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
San Diego 7 photo gallery — Just Be Love All Stay Cool
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?Seattle Police Sue Lawyer For Requesting Dash Cam Videos Showing Abuse On Citizens
As an attorney investigating claims made by clients that they had been abused by Seattle police officers, James Egan did what any good lawyer would do.
He filed public records requests with the Seattle Police Department, asking them to release several dash cam videos that likely would prove his clients’ claims.
But instead of handing him the videos, police slapped him with a lawsuit, accusing him of prying into the private lives of police officers through his valid requests.
It’s an absurd and weak defense considering Egan is not demanding the officers’ homemade sex tapes they made behind closed doors on their own time.
He’s asking for videos that were captured on tax-funded cameras mounted on the dashboards of tax-funded police cars, driven by a tax-funded cops on, you guessed it, tax-funded time.
The city attorney who filed the suit is saying he wants a judge to sort it out, according King 5 news.
The city attorney wants a court to decide. He says the Washington privacy act says the videos can't be made public until final disposition of related litigation.
In other words not until the officers can no longer be sued for what they did in the video and that's three years under the statute of limitations.
"We will follow what the court tells us and that why were going for guidance from the court," said Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes.
If a judge decides, under the privacy act the videos can't be released, the public will have to wait three years to see them.
"The idea that you can't get a video until three years later is self protectionism. They don't want the public to know the skeletons in their closets," said Egan
Comments
To protect and serve ?
...
OK. Here's what's really going on, I think.
WA state is one of the small number of really cool states where there's a cash penalty if a state or local agency doesn't cough up public records on time. If I recall right, it's $100 a day. And if they do a denial, and then the person doing the request gets the stuff, the penalty money goes back to the date the stuff was first due. This can in some cases amount to huge money.
At least one law school student is known to have put himself through law school purely by racking up false public record denials.
Soo...in this case, I would guess that a public records denial challenge filed by the lawyer requesting the public records would go to one court, but a case filed by the local government against the lawyer might go to another - one they think might be more agreeable to their position.
In other words, the city is judge-shopping with this move - that's the only reason I can think of that they'd pull this stunt. They're hoping to get it in front of a judge that won't want the city to pay the penalty amounts for a false denial, for starters.
With any luck, the courts will take a VERY dim view of this BS. The normal procedures are well understood: somebody makes a records request, gets denied, sues over the denial. There's no reason to veer off of that gameplan unless a dirty trick is involved.
The lawyer involved should just follow that normal plan and go for a dismissal of the action the city started against him.
JIM_ ask ya something, by any chance do you know the other states that have that penalty if they dont cough up the records and are charged money for every day they dont supply the records, and your right, they are judge hunting.
Them bastards do it all the fucking time, if any GOV. would be able to get away with shit like that, it would mean a big hit on our rights, then the POPO would be truly able to do anything to us and get away with it, most of the time as it was before dash cams!
GOV. would be able to use all the evidence they had for themselves, and if any was bad for them, they would then not be required to supply it to the defense.
WOW, and i thought i was living in a fucked up world, well fuck me, roll me over and fuck me again!!!
Only other one I know of for sure is Colorado. But that's off the top of my head.
California "sorta-kinda" does: access to public records was declared a constitutional right by state constitutional amendment, and there's potential penalties for violation of a constitutional right. But the dollar amounts aren't set in statute.
... or, the police officials could just be so stupid as to actually think that they don't have to release any video to that annoying public. (apply occam's razor)
It's actually quite brilliant, in a sleazy, corrupt official sort of way. The records act request cannot be granted while there is pending litigation regarding those record's release.
Therefore the city doesn't have to deny anything until the litigation is over. The $100 a day would start from that point, not the date the records should have been released.
If that point is after the statute of limitations expires, which is quite possible given how much a lawsuit can be dragged out by a stalling lawyer, then the city wins even if it loses.
But I doubt the court system will be amused by such shenanigans. Contempt of court is bad; What about contempt of the entire judicial process?
Well...yeah, they very well may be trying to put the $100/day thing on hold, but...if they lose both sides of the litigation I can't *believe* a judge would go along with that trick.
Here's the good news: the WA state supreme court is a pretty reasonable bunch if I recall right. If so, and this insanity gets that far up the food chain, the city is going to be seriously slapped upside the wallet.
Oh, I agree. Frivolous, vexatious litigation to avoid complying with state law by a city government? Yeah, that's going to result in a very painful experience if it reaches the state supreme court.
I personally believe that ALL dash cam video, from all public service vehicles is public property. Paid for by the public. I would like to see some enterprising chief institute a plan to upload all dash cam videos from his police to a website where the public can view them at any time. They could leave them online for 90 days for public viewing and discourse. This would allow for anyone who wishes to file a claim to view and download the video in question. As for the privacy of the people in the videos...they are in a public place and have no expectation of privacy.
There are many cities and stats that already allow viewing of traffic cams so that drivers can see if the street in question is blocked or has too much snow.
Were all videos to be released, it would certainly improve the "protect and serve" attitude that law enforcement officials are supposed to live by. They would know their actions were available to be viewed at any time, by anyone.
YouTube baby! I want a new YT channel!
If the awareness of the corruption in the System is so strong, why the over-riding faith in the Court System? Judges are just as human, and corruptible as any one else.
They didn't really sue him. The state is asking for a declaratory judgement as to how they are supposed to follow these semi-conflicting laws.
I still think it's bullshit that they say they can't release them until the SoL runs out.
They should write a new book:
"Evidence Tampering: A How To Guide on Getting Away With It Legally"
Post new comment