Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mich. State Campus Cops Seize HDs With Riot Photos

Posted by timothy on from the after-all-why-not dept.

Spintronic writes "This is old news here but others might be interested. There was a small riot here a few weeks ago due to the early exit of a certain basketball team. Because of riots years ago of a much larger magnitude and the black eye this is giving the university, the cops (local and campus I believe) are out looking to make examples. In their zeal they tried to get all the unaired footage and photos from the local media, who refused to comply. Not to let it go, they went on to seize hard drives from students who took digital photos that night. Here's info from the student nespaper, and here's an editorial."

10 of 48 comments (clear)

  1. Actual Owners of the Images by Agamous+Child · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As I understand it, when you are taking pictures for use anywhere other than for personal use, you have to have the permission of the subject... IF these photos were taken of the "alleged" rioters and they were posted on the internet in any form (i.e. published) without the consent of the subjects.. then they could cry foul in the photos use in the investigation... NOW.. if the photographers in question were legitimate members of the press...and the photos were then used in those individuals "news" websites.. First Amendment rules would apply, right? I haven't slept in about 48 hours does it show?

    --
    I had a sig, but /. ate it. My Web Site
    1. Re:Actual Owners of the Images by Hungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry but you would be incorrect in your ideas. So long as the photos were taken in a public place and not in a concealed fashion you do not have to have the permision of those photographed.

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
  2. Illegal Search and Seizure by Hungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IANAL BIWWT (but I work with them)
    Sounds like a violation of the students rights by a long shot. While I am not a big fan of them, this is a good reason the aclu exists. NOw if they had a court order for seizure of evidence that would be legitimate ... unless the students who took the pictures were shown rioting also then it would be illegal under self incrimination.

    --
    Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
  3. whew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good thing I live in a country that specifically outlaws this sort of thing!

    Here in the USA, a citizen--

    what?

    IT DID?

    FUCK!!!

  4. Misleading... by smoondog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Once again it looks like the /. is misleading:

    Last week, police obtained a warrant to confiscate a computer from an on-campus student. But the warrant wasn't necessary because the student handed over the computer without resistance.

    Warrant: Yes. Seized: No. I read the article and it sounded like police stormed some guys house to hide evidence, implying that the evidence was some form of coverup. Jeez, they are looking for the identities of law breakers, and they had a warrant AND the person gave it to them freely.

    There is nothing wrong with the police collecting evidence showing a crime, if they know that evidence exists and the crime occured, IMO. What is the problem?

    If you had the gun that shot someone, they are allowed to get a warrant to collect that for fingerprinting. How is a video different than a fingerprint. It's still evidence.

    -Sean

    1. Re:Misleading... by PD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I owned the pictures in question, and the warrant demanded that I turn over my entire hard drive, I'd see them in court.

      They can get a warrant for the specific photo evidence that they are looking for, and bring a blank CD for me to burn the photos on. They can't have a blank warrant to seize anything at all that exists on the computer.

      --
      If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
    2. Re:Misleading... by offpath3 · · Score: 3, Informative
      They have no right to forcibly seize property from non criminals. End of story.

      Unfortunately I don't believe this is true. Look up Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily. It was a case that went to the supreme court, where it was determined that police were in the right when they siezed photos of vietnam war protestors from the offices of the Stanford Daily. This case is why most newspapers destroy any pictures they don't publish.

    3. Re:Misleading... by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 3, Funny

      You must live in another country than we do. In america we have the right to life, liberty and the persuit of freedom.

      We have the right to freedom of persecuition.

      When a police officer want's my computer they can't just take it good sir. No we have laws. They cannot take something and make me fight for it. That's against what I as an american feel is right.

      That sir is fascism. We don't support that in america.

      We are free, soon we will free your country too.

      Freedom will come to everyone that waits for but a moment.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
  5. Here's what disturbed me... by UberGeeb · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ... about the article.
    Silverman said warrants must clearly define what police are looking for, otherwise searching through the other information could be invasion of privacy.

    "Computers are very personal things," food industry management junior Russell Enfield said. "There's a lot of information on there."

    But Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III said if police find any other evidence of crimes on the computer hard drive, they can be held against that person.

    "It's the same thing as being pulled over for speeding and finding a gun on the front seat," Dunnings said.

    So, I freely give them the pictures I took. While they are rummaging around they find my records for the side business I'm running, and my income tax records for the year. They realize I didn't claim the income from my side business on my income tax, and I get a nice visit from J. Random Suit from the IRS. All because I was helpful and complied with a request from the police department.

    Huh. And they wonder why no one trusts public authority figures any more.

    It's not "the same thing as being pulled over for speeding and finding a gun on the front seat", it's the same thing as being pulled over and having the police officer search your car. Something equivalent to the "gun in the front seat" analogy would be if the cops showed up, you let them in and handed them the hard drive, and in the process they saw the dead body of the mailman you murdered lying on the living room floor.

    In this student's situation, my answer would have been "No, you can't have the hard drive. But if you want to come back in a couple hours, I'll have copies of those photos burned to a CD and you can have that." Multiple copies, even, if they want them. Heck, if they've got a place they want me to drop those CDs off at rather than coming by again, I'll do it. I'm perfecly willing to provide help with an investigation if I can; I'm just not willing to potentially lose an 80G hard drive or potentially incriminate myself in the process.

  6. Encryption by ralphb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is all the more reason to routinely encrypt all your personal data. The seized HD is not going to do them much good if they can't read the data.