Pixiq

When does a threat to arrest cross the line from warning to coercion?

And the beat goes on and on and on and on.......

I have a friend that says this kind of stuff doesn't happen in Israel. He refers to the US as barbaric.

Baltimore is not in Montgomery County.

Florida : 856.021 Loitering or prowling; penalty.—
(1) It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
(2) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.
(3) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

to arrest you for loitering, first they have to ask you for ID or name and BD and then they have to ask you why you are there (to record). this is proof that they can't arrest you for loitering. Plus it's a second degree misdemeanor which means 120 dollars bail. Go ahead,make my day, arrest me for loitering. Can you, officer, count to 1983?

What are these guys so afraid of? I really makes me wonder what they are trying to hide.

(b) Prohibited loitering.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to loiter at, on, or in a public place or place open to the
public in such manner:
(i) to interfere with, impede, or hinder the free passage of pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
(ii) to interfere with, obstruct, harass, curse, or threaten or to do physical harm to another
member or members of the public; or
(iii) that by words, acts, or other conduct, it is clear that there is a reasonable likelihood a
breach of the peace or disorderly conduct shall result.
POLICE ORDINANCES ART. 19, § 25-2
06/30/08 -57-
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to loiter at a public place or place open to the public and
to fail to obey the direction of a uniformed police officer or the direction of a properly
identified police officer not in uniform to move on, when not to obey such direction shall
endanger the public peace.
(c) Scope.
(1) No person shall be charged with a violation of this section unless and until the arresting
officer has first warned the person of the violation and the person has failed or refused to
stop the violation.
(2) Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit orderly picketing or other lawful assembly.

NONE of the local law was broken, they are making shit up. What is really really pathetic in my opinion is that the Baltimore sun cant simply print the actual law for all to see. They pretend like there is some gray area and hide there cunty cowardly heads in the sand.

Here is the key section, notice the last part.

Art. 19, § 25

(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to loiter at a public place or place open to the public and to fail to obey the direction of a uniformed police officer or the direction of a properly identified police officer not in uniform to move on, WHEN NOT TO OBEY SUCH DIRECTION SHALL ENDANGER THE PUBLIC PEACE.

I would simply ask them how by your presence videotaping is it that you endanger the public peace.

Hell memorize the code section and recite it to them. Then advise them that if they falsely charge you that by their actions they are willfully infringing on your civil rights, and as they have been properly informed that the loitering law in question does not apply, that it will strip them of their qualified immunity.

Do not rely on the police to have actual knowledge of the law, read it for yourself. It might even be useful to have a copy of the city code with you at all times.

This just might be the beginning of the act of photography or video taping being made synonymous with loitering. It would be wonderful to argument (define) the law with the distinction that the act of photography / video taping (the police in particular) shall not be construed to constitute loitering - since it has a lawful purpose (i.e., a value to the public at large).

Also, in terms of watching the video clip, the person under arrest was so dangerous as to require the attention of 6 police officers. However - armed with a mere camera, 4 of them (abandoned the criminal) to come to the aid of the public, to protect it from a loan camera. Who said that photography is not a crime.

Hold any rash judgements. Johnny Law will tell us all the proper response here. Obviously there is something we, as mere citizens, and not All-powerful Police, are missing,since, as we all know, they can do little wrong.

This loitering thing is a revival of the vagrancy and loitering laws of the 50's and 60's that communities used to keep the coloreds in their place and the whites safe from the same. The higher courts through the years have made most vagrancy laws unconstitutional and have put severe restrictions on the definitions of loitering. Obviously, loitering could be used to arrest just about anyone who protested, assembled or just stood on a street corner with a sign. Not going to work, johnny laws.

"After the U.S. Civil War, the South passed Black Codes, laws that tried to control freed black slaves. Vagrancy laws were included in these codes. Homeless unemployed black Americans were arrested and fined as vagrants. Usually, the person could not afford the fine, and so was sent to county labor or hired out to a private employer." Maybe they'll just send us all to the work farms. Carlos, let me know which work farm they are sending you to, so I can ask for the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXXnuy55AN8

if you are stopped by the police - especially in a car, don't roll up the window....

http://wusa9.com/news/article/189808/158/Patricia-A-Cook-Dies-In-Culpepe...

"What are these guys so afraid of? I really makes me wonder what they are trying to hide."

Thuggery, contempt for citizens, and abuse of power, perhaps?

Baltimore police: Public can record officers but you can't sue them.

City police released a department policy Friday that tells officers that members of the public have the right to record them carrying out their duties, just days before a hearing on a lawsuit over the issue.

The general order was made public three days before a judge was set to hear arguments on a motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit that alleges a Baltimore officer violated Christopher Sharp's constitutional rights by deleting his video of a confrontation between police and his friend at the 2010 Preakness Stakes.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, which brought the suit, had been seeking a copy of the general order for some time and was surprised to receive a copy on Friday, according to its legal director Deborah Jeon. It was unfortunate that attorneys would have so little time to review the document before Monday's hearing, she said.

The department waited until the process of informing and training officers was complete before releasing the November order on Friday, said police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi.

Sharp and two friends watched the Preakness Stakes last year from the grandstands and later went into the clubhouse, where Sharp noticed one of those friends being "forcibly arrested," which he recorded on his mobile phone, according to the lawsuit. Sharp said he was hesitant to turn over his phone when officers and a sergeant told him they needed it as evidence, and when he did, the sergeant wiped out all data on his phone, including all videos and photos.

The police department's motion argues that the lawsuit should be dismissed because relief can't be granted for any of its claims and adds that the point is moot since the department now trains officers that people can record them performing duties in public.

The U.S. Department of Justice has asked the judge to side with Sharp and find that citizens have a right to record police and that officers violate citizens' rights when recordings are seized without due process. It is the first time the department has weighed in on such a case, according to a department spokeswoman. Two representatives of the department's civil rights division are expected to appear in court on Monday.

The lawsuit accuses the officers of violating Sharp's free-speech rights and his freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. It also claims false imprisonment and invasion of privacy by the officers. The suit also argues that this was just one example of a department practice of misapplying the Maryland Wiretap Act to keep people from recording official conduct.

The suit, which names the city's police department, its commissioner and three unnamed officers, was originally filed in Baltimore Circuit Court in August, but was moved to federal court in October.

http://www.necn.com/02/10/12/Baltimore-police-Public-can-record-offic/la...

Reason.com mentioned loitering laws a few days ago, noting that they were declared unconstitutional by federal courts... doesn't say SCOTUS, however...

Not sure if this is relevant...

"The legal battles over loitering bans in New York go back three decades:

The settlement came after a federal judge held the city in contempt in 2010 for "obstinance and uncooperativeness," as the police continued for years to make arrests under laws that had been declared unconstitutional. The laws had banned loitering to panhandle or to search for a sex partner, or while in a bus or train station.

Federal and state courts struck down those laws between 1983 and 1993 as violating First Amendment rights, but some 22,000 people were charged with the offenses from 1983 to 2012...."

http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/08/another-example-of-how-new-york-cops-mak

I have absolutely zero respect for cops anymore.