Pixiq

Unbelievable Carlos, it’s open season on anyone with a camera…it seems especially in Florida! I guess we ‘Northerners’ have it easy up here in New Jersey…

This story needs to be picked up by the mainstream media. See if you can pull some strings Carlos and have her story on CNN or FOX or MSNBC…

I beleve the best way for this story to gain tracking is to first add urls to commentary section of the Herald and the Sun Sentinel (So Fla local media)

if enough people see it and discuss it, reporters might pick it up (specially in slow news day) I agree to the state above this absolutely must be seeded around. I will do my best to help

Public servants have no right to expect total privacy while carrying out their duties. NY State troopers used to love to pull this stuff, and it didnt hold water there. The cops need THEIR lesson that there is only one Washington DC making the laws, and I hope she sues them.

Better yet, lets all descend on the town with our cameras!

Some thoughts:

1) “I hope you have a good cause for having my son in handcuffs” is not what a normal mother would say when arriving to the scene. It is combative. Her son, her precious baby boo-boo kins, was accused of a crime and the cops were doing their job – sorting it out.

2) Immediately jumping out of the car with a video camera taping the cops is not normal. It screams “I am a difficult, nutjob. Arrest me please.”

3) Police have enormous amounts of discretion in situations like this. She took a small situation and unnecesarily escalated it creating more problems for her and her kid.

4) Tasha should get the help of Google to track down the sender of that email. I tend to think it probably was the cop in question. Stupid move. It will end up costing him money promotion opportunities. Also, if his judgement is that questionable he be counted on to do stupid things in the future.

This is not a first ammendment issue.

John, I agree with your assertion that her tone in entering the exchange was combative. She cited a wish to protect herself legally as the reason for carrying a video camera into the exchange in the first place. Her actions were defensively combative. I also think she reacted in one of the many acceptable ways that mothers can be reasonably be expected to react.

As for point number 2, there is no law that states a person can not record a public encounter with public servants with their knowledge (it wasn’t a hidden camera or microphone), so I don’t see how it screams “I am a difficult, nutjob. Arrest me please.” It screams you “You people are being recorded and I want you to tell me what’s going on and if you do something stupid you can bet other people will see this.” It scream, “I don’t trust you.”

So what’s the issue? Is it that police don’t understand the law. Is it that police don’t react well to situations that create additional pressures for them? That their first instinct is to arrest someone on false charges and deal with the validity of those charges later. Contain and control the situation? Or is it simply that police have not been trained to deal with cameras? To expect that they will be recorded at all times with or without their consent and that any of those recordings can be used against them if they fail to perform their jobs to the satisfaction of the community they serve?

I totally agree with 3, police do have “normous amounts of discretion in situations like this” and her actions did escalate it but only because those police didn’t have the common sense to address the situation correctly.

One last note to the judge, verbally arguing that an arrest charge doesn’t make sense is not resisting arrest.

This story needs more press.

I agree with John, she should have been more concerned with being a mother then with her camera and I don’t blame the officer for siting the kid after the way the mother behaved. Officers do have a lot of discretion and in a lot of cases turning them over to their parents keeps the kid out of the court system while still teaching him a lesson and hopefully deterring future bad acts but when you get a parent like this the message the kid gets is I can do what I want because mommy has my back. She is lucky the kid didn’t get some kind of larceny charge on top of trespassing. She let her hatred for cops cost her kid a misdemeanor citation and that is just poor parenting. If you want to get yourself arrested to make a point I can respect that but when it effects your kid your just being selfish.

As far as the e-mail, if it did come from one of the officers than he was wrong and should face whatever discipline the department sees fit. It’s unprofessional to send an e-mail like that and I can see where she is upset about it. This e-mail is another example of something that isn’t illegal but just because it’s not illegal doesn’t make it right.

Tom- In addition if it were truly illegal to tape the cops, one would think it would be illegal to have any serveillance cameras, dash cams, etc, filming Joe Citizen. I think there was a definite misuse of the all party law that usually concerns phone recordings.

Thanks Jason, that’s one of the points I was trying to make. The only difference between an individual carrying a camera and cctv is that the individual is going to represent their own interests in a way that is more obvious and visible to everyone being filmed.

jones: you just like naysaying so i’ll spell it out for you.

“The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures,”14 and an investigative traffic stop is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.15 The United States Supreme Court has expressed a preference that police conduct searches and seizures pursuant to a warrant.”

“A police officer cannot stop an individual for investigative purposes solely on the basis of an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch.’”24 The Fourth Amendment requires some “minimal level of objective justification” for making the stop.”

and:
“If a person remain free to disregard questioning by the government, there has been no intrusion upon the person’s liberty or privacy under the Fourth Amendment — there has been no seizure”

that’s why you ask “am i free to leave?” and “am i being detained?”

want more? of course you do!
“Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”

“Held: When police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and so may challenge the stop’s constitutionality. Pp. 4–13.” – http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-8120.ZS.html

interesting, that tidbit. you have rights as a citizen to question the police… WHO KNEW?

and while i don’t feel like doing any more trivial searches on google for state laws and penal codes: the general consensus is “without probable cause the officer must ask for consent to search during a 4th amendment seizure (which a traffic stop is) – if the driver or owner do not consent, a warrant must be obtained.”

Now, the whole “sergeant” thing i mentioned earlier has to do with “arresting driver and towing car” – at least in some places in california around LA county for CERTAIN – a sergeant must be present for the arrest and/or confiscation of a vehicle to someplace where it can be inventoried.

this isn’t really an argument. you’re making stuff up, and i’m actually finding relevant things to refute you. naysaying is not a proper debate technique in society. only presidential candidates are allowed to do it and look good.

Did I ever say the police can just stop and search cars randomly? Do you know how to read?

First you say, If the police have probable cause to search my car, they can ask my consent, i can decline, then they have to have a sergeant drive all the way to the scene, and confirm that there is probable cause…

Then you say, the whole “sergeant” thing i mentioned earlier has to do with “arresting driver and towing car” – at least in some places in california around LA county for CERTAIN – a sergeant must be present for the arrest and/or confiscation of a vehicle to someplace where it can be inventoried.

WOW, talk about backtracking. So just which one is true, the first one or the second one because they are completely different, and you say I’m making stuff up.

I don’t recall ever saying you can’t question the police, I guess you just made that up.

Just what stuff am I making up, please tell me one thing I said that I made up. Failure to do so will be probable cause that you don’t know what the hell your talking about.

jones: other than saying you’re a master of the strawman and red herring; i’m done here.

genewitch,

“A police officer cannot stop an individual for investigative purposes solely on the basis of an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch.’”24 The Fourth Amendment requires some “minimal level of objective justification” for making the stop.”

Really.

How do you explain the random stops that police do during holidays looking for drunk drivers? Are you saying that this very time honored practice is illegal? How do you explain the numerous DUI convicions that have come from these stops? Seems like they would all be overthrown if they were illegal.

John: Eleven states have outlawed random sobriety checkpoints, because they violate those states’ constitutions. The U.S. Supreme Court did hold that, if conducted in a certain way, checkpoints were permissible. In making that ruling, the Court balanced the greater societal good/protections, v. the constitutional protections.

That having been said, I have no idea why you’ve entered the analogy of sobriety checkpoints into a discussion re: the rights to photograph. The balance test is nowhere near the same, so it’s a false analogy really.

John, don’t be a dunce.

Those are not “hunch” based stops.

Those are stops supposed to be done on the basis of driving that bears marks of being drunk. General erraticness, weaving, overcompensation of steering drift, random use of signals, use of signals to follow bends in the road, stopping improperly at stop signs and backing up to name a few.

I explain those numerous DUI convictions because when you spot someone driving like they’re drunk, they’re probably drunk.

Sobriety checkpoints are highly regulated because of the constitutional concerns, and frankly hard to miss; a lot of the people detained and tested don’t actually make it into the checkpoint, they’re the people doing frantic U-turns and turning around in plain sight of the assembled police.

I’ve never been “detained” by being in line at one of these any longer than three minutes. I spend about thirty seconds exchanging pleasantries with an officer that go like this:
Officer: “How are you doing tonight?”
Me: “I’m fine, heading home from dinner. How are you doing?”
Officer: “I’m fine, drive safe.”

And then I’m waived along.
I’ve even had an officer give me a kind reminder that one of the stickers my state requires for a vehicle to be legal was going to expire in two days. Thanks to his thoughtfulness, I got my new sticker in time to avoid any potential mishaps in the form of a fine.

Joel Lawson,

Genewitch made an phoney-baloney assertion that the police couldn’t stop anyone “for investigative purposes based solely on a hunch” and I provided the brilliant analogy of the sobriety checkpoint. Yea for me.

If you think those checkpoints are entirely random you are kidding yourself. Police follow their hunches because they are humans, not robots and they produce results. Many a life has been saved by that policemans hunch and I am glad for them.

Robert, don’t be a douche.

If cars are lined up three or four cars deep (as they usually are at these things) you are stopped until you coast to the next stopping point ten feet ahead of you. The cop cannot gauge your driving in a ten foot increment. Instead, he will wait until you lower the window to speak with him and smell for alcohol on your breath. if he smells it you become his “hunch”.

Here in Alabama it is legal to resist an unlawful arrest (even with violence). I disagree with you, Carlos, that it should be illegal. So does the court in Alabama:

Brown v. State:

“It is not the duty of the citizen to submit to any other than a lawful arrest… It is not intended that he yield his person and liberty to the dominion of even a known public officer… No man would be safe from invasions of his personal liberty, and unlawful arrests would be made effectual…”

Needless to say, I’m not aware of many unlawful arrests in Alabama.

I can’t find any cases concerning photography, but ‘James Harrell Morris v. State’ throws out a resisting arrest charge for a man that was carrying an unconcealed firearm legally:

“It is immaterial that the defendant did or did not have a pistol permit. He had the right to carry the pistol unconcealed at the time and place of arrest. Defendant was under no duty to submit to any other than a lawful arrest.”

If it applies to handguns, I’m sure it applies to cameras!

John, my warning came too late. Not only are you a dunce, but you are either oblivious or deliberately dense for the sake of confrontation as well.

There is a difference between being pulled over because of how you’re driving, which seems like a “random stop” to you, and a Sobriety Checkpoint.

I specifically outlined the differences in my post. If you geneuinely need it spelled out, I can take the time to do so for you. Because it seems that you were quite confused by what I had to say, and I like to be understood; that is after all, the point to speaking (or typing) eloquently.

Robert,

I didn’t provide the example of getting pulled over because of how you’re driving “which seems like a random stop to you”… YOU did. I referenced only the checkpoints.

Checkpoints are clearly for investigative purposes only – thereby defeating the argument that they are not. Yea for me.

Please don’t soil my clear, logical argument with your muddled, clouded thinking and then blame me for the resulting confusion.

This is going off subject but the theatre is going to end up with a huge lawsuit from this …… What theatre was this ? I am a full time staff photographer but once upon a time I was a United Artist theatre manager our security was NOT allowed to accuse people of “Ticket Slipping” “security” (who is most likely an off-duty local pd officer was not was allowed to ask for a ticket stub or perform any functions as a theatre employee they were there for visual presence and signed a waver saying that any action they took in an incident was solely their responsibility and the theatre would not be held accountable .) An usher could ask to see a ticket and if they did not have the stub they could ether speak to management or purchase another ticket and enter the theatre then. On a busy night you might get 20 of these incidents but if they are handled correctly they are no big deal Under no circumstances were we allowed to insinuate they were trying to sneak into a movie.

John,

Show respect for the cops, show respect for the cops show respect for the cops.

No sir, I didn’t volunteer to become a citizen. The police volunteered to become cops. They owe my rights respect, not the other way around. Cops are known as “public servants” and you demand that we serve them. No thanks!

The rule says “you can use a camera and videotape the police”. The police do not have ANY discression here if they want to stay legal. That woman did everything right and those police did everything wrong. She doesn’t owe the police respect just to stay out of trouble any more than she does because they are wearing clown suits.

man i hate pigs. i hate them more everyday because of stories like this. these pigs were on a compliance power trip. just because a pig doesn’t like the way you are speaking to them does not give them the right to arrest you. the tossing of the first charge was obvious. the second stuck because they needed some reason for actually arresting her so they at least have some footing when the civil rights law suit hits. of course that ridiculous charge will be tossed as well. running your mouth is not resisting arrest. the pigs and the pig supporting judge should be ashamed. it is obvious none of them deserve to be in the positions of power they currently hold.

Just donated to your fund (sorry it couldn’t be more, I’m just a poor student). Keep fighting the good fight. Without people like you to keep the public servants honest, tyranny will arise.

Omar,

I can already tell that you are one of those tedious little fuckers who demands that the world serve you. Mama’s little boy. Tell me, did she cut the crusts off the bread for you? Pussy.

“I didn’t volunteer to become a citizen. The police volunteered to become cops. They owe my rights respect, not the other way around.”

Here is where your retarded analogy doesn’t hold: You are a citizen of the city and state where you live. You have obligations, as a citizen, whether you like them or not. Things like taxes, code ordinance, and obeying laws are not optional.

You MUST be from Miami. What a typical Miami attitude. “I can be as big a dick as I wanna be and you can’t do anything about it… it’s not illegal to be an asshole.” Actually it is.

People who treat law enforcement like crap have that same level of respect for the laws those people enforce – ZERO. If you have no respect for those laws, you have no respect for my or any other citizen’s rights those laws uphold.

Only YOUR rights, what OMAR wants… screw the rest of us.

You are the mental compilation of every rude fucker I’ve ever lived next to who blasts the stereo at 4AM, dumps their kitty litter on the lawn, and drops their junk mail on the mail room floor. What a narcissistic douchebag.

Hey John: Six full days since I asked for the specific analogy of sobriety checkpoints in a discussion re: the rights to photograph, esp. re: the incident reported in the original post.

Well, now you’ve tossed in taxes, building codes, stereos at 4AM, kitty litter on neighbors’ lawns, and junk mail on the mail room floor.

How could you forget to mention undersized cotton candy servings at the county fair?

Anyway, if you want to discuss the case reported, let us know when you’re back from the circus.

Joel,

Here is what you originally said.

That having been said, I have no idea why you’ve entered the analogy of sobriety checkpoints into a discussion re: the rights to photograph. The balance test is nowhere near the same, so it’s a false analogy really.

I don’t see a question in there and I don’t see a question mark. So how can you say “it’s been six full days since I asked for the specific analogy of sobriety checkpoints in a discussion re: the rights to photograph, esp. re: the incident reported in the original post.”

You never asked a question, you made a statement. How can he answer a question you didn’t ask? Why would you lie about asking him a question when you didn’t.

Hey John, as a public citizen who goes nowhere with out a digital recorder and camara and who odes not trust the cops as far as can spit them, Who knows they have the “right to lie” to me and often make up the law as they go, My response it is straight out of the police handbook,”If you are not doing anything wrong then what is your problem?” P.S, I live next to a cop, have cops in the family, and aside from a couple of traffic tickets have had no trouble with the law. Living with or near a cop tends to erode respect for them.

If “I have no idea why…” doesn’t leave a question on the table, if it does not literally question the introduction of thought or information, then you sure do need things spelled out a bit much.

Joel Lawson,

Here is the Dick and Jane review of the conversation so that you will be able to follow along.

The conversation progressed (as they naturally do) from the original topic of first ammendment rights to the topic of fourth ammendment rights – freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

My example of the random drinking checkpoint was evidence that fourth ammendment right, like all rights, has certain constraints placed upon it for the public good.

All the disperate things you mentioned were used to clearly lay out the following:

* People who disrespect law enforcement disrespect the laws they enforce.
* Ergo they disrespect the rights of the people those laws protect.
* Ergo they disrespect me.
* Ergo you’re a shmuck.

I can’t address cotton candy servings at the county fair and would need to call your mom as an expert witness. All that time in the bearded lady exhibit surely qualifies her. At least you used an actual question mark to denote a question this time. I’m sure she would be proud of your progress.

JoyLeaf,

“Living with or near a cop tends to erode respect for them.”

Living with or near ANYONE tends to erode respect for them. Familiarity breeds contempt but SOMEBODY has to do the job of law enforcement. Until we bring the Robocop idea to fruition we are stuck with fallable people.

As for the “right to lie”, cops have no such right. Crooked cops give you the excuse you need to paint the good ones with the same brush. Good cops want them gone as much as you do.

Matt, maybe this theatre has different policy then the one you worked at. I would hate to see a business get sued because they stopped an “alleged” thief. If the security guard was an off duty officer he has every right to investigate if he believes there is a crime.

On a further note if you were getting 20 of these a night maybe somebody should have re-evaluated your policy.

Cops can lie to suspects

Undercover work, investigations… sure… they have to in order to get to the truth.

Jones,

Apparently they think they can lie to their superiors and to the judges as well.

So John’s bottom line appears to be that we should be respectful in our dealings with people who question us about our photography.

But he can’t handle behaving the same way on a blog.

Have fun in the sandbox.

Joel,

I never should have mentioned your bearded lady mom. I’m sure that fact is painful and it is something you had no control over. Don’t blame yourself. I’m sorry I mentioned it.

Checkpoints.

http://www.newsok.com/sobriety-checkpoint-tonight-in-oklahoma-city-area/...

Congrats, John. You have gone all the way to nothing but insults. I just started reading this post today … and you have made it clear that your opinions are of no value to me.

If your purpose was to persuade people towards your viewpoint you have failed.

If your purpose was to anger people, and give them even more reasons to limit the power of police officers, you have succeeded.

Hey John: Your advocacy for respectful behavior is really potent.

If you were in uniform, acting this way, you’ve very strongly made your point re: our obligations to respond with equal respect.

John, nice post on the checkpoint, we need more departments to start doing those.

SR,

Thanks for the donation. Every little thing helps.

Jones, true each theaters have their own policy’s We were 18 screens that averaged 300 seats. if only a 100 plp a set show up for each theatre on an average night thats still 10,800 people coming through when most of these are kids losing a ticket or not having a stub is the most common thing you will see. Especially when they enter and exit the theaters to come to concession stand multiple times.

How do these low-life scum get to become judges? The US justice system is a disgrace to your constitution.

There’s an old saying that says, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” That saying should be updated for the 21st century, “The camera is mightier than the gun.”

Once agian boyton beach police get away with making something from nothing. That department is nothing but a legal gang. They are no differant than the real criminals. good luck tring to fight the system. Yes there are good police officers and they need to stand up to the bad ones. A bad police officer’s need to be weeded out and FDLE needs to do there job and watch the police.

Gradually the police educate themselves, so I’m hoping things will be better in a few years, instead of worse. Which direction they go depends on the citizenry holding them to task.
Hoping for the best . . .

Assuming that the facts are as presented:

1)The cops were wrong from the start. There is no excuse for their behavior- regardless of how John tries to spin it.

2) The wiretap/filing laws apply only if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Filming people going about their business in public is NOT illegal. If used for commercial purposes, the persons filmed may have a CIVIL action, but no crime has been committed. I would expect LEOs to know this.

3) If filming LEOs doing their job is a crime- why aren’t news guys arrested daily? Because if that happens- the news media goes on the offensive immediately. And the LEO who stirred up that pot finds his ass looking for work.

4) Before anyone starts arguing with me about this, be aware of 2 facts: I am a prosecutor (not in FL) and 2 of my brothers are LEOs. Therefore, I have every reason to be sympathetic with and highly supportive of LEO, but when they do something as stupid and illegal as this– they should be held accountable.

“Genewitch made an phoney-baloney assertion that the police couldn’t stop anyone “for investigative purposes based solely on a hunch” and I provided the brilliant analogy of the sobriety checkpoint. Yea for me.”

It’s called “Reasonable Articulable Suspicion”. And yup- you’re right. A officer may indeed stop and briefly detain a person provided he can state with specificity his reasons for believing that criminal activity may be afoot. The SCOTUS first upheld this in Terry v. Ohio, well over 30 years ago.

Checkpoints are constitutional if conducted in a “neutral” fashion which leaves very little, if any, discretion in the hands of the officers conducting the checkpoint.