Pixiq

Might want to write down that lawyer’s number in your wallet instead… if the cops take your phone, you’ve got a bit of a chicken/egg problem.

Good point, but I don’t have a camera on my cell phone, so it won’t be what they confiscate.

Just ask them for 5 minutes to back up your numbers and then upload it to YouTube!

“One exception is when a camera is actually being used in the commission of crime”
In the BART case I think they might have had a reason for taking the cameras, those kids where recording a snuff film…

I think a good internet movement would be to pressure legislatures to make it a criminal offense for police to interfere with the legal video taping of arrests. Legal being from a safe distance.

Perhaps if there were actual consequences for them, we might reduce this problem.

Wow, I’d like to see some stupid cop try to take my camera away from me!

RT
http://www.privacy-web.us.tc

It’s good to know that alot of young people have enough street smarts to not hand their cellphones over to the police. I think they did the right thing by posting their BART videos on youtube. In America it’s sad, but that’s the only way to be sure that the truth gets out. The police would have destroyed the most damning evidence against Mehserle.

My only fear is that a jury won’t have the good sense to realize that if someone is fleeing from the police to protect evidence of wrongdoing that it doesn’t matter what the law says, the person is doing what’s right and good for their community.

if they decide to just swipe your camera, why would they not also take your celly for no reason at all?

“One exception is when a camera is actually being used in the commission of crime”
In the BART case I think they might have had a reason for taking the cameras, those kids where recording a snuff film…

…very funny post

I’ve prosecuted several dozen cases where the police seized cellphone cameras at crime scenes from witnesses. I know of no caselaw supporting a witness who refused to surrender a camera. I know of several cases where witnesses were successfully prosecuted for refusing to cooperate with police and surrender cellphones at the scene. If a police officer has reasonable belief the camera contains evidence, he/she may lawfully seize it. That’s the law and precedent. Anyone who thinks they have some right to refuse a police officer and withhold evidence is seriously misinformed.

ADA,

Actually, I can think of one. A couple of years ago on Miami Beach, a group of right-wing Christian preachers were preaching when police intervened.

Police arrested the main preacher because they believed he made derogatory remarks towards homosexuals.

His wife filmed the entire incident. When police told her to hand over the camera, she refused and was arrested.

While he was charged with a misdemeanor, she was charged with a felony.

They threw her charge out a few days later.

Give me a few days and I’ll find the video and do a write-up on it.

ADA

I’d be interested in the case numbers of those prosecutions.

I think when most photographers discuss surrendering their camera or camera card it is in non-criminal situations such as photographing a bridge, building or structure.
To withhold evidence, there must first be a crime…

I am suggesting self defense.

Which could involve shooting cops, and, unless you have a huge, well financed militia behind you, would be a losing battle.

And for the record, passive resistance would not have given us a free country from another bully we reported to 200 years ago.

I’m well aware of what happened 200+ years ago. I’m also well aware that it was fought over less egregious acts against the citizenry than we have today. Unfortunately it probably would have been lost without the support of the French.

How would something like that be organized now? Who’s going to pay for it? What kind of command structure? Who do we go after? Our brother, sister, friend, neighbor? And when it is all said and done, what’s to insure we don’t end up with worse than we have now?

Sorry, I’m for the peaceful resistance approach for the time being. Gandhi, and MLK were right on. We have much better tools now to fight with that don’t involve violence. We can use them to expose the corrupt system for what it is, a gang of violent thugs.

Say cheese everyone

http://www.freetalklive.com
http://freestateproject.org

Dear ADA,

I’ve prosecuted several dozen cases where the police seized cellphone cameras at crime scenes from witnesses. I know of no caselaw supporting a witness who refused to surrender a camera.

How about the Four and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the US. You can’t just go and search and seize a criminals property but you can seize a witnesses? To imply that witnesses to a crime have less protections then the perpetrator is just nonsense. Where did you go to law school anyway and were did you finish in your class? Are you sure you passed the bar exam? I hope your supervisor reads what you posted here and knows it was you when doing your next review.

I know of several cases where witnesses were successfully prosecuted for refusing to cooperate with police and surrender cellphones at the scene. If a police officer has reasonable belief the camera contains evidence, he/she may lawfully seize it. That’s the law and precedent. Anyone who thinks they have some right to refuse a police officer and withhold evidence is seriously misinformed.

Please cite the cases and the appeals. Police can’t seize any personal property unless they have a warrant or they arrest you, that’s the law and the precedent. They also have to return most of that property to you in a short period of time unless it’s evidence of the crime and then it has to be returned after the trial unless there is forfeiture of the property as part of the trail.

If police officer has reasonable belief the camera contains evidence, he/she may not lawfully seize it but he/she may lawfully get a warrant to search it and possibly hold it as evidence for a short period of time.

Now I want to be completely clear here if you are the witness of a crime of any kind and take photos of it. I’m not saying that police don’t have an interest in obtaining a COPY of your photos/video or that you can refuse to provide them a copy at some point. Please don’t read anything I have said to imply that you don’t at some point have to provide a copy of the photos/video to the police or prosecutor if they ask for it. You do have to provide a copy. If the police know you have photos/video of the crime and you don’t give them a copy they can charge you with impeding an investigation and you will lose.

What I am saying is that police don’t have the right to take your camera or cell phone from you and hold it as they see fit for some undetermined length of time. They don’t have a right to take your memory card from you and they don’t have a right to prevent you from enjoying your photos and using them as you see fit.

My advice to anyone that took photos of a crime would be to tell the cops you have photos of the crime at some point, either at the scene or later. You want to be cooperative and supply them with copies of the photos but at a time and place convenient for you. If they then try to seize your camera or memory card to nicely refuse. Officer Brad’s contention about chain of custody is just nonsense that cops will use to bully you. The cops didn’t see you take the photo so it doesn’t matter when they get the copy, they still need you to authenticate it in some way.

There was a case in California where a freelance news videographer took video of a murder. I don’t remember the names right now. He sold his tape to several TV news stations and it appeared on the news. The cops asked him for a copy and he refused citing shield laws. He was charged with a federal crime for withholding evidence. Since there is no federal shield law he was compelled to provide the tape and to testify.

It just so happens that in an article in yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle, they addressed this very issue.

Guess how it ended up?

“The chief said BART had asked KTVU for a copy of the video early in the investigation and that the station refused to provide one. BART then called Alameda County prosecutors, who went to court to get the video.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/29/MNOP15JI6F.DTL

So ADA, are you suggesting this is such a case?

If so… are you seriously out of your mind?

“Legal System Struggles With How to React When Police Officers Lie ”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123319367364627211.html

Enjoy the read.

I don’t know what the “chain of custody” argument in this thread is supposed to prove. Law enforcement uses evidence removed from the scene of the crime all the time. This is not controversial.

And those would be?

Not my decision. I however have resolved to protect my person and my family when threatened. Fortunately the law provides for that contingency and it’s in my state constitution as well.

So is there any legal recourse if your camera equipment is illegally confiscated?

I agree but in turn demand a receipt with serial numbers and an accurate inventory of what you are taking. What do you do?

Frank, absolutely you would receive a receipt with a description of the objects surrendered – that’s necessary for establishing & maintaining what’s known in the law as “chain of custody” – most police officers carry either in their vehicles or on their person evidence tags and bags – some departments including mine use the type with a perforated receipt tag that has a unique serial number so objects surrendered may be traced throughout the custody process, from surrender to trial to return/forfeiture

I haven’t been able to check in here over the past several days because of work requirements but in my absence I did speak with a number of fellow police officers about this hypothetical while waiting for arraignment proceedings at district court – a sort of WWYD situation – there was unanimous agreement among the officers with the following procedure for securing cellphone cameras with photographic evidence from a witness to homicide or felony:

1) detain any witnesses with cellphone footage for further questioning by detectives

2) ask these witnesses to surrender cellphone cameras before questioning; bag & tag accordingly

3) instruct witnesses who refuse to surrender cameras that phones must remain in pockets or purses & that witnesses may not touch or examine cellphones while waiting; inform witnesses they may have to wait for several hours for a warrant to be secured; place these witnesses under guard; inform witnesses that if they are observed touching cellphone cameras they will be arrested for failure to obey a police officer (plus other possible charges to be determined after consultation with prosecutors)

4) if not possible to place witnesses under guard due to manpower limitations or because of late hour a warrant cannot be obtained promptly, seize phones pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception (see below) – anyone resisting seizure is arrested for failure to obey a police officer

5) any person who is arrested because of 3 or 4 above can be lawfully searched once placed under arrest & all possessions on his person can be lawfully examined since an arrest lawfully voids any expectation of privacy; hence, a warrant is no longer necessary to seize & view cellphone footage – book & process anyone arrested & log all possessions, including cellphone

6) to cover all bases, apply for warrant to seize & examine all cellphone footage of witnesses not under arrest – it’s important here to note 2 things (a) a warrant can be obtained after seizure when the seizure was made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception plus (b) witnesses & defendants (or their attorneys) cannot appear before the magistrate/judge when the police officer applies for a warrant so there’s no chance to “plead your case”; witnesses would have to initiate their own legal challenge in a separate action after the seizure & that could take weeks if not months

I also ran this past a judge I happened to see in the mensroom at the courthouse (a “liberal” guy, btw) & he agreed with my procedure 100%

the exigent circumstances exception explained briefly: police officers may seize evidence where there is a danger that the evidence may be transported, damaged, compromised or destroyed – hence, police can lawfully seize without a warrant any “transportable” evidence, like cars, boats, RV’s, trailers, motorcycles, briefcases, suitcases, clothes, laptops, PDA’s, GPI’s, cellphones, cameras, etc. – when applying for a warrant after the fact the magistrate/judge will review the exigent circumstances (again remember only police officers are present during the warrant hearing)

I have personally seized vehicles, briefcases, laptops & clothes under the exigent circumstances exception & never had a problem with a warrant later or any successful warrant challenge in trial – I have taken custody of cellphones at suspected arson sites but the citizens involved voluntarily cooperated – I find 95-99% of the time witnesses are more than happy to cooperate with police

Duane, you’re giving a lot of advice here but you just clearly don’t understand the law – I’m sure you mean well but you’re giving some very bad advice that could get some people arrested

Police can’t seize any personal property unless they have a warrant or they arrest you

FLAT OUT WRONG – please see my explanation about exigent circumstances above – police seize evidence all the time without a warrant where circumstances necessitate it – such seizures are routinely upheld

I don’t support Officer Brad’s and LAPD Capt III’s statements that of course you have to follow what the police tell you to do at a crime scene. As if the people are sheep to be herded by the police.

this kind of thinking is what gets people into trouble – a crime scene is not a public meeting or a public forum or a public debate or a town hall gathering – ongoing police actions are not subject to public review or approval or reconsideration on the spot – the police control the crime scene, period, that’s the law – the public may observe, but that’s it – it’s not public entertainment, a public spectacle, public theater where you get to decide the program or change the plot – you can observe but you cannot lawfully interfere in any way

a crime scene is not interactive where the public is concerned

yes, you must listen to police officers at a crime scene, otherwise you risk arrest & you’ll be hard-pressed to find any judge who will give you a sympathetic ear – at a crime scene, the police call the shots, they run the show, that’s it – you don’t get to second-guess the police – a crime scene is not a democracy

if you have a problem with how the police conduct themselves at a crime scene, there are proper channels & avenues for dealing with that after the fact

here’s a real-life example of a similar situation in play all the time; I’ve arrested a lot of people for this & every cop I know has had similar arrests: I stop several vehicles simultaneously for moving violations, I tell each driver to wait while I write up the citations individually; occasionally, one driver will leave because he tells me I do not have the right to make him wait – he is arrested for failure to obey a police officer (a much more serious charge than the moving violation btw) – every last driver I know who has tried this has been convicted – every cop I know who has made this same charge got a conviction

why does this happen? because people have the mistaken belief they can ignore a police officer if they don’t like what he says – yes, there are rare circumstances where an officer’s order is later found to be unlawful, but they are very few & far between – maybe 1 in 10,000 – you’re going up against tremendous odds stacked against you if you think you can ignore a cop – I’ve been a police officer for more than 20 years & have never had a successful challenge to any order I’ve given; I only know 1 cop who has 1 time

again, there are lawful ways to object to a police officer’s conduct but that is after the fact – if you object by resisting you most likely will be arrested – that’s the way the system works

{why does this happen? because people have the mistaken belief they can ignore a police officer if they don’t like what he says – yes, there are rare circumstances where an officer’s order is later found to be unlawful, but they are very few & far between – maybe 1 in 10,000 – you’re going up against tremendous odds stacked against you if you think you can ignore a cop – I’ve been a police officer for more than 20 years & have never had a successful challenge to any order I’ve given; I only know 1 cop who has 1 time}

Officer brad ignored also my article from the Wall Street Journal which states that cops lie much more often than he is suggesting. 1 tin 10,000? Re-read the article please and cite sources to rebuff.

Thanks

We really need to thank Officer Brad for showing us how the system works. He showed us just how the Law Keepers become the LAW MAKERS. Instead of consulting his departments Operations and Procedure manual he chose instead to have a discussion over some donuts with his fellow LAW MAKERS about this. The Law Keeper’s ultimate tribunal of Law Making and of course they all came up with the answer they wanted and a way to trample the rights of those they are sworn to protect. Officer Brad thank you for this insight into how the system actually works and how laws are made. The only mistake Officer Brad made here is he chose to post his findings in a public forum where it might get some public comment. The police tend to not like public comment about their LAW MAKING activities.
Officer Brad knows just how to develop voluntary witnesses. This is exactly what the court system and the people actually want, voluntary witnesses. They don’t want people that have been arrested and forced to provide testimony.
Officer Brad and his Law Making buddies forget that witnesses aren’t suspected of any crime, which by Officers Bard’s information on how to handle them is exactly how they are being treated. The Police don’t have a reasonable suspicion that someone who is a witness of a crime actually committed a crime and thus is not subject to arrest.
The first question I have is what is the difference between detention and arrest? Once a person isn’t free to go they are arrested. If after I gave my name and contact information and an officer told me I wasn’t free to go I’d ask him if I was under arrest. If he said no and I had someplace to be I’d leave with my camera and cell phone. Officer Brad doesn’t know that I’ve been a witness to several crimes in my life. I’ve even been the one to call 911 and reported the crime. All I’ve ever been required to do at the scene is give my name and contact information and sometimes a brief statement at which time I was free to go. This is how it’s supposed to work.
So Officer Brad and the rest of his tribunal not only condone manufacturing a crime to arrest an innocent person they set about creating a pretext under which to do it. Then use that pretext to violate a person’s privacy by searching their private property and they to justify their actions under exigent circumstance. What Officer Brad fails to mention is that the property he has seized and where that seizure was later upheld the property was seized from the actual suspect of the crime. I could just see Officer Brad choosing the best looking female witness of the murder and seizing her clothing under exigent circumstances because he wanted to have a better look to be sure she wasn’t involved.
I have quoted from two authoritative sources regarding witnesses to crimes yet Officer Brad chooses to ignore what these sources say and instead depend on his ad hoc LAW MAKING tribunal. The Connecticut State Trooper Procedures and Operations Manual is very clear on how to treat witnesses.
Now I’m going to use a historical attempted murder to illustrate this exact case. When John Hinckley attempted to murder Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981. There were lots of cameras at the scene of that attempted murder. Yet the Secret Service didn’t seize a single one. All the footage aired that night on the nightly news and the stills appeared the next day in the paper. Now just what is it that the Secret Service knows that Officer Brad doesn’t?
In the BART shooting the reason the BART Officers were trying to take the cameras is because they were trying to protect their fellow LAW MAKER and prevent bad press.

I forgot to touch on Officer Brad’s contention about a multiple car moving violation stop.
In this case the driver is actually the suspect of a crime and is under arrest and thus detained until he gets his summons at which time he is free to go. So Officer Brad is correct, he gave the driver a lawful order to remain until he received the summons.
What does this have to do with a witness anyway?

{In the BART shooting the reason the BART Officers were trying to take the cameras is because they were trying to protect their fellow LAW MAKER and prevent bad press.}

This is exactly why people resist the Officers. It’s an illegal order and should not be obeyed. When the people are arrested, it doesn’t make it to court because they are released hours later at the jail with no charges. Why no charges? because a judge would slap the officers around for disobeying the law.

Duane, I’m not here to debate you – I’m not going to read everything people link here & get into a debate – I’m telling you how it is on the street from the perspective of a cop with 20+ years of experience – you’re reading things on the internet & you think that’s standard operating procedure; I’m telling you how the criminal justice system works from somebody who’s been inside the system for 20+ years

my department, for example, doesn’t even have an “Operations and Procedure manual” – there’s where internet reading & reality don’t match up – so you’re going off on a tear about me not reading something that doesn’t even exist for my department

I don’t debate on duty & I don’t know any other cop who does – if someone doesn’t follow my order, he’s warned & told he’ll be arrested – if he persists in not following my order, he’s arrested – that’s it, end of story – that’s how cops work; we’re police officers, not debate monitors

if you want to argue with me & not follow my orders, then you’ll be arrested & you’ll have to deal with it from there – the justice system will handle it – it’s no sweat off my teeth – I arrest people all the time, day in, day out – my job is about maintaining law & order – if people don’t follow my order, the legal system will resolve it – I don’t take it personally, I don’t lose my temper, I don’t shout or hit – I simply arrest & process through the system – I’ll even let you collect yourself if you’re crying before I shoot your booking photo (I’m one of the rare cops who does)

Once a person isn’t free to go they are arrested.

wrong – witnesses can be lawfully detained for a reasonable period & are not under arrest

I’ve been a witness to several crimes in my life

“several crimes” is not a lifetime of experience my friend – I see far more than “several crimes” most every hour when I’m on duty in the field

All I’ve ever been required to do at the scene is give my name and contact information and sometimes a brief statement at which time I was free to go.

many times that’s what I do but it’s always up to me, not the witness, depending on the severity of the crime & whether a detective is coming to the scene

not only condone manufacturing a crime to arrest an innocent person

Duane, when you make statements like this, your agenda is loud & clear – you make blanket assumptions & conclusions about me based on nothing – you wouldn’t know me if you fell over me – reality is not like “The Shield”

he has seized and where that seizure was later upheld the property was seized from the actual suspect of the crime

here’s a perfect example of you leaping to conclusions without any facts

every one of those examples I cited were seizures involving witnesses or third parties, not suspects – this just happened on Thursday where I seized a vehicle belonging to a third party under exigent circumstances; I obtained a warrant the next morning without a hitch

Duane, my friend, there may come a time where you’ll realize, sadly, that ignoring a police officer is not the smart thing to do – you remind me of the kid who will only learn that the stove is hot after he puts his hand on it, no matter how many times he’s warned beforehand

if I’m at a felony or homicide scene, my highest priority is bringing the perpetrator to justice – I’m not really sympathetic to uncooperative witnesses who don’t want to be inconvenienced – I’m thinking about the parent who has had a child murdered or the woman who has been raped or the elderly widow who has had her wedding ring stolen – they’re my priority, not the witnesses

One might also ask in the context of the BART shooting, why a police officer would decline to follow all (or any) of the steps Officer Brad laid out.

In this case the driver is actually the suspect of a crime and is under arrest

Duane, here is an example where you show your lack of understanding of the law & your sweeping statements get you into trouble

a moving violation is not a crime – it’s a summary offense

when you’re detained for a summary offense, you’re not under arrest

the whole point of my example, however, was how people commonly & mistakenly believe they can ignore a cop when they don’t agree with what the cop tells them

read the caselaw – courts overwhelmingly concur that when a person fails to obey a police officer, he commits an independent crime in that refusal separate from the initial matter that lead to the order – if the grounds for that order are later determined to be unwarranted, almost without exception that doesn’t excuse you from ignoring the order – you likely will be convicted of failing to obey a police officer

Even with a snuff film as the argument, they still have to go through the process of asking the courts for the camera.

{One might also ask in the context of the BART shooting, why a police officer would decline to follow all (or any) of the steps Officer Brad laid out.}

I suspect he is a fake and not an officer of the law. Just a guy who watches too much CSI

I don’t know officer brad does make some good points but his 20 years of experience and not being questioned on anything he has done is that because he is so righteous or just more blue wall cover ups?

This is no longer the 60′s and 70′s where only the “hippies” stood up to overzealous police and unconstitutional actions. More people in the mainstream are starting to see it.

Video is the great equalizer. Why is it that it is so hard for Officer Brad to see people are worried about not so much the property but the destruction of evidence. Why can’t he see we want this to come to the light of day make sure police who break the law are being charged with crimes. Unless the blue wall is just a myth. How about it Brad are the fears of the public that the police might destroy evidence when it is one of their own at risk completely unfounded?

Or are he and his force so upstanding they never committed or seen crimes committed in the name of upholding the law or is he just that blind?

{Or are he and his force so upstanding they never committed or seen crimes committed in the name of upholding the law or is he just that blind?}

Seems the WSJ article is pretty much the answer to this question. Look further up and find my link to the article. It’s pretty obvious. CSI Officer Brad is concerned with evidence to put bad cops away for breaking the law.

I already read it thanks Sentinel. It was a good read really nothing new to me though. I grew up in the south dealing with good ol boy sheriff deputies and be arrested and lied on more than once. It is amazing to see first hand the ease of speech and smugness of police lying in front of a judge.

Officer Brad belongs to some 3rd rate police agency. His agency doesn’t even have a procedures and operations manual. How bush league can you get. He hasn’t stated any qualifacations other then his 20 years experience in this un-certified agency to support his statements. Just because that’s how you’ve always done it around there doesn’t mean that’s the correct way it’s done.

So basically all he has to support any arguement he makes is what he believes to be correct and how he’s always done it.

Officer Brad is right about one thing. He’d come up with some pretext to arrest me.

That’s when the fun would start for me. I have the time, the money and the know-how to fight back. Has anyone ever had a police officer tell you he’s got all day. Well I have all year and the next year if need be. He might go home that night with the impression he won. It would be a short lived impression however.

Be sure to watch The Colbert Report tommorrow evening at 11:30PM on Comedy Centeral. I’m on there about the incident in Penn Station NY. It’ll be really funny trust me. The show repeats several times on Tuesday with the last showing at 8:30pm.

Unless the blue wall is just a myth. How about it Brad are the fears of the public that the police might destroy evidence when it is one of their own at risk completely unfounded?

Kilroy, the blue wall is almost entirely a myth perpetrated by fanciful Hollywood programs like “The Shield”

I spent the first 15 years of my police career on the force of a very large metro agency, since then I’ve been on a medium size force in a nearby city – so I’ve spent my entire career in a major metro area & know a great number of officers from both my own & nearby departments

I do not know one police officer who would risk his honor, his reputation, his career, his family’s security & his pension to protect a dirty cop – I’m not going to lose everything to protect someone who’s dirty & I don’t know another officer who would

yes, on very infrequent occasions cops disgrace their fellow officers & destroy evidence – there is a system in place to deal with them at even the smallest department

it’s not the job of citizens on the street to police the police – if you think a police officer has done something wrong, get his name or badge number & report him to the appropriate authority, an IE division or prosecutor – don’t take the law into your own hand because that puts you on the defensive – no citizen has the “right” to ignore a police officer because he thinks that officer might be protecting a corrupt cop – that’s insanity

I’ve spent a good part of my career in high crime areas where lawlessness is rampant – I’ve seen first-hand the effects of the “Stop Snitchin’” campaign where people are terrified to turn to the police because of lawless thugs who intimidate them – it creates a tragic spiral trapping countless numbers of innocent people

the police are there to help law-abiding citizens – when they ask your cooperation, you help them maintain law & order when you cooperate – they’re working to protect your city, your town, your community

because without the police, who are you going to turn to?

Wow.. what an about face from Officer Brad.

In the case of the BART Police Dept. I think there is ample evidence that there wasn’t a system in place till after this shooting to deal with bad cops. It’s also obvious from some of the conflicting statements that are public that there is some type of a cover-up underway. Even the judge is already aware there is testilying going on.

Of course it’s the job of the citizens to watch their police forces. To think otherwise is just fool hardy. Why do you think in New York City they have the Civilian Complaint Review Board. The purpose of that board it to provide civilian oversight of the police department. New York is not alone in having Civilians review the actions of the police department.

I’m glad you have spent time in high crime areas and saw the effects of “Stop Snitchin” campaigns. I think you took the wrong lesson away from that experience however. Did you ever ask yourself exactly why the citizens in those areas stopped cooperating with the police. It’s not because the lawless thugs that were over running the neighborhoods were seen as the police by the very citizens they were supposed to protect. That’s why the people stopped cooperating, they decided they couldn’t trust the police to protect them because the police were constantly harassing them. Think of how you told me you’d treat me if I refused to surrender my cell phone or camera when you demanded it, because after all whatever a policeman tells you to do is law. You’d find a reason to arrest me and then seize my camera or cell phone. Just how long do you think I’d be cooperative. Do you think I’d ever volunteer I had photos or videos again? Do you think I’d ever report a crime again if I knew you were going to take my property from me for some undetermined length of time. The cops brought those “Stop Snitchin” campaigns on themselves and actually caused the problems in those neighborhoods because they were so rough with the people and completely trampled their rights.

The lack of cooperation with police departments in those areas happened because of how the police departments treated the citizens. The citizens decided they’d rather trust the law breakers and gangs then the police departments. They thought they’d get more ‘protection’ from the thugs that weren’t wearing blue and didn’t have badges.

Remember I never said not to cooperate with the police. I never said don’t give them your name, I never said don’t offer to be a witness, I never said to not give them a copy of the photos. I said that the police didn’t have the right to seize your camera or cell phone no matter what photos might be on it. Cooperation is a two way street, cops need to learn this. Cooperation isn’t something you get by using an iron fist, handcuffs, guns and the power of arrest. Those are the tools the people have given to police officers to use on actual suspects, not witnesses.

Cooperation is something you get by respecting the people you’re supposed to respect. By respecting their rights to their property, by respecting their rights to free travel, by respecting their rights to be free from unwarranted detention. You don’t get it by detaining witnesses for hours while you figure out how to coerce them into cooperating. Those tactics end up with people hating the police department and not wanting to have anything to do with police officers.

Because without the public who is going to help the police do the proper job?

In Canada the Criminal Code gives powers to police and also has statutes protecting the police while engaged in the lawfull execution of their duty. am a member of the RCMP one of the worlds leading Police agencies , we do not have an operations and procedure manual, what we do have is a policy manual that is constantly evolving. this document is meant to guide an officer in their daily actions. no one has the right to interfere with or obstruct an investigation. Fail to disobey me while I am acting under my authority and you will be arrested and may be charged for obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duty.

I will not jump over the counter to telll or show someone haw to make the burger, or hop the stage to tell the singer how to sing . I will not tell teh pilot how to fly his plane I expect, no I demand teh same courtesy from the public.

Excuse the errors very tired worked all night and seeing double

Ok I am now convinced either Officer Brad works at Fantasy Land, works as Officer Friendly in Elementary schools or is not a cop.

I wish we had such honorable public servants, that you seem to work with, but they are few and far between in Memphis and the surrounding metro and Mississippi area.

If they don’t like you they will lie in court , plant evidence, assault you, harass you especially if you try and file a report. Your imagined blue wall is alive and well in the south.

As for the shield I never really watched it but maybe you should read a biography about a cop from New York named Frank Serpico or just watch the evening news.

As for your go to the IAD for help routine, you sound incredibly naive, like a child who still believes in Santa Claus.

>Even with a snuff film as the argument, they still have to go through the process of asking the courts for the camera.

Not if they believe you might “destroy” or otherwise tamper with the evidence.

DJ Motorcop

Fail to disobey me while I am acting under my authority and you will be arrested and may be charged for obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duty.

I promise I will disobey you then.

I want to write more but I have to go in 3 min, I’ll do more when I get back.

What I’m talking about is when an officer exceeds his authority. When an officer is acting outside the law. When they just assume because they have the guns, handcuffs and badges that they can do whatever they damn well want when they want and F___ anyone that gets in their way..

Once again Officer Brad is 100 percent correct. The procedure he explains is consistent with LAPD policy as well. If you’re foolish enough to disobey a police officer at a crime scene, you will be arrested and prosecuted. Your future employment may be jeopardized by an arrest and criminal record. If this happens, you will have no one to blame but yourself for breaking the law. If you insist on being a fool, be prepared for the consequences.

The modern day police version of a good public.

Yes massa I’s be a good citizens no needs for yall to beat on me sir I obey yes sir Do a dance sing a song what eva ya need.

However what LAPD said above is correct this is why passive resistance won’t work in this day and age. People don’t have the time or the money to stand up for their rights in a court of law because most can’t afford it.

They have the the dealer paid off and play with a stacked and marked deck.

How can the common man win?

“because without the police, who are you going to turn to?”

Oooh, that’s an easy one. Smith and Wesson.

Like I said I was exhausted when I wrote that. It is fail to “obey ” my lawful commands and yadda yadda yadda.

The definition of a good citizen is one who does not engage in criminal activity, one who reports criminal activity and finally one who does not hinder others going about their lawful activity. This would also include not hampering the police. I have been photographed more times then I have had hot suppers. In my red serge and on my motorcycle I have been in the press on the news in Canada if you are in public you are in the public domain and can be subject to be photographed. However do not photograph my crime scene as you may capture images and evidence that we use to exclude suspects who make false confessions. Your photo could cause distress to the loved ones of the victim and you could also reveal investigative techniques and methods employed to preserve and gather evidence. Do not enter or obstruct my crime scene. Do not impede my way or the ingress or egress of those authorized to be in my crime scene. At natural disasters and fires etc there will be a safety zone set up for the safety of all concerned. Please respect that zone. You can snap my photo while I am working with the exception of the above example. I have been photographed handcuffing suspects, escorting the Queen, the Prime Minister, the Rolling Stones and criminals in custody. Snap away with respect and you might even get a smile.

Officer Brad sounds like a very well trained member of law enforcement and has gone out of his way on this forum to cite case law as well as relevant examples.

In Canada any material witness can be detained to be interviewed (even held in protective custody in some cases) any images or recordings they posses can be seized for examination and use as evidence. If not surrendered voluntarily they will be seized on a warrant, but can taken for safe keeping until a warrant is obtained. If a warrant is denied then the objects are returned. I have even seized footage shot by the CBC and as well reporters recorded interviews of suspects these professionals held the requested items in safe keeping until we obtained a warrant so as to protect their professional standards. Their assistance in many cases brought criminals to court to answer for their actions. In all things be professional not adversarial and respect will surround your actions and deeds.