Who Polices The Police [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Who Polices The Police


StarfoxHowl
06-11-2011, 10:50
I saw this on Fox News. I was hoping that some of the LEO's will take a look at it and give me their opinion on it. (Other than for the obvious book plug that comes towards the middle)

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/987443936001/who-polices-the-police/?playlist_id=89637


A couple of questions come to mind,

1. What's going on in New Jersey that's so bad that the DOJ is having to get involved? (News coverage is rather spotty out here.)

2. Why do some police officers have such a hard time with being filmed (i.e. Miami and other places)? Why should an officer feel the need to smash camera equipment and steal cell phones at gunpoint? (Again, the Miami Beech shooting incident)

Caveats: THIS IS NOT A COP BASH. I do not want this to become a cop bash. I have had very professional dealings with police officers and I've run into thugs with badges (including one of my co-workers when I was in law enforcement). I am happy to say that the latter was a very small percentage of my dealings with police.

4949shooter
06-11-2011, 11:05
He is just pushing his new book. Very disappointing.

The police DO police theselves through their own internal affairs.

The county district attorney offices also police the police, as well as the state attorney general offices.

Aside from that, the Federal government polices the police through consent decrees, which I believe is what he is talking about regarding Newark PD.

CincyLawman
06-11-2011, 11:05
Moderator please close this one from the beginning.

wprebeck
06-11-2011, 11:42
People with CCW permits, who have undergone a much more thorough pro cess to gettheir "good guy" card, than what any JBT did to get hired.


Open carriers police the CCW folks, because...well, because open carry prevents things.
:whistling::tongueout:



Hi,Russ. Hope this one isnt too much of a headache. :supergrin:

txleapd
06-11-2011, 11:44
Everytime the OP has started/jump in a thread and said, "I'm not bashing cops", he has instigated a confrontation..... I agree with CL. Just shut it down before people get into it.

Dragoon44
06-11-2011, 11:49
Seriously, you are presenting the thoughts of a whack a doodle libertarian and are expecting serious consideration?

1. What's going on in New Jersey that's so bad that the DOJ is having to get involved? (News coverage is rather spotty out here.)

It's called politics, it has little or nothing to do with police work. It has more to do with squeaky wheel special interest groups getting catered to.

2. Why do some police officers have such a hard time with being filmed (i.e. Miami and other places)? Why should an officer feel the need to smash camera equipment and steal cell phones at gunpoint? (Again, the Miami Beech shooting incident)

is there something besides one persons claims involved in this incident yet? As far as his phone being seized, I can believe that. if it recorded a shootout it just became evidence.

ateamer
06-11-2011, 12:00
Seriously, you are presenting the thoughts of a whack a doodle libertarian and are expecting serious consideration?



It's called politics, it has little or nothing to do with police work. It has more to do with squeaky wheel special interest groups getting catered to.



is there something besides one persons claims involved in this incident yet? As far as his phone being seized, I can believe that. if it recorded a shootout it just became evidence.
But they kept pulling the trigger until their Glocks just clicked! I know, cause my moms is the po-lice!

StarfoxHowl
06-11-2011, 12:11
Seriously, you are presenting the thoughts of a whack a doodle libertarian and are expecting serious consideration?

It's called politics, it has little or nothing to do with police work. It has more to do with squeaky wheel special interest groups getting catered to.

is there something besides one persons claims involved in this incident yet? As far as his phone being seized, I can believe that. if it recorded a shootout it just became evidence.

AFN airs bits and pieces of the various news shows out here. I'm not familar with the man's politics.

Politics and special interest groups, I can understand that. Same stuff, different bucket, different day, same stink.

With regards to the cell phones at the Miami shooting, there was a published frame capture or snapshot of an officer demanding a person's cell phone AT GUN POINT.

To be fair, I have the advantage of distance and time in this. But this wouldn't be the first time that an officer or officers, have siezed or destroyed video equipment.

Dragoon44
06-11-2011, 13:04
My final thought on this video is if that is how this guy operated as Judge, (Making unsupported claims and jumping to conclusions without hearing both sides of the story then I am glad he is no longer a judge.

DaBigBR
06-11-2011, 13:04
There was a thread running recently on another forum I read where somebody had posted an article about Chicago PD arresting somebody for surreptitiously recording an officer. The thread devolved in to widespread bashing of CPD and law enforcement in general. One posted stated something about not trusting an officer he didn't know because: "How easy is it to tell if he'll beat me, lie on a report, fabricate evidence, or otherwise disrupt my life because he's having a bad day?" The thread was defended by a couple of real-deal CPD guys and other LE, but obviously there wasn't a lot of room to change any minds.

During that thread, links were posted to maybe a half dozen instances in the last few YEARS where a CPD officer was arrested. There are 13,000 officers on that particular agency. Let's say that 130 of them have been arrested in the last five years, which does not appear to be true, that's one percent. Extrapolate the data out using the UCR and you would find that there are 706,000 full time law enforcement officers in 14,000+ UCR reporting agencies. It would take 7,060 police officers getting arrested to make one percent. How long does this take to occur? How many of those arrests are for job-related misconduct? I don't know, but I do know that by-and-large law enforcement are being arrested in general and for job misconduct specifically at a substantially lower rate than the general population. The UCR reports 13,687,241 arrests last year with a population of roughly 290 Million. This makes an arrest to population ration of 0.0473, or 4.73%. This does not include the (likely thousands) of non-UCR reporting agencies.

So who polices the police? Generally, we do, and we do just fine.

redneck1861
06-11-2011, 13:06
AFN airs bits and pieces of the various news shows out here. I'm not familar with the man's politics.

Politics and special interest groups, I can understand that. Same stuff, different bucket, different day, same stink.

With regards to the cell phones at the Miami shooting, there was a published frame capture or snapshot of an officer demanding a person's cell phone AT GUN POINT.

To be fair, I have the advantage of distance and time in this. But this wouldn't be the first time that an officer or officers, have siezed or destroyed video equipment.


The bike officer was pointing his gun because the people with the phone failed to comply with a lawfull order multiple times. The suspect had been shooting at people, attempted to run over multiple officers. They dont know the intentions of the guy with the phone, he could have been with the suspect. The officers didnt really care about being filmed, they just didnt want a person standing right behind them pointing an object at them.

Panzergrenadier1979
06-11-2011, 13:10
There was a thread running recently on another forum I read where somebody had posted an article about Chicago PD arresting somebody for surreptitiously recording an officer. The thread devolved in to widespread bashing of CPD and law enforcement in general. One posted stated something about not trusting an officer he didn't know because: "How easy is it to tell if he'll beat me, lie on a report, fabricate evidence, or otherwise disrupt my life because he's having a bad day?" The thread was defended by a couple of real-deal CPD guys and other LE, but obviously there wasn't a lot of room to change any minds.

During that thread, links were posted to maybe a half dozen instances in the last few YEARS where a CPD officer was arrested. There are 13,000 officers on that particular agency. Let's say that 130 of them have been arrested in the last five years, which does not appear to be true, that's one percent. Extrapolate the data out using the UCR and you would find that there are 706,000 full time law enforcement officers in 14,000+ UCR reporting agencies. It would take 7,060 police officers getting arrested to make one percent. How long does this take to occur? How many of those arrests are for job-related misconduct? I don't know, but I do know that by-and-large law enforcement are being arrested in general and for job misconduct specifically at a substantially lower rate than the general population. The UCR reports 13,687,241 arrests last year with a population of roughly 290 Million. This makes an arrest to population ration of 0.0473, or 4.73%. This does not include the (likely thousands) of non-UCR reporting agencies.

So who polices the police? Generally, we do, and we do just fine.

This should be a sticky in GNG.

StarfoxHowl
06-11-2011, 13:35
There was a thread running recently on another forum I read where somebody had posted an article about Chicago PD arresting somebody for surreptitiously recording an officer. The thread devolved in to widespread bashing of CPD and law enforcement in general. One posted stated something about not trusting an officer he didn't know because: "How easy is it to tell if he'll beat me, lie on a report, fabricate evidence, or otherwise disrupt my life because he's having a bad day?" The thread was defended by a couple of real-deal CPD guys and other LE, but obviously there wasn't a lot of room to change any minds.

During that thread, links were posted to maybe a half dozen instances in the last few YEARS where a CPD officer was arrested. There are 13,000 officers on that particular agency. Let's say that 130 of them have been arrested in the last five years, which does not appear to be true, that's one percent. Extrapolate the data out using the UCR and you would find that there are 706,000 full time law enforcement officers in 14,000+ UCR reporting agencies. It would take 7,060 police officers getting arrested to make one percent. How long does this take to occur? How many of those arrests are for job-related misconduct? I don't know, but I do know that by-and-large law enforcement are being arrested in general and for job misconduct specifically at a substantially lower rate than the general population. The UCR reports 13,687,241 arrests last year with a population of roughly 290 Million. This makes an arrest to population ration of 0.0473, or 4.73%. This does not include the (likely thousands) of non-UCR reporting agencies.

So who polices the police? Generally, we do, and we do just fine.

I will agree with Panzergrenadier1979, this should be a sticky.

Thank you for the stats.

But unfortunatly, when police misbehave, the chances of tramatic, life-altering or life ending results are greater than when some accountant misappropiates his employers money.

Example, two NJ police officers dangling a young man over the outside of a bridge threatening to drop him in order to force a confession of the man's involvement in a crime.

OldCurlyWolf
06-11-2011, 14:26
Seriously, you are presenting the thoughts of a whack a doodle libertarian and are expecting serious consideration?



It's called politics, it has little or nothing to do with police work. It has more to do with squeaky wheel special interest groups getting catered to.



is there something besides one persons claims involved in this incident yet? As far as his phone being seized, I can believe that. if it recorded a shootout it just became evidence.

I understand what he recorded being evidence and agree with that statement.

What I don't understand, if it was a truthful statement, would be an officer throwing the phone to the ground and stepping/stomping on it. That would be several felonies where I used to be a LEO. Starting with aggravated robbery under color of authority. 20 plus years there in one count.:faint:

Hack
06-11-2011, 14:28
Oh boy. With your avatar you say you are in the sand box, (basically). Al right, the police and other LE police the police. There you have it. We know that there are bad apples, and within our respective agencies there are attempts to weed them out. Capicé?

Patchman
06-11-2011, 14:34
But unfortunatly, when police misbehave, the chances of tramatic, life-altering or life ending results are greater than when some accountant misappropiates his employers money.

Example, two NJ police officers dangling a young man over the outside of a bridge threatening to drop him in order to force a confession of the man's involvement in a crime.

Would you say a driver who is drunk or doped up and gets behind the wheel of his/her car results in greater traumatic, life altering or life ending results than the said accountant?

Now which happens more often? LEO-gone-bad induced death or DWI fatalities? So when was the last time you decried against DWI drivers?

What do you say regarding those who legally purchased and owned guns and then one day uses the gun to kill his/her family, friends, neighbors, classmates or even complete strangers?

Now which happens more often? LEO-gone-bad induced death or legally owned gun owner ends up killing people? So when was the last time you decried against gun violence?

redneck1861
06-11-2011, 14:39
I understand what he recorded being evidence and agree with that statement.

What I don't understand, if it was a truthful statement, would be an officer throwing the phone to the ground and stepping/stomping on it. That would be several felonies where I used to be a LEO. Starting with aggravated robbery under color of authority. 20 plus years there in one count.:faint:

Everyone is jumping to conclusions, there is no proof that the officer smashed the phone. It sounds fishy, somehow the guy took the SD card out of the phone and put it in his mouth, right before the officer took and smashed his phone.

For the most part, we will always side with decisions an officer makes or his actions, unless it is proven that they were illegal or wrong. But with this incident there were 30+ uniformed officers, many civilians on the street, and all the people that were in the buildings watching. So all of the people that were there, only the people that alledged the crime saw it. Nobody else saw it. Unless there has been more video released, there was nothing showing the officer smash said phone

Dragoon44
06-11-2011, 14:44
Example, two NJ police officers dangling a young man over the outside of a bridge threatening to drop him in order to force a confession of the man's involvement in a crime.

Link?

Dragoon44
06-11-2011, 14:47
What I don't understand, if it was a truthful statement, would be an officer throwing the phone to the ground and stepping/stomping on it. That would be several felonies where I used to be a LEO. Starting with aggravated robbery under color of authority. 20 plus years there in one count.

As you said, if the report is truthful.

One other aspect that I recall is the guy admitted that the police gave him a property receipt for the phone. Does that makes sense to you? That a cop would "destroy" the phone then take it and start the chain of custody ( for evidence) by giving the guy a receipt for the phone?

StarfoxHowl
06-11-2011, 15:10
Link?

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/30/justice_department_civil_rights_police

Towards the middle of the story.

The link is from a thread in the GNG lounge:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1348982

Dragoon44
06-11-2011, 15:34
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/30/justice_department_civil_rights_police

Towards the middle of the story.

The link is from a thread in the GNG lounge:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1348982

Thanks for the link, but all I found about the incident in question was allegations not facts. But you apparently you take them at face value and believe they are automatically true.

BamaTrooper
06-11-2011, 15:52
I will agree with Panzergrenadier1979, this should be a sticky.

Thank you for the stats.

But unfortunatly, when police misbehave, the chances of tramatic, life-altering or life ending results are greater than when some accountant misappropiates his employers money.

Example, two NJ police officers dangling a young man over the outside of a bridge threatening to drop him in order to force a confession of the man's involvement in a crime.

Most police misbehavior falls into 3 categories- sexual misbehavior, drugs or theft. Dangling someone off a bridge is extreme. Actively murdering people is a rarity among rarities.

But unfortunatly, when police misbehave, the chances of tramatic, life-altering or life ending results are greater than when some accountant misappropiates his employers money. Quoting you, how is an accountant sexually misbehaving, stealing money, etc... more defensible than when a policeman is involved. If you start to type...position of authority, please lump teachers and coaches and religious leaders in the same category as police officers. An expectation of some greater behavior is expected of all of those as well.

Snowman92D
06-11-2011, 16:01
If you start to type...position of authority, please lump teachers and coaches and religious leaders in the same category as police officers. An expectation of some greater behavior is expected of all of those as well.

Thanks, 'Bama...you beat me to it. I guess being "former" LEO, like the OP says he is, makes you get a fixation. Hope it doesn't turn out to be an O/C thing with him.

Powermwt
06-11-2011, 16:04
" they instead took him to a secluded location, beat him, urinated on him, and left him there," according to the ACLU's letter. The department's internal affairs unit later claimed to have lost the soiled T-shirt the boy had brought in as evidence."

Pretty hard to present the facts when you lose the evidence...

StarfoxHowl
06-11-2011, 16:09
Most police misbehavior falls into 3 categories- sexual misbehavior, drugs or theft. Dangling someone off a bridge is extreme. Actively murdering people is a rarity among rarities.

But unfortunatly, when police misbehave, the chances of tramatic, life-altering or life ending results are greater than when some accountant misappropiates his employers money. Quoting you, how is an accountant sexually misbehaving, stealing money, etc... more defensible than when a policeman is involved. If you start to type...position of authority, please lump teachers and coaches and religious leaders in the same category as police officers. An expectation of some greater behavior is expected of all of those as well.

BamaTrooper; you are quite right, I do. But the opening post was about police officers being policed, and opinions about the video that was linked. I was hoping to keep scope creep out of the discussion.

And as to your assertion that an accountant stealing money is more defensible that a police officer stealing, it's not. My point was that an accountant misbehaving has less chance of ending a person's life or causing traumatic injury than a police officer not following the rules of his profession.

Dragoon44
06-11-2011, 16:11
" they instead took him to a secluded location, beat him, urinated on him, and left him there," according to the ACLU's letter. The department's internal affairs unit later claimed to have lost the soiled T-shirt the boy had brought in as evidence."

Pretty hard to present the facts when you lose the evidence...

A "soiled" T Shirt is not automatically evidence. What was the time frame between the time of the alleged incident? and someone bringing a "soiled Tshirt" to the station? the fact that it was, according to the story brought to the station would indicate no report was made at the time of the incident.

StarfoxHowl
06-11-2011, 16:14
Thanks for the link, but all I found about the incident in question was allegations not facts. But you apparently you take them at face value and believe they are automatically true.

I haven't taken anything at face value. All I've heard is one side of the argument. I'll withhold any opinion on whether or not things happened the way they are alleged, until the other side has it's say.

But since the police lost the physical evidence after the complaint was made, I would say that something doesn't pass the whiff test.

glockurai
06-11-2011, 16:20
I saw this on Fox News. I was hoping that some of the LEO's will take a look at it and give me their opinion on it. (Other than for the obvious book plug that comes towards the middle)

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/987443936001/who-polices-the-police/?playlist_id=89637


A couple of questions come to mind,

1. What's going on in New Jersey that's so bad that the DOJ is having to get involved? (News coverage is rather spotty out here.)

2. Why do some police officers have such a hard time with being filmed (i.e. Miami and other places)? Why should an officer feel the need to smash camera equipment and steal cell phones at gunpoint? (Again, the Miami Beech shooting incident)

Caveats: THIS IS NOT A COP BASH. I do not want this to become a cop bash. I have had very professional dealings with police officers and I've run into thugs with badges (including one of my co-workers when I was in law enforcement). I am happy to say that the latter was a very small percentage of my dealings with police.

Here's the phone. :tongueout:
http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21004519764891/

DaBigBR
06-11-2011, 16:26
But unfortunatly, when police misbehave, the chances of tramatic, life-altering or life ending results are greater than when some accountant misappropiates his employers money.

Example, two NJ police officers dangling a young man over the outside of a bridge threatening to drop him in order to force a confession of the man's involvement in a crime.

On-duty misconduct at that level is so very extremely rare that it makes national news every time that it is reported. What never makes national news is the number of times that those types of allegations are completely disproved...it just doesn't sell. Quite frankly, I just DO NOT believe it.

Take the recent alleged "SWAT raid" by the US Department of Education. The media ran with the story completely on the say-so of a person with every reason to falsify. When it came out that it was all a combination of serious exaggeration, complete misunderstanding, and outright dishonesty, it vanished from the press. The same people that expound the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra are so quick to jump on the bandwagon when something like this happens.

StarfoxHowl
06-11-2011, 16:28
Here's the phone. :tongueout:
http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21004519764891/


Glockurai... thanks for the link. The video didn't play out here though.

redneck1861
06-11-2011, 16:29
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/30/justice_department_civil_rights_police

Towards the middle of the story.

The link is from a thread in the GNG lounge:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1348982


From the link you provided..

In one case described in the ACLU's petition, two Newark officers allegedly threatened to throw a juvenile over a bridge when he refused to confess involvement in a crime. "Told by a supervisor to take [the boy] home, they instead took him to a secluded location, beat him, urinated on him, and left him there," according to the ACLU's letter. The department's internal affairs unit later claimed to have lost the soiled T-shirt the boy had brought in as evidence.


There are no FACTS that support they did anything wrong

Dragoon44
06-11-2011, 16:33
But since the police lost the physical evidence after the complaint was made, I would say that something doesn't pass the whiff test.

And the claim the police in fact lost "evidence" is based on, oh that's right, a CLAIM by the ACLU.

Seriously, do you think that some kid coming in with a "soiled" t shirt some time after the incident allegedly took place is going to convince a judge to grant a warrant in order to have the officers provide urine samples?

redneck1861
06-11-2011, 16:38
I haven't taken anything at face value. All I've heard is one side of the argument. I'll withhold any opinion on whether or not things happened the way they are alleged, until the other side has it's say.

But since the police lost the physical evidence after the complaint was made, I would say that something doesn't pass the whiff test.


Urine on a shirt does not mean anything, if someone really wanted to, they could follow any officer around long enough until he pisses in a public restroom and throw a shirt in it.

StarfoxHowl
06-11-2011, 16:38
On-duty misconduct at that level is so very extremely rare that it makes national news every time that it is reported. What never makes national news is the number of times that those types of allegations are completely disproved...it just doesn't sell. Quite frankly, I just DO NOT believe it.

Take the recent alleged "SWAT raid" by the US Department of Education. The media ran with the story completely on the say-so of a person with every reason to falsify. When it came out that it was all a combination of serious exaggeration, complete misunderstanding, and outright dishonesty, it vanished from the press. The same people that expound the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra are so quick to jump on the bandwagon when something like this happens.

And you are very correct, the initial reports hit the press, but never the follow-up. Just look at the Richard Jewell debacle during the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. All of which lowers my confidence in the media, save for the weather reports, to an all time low.

With regards to the SWAT style raid by the DoE, I think the bigger picture has morphed into "Why does the DoE need police powers in the first place?" But that's a discussion for another thread.

redneck1861
06-11-2011, 16:44
Stories like this are pretty much the only police misconduct allegations that anyone ever hears about.


As a matter of fact, yesterday 2 police officers were acquitted on charges of corruption and police misconduct. But I dont think most of yall have even heard of it, unless you know people involved, because this is not something the news decided to cover.

Patchman
06-11-2011, 16:47
Sigh. Another internet poster claiming prior LE experience.

OK, I was in the NASA astronaut program until I washed out. So am I an "insider" eligible to biatch about the current NASA programs? Or just another failed wannabe looking in with envy?

Kegs
06-11-2011, 16:50
The FBI's 2 top jobs: Busting bank robbers and crooked Chicago cops.



There was a thread running recently on another forum I read where somebody had posted an article about Chicago PD arresting somebody for surreptitiously recording an officer. The thread devolved in to widespread bashing of CPD and law enforcement in general. One posted stated something about not trusting an officer he didn't know because: "How easy is it to tell if he'll beat me, lie on a report, fabricate evidence, or otherwise disrupt my life because he's having a bad day?" The thread was defended by a couple of real-deal CPD guys and other LE, but obviously there wasn't a lot of room to change any minds.

During that thread, links were posted to maybe a half dozen instances in the last few YEARS where a CPD officer was arrested. There are 13,000 officers on that particular agency. Let's say that 130 of them have been arrested in the last five years, which does not appear to be true, that's one percent. Extrapolate the data out using the UCR and you would find that there are 706,000 full time law enforcement officers in 14,000+ UCR reporting agencies. It would take 7,060 police officers getting arrested to make one percent. How long does this take to occur? How many of those arrests are for job-related misconduct? I don't know, but I do know that by-and-large law enforcement are being arrested in general and for job misconduct specifically at a substantially lower rate than the general population. The UCR reports 13,687,241 arrests last year with a population of roughly 290 Million. This makes an arrest to population ration of 0.0473, or 4.73%. This does not include the (likely thousands) of non-UCR reporting agencies.

So who polices the police? Generally, we do, and we do just fine.

StarfoxHowl
06-11-2011, 17:14
Sigh. Another internet poster claiming prior LE experience.

OK, I was in the NASA astronaut program until I washed out. So am I an "insider" eligible to biatch about the current NASA programs? Or just another failed wannabe looking in with envy?

Summerville Police Department, Summerville South Carolina
Badge number 40

Hired: January 1985

Starting Salary was just over 10K per year.
That why I left, you can't support a disabled wife and a new baby on that.

Now, Pugg off.

BamaTrooper
06-11-2011, 18:01
BamaTrooper; you are quite right, I do. But the opening post was about police officers being policed, and opinions about the video that was linked. I was hoping to keep scope creep out of the discussion.

And as to your assertion that an accountant stealing money is more defensible that a police officer stealing, it's not. My point was that an accountant misbehaving has less chance of ending a person's life or causing traumatic injury than a police officer not following the rules of his profession.
Then we can narrow your definition of police officers misbehaving to "life threatening actions".
Policy usually dictates when deadly force can be used. If they use it outside of policy, they can be policed by the department they work for since retaining them or providing them insufficient training is negligent retention and negligent training and leaves the agency open to even more lawsuits. I can guarantee you that hanging someone of a bridge isn't taught by any PDs, or American training academies. Southeast and Middle Asia, mayb, but not here.
If I can offer a pair of scenarios, an officer pulls his weapon (let's disregard being in his shoes and assume he wasn't in fear of his life, but just trying to intimidate someone) and the gun is fired. Someone dies. Possible policy violations, possible criminal charges but is he covered under "color of law rulings" and did he have INTENT to kill?
Same cop, off duty, gets drunk, gets in a bar fight, gos to the parking lot and waits on the other guy to come out. At that point he walks up and shoots the guy in the back. That has NOTHING to do, directly, with the PD unless they knew of a history of alcohol abuse, etc... that they should have addressed.

Patchman
06-11-2011, 19:06
Summerville Police Department, Summerville South Carolina
Badge number 40

Hired: January 1985

Starting Salary was just over 10K per year.
That why I left, you can't support a disabled wife and a new baby on that.

Now, Pugg off.

So resigned/fired when?

Pugg off yourself.

razdog76
06-11-2011, 19:07
I saw this on Fox News. I was hoping that some of the LEO's will take a look at it and give me their opinion on it. (Other than for the obvious book plug that comes towards the middle)

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/987443936001/who-polices-the-police/?playlist_id=89637


A couple of questions come to mind,

1. What's going on in Afghanistan that's so bad that the DOJ is having to get involved? (News coverage is rather spotty out here.)

2. Why do some soldiers have such a hard time with being filmed (i.e. Afghanistan and other places)? Why should an officer feel the need to smash camera equipment and steal cell phones at gunpoint? (Again, pick an incident)

Caveats: THIS IS NOT A soldier BASH. I do not want this to become a bash. I have had very professional dealings with soldiers and I've run into thugs with machineguns (including one of my co-workers when I was in country). I am happy to say that the latter was a very small percentage of my dealings with military.

StarfoxHowl, I hope that you feel a little burn after reading my revisions to your post. That would be pride, which is no different than what I feel when I read your post.

Does bad stuff happen with the civilian population? Sure, but I am absolutely sure that malicious false reports of bad stuff are made too. I will even bet, and I don't even play the lottery, that situations are created to make our troops look bad. Do media sources have an interest in selling a story for monetary or political reasons (Al Jazzar)?

Are people enlisted that have no business being there? Sure, but it seems as though the quality of the troops there are much more popular than the many other countries that have had troops there similar to the quality of those wearing a badge stateside.

Patchman
06-11-2011, 19:10
Would you say a driver who is drunk or doped up and gets behind the wheel of his/her car results in greater traumatic, life altering or life ending results than the said accountant?

Now which happens more often? LEO-gone-bad induced death or DWI fatalities? So when was the last time you decried against DWI drivers?

What do you say regarding those who legally purchased and owned guns and then one day uses the gun to kill his/her family, friends, neighbors, classmates or even complete strangers?

Now which happens more often? LEO-gone-bad induced death or legally owned gun owner ends up killing people? So when was the last time you decried against gun violence?

While we're at it Star, hows about answering these?

redneck1861
06-11-2011, 19:14
Patchman. I sent you a PM with a question

Patchman
06-11-2011, 19:18
Yes, I read the PM.

DaBigBR
06-11-2011, 19:23
And you are very correct, the initial reports hit the press, but never the follow-up. Just look at the Richard Jewell debacle during the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. All of which lowers my confidence in the media, save for the weather reports, to an all time low.

With regards to the SWAT style raid by the DoE, I think the bigger picture has morphed into "Why does the DoE need police powers in the first place?" But that's a discussion for another thread.

Nearly every branch of the federal government has an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) staffed by series 1811 criminal investigators. Many of these offices and the 1811 positions are mandated by the Inspector General Act. These are the people that investigate theft and fraud within these organizations. They have extensive specific knowledge of the workings of their agency and use that to carry out more effective investigations than a general investigative agency may be able to. You asked in the thread title who polices the police, well by and large these are the people that police federal government agencies. They are also the people that go after the folks that are criminally obtaining money from these agencies that cost us millions upon millions in tax money a year.

Patchman
06-11-2011, 19:25
OK, I'm reconnected.

PM me your information and I'll confirm or deny.

Patchman
06-11-2011, 19:37
Summerville Police Department, Summerville South Carolina
Hired: January 1985

Starting Salary was just over 10K per year.
That why I left, you can't support a disabled wife and a new baby on that.

Now, Pugg off.

Oh, BTW, even adjusted for inflation, LE salaries have NOT gotten much better.

So in 1985, when you were hired, did you think this was reasonable compensation for what you were asked to do?

If not, what have you done lately to support your local LE?

4949shooter
06-11-2011, 19:45
OK, I'm reconnected.

PM me your information and I'll confirm or deny.

What are we confirming? Starfox's PD status?

redneck1861
06-11-2011, 19:49
What are we confirming? Starfox's PD status?

No, I have no desire to find out if he is being truthful or not.

I think I might know patchman, so I am telling him who I am, to see if he is who I think he is

4949shooter
06-11-2011, 19:59
No, I have no desire to find out if he is being truthful or not.

I think I might know patchman, so I am telling him who I am, to see if he is who I think he is

Okay thanks. I guess it was none of my business then. Lol.

StarfoxHowl
06-11-2011, 20:11
Oh, BTW, even adjusted for inflation, LE salaries have NOT gotten much better.

So in 1985, when you were hired, did you think this was reasonable compensation for what you were asked to do?

If not, what have you done lately to support your local LE?

Did I think it was reasonable? No, it wasn't, it was way low. Other departments in the area (such as Charleston City and Charleston County PD) were starting at over 13K per year.

But between my PD salary and my Navy Reserve Drill pay, we were able to make ends meet.

StarfoxHowl
06-11-2011, 21:50
Oh, BTW, even adjusted for inflation, LE salaries have NOT gotten much better.

So in 1985, when you were hired, did you think this was reasonable compensation for what you were asked to do?

If not, what have you done lately to support your local LE?

I know about LE salaries. The man who is third in line at the sheriff's department where I used to live (the next county over from where I live now) way back in 2001, after over 20 years with the SO made less than half of what I did working in the private sector.

Would I like him to get more, oh heck yeah, along with the fire fighters and the rescue crews and the men and women who are employed by the SO and the PD.

And as for what I've done to support the LEO's in the area, before I moved and came out here to the sandbox, I went to the public safety committee for the county and asked why we can get LIDAR guns and cameras in the car, but can't get basic items like new tires, for the patrol vehicles.

lawman800
06-12-2011, 01:31
Who polices the POLICE? We do. The civilian authorities do. The county DA does. The State AG does. The feds do. Every tom dick and harry with a camera do. The News media does. Every self-appointed no job but needs to feel important community activist does.

For the amount of oversight and the amount of work that is done by LE, I would say the incidence of misconduct is very low.

shiangti
06-12-2011, 01:39
I am not a LEO, but it seems pretty simple to me. Why wouldn't a cop want to be filmed constantly, beacause perception is a very dangerous thing. One loser with a cell phone and a reporter to to show a clip that makes the cop look bad= good cop fired. Why do cops police cops? because it is easier for another to weed through the BS. Someone who understands th job can do a much better job of investigating a situaton to look for real misconduct instead of just armchair lawyering.

lawman800
06-12-2011, 01:49
I have no problems with being filmed. It's when the film is played that is the problem because for some reason... the news and other outlets never seem to have the whole clip for display and only want to play their select parts and provide commentary to skew the whole thing.

Heck, to prevent that, we carry our own video cams now and we record the whole thing from start to finish and when complaints arise, we have our own complete version.

shiangti
06-12-2011, 01:51
k. lawman said it better.

4949shooter
06-12-2011, 04:15
Who polices the POLICE? We do. The civilian authorities do. The county DA does. The State AG does. The feds do. Every tom dick and harry with a camera do. The News media does. Every self-appointed no job but needs to feel important community activist does.

For the amount of oversight and the amount of work that is done by LE, I would say the incidence of misconduct is very low.

Yes....exactly.

awoodpd13
06-12-2011, 07:14
... As far as his phone being seized, I can believe that. if it recorded a shootout it just became evidence.

This.

I never had any problem with being videoed in public. The worst any video of me would have shown was me scratching my @$$. If however, that video showed evidence of the suspects ILLEGAL actions, it WOULD have been obtained, and secured as evidence.

merlynusn
06-12-2011, 07:23
Just to jump in the fray. Based on that news article the police released, their officer went to the guy with his gun out because he resembled a shooting suspect. Yeah, if I think a shooting suspect is still on scene and he's sitting in a car, I'm going to have my gun out when I approach him. I'm guessing he didn't immediately comply since he had time to take the SD card out of the phone, hence him getting thrown on the ground. Yes, when people are put on the ground, objects fall out of their hands and sometimes they get stepped on because I'm more concerned about securing the suspect than I am where their phone is. Obviously it wasn't "smashed" since it was seized as evidence and he was given a receipt. Based on the pictures, it isn't smashed anyway.

People always forget to apply that person's meanings behind things. He's saying his phone was smashed because it got stepped on, probably while he was getting handcuffed. I love the "did you know so and so was committing a crime." "I don't believe I did." That usually means they did know. Most people would say "No, I did not know."

teleblaster
06-12-2011, 08:43
This.

I never had any problem with being videoed in public. The worst any video of me would have shown was me scratching my @$$. If however, that video showed evidence of the suspects ILLEGAL actions, it WOULD have been obtained, and secured as evidence.

What would be the exigent circumstances that would permit the seizure of private property without a warrant, or by using a subpoena? The camera is not contraband. The police (arguably) could ID the person for subpoena later. Seems like there would have to be a reasonable basis to believe the person would conceal or destroy the evidence before seizure on the spot.

awoodpd13
06-12-2011, 09:16
What would be the exigent circumstances that would permit the seizure of private property without a warrant, or by using a subpoena? The camera is not contraband. The police (arguably) could ID the person for subpoena later. Seems like there would have to be a reasonable basis to believe the person would conceal or destroy the evidence before seizure on the spot.

I can envision circumstances under which the camera/phone owner/user was detained at the scene while a search warrant was sought...if he did not provide the video voluntarily, I would not let him leave with the postage-stamp sized SD card until the warrant was either issued (almost certainly) or denied (highly unlikely) by the judge...let him leave with evidence he wanted to withhold, and it's gone...to prevent possible deletion of the evidence, he would not be allowed to use or handle his phone or camera until after the matter of the warrant was settled...

If I had learned of video evidence after an incident, and the video holder did not provide it voluntarily, the next likely step would likely be to seek a search warrant for the seizure of ALL electronic devices possessed by the video holder capable of storing the video...cell phone(s), digital camera(s), SD card(s), computer(s), removable computer drive(s), CD's/DVD's, etc... it's probably going to take a while for the Crime Lab Computer Forensic people to analyze those items, too...wouldn't it be MUCH simpler for all involved for an honest-intentioned video maker/holder to provide the video right away?

Record away in public, but you'll have to take the "bad" (in this case the providing evidence incriminating to an arrestee) along with whatever "good" you might think you are achieving by making the recording in the first place...

teleblaster
06-12-2011, 09:49
Would you answer be the same for a news crew who happened to be there? Hold them at the scene? This is just sort of academic discussion, but is there really a right to detain someone just because they might erase something without any articulable basis to think they would? Maybe, but maybe not. The automobile exception cases seem to not be on point because they deal with autos controlled by the suspects, not presumably law-abiding witnesses. I don't think there wI'll be any caselaw on it unless the seized camera happened to have some dope in it and there was a motion to suppress or something.

awoodpd13
06-12-2011, 09:58
Would you answer be the same for a news crew who happened to be there?

In the one case in which I was involved during which a news crew was present and recorded evidence of an offense (a multi-suspect "Drug Round-Up" warrant service following extended undercover investigation and purchases) the camera crew offered the footage of an arrestee resisting and attempting to break free from the officers who were handcuffing him...

teleblaster
06-12-2011, 11:01
I don’t want to beat this to death, and I’m not really asking for your answer; just putting this question out there as food for thought. Practicalities aside, push come to shove, what is the law? Can an officer always seize a cell phone from a bystander witness who has videoed a crime or an arrest, or detain that person while a warrant is obtained? I figure the practicalities might incline the officer to not do it always, even if he/she had the right: “Officer, my wife is about to have a baby and my cell phone is the only way she has to get a hold of me. I would happy to bring my cell phone to the PD tomorrow or whenever and I promise I will not erase the video. Here’s my name and address.”

But at the sergeant’s exam, or when responding to the citizen complaint, or to the civil rights lawsuit after the guy described above’s wife lost the baby in childbirth and he wasn’t there, because you had seized the phone, or he was standing there for two hours while you got the search warrant and would not let him answer his phone, what’s the law?

I think, but am not really sure, that the law is that absent some articulable grounds to think the evidence might be lost or destroyed, you can't seize the phone or him. I'm not dug in on that; but that's the way I lean.

Panzergrenadier1979
06-12-2011, 11:32
I don’t want to beat this to death, and I’m not really asking for your answer; just putting this question out there as food for thought. Practicalities aside, push come to shove, what is the law? Can an officer always seize a cell phone from a bystander witness who has videoed a crime or an arrest, or detain that person while a warrant is obtained? I figure the practicalities might incline the officer to not do it always, even if he/she had the right: “Officer, my wife is about to have a baby and my cell phone is the only way she has to get a hold of me. I would happy to bring my cell phone to the PD tomorrow or whenever and I promise I will not erase the video. Here’s my name and address.”

But at the sergeant’s exam, or when responding to the citizen complaint, or to the civil rights lawsuit after the guy described above’s wife lost the baby in childbirth and he wasn’t there, because you had seized the phone, or he was standing there for two hours while you got the search warrant and would not let him answer his phone, what’s the law?

I think, but am not really sure, that the law is that absent some articulable grounds to think the evidence might be lost or destroyed, you can't seize the phone or him. I'm not dug in on that; but that's the way I lean.

Uhmmm....anyone can create, in their vivid imagination, a scenario that is complicated to the extent that it would be impossible for any LEO to make a decision, under the imagined circumstances, that would be considered "correct" by the non-LEO asking the question.

Let me ask you: If your child's murder was caught on a camera phone, would you have any issues with the officers on the scene knowingly allowing the owner of the phone to leave the scene with a mere verbal promise to eventually get the footage to investigators ?

MeefZah
06-12-2011, 11:35
And as to your assertion that an accountant stealing money is more defensible that a police officer stealing, it's not. My point was that an accountant misbehaving has less chance of ending a person's life or causing traumatic injury than a police officer not following the rules of his profession.


Haven't read the whole thread, just page one, but most cops that get jammed up hurt no one but themselves... unless you count the black eye they give the profession.

teleblaster
06-12-2011, 11:44
Uhmmm....anyone can create, in their vivid imagination, a scenario that is complicated to the extent that it would be impossible for any LEO to make a decision, under the imagined circumstances, that would be considered "correct" by the non-LEO asking the question.

Let me ask you: If your child's murder was caught on a camera phone, would you have any issues with the officers on the scene knowingly allowing the owner of the phone to leave the scene with a mere verbal promise to eventually get the footage to investigators ?

I made the scenario with some consequences to make it hard. In any event, if the officer acts lawfully, he or she is covered in the civil rights lawsuit. Maybe not in the citizen complaint since strict legality or not is not the whole question; maybe I should not have made that one of the forums of inquiry. I'm just trying to put it terms of law, divorced from what you would want the law to be in a given set of facts. I made the facts tough, and you did the same the other way. The law is the same in either case. (Or is it? Maybe the seriousness of the situation gets weighed in. Or maybe that just mitigates the sanction if the officer stepped outside the lawful bounds.)

Isn't there a Supreme Court case that says there is no murder scene exception to the 4th amendment? If the murder occurs in someone's house other than that of the deceased, the police need a warrant or consent to search the house, right?

(We can go ask the guys in the GNG Lounge; they'll have the answers.)

wprebeck
06-12-2011, 12:11
Can a house be secured, no one allowed entry, thus the scene is preserved while a warrant is obtained?

In the same fashion - can a cell phone disappear? Can the chain of evidence be properly maintained if the phone is not secured? Can the owner of the phone alter or delete the video/images on the phone, if the phone is not secured? Can the owner simply leave, and take the phone, thus depriving the police of that evidence?


Exigent circumstances include preservation of evidence. Try reading about that particular exclusion to the 4th Amendment.

teleblaster
06-12-2011, 12:24
Can a house be secured, no one allowed entry, thus the scene is preserved while a warrant is obtained?

In the same fashion - can a cell phone disappear? Can the chain of evidence be properly maintained if the phone is not secured? Can the owner of the phone alter or delete the video/images on the phone, if the phone is not secured? Can the owner simply leave, and take the phone, thus depriving the police of that evidence?


Exigent circumstances include preservation of evidence. Try reading about that particular exclusion to the 4th Amendment.

My first post asked whether this scenario was always exigent circumstances or not, indicating at some at least dim awareness of the concept. If you think it is, fine. Maybe you are right. Let's say I get home and call you and say I have the arrest on my cell phone, but I don't want to surrender my cell phone right now. I'll only bring it in if you subpoena it. In your view, you now have exigent circumstances to enter my house without my consent and either seize my phone, or secure me while you seek a warrant. Right? Again, you may be right; I'm just asking a Constitutional Law question.

DaBigBR
06-12-2011, 12:35
Isn't there a Supreme Court case that says there is no murder scene exception to the 4th amendment? If the murder occurs in someone's house other than that of the deceased, the police need a warrant or consent to search the house, right?

Yes, but we get to secure the scene. Hard to say there are exigent circumstances when the victim is alread dead.

Dukeboy01
06-12-2011, 12:46
I made the scenario with some consequences to make it hard. In any event, if the officer acts lawfully, he or she is covered in the civil rights lawsuit. Maybe not in the citizen complaint since strict legality or not is not the whole question; maybe I should not have made that one of the forums of inquiry. I'm just trying to put it terms of law, divorced from what you would want the law to be in a given set of facts. I made the facts tough, and you did the same the other way. The law is the same in either case. (Or is it? Maybe the seriousness of the situation gets weighed in. Or maybe that just mitigates the sanction if the officer stepped outside the lawful bounds.)


I did about fifteen minutes of Google and wikipedia searches, which I assume you have done, and came up dry for specific caselaw or rulings dealing directly with seizures only.

In my experience, the courts focus more on the search aspect of search and seizure than on the seizure aspect when it comes to excluding evidence. They (the courts) want a warrant before you search property but they are far less strict about your seizing property to protect it's evidentiary value without a warrant.

Isn't there a Supreme Court case that says there is no murder scene exception to the 4th amendment? If the murder occurs in someone's house other than that of the deceased, the police need a warrant or consent to search the house, right?


Again, the focus is on the search. No, the police cannot claim exigency and begin to search the property for evidence without a warrant or consent. But they can seize the property, remove people from it, restrict additional people from entering it, and generally lock it off while a warrant is sought.

In my experience seizing a cellphone would fall under the same principle. The phone is believed to contain video evidence of a crime or potential crime. I would seize it and seek a warrant. If the owner refused to give it to me, he would be detained, possibly charged with Tampering or Hindering Apprehension, and the phone still seized. Again, in my experience, the courts will uphold those actions to protect the evidence.

Dukeboy01
06-12-2011, 12:52
My first post asked whether this scenario was always exigent circumstances or not, indicating at some at least dim awareness of the concept. If you think it is, fine. Maybe you are right. Let's say I get home and call you and say I have the arrest on my cell phone, but I don't want to surrender my cell phone right now. I'll only bring it in if you subpoena it. In your view, you now have exigent circumstances to enter my house without my consent and either seize my phone, or secure me while you seek a warrant. Right? Again, you may be right; I'm just asking a Constitutional Law question.

If the scenario has gotten to the point where you have made it home, I would find it hard to argue exigency as a significant time would have already passed. At that point, I would seek a warrant for your house and the phone. If we got there, seized it, and you were found to have deleted it, you'd be charged with tampering.

redneck1861
06-12-2011, 14:26
I don’t want to beat this to death, and I’m not really asking for your answer; just putting this question out there as food for thought. Practicalities aside, push come to shove, what is the law? Can an officer always seize a cell phone from a bystander witness who has videoed a crime or an arrest, or detain that person while a warrant is obtained? I figure the practicalities might incline the officer to not do it always, even if he/she had the right: “Officer, my wife is about to have a baby and my cell phone is the only way she has to get a hold of me. I would happy to bring my cell phone to the PD tomorrow or whenever and I promise I will not erase the video. Here’s my name and address.”

But at the sergeant’s exam, or when responding to the citizen complaint, or to the civil rights lawsuit after the guy described above’s wife lost the baby in childbirth and he wasn’t there, because you had seized the phone, or he was standing there for two hours while you got the search warrant and would not let him answer his phone, what’s the law?

I think, but am not really sure, that the law is that absent some articulable grounds to think the evidence might be lost or destroyed, you can't seize the phone or him. I'm not dug in on that; but that's the way I lean.


If a LEO has PC that the cell phone has video evidence and the owner refuses to turn it over to the officer, the officer CAN detain you while they have a judge sign off, then the officer will take it from you. If at that point you resist the officer that is trying to obtain the evidence, you will be arrested as well.

teleblaster
06-12-2011, 15:03
There is probably some reported civil case out there where an LEO seized a news guy's camera and got taken to court about it. Maybe I'll poke around a little tomorrow and see what I find.

But since so much evidence is destructible it can't be that anytime the police have probable cause to believe evidence is at a particular place they can enter without a warrant to secure the place while a warrant is sought. Think of a business crime. A bank in Houston has records related to the Enron investigation. You can't barge in and secure the computers while a warrant is sought.....unless there is reasonable belief the evidence is going to be deleted. Just because the evidence is destructible doesnt always mean dispense with the warrant requirement. Heck, most evidence is destructible.

DaBigBR
06-12-2011, 15:11
I did about fifteen minutes of Google and wikipedia searches, which I assume you have done, and came up dry for specific caselaw or rulings dealing directly with seizures only.

In my experience, the courts focus more on the search aspect of search and seizure than on the seizure aspect when it comes to excluding evidence. They (the courts) want a warrant before you search property but they are far less strict about your seizing property to protect it's evidentiary value without a warrant.



Again, the focus is on the search. No, the police cannot claim exigency and begin to search the property for evidence without a warrant or consent. But they can seize the property, remove people from it, restrict additional people from entering it, and generally lock it off while a warrant is sought.

In my experience seizing a cellphone would fall under the same principle. The phone is believed to contain video evidence of a crime or potential crime. I would seize it and seek a warrant. If the owner refused to give it to me, he would be detained, possibly charged with Tampering or Hindering Apprehension, and the phone still seized. Again, in my experience, the courts will uphold those actions to protect the evidence.

This is pretty much it. The fourth amendment protects people, not places or property.

awoodpd13
06-12-2011, 15:13
teleblaster, if you are a cop (this is the Cop Talk forum), please seek documented, accredited training for your state/jurisdiction addressing your concerns in this area. After completing the training, I encourage you to approach the prosecutor (or at least the prosecutor who handles the majority of the cases in which you are involved) and inquire whether the training presented information in compliance with what (s)he is aware of on this point. Then, as I always told my officers, document what you do and why you did it on the job.

If you are not a cop, please seek counsel from an attorney licensed to practice law in your state and seek advice on how to govern yourself in whatever situation(s) you expect or fear to find yourself in.

Please let us know how whichever is applicable works out...

glockurai
06-12-2011, 15:13
The video evidence may be destroyed/ lost and therefore its immediate seizure is reasonable. IMO

redneck1861
06-12-2011, 15:42
There is probably some reported civil case out there where an LEO seized a news guy's camera and got taken to court about it. Maybe I'll poke around a little tomorrow and see what I find.

But since so much evidence is destructible it can't be that anytime the police have probable cause to believe evidence is at a particular place they can enter without a warrant to secure the place while a warrant is sought. Think of a business crime. A bank in Houston has records related to the Enron investigation. You can't barge in and secure the computers while a warrant is sought.....unless there is reasonable belief the evidence is going to be deleted. Just because the evidence is destructible doesnt always mean dispense with the warrant requirement. Heck, most evidence is destructible.


I was talking about this case, involving the cell phone. And yes if the officer has PC, he can and will detain you in order to get a subpoena.

Now entering a structure without a warrant because the LEO's involved have PC I am not certain on that, but I am sure someone here can give a more defined answer.

glockurai
06-12-2011, 16:22
I was talking about this case, involving the cell phone. And yes if the officer has PC, he can and will detain you in order to get a subpoena.

Now entering a structure without a warrant because the LEO's involved have PC I am not certain on that, but I am sure someone here can give a more defined answer.

If evidence is being destroyed, such as dope being flushed down the toilet, or if evidence is in plain sight it shouldn't be an issue.

4949shooter
06-12-2011, 17:18
It's kinda like if someone steals a gun from your house, walks down the street, and commits a murder with it. The police show up and seize the weapon as evidence. You show up and say you want your gun back. You would have to wait until the end of the trial in order to have your gun returned.

It would be the same concept.

teleblaster
06-12-2011, 17:29
Guys, I don't have bee in my bonnet about this issue or anything. I'm just saying it is not so obvious to me that it really is exigent circumstances, every time. Maybe a plain view analysis would be better. And while I don't claim this is the true answer, it at least supports the notion that there may be issues:

http://www.pixiq.com/article/do-police-have-the-right-to-confiscate-your-camera?page=1

I'll see what I can find tomorrow in way of more compelling authority.

PS: None of this affects the criminal case as a matter of US Constitutional law (although maybe some states have laws that would require it be excluded). The defendant can't complain about somebody else's rights being violated. That's why, I think, there are not going to be many cases on it.

lawman800
06-12-2011, 22:49
This is pretty much it. The fourth amendment protects people, not places or property.

Well... technically yes, but the 5th protects the people from having property deprived from them without due process. The 4th protects persons and their effects from illegal search and seizure, so it also protects property, in the context as it relates to it belonging to someone.

merlynusn
06-13-2011, 07:37
There is probably some reported civil case out there where an LEO seized a news guy's camera and got taken to court about it. Maybe I'll poke around a little tomorrow and see what I find.

But since so much evidence is destructible it can't be that anytime the police have probable cause to believe evidence is at a particular place they can enter without a warrant to secure the place while a warrant is sought. Think of a business crime. A bank in Houston has records related to the Enron investigation. You can't barge in and secure the computers while a warrant is sought.....unless there is reasonable belief the evidence is going to be deleted. Just because the evidence is destructible doesnt always mean dispense with the warrant requirement. Heck, most evidence is destructible.

I think the difference is time and place. If they are conducting a fraud investigation, a warrant would be obtained in order to ensure everything is good since they have to go into the business. If the officers go into the business and see them deleting files and shredding mass amounts of paper, yes, they now have exigency and can halt everything, secure the scene and wait for the warrant.

The difference with the cell phone is the ease with which it can be edited, deleted, altered, etc. The person has it with them and can even do it while they are talking to you. So yes, you are able to seize it and hold it until you get a warrant. Now you can't just search it on scene if the person you are seizing it from is just a witness to the event.

It's similar to if you have a vehicular homicide and you see evidence of that on a vehicle. Now that vehicle can be seized. If it's in a public place, you have the vehicle in a public place exemption and can seize the evidence without a warrant. If it's on private property, you need a warrant to obtain it. Now take that same vehicle on private property but it's starting to rain. Now you have exigency because the weather can destroy the evidence. Now you can seize the evidence without a warrant due to the circumstances.

teleblaster
06-13-2011, 09:56
I could not find any actual case law. I found a follow up post to the one I posted above on pixiq.com. These incidents are becoming more and more common, so the case law will develop over time, but slowly, since there are seldom enough damages to make a lawsuit worthwhile, unless maybe it is a news organization or some hard head who really wants to press it. It will not affect the underlying criminal case; it just the issue of the civil rights of the photographer so it won’t get litigated in the criminal case (unless there is dope in the camera or something).

http://www.pixiq.com/article/miami-beach-police-seize-cameras-as-evidence-routinely (http://www.pixiq.com/article/miami-beach-police-seize-cameras-as-evidence-routinely)

This has a link to a letter from Mickey H. Osterreicher, attorney for the National Press Photographers Association, who takes the position such seizures are unlawful. However, Michael Pancier, another attorney quoted in the article, takes the contrary position. Neither cites to any case law; they are both simply giving their views using general principles of law.

The author concludes:
“I have not come across any laws or statute that give concrete details about what police can and can’t do in these situations.
Like many legal matters, it is up to debate.”

Here is a article about the Atlanta PD setting for $40,000 for seizing a camera. No details, and you really can’t read too much into a settlement.
http://readyaimfire.posterous.com/atlanta-police-pay-out-40k-for-seizing-citize (http://readyaimfire.posterous.com/atlanta-police-pay-out-40k-for-seizing-citize)

VPD4327
06-13-2011, 10:48
I saw this on Fox News. I was hoping that some of the LEO's will take a look at it and give me their opinion on it. (Other than for the obvious book plug that comes towards the middle)

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/987443936001/who-polices-the-police/?playlist_id=89637


A couple of questions come to mind,

1. What's going on in New Jersey that's so bad that the DOJ is having to get involved? (News coverage is rather spotty out here.)

2. Why do some police officers have such a hard time with being filmed (i.e. Miami and other places)? Why should an officer feel the need to smash camera equipment and steal cell phones at gunpoint? (Again, the Miami Beech shooting incident)

Caveats: THIS IS NOT A COP BASH. I do not want this to become a cop bash. I have had very professional dealings with police officers and I've run into thugs with badges (including one of my co-workers when I was in law enforcement). I am happy to say that the latter was a very small percentage of my dealings with police.

A couple of answers come to mind,

1. Give the DOJ a break, they're just trying to justify their useless existence. Oh, and spotty or not, the media is full of ****. (If you were LE, then you would know this)

2. I'm sure you would be annoyed if I showed up at your FOB or wherever you are and started thrusting a camera at you. (Not that it's the same in CONUS LE, but if you are deployed, and someone is filming you, it generally means something's about to blow up. Henceforth, you're feelings should be magnified on the side of not being filmed if anything.)

Caveat: THIS IS NOT A STUPID QUESTION BASH....but if you were indeed in LE, you probably would not have even posed those questions.
:faint:

slama683
06-13-2011, 19:15
Who Polices the Police?


.....RussP, that's who

Streetking
06-14-2011, 02:13
A couple of answers come to mind,

1. Give the DOJ a break, they're just trying to justify their useless existence. Oh, and spotty or not, the media is full of ****. (If you were LE, then you would know this)

2. I'm sure you would be annoyed if I showed up at your FOB or wherever you are and started thrusting a camera at you. (Not that it's the same in CONUS LE, but if you are deployed, and someone is filming you, it generally means something's about to blow up. Henceforth, you're feelings should be magnified on the side of not being filmed if anything.)

Caveat: THIS IS NOT A STUPID QUESTION BASH....but if you were indeed in LE, you probably would not have even posed those questions.
:faint:
Spare us the drama.

Dukeboy01
06-14-2011, 06:35
Who Polices the Police?


.....RussP, that's who

Dang straight. With an iron fist covered by a velvet glove. :supergrin:

Panzergrenadier1979
06-14-2011, 18:15
Spare us the drama.

Well look who finally showed up.....

NOW it's a party!

lawman800
06-14-2011, 19:42
Dang straight. With an iron fist covered by a velvet glove. :supergrin:

But it's such a nice soft sensual glove....

Vigilant
06-14-2011, 20:16
But it's such a nice soft sensual glove....

Yes, a velvet/Spandex blend, no doubt. :rofl:

Brucev
06-14-2011, 21:31
The bike officer was pointing his gun because the people with the phone failed to comply with a lawfull order multiple times. The suspect had been shooting at people, attempted to run over multiple officers. They dont know the intentions of the guy with the phone, he could have been with the suspect. The officers didnt really care about being filmed, they just didnt want a person standing right behind them pointing an object at them.

If the bike officer can't control himself enough to distinguish between a cell phone and a "weapon," then he needs to sit down on the curb and wait for a ambulance to take him in for evaluation. If he doesn't like someone having a cell phone in his presence, then he will just have to learn to look the other way. Like it or not, people are not going to politely let police officers decide when they can and can not use their phones to place calls or take pictures or video or whatever. The days of police officers being able to decide what information will and will not be available are long gone. Good riddance. When police officers conduct themselves appropriately, they have no need to be afraid of anyone recording their actions. Only those who are criminals need fear having their crimes recorded.

redneck1861
06-14-2011, 21:51
If the bike officer can't control himself enough to distinguish between a cell phone and a "weapon," then he needs to sit down on the curb and wait for a ambulance to take him in for evaluation. If he doesn't like someone having a cell phone in his presence, then he will just have to learn to look the other way. Like it or not, people are not going to politely let police officers decide when they can and can not use their phones to place calls or take pictures or video or whatever. The days of police officers being able to decide what information will and will not be available are long gone. Good riddance. When police officers conduct themselves appropriately, they have no need to be afraid of anyone recording their actions. Only those who are criminals need fear having their crimes recorded.

It is obvious that you have no experience, and dont know what you are talking about.

My statement had very little to do with the cell phone, officers told them multiple times to get down the road and away from an active crime scene. They didnt do what they were told multiple times. when an officer tells you to get away from the crime scene, so they can secure it. It means you need to go.

They cant verify that the threat is over until they go and look, if the guy still wanted a fight, the BG could have hit them.

glockurai
06-14-2011, 22:42
If the bike officer can't control himself enough to distinguish between a cell phone and a "weapon," then he needs to sit down on the curb and wait for a ambulance to take him in for evaluation. If he doesn't like someone having a cell phone in his presence, then he will just have to learn to look the other way. Like it or not, people are not going to politely let police officers decide when they can and can not use their phones to place calls or take pictures or video or whatever. The days of police officers being able to decide what information will and will not be available are long gone. Good riddance. When police officers conduct themselves appropriately, they have no need to be afraid of anyone recording their actions. Only those who are criminals need fear having their crimes recorded.

Sometimes it happens. I suppose these officers need to be evaluated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruQmcQgolM0

lawman800
06-14-2011, 23:35
Nah, BruceV would have made the right call in that split second every single time without making any errors, ever. That's why he has the right to judge the rest of us non-perfect people.

Panzergrenadier1979
06-15-2011, 06:26
Nah, BruceV would have made the right call in that split second every single time without making any errors, ever. That's why he has the right to judge the rest of us non-perfect people.

It's PROFESSOR Brucev and we should be honored that he would bestow his law enforcement wisdom upon us mere mortals. :supergrin:

RussP
06-15-2011, 06:39
The bike officer was pointing his gun because the people with the phone failed to comply with a lawfull order multiple times. The suspect had been shooting at people, attempted to run over multiple officers. They dont know the intentions of the guy with the phone, he could have been with the suspect. The officers didnt really care about being filmed, they just didnt want a person standing right behind them pointing an object at them.If the bike officer can't control himself enough to distinguish between a cell phone and a "weapon," then he needs to sit down on the curb and wait for a ambulance to take him in for evaluation. If he doesn't like someone having a cell phone in his presence, then he will just have to learn to look the other way. Like it or not, people are not going to politely let police officers decide when they can and can not use their phones to place calls or take pictures or video or whatever. The days of police officers being able to decide what information will and will not be available are long gone. Good riddance. When police officers conduct themselves appropriately, they have no need to be afraid of anyone recording their actions. Only those who are criminals need fear having their crimes recorded.It is obvious that you have no experience, and dont know what you are talking about.

My statement had very little to do with the cell phone, officers told them multiple times to get down the road and away from an active crime scene. They didnt do what they were told multiple times. when an officer tells you to get away from the crime scene, so they can secure it. It means you need to go.

They cant verify that the threat is over until they go and look, if the guy still wanted a fight, the BG could have hit them.Brucev, do you see that your comment has nothing to do with what redneck1861 posted?

merlynusn
06-15-2011, 07:50
Only those who are criminals need fear having their crimes recorded.

Actually I'm going to disagree with you there.

I don't actually have a problem with people filming me as I am not doing anything wrong. However, uses of force never look good on film. Especially when they are edited. Somehow the only ones the media ever gets are the ones that are edited and don't show the whole thing.

Thats a big reason why many times when people complain on an officer nothing happens. It's because when ALL the facts come out, they find the officer did not do anything wrong. If people say "hold on, I want to record this" then that is their prerogative and I wait if the circumstances dictate that I can. If it's a dynamic scene, then no, I don't wait as I have to take care of business to ensure my safety and the safety of those around me.

But to say it simply, if people were to show the WHOLE UNEDITED version of their recording, then no, I don't have a problem with it. When people show an EDITED version of it specifically to make the cop look bad, then I have a huge problem with it.

BamaTrooper
06-15-2011, 08:01
If the bike officer can't control himself enough to distinguish between a cell phone and a "weapon," then he needs to sit down on the curb and wait for a ambulance to take him in for evaluation. If he doesn't like someone having a cell phone in his presence, then he will just have to learn to look the other way. Like it or not, people are not going to politely let police officers decide when they can and can not use their phones to place calls or take pictures or video or whatever. The days of police officers being able to decide what information will and will not be available are long gone. Good riddance. When police officers conduct themselves appropriately, they have no need to be afraid of anyone recording their actions. Only those who are criminals need fear having their crimes recorded.

Last month, I took a "cell phone" off a parolee... a stun gun designed to look like a cell phone:whistling: http://www.safetyproductsunlimited.com/cell_phone_stun_gun.html

or there is this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd1SRtkhh-U

and another thing...during a fluid event, one as dangerous as a shooting scene, the police can decide who stays where.

WilyCoyote
06-15-2011, 10:22
Ah, the camera...People think that this is the rock solid proof of everything, but in fact, it is certainly not, and I will tell you why. It is because the film, whatever poritons of it are presented, are subject to the interpretation of the watcher, at the behest of the presenter. The media has been using this simple tactic for decades and it is often referred to as 'spin.' If I have a piece of video showing something, I can choose how to present it. I can start it whenever I like, stop it whenever I like, cut it however I want and title it however I want, and if I know what I'm doing, mess with the audio and image too. And if I like to feed on controversy, I can be very dangerous. Therein lies why I think most police officers do not like being filmed...because of how anything can be spinned. Several examples exist from the skaters that tune up the cops until they come uncorked and THEN start the film, to the people that film a person resisting a lawful arrest and shout "He didn't even do anything!" (or whatever else) over and over in the background. I personally feel uncomfortable being filmed on duty, not because I'm worried about getting caught doing anything wrong (because I'm a good apple), but simply because I'm worried about how the material will be presented, possibly to the detriment to my career, because someone wants to make local news or get ten thousand hits on youtube.

BULLRUNN
06-15-2011, 16:44
Who Polices the POLICE... the RAT SQUAD in the IVORY tower...

lawman800
06-16-2011, 00:15
Who Polices the POLICE... the RAT SQUAD in the IVORY tower...

My question is who polices the rat squad. I've seen things which would get regular cops a thorough colonoscopy by IAD but ignored when it happens in the IAD.