Slashdot Mirror
Photographing Police: Deletion Is Not Forever
Geoffrey.landis writes "The courts have now ruled that the public has the right to videotape the police in the performance of their duties. Of course, that doesn't stop the police from harassing people who do so — even journalists, who sometimes have their cameras confiscated. As it turns out, though, they're not always very knowledgeable about how deletion works. I would say that erasing, or attempting to erase, a video of police arresting somebody illegally (How can a journalist be charged with 'resisting arrest' when he was not being arrested for anything other than resisting arrest?) is a clear case of destruction of evidence by the officers. Destroying evidence is obstruction of justice. That's illegal. Why haven't these police officers been arrested?"
If you can't be above the law then why be a cop?
he wasn't arrested for filming the police, he was arrested for disobeying a dispersal order.
I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, and I am aware he is a member of the press (though with some claiming that ANYONE can be a member of the "press").
However, it's also possible for police to issue a lawful order to disperse that, if not obeyed, could result in arrest — alongside a charge of resisting arrest.
The individual was being arrested for failure to obey a dispersal order, which was exactly what the officer said, not for "resisting arrest".
Further, it's the submitter's OPINION that this person was being arrested "illegally". That's something the courts will now decide. The troubling part is that the video would probably be the key evidence in such a case, I agree.
Of course, it's pretty clear that he disobeyed a direct (and likely lawful) order to disperse, and whatever happens after that I sort of lose interest in. :-/
See Blade Runner.
The simple reason that police are not arrested for destruction of evidence is that the police enforce the law. And the police cover for each other when they break the law. Therefore the police are above the law.
I know you like to think you're living in a democratic republic where all are equal under the law, but that's just not the case. And the sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Welcome to the former land of the free and the brave - should we ever again be worthy of that title, we'll let you know.
We know everything about you and where you live
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You must be new here? they're cops , everyone knows cops don't like to arrest other cops. And DA's don't like to charge cops unless there's a public outcry. And their sergeants usually give even the dirtiest of cops "their full support", even when there is public outcry. Most of the time they just get some paid vacation for their bad behavior. It's no wonder it just doesn't stop. When's the last time you saw a cop get suspended instead of "placed on administrative leave"?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
That's illegal. Why haven't these police officers been arrested?"
Cops get let off all the time, some examples: http://bit.ly/dWV5ab
This cop is not suffering from dementia, they showed him on the TV afterwards walking, talking, and smiling. In addition, it is typical in VA to be held indefinitely if your are unable to stand trial, as VA has no insanity defense.
Remember the Katrina shootings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/mistrial-declared-in-katrina-shooting_n_1239525.html
After enough mistrials, the case will likely be quietly dropped as the public forgets. Shit it has been 7 years already.
Do I really need to mention the Rodney King riots?
Silence is a state of mime.
Other than the basic tennents that we agree are fundamental crimes like theft, robbery, and murder a lot of the other behaviors that were criminalized were done in the interest of controlling the poor. The foundation of the anti-drug laws in America were all about fear of the poor, immigrant labor. Opium was originally outlawed simply because of the Chinese labor building the Union Pacific Railroad. Since more and more behavior is becoming criminalized and there is greater pressure on police to make arrests, we need ways of keeping government honest. The video as a standard of truth then becomes increasingly imporant in guarding a person's civil rights.
I don't envy the person who'd try this, but American citizens do have the power to arrest lawbreakers. So who's got the balls to arrest a cop, and what would it take to do it?
If the photographer/journalist committed a crime, then the photos/video shouldn't be deleted as it is evidence.
If they didn't commit a crime, then the photos/videos shouldn't be deleted since the they were engaging in a legal activity.
If a police officer (or worse, security guard) orders you to or seizes your camera to delete a photo/video you've taken, they are either destroying evidence, infringing on your civil liberties, or both.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
American outrage has been downgraded to camping in public places or really really aggressive drum circles.
Because here in the USA, if you do much more than that without really covering your ass, you become a "terrorist" and a guest of the government down in Gitmo. Dissenting speech is only "free" in theory here .. for all practical purposes, it might as well be illegal for all that you get to exercise it.
And never underestimate the teaching power of a public (and clearly nonviolent) drum circle in certain places at certain times .. ;)
"How can a journalist be charged with 'resisting arrest' when he was not being arrested for anything other than resisting arrest?"
I believe that resisting arrest is an umbrella term that can apply by itself.
If a cop is legally pulling you over to simply check if you are intoxicated (etc) or just asking to talk to you on the street and you run away then legally you are resisting arrest even though you where not being arrested in the first place.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
1 "You're under arrest"
2 "For what?"
3 "For resisting arrest"
4 "Arrest on what charge?"
5 "Resisting arrest." GOTO 1
?@#! Calls for an xkcd.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Most decent photojournalists know every slight of hand and trick in the book when it comes to keeping the material, especially those who are used to working in corrupt countries. A little sleight-of-hand and the cop is smashing a blank tape, confiscating a blank hard drive on a different camera, or ignoring the memory stick the report has under his tongue.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Ya right because our police are sooo much better!! Good ol' RCMP never gets their hands dirty right?
Oh wait...
You cannot arrest a cop. You can try, but he'll hit you with his billy club, or taser you, or shoot you, because he feels he's in the right and you're the perp, and nothing you do will change that. The more you try and arrest him, the angrier he'll get.
So, it comes down to numbers. He'll call for backup to take you down. You then need to have enough backup to take him and his backup down. So, they'll call for more backup, and it will simply escalate until it's a full-blown shooting war and the national guard is involved.
Ever see 5 police cars to pull over 1 guy? Ever see 30 cops questioning one dude in the subway?
Cops use overwhelming force to take down a perp. So unless you have a significant army at your disposal that can outgun, essentially, the entire police force, and possibly even the SWAT teams, the National Guard, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, you can't arrest a cop.
How'd that work out for those Branch Dividians?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Remember the Katrina shootings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/mistrial-declared-in-katrina-shooting_n_1239525.html After enough mistrials, the case will likely be quietly dropped as the public forgets. Shit it has been 7 years already.
Please don't make comments if you don't know what you are talking about! (oh, wait, this is slashdot...) And forget?? Where you live 'people' might forget but here in New Orleans we forget very, very little of Katrina. Officers that did the shooting have been convicted and sentenced. The mistrial you point out is for one officer who was on the cover up side. Dugue was not even involved in the shooting. Please don't spread ignorance. (and don't back-peddle saying it was the cover-up dude getting off. He's not off, there's just been a mistrial)
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
Am I the only one who thinks, in this day and age of easy video & audio recording, that ANY interaction police have with ANYONE for ANY reason (in an official capacity or as "an off duty police officer" responding to something) should be required to be recorded by the police themselves or "it didn't happen"?
Traffic stops, parking tickets, entering homes - ANYTHING - get it all on video and audio and require that said videos be made available for all parties privy to that.
Were I in charge of the world, that's one of the first things I would do - require all law enforcement people to wear video and audio recording devices at all times, even inside of their offices etc.
It should be a no brainer that civilians should be able to record any interaction they have with police, of course. I can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't be.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
All judges make rulings on law. If the ruling take precedence, then it is in effect a new law. It is the basis of our judicial system. I.e. trial court, to intermediate appellate court, to highest appellate court.
It doesn't matter if a Judge is good or bad; new law through judicial interpretation is going to happen in our system. If the legislature doesn't like the ruling, they have the power to change the law.
Learn about our legal system; don't just think that only 'bad' judges make new law through rulings.
Disclaimer: I AM a lawyer; but I'm NOT your lawyer.
I'm just guessing, but I think "resisting arrest" is english, whereas being "arrested" is jargon. Being "arrested" is being detained by police on charges. Where as "resisting arrest" is simply resisting being stopped by police. Just a thought.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are not a lawyer. If you were, you'd know the difference between jurisprudence and "is in effect a new law".
A key fact is that the Police are Public Servants. Their salaries are paid by the Public. So, if the Public wants to record the activities of the Police, a very simple reason why is, "to ensure that they are actually Serving the Public". It is quite logical that if it can be proved that certain members of the Police are actually only serving themselves (thereby misusing their Power and Responsibility), they should be fired.
One could argue that all Congresscritters should always be on-camera, a separate video channel for each. Then we will see how many of those "Public Servants" are actually doing their jobs, Serving the Public, instead of working for their own selfish interests.
Hes not creating, hes breaking the law in question against the rock of the Constitution.
Good-bye
If a law is unconstitutional, it never legitimately existed in the first place. (And "always existed"? Laws are temporary creations of humans, not eternal artifacts.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
If you can't be above the law then why be a cop?
There are a bunch of similar stories here (as well as several other atrocities like selling lemonade, Girl Scout cookies, felony ditch cleaning, and holding illegal prayer meetings).
Cops on tape, breaking the law, and nothing is done about it.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Every comment I have seen has been on the social aspects of this incident. Let's talk about the software aspect of it
(from TFA)
"I used Stellar Phoenix recovery software for the first recovery, which has proven to be unable to recover large files in its entirety. I used PhotoRec for the second recovery, which did the job. PhotoRec has a steeper learning curve than Stellar Phoenix, but it’s free, unlike the former."
Score one for open source software. Better than the proprietary alternative in this case.
friends don't let friends teleport drunk
If its not evidence, then its destruction of private property under the color of law, a much more serious crime. The plain fact is, an officer erasing digital private property, especially in the field, should be almost universally illegal.
Good-bye
http://www.pixiq.com/article/i-recovered-the-full-uninterrupted-video-police-deleted
Check your premises.
Holy cow... $32 for a printed t-shirt? I'm in the wrong business...
In which case a judge would not be able to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional, but this has happened.
But, and get this, only if it violates other parts of the constitution.
As far as I understand it -- and I am neither a lawyer nor a US-American -- amendments to the US constitution can only be made ineffective by the Supreme Court declaring them unconstitutional (i.e. it violating either a prior or a later, other amendment), but only repealed by the legislative branch (Senate/House of Repr.) by introducing a new amendment; which has happened with the 18th amendment (prohibition) that was repealed by the 21st after the Supreme Court ruled it violated the 4th and 5th amendment.
To put it in CompSci terms: The judicative (courts) only did a sanity check on the input, whereas the legislative (parliament) took measures to actually clean up the input. So the former only prevented bad input from producing bad output, which caused the former to make sure that that brand of bad input is not possible at all anymore.
You could say that in these cases, the courts can only negate or affirm, but not ask a new question. They might state their opinion that a new question should be asked, but can't ask it themselves.
The Golden Rule
The one with the gold makes the rules.
This thug mentality on the part a few bad police officers reflects poorly on the many honest men and women who serve their community, yet those same good people turn a blind eye to this behavior. Is it no wonder that public confidence and support for law enforcement officers continues to erode?
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
tl;dr "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.
The purpose of an arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the administration of the law. An arrest serves the function of notifying the community that an individual has been accused of a crime and also may admonish and deter the arrested individual from committing other crimes. Arrests can be made on both criminal charges and civil charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure that is not looked upon with favor by the courts. The federal Constitution imposes limits on both civil and criminal arrests.
An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest.
The test used to determine whether an arrest took place in a particular case is objective, and it turns on whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go. A reasonable person is one who is not guilty of criminal conduct, overly apprehensive, or insensitive to the seriousness of the circumstances. Reasonableness is not determined in light of a defendant's subjective knowledge or fears. The subjective intent of the police is also normally irrelevant to a court's determination whether an arrest occurred, unless the officer makes that intent known. Thus, a defendant's presence at a police station by consent does not become an arrest solely by virtue of an officer's subjective view that the defendant is not free to leave, absent an act indicating an intention to take the defendant into custody.
I have highlighted the important points. One can be arrested on the scene of a possible crime and let go with no charges. One can be arrested by the officer(s) telling one not to leave because he wants to question one. Then, by attempting to leave, one can be arrested for resisting arrest, but this time taken into custody, transported to jail, booked, etc. It wasn't that long ago that one might be arrested for being drunk, dropped in the drunk tank, then let go without charges when one sobered up.
This is yet another problem with the ambiguity of the English language especially in the case of legal or professional jargon as opposed to general usage.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Homosexual Marriage has NEVER existed in history until very recently. Marriage was for the purposes of a man an woman(women/polygamy) having a family and defining the rights and responsibilities thereof. Homosexuals are incapable of producing children therefore aren't given the protection of Marriage.
By that argument, heterosexual marriages should end at death of either spouse ("'til death do you part"), when the wife enters menopause, when the husband becomes impotent, or when either suffers an injury or illness that renders them infertile.
In that scenario, marriage licenses would also require signed notification from a medical practitioner certifying the fertility of each spouse, which would require one of:
* the prospective wife currently being pregnant and the prospective husband being the father as determined by DNA testing
* the prospective husband providing a sample for testing with his own hands and the prospective wife undergoing medical testing to ensure her fertility
* a medical practitioner performing testing on both prospective spouses to ensure their fertility
None of those options seem particularly palatable to me. Taking that one step further, you would also need to show that same evidence to an IRS auditor if you filed a joint tax return and were audited. If you wanted to visit your spouse in the hospital after a serious accident and the hospital had a "relatives only" visiting policy, you wouldn't be allowed to visit until the doctors were certain their reproductive capabilities had not been damaged. And don't adoption agencies favor married couples when deciding who is allowed to adopt? Then people who had one of the best reason for wanting to adopt would no longer be favored.
The only way that a constitutional amendment could be declared unconstitutional is if the process through which it became a part of that constitution was done in an unconstitutional manner. That is a very small loophole, and usually is something that is almost never tried (and has thus far always failed so far as amendments recognized by the U.S. Secretary of State and/or the National Archives).
That said, there are some rather vague parts of the U.S. Constitution that are open to interpretation, such as the Interstate Commerce Clause and finding "new rights" not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights (such as what Roe v. Wade attempted to do in terms of a "right to an abortion").
The main thing that happens in terms of constitutional review though is that statutory law can be "set aside" because it conflicts with the constitution. New law isn't created, but instead the law is treated as if that law never existed in the first place.
Where American courts do create "new law" is with case law and "common law", when a legal question comes up that statutory law and constitutional law simply don't cover the situation. Most states also recognized earlier English "Common Law" precedence, at least the "Common Law" that existed prior to July 4th, 1776. It is rare that somebody cites legal precedence from the 15th Century to win a legal argument any more, but it is still a possibility in 49 of the 50 American states (Louisiana excepted.... because they use the Napoleonic Code instead and follow French/Spanish/Roman precedence instead of English).
As far as I understand it -- and I am neither a lawyer nor a US-American -- amendments to the US constitution can only be made ineffective by the Supreme Court declaring them unconstitutional (i.e. it violating either a prior or a later, other amendment), but only repealed by the legislative branch (Senate/House of Repr.) by introducing a new amendment; which has happened with the 18th amendment (prohibition) that was repealed by the 21st after the Supreme Court ruled it violated the 4th and 5th amendment.
The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. The 21st was ratified via state ratifying conventions, Congress only proposed it. The Supreme Court never ruled the 18th amendment unconstitutional. Amendments can't be unconstitutional, as they amend what is constitutional. The only exceptions to this being making slavery illegal before 1808, or giving a state less senators than the others (although interestingly, the clauses that make those unamendable themselves could, in theory, be amended).
The Supreme Court wouldn't rule on the constitutionality of an amendment because of something called the polictical question doctrine, in which it has said it won't rule on issues it considers to be outside its realm of authority. Consitutional amendments are specifically included.
How would that even work? If the state had NO interest in recognizing a marriage, how would jointly-owned property be treated by the legal system? Joint debt? Who would settle disputes over property ownership in the event of divorce? Custody of children? Probate? Would spousal immunity from testifying in a criminal proceeding be done away with?
Sure, have your wedding and your marriage (and your family planning) free from state interference, but if you think there isn't a very real need for the legal system to be institutionally aware that some people are married, and by extension a need for some sort of mechanism for recognizing that fact, you haven't thought this through.
1. It is well known that internal affairs departments don't do anything. Complaints are summarily dismissed.
2. My city doesn't have a citizen review board.
3. See 2.
4. The cop who attacked me was a state police officer. And the idea that they would go after another cop is laughable.
5. Are you serious?
Bottom line, there actually isn't any oversight or anyone to complain to. A state trooper attacked me, beat me severely and strangled me in front of a a whole bunch of other state troopers. If another cop hadn't finally pulled him off of me he would have killed me for sure. So I guess at least some of them are human.
What did I do to deserve a damaged windpipe, cracked ribs, damaged legs, and a severe concussion? I swore at the officer in reply to him swearing at me. Needless to say he didn't take kindly to a mere civilian disrespecting him in front of his peers and flew into a violent rage. Unfortunately my state does allow DUI roadblocks. I was just driving down the road minding my own business. I don't drink or do illegal drugs.
They don't need to control themselves because they know they can literally get away with anything. Including murder. Police in the US are a gang of thugs and should be treated accordingly. I wouldn't have disrespected a member of a street gang in LA in a deserted parking lot with no witnesses even if he had disrespected me first. Now I'm facing all kinds of false criminal charges and legal bills adding up to nearly a year of my income. That's what they mean by, "You might beat the rap but you won't beat the ride." As soon as I get the chance I'm going to move to a state where such road blocks are not allowed, but in the long run I'd like to leave this insane country. I've lived in other countries and the cops are not, as a rule, violent thugs like they are here. They are sometimes even real people and not angry, raging animals. As someone else posted, outside of certain urban slum areas, your greatest chance of being a victim of a violent crime is from an encounter with the police. I have always avoided them for this reason, but that night I had no way to avoid them.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.