess in their parents’ room and were trying to figure out how to clean it up before the adults came home. Truth and justice, which the troopers had taken an oath to uphold, were taking a back seat to CYA.

In the video, Picard describes himself as someone who “advocates for freedom whenever and wherever.” Good for him. Unlike many Second Amendment advocates, Picard maintains a healthy skepticism toward the powerful and those who would otherwise trample on our other freedoms, such as those embodied in the First and Fourth Amendments.

Shame on the troopers who were involved in the incident and who attempted to charge Picard “with fabricated criminal infractions,” as the ACLU alleged in a complaint against the State Police.

And shame on the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection which, in violation of a state Supreme Court ruling, initially refused to release the resulting internal investigation report that, it turns out, failed to even to address the subject of the trooper falsely claiming “It is illegal to take my picture!”

 

Can we just give every law enforcement officer in America a one-question quiz?

Is it illegal to photograph the police in a public place?

And strip anyone who fails of his badge and disqualify that person from any future law enforcement employment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photography is contempt of court in the UK
 

Quote

 

The British far-right anti-Muslim activist Tommy Robinson has been sentenced, initially in secret, to 13 months in jail for committing acts of web journalism outside a Leeds court regarding an ongoing criminal trial.

...

Even reporting that Robinson had been sentenced to more than a year in jail for what could certainly be seen as an act of pure free expression was itself under a legal gag order. That led to some reporting on Robinson's sentence being memory-holed. The judge rescinded the gag on reporting the Robinson story in response to a challenge from LeedsLive.

 

There are lots of rules here about who can say what, to whom, and when, in our court rooms, and those rules exist for good reasons.

I can't see any good reason to regulate what people outside a courtroom say about trials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2018 at 11:15 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Photography is contempt of court in the UK
 

There are lots of rules here about who can say what, to whom, and when, in our court rooms, and those rules exist for good reasons.

I can't see any good reason to regulate what people outside a courtroom say about trials.

This should explain it for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUYPGNvsHXk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I don't watch non-boating videos and I suspect a Void Ho bomb.

Not a Void Ho bomb, go ahead and watch, it explains the background and the current case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mad said:

This should explain it for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUYPGNvsHXk

 

The whole "you can't report on high profile cases" thing wouldn't fly here, I don't think. At least, I hope not. But my posts dismissing the Trump candidacy as a book selling stunt are back there...

He wasn't secretly jailed because journalists talked about the secret once allowed to do so? Umm, prior to that they were doing what? Keeping a secret, it seems.

I'd support Mr. Robinson's first conviction for contempt when he was filming inside the court. That's sometimes allowed, sometimes not, over here. I don't have a problem when judges want to ban it. Might have been a good idea for Judge Alito one day. But anyway, as for the nut of the free speech issue...

<rant>this is why I hate videos for PA. They make it difficult to quote something for discussion.</rant>

UKcontemptlaw.jpg

Our answer to those potential consequences is, "Fuck you! First amendment!"

And for some of us, that would mean a person could broadcast on FB and a pre$$ corporation could $pend money to broadca$t about the case and both would be protected by the first amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those consequences can be quite dire.

If you're done with breakfast and have a weight problem, a good way to puke it back up would be to visit 4chan and look at the mass murderer fan clubs.

What they want most is fame. To be mentioned.

If we're going to eliminate an amendment to stop them, it should be the first. And we should start punishing the people who find it useful to mention the name of a certain racist mass murderer in their messenger attacks on me. 

I don't think we should do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2018 at 8:49 PM, badlatitude said:

Class act here...

 

Lots of stupidity on display from the kids and the officer but look who was put in cuffs and in a car.

The person documenting what went on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason to like body cameras on cops
 

Quote

 

A police officer in a small Arkansas town pulled a man over for driving suspiciously near some railroad tracks. The driver—Adam Finley—turned out to be a railroad employee just doing his job.

Here's what happened next, as evidenced by video footage of the encounter. Even though the cop, Matthew Mercado, had no reason whatsoever to escalate matters, he ordered Finley out of the car, became aggressive with him, shoved him against the car door, handcuffed him, swore at him, and threatened to use a taser on him.

Meanwhile, Finley kept remarkably calm. He didn't get angry, and he followed Mercado's confusing instructions as best he could.

After Mercado let him go free—again, because Finley had done absolutely nothing wrong—Finley went to the Walnut Ridge police station to speak with the chief and make a complaint. For this, Finley was punished: they decided to charge him with obstructing justice during the Mercado encounter. They made this decision only after Finley decided to object to his treatment....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

,,,

The government response also reveals that Oregon State Police SWAT troopers at the scene, ordinarily required to wear body cameras, didn't that day at the request of the FBI. The FBI did obtain video from FBI surveillance planes flying above the scene.

State police detectives also normally record interviews of officers who might be involved in a shooting, but they didn't that night when questioning the FBI Hostage Rescue Team members, again at the FBI's request. A follow-up interview with the hostage team members also came with unusual conditions, prosecutors note

,,,

 

.

https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2018/02/fbi_told_oregon_state_police_n.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Hmm...
 

Quote

 

Deschutes County investigators shared their concerns about missing evidence and unaccounted-for shots with FBI officials in the days after the shooting. I.M., the FBI supervisor who had first questioned Astarita, also expressed frustration to another FBI leader about Astarita's odd response to his routine question. More FBI supervisory agents spoke with Astarita.

On Feb. 6, 2016, two state police detectives reinterviewed Astarita, but by then the hostage rescue team agents knew there were unaccounted-for gunshots and missing shell casings. The agents set conditions for the interview: They could only be interviewed as a group, the interview couldn't be recorded and their lawyer could be present on a speakerphone.

The state police detectives found those conditions "particularly an unrecorded group interview - odd and problematic, but reluctantly agreed to them, believing that the alternative would be no interview at all,''  prosecutors wrote.

 

Guns don't fire themselves and shell casings don't disappear themselves either. Obviously, the hostage rescue team should be locked up because they have no respect for the laws they are supposed to enforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Tom!  Here is another thread where you are basically talking to yourself.  Just on this page you posted without interruption 8 times.  Between this and your obsession with assault weapons you are waving a large red flag.

 

SAD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Jesus Tom!  Here is another thread where you are basically talking to yourself.  Just on this page you posted without interruption 8 times.  Between this and your obsession with assault weapons you are waving a large red flag.

 

SAD!

I find it interesting, just don't see the need to comment.

The cops in general are going to find that living & working in Jeremy Bentham's vision of a panopticon world might be a bit more stressful than they thought.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photography Is Misconduct
 

Quote

 

Bret Royle is an Arizona defense attorney currently representing Jose Luis Conde, a 32-year-old man who was pulled over in a traffic stop and later accused of drug possession. In June, Royle gave the Arizona Republic body camera footage that showed officers in the Mesa Police Department beating his client during a January arrest.

...

Now, the Maricopa County prosecutor is accusing Royle of misconduct.

Prosecutor Riley Figueroa filed a memo to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz saying that Royle engaged in misconduct when he shared the body camera footage with journalists. She reportedly cited disclosure standards found in Rule 15.4(d) of the Arizona Court Rules of Criminal Procedure and asserted that Royle was only allowed to speak publicly on "information contained in a public record," via ER 3.6. of the Rules of Professional Conduct found in the Arizona state bar.

Arizona Republic reported that it was of legal opinion that Figueroa's claim was not only an intimidation tactic against Royle, but an attempt to "create a double standard between prosecutors and defense lawyers over who can speak publicly about a public record." Additionally, lawyers argued that the video in question was to be fully considered "public record."

...

While speaking on the body camera footage, Irvine also argued that "just because it's an exhibit in a case, it doesn't change the fact that it's a public record."

 

I'd like to see body camera footage treated as a public record, but if that's what it really is in this case, it does make me wonder why the Arizona Republic obtained the footage from Royle and not from, well, the public records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California Cops Can't Censor Body Cams Any More

Quote

The new laws bring us closer to the state of affairs that existed before 2006, when a dreadful California Supreme Court decision slammed the door on openness and police accountability. Since then, police agencies have had free reign to protect their worst officers.

Aside: the guy was an editorial writer for 9 years and doesn't know that rein, reign, and rain are different words?

But anyway,
 

Quote

 

The 2006 case, Copley Press v. County of San Diego, centered on the San Diego Union-Tribune's effort to gain access to a disciplinary hearing involving a deputy sheriff who was appealing his termination from the force. The court found that the public has no right to learn about the goings-on in a civilian-service commission or virtually anything about misbehaving officials. It rejected the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the public has a right to access government information and quoted from a shockingly Orwellian 1978 ruling: "There is no constitutional right to have access to particular government information, or to require openness from the bureaucracy."

The results were predictable. Unions demanded—and gained—secrecy. Cities restricted their civilian-review boards. The public couldn't get access to information even after the most egregious-seeming incidents. Progressive California became the most regressive state when it comes to holding accountable its most powerful officials.

 

Can't have pesky reporters looking for openness from the bureaucracy.
 

Quote

 

After an officer shoots to death an unarmed person, the police tell us not to jump to conclusions – but to wait until the report is done. But after the report is done, we don't usually get to read it. As the ACLU of Northern California explained, Copley "has effectively shut off all avenues for the public to learn about misconduct involving individual police officers."

Since then, advocates for government openness have tried to reform Copley, but to no avail until this year. I covered an appalling Capitol hearing for the Orange County Register in 2007 in one of the earliest iterations of a Copley reform. The committee chairman saved the front seats in the room, usually reserved for legislators, for the bill's opponents. The fix was in.

As I wrote, then-Assemblyman Jose Solorio, now a Santa Ana councilman, "gave a bizarre, rambling speech complaining about the rapper Ice-T, about rap-music lyrics in general, worrying about the effect of open government on police recruitment efforts and claiming that police already are vilified by the public. He then offered Sen. (Gloria) Romero the chance to withdraw her bill. She defiantly refused. None of the committee members had the guts to offer a motion to vote on the bill." The audience was thrilled at this display of power politics.

That alliance of union-backed Democrats and law-and-order Republicans has put the kibosh on such reforms in the ensuing years.

 

In the end, the reform passed with almost no TeamR support and was signed by Moonbeam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballot Selfie Bans

Quote

The rationales for the bans vary, but they generally relate to fears about voter intimidation and vote selling. "Photographing a marked ballot is illegal in part because such photographs could be used as proof of a vote for a particular candidate in a vote-buying scheme," explains the North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement.

Photography is sometimes a crime.

And it might be more subtle than buying votes or intimidation. A person might know what kind of vote would be viewed favorably (or not) by superiors at work.

We have some pretty ugly history in this country in which your election day options were:

1. Carry a ballot of the correct color to the polls

or

2. Get the shit beaten out of you, your property vandalized, and maybe worse.

And that's why we have secret ballots. If everyone starts advertising his vote, the natural next step is to look at those who do not and say, "What are you hiding?"

I don't know if photographing my ballot is legal in FL and I don't care. My proof of voting involves getting two stickers and doing this:

ivetoed.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

North Carolina Cops Trying To Figure Out Whether Photography Is A Crime

Quote

A North Carolina police officer is on administrative leave after a video surfaced of him tackling two teenage girls, apparently because they were recording him.

Video of the incident, which occurred Monday in Harnett County, shows 17-year-old Aumbria Urban and her 14-year-old sister, Jewelianna, being taken to the ground. What had they done wrong? The Harnett County Sheriff's Office said in a statement that two officers were responding to a report of illegal drug activity. Eventually, they found their suspect—17-year-old Tyrese Namirr Gary—sitting in the driver's seat of a car. "When the deputy approached the vehicle, the smell of marijuana was detected coming from the passenger compartment," the police statement said, according to WNCN.

The deputies arrested Gary, who had other active warrants as well. Police claim to have found a handgun under his seat, which they also charged him for. The Urban sisters, meanwhile, were with Gary at the time (Aumbria is his girlfriend). The deputies searched them, too, but things quickly went south. "After each of us were patted down, we both started recording and asking why (my boyfriend) was being detained," Aumbria told WTVD.

Just a wild guess: the warrants and the gun?

So they seem to have been asking a pretty stupid question, but filming yourself asking cops a stupid question isn't a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Dogballs is arguing with himself too. Is it catching or something?

You've chosen to ignore content by dogballs Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by dogballs Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by dogballs Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by dogballs Tom. Options
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Now Dogballs is arguing with himself too. Is it catching or something?

You've chosen to ignore content by dogballs Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by dogballs Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by dogballs Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by dogballs Tom. Options
 

If one is constantly talking about whom they are ignoring, is it really ignoring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a good example of why I like cameras on cops, like cops who like cameras on cops, and really dislike cops who don't.

http://reason.com/blog/2019/01/17/watch-a-florida-cop-lie-on-video-about-a
 

Quote

 

The video shows the April 17, 2018, traffic stop of Florida resident Steve Vann by former Jackson County Sheriff's deputy Zachary Wester. Vann was subsequently charged with possession of methamphetamines and paraphernalia as a result of the traffic stop, but state prosecutors later dropped those charges as part of a review of more than 250 cases that Wester was involved in since his hiring in 2016.

State prosecutors have dropped criminal charges in more than 100 cases involving Wester after body cam footage released last September showed the officer allegedly planting drugs in a car during another traffic stop. A Florida judge also vacated the sentences of eight people whose convictions were based on evidence and testimony by Wester.

...

"I'm going to have to take your vehicle, too," Wester tells Vann. "Listen buddy, I don't think you're a bad guy."

 

He never "has to" take the vehicle. Lots of arrests and drug war loot for the department isn't such a bad thing when looking for a promotion though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad Cop Attacks Photographer
 

Quote

 

On January 22, Adrian Burrell was at his home in Vallejo, California, when he saw his cousin outside with his hands in the air. The cousin, Michael Walton, was standing next to his motorcycle with his back to a police officer. "He can't hear you. He has his helmet on," Burrell told the officer, according to the account he later gave to KGO. At that point, he says, the cop told him to go back in his house.

Instead, Burrell, who is a filmmaker, opted to record the incident. Even if he hadn't been standing on his own private property, this would be within his rights. In California, citizens can film on-duty police officers as long as they aren't interfering in their work. In this case, Burrell tells The San Francisco Chronicle, he was on his porch—more than 20 feet away from what was going on.

"Get back," the officer tells Burrell. "No," he replies. (Burrell notes to the Chronicle that his back was already up against the side of his home.) The officer then walks toward Burrell, holstering his weapon as he does so. "You're interfering with me, my man?" he asks. "You're interfering, you're going to get one from the back of the car."

"That's fine," Burrell responds. The officer starts handcuffing Burrell, and tells him to "stop resisting."

"I'm not resisting you," Burrell says, as the officer threatens to take him down. "Stop fighting or you're going to go on the ground," the cop says.

It's hard to see what happens next, and the camera eventually goes dark. "He handcuffed me and threw me into this wall here," Burrell tells KGO. "Swung my body into that pole there, where I knocked my head. He took me to the car and detained me and told me I was going to jail." Burrell wrote on Facebook that he sufferred a concussion as a result of the officer's actions.

Several seconds later in the video, the officer can indeed be heard saying: "That wasn't very smart, man. Now you get to go to jail."

But Burrell did not end up in jail. Burrell tells the Bay City News he asked the officer to cuff his hands in front of his body, rather behind, due to injuries sustained as a result of his time in the military. "Oh you're a vet? You sure weren't acting like one," Burrell recalls the officer saying, according to the Bay City News.

...

Police have not identified the officer involved, but his nameplate in the video reads "D. McLaughlin." The Chronicle reports that a David McLaughlin was hired by the police department in 2014. That same year, according to the Bay City News, McLaughlin was accused in a civil suit of searching a man's car without cause, then falsifying a police report when nothing illegal was found. The plaintiff eventually died, and the case was dismissed.

 

And that last paragraph tells you why this bad cop doesn't like cameras. Same reason as any other bad cop doesn't like cameras: they'll incriminate him instead of vindicate him.

I hope he gets fired and sued for enough money that it starts to teach other bad cops that the best thing for them to do is tolerate cameras even if they don't like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, NYPD Union$, body cam footage is not a private personnel record nor anything like it.
 

Quote

 

A panel of New York appellate judges ruled today that New York Police Department (NYPD) body camera footage can be made public under state law, denying an attempt by a police union to make such footage confidential.

The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the largest NYPD union, sued New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and the NYPD last year to block the public release of body camera footage, arguing that the video was confidential under a New York law that exempts "personnel records" of police officers, correctional officers, and firefighters.

As Reason reported earlier this month, that statute, Section 50-a of New York's civil rights law, has been used to hide a vast array of records about police misconduct. A coalition of civil rights groups, community activists, and families of those slain by police officers are pushing the New York legislature to repeal the law this year.

The PBA's lawsuit was the most brazen in a long string of attempts to expand Section 50-a. Not even the NYPD—which until quite recently took a nearly unlimited view of the law—supported the PBA's interpretation of 50-a, and neither did a three-judge panel on New York's Supreme Court.

"While we recognize petitioner's valid concerns about invasion of privacy and threats to the safety of police officers, we are tasked with considering the record's general 'nature and use,' and not solely whether it may be contemplated for use in a performance evaluation," the court wrote. "Otherwise, that could sweep into the purview of 50-a many police records that are an expected or required part of investigations or performance evaluations, such as arrest reports, stop reports, summonses, and accident reports, which clearly are not in the nature of personnel records so as to be covered by 50-a."

 

Yes, you can have a confidential file with personal info. No, your arrest reports are not things that go in that file. And yes, body cams are supposed to show us that your arrest reports are accurate. Hiding them defeats that purpose, as I'm glad the judges saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something good may come from the

On 1/29/2019 at 4:29 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Mass Shooting In Texas


In which

On 2/19/2019 at 5:17 AM, Contumacious Tom said:
On 2/18/2019 at 2:56 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

(and)

The cop who lied to get the warrant has a history.

And, um, they can't seem to find the revolver that was used to shoot the cops. Possibly flushed? Dog ate it as he was dying? Revolvers don't evaporate.

Anyway, the potential good news is twofold: no-knock raids will be the exception instead of the rule and

Body Cams For Houston Cops
 

Quote

 

Avoiding the destruction of evidence is usually cited as a reason for police to crash into homes without warning. But "if somebody flushes all the evidence" because police have to knock and announce themselves, Acevedo observed, "you probably didn't have all that much evidence in there to start with."

In this case, police found no evidence of drug dealing, notwithstanding a search warrant affidavit describing many bags of heroin in the home the day before. It turned out the "controlled buy" that was the basis for the warrant never happened. But even if it had, the execution of the warrant would have been reckless. After undercover narcotics officers broke into the home of Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas at 7815 Harding Street, one of them immediately killed the couple's dog with a shotgun, setting off an exchange of fire in which Tuttle and Nicholas were both killed. Under the circumstances, it is plausible that Tuttle, who reportedly fired at police with a .357 Magnum revolver, did not know who the armed intruders were—a possibility that Acevedo implictly acknowledged by citing the raid as a reason to eschew no-knock drug raids.

If Acevedo follows through on his commitment to make no-knock warrants the exception rather than the rule, the new policy could help avoid situations like this—but only if police announce themselves in a way that gives occupants a realistic chance of answering the door. If cops say "police" a second or two before knocking the door down, it will not be much of an improvement. The point is to avoid the chaos and confusion that can have lethal results when armed men suddenly burst into a home.

Yesterday Acevedo also reiterated his intent to equip officers executing search warrants with body cameras so there is an independent record of the operation, which is especially important when the "suspects" are not around to dispute the official account.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cop tossed a dog shit sandwich to a homeless man but they can't seem to find the bodycam footage.
 

Quote

 

By Luckhurst's account, he saw what appeared to be dog feces and worried about stepping or riding through it. So he grabbed a discarded piece of bread, used it to pick up the dog shit, put it in a food container, and apparently tossed it on the ground next to a homeless man.

He claimed, after the fact, that he thought the man would realize it was trash and throw it away. He says it was not his intent to try to trick the homeless man into eating dog shit. But apparently Luckhurst had a good laugh about it when he spoke to two other bike officers about what he did, and the other officers were apparently horrified by Luckhurst's behavior.

This spun into an even bigger mess because the officers didn't immediately report what Luckhurst had done. Rumors spread around the department, and a telephone game ensued, which apparently Luckhurst himself contributed to by changing the details of the story, according to the report.

Police have reportedly been unable to find any body camera footage of the incident to clear up what happened. But Luckhurst did acknowledge that he deliberately put a container with a shit sandwich in it next to a homeless man while ordering him to clear out. If the homeless man had eating it and gotten sick, the City of San Antonio could have been found liable. And so the department fired him.

But he fought back and apparently won on a technicality. There's a 180-day clock on disciplining police officers for misbehavior (absent criminal charges). Apparently, due to some confusion over when the incident took place, they authorities missed the window. So this month an arbitration panel has ruled that the San Antonio police could not fire Luckhurst over this incident.

 

He apparently carried the feces fun into the police station and faces firing for that incident instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Research On Police Body Cams

Quote

Although officers and citizens are generally supportive of BWC use, BWCs have not had statistically significant or consistent effects on most measures of officer and citizen behavior or citizens’ views of police. Expectations and concerns surrounding BWCs among police leaders and citizens have not yet been realized by and large in the ways anticipated by each. Additionally, despite the large growth in BWC research, there continues to be a lacuna of knowledge on the impact that BWCs have on police organizations and police–citizen relationships more generally.

Lacuna sounds like a good boat name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this generally counters the narrative that Police brutality is wide spread and pernicious.  If it was, the body cams would be observing it.  They're not.  The problem seems to be more acute and targeted.

Their wide spread adoption in the face of "evidence based results" (to quote the authors) showing minimal impact is, unfortunately, a reminder that simple solutions rarely fix complex problems and we've just added the cost of monitoring and storage of massive piles of generically useless data on top of the cost of policing.  The side effect is an increase in police budgets, and a demand for more taxes.  Hopefully, there will be something in that camera footage that benefits society at large.  We'll see.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I think this generally counters the narrative that Police brutality is wide spread and pernicious.  If it was, the body cams would be observing it.  They're not.  The problem seems to be more acute and targeted.

It's unsurprising that most cops go to work, do their jobs, and go home like anyone else.

2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Their wide spread adoption in the face of "evidence based results" (to quote the authors) showing minimal impact is, unfortunately, a reminder that simple solutions rarely fix complex problems and we've just added the cost of monitoring and storage of massive piles of generically useless data on top of the cost of policing.  The side effect is an increase in police budgets, and a demand for more taxes.  Hopefully, there will be something in that camera footage that benefits society at large.  We'll see.

We collect massive amounts of data on the routine operations of airliners and their crews every day and it's almost never of any use.

But when it IS of use, it's darn important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

We collect massive amounts of data on the routine operations of airliners and their crews every day and it's almost never of any use.

But when it IS of use, it's darn important.

Cost of doing business :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad Cop Gets Sued
 

Quote

 

According to the complaint, the April 2018 incident began when police responded to a 911 call about a man threatening the caller with a gun. The caller described the suspect as a black man with short hair, who was heavy-set and wearing green and black pants.

The suspect had fled by the time police arrived. Instead, they saw Carter, who was wearing a purple t-shirt and black shorts. Officer Cody Thomas asked Carter to identify himself. Carter, who said he was checking his mail outside, responded that Thomas was not welcome to come to his house. The situation escalated with Thomas telling Carter, "How about you watch your mouth before your ass gets thrown in the back of my car."

Thomas pulled out a Taser and threatened to shoot Carter's "fucking dog," which was barking in the front yard.

...

Though Thomas' body camera was rolling during the incident, he turned his cruiser's dash camera off in violation of the department's policy. At one point, Thomas' hand covers his body camera. The complaint argues that this was done either in an attempt to turn it off or conceal his interaction with Carter.

 

Wants to shoot a dog for being a dog. Asshole.

Shuts down his dash cam. Asshole who should never have another day on any police job.

But who will be defended by his department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 5:31 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Something good may come from the

On 1/29/2019 at 4:29 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Mass Shooting In Texas


In which

On 2/19/2019 at 5:17 AM, Contumacious Tom said:
On 2/18/2019 at 2:56 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

(and)

The cop who lied to get the warrant has a history.

And, um, they can't seem to find the revolver that was used to shoot the cops. Possibly flushed? Dog ate it as he was dying? Revolvers don't evaporate.

Anyway, the potential good news is twofold: no-knock raids will be the exception instead of the rule and

Body Cams For Houston Cops

The autopsy reports are in
 

Quote

 

...

The only drugs that police found in the house were 18 grams of marijuana and 1.5 grams of cocaine. Those are also the only drugs detected by the toxicology tests described in the autopsy reports: THC and a THC metabolite in Tuttle's blood and benzoylecgonine, a cocaine metabolite, in Nicholas' blood. Notably, the tests found no traces of heroin, fentanyl, or other opioids.

Although Police Chief Art Acevedo has said the affidavit for the search warrant was falsified, he continues to defend the investigation that led to the raid, citing a January 8 call from an unnamed woman who reported that her daughter was using drugs at the house and described Tuttle and Nicholas as armed and dangerous drug dealers. Acevedo also said neighbors had thanked police for raiding the couple's home, which he said was locally notorious as a "drug house" and a "problem location."

Those claims are inconsistent with the accounts of neighbors interviewed by Houston news outlets. They said that Tuttle and Nicholas, who had lived in the house for two decades, were perfectly nice people and that they had never noticed any suspicious activity at the house.

The only drugs that police found in the house were 18 grams of marijuana and 1.5 grams of cocaine. Those are also the only drugs detected by the toxicology tests described in the autopsy reports: THC and a THC metabolite in Tuttle's blood and benzoylecgonine, a cocaine metabolite, in Nicholas' blood. Notably, the tests found no traces of heroin, fentanyl, or other opioids.

Although Police Chief Art Acevedo has said the affidavit for the search warrant was falsified, he continues to defend the investigation that led to the raid, citing a January 8 call from an unnamed woman who reported that her daughter was using drugs at the house and described Tuttle and Nicholas as armed and dangerous drug dealers. Acevedo also said neighbors had thanked police for raiding the couple's home, which he said was locally notorious as a "drug house" and a "problem location."

Those claims are inconsistent with the accounts of neighbors interviewed by Houston news outlets. They said that Tuttle and Nicholas, who had lived in the house for two decades, were perfectly nice people and that they had never noticed any suspicious activity at the house.

KTRK, the ABC station in Houston, reported in February that the woman who called police on January 8 was Nicholas' mother, who was concerned about her own daughter's drug use. But that report is inconsistent with Acevedo's account and with what Nicholas' mother, Jo Ann Nicholas, has told reporters. "I want her name cleared," the grieving 84-year-old woman said in a March 25 interview with KTRK.

Four officers, including Goines, were injured by gunfire during the raid, but it is not clear where those rounds came from. It seems implausible that Tuttle, even if he fired all six rounds from the revolver, was able to hit his targets four times in the chaotic circumstances of the raid. Acevedo initially responded indignantly to the suggestion that officers were hit by "friendly fire," but that question is part of the Houston Police Department's ongoing investigation. This morning I asked the HPD whether the issue has been resolved but have not heard back yet.

...

 

So drug warriors lied about the drug buy that never happened, lied about the character of the people killed, lied about prior police contact, and won't say yet whether Tuttle really hit people with four of his six shots, making him MUCH more accurate in that situation than most any trained cop.

Just a wild guess: there was more lying and cops were hit by friendly fire.

Don't want to distract from the main point, though. It is important to keep in mind that this was a "mass" shooting and we must DO SOMETHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad Cop Arrested In Florida
 

Quote

 

A former Florida sheriff's deputy was arrested Wednesday for planting drugs and falsely arresting at least 10 people, including one case where Reason obtained body camera footage showing him lying about the results of roadside field test.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) announced yesterday that, following a months-long investigation, former Jackson County sheriff's deputy Zach Wester had been arrested and charged with 52 felony crimes, including racketeering, false imprisonment, fabricating evidence, and drug possession.

In a stunning 30-page affidavit, the FDLE laid out how Wester kept unmarked bags of marijuana and methamphetamines in the trunk of his patrol car, manipulated his body cam footage, planted drugs in people's cars, and falsified arrest reports to railroad innocent people under the color of law. His victims, many of whom had prior records or were working to stay sober, had their lives upended. One man lost custody of his daughter.

"There is no question that Wester's crimes were deliberate and that his actions put innocent people in jail," Chris Williams, the FDLE's assistant special agent in charge, said in a press release.

...

Before joining the Jackson County Sheriff's Office in 2016, Wester was fired from his previous job at the Liberty County Sheriff's Office for inappropriate relations with women, the Tallahassee Democrat revealed.

 

And another body camera pierces the blue wall.

This is why good cops like them and bad cops don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cops have been verbalising re drugs cases , globally since forever .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 11:17 PM, Mid said:

cops have been verbalising re drugs cases , globally since forever .

Huh?

Anyway, Photography Is Not A Crime Except On A Farm.
 

Quote

 

...

Her group and others push state politicians to pass so-called "ag-gag" laws that make it a crime to mislead in order to get a job on a farm. (That's often how activists get on farms to film.)

"We call it farm protection," says Johnson Smith.

Stossel asks: "What about everybody else? Why do you get special protection?"

She responds: "The agricultural community is the only business community that this sort of tactic is really being used on right now."

Stossel pushes back: "I'm an investigative reporter. I can't do my job if there are laws that prevent me from showing things. Nobody believes it if you don't see it."

"These activist groups want to eliminate all of animal agriculture," Johnson Smith replies.

Some activists do want to stop people from eating meat. But many of their undercover investigations show real animal abuse. Some have led to convictions of abusive farm workers.

 

I have little sympathy for animal rights wackos but my feeling on this mirrors my feeling about cops. Good cops and good farmers don't mind cameras.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Huh?

Anyway, Photography Is Not A Crime Except On A Farm.
 

I have little sympathy for animal rights wackos but my feeling on this mirrors my feeling about cops. Good cops and good farmers don't mind cameras.

 

How far do you want to take that line of argument?

Should all business premises be under publicly accessible 24/7 sound & video recording/transmission?

If not, why not? And what's the basis for inclusion/exclusion?

Enquiring minds want to know......

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

How far do you want to take that line of argument?

Should all business premises be under publicly accessible 24/7 sound & video recording/transmission?

If not, why not? And what's the basis for inclusion/exclusion?

Enquiring minds want to know......

FKT

Quote

so-called "ag-gag" laws that make it a crime to mislead in order to get a job

If journalists or journali$t$ lie to get a job and then film something embarrassing to the employer, that shouldn't be a crime, though it is in lots of places.

That's a pretty long way from "you can never lock your doors or keep anyone out" and no, I would not go that far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

If journalists or journali$t$ lie to get a job and then film something embarrassing to the employer, that shouldn't be a crime, though it is in lots of places.

That's a pretty long way from "you can never lock your doors or keep anyone out" and no, I would not go that far.

Soooo - not wanting to put words in your mouth, but it seems that your position is that employers have no right to insist on confidentiality of their business practices. Is that a fair comment?

Or is it only some businesses and some of the time? In which case, enlighten me with what criteria actually apply. Let's stipulate that illegal acts are fair game. What other circumstances?

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this