Pixiq

I have heard of many cases where items are returned once they reach 'museum' value. Computers being held for nearly a decade. Since I make monthly payments on my phone via a contract, I would hate having to pay these charges and not have my phone for the year or two it takes to wind through the courts. I would file a report of theft with my cell provider and the police department where I live, "Yeah the guy who robbed me of my phone at gunpoint was wearing a uniform"

Another interesting idea is to put spyware on your phone and monitor and record what the police do with your phone, sort of what you would do with a thief. I think a video recording of the officer deleting items off of your phone would look great in court, especially if you back up the deleted items to show what was altered.

With an iPhone you can always remotely wipe all of the information on your phone, just to piss them off. And soon with the iCloud your content will be automatically backed up to the Cloud so you should have a copy of your video waiting for you at home by the time you get there.

Cops SUCK!

Ok, not that I agree with it, but I can see where seizing a camera as evidence can be plausible. If an officer then deletes anything off that camera, say himself/herself being a complete dick, can they then be charged with destroying evidence? And if so why arent they? Oh I forgot, a badge gives you extra rights, sorry my bad!!

The problem with your attorney's stolen purse analogy is when the thief is caught the purse is the actual thing stolen by the thief. It's completely different than seizing the camera of a working journalist or innocent bystander. By your lawyer's analogy they should be able to arrest any witnesses and sequester them until trial to make sure there story doesn't change.

Also it's not the job of working journalists or innocent bystanders to make a case for the cops. If they need extra evidence then get a damn subpoena! Many states have shield laws to protect journalists from just such tactics.

Why do police need to seize your camera when all they want is the data on the card? Granted, I don't want to give up my property, either. However, I don't see a purpose in giving up the camera and being without it for weeks or months while it sits in some bin.

Did Benoit get a receipt for his property if it was taken "as evidence?" Why was the newsguy's camera returned a few hours later, but Benoit's camera, sans SIM card is still in custody? I think we need to see more apps for camera phones or dedicated "live streaming" cameras in the near future. While one's video may show something that condemns or exonerates someone else, protecting their 5th Amendment right, your 4th Amendment right goes out the window. What if you were just an eye witness, and choose to keep your mouth shut and walk away as so many people do who do not want to get involved?

Perhaps we'll see more and more "undercover" type cameras, that are more hidden from the police.

Florida sure is becoming an international
laughing stock...the same guys who portray themselves
as superheroes on COPS are routinely illegal seizing
evidence and destroying people's property...
so much for "TV" fantasy...

This same stuff has been going on with cops for a long time. They used to catch someone with drugs in the car, arrest the person, seize the car and then use it like it was their own car. Of course they were driving a car and depending on the insurance of someone else, of course they destroyed the car. But most of the time the car had a loan on it and when the person that was arrested stopped paying the loan that car belonged to the lien holder. The lien holders would then file claims against the insurance companies for the damage the cops did to the cars.

How long do you think it took for the rules to change when that started happening. Not to mention that the cars became worth less while the cops abused them so that the cops were taking someone elses property.

"Then they ordered the man and his girlfriend out the car and threw them down to the ground, yelling “you want to be fucking paparazzi?”

Then they snatched the cell phone from his hand and slammed it to the ground before stomping on it. Then they placed the smashed phone in the videographer's back pocket as he was laying down on the ground."

That seems to be unravelling more than a little. Or is it being claimed that the police, once their actions were exposed, have attempted to substitute an unsmashed phone? That's straining my credulity to say the least... what is Mr. Benoit saying now?

I really disagree with that second lawyer who seems to be representing you Carlos.

If anything, evidence especially used for the defense of someone is better left in the hands of the original photographer. I would trust a photographer with such evidence instead of the police.

The attorney who opined they can seize evidence should give you some citation to authority supporting that proposition.

If a man were shot, and the bullet went through the window of my house and lodged in a wall, the police have no authority to enter and take that absent consent or court authorization, or articulable exigent circumstances. The same is true of photos. First, they can't even say with a straight face that there is evidence on the camera, they just hope there is. Second, your fourth amendment right isn't dictated by the fact that you have evidence...that's the point of warrants. If your fourth amendment right were so limited, any time the police said they thought someone had evidence, they could search anyone. Not the case at all.

Maybe you should give what they told you to the ACLU Carlos.