Slashdot Mirror


Charges Dropped In PA Video Taping Arrest

Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed has reversed himself completely over the charges against Brian Kelly, arrested for wiretapping after videotaping a police stop. Now let's see if they are good enough to compensate Kelly for the 26 hours he spent in jail and the anguish of the cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest. From the article: "... [DA] Freed said his decision will affect not only Brian Kelly, 18, but also will establish a policy for police departments countywide. 'When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges,' Freed said yesterday. 'The law itself might need to be revised.'"

177 comments

  1. thank god by jcgf · · Score: 1

    now I'll feel safer when travelling in the USA.

    1. Re:thank god by sczimme · · Score: 0, Troll

      now I'll feel safer when travelling in the USA.

      So your plans already include driving, getting pulled over, videotaping the entire encounter, and fighting the ensuing arrest in court?

      Or are you just being a wanker?

      --
      I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    2. Re:thank god by jcgf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Driving and getting pulled over are normal parts of traveling. The other 2 are only involved in contingency plans.

    3. Re:thank god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only feel safe with my Tin Foil Hat on.

    4. Re:thank god by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      I know. It's a fear I face everyday: accidentally taping the police and being charged with illegal wiretapping.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    5. Re:thank god by ggKimmieGal · · Score: 1

      No. Now you'll feel safer when traveling in Pennsylvania. This is an awesome step for the citizens of Pennsylvania in protecting our basic rights. I'm glad the kid got off! There's no reason to send a high school student for prison for breaking the law unknowingly, unless his intent was malicious. I sincerely doubt it was. This is a happy ending for what could have been an awful story.

  2. Must be a slashdot reader... by DaveWick79 · · Score: 1

    After reading the story about cameras being distributed to monitor the police, I suppose this DA decided his own case was silly. Which it was.

    1. Re:Must be a slashdot reader... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing -- since the last article quoted him as saying the relevant laws are "in flux" -- he filed charges just to placate the police while he went reference-hunting.

      Sucks for the "perp", though.

  3. Nothing of the state should be private by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No cops should be allowed to go unchecked. Thats how Systems of Balance work! I am waiting for the day that I get P.O. by some shithead cop(again) and at that point, I will tern into a complete police spy, and I will record them non-stop while they break the laws. Talking on their cellphones, running lights, speeding, smoking in their cars... I will put an end to it, in my town at least. Thats the American thing to do.

  4. Good news by cromar · · Score: 1

    What a surprising outcome.

    Puts a little bit of sunshine in the lately bleak atmosphere.

    1. Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the charges went away, the poor guy was able to get some local media people interested. Like most cases of this type, the police scuttle for darkness once the light of public attention shines on them. If the press had ignored this case the guy would have quietly went to prison.

  5. the law by cez · · Score: 0

    The law itself might need to be revised, Freed said.


    'nough said.

    --
    Walk with Music;
  6. People in the USA are sometimes blessed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While no judicial and law systems on the planet are perfect, the reaction in the US over this charge, and the eventual reversal say only one thing; as far as direct action is involved the USA is *still* one of the best places on the planet to do it. I can't remember the quote exactly, but it goes something along the lines of us in the west having freedoms we simply don't take advantage of. We pussy foot about and don't act, and that is the problem. If Brian here had not received the support that he did, he might still be in jail. I feel safer in the USA than I do in any other country when it comes to expressing my rights, even though I know that in some backwater town that ability may be more suppressed than in other areas.

    1. Re:People in the USA are sometimes blessed... by Enlightenment · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder if this man would have been freed if not for the media whirlwind and outcry over this. In this era, it's almost our duty to raise hell about wrongheaded actions like this, since media attention and publicity can often be more successful than bona fide legal arguments.

    2. Re:People in the USA are sometimes blessed... by db32 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny how that freedom of the press thing works when it operates correctly. I think that was exactly the purpose of that even in the world before mass communication. I think our legal system was meant to be a last resort thing not first resort in this sense. More convoluted laws only hurts this, and it seemed clear to me the idea was to have more of a light and lean and modifiable legal system to try and cope with strange issues like this. Only when things absolutely cannot be worked out should the court system get involved.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    3. Re:People in the USA are sometimes blessed... by loraksus · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this man would have been freed if not for the media whirlwind and outcry over this.
      Absolutely not.
      The DA has career aspirations and didn't want to be labeled as "the douchebag who prosecuted someone for videotaping the cops"
      If there was no coverage / outrage, the average joe would be spending time in prison (although our prosecutor would of have most likely negotiated down to a misdemeanor of some kind, losses and appeals look bad when you want to start out in politics...)

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    4. Re:People in the USA are sometimes blessed... by socz · · Score: 1

      While I agree that America CAN be great, i don't honestly think it ranks amongst the "best." I mean, don't forget about our secrete prisons! And although i am no authority on the CIA, i saw some documentary about how they were kinda out of control at one point and the FBI had to go reel them in.

      For the most part, i'd rather be in jail in the US than in Mexico. From what i heard straight from Mexican nationals, jail isn't a place you go to be kept, it's a place you go to be punished and are treated accordingly. None of this "i'm crazy, have problems and oh, i'm white and paris hilton so can i go home" stuff. You go, starve, probably get beat and try not to go back! Maybe that's what paris needs? a real "life changing jail experience," not the "you're released because there's too many people here" experience.

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    5. Re:People in the USA are sometimes blessed... by jgs · · Score: 1

      I feel safer in the USA than I do in any other country when it comes to expressing my rights, even though I know that in some backwater town that ability may be more suppressed than in other areas.

      Yeah -- even a backwater town like New York City.

    6. Re:People in the USA are sometimes blessed... by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      In this era, it's almost our duty to raise hell about wrongheaded actions like this

      Almost? In this era? This is a democracy; it IS our duty, and has been since the inception of this country.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    7. Re:People in the USA are sometimes blessed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have seen what happened in PA two years ago.

      The PA State house decided they weren't making enough money, so they gave themselves a raise, making them one of the most well paid state legislative bodies in the country. Well, we found out about it, and weren't very happy at all. The pay raise was promptly reversed and most of the reps who voted for it aren't in office any more.

      Every now and again, the system works correctly.

  7. Blackadder Reference by Icarus1919 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Permission to yell 'Bravo' in an annoying loud voice?"
    "Permission granted."
    "BRAVO!"

    1. Re:Blackadder Reference by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Icarus1919.exe requesting permission to yell Bravo in a loud annoying voice, Permit or Deny ?

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  8. Nifong by belmolis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if the downfall of Mike Nifong has given prosecutors a dose of humility.

    1. Re:Nifong by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 3, Insightful

      God, I hope so. To which I add this when will we see some justice doled out on the "victim". I had a friend live through this when he got back together with an ex-girlfriend. She set him up and he only stayed out of prison when it was learn she had a HISTORY of false accusations and was several bananas short of a full bunch.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    2. Re:Nifong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why is it so many chicks are fucking crazy anyway? Hormones? Whoremoans?

    3. Re:Nifong by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I think I used to date her too.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  9. Still too much CYA by adminstring · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I am impressed that the DA admitted that a mistake had been made, he still went too far in covering the ass of the very unprofessional police officer who made this stupid arrest. From TFA:

    [Freed] said the officer who charged Kelly acted in a "professional manner."

    Avoiding accountability by throwing someone in jail for recording how you do your job is NOT professional. Rather, it is the act of a petty tyrant on a power trip who, if left unchecked, will most likely end up harming the public in other ways in the future. The citizens of Pennsylvania deserve better than this from their law enforcement agents.

    --
    My truck is like a series of tubes.
    1. Re:Still too much CYA by Starteck81 · · Score: 0

      It would have been a sad day indeed if this wrong had not been righted. One could only imagine the corruption that would happen if this tool for keeping the police accountable for their actions had been taken away.

      --
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
    2. Re:Still too much CYA by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cops are better off having us use the things right out in the open: at least they'll know where they stand. If arresting citizens for videotaping their police in action becomes an offense worthy of arrest, people will simply start using hidden cameras. Google for it ... it's astonishing how small CCD imager can be made these days. Hell, the one in my cameraphone is maybe a 32nd of an inch in diameter.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Still too much CYA by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 0

      covering the ass of the very unprofessional police officer who made this stupid arrest

      Can you explain why the officer is unprofessional and stupid for arresting someone for breaking the law? Maybe you flunked civics class -- it's not his duty to interpret the law, only to enforce it. If the law on the books says it's illegal to audio-record police officers, then he is obligated to enforce that law. Maybe you should call the law stupid instead.

    4. Re:Still too much CYA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Can you explain why the officer is unprofessional and stupid for arresting someone for breaking the law?"

      Simple : If an "officer of the law" hast the brains to decide to ignore contradicting laws that make it virtually impossible for anyone to even twitch his/her nose without violating at least half a dozen of laws, than he should allso be clever enough to realize that if he demands the right (by mere proclamation !) to audio/video-tape anyone he allso has to acknowledge the right of the other party to do the same.

      But somehow I get the feeling that those "officers of the law" are just that, with the understanding that the law has to be obeyed by "the common people" and to be interpreted/(ab)used by "the law" however they want (and I allready mentioned that its d*mn near impossible to obey that law, due to conflicting and/or vague/over-broad "laws")

      "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts abslolute"

    5. Re:Still too much CYA by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, technically P is right and GP is wrong. But P seems a tad idealistically naive here. Anyone who has ever had a brush with the wrong end of the law enforcement business knows that this is not about an officer enforcing the law because he has a noble goal of enforcing the law; rather it is - as GP says - a power trip.

      P ought to get out of civics class and into the real world.

    6. Re:Still too much CYA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the law on the books says it's illegal to audio-record police officers

      Except that it doesn't. It's headlined as a wiretap law and makes it illegal to record conversations without the other party's consent. Unless the guy had a bug in the cop car listening to the conversation or had his head up to the window with the camera, claiming that he was recording the "conversation" is clearly an attempt to find any excuse that might stick after the fact of having arrested the guy on a powertrip.

    7. Re:Still too much CYA by adminstring · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As you suggest, the law in question is stupid, as are thousands of other laws. But if the officer were acting professionally, he wouldn't make an arrest for any of these laws. Part of being a professional police officer is exercising proper discretion as to when to make an arrest.

      Contrary to your statement, officers are generally not obligated to enforce any particular law. If they were obligated to enforce every infraction of every law they ever witnessed, their entire day would consist of arresting everyone violating the speed limit directly in front of the police station, they'd never make it three blocks down the street, and many more important laws would be broken on streets with no police station.

      Police officers are expected to use intelligent discretion to enforce the laws which will have the greatest impact in improving the quality of life of the community. That means some prioritization is necessary. Arresting murderers and rapists is an excellent use of police resources, and is quite easy to justify. Arresting jaywalkers and people who litter on the sidewalk is a poor use of police resources, and is harder to justify. Each arrest takes time, effort, and money which could be better used elsewhere in the community. Police officers' time is particularly valuable because just by walking or driving down a street, they can deter crime! A key question for police priorities could be, "is what I'm doing more or less productive than simply cruising down the street?" As a taxpayer and a citizen, I have an interest in police using their time wisely. An officer arresting someone for videotaping a publicly-accessible event was clearly not using his publicly-funded time wisely, just as setting up a strict speed trap in front of the police station is also not a wise use of resources.

      Furthermore, I speculate that this officer was probably not aware that the wiretapping law could be used in this case. I wouldn't expect a traffic cop to be well-versed in wiretapping laws. He arrested the guy with the camera, then, according to the original article, "The wiretap charge was filed after consultation with a deputy district attorney." Chances are he was embarrassed about having lost his temper ("He said he held the camera in plain view and turned it on when the officer yelled at his pal") so he arrested the guy, probably for "disorderly conduct" or some other catch-all, then went to the DA's office to see if there was anything better to charge him with. Maybe the guy's pal was being a jerk and deserved to be yelled at. But if it was justified, the cop had nothing to hide, and in either case he had no legitimate reason to go after the guy with the camera.

      For the record, I got an A in civics class... I'm a nerd, after all!

      --
      My truck is like a series of tubes.
    8. Re:Still too much CYA by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      it's not his duty to interpret the law, only to enforce it. If the law on the books says it's illegal to audio-record police officers, then he is obligated to enforce that law.


      No he isn't. Police are not under an "obligation" to do the maximum possible any time they see the slightest infraction of any law, with no independent thought whatsoever. They're free to ignore minor infractions, give warnings, etc. Just as the DA is free to drop the case -- he isn't "obligated" to prosecute every offense that crosses his desk.

      We trust many people in sequence to enforce laws precisely BECAUSE it is impossible for any law to be written that takes into account every possible set of circumstances. That's part of why so many places elect District Attorneys and (less commonly) Police Chiefs. they, in conjunction with Mayors and whatever local legislative body, decide which laws to most vigorously enforce and which ones to let slide either due to them no longer making much sense or simply being too minor to worry about.

      For example, in Houston there's a big annoyance that the PD has been writing thousands of tickets for having license plate frames because *technically* the law says they're illegal no matter how little they obstruct the plate design. The Texas legislature even changed the law recently because it was so patently absurd, but it hasn't taken effect yet and it seems HPD was trying to cash in on as many last-minute tickets as possible. Once the local paper pointed out that the Mayor's official vehicle driven by a police officer had such a frame, it was removed and the police have been instructed by the Mayor not to write any more tickets. Human beings were shamed into changing enforcement policies because the public recognized it was stupid, even though it WAS still illegal.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    9. Re:Still too much CYA by Afecks · · Score: 1

      Solve for D's nuts.

    10. Re:Still too much CYA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's saying that this is what they consider professional, which means we need to re-define "professional" behavior by cops.. any who do act "professional" should be investigated to correct their behavior.

  10. Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Minstrel+Boy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is one of my soapbox issues. More and more, investigations into your personal history (job applications, police investigations, security clearances, and the like) are questioning your *arrest* record. Being arrested (or even charged, but that's another discussion) denotes NOTHING about guilt, intent, or even behavior. You can be arrested for nothing more than being an out-of-state bystander who is witness to an (alleged) crime.

    The *connotation*, however, is becoming increasingly negative, as is the inference when you refuse to reply, or respond that you have not been convicted of any crimes. (I started to type "have no convictions, but it got very confusing very fast!)

    And no, I personally have neither convictions nor arrests.

    KeS

    1. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by PorkNutz · · Score: 5, Funny

      I personally have neither convictions nor arrests.

      Remind me never to party with you.

      -----
      F&@k You Binary T-Shirt
      Funny Shirts @ ProStoner.com

    2. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by epine · · Score: 3, Interesting


      Exactly this phrase also peeved me off. Sometimes I get the feeling that there are a lot of people out there wringing their hands with glee over all the drama that comes along with living in a functional police state, which America is increasingly becoming, as more and more people believe that credit ratings and arrest records and nose cleanings represent the value of a human to society.

    3. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by pytheron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can agree with your point 100%. Here in the UK, after being involved in a car crash, in which I was a passenger, the police attended the scene. Since the car my friend was driving was in the process of having the ownership details transferred by the legendary slow DVLA, the police checked up on us to see if there were any warrants out for us.
      When it came to check my record, I had none. I'm almost 30, and up until that day, I had never been arrested for anything. I had a bank card in my name, some photo membership etc.. and the police even phoned my landlord to verify my identity, which when verified, his shoulders visibly sagged. After all this, I was arrested. Why ? "We don't believe you are who you say you are, Sir." Great. So I end up sitting in a cell for 5 hours, get my DNA taken, all after a head-on crash which left me nicely bruised and hurting. Eventually, a jovial sergeant came to the cell "You can go now." with a smile. Thanks a f*****g lot.
      To have the fact that I was arrested used against me in any way is just plain wrong. Companies should not be allowed to discriminate on information that provides no indication of wrong-doing.

      --
      "I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
    4. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Just wondering, but did you sue for wrongful arrest? I am not a lawyer, but I'd advise speaking to one if you didn't. It sounds like they didn't have anything like the minimum evidence requirements for an arrest. Also, 'We don't believe you are who you say you are, Sir' is not grounds for arrest. If they didn't tell you what they intended to charge you with, it sounds like they violated procedure in a number of ways.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      The *connotation*, however, is becoming increasingly negative

      I blame the media for that. Increasingly cases are reported on as though the guilt of the accused is in little or no doubt, especially if the case involves children and/or sexual offences.

    6. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by pytheron · · Score: 1

      oh.. they told me what they were charging me with, which was "suspicion of theft of a motor vehicle". Laughable really. I'd love to be able to sue the police here for that episode, and even get them to remove my DNA from records, to which they have no right. But I can't afford to. Righteousness is only for the rich.

      --
      "I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
    7. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by crucini · · Score: 1

      In California, they only ask about convictions - I think it's state law. I have one, and while it's embarassing to have to write it down, it's never barred me from a job in CA. I know this because because the background form is sent after the employer makes a conditional offer.

      A friend worked for an intelligence agency. They polygraph everyone, and dig deeply into each crime and arrest. But they do hire people with criminal convictions, if they have been clean for a while. However, that agency will not hire anyone who's used an illegal drug other than pot.

    8. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you don't like the arrest, and you live in California (other states have different rules) you can petition the court to to declare you "factually innocent" and to order the arrest records sealed and destroyed. If this happens, according to California Penal Code 851.8, "The arrestee is thereby exonerated...the arrest shall be deemed never to have occurred and the person may answer accordingly any question relating to its occurrence."

      To find you factually innocent and order the arrest records destroyed, the court must find that "no reasonable cause exists to believe that the arrestee committed the offense for which the arrest was made."

      If you are successful, the police agency must seal the arrest records for three years and thereafter purge and destroy the arrest records. You will no longer need to inform an employer or licensing board of the arrest.

      Now, given that there are circumstances in the U.S. justice system where you must prove your innocence or suffer consequences, we can only conclude that the bedrock principle of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is actually not a fundamental right.

    9. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by crucini · · Score: 1

      Reading between the lines, it sounds like you weren't carrying ID. Do you understand why the police detain people who go around without ID? Do you understand that you've benefited enormously, all your life, from the police checking IDs and warrants at traffic stops and accidents? Would you trade your five hours in a police station for a lifetime living in a place where IDs are not checked, such as Somalia?

    10. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by illtud · · Score: 1

      To have the fact that I was arrested used against me in any way is just plain wrong.

      Amen. For those who think this is just an inconvenience, let me just point out that you're no longer allowed to visit the US anymore without having to:

      * ring up the US embassy (on their hideously expensive premium-rate line)
      * stay on hold for up to hours to get an appointment
      * travel to London and queue up for hours for your appointment
      * suffer an interview to get a visa, attempting to explain away your arrest
      * pay a fortune for the visa

      See the US embassy website
      "Important: Some travelers may not be eligible to enter the United States visa free under the VWP. These include people who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction,"

      I don't think that USAnians realise how horribly their goverment treat even tourist visitors who've been arrested at anytime (regardless of any charge being bought, let alone a conviction).

    11. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by illtud · · Score: 1

      Reading between the lines, it sounds like you weren't carrying ID. Do you understand why the police detain people who go around without ID?

      Hey, this is the UK we're talking about - there is absolutely no requirement to carry ID in the UK (yet). Maybe you don't understand this in the "land of the free".

    12. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your papers, please?"

      Sounds like the fuckin' Nazis already won.

    13. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      But you will have to pay court costs to do this.

    14. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Belacgod · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You guys in the UK have cops who arrest people yelling at trespassers, who take people's cars off the streets and crush them for no reason, your schools refuse to teach the crusades or holocaust for fear of offending Muslims...what you need is a good revolution. I'm not surprised what happened to you happened to you, or that you can't do anything about it, but I am appalled and saddened.

    15. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by karmatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would you trade your five hours in a police station for a lifetime living in a place where IDs are not checked

      I certainly would. I would gladly spend a month in Jail to live in a nation where "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" was more than just words on paper.

      ID is about verifying who you are. Laws concern behavior, not identity. Police should act when they see illegal or behavior likely to be illegal, or when they have reasonable suspicion, supported by oath or affirmation and signed by a judge.

      Police are Law Enforcement Officers, and there is no higher law (in the US) than the Constitution. As such, when police check ID in a manner inconsistent with the fourth amendment, they are in fact violating the law, and not doing their jobs.

      You imply that Somalia is like it is solely because IDs aren't checked. Such argument is intellectually dishonest, and neglects differences in culture, and corruption in government. The United States, if less IDs were checked, would have fewer people in jail. It would, on the other hand, be more free - reading the writings of some of the founding fathers will quickly show that this is by design. The government's job in obtaining convictions and performing surveillance is difficult by design.

    16. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Leebert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think that USAnians realise how horribly their goverment treat even tourist visitors who've been arrested at anytime (regardless of any charge being bought, let alone a conviction).


      Ha! The Federal government does that even to its own citizens! I was arrested back in college. The charges were dropped, but I was disqualified from a government contracting position some years later over the arrest, which didn't even go to TRIAL. That's where I learned about the concept of "protected" discriminations, which being arrested isn't.

      It's one of my pet peeve issues also.
    17. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by blackest_k · · Score: 3, Informative

      no actually you have no rights here, information about your arrest will remain on file till you reach 100

      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233613&cid =19009319 a previous post of mine has links and extracts from the relevant legislation.

    18. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by crucini · · Score: 1

      I certainly would. I would gladly spend a month in Jail to live in a nation where...

      My point was that the annoyances we experience from the police are a small price to live in a civilized place. Complaining that the police detained you for five hours over an ID issue is like complaining that you have to stop at traffic lights.
       

      ID is about verifying who you are. Laws concern behavior, not identity.

      Our laws don't have much teeth without the ability to identify an offender. A functioning, orderly society with no ID would have:
      • No traffic tickets. Traffic offenders would be arrested and held in jail until their families brought money to pay the fine. Because there is no way to punish someone who doesn't pay a ticket.
      • No parole or probation.
      • No bail. Anyone accused of a crime would stay in jail until their trial.

      You imply that Somalia is like it is solely because IDs aren't checked.

      What I mean is that stable identity is part and parcel of our humane, orderly society. Many people enjoy eating the sausage of freedom, but are disgusted when they see how it's made. Our freedom to walk the streets peacefully is bought by the violent repression of those who would naturally own the streets. Could you abolish ID cards and still have a functioning society? Yes, at some cost. Is it worth it?
    19. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by vidarh · · Score: 1
      Dragging out Somalia is just plain intellectually dishonest. Somalia haven't had a functioning central government for years. To try to imply that any of their problems are even remotely related to whether or not they check IDs is just disgusting.

      There's also a huge difference between ID being checked and someone being arrested and left in jail because some moron police officer refuse to accept what all the checks he did came up clean.

      I don't see the poster you replied to complain about being asked to identify himself, but about being arrested for breaking no laws and then have to worry about that arrest being used against him later.

    20. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "your schools refuse to teach the crusades or holocaust for fear of offending Muslims."

      False, wrong, incorrect, rubbish!

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/holocaust. asp

      "Teaching of the Holocaust is already compulsory in schools at Key Stage 3 (ages 11 to 14), and it will remain so in the new KS3 curriculum from September 2008."

    21. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by schon · · Score: 1

      My point was that the annoyances we experience from the police are a small price to live in a police state. There, fixed that for ya.

      Complaining that the police detained you for five hours over an ID issue is like complaining that you have to stop at traffic lights. Last time I checked, traffic lights don't hold you against your will for 5 hours.

      Many people enjoy eating the sausage of freedom Ahh - so in order to enjoy freedom, we have to be submit to being locked up when we've done nothing wrong.

      Are you *trying* to sound Orwellian? (C'mon - you might have well have said "war is peace".)
    22. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by thelastquestion · · Score: 1

      dude, you seriously want to have a party with a bunch of /.ers? that could possibly be one of the most uncomfortable things I have ever imagined...

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
    23. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Brother, I hate to break this to you, but you don't live in a free country. I know America has its drawbacks, but we do cling to our freedom, or, some of it anyway. I mean that about lots of things in Britain.

    24. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by janrinok · · Score: 2, Informative

      "take people's cars off the streets and crush them for no reason"

      Rubbish. If the car is not displaying a valid tax disc then the law is being broken. A quick check tells the police whether a valid disc exists for a car's registration number and, if not, it 'can' be removed and crushed. You may not like that, but I do. I pay my car tax, I have insurance and a valid driving license. I do not have problems with the police enforcing the law in this particular instance.

      If 'yelling' at trespassers is likely to cause a 'breach of the peace' then an offence is being committed. The police have the right to use their discretion on how this should be treated. If, after being warned that he should stop yelling because it is an offence, the individual concerned continues to shout, then the police would be well within their rights to arrest him if it is necessary to enforce the law in this instance. However, unlike some other countries he is unlikely to be shot, nor will he be expected to endure anal rape as part of his punishment. You see, we feel that we are quite advanced and try to respect human dignity, although it is true that we sometimes fail. But nothing that would justify a revolution....

      Taking into account my comments and the comments of others regarding your post, it seems that your post is based in incorrect information, probably because you are viewing this from several thousand miles away without the benefit of knowing at first hand anything about that upon which you are commenting. Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers or see on the TV. Don't even believe everything you hear on /.

      You stick to the revolutions. We've not had one for several hundred years and, in many ways, I think we do well when compared with other western nations. Of course, my experience of those countries at first hand is limited, but at least I have visited many of them.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    25. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by janrinok · · Score: 1

      As has already been pointed out - there is no requirement to carry ID in the UK. It is not an arrestable offence in itself. Carrying false documents might be suspicious but carrying no documents should not be. You have 48 hours (I think, but several days at least) to provide ID and relevant vehicle documentation at a police station of your choice should the police believe that they need to verify them. In this particular case, if the police were led to believe that you were lying about your identity even after having it verified by your landlord, what else could they have done? If you were lying, they could hardly release you and ask you to appear at a police station of your choice with the relevant documentation because they could not enforce your compliance with that request i.e. they wouldn't know your true identity and could not come after you if you failed to show up. They did think that you might have committed an offence - the theft of a motor vehicle. Although I sympathise, I cannot see what else the police could reasonably have been expected to do. The police have to use their discretion but, in this instance, it seems that it unfortunately resulted in someone being detained for 5 hours.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    26. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      Here is the article I was referring to with the car one. Is there some other explanation for this? I'm not saying the USA is perfect--much US policy frankly sucks--but these petty assaults upon basic dignity are rare here, and when they happen often lead to political career-ending scandal.

    27. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by janrinok · · Score: 1

      The aluminium-bodied vehicle, built by British manufacturer Bristol Cars, was in good condition and was exempt from road tax because of its status as a classic car. Mr Stewart, who insists a special "nil payment" disc was clearly displayed in the windscreen, took legal action against the council after the incident in December 2004. But more than two years on, despite the council admitting liability, he has still not received a penny - and he has been reduced to driving an ageing van instead of his treasured Bristol.

      It was not taken by the police, it was the local council. A mistake was made but, despite the council admitting liability, they haven't recompensed the owner. That is the error here. I can see how the council employee made the mistake. The car was not displaying a tax disc but he didn't know that there was such a thing as a tax exemption disc. It does not justify his mistake - he was wrong - but it does explain it.

      You guys in the UK have cops who arrest people yelling at trespassers, who take people's cars off the streets and crush them for no reason....

      There is NO law that permits the police to take peoples cars off the streets and crush them for no reason. Your assertion is wrong. Which is why they didn't do it.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    28. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many states you can get arrests expunged if the charges were dropped and you are not arrested again for a similar offense within a timeframe. Expunged means that it is off the records, your fingerprints are deleted, your mugshot trashed, all records of the arrest are gone.

    29. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by PjotrP · · Score: 1

      After 5 hours, does the truth suddenly pop up out of nowhere? Why do you think that five hours suddenly make the "problem" of his ID disappear? Did they use those five hours to go to his parents' house to show his picture? "Hello, we need you to verify that this is your son." "Could you please come with us to the police station, and ask him some questions only your real son would know the answer to, because he might just be a lookalike..."
      "oh, thank you, you have his ID right here... but how do we know it's not a fake one?"
      I'm afraid we have to hold him untill the end of his life, because we can never be sure that he is who he says he is...

      --
      PjotrP
    30. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by janrinok · · Score: 1

      No, I wasn't there but I can use common sense, however I think that you are being silly. It took the police 5 hours to find something that validated his identity, to confirm that his friend was the legal owner of the vehicle (i.e it had not been stolen), to check that neither he nor his friend had any criminal record and to confirm that no crime had taken place. Do you know what time of the day this all occurred? Day or night? How close to home did this accident occur? Five hours during the night is not long to get results. You try finding someone who can vouch for your identity and who doesn't mind being woken up. Try getting someone to travel any significant distance to the police station where they were being held. How cooperative were they with the police or, perhaps being a bit angry and/or frustrated, did they exacerbate the situation by not being as helpful as they might otherwise have been? How well staffed were the police at the time? What other tasks did they have that might have slowed the process down? We haven't got all the facts so we shouldn't try to judge how the police handled it. And until that point that the police had all the facts they couldn't very well let him go now, could they? In your Utopian world, how would you have handled the situation?

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    31. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took the police 5 hours to find something that validated his identity, to confirm that his friend was the legal owner of the vehicle (i.e it had not been stolen), to check that neither he nor his friend had any criminal record and to confirm that no crime had taken place.
      More likely that it took them half an hour to write an incident report then four hours in the canteen to recover from all that work. The police, traffic police especially, are vastly overpaid, workshy beyond belief, and in serious need of a scrupulously-honest judicial review. That idiot cowboy mentality of 'we are the law' has been imported wholesale from the US and is becoming ever more prevalent in the police, seemingly since Thatcher gave them free reign during the miners' strike.

    32. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by janrinok · · Score: 1

      I take it that is simply an opinion? Can you show any evidence to support your views?

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    33. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by rdoger6424 · · Score: 1

      If the exoneration will get you a better job, it could be worth it.

      --
      "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
    34. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You stick to the revolutions. We've not had one for several hundred years"

      Not anybody's fault if you're a sorry lot of Corgi shit-eating cowards.

      How does Tony Blair's sperm taste like? Just curious, you're all sucking his cock.

    35. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your credit report is the most innacurate record out there. Every american has on average 20-30 errors on their credit report.

      It blows my mind that any company relies on some of the most innacurate data available. Add to the fact that credit reporting companies refuse and resist any changes to reduce or eliminate fraud should cause all companies to disregard credit reports as suspect quality.

      Credit report companies can eliminate identity theft by simply allowing a person to lock their credit report. No allow it to be pulled and only reply with "LOCKED BY CUSTOMER" will make it impossible for a loan or Credit card to be taken out in your name unless you release it.

      Credit reporting companies make money off of the tons of illigitmate reports pulled. They will never turn off one of their biggest revinue streams.

    36. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by janrinok · · Score: 1

      LOL! Spoken like a true North American. By the way, I suppose that it would taste like any other, but I've nothing to compare it with!

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    37. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by crucini · · Score: 1

      As has already been pointed out - there is no requirement to carry ID in the UK.

      I don't understand how this can work. How does the UK address the issues I raised?

      You have 48 hours (I think, but several days at least) to provide ID...

      What does this mean? They hold you for 48 hours? They let you go, and say "come back in 48 hours with ID, or we'll issue a warrant for Mr. Noname"?

      And what is this concept of landlord verification? Is this widely understood in the UK? How can the police tell that they're speaking to a "landlord", and why should they believe him about anything? And how can he identify someone he can't see?
    38. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by crucini · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... police state. There, fixed that for ya.

      Are you saying that the UK is a police state? In that case, which countries are not police states?

      Last time I checked, traffic lights don't hold you against your will for 5 hours.

      On the other hand, being detained by the police is not an every day occurence for most people. My point is that in the big picture of life, it's nothing. It's down among the dental visits, fender benders and sprained ankles. Not in the same league as divorce, bankruptcy and cancer. Or the sorts of things that happen in actual police states.

      Orwell does not have a monopoly on paradox. In particular, the paradox of freedom requiring boundaries is an ancient one. Every man would like to walk the street in absolute freedom, knowing that nobody can mess with him. This isn't possible for most of us on this earth. With too weak a police presence, we're plagued with bullies, drunks and muggers. With too strong a police presence, we are constantly watched; we get stopped for trivial things. Most civilized communities have achieved a reasonable balance, and yes, this reasonable balance means that sometimes an innocent person is detained by the police.
    39. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by janrinok · · Score: 1

      48 hours

      Yes, it means just that, except that the police must know who you are so it is not, of course, used for identity checks. However, you are not held but are told to report to a police station of your choosing with your driver's licence and tax and insurance documentation.

      landlord verification

      There is no such thing as 'landlord verification'. Rather , it is simply a method for getting someone to verify something that you have said. For example, if you told the police your name, address and a point of contact for someone who could verify that information, the police would simply telephone them to confirm the details and probably ask them to describe your appearance. As long as everything tallied the police would have no reason to detain you. If the description did not tally (and this has happened when 'good friends' have intentionally given an inaccurate description for a joke), then the police will continue to hold you until they can prove your identity positively.

      Addressing issues

      I've looked back through the posts but I'm not sure that I know which issues you are referring to. However, with regards to daily law enforcement (e.g. parking tickets or motoring offences) there is no particular problem caused by not carrying an ID. If the police are content that you are being truthful, they can issue a ticket on the spot made out to the owner of the vehicle. If they are not certain that you are being truthful, as in the case that we have been discussing, then they can hold you until while they make enquiries. Our local cells in the police station are not often used for this purpose, although they can be if the police think it is justified, they tend to simply ask you to be seated in a waiting room. Dispel all images that you have from American TV of being locked in a jail with a number of other ne'er-do-wells.


      Finally, although carrying ID is not a legal requirement, most people do it by default. The latest version of the driver's licence carries your photograph. Many companies issue ID cards with a photograph for control of entry. Even having credit cards and mail addressed to the name and address that you have quoted can be adequate if the police have no other reason to suspect you of any crime. Despite what you read on /., the UK is far from being the police state that it is painted to be although I am sure that there will be any number of stories to follow this post telling you otherwise. I've lived there for 55 years, I am just an 'average joe', and neither I nor anyone I know has ever had any significant problem with this aspect of law enforcement.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    40. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by crucini · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply. I'm glad the system works for you. I am not one of those calling the UK a police state. Quite the reverse: from your description, it seems like a wanted criminal can drive around with impunity, as long as he has a voice on the phone to identify him as various citizens.

      But I actually don't know how police in the US handle the driver who simply forgot his license. Could be the same thing for all I know.

    41. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just felt the need to address these, since you seem confused:

      # No traffic tickets. Traffic offenders would be arrested and held in jail until their families brought money to pay the fine. Because there is no way to punish someone who doesn't pay a ticket.

      Sure there is, and we do it now. The car is much more easy to identify than the person; VIN written all over the place, license plates clearly visible.... The owner of the car has a vested interest in identifying the driver, and the vast majority of people are honest. So the cost is... oh, whups, nothing, even given that requiring a drivers license is different from requiring ID of the passenger.

      Now, non-traffic tickets are another story. Even then I don't think that we give out tickets for people without cars (e.g. jaywalking?) frequently enough for this to be a problem. Again though, we're talking now about someone who has been determined to have committed a crime other than lacking ID. If it's a misdemeanor, and the offender isn't doing it so frequently that they are recognized, then I don't really care that much. Oooo, you got out of a $50 spitting in public ticket by lying... congratu-frickin-lations. Hope you don't run into that cop again anytime soon, or it might suck for you.

      # No parole or probation.

      I don't get this one. You've arrested them and convicted them. You've required a boatload more than their ID, no-one objects to being able to identify someone before they are let out on parole...

      # No bail. Anyone accused of a crime would stay in jail until their trial.

      Again, this is after arrest. The police have determined that you have committed a crime other than 'failure to produce ID'. This is not 'papers please', this is: We're taking your fingerprints and photograph, and a significant monetary bond from someone who we are free to ask ID of (the bondsman) who has significant interest (getting his / her money back) in finding you and getting you back to jail... that's why the bail-bonds system works the way it does.

    42. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by mibus · · Score: 1

      Reading between the lines, it sounds like you weren't carrying ID.

      There's your problem - you need to read the lines themselves, not the whitespace inbetween ;)

      From the GP:

      I had a bank card in my name, some photo membership etc.. and the police even phoned my landlord to verify my identity, which when verified...

      So he had non-photo, fairly usable (IMHO) ID in the form of bankcards, photo ID for smaller places, and verbal verification from his landlord, and they still arrested him?
    43. Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest by schon · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that the UK is a police state? As a citizen of the UK, are you saying that they're not?

      My point is that in the big picture of life, it's nothing. Bullshit.

      Being arrested, hauled away like a criminal when you are completely innocent of any wrongdoing when there is no evidence that a crime has even been committed is not, in any way, shape or form "nothing".

      Most civilized communities have achieved a reasonable balance Bullshit - this has nothing to do with being "civilized"
  11. Re:When has Slashdot became a Communist haven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, because communists are known for their persistant insistance on an open and accountable government.

  12. First time for everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I will tern into a complete police spy

    Tern? That doesn't look like a typographical error, since the "e" and the "u" are nowhere near each other on the keyboard, so we must assume that you intend to watch the police from the water while preening your feathers and searching for fish to eat. Or, perhaps you'd swoop down on them from the sky and crap on their shiny cars?

    Oh, you didn't mean "tern" like the type of bird, you meant you'd draw the three winning numbers in a lottery? Well, that's just confusing.

    I'm a bit confused about your use of the abbreviation for Post Office though - or did you mean Pissed Off?

    1. Re:First time for everything by bodan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe he's using a Dvorak keyboard? aoeui...

      --
      "I think I am a fallen star. I should wish on myself."
    2. Re:First time for everything by ascendant · · Score: 1

      On /. nobody knows you're a tern...

      --
      Do not attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by incompetence.
    3. Re:First time for everything by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      That was my thought... they are right next to each other. /this message sent to you on a Dvorak keyboard.

    4. Re:First time for everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Come now, there's no reason to make fun of him for writing "tern." Everyone knew what he was talking about and you didn't make any salient points about the article or about his turning into a police spy. Couldn't you have at least added a point, you anonymous coward, rather than just bringing him down so you feel better about yourself?

    5. Re:First time for everything by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Come now, there's no reason to make fun of him for writing "tern."

      Preservation of the clarity of the written word justifies harassment of all mis-uses of any word. If he'd SAID "teern", you can be he'd be laughed at.

    6. Re:First time for everything by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      On /. nobody knows you're a tern.

      I don't like terns. They've got long nasty beaks! And they wet their nests.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    7. Re:First time for everything by McGiraf · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can be he'd be laughed at? this is getting confusing

    8. Re:First time for everything by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Tern? That doesn't look like a typographical error, since the "e" and the "u" are nowhere near each other on the keyboard, so we must assume that you intend to watch the police from the water while preening your feathers and searching for fish to eat.
      Sorry, but this reminds me of when I traded some sausage for a pet bird. I took a tern for the wurst.


      And then there was the time I was throwing rocks at birds. I wanted to leave no tern unstoned.

      --
      I feel like death on a soda cracker.
    9. Re:First time for everything by janrinok · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Two genuinely funny remarks - at least to my sense of humour. However, please do not give up your day job as I fear your new career might be a short-lived one.....

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    10. Re:First time for everything by Atario · · Score: 1

      Clear lee, dragging naturally speaking kneads moor work.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  13. Lawsuit from Brian Kelly's attorney by imaginaryelf · · Score: 3, Funny

    will be filed against the city, county, and state, in

    3
    2
    1 ...

    1. Re:Lawsuit from Brian Kelly's attorney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They deserve it. Hitting them where in hurts (the wallet) is the only way they'll bother to listen. I hope the attorney wins a lot of money for himself and that police officer spends some time in jail.

    2. Re:Lawsuit from Brian Kelly's attorney by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      I sure hope not the state. I live in PA and pay taxes here, and when I got arrested on charges just to have them go "oh, whoops" later and drop them, nobody handed me a fat check, so this 18 year old doesn't deserve it either.

  14. I smell movie-rights!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  15. Keep the momentum going by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

    What an unexpected win for the people.

    A tiny rock on a hill of snow can become a gigantic snowball when rolled down with momentum. Let's not forget this incident, and fight similar issues throughout the world, knowing that you CAN make a difference.

    Peace out.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Keep the momentum going by Icarus1919 · · Score: 1

      When you end your statement about changing the world with "Peace out.", you almost guarantee that no one will take you seriously.

    2. Re:Keep the momentum going by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

      Why, because I sound like Kip? ;)

      You're being cynical. Listen to the message and not my mannerisms.

      Peace out. ;)

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    3. Re:Keep the momentum going by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One way to challenge the PA law would be to gather 100,000 or so cell phone camera users together in one of the larger cities and all start recording the street scene wherever they are at the same time. Might be interesting to see the state try to prosecute 100,00 felony charges all at once.

    4. Re:Keep the momentum going by Joebert · · Score: 1

      No, seriously, "Pease Out" is one of the most bird-brained things you can say.
      People are going to take you about as seriously as the parrot in the Dentists' office.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    5. Re:Keep the momentum going by Joebert · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Fuck !

      I know how to spell peace, really I do.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  16. What cloud of his future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arrest records do not follow you the way convictions would. No harm no foul.

    1. Re:What cloud of his future? by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Guess you haven't looked for a job lately. Most places where I've worked ask about one's *arrest* record in addition to convictions. If you have been arrested, you of course could lie about it, but if the company does any kind of background check on you it most definitely will show up unless you were a juvenile at the time, and even then, "sealed" doesn't always mean sealed.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re:What cloud of his future? by akintayo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since most newspapers are online, it isn't that unlikely that a web search would turn up news of his arrest.

      --
      Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
    3. Re:What cloud of his future? by mazphil57 · · Score: 1

      Or you could do what I did, give them back the sheet of paper, blank, and invite them to escort me immediately from their "secure" facility. And then lecture them on the religious concept of "being forgiven and fully cleansed of past sins, which are now forgotten". Obviously, if your technical skills are not that good, this might be a bad idea.

    4. Re:What cloud of his future? by russotto · · Score: 1

      If your arrest record has been expunged, you're legally permitted to deny having been arrested except in a very few cases. Employment applications with private employers aren't one of those cases.

      I had mine expunged (oops, but here I'm talking about it) but I don't think anyone has asked me about anything but convictions since.

    5. Re:What cloud of his future? by houghi · · Score: 1

      I have and if they ask, you can tell them to shove it and file a complaint against the company. Only certain jobs will have a need for any type of clearance.

      Either sombody has done his time and is safe to return to society, he he doesn't and should stay locked up.

      The moment a company does a background check and recieves ANY information and then on gorund of that does not hire you, both that company and the company giving information will be doing something illegal. And it doesn't stop there. Just yesterday I had the police on the phone asking for information of one of our clients. Well it apeared to be somebody with a fake ID, so the client was not realy our client.

      I did NOT gave him any information, although I had it in my hand. I told hinm he knew the procedure and that I would keep the papers on the side till I get a court order to hand them over. In no way would I or the company work for hand over that information.

      At another company I saw police being escorted out of the building, because they did not have the court order with them.

      Privacy is more importand then the catching of one person and putting him rightfully in jail.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  17. Negative effect from this by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Note this in the article:

    "When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects,
    So this may result in police not recording traffic stops, which won't help to keep the police in line. In fact, it could lead to more abuses.
    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Negative effect from this by master0ne · · Score: 0

      Theres a pretty good defence aganst your theory though.... Officer Bob, can we please see the videotape from your cruser on the night of may 12, when the victum alleges you beat him for speeding? Uh, Your Honor, i wasnt recording the incident.... Officer Bob, why wernt you recording the incident? I was afrade the suspect would film me aswell, so i turned off my camera.... Why were you afrade to be filmed.... BUSTED... theres NO REASON why the officer should ever NOT videotape the incident...

      --
      Noone writes jokes in base 13!
    2. Re:Negative effect from this by jjh37997 · · Score: 1

      Doubtful. Although most police departments faught against the idea of installing cameras in police vehicles they have since discovered that recording arrests protects officers more often than not. People tend to act more professionally when they know they are being watch and I see this new ruling as a step in the right direction. Here's to more cameras! I look forward to the day when everyone carries around a small personal recorder that wireless beams home everything that they see or hear in a given day.

    3. Re:Negative effect from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah,

      Videotaping stops has come out in the cops favor way more than it's caught abuses.

      You'd be surprised how many assholes claim cop did X and Y and violated right Q, just to get out of a speeding ticket they deserved.

    4. Re:Negative effect from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are impossibly stupid if you think the officer would give an honest answer in a court of law.

    5. Re:Negative effect from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faught? Are you fucking kidding me?

    6. Re:Negative effect from this by russotto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Recording arrests protects officers because the official videotape mysteriously comes out blank when the cops do anything egregiously wrong. That's why preserving the right to tape them unofficially is important.

    7. Re:Negative effect from this by master0ne · · Score: 1

      to the AC that replied to the parent post, it doesnt matter weather the Officer is honest or not, as there is no reason the camera should have been turned off in the first place... If he's honest, then hes BUSTED... if he lies... its obviously a lie, and hes just as busted....

      --
      Noone writes jokes in base 13!
    8. Re:Negative effect from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lie: "We don't record every stop, only a sampling of them. The city doesn't provide us with the funding to record every activity during the day."

      How obvious is that lie? How is it still a lie when the police realize they need to be able to say that (and they can figure it out at least as fast as I did); and make it the truth?

      Sorry, there will be no justice for you citizen.

      -Same AC

    9. Re:Negative effect from this by master0ne · · Score: 1

      the lie is obvious because the funding records can be pulled, and the cost of tape is cheep, alot cheeper than a lawsuit of alleged police buritality... As a defendent, the first thing i would question is why they only record a "sampling" of them, as the camera is there for both the officer's and civillians protection, i would want it rolling on every traffic stop (basically when the lights come on, the camera should too, the only way to turn off the camera should be to put the patrol car into drive, but thats outside the scopt of this article)... Any responce the officer can give asto why that camera was turned off should be questioned and treated with extreme suspicion...

      --
      Noone writes jokes in base 13!
    10. Re:Negative effect from this by kthejoker · · Score: 1

      Actually, recording of traffic stops is mandated by most departments at a statewide level (The Texas DPS, for example.) And there won't be any change to that, since the blowback would be tremendous.

  18. I, on the other hand, by rolfwind · · Score: 1

    am a man of strong convictions.

  19. Mod This Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to wonder how some of these stories really constitute "news for nerds". It's only on a loony site like indymedia where you usually see this type of news.

    It would be one thing if slashdot covered this stuff comprehensively, but when they pick and choose only those events that make a police department look bad, it's outrageously off the mark for this site.

    1. Re:Mod This Up by PaulBu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you get IndyMedia (I take your word that it was covered there) and Reason magazine (that was where I read about it first) to pay attention to the same story and be on the same side of it -- maybe, just maybe, it counts as "stuff as matters", not to mention that geeks are more likely to have camcoders in their pockets than non-geeks, huh? :)

      Paul B.

  20. entire nation? by jsldub · · Score: 0

    How could charges being dropped in no-name-ville PA affect the entire nation?

    1. Re:entire nation? by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      County, not Country.

      A county is a portion of a state.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
  21. That's just stupid by r_jensen11 · · Score: 0

    There are some things that naturally have to be secret. How effective would spies be if their information was publicly disclosed?

    1. Re:That's just stupid by janrinok · · Score: 1

      It is often not the information that the spies collect that needs protecting. It is their methods and sources. The information that they collect should be acted upon otherwise there is no point in collecting the information in the first place. The knack is to act without compromising exactly how much you know, and how you came to know it....

      Much of this should not be applicable to a police force, with a few notable exceptions (i.e perhaps the identity of informants etc). They should be enforcing the laws by identifying the person breaking the law and taking the appropriate action. You do not have to be 'secret' about stopping someone for a driving offence, or hiding what you know about a crime that caused you to identify and arrest the perpetrator of that crime. In fact, you have to provide much of what you know as evidence.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  22. Oh you think so? by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1, Funny
    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    1. Re:Oh you think so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually I live in the south. it fucking sucks.

    2. Re:Oh you think so? by socz · · Score: 1

      My God! I just saw this video and i can't believe it! Here is the jist of it:

      - A trio of english fellows try to buy 3 cars under $1000 USD in miami, they joke and then verify how dangerous the city is
      - they work their way through florida, with their final destination being new orleans.
      - along the way they almost crash into a river full of gators, possibly eat a dead squirrel and a dead cow (both "road kill")
      - Almost are beaten at a gas station (more later)
      - Threatened to get sued for trying to give away a car for free because they said the car year was 2 years later than it really was


      The almost beaten part is as follows:

      they have a bet to try to get each other into trouble. There are 3 cars so they have to write on each others cars offensive words. The one who gets one of the drivers pulled over or killed wins! Well, it's all fun and games until they pull into a gas station in alabama. The station manager (?) complains about the "nascar sucks," "i'm bi," and "hillary for president" painted words on the vehicles. Shortly after she "calls for the boys" and a truck full of locals show up, threaten the film crew and chase everyone away by throwing rocks. Locals give chase and cars pull over to wipe the words of the vehicles for fear of getting shot at. Oh, i forgot to mention that before they stopped at the gas station, loads of drivers were honking.

      At first, i thought "no one will get mad..." but i was wrong. I guess americans aren't good at taking a joke? I really recommend the video if you have some time to kill. If you just want to see the worst part go towards the last third of it.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8133720312 520034070

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    3. Re:Oh you think so? by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      Troll? he must have a Confederate flag painted on his car.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    4. Re:Oh you think so? by dlZ · · Score: 1

      Where I live in Central New York those things would get you a hand shake. Travel about an hour one direction or 30 minutes the other, and it'd get you shot. Have to love this country :/

      --
      rm -rf ./evidence @ punkcomp
  23. And all their toys are made in China by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Well, if 99% of all your computers gadgets and toys and cloths are made in China, then you are supporting
    a communist government right there.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:And all their toys are made in China by 42Penguins · · Score: 1

      China is as much a purely communist state as the US is a purely capitalist state.
      And both as much as England is a monarchy.

      Good luck finding any pure governmental systems being used these days.

    2. Re:And all their toys are made in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all just varying degrees of monetary feudalism!

    3. Re:And all their toys are made in China by xinjiang77 · · Score: 1

      False, China has a capitalist market system, so technically you are supporting capitalism. Not to mention that Mexico (also a capitalist nation) exports a large amount of electronic equipment to the USA.

  24. Wear it like a badge! by SgtSnorkel · · Score: 1


    'Have you ever been arrested?'

    'Yes, I was arrested and jailed while standing up for our rights.
    I'd do it again, too.'

  25. Privacy, anyone? by cdrguru · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, in light of recent events I should be able to videotape police activities, right?

    Anytime I see police making a traffic stop, I whip out my camcorder and get some nice clear pictures of the police officer and the person being stopped. Sounds about like what is being promoted here.

    The reason this is (was?) illegal in many places should be clear to people but apparently isn't. Yet, I hope.

    The first problem is the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty. Yes, even in America today. So what does my videotape show? Someone being questioned by police. This is the sort of thing that attracts voyeurs like rotting meat attracts flies. People will pay for video like this, especially (but not exclusively) if the person is some kind of public figure or celebrity. Should it be legal to publish such video? Well here in the anonymous Internet age once you have something in digital form there is literally no stopping it from being distributed. You can't stop it and you can't shut it down.

    See? This doesn't have anything to do with the police and everything to do with the other people. If you watch any of the police video shows you will always see the "perp" with his face pixelated so they aren't identifiable. Do you think amature videographers are going to do this before uploading their clip to YouTube?

    This means a simple traffic stop where the cop tells you to watch running through yellow lights has the potential to become an issue with your job. Why? A lot of public-facing jobs really are closed to people that have even a hint of controversy about them. Would you leave your child in the care of a teacher that was accused of having sex with a child? Would you hire someone as a bank teller that was accused of embezzlement? Would you still hire them if your insurance company told you that hiring them would raise your insurance rates? 50 years ago this sort of information could be private and not disclosed. Today, it is readily available to be misused. And it certainly is misused, every day.

    Is it right that groundless accusations can prevent people from getting a job? No. Does it happen every day? Yes, absolutely. Is having video tape of accused (but not convicted) people going to help or hurt?

    1. Re:Privacy, anyone? by adminstring · · Score: 1



      You have a number of very valid concerns here, but I'm not sure that videotaping arrests will make these social ills much worse than they already are:

      It is unfortunate that employers are starting to ask about arrests, as it negates the presumption of innocence (to the extent that I could imagine it becoming illegal to ask about arrests in a job interview for just that reason) but having a videotape of the arrest won't add anything to that fact.

      The cop shows blur out people's faces because they are often being arrested in their homes (where there is a presumption of privacy,) and because the producers are using the footage in a commercial product and don't want to be hit up for royalties. The ACLU wants people videotaping police interaction that occurs in public, for use in court. That's a very different situation, and blurring shouldn't be necessary (or desirable.)

      It is also unfortunate that celebrities are hounded by photographers. Everyone should get a life and mind their own business. Paris Hilton's inconsequential troubles have been pushing real news, about people getting killed etc, aside for months now. I stopped going to the cnn.com homepage because I was tired of having my intelligence insulted by their asinine choice of "top stories." But this won't make that situation any worse than it already is.

      Let's go after the real problems here, not a potentially very helpful solution. Let's bring back "innocent until proven guilty." Let's get the press to leave the celebrities alone and start paying some attention to government corruption. And let's give cameras to residents of neighborhoods where the cops think they can get away with unnecessary violence and other unbecoming conduct. There's no conflict. I see where you're coming from, but I'd hate to see this baby get thrown out with the bathwater.

      --
      My truck is like a series of tubes.
    2. Re:Privacy, anyone? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      How about we work to cure the problem instead of trying to cure the symptoms?

    3. Re:Privacy, anyone? by IL-CSIXTY4 · · Score: 1

      See? This doesn't have anything to do with the police and everything to do with the other people. If you watch any of the police video shows you will always see the "perp" with his face pixelated so they aren't identifiable. Do you think amature videographers are going to do this before uploading their clip to YouTube?

      That's a fine argument, but not really applicable to this case. What's at issue is your right to record how the police treat you. Cameras are one was to equalize the power imbalance between the police and the citizenry without putting deadly weapons in everyone's hands. It's already proven effective, with 400 people released after the 2004 Republican National Convention because of amateur video evidence (granted, not their own videotape). Even if the police are recording what goes on, they can't necessarily be trusted.

      From the NY Times article:

      Last week, he discovered that there were two versions of the same police tape: the one that was to be used as evidence in his trial had been edited at two spots, removing images that showed Mr. Dunlop behaving peacefully. When a volunteer film archivist found a more complete version of the tape and gave it to Mr. Dunlop's lawyer, prosecutors immediately dropped the charges and said that a technician had cut the material by mistake.

      [...]

      That was a problem in the case of Mr. Dunlop, who learned that his tape had been altered only after Ms. Clancy found another version of the same tape. Mr. Dunlop had been accused of pushing his bicycle into a line of police officers on the Lower East Side and of resisting arrest, but the deleted parts of the tape show him calmly approaching the police line, and later submitting to arrest without apparent incident.

      A spokeswoman for the district attorney, Barbara Thompson, said the material had been cut by a technician in the prosecutor's office. "It was our mistake," she said. "The assistant district attorney wanted to include that portion" because she initially believed that it supported the charges against Mr. Dunlop. Later, however, the arresting officer, who does not appear on the video, was no longer sure of the specifics in the complaint against Mr. Dunlop.

      The defendant in TFA was a passenger in the vehicle that was pulled over, not some random passer-by. Similarly, a man in New Hampshire was arrested a year ago for wiretapping when he recorded police coming to his door and treating him "rudely". When he brought the tape the police dept. to complain, they arrested him on the charge, which was later dropped, just like in this case.

    4. Re:Privacy, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell would you want to work for someone who would misuse this information?

    5. Re:Privacy, anyone? by Joebert · · Score: 1

      How about we work to cure the problem instead of trying to cure the symptoms?

      What's the worst part of a problem, symptoms.
      Without symptoms, there's no problem.
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    6. Re:Privacy, anyone? by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 1

      Could have a family to feed... and not alot of job options available at that particular moment
      Savings? could have been wiped out by a lawsuit as part of it all

    7. Re:Privacy, anyone? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      What's the worst part of a problem, symptoms. Without symptoms, there's no problem.

      Woah. WOAH.

      You've got a terrible headache. I perscribe painkillers. I've cured the symptoms. Surprise, the problem is a blood clot! You die!

      Fixing the symptoms without fixing the underlying problem is often the worst thing to do, actually.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    8. Re:Privacy, anyone? by Kwirl · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify, in the United States, the Constitution NOWHERE makes claims regarding the presumption of innocence. It is however, presumed as such, due to inferral from 5th, 6th and 14th ammendments, as a result of the 1895 case Coffin vs United States. http://www.constitution.org/ussc/156-432.htm.

  26. cloud over his future? by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    Now let's see if they are good enough to compensate Kelly for the 26 hours he spent in jail and the anguish of the cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest.

    I think there's a big difference between a felony arrest and a felony conviction -- the only thing Kelly has to look forward to as a result of his arrest is 15 minutes of fame.

    1. Re:cloud over his future? by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      That distinction is absolutely correct. In this case, Kelly's 15 minutes of fame may result in a major ruling which will have a far reaching effect. The decision to drop charges was absolutely correct and in the good spirit of 4th Amendment case law. Wiretapping laws are really only applicable in situations were persons have a heightened expectation of privacy. The police perform their jobs and duties within plain sight and are therefore subject to The Plain Sight Doctrine. Basically, this doctrine states that any evidence obtained in the plain sight of the searching officer is not considered "fruit of the poisonous tree." Nor have any unreasonable intrusions made so it stands to reason that no laws have been broken on the part of Kelly. Plus video and still photography provide a standard of documentary truth necessary to establish an accurate system of checks and balances on power. Funny how a little precedent designed to erode personal freedoms actually can be used against authority.

    2. Re:cloud over his future? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      In light of the number of detainees from the war on "terror" and the Iraq occupation who are held for months, even after they've been determined to be completely innocent, and the number of people who have been released after decades in prison who were convicted by overzealous prosecutors only to be exonerated by DNA evidence, I'd say anguish over a 26 hour detention and a dropped charge is very, very overwrought.

    3. Re:cloud over his future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd say we need to fight every aspect of tyranny no matter how large or small....

    4. Re:cloud over his future? by Quila · · Score: 1

      the only thing Kelly has to look forward to as a result of his arrest is 15 minutes of fame.
      And having to disclose the arrest for any background check or security clearance he may apply for in the future. Some employers may just see "felony arrest" and immediately pass him over without looking any further.
    5. Re:cloud over his future? by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      I haven't looked at an employment application in awhile, but I'd like to imagine it asks for "convictions" instead of arrests.

    6. Re:cloud over his future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some do some do not.
      Most background checks will, pretty much all government ones will.
      He will not be allowed to travel to some countries under some visa waiver programs, and when he does cross a border with say Canada he will be subject to much more scrutiny then before.

    7. Re:cloud over his future? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd say that sitting on your hands when the victims are largely non-white or foreign and the injustices are huge, while taking action when the victim is middle-class, white, and the system quickly rectifies itself, is a bigger problem. What happened in PA was not tyranny.

  27. You shouldn't sue for doing something illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Now let's see if they are good enough to compensate Kelly for the 26 hours he spent in jail and the anguish of the cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest."

    According to the law, what he did was illegal. The fact that he wasn't prosecuted shows that the DA was willing to bend the law. He should count himself lucky. This is what happens when privacy zealots write laws.

  28. Arrests are needed!!! by ancient_kings · · Score: 0

    These cops and their bosses need to be arrested and make public on TV and press. This is the only freakin' way this dumb sh*t will stop. Put the fear of GOD into these cops who "think" they are above the law. This isn't freakin' Nazi Germany. Civil lawsuits are only going to fatten lawyers wallets (and in this case, probably by several million) and raise property taxes.

  29. Speaking of "CYA" by eat+here_get+gas · · Score: 0

    [quote]...let's see if they are good enough to compensate Kelly for the 26 hours he spent in jail and the anguish of the cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest. ...[quote]

    IANAL, but a law-school drop-out, and he'd better worry less about how much money he will get for the 26 hours in jail than the "cloud over his future" as just because the charges were dropped/dismissed/nolle'd/nol prosse'd/whatever, the arrest IS STILL ON HIS RECORD!

    It requires a separate act of the law to expunge this lifelong (and life-damaging) entry.

    --
    the significance of a signature is insignificant
  30. Why Stop with cops? by rednip · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No cops should be allowed to go unchecked. Why Stop there? I started keeping my digital camera in my car and ready for the crazy drivers I see every day. I've tried everything to get people to stop tailgating me, but it's almost surprising what happens when people realize that their bad driving is being recorded. Three times already I've had tailgaters back off when they saw a flash pointed at them; One trucker and 2 SUVs. People just act better when they know they are being recorded.
    --
    The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
  31. Arrest record, how about a police record? by phorm · · Score: 1

    There's a criminal record, an arrest record, and then a police record. I think the latter is the worst. I have never been charged with a crime, nor arrested. However, just being in the vicinity of a crime (and thus questioned) can leave you with a police record.

    My current employer had mine pulled when I applied for the job (a school district, so they're pretty careful here). It was quite interesting to see the types of things that show up on there... pretty much anything past a parking ticket, and from what I've heard even being witness to various events will be on the police record just noting you as a "person of interest." Pretty bare on details though, the major paperwork usually ends up getting filed and shipped somewhere after a certain amount of time.

    Oh, and before the rants start, I'm a Canadian, so that sort of stuff happens outside of the US too. Really, I could see why police would keep such records, but not really why employers or others should be able to require them. I've heard of many cases where an individual has been accused to doing bad things to his/her kids, and that sort of thing would be on the record. What it might not mention, is that it was an accusation from a spouse in the middle of (or just before filing) a divorce proceeding... which is not that uncommon, unfortunately. Never happened to me, but I know plenty of people that have had divorce cases get nasty, especially when it came down to custody rights.

  32. Hubris by Cracked+Pottery · · Score: 1

    There seems to be an attitude that government must never be defied, and any resistance must be crushed. A felony wiretapping charge? What wire? As has been suggested, what if there was not media coverage and he didn't have anybody with the assets to secure his bail? He would be in jail with the prospect of going to trial with public defender. The judge praised the cop. For what reason? The only reason the DA in the Duke case got disbarred is that he went out of his way to screw with rich kids. When have you heard of a DA getting thrown out of his profession for railroading a poor kid on some crappy drug charge. I believe the DA in the Tulia, TX case is still practicing law.

  33. The law doesn't need to be changed. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    The law prohibits taping someone if they don't know that they're being taped. The cop knows that he's being taped if there is a camera in his cruiser. IANAL, but I don't believe the laws specifies that you don't have to know who is taping you, only that you're being taped.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  34. The solution... by theoriginalturtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and we're getting close to it already, is to simply arrest everyone at birth. Increasingly, the only people "running for office" in this country are people who've never done anything. Not just "good things" or "bad things," but ANYTHING. A race of innocuous milquetoasts are slowly taking over the political operation of America simply by convincing "voters" that anyone who's ever done anything distinctive or at all out of the perceived mainstream is unfit to lead.

    Lest we forget... Harry Truman went bankrupt. JFK fooled around on his wife. Richard Nixon had a serious affinity for alcohol. Ronald Reagan was (horrors!) a Democrat. Comedian Tim Allen was arrested for drugz. Martha Stewart was convicted of securities fraud. G. Gordon Libby was in prison after Watergate. Rush Limbaugh admitted illegal use of prescription drugz. W. was... well, farkit, go look it up.

    When everyone has a black mark against "their permanent record," as my sixth-grade teacher called it, then we're all equals again and we can forget this pseudo-puritanical horse dung.

    When mere accusations are enough to blight your life, we're already in 1984. Oh, wait... what?

    --
    ---------------------------------------
    Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
  35. No one's mentioned Michael Warren yet... by JonToycrafter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't feel safer just yet, Mr. parent post. Last night in Crown Heights (Brooklyn), a civil rights attorney (Michael Tarrif Warren) and his wife Evelyn (also a civil rights attorney I believe) witnessed a police officer making an arrest. He stopped to observe the arrest and was told by an officer to, "Get the fuck out of here, this is none of your business." Michael replied, "You don't have to talk to me that way sir, I'm a lawyer." He was told, "I don't give a fuck who you are." and walked away. Michael proceeded to take notes while in his car - at this point the sergeant (one Sgt. Talby of the 77th Precinct, NYPD) punched him several times hard through the open window and arrested both Mr. Warren and his wife.

    Thankfully, the news got to the local media quickly, and when they broadcast news of the arrest, 200 folks showed up at the 77th Precinct's door (full disclosure: I was one of them). Sadly, this is hardly an isolated instance. It just happens to be the one that happened yesterday.

    I realize that some of the sources I'm linking aren't exactly bastions of objective journalism, but if you'd like the other side of the issue, you have two choices:
    1) Read the recommendations of NYPD officers on NYPD Rant, the largest message board for NYPD officers. In response to St. Louis ACLU handing out cameras to monitor police misconduct, many recommend "disappearing" the tapes or refusing to work in the area (see here

    2) Next time you see police arresting or ticketing someone, pull out a notepad. Make sure to not interfere in any way with the police action - just take down names, badge numbers, police car numbers, and physical description of the arrestee. See what happens. I tried doing this once or twice in NYC, and was told, like Mr. Warren, that it was none of my business, to get lost.

  36. will not be reimbursed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My friend didn't get reimbursed when the same thing basically happened to him in March in Carlie
    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238267&thr eshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=19484989

  37. Rape Shield Laws ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    need to be repealed. Though these laws would no longer apply in this case (AFAIK, IANAL), they prevent a pro-active defense for anybody not lucky enough to have their accuser so thoroughly discredited. They infringe free speech and doing nothing to make society cheaper. An accusation will publicly shame an individual and it is a solicitation to imprison and harass the same individual for a VERY long time. We need public scrutiny so liars - if not caught the first time - are hopefully caught the second. As far as real victims of rape, I consider it to be wrongheaded thinking that potential public exposure of this knowledge is _overall_ detrimental. We don't hide the identity of murder victims, carjack victims, identity theft victims, etc. It is only society's predjudice against sex that leads people to want to cover up these crimes and shame the victims with silence and denial. The same applies for juvenile and family courts (custodial hearings, etc.). The prisoners in Guantonoma Bay are not aided by secrecy, in fact, it is considered a gross violation of their rights. Secrecy only aids those with ill intent and false shame.

  38. Maybe the DA should be charged under federal law.. by voss · · Score: 2, Informative

    Its called "violating civil rights under color of law."

  39. Its a grey area in the law in PA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here in Illinois.. recording the audio of police in a traffic stop is protected. There is an exemption right inside the Eavesdropping law:

    (h) Recordings made simultaneously with a video recording of an oral conversation between a peace officer, who has identified his or her office, and a person stopped for an investigation of an offense under the Illinois Vehicle Code; There is no such exemption in the Pennsylvania law. The prosecutor ended up dropping it mostly because of the bad press.

    The reason he probably gave for dropping it goes back to some case law that defines when someone can be recorded based on a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

    He could just as easily have got a conviction. Juries are sometimes like sheep.. they will just follow the judges instructions without question. It seems like no one on a jury has ever heard of "jury nullification".

    The Pennsylvania legislature could just copy the exemption right out of the Illinois statute and save themselves a lot of time.
  40. To Counter Your Point by Evets · · Score: 2, Informative

    Videotaping of officers in the line of duty is an issue for every law enforcement union in the country.

    It would be for any union realistically. How would you feel about being videotaped while you were working?

    The difference is that police are in a position to suppress, harrass, and intimidate those who would potentially be taping their activities.

    While I agree that the officer most likely did not consider wiretapping as the original charge, I would postulate that he had absolutely no reason to arrest this child. His intention was to intimidate one kid, hopefully get him charged and convicted of something, and get the word out to the local high schools that cops don't react well to cell phone videos of their activities. One can hardly surmise an excuse for arresting this child outside the scope of intimidation.

    If I had a video tape of every traffic stop I received, I would have a collection of questionable police activity.

    I remember one such instance very clearly. The police came up behind me with no red/blue lights at about 2:00 AM in the middle of an empty stretch of highway. They came up so fast, I was sure they were going to rear end me. I accelerated and changed lanes. They did it again. I changed lanes back trying to get away from this harassing driver. They did it a third time. At this point, a rest stop exit had popped up, so I hit the brakes to slow for the exit. Red and Blues flash. They slam open my door and yank me out of the car like I'm Rodney King, proceed to search my car - trunk and all without asking, and against my verbal demand not to do so. They gave me several sobriety tests that most sober people would have issues with. I passed, but had the sense to mention in front of the car camera - "First, you're freaking me out by how aggressive you are. Second, it's freezing out here. If I have any problems, those are contributing factors." They were totally freaking me out. I surprised myself with the presence of mind to say something like that. Then they moved me to the passenger side of the cop car and asked me how much money I had on me. I said "I don't know, let me count." Without thinking, I walked in front of the police car (where the camera would be mounted) and counted my cash. Halfway through the cop grabbed my arm, pulled me back to the side of the car and said "forget it, put your money back in your wallet". They cited me for 140 mph. My car shaked severely at 125 because of a poorly installed sunroof, but regardless I was doing 75 when they nearly rammed me. 140 would normally get you thrown in jail, a wreckless driving charge, and a towed car. They cited me and let me go.

    These kinds of things happen all the time all over the country. I had another cop pull me out of the middle of a big traffic cluster with 25+ cars all going the same speed. He laughed. "I just really wanted to get me a Porsche. I've been weaving through cars for 20 miles to get to you." I have had my car searched at least a dozen times in my life with zero cause and without permission. I've been detained and released without charges - and I was a stinking passenger on that one. I've had six guns drawn at me once with barking police dogs on the background (no citation, no charge).

    I had a cop order me to my knees at gunpoint in my garage. My neighbor popped his head over the fence and said "What's going on?" The cop jumped 180 degrees and nearly shot my neighbor who he ordered back into his house. Then he jumped 180 degrees and nearly shot me all while I was pleading "please don't shoot me." A family member drove up. They left. No charges. Thought I was a burglar. They laughed on their way out and the partner slapped him on the butt and said "oh well, next time." No apology.

    I'm not black. These things didn't happen in the ghetto. I'm no gang member. I don't look like one. I don't hang out with the wrong people. I'm just a regular guy - computer nerd. I'm not cocky or rude to police (they'd probably beat me if I was). Fo

    1. Re:To Counter Your Point by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      It would be for any union realistically. How would you feel about being videotaped while you were working? Almost anyone who works in retail IS videotaped while working. Hell, my LAB has video cameras, in case some terrorists decide they can blow up an airport with the 100 grams of KNO3 we have. . . *sigh* The DHS, keeping us safe, sort of. . .
      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
  41. You don't deserve to live in a free society. by FatSean · · Score: 1

    As long as there is someone else inthe world doing a worse job of a free society, whatever police-state tactics we've got going on are just fine, eh?

    Papers please! You have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong. Unless you're one of dozens being exonerated after spending years of their lives in prison.

    --
    Blar.
  42. Consider the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now let's see if they are good enough to compensate Kelly for the 26 hours he spent in jail and the anguish of the cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest.
    The kid's only 18 years old! If anything it's a good life lesson for him and will give him an edge against his peers when it comes to pushing the law (hopefully to improve the law). All this talk about retribution is nonsense and only serves to obscure the fact that the kid was treading uncharted territories. So, he got burned. That's life, that's part of growing up.