Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?Police Continue To Illegal Seize Phones From Citizens Not Committing Crimes
View more videos at: http://www.nbcwashington.com.
Despite many lawyers saying that police must first obtain a subpoena before confiscating a camera, police throughout the country continue to do so.
And they are justifying it by claiming it is evidence.
The latest example comes from Washington D.C. where police confiscated a phone from a woman who had recorded some type of altercation between police and another man.
They returned it five days later.
A police spokeswoman told NBC Washington that they had every right to confiscate the phone as evidence.
And the reporter seemed to believe her as so many mainstream reporters do.
But the reporter then spoke to an ACLU attorney who said they needed a subpoena to confiscate a camera.
The only exception is when the camera is used in the commission of a crime such as upskirting or child pornography.
But it doesn’t appear anything will be done about the illegal seizure in this case or in the other cases, so police will continue to do so until somebody finally takes a stand.
Comments
Even after someone takes a stand they will continue to try to take things from people that they don't have a right to take.
If the top doesn't know the rules how can we expect the rank and file to know the rules when it comes to things like this. Police don't have a right to take anyones property without an order from a judge. That's what the 4th amendment is all about. Yet they try to take peoples property all the time as if they have that order from a judge.
Something went wrong and this story has been posted several times.
I remember one of the first videos I shot was a drunk guy being tasered after getting into a brawl with deputies. As I was about to leave the area a deputy blocked my car and demanded my video. I said not without a warrant and asked her to move her cruiser. She did and I've never heard anything from them regarding the incident.
A year or so ago, I shot video of a deputy involved crash. Another deputy approached me and asked politely if they could get a copy of my tape. I said absolutely, gave him my business card, went home, and dropped off a DVD at the district office a couple hours later.
If they truly want video as evidence and are not out to screw with photogs, they will conduct themselves professionally. If they continue seizing property from non involved citizens without a warrant and no one stands up to them, who knows what other lame blanket explanations will be offered when they violate civil rights in other fashions.
"Despite many lawyers saying that police must first obtain a subpoena before confiscating a camera, police throughout the country continue to do so."
If I had a dollar for every time a lawyer told me what I couldn't do, or what I had to do I would have a lot of dollars. If I had a dollar for every time I actually did what he told me I wouldn't have any dollars.
My favorite is when a citizen says, "But my lawyer told me you had to......" My usual reply is you need to get a new lawyer.
That sounds like a good way to find yourself on the buisnes end of a lawsuit.
Indeed. And getting yourself of YouTube actually stealing someone's camera will get you bonus points on the cell block.
I'll take an ACLU lawyer over a barracks lawyer with a shitty piece of tin on his shirt any day of the week.
Looking forward to your lawsuit and criminal docket.
So legal precedent means nothing? The text of the law means nothing? A badge gives you the right to ignore the law?
I didn't say I ignore the law. The point of my comment was that lawyers themselves don't know the law and like to demand officers to do stuff they don't have to do.
An example is this lady came in with her lawyer to find out why I didn't arrest her husband for an assault against her. I talked them even though I didn't have to explain myself.
I told them I didn't believe the assault occurred and that is why I didn't arrest him. There was no evidence of an assault other than her word against his. She was intoxicated at the time she made the report and he wasn't. I believed she was lying and didn't arrest him. I documented the incident and submitted it for review by the prosecutor. The lawyer told me I had to arrest the husband and make him leave the house. I chuckled and told him that's not going to happen and walked away.
Another brilliant lawyer came in one day upset that his client's live in boyfriend broke into her house. What happened was they had a fight, he walked out to leave but forgot his keys. She locked him out so he called us to get his keys back. We get there and she refused to let him in. He lived there so I told him he can either force his way in or wait til she lets him in. He decided to kick the door open. She had hidden his keys but he had a spare set so he got those and left. She wanted to file a report for breaking and entering and destruction of property. I told her he lives there so he didn't commit a crime by breaking in and that the door was something she would have to sue him over.
The lawyer insisted I had to go back and arrest the boyfriend because he wasn't on the lease. I basically told them both to get bent.
So my point is just because a lawyer says something doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. So not doing what a lawyer tells me to do doesn't mean I am ignoring the law.
So my point is just because a LawMan says something doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about. So not doing what a LawMan tells us to do doesn't mean we are ignoring the law.
I don't give unlawful orders so when I tell you not to do something I will back it up if you don't comply.
I don't give unlawful orders so when I tell you not to do something I will back it up if you don't comply.
I'm quite sure that every officer that has ever given an unlawful order, either through ignorance or apathy, has felt the same way.
I'm sure
I think your statement says a lot more about you than it does the law.
LawMan..
From your comments I can only guess you must be "Johnny Law's" partner. Once again we have another LEO who thinks..
"Cops Can Do NO Wrong!"
And they wonder why they're hated so much.. even by their own families.
Rail Car Fan
Simply possessing a firearm while committing robbery makes it armed robbery, even if the gun remains holstered throughout the robbery, or even if it is concealed entirely during the robbery.
Qualified immunity does not shield police from the criminal consequences of committing violent felonies in uniform, except as required by their duties; In other words, cops can shoot a suspect or seize property during an arrest, but they can't run into a convenience store and empty the cash register at gunpoint.
Many states have citizen's arrest laws. For example, in Washington state, I could make an arrest of a person who committed a felony right then, or even a misdemeanor as long as the misdemeanor was a breach of the peace. The only distinction state law makes between a private citizen and a uniformed police officer, at least as the target of a citizen's arrest, is that it is unlawful to forcibly disarm a police officer except at the direction of a judge, or if, after the officer is informed he is under arrest, he attempts to draw his weapon to force his release from arrest.
If it is indeed true that a warrant or subpoena is required to seize a camera as evidence when the camera was not involved in the commission of a crime, then a citizen's arrest (at least in Washington state) would be legitimate if the value of the camera exceeds the amount needed to change petty theft into grand theft. And if the officer grabbed the camera away by force, then even if the camera is cheap junk (petty theft), a breach of the peace occurred when violence was done.
The real answer to this is secure phones or cameras. A recording device that encrypts the data real time. If you have a very strong password and secure encryption, the police will not have any use with your phone or device. It's that simple.
That would only prevent them from gaining access to it (and even then, there are tools that can break most simple types of encryption, if they really wanted it).
That doesn't help if their goal is to prevent the spread of the pictures/video. All they need to do for that is confiscate it, then destroy/overwrite/"lose" it, or even just hold on to it until it no longer matters.
Use cards that can be written to, but not erased
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/23/sandisks-1gb-worm-sd-card-stores-fore...
Sure the card could be "lost" or destroyed, but it's a lot harder to explain evidence that has been logged and lost than it is to explain how some invisible bits might have gotten misplaced.
Maybe these would be a good idea
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/20/glasses-with-720p-hd.html
What this sounds like to me is cops using their "second set of books" which are their policy and procedure manuals which they seem to think trumps the rule of law.
Keep pushing Mother Fuckers, I promise you the shove back is going to be Biblical.
Post new comment