Man Claims Cell Phone Taken By DC Police For Taking Photos

First time accepted submitter hawkinspeter writes "Just one day after Chief Cathy Lanier made it illegal for MPD cops to take recording equipment, a 26-year-old local man had his phone taken as he was trying to record a violent arrest. They eventually gave back his phone, but without the memory card which also contained photos of his daughter along with the record of the alleged police brutality."

Comments

Happy Friday from the Golden Girls!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Re:Happy Friday from the Golden Girls!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant "confidant".

Re:Happy Friday from the Golden Girls!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant "I'm a complete dumbass."

Re:Happy Friday from the Golden Girls!

[Anonymous Coward]

For cultural reasons the lyrics were tweaked in the good ol' USSR.

Re:Happy Friday from the Golden Girls!

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I think you meant "confidant".

This recurring post is annoying yet amusing - because there is always *someone* who simply can't abide the fact that it's wrong, and simply *must* correct it. Looks like that's you, this time.

Re:Happy Friday from the Golden Girls!

[oldmac31310]

Fuck. I'm having a real life 'actually really did see' this exact same post and comments before. Mildly disturbing.

Chief?

[Hatta]

Just one day after Chief Cathy Lanier made it illegal for MPD cops to take recording equipment

Chiefs don't make laws.

Re:Chief?

[Spritzer]

True. The article is poorly worded. However, Chiefs do set policy within their department.

Re:Chief?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chiefs don't make laws.

Chiefs make poilcy, and that's administrative law. Nice try, though.

Re:Chief?

[Anonymous Coward]

It also was already illegal... she just clarified it with policy.

Re:Chief?

[Anonymous Coward]

The executive is responsible for making about 100 times as many laws as the legislature in the UK - and that's just the Statutory Instruments. Various public departments usually have a wide remit for creating procedures relevant to them which then have force of law.

The caveat is that all this secondary legislation is only valid because of a delegation of responsibility expressed in primary legislation. If the secondary legislation exceeds the scope provided by the primary, it is invalid. Also - and increasingly what with EU integration, so this may not apply so much in the US - the secondary legislation must achieve the aims of the primary in a proportionate manner. At the very least, it must in England not be Wednesbury unreasonable. It will also fall foul of the ECHR if it restricts freedoms more than necessary. But the executive and the legislature hate the idea of individual rights and, while the judiciary have in recent history been much more protective of individual rights, they prefer to form their own case law rather than being dictated.

tl;dr it's all a crap shoot.

Re:Chief?

[Freddybear]

By making it official policy, it opens up lawsuits that can break the usual qualified immunity that cops get.

Re:Chief?

[Jahf]

And in this case the chief didn't make law.

The chief clarified to her officers what the law already is. Seizure of recording equipment without the recorder actually causing some form of disturbance (the officer being disturbed) does not stand up in court. Officers tend to know this, too, but are used to being able to bully their way through the issue.

The policy from the chief was not a new thing in the sense of the law. It was a new thing in the sense of the policy acknowledging it.

Re:Chief?

[slashmydots]

By illegal they meant against police department policy. That means instead of going to jail, anyone breaking the rules will get a slap on the wrist or a verbal warning or like 1 day suspension.

Re:Chief?

[Feyshtey]

Wrong. A policy infraction can result in disciplinary action (termination, leave without pay, etc.). A law can result in legal action (fines, jail, etc.). A policy cannot itself result in legal action, unless the policy reinforces existing law.

There's a policy at my job (in government) that disallows wearing shorts or sandals in the office. I cant be fined or arrested if I fail to comply.

Re:Chief?

[gstoddart]

Yes, but the policy was in response to courts upholding that people have the right to photograph police.

This is an explicit policy which re-affirms case law, and is a reminder that police have no legal right to seize the phone or the memory card.

I bet you also have policies at work that say you're not allowed to do anything illegal.

Re:Chief?

[scubamage]

No, by illegal they mean illegal. It was already against the law for the officers to do this. The official policy just solidified that it was unacceptable for officers to behave in this way in that department.

Re:Chief?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. It is illegial for police to take your phone, or any property without a signed warrant (for the US).

Do not give them up - even if the ask nicely. You can volenter to give them a copy of the photos or video if you wish - but you are certainly under no obligation to do so - just because they tell you to. Just be polite, and tell them you will be happy to comply when they produce a signed warrant for said property. They will mumble and then give up in most cases.

Sheep get pushed around and abused - stand up for your rights people!

Re:Chief?

[scharkalvin]

But it was strong armed away (by a strong arm). What are you going to do, grab it back?

Re:Chief?

[Trailer Trash]

Yes, but the policy was in response to courts upholding that people have the right to photograph police.

This is an explicit policy which re-affirms case law, and is a reminder that police have no legal right to seize the phone or the memory card.

I bet you also have policies at work that say you're not allowed to do anything illegal.

I follow a lot of these cases, and part of the problem is the language that folks use around it. When you use the word "sieze", you're suggesting that the officer took an action as directed by statute or policy. What the officer did is either "theft" or "robbery", depending on the circumstances. It sound like the initial taking of the phone was a robbery, which is defined as taking something by force.

As I said about the original policies, they don't matter simply because everything there is already illegal. Note: not "against our policies" or some other administrative issue: ILLEGAL. That means that when an officer robs someone of their phone they have committed a crime. That makes them a criminal.

The set of directives was issued as part of a settlement. Might I suggest to the ACLU that the next time they do this they come up with a much much simpler set of directives, as follows:

1. __________ PD will arrest and charge all officers who have committed crimes, using the same evidentiary standards as would be used with the general public.

2. Failure to do so will result in _________ PD forfeiting this settlement and will instead invoke the secondary settlement of $xmillion.

That's all it needs to say.

We need to quit acting like these slime balls are telling the truth when they claim they didn't know it was "wrong" (illegal, against policy, whatever) to take someone's phone or camera, or to erase the pictures, or to illegally arrest someone. They're lying when they say that. They know it's illegal, so let's quit acting like maybe they didn't know and start prosecuting.

We need to hold our police officers to a *higher* standard, and we need to tell the unions where to go when they get all mad about it.

Re:Chief?

[yurtinus]

Call the cops!

Re:Chief?

[yt8znu35]

Correct. It is illegial for police to take your phone, or any property without a signed warrant (for the US).

Do not give them up - even if the ask nicely. You can volenter to give them a copy of the photos or video if you wish - but you are certainly under no obligation to do so - just because they tell you to. Just be polite, and tell them you will be happy to comply when they produce a signed warrant for said property. They will mumble and then give up in most cases.

Sheep get pushed around and abused - stand up for your rights people!

From your _person_? Police do that all the time. I believe the term they would use is "confiscate."

Open Carry in a state with lax gun laws and see if the police don't confiscate your weapon without a warrant. Similarly, go photograph your nearest federal building with a big SLR and see how long before they take it.

Telling them they need a warrant is another way of asking to be arrested (for resisting arrest, no doubt). In the US cops have been able to beat people to death without any real repercussions.

Re:Chief?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, Chiefs do set policy within their department.

They usually have policies against running red lights or beating the shit out of anyone who pisses them off, too.

Re:Chief?

[LifesABeach]

Has anyone considered the violation of law enforcement confiscating property without a judges order?

Re:Chief?

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to quit acting like these slime balls are telling the truth when they claim they didn't know it was "wrong"

We need to do a little more than that. If you've ever heard "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse." as intoned by the man with handcuffs, tonfa, and gun, then you too might be a little upset when the same sacks of shit get to say they're too dumb to follow the law and get away with it.

Re:Chief?

[Teancum]

Under criminal law, the most that happens is a hand slap where the evidence is thrown out if it is to be used in a criminal prosecution.

That is also sort of the point of the lawsuit mentioned in the article, where what is being alleged is that the police of Washington DC are routinely confiscating property without due process. They don't necessarily need a judicial order, but they do need probable cause that the property is being used in the commission of a crime, and in order to keep the evidence for any length of time that charges will be filed.

There are legitimate reasons for police to seize property without a judicial order, or do you think that lunatic in Aurora, Colorado should have kept his guns, ammo, and bombs even after being arrested and keeping them inside of his jail cell? The question is where do you draw the line from something painfully obvious like taking the gun from a lunatic who is shooting everybody in sight and then to taking a camera from an otherwise innocent bystander who is merely recording the reaction of the police to a criminal act?

It could be argued in both cases that a judge could still be called upon to issue an order for the items to be collected and that all a police officer could do is to simply "secure" the property to make sure it doesn't get lost or destroyed.

Re:Chief?

[Teancum]

Wrong. A policy infraction can result in disciplinary action (termination, leave without pay, etc.). A law can result in legal action (fines, jail, etc.). A policy cannot itself result in legal action, unless the policy reinforces existing law.

There's a policy at my job (in government) that disallows wearing shorts or sandals in the office. I cant be fined or arrested if I fail to comply.

On the other hand, if there is a policy in place against wearing sandals in the office because you need to be in places where there is some sort of danger of some sort like perhaps a need to wear steel toed shoes, by disregarding such a policy you also don't get the protections which come from such employment either like being able to make a workman's compensation claim against your toes being amputated due to a reckless disregard of company policies in that matter.

Yeah, most office jobs the largest danger is perhaps a paper cut, but not for everybody. Police do engage in stuff that is slight more dangerous as a normal part of their day job too. As suggested above, it also personally opens that police officer up to a liability lawsuit when they flagrantly disregard department policies, and not only can they lose employment but also pension benefits. Police also have a higher standard where committing certain acts is not just against policy but also illegal.

Taking property from a citizen at gunpoint in a manner that is contrary to department policy is a bit more of a big deal than wearing shorts into an office as a bureaucrat who mainly pushes paper.

Re:Chief?

[Teancum]

More correctly given the circumstances, request that a sergeant or supervisor comes alone to deal with the issue. It isn't pretty to see a sergeant come along and chew out a patrol officer who is screwing up, but it can be comforting to know that you can fight the system when an officer is being a jackass. Sadly it doesn't happen as much as it should.

Re:Chief?

[Anonymous Coward]

But they can tell their employees what to do... All may work for the city, county, state, or whatever, but she would not have given out the mandate unless she wanted to get fired or had the right support. Let's see if she gets fired....

Re:Chief?

[sumdumass]

You do not always need a judge's order or warrant to confiscate property. This is much the same as not needing a grand jury indictment to arrest and charge someone. But there does have to be certain elements present that would constitute probable cause or the necessity of taking action before getting the rest in order.

What is alleged to have happened in this situation and many other situations do not seemingly rise to that level by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not condoning the actions of the police here, just stating that there are times when a judge does not have to sign off on taking someone's property.

Re:Chief?

[sumdumass]

The state policy issues actually allows for that. If the police think there is something of evidence value on the recording device, they are supposed to ask you for it. If you refuse, they are supposed to get the watch commander or sergeant or duty officer to come down, determine the extent and nature of the evidence and make the decision whether or not it needs confiscated. At that point, they are only allowed to contact their electronic crimes division who will copy information pertaining only to the evidence claimed to be on the recording device and return the device in tact to the owner. So not only what you said sounds like a good idea, it should be the standard operating procedure for law enforcement- at least in this area.

I do not think it is practical to expect a commanding officer to discipline their subordinates in plain view of the public. You might see an officer behave radically different after their arrival but the Cover You Ass mentality is so ingrained within the system that I seriously doubt they would do anything that could possible encourage a lawsuit.

Re:Chief?

[Freddybear]

The cops always have the "by my training and experience" excuse for how they came up with probable cause, which is almost like the lawyers' "upon information and belief" excuse for asking for discovery in a fishing expedition lawsuit.

Re:Chief?

[Teancum]

It depends on how far outside of the law that the individual patrol officer happens to be at the incident. There was one real jerk of a sheriff deputy near where I live that was pulling over attractive women and then raping them under the guise of doing a "drug check" or some other nonsense. That officer finally got his ass nailed and is serving time in the state prison. I also had an officer get chewed out by a supervisor because of some mischief he was doing to me personally.... where he called in his supervisor to whitewash his mischief and the effort backfired on him in a very public way.

While certainly not perfect and yes there is the "blue wall" where officers will tend to back each other up instead of correcting some abuse, in a competent and professional police department you can request that a supervisor show up to review the actions of an individual officer. If it is something more involved than a speeding ticket, that will likely happen anyway but it is nice to be able to do that. It is also an important check on the behavior of police so they don't let their authority go to their head either.

Re:Chief?

[LVSlushdat]

The problem with cops is their f'ing unions.. As in this case, the chief can issue a policy as she did, an officer can violate it, and even if there is penalties attached to the policy violation, the f'ing police union usually manages to get the penalty reduced to a "suspension with pay" which, translated, is a f'ing FREE VACATION on the taxpayer's dime... Until those police unions are castrated, there will be NO reining in on these issues with police..

Re:Chief?

[bkcallahan]

Did you just compare/insinuate the dangers of bombs, guns and other shit -- to an SD card with photos/videos on it?

Re:Chief?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I continue to be amazed at is the passivity demonstrated by you sheeple. First off, it is insane that the videographer wouldn't have had a decoy memory still to dupe these double digit officers. Secondly, it is unfathomable, for me, to comprehend anyone being able to get something off me that I was not going to release. Where are the string of disabled officers on the ground? You all need to learn to defend yourselves in this society now controlled by this village idiot from Kenya.

Re:Chief?

[sumdumass]

Well, I was referring to this one police entity, the Washington DC metro police department, as it was the one who got sued and had to implement a policy that clarified the law and was supposed to be binding on the police officers. It actually spelled out in the policy that they are supposed to ask for the recording device and then call a superior if the person refuses.

I understand the "blue wall" and police operating outside the law. I too have had issues with them in a different area. One such issue was where I was accosted by several police when leaving a night club. I was talking to some girl and another got all pissy with me because of it. I asked the girl I was talking with if she wanted me to leave and she told me to stay. It later turned out to be the pissy girl was one of the cops brothers and her friend I was talking to just broke up with that cop.

Most cops are self serving and corrupted scum. There are a few in there that are honest but they are definitely overshadowed by the assclowns.

Re:Chief?

[Feyshtey]

I covered that. From my post:

A policy cannot itself result in legal action, unless the policy reinforces existing law.

Dropbox

[ilsaloving]

I installed dropbox onto my cell phone, and now every time I take a photo with my cell, it gets automatically uploaded.

I can't think of a better way to handle such abuses.

Re:Dropbox

[AHuxley]

Thats very neat and an idea that so many people may not have thought of.
Set up some blog or guide or webpage for that so others can learn how to use their phones web features.

Re:Dropbox

[schlachter]

iCloud does the same.

Re:Dropbox

[icebike]

So when they grab your phone they also get to trawl your dropbox?
You'd be better off choosing an upload site out of the country with contribute only access from the phone.

Re:Dropbox

[Kenja]

That was my first thought, however iCloud waits for a wifi connection before uploading.

Re:Dropbox

[ilsaloving]

Well, it would probably be a good idea to offload anything in your dropbox to a safe location, AND change your password.

There are plenty of options, but Dropbox is the most ubiquitous one.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

dropbox has been hacked and made blunders more than once.

Re:Dropbox

[unk98]

Unfortunately does not appear to be an option for the BlackBerry version of Dropbox.

Re:Dropbox

[unk98]

Dropbox does allow you to set a separate password to open the app on the phone. Might help a bit.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

3G Unrestrictor fixes that, among other things.

Re:Dropbox

[MickyTheIdiot]

Do you think these dim bulbs would even think of Dropbox and instant-upload features?

Sounds like the police observer handbook needs to be updated. Everyone that wants to document possible police action should now do this.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

On most modern Android devices, its supported out of the box. You need only turn the feature on. Dropbox not required.

Re:Dropbox

[Kenja]

Most people are not interested in jail breaking their iPhone.

Re:Dropbox

[AngryDeuce]

I believe Google Drive can do this as well. I know for a fact that you can also do this with Google+, but I'm betting the 17 people actively using G+ already know this.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

I installed dropbox onto my cell phone, and now every time I take a photo with my cell, it gets automatically uploaded.

I can't think of a better way to handle such abuses.

I can. It is really simple. Install Google+ and turn on Google Instant. The same thing you get with Dropbox, but it uploads to a private area on Google+. There are integrated editing tools crop, exposure, etc. right there on the G+ site too. The only thing Dropbox would do that might be more useful would be automatically syncing it back to your computer too. But all of the other features of Google Instant are better. I even use it for getting screenshots of messages from lab machines, etc. When I get back to my desk to document stuff the picture is already there on G+ and I can edit it, etc. and then directly use it.

Re:Dropbox

[Lumpy]

better be fast with getting to your dropbox and copying it before they log in and delete it.

Re:Dropbox

[RaceProUK]

And for the six of us on WinPhone7, we have SkyDrive.

Re:Dropbox

[MikeBabcock]

Google Plus and Drive have similar options for people who use those.

The Google Plus option is nice because it uploads all the images to an album only visible to yourself, which you can then choose to share directly on Plus later.

Re:Dropbox

[ravnous]

Can't you just lock your phone before they grab it? One button and the phone is locked. They may be able to pull your SD card but they won't be able to access your accounts.

Re:Dropbox

[RobertLTux]

and then you can use the "previous versions" feature to undelete the pictures plus

"and then the officers in full knowledge of the contents deleted a remote backup of the pictures in question to cover up their obvious abuse of civil rights and grievous assault on this innocent citizen"

or a simple court order could have DropBox fishing in their backups for the files

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

Dropbox for iPhone will automatically upload photos as well, with or without wifi.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a google+ app to upload every photo that is taken on your phone instantly. Of course you are handing google your pictures, but you can just buy a camera or turn off the app for bedroom pictures.

Re:Dropbox

[Feyshtey]

That could make for a very interesting legal case... Grabbing a phone and destroying the memory card is one thing, but what are the legal ramifications of an officer illegally searching a storage technology on a server almost assuredly in another state over wired technology, and then destroying evidence there?

Does that constitute destruction of evidence and property, interstate (federal?) jurisdiction violations, and potentially wire fraud charges?

Destroying an SD card kills the ability to prove much. But servers would retain records of transactions.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

Every police department has commercially available law enforcement suites which will blow through any silly phone locks. Google cellphone forensics sometime.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why I still carry a BlackBerry.

Re:Dropbox

[Grizzley9]

If you only have one iOS device, how do you view anything on iCloud like this? Yes it might restore eventually if your phone was destroyed and you logged in with another, and iCloud can sync to other devices, but if your iPhone is the only device you have, I cannot see a way to view photos at iCloud.com. And like the other options like DropBox, or G+ that do this as well, it's not instant even if you use cellular data. They would still have time to go into to your camera roll and delete photos or if you won't give them the password, they could just turn off your device and keep it (illegally).

Re:Dropbox

[fiannaFailMan]

Unfortunately does not appear to be an option for the BlackBerry version of Dropbox.

I hear you can get an iPhone app that makes it function like a BlackBerry. It stops your iPhone from being able to do anything.

Boom! Boom!

Re:Dropbox

[Yvanhoe]

They'll be tricked once, then learn.

Re:Dropbox

[ArhcAngel]

Try SugarSync

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly, you pretend like the laws apply to the police.

As this article shows, no matter what the laws or policy, guess what... the police are still going to steal your shit to cover their asses. That's just how it works, and how it will always work, and anyone who thinks it will ever change is just being naive and gullible.

Re:Dropbox

[Antarius]

I'm one of those 17, and just for that purpose.

I've never made a Google+ posting, but it's great to have the backup of my photos! :-)

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

Im a reserve officer for the county police and our department doesn't have these devices, though we are aware of them.

Re:Dropbox

[scubamage]

You know, what would be neat is if the EFF and ACLU joined forces and set up something that does the same for android and IOS. Let you automatically upload files, and be able to live stream video to a secure server somewhere (think ustream). Also, it could have a reference on your rights for each particular state and what to say to the officer ("No officer, under statute 123 of Pennsylvania you can't take it. Also, according to the supreme court ruling of Blahblah v US you're actions are illegal. If you continue I will see you in a court of law."). Then when they take the phone anyway, the ACLU attorneys already have all the evidence they need. Specifically I could see it being useful for police chasers, but your average joe who happens to have it installed could also protect themselves and others.

Re:Dropbox

[IorDMUX]

This: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406764,00.asp

It's an app from the ACLU which lets you one-touch photograph or video an event and upload it to a secure location. (There is also plenty of useful information and now-what guides for interacting with police, laywers, an arrest, etc.) A very useful app [that I did not write].

Spread the word. Get the eyes watching the watchers.

Re:Dropbox

[Eponymous Hero]

get the justin.tv app for your android phone -- an iphone version is coming soon. it records your video on their servers -- basically it's cloud video. even if the cops take your device you can give the press your justin.tv channel name and rebroadcast the police wrongdoing all you want.

http://www.justin.tv/p/android

Re:Dropbox

[bill_mcgonigle]

I can't think of a better way to handle such abuses.

Similarly, activists have been using Qik video streaming for a few years. They have decent social network integration, so you also have a way to let your friends know you've just been repressed.

Arranging a social group who will actually do anything when you post a video of you being repressed is not included. Best to do that part ahead of time.

Re:Dropbox

[camperdave]

I was under the impression that locking the phone doesn't actually provide any security for the contents of the SD card, but only prevents the phone from being used. In other words, they could pop the SD card out and insert it into any suitably equipped PC and browse the data to their hearts content.

Re:Dropbox

[MickyTheIdiot]

Well.. at least they have to be creative and come up with a reason to get a court order at that point.

They aren't going to go the judge and say that they need a warrant because the backup files might show brutal police action... are they?

Re:Dropbox

[gnasher719]

That could make for a very interesting legal case... Grabbing a phone and destroying the memory card is one thing, but what are the legal ramifications of an officer illegally searching a storage technology on a server almost assuredly in another state over wired technology, and then destroying evidence there?

Hacking laws: Accessing another's computer or server without or exceeding authorisation.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

ICloud works with more than just iOS devices. There are applications for Macs, PCs and also a web interface that you can use to access your photos on iCloud.

So, in the worst case you can go to your local public library, log in to the web interface and print your pictures.

Re:Dropbox

[ArhcAngel]

That's why you use a camera with an Eye-Fi card to send the pictures to your phone in your pocket.

Re:Dropbox

[Jason Levine]

If the user was guilty of some infraction that justified taking the phone/card, then destroying the card (or even just deleting photos) is destruction of evidence.

If the user wasn't guilty of any infraction that justifies taking the phone/card, then destroying the card (or even just deleting photos) is illegal seizure of property.

Either situation can result in Bad Things for the officer involved.

Re:Dropbox

[The Grim Reefer]

I was under the impression that locking the phone doesn't actually provide any security for the contents of the SD card, but only prevents the phone from being used. In other words, they could pop the SD card out and insert it into any suitably equipped PC and browse the data to their hearts content.

Yes, but DropBox in not on the SD card.

Re:Dropbox

[Hatta]

Most people aren't interested in challenging police authority either. For those who are, there's a solution.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

ravnous said "accounts", not data. The sdcard contains nothing no application data unless the developer of said application is a moron. /data, which contains application data, is encrypted if you desire. If your phone is encrypted, then cops cannot access the external storage because they won't be able to mount it (needs to be inside the OS to do so). I'm not sure if the encryption applies to the sdcard for those with an external one. I own a Nexus S, so all my storage is internal.

Re:Dropbox

[rleibman]

I didn't know Will Wheaton had a different ./ account

Re:Dropbox

[ixidor]

i think what you meant to say was not "Either situation can result in Bad Things for the officer involved." but Either situation can result in Bad Things for the officer involved, but we all know that the never will. or at worst a slap on the wrist and a day off.

Re:Dropbox

[grub]

rsync your dropbox changes to a machine you manage with cron.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

And for the six of us on WinPhone7, we have SkyDrive.

Five, my wife broke her WP7 phone and bought Galaxy. It's funny that she accidentally hit the phone with my hammer she tried for the first time.

Re:Dropbox

[Entropius]

Don't most Android phones support a mode that encrypts the whole shebang?

Re:Dropbox

[grub]

There is an iOS app called CopRecorder which sends the recordings away.

Re:Dropbox

[Belial6]

Cop Recoreder is also an Android App.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

So when they grab your phone they also get to trawl your dropbox?
You'd be better off choosing an upload site out of the country with contribute only access from the phone.

Make a separate dropbox account only for photos. Only provide write access from the phone and not delete or read access (I don't know if dropbox allows that?).

Re:Dropbox

[Fnord666]

I was under the impression that locking the phone doesn't actually provide any security for the contents of the SD card, but only prevents the phone from being used. In other words, they could pop the SD card out and insert it into any suitably equipped PC and browse the data to their hearts content.

See? Another advantage of the iPhone. No SD card to worry about!

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

They have. It's live in the play store. Search for aclu.

Re:Dropbox

[cayenne8]

So when they grab your phone they also get to trawl your dropbox?

I dunno about you...but my phone is password protected...so, they'll have to figure how to unlock it...and THAT...they do need a warrant for.

It isn't just 4 numbers long either....

Re:Dropbox

[sjames]

If the law was FULLY followed, a police officer grabbing the phone without a valid reason (particularly after a memo from the chief clarifying that) is guilty of armed robbery and the fact that it was done under the color of law is an extra aggravating factor. Not seeing the memo is no defense since for anyone else "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

So the question is, does the D.C. Police Department willingly employ armed robbers as officers?

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

Five now...just got an iPhone.

Re:Dropbox

[Altanar]

Also, G+.

Re:Dropbox

[Khyber]

Try qix, so you get video and audio instead of a shitty picture.

Re:Dropbox

[Khyber]

Google custom ROM some time.

Good luck breaking that anytime soon.

Re:Dropbox

[ilsaloving]

Link please? Searching for qix brings up a video game, which I don't think is what you meant.

Re:Dropbox

[Khyber]

I meant qik. My fault.

Re:Dropbox

[sumdumass]

That may be true if the police actually police the police. The problem seems to be that the watchers are watching themselves and no one is doing anything when they become the criminals outside of complaining about it.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

Supported . how?

I have just checked my Samsung Galaxy phone (2.4) and I can't see an option in there for this.

Re:Dropbox

[ignavus]

They aren't going to go the judge and say that they need a warrant because the backup files might show brutal police action... are they?

Your honour, the accused kept head-butting my closed hand.

Re:Dropbox

[Feyshtey]

What I'm suggesting is that the by not only taking the phone, but also engaging in a search/siezure/evidence tampering over state lines and with computers compounds the potential criminal charges that could be brought against the officers.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

Ballmer - quit trolling, and admit it - you own all six WinPhones that have been sold.

Re:Dropbox

[Anonymous Coward]

I constantly recommend backups. Here's another good reason.

Re:Dropbox

[gottabeme]

Nice, but if they take your phone, they can delete it from Dropbox, no?

To be more protected, have the photos emailed to an account that's not accessible from the phone.

Re:Dropbox

[ilsaloving]

That is true. And if you can find camera software that can do that, then great. But Dropbox is ubiquitous and almost everyone knows what it is and how to use it.

In this situation, the best you can do is unlink your phone from your account and change your password before it occurs to the police to try to hack into it.

Well...

[AngryDeuce]

That sure didn't last long.

Should have used an iPhone!

[Kenja]

Remove the memory card indeed!

Re:Should have used an iPhone!

[h4rr4r]

Then it would have been "accidentally" destroyed.

A smartphone that uploads all its photos to the web is the way to go for this kind of thing.

Re:Should have used an iPhone!

[Anonymous Coward]

And billed at actual non-contract replacement cost. Destruction of private property gets expensive.

Re:Should have used an iPhone!

[MickyTheIdiot]

In a police action? Good luck getting them to do anything at all.

Re:Should have used an iPhone!

[h4rr4r]

Nope, you can send them a bill and they will never pay it.

Re:Should have used an iPhone!

[LordLimecat]

Thats what lawyers are for.

Re:Should have used an iPhone!

[tooyoung]

Should have used an iPhone!

Then it would have been "accidentally" destroyed. A smartphone that uploads all its photos to the web is the way to go for this kind of thing.

Maybe Apple should come up with a solution like that. They could call it iCloud.

Re:Should have used an iPhone!

[Thundaaa Struk]

If cops don't want to get recorded, they need to learn the anti-surveillance technique used in the movie Four Lions....

Re:Should have used an iPhone!

[h4rr4r]

Which cost more than the phone, and you still won't get the money.

And why should anyone be surprised?

[na1led]

This isn't much news, it's what goes on everyday, despite what any says.

Re:And why should anyone be surprised?

[interval1066]

Doesn't make it right and this shit needs to be exposed. "any" is a dumb shit.

Re:And why should anyone be surprised?

[NEW22]

Please don't be "Is anyone really surprised?" guy. I hate that guy. He is one of the standard guys that makes his comment in stories on the internet. Maybe some people are surprised, which the question seems to imply that someone would be sort of dumb to be surprised. Most of the people, however, are not really surprised at all but thought it was an important issue to bring up. The "Is anyone really surprised?" guy seems to be telling them that the whole issue is a waste of time, and they should just kind of shut up about it. Sometimes, though, "Is anyone really surprised?" guy is just trying to look detached and cool, like he's seen it all before, and its all old hat now, and he has to let people know he's detached and cool like that. I don't know which variety of "Is anyone really surprised?" commenter you are, but I've never seen that guy's comment bring good things to a conversation.

Please don't be "Is anyone really surprised?" guy.

Thank you.

Re:And why should anyone be surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're clearly much more intelligent than all the people out there who were surprised by this! You are great! I love you!

Re:And why should anyone be surprised?

[Reziac]

I'm not. I'm hackles-up guy, bristling at this abrogation of our Constitutional rights.

Re:And why should anyone be surprised?

[Trogre]

That guy, also known as Apathy Guy, is a much greater threat to our liberty than any crooked police officer, senator or president.

So Kick His Ass

[Spritzer]

In the state of Georgia I have the right to use deadly force to protect my property from being forcibly taken from me. Sure, it would be a stretch, but my point is the officer committed a forcible felony. Charge him.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he didn't want to commit Suicide By Cop.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[fustakrakich]

Sovereign immunity!

...has just been revoked..

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe that is true. You should verify that before you kill someone and end up destroying a handful of lives (including your own) over a cell phone.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Culture20]

In the District of Columbia, no one has any rights.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[dkleinsc]

In the state of Georgia I have the right to use deadly force to protect my property from being forcibly taken from me. Sure, it would be a stretch, but my point is the officer committed a forcible felony. Charge him.

Don't ever resist an officer with force, because after whatever violence the cops do response you're pretty much guaranteed to lose in court. Resist as this guy did, gathering evidence and filing appropriate legal claims. That does in fact make a difference for somebody else, while beating up a cop doesn't help anybody.

See a cop interacting with a citizen, film it. If the cops harass you for filming, do your best to call attention to the encounter so that somebody else can film them going after you for filming them. And if the cops go after that guy, help ensure somebody else is filming them do that. Each time you do that, you're either eventually going to have physical evidence of what they're up to, or a steadily increasing pool of witnesses, both of which will help you win in court and actually change the policy and the practice.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead and tell a judge that you had the right to kill someone over a cell phone. You might find yourself strapped to an execution table.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Apparently you still think you live in some sort of egalitarian democracy where the rule of law is enforced. Newsflash. That ship has sailed.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Hatta]

That would be justice, if our system were just enough to let it prevail.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[PatDev]

If you live anywhere in the states you should be aware that, unless you are fabulously wealthy or powerful, there are not limits on what the police can do. There may be limits on what the police are legally allowed to do, but attempting to stop a cop from doing an illegal thing they want to do is going to lead to conflict with a police officer, which will lead to a disorderly-conduct or similar arrest.

Treat a cop the same way you would treat a 12-foot gator in the backyard. Keep your distance if possible. Never anger it. Appease it until it is gone, and call in a greater power ASAP. For a croc you call animal control, for a cop you call the only higher power citizens have access to - a lawyer.

The actual gap between the power a cop has and the power you have in literally any interaction makes any other course of action untenably risky.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

If more cops had their asses kicked by the public, they'd learn their place. A lot more of them deserve a public asswhooping.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't ever resist an officer with force

Baaa.... Get back over there with the rest of the herd.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Plekto]

No, that ship was never built in the first place. They just told us it was.

It's amazing what people actually believe of the nonsense that we are taught in school. Theories are great. The reality on the streets hasn't changed much in the last 2000 years, though.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Spritzer]

I'm not advocating it nor would I do it. My point is that under the letter of the law it would be justified due to the fact that the officer was committing a forcible felony and theoretically armed robbery. I realize this was in DC where the value of goods stolen may be higher to constitute a felony, but at a minimum it was a forcible misdemeanor. Since it could be contrued as armed robbery under DC law that is definitely a felony.

DC Robbery law
Robbery in D.C. is a felony, with a penalty of 2 to 15 years imprisonment. Using a weapon in the commission of the theft from the person turns the offense into armed robbery. A conviction for srmed robbery could increase the maximum sentence to 30 years.

GEORGIA ROBBERY CRIMES OCGA 16-8-40
A robbery can occur by:

Use of force;
Intimidation, threat, or placing the other person in fear of immediate serious bodily injury to himself or another; or
By sudden snatching.

Punishment for Robbery
Punishment for Robbery can be imprisonment for 1-20 years with one exception. If the robbery is committed on someone 65 years old or older, the punishment is 5-20 years.

ARMED ROBBERY OCGA 16-8-41
An Armed Robbery is a robbery committed with an offensive weapon, any replica of an offensive weapon, or a device having the appearance of any such weapon. It is actually possible to be convicted of armed robbery if you did not have a weapon. For example, if you put your hand in your pocket and cause someone to believe you have a gun, you could be convicted of Armed Robbery.

Punishment for Armed Robbery
Depending upon the circumstances, punishment for Armed Robbery can be
Death penalty;
Life in prison;
No less than 10 nor more than 20 years in prison. Keep in mind that the minimum prison time is 10 years with no early release.

Defense of property other than habitation; Lethal force cannot be used to protect real property unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.(16-3-24)

Forcible Felony - Any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person. (16-1-3 as used anywhere in Chapter 16, except 16-11-131)

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

If more cops had their asses kicked by the public they'd break out the riot gear and fight back, reminding the public of their place

Fixed.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Spritzer]

You should verify that before you kill someone and end up destroying a handful of lives (including your own) over a cell phone.

Verified.
Please allow me to refer you to my post below, or perhaps the source of that info, or perhaps the actual code.

God forbid the day should ever come when I actually need to shoot someone, but rest assured I will feel no guilt. Any lives ruined in the process will be the offenders fault. I didn't ask/tell them to put their life in jeopardy in order to rob a law-abiding armed citizen.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you figure out who they are then kill them from a distance days later.
If you take away my rights by abusing the power entrusted to you by society, then fuck you.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on if the vice cop was plain-clothes or uniformed.

If they were plainclothes then it's questionable on how it would play out, but it would likely play out badly.

If they were uniformed, then no, it was not robbery generally since uniformed LEO's are given additional rights and privileges beyond normal citizens. Abuse of power? Check. But (sadly) not armed robbery.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

How about "assault under color of authority"?

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Senior Frac]

In the state of Georgia I have the right to use deadly force to protect my property from being forcibly taken from me.

Citation please. I call shenanigans.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you try shooting a cop who's trying to take away your phone. Come and report back afterward.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Hatta]

My point is that under the letter of the law

Our point is that police are above the law.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post says that you're allowed to use lethal force to defend real property, which means land or buildings on the land. A cell phone is property, but not real property. I would not put anybody's life in jeopardy over property, having read your post.

dom

Re:So Kick His Ass

[tnk1]

Amusingly, the very fact that he made this post might be construed to him actually premeditating a conflict with a police officer with the intent to create a situation so he could shoot the officer to make his point.

And yes, do not fuck with the police unless you are prepared to go to actual war. If you want to take the risky action of filming them, be prepared to have your shit confiscated. After all, you're looking for bad cops, right? A bad cop isn't going to be one who is interested in doing what is strictly legal with you in his face. He's going to use his skills as a bad cop to make sure he neutralizes you as a threat, one way or another. He has a lot more motivation to make you cease being a problem than you have in making yourself a problem. If you film him and he did something that can get him fired or sued, that's the end of his career, his livelihood, and it possibly means jail time.

Would you go out of your way to publicly film the Mob working someone over? It's almost the same thing here. Bad cops are not-yet-convicted criminals, and will act like criminals if pushed.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[scharkalvin]

Unless enough of the fith estate are on hand to witness it, film at 11.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[crmanriq]

Held a door for a local law enforcement officer the other day. As he was thanking me, I was this close to (and chickened out of saying),

"Of course. You have the power to shoot me dead and falsify a police report. Why wouldn't I hold the door for you?"

Some days my internal voice sneaks out. Other days, it hides behind the sofa cowering in fear.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[camperdave]

Treat a cop the same way you would treat a 12-foot gator in the backyard. Keep your distance if possible. Never anger it. Appease it until it is gone, and call in a greater power ASAP. For a croc you call animal control, for a cop you call the only higher power citizens have access to - a lawyer.

I thought you were going to say "... for a cop you call the only higher power citizens have access to - The A-Team."

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Our point is that police are above the law.

I read the article. The victim never tried to press charges. They immediately filed a lawsuit. Nothing will cause me to cast doubt on your claims more than immediately going for the cash when you're the victim of a crime (instead of, say, filing a police report).

Re:So Kick His Ass

[metallurge]

There is also federal law under Title 18, USC Section 242. The FBI maintains a summary of federal civil rights law here.

The key search terms are "violation of civil rights under color of law". The FBI maintains a color of law page here, including methods for formally reporting abuses.

IANAL

Re:So Kick His Ass

[yurtinus]

Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!

Re:So Kick His Ass

[number11]

I read the article. The victim never tried to press charges. They immediately filed a lawsuit. Nothing will cause me to cast doubt on your claims more than immediately going for the cash when you're the victim of a crime (instead of, say, filing a police report).

Um... it was the police that victimized him in the first place. File a police report, and the best outcome for you will be if they laugh and throw it into the trash. But you may attract charges of obstructing an officer, riot, and whatever else they can think of. Followed by getting hassled by individual cops for years to come. Or (very rarely, but it has happened) ending up dead.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Entropius]

You have clearly never been to Washington DC. Attempting to get the police here to investigate the police will result in fuck-all getting done.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[ukemike]

You should verify that before you kill someone and end up destroying a handful of lives (including your own) over a cell phone.

Verified. Please allow me to refer you to my post below, or perhaps the source of that info, or perhaps the actual code. God forbid the day should ever come when I actually need to shoot someone, but rest assured I will feel no guilt. Any lives ruined in the process will be the offenders fault. I didn't ask/tell them to put their life in jeopardy in order to rob a law-abiding armed citizen.

Seriously you would kill someone and "feel not guilt" to keep your cell phone? Either you are full of bluster or you are a dangerous sociopath.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Critical Facilities]

Bloody peasant.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Spritzer]

Neither. I am tired of the whiny "everyone gets a trophy and criminals need rehab" crowd deciding that it's OK to let someone steal your property since you can call the police later. Also note the "forcible" part of forcible felony. If someone walks up and grabs my phone off of my desk I'll deal with it. If someone threatens and or physically assaults me for my property I will respond with force.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Spritzer]

Good point. Enter GA Code 16-3-21

Defense from a forcible felony; A person is justified in using threats or force to the degree they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop another person's imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using deadly force which may harm or kill only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (unless it is regarding defense of habitation, which has it's own requirements below). You are not justified if you were the aggressor or you are/were/on-the-way-to committing a felony. (The state has pre-empted local cities and counties from further restricting this defense.)(16-3-21)

Re:So Kick His Ass

[omfgnosis]

I hate when people "fix" other people's words, but I have a hard time leaving this one alone:

You have clearly never been to Earth. Attempting to get the police here to investigate the police will result in fuck-all getting done.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Entropius]

Touche, good sir. Touche.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

DC isn't in Georgia.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[alexo]

If you live anywhere in the states you should be aware that, unless you are fabulously wealthy or powerful, there are not limits on what the police can do. There may be limits on what the police are legally allowed to do, but attempting to stop a cop from doing an illegal thing they want to do is going to lead to conflict with a police officer, which will lead to a disorderly-conduct or similar arrest.

Treat a cop the same way you would treat a 12-foot gator in the backyard. Keep your distance if possible. Never anger it. Appease it until it is gone, and call in a greater power ASAP. For a croc you call animal control, for a cop you call the only higher power citizens have access to - a lawyer.

In other words: Treat a cop the same way you would treat a known member of any other violent gang.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Altanar]

Indiana just passed this law too. It specifically allows shooting police who refuse to leave your property if they have no legal right to be there.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Altanar]

Do a Google search for "Indiana legalizes shooting cops" or check out this blurb: http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Altanar]

Here's the Indiana version:

A person: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

That's right. Lethal force is allowed in Indiana for third parties who aren't directly involved in a situation. Followed by:

(d) A person: (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle. (e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully

source

Re:So Kick His Ass

[0111 1110]

Huh? The cops are nearly always the ones to instigate the violence. So the 'riot gear' as you call it would already be out in order to beat innocent citizens until they are too badly hurt to do anything but meekly submit to the aggressive cop's authority. The only difference would be that the public would actually be fighting back against the police brutality instead of just doing nothing. Keep in mind that pulling out the "riot gear" wouldn't work so well in states where most citizens were armed to the teeth and wearing class III or better body armor. It would be all-out war in the streets.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[0111 1110]

Not getting violent with a cop is generally sound advice, but there comes a point when you have to decide if you are a man or a mouse. Consider a situation where an angry, out of control cop is strangling a woman to death right in the street. You come upon the scene. You clearly see that the woman cannot breathe. Her face is blue. The cop's hands are around her neck or he is crushing her larynx with his nightstick. His pressure lets up slightly just for a second and the woman squeeks out, "Help!".

Do you...
1. Walk or run away. It's none of your business. If the cop is killing her he must have a good reason. Maybe she is a terrorist and deserves to die.

2. Film the blue-faced woman dying at the hands of the furious red-faced cop. Try to get a close-up of her right at the moment of death. Don't worry about your own safety as the witness to a murder. The public needs to know what cops are capable of.

3. If you are carrying a firearm, draw the weapon and aim it at the cop's head. Tell him to let go of the woman and to slowly put his hands in the air and not to make any sudden movements or you will shoot him in the head.

4. If you are not carrying a firearm, try to save the woman anyway by tackling the cop long enough for the woman to have a chance to run away. Then attempt to run away yourself, but be prepared to be shot in the back.

In most cases there will be more than one cop present which makes any kind of heroics in terms of either saving the victim's life or just recording the crime to be suicide. The best you can hope for is to take out as many cops as you can before you die.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Khyber]

Nope, no guilt here. Bitch wanted to take my property. I took their life. Fuck them and their disregard for the law.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Khyber]

"Don't ever resist an officer with force, because after whatever violence the cops do response you're pretty much guaranteed to lose in court."

WRONG.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

http://www.rayservers.com/blog/your-right-of-defense-against-unlawful-arrest

In fact, you're justified in killing the officer if they're in the commission of a felony or unlawful arrest.

More dead cops = less cops likely to be stupid.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[0111 1110]

Exactly. I really wish someone had taught me this before I swore right back at a cop who swore at me. He severely beat me and nearly choked me to death and then charged me with assault and battery against him. I would never have sworn back at a gang leader alone at night with no witnesses and no way to escape. I fell for the whole idea that cops were basically the same as anyone else. That they were still human. Now I realize that most of them are sociopaths who would feel not the slightest remorse over severely beating or even killing a citizen who disrespects their authority in even the slightest way. In other words they are not just gang members. They are unusually violent gang members with no limit to their actions.

Most people I know have never had any serious interaction with a cop. More than just traffic tickets. Like me, they had no idea that a cop would be willing to kill you or put you in the hospital for even the slightest hint of disrespect like swearing back at them in response to them swearing at you first. I consider it my duty to try to educate others about the difference between an actor playing a cop in a movie or on TV and the real thing. I didn't end up going to prison, but I did end up with lingering memory problems from the concussion, a violent criminal record (beating up a cop), and in debt for thousands to pay my attorney fees (even though I took a plea bargain). I do plan to eventually tell my story to the FBI, but not while still living in the same state as the crazy cop. I have no doubt he would come to my house and kill me if I caused him any sort of trouble like that.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Culture20]

5. Loudly shout "What the &@$^ man, you're killing her. Stop it!" Then if he continues, try 3 or 4. Snapping the cop out of his Hulk rage might be all that's needed.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[ukemike]

Nope, no guilt here. Bitch wanted to take my property. I took their life. Fuck them and their disregard for the law.

Yup. Sociopath.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point is pointless. You're saying that under the law, you have the right to resist, but you never would. Whether or not it's justified under the law, the problem is that you'd be dead before you ever went to court. I guess you could say your point is vacuously true; true, but the circumstances leading to its truth will not occur.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, Internet tough guy. In this forum, you want to assert your right to attack a police officer who is taking your phone. Do that on the street, and I will actually respect you.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Reziac]

Not everywhere... in Bozeman MT, a neighbour was harassed by a cop, finally had enough and ran the cop off with a shotgun. That was the last he ever heard from the cops. Same area, I got a cop fired for harassment and being out of his jurisdiction while on duty, and all I did was file a complaint (possibly the more convincing in that it was 2am, midwinter, and I didn't bother to change outta my PJs first :)

But yeah, most places the police are evidently a law unto themselves. :(

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Khyber]

Nope, someone that simply doesn't put up with bullshit.

You keep using *path as if you knew what it actually meant.

"Sociopathy is the result of social conditioning which leads to a lack of natural human values."

I have no values for lawbreakers. There are laws that even reaffirm my right to take their life. Learn about legal killing to prevent a felony.

Hell, just read the law, sometime.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had a 12-foot gator in my yard, I'd probably just shoot it.

Re:So Kick His Ass

[Senior Frac]

ROFL. Those statutes don't mean what you think they mean. Good luck with that. Enjoy prison.

Well...

[Antipater]

The phone shouldn't have been wearing such slutty firmware. It was just asking for this to happen!

U$A

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst than China... Worst than Russia...
The most pathetic country on earth...

Re:U$A

[Anonymous Coward]

...But not worster than trolls.

Re:U$A

[RaceProUK]

I dunno, the UK's trying for that title...

Disclaimer: I'm British.

Re:U$A

[CanHasDIY]

I dunno, the UK's trying for that title...

Disclaimer: I'm British.

Glad to see I'm not the only person who recognizes the race between the UK and US governments, to see which one can repress it's citizens the most.

Next time ..

[ackthpt]

"Gimme yer phone, punk"

"Where's the memory card?"

"There is no memory card, the video was sent directly to the cloud."

Oops!

Re:Next time ..

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the rest of it:

"Sir, I've obtained a search warrant for all digital storage devices in your residence..."

Re:Next time ..

[Opportunist]

Of course, officer, no problem.

Oh, btw, in case you're wondering, I didn't upload the video to YouTube or create a torrent of it. Some bad people seem to have hacked my server in Europe...

Re:Next time ..

[CelticWhisper]

Doesn't always work that way. There are apps like Qik, Ustream, and TapIn that record directly to web-hosted services and which people can watch live as they stream. TapIn in particular was designed for cases exactly like this, uploading immediately and providing no way to delete the video off the server from the phone itself. It's no longer stored on any equipment owned by the videographer and by the time the police can take any action against the company hosting the video, (ostensibly) millions will already have viewed it, saved it, shared it, etc.

Apps like these really deserve more publicity because they're the best weapon we have against police misconduct. Proof of misconduct that immediately becomes widely-available and which is immune to police coverups.

Re:Next time ..

[Anonymous Coward]

"OK, where is the cloud? Is in your pocket? Empty your pockets. Show me your hands. OK, where's the cloud?"

"It's everywhere and nowhere."

"You trying to be funny with me kid?"

Re:Next time ..

[Bobakitoo]

You forgot the rest of it:

"Sir, I've obtained a search warrant for all digital storage devices in your residence..."

Exactly, let them try to get a search warrant. After a few denied requests they will learn to not abuse powers. In fact, I doubt they are willing to go further then intimidate peoples with empty threats. When high-school bullies graduate they enrol the police academy...

Re:Next time ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Qik was owned by Skype which was bought by MS, who was just in the news recently for their backdoors into skype for law enforcement agencies.

Chances are that that is *not* a secure method and that you data can and will be destroyed.

Re:Next time ..

[ackthpt]

"OK, where is the cloud? Is in your pocket? Empty your pockets. Show me your hands. OK, where's the cloud?"

"It's everywhere and nowhere."

"You trying to be funny with me kid?"

"Officer, it's in Seattle and Rotterdam and Sydney and Buenos Aires and Toronto and London and Rome and Moscow .."

"What? How?"

"At the speed of light, odds are, officer, your own personal information on loans, purchases, voice mail, etc. are stored around the world, too and you don't know it."

Re:Next time ..

[JudgeFurious]

Actually, it was my experience that the police academy was an odd mix of high school bullies and the bullied. I was in law enforcement many years ago until I injured my back (at home, in no way work related or anything) and I noticed this right away. You expected to see the bullies there in some number and I guess the bullied makes sense too. What was strange to me was how they got along. The bullies accepted those same people they would have been abusing years before because they were on the same "team" so to speak. The formerly bullied felt like big men being in the company of the tough guys which changed a lot of their attitudes and not for the better. Everyone thinks police are bigots but the truth is actually worse than that. Black people think the police discriminate against them and not whites. Hispanics think the same thing. Whites think they're special and that they get better treatment. The reality though is that all cops are bigots. The only color they like is blue. To most of them "we are all equally worthless".

Re:Next time ..

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the best slashdot posts ever.

Re:Next time ..

[Anonymous Coward]

No. That's not how law enforcement works. The people who have access to those backdoors are not your local dumb cops. They do not get access to backdoors. Don't be stupid.

Re:Next time ..

[Reziac]

In comparing local (SoCal) police vs the CA state Highway Patrol, I've noticed a very distinct difference in attitude. The police are looking for a bust, and you're ALL perps, we just haven't caught all of you at it yet. The CHP actually behave like they want to serve and protect, and their body language is very different in the field (they're standing with you, not against you as do the cops). I'd guess there's a very sharp cultural difference in the training academies as well as in the local offices.

Anyone else notice diffs among various branches of law enforcement in their state or locality?

File a police report.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like someone stole your property. File a police report. I'm sure they'll get right on that.

Re:File a police report.

[Opportunist]

You may be joking, but file a report and get the yellow press on it and watch the turd hit the spinning thingie.

Re:File a police report.

[Anonymous Coward]

watch the turd hit the spinning thingie.

Kinky... got a link for a site like that?

I don't like this inaccuracy

[jdavidb]

Just one day after Chief Cathy Lanier made it illegal for MPD cops to take recording equipment

My understanding is that the court system ruled it was illegal weeks or months before Chief Lanier's announcement. Lanier didn't make anything illegal or change the law. Lanier simply issued a decree to the MPD informing them of the law and directing them to comply with it.

And of course, with or without the court's ruling, the chief's decree, or any legislative action, it was always immoral for police to confiscate private property when no crime has been committed. Tyranny is still "illegal" (i.e., in violation of the natural law giving us the right to life, liberty, and property) whether or not the legal system supports it or condemns it.

Re:I don't like this inaccuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that the court system ruled it was illegal weeks or months before Chief Lanier's announcement. Lanier didn't make anything illegal or change the law. Lanier simply issued a decree to the MPD informing them of the law and directing them to comply with it.

Yes, it's true. Neither the court's ruling or the Chief's announcement made it illegal. It always was. The big difference is that, unlike real people, the police normally get to claim ignorance of the law. If these allegations turn out to be true, the police chief will find it hard to justify a slap on the wrist. I don't trust him to do the right thing, but people are going to hold his feet to the fire on this one.

Re:I don't like this inaccuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Close, not quite.

The Big difference, is that unlike normal people, the cops won't be prosecuted. That's the loophole right there- the "Prosecutor's office has given them immunity." or "The Prosecutor's office said they won't be filing any charges." etc.

What this order does, is essentially sets automatic departmental repurcussions. If action isn't taken against an officer, now you can sue the department and they can't weasel out of it because it's policy to take punitive action against officers caught doing this sort of thing.

Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Attention all leftist free software lunatics hippies.

I have a question. Is the city-state of Washington DC run mostly by leftists or conservatives?

It's a real question.

Do any of you geniuses know the answer?

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[Baloroth]

It's run by Congress, technically (the whole Congress, House and Senate). So neither party controls it by themselves, since the Senate is controlled by one party and the House by the other.

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's run by Congress, technically (the whole Congress, House and Senate). So neither party controls it by themselves, since the Senate is controlled by one party and the House by the other.

Nice tap dance.

Soooo, who's the Mayor? What party?

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evasive.

Come on free software hippy, I asked you a question, now I have to ask are you stupid or are you trying to hide something?

Answer.

Is the city-state of Washington DC run mostly by leftists or conservatives?

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[Antarius]

Umm... Yes?

Sorry if it's wrong, I'm in Oz and can only guess. But hey, it's a 50/50 chance so I took a stab at it.

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[BlearyTruth]

Conservatives and leftists are different here.

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both, as conservatives ARE leftists.

You will now prove me right.

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I have a question. Is the city-state of Washington DC run mostly by leftists or conservatives?

Leftists. Washington DC city government has always leaned strongly to the left, hence their rather draconian gun laws....

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[Anonymous Coward]

It still looks like a "Yes" or "No" question, however.

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[gurps_npc]

DC is run by Congress. Congress is very conservative recently. Yes, the city itself has a lot of liberals in it, but congress has direct control and can over-ride pretty much anything the mayor or other city officials try to do.

So you would be wrong.

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not. You do not understand the word OR?

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[metallurge]

I have a question. Is the city-state of Washington DC run mostly by leftists or conservatives?

Irrelevant. It is run by authoritarians, which is on an axis orthogonal to liberal-conservative, and which is the true underlying cause of why things are the way they are with respect to the police confiscating cameras.

Or, alternately

It is run by conservatives, because that's about all there are left in politics anymore. Some are Democrats, some are Republicans, but they're all pretty far to the right by most any sane set of definitions.

Pick one. Both are true.

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[Entropius]

It's run by leftists of the "take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor^Wpeople who vote for us" variety, who are also in this case law-and-order-obsessed authoritarians. Does that help?

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think OR is being confused with XOR.

The LAW makes it illegal.

[Anonymous Coward]

The police chief just reaffirmed the law with a policy because of failure to follow the law on previous occasions.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/jerome-vorus-wins-settlement

Well, technically.

[Voogru]

The chief stated that they could not take recording EQUIPMENT.

They said nothing about recording media!

Don't you just love clever politicians.

Re:Well, technically.

[Anonymous Coward]

To take the media they had to take the equipment.

So they took equipment.

Plus "equipment" is a word implying multiple functioning pieces. And one which is fundamental to a "recording" device is the memory on which the record is stored. They took recording device equipment.

So no, you're not clever.

Re:Well, technically.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think your lawyer will be able to out-explain the police's lawyers, so that the pile of idiots hand-picked by the police's lawyers will believe your explanation instead of his?

Lemme know how that works out.

Live stream

[bobbutts]

With a modern phone and decent coverage you can use Ustream or Bambuser

Either of these will re-broadcast your video live and also create an archive for watching in the future.

Police act like gangs

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ridiculous that laws are having to be introduced to allow taking photos of the police in the first place. How many hundreds of cases have there been now that exposed officers abusing their power because of cell phone cameras? Video recording and pictures prevent physical abuse and corruption. It promotes a fair democracy and keep power in check. As taking pictures and videos is really just "one person reporting", it is protected under freedom of the press by any fair-minded, logical individual. It's a shame to liberty that laws are needed to allow it to occur.

easy fix for this guy

[RobertLTux]

1 DEMAND that his memory card be returned to him Intact and certified as not having been copied (or any copies made have been destroyed)

2 speak to a lawyer about suing the officer (not the PD the actual Officer in question) for "theft of images for the purpose of creating Child Pornography" (this is an optional Nuclear Option but..)

3 DEMAND that the officer be put on not less than 10 days UNPAID leave

Re:easy fix for this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

1 DEMAND that his memory card be returned to him Intact and certified as not having been copied (or any copies made have been destroyed)

2 speak to a lawyer about suing the officer (not the PD the actual Officer in question) for "theft of images for the purpose of creating Child Pornography" (this is an optional Nuclear Option but..)

3 DEMAND that the officer be put on not less than 10 days UNPAID leave

4. Enjoy the massive amount of parking tickets, speeding tickets, etc. that you begin to get.

Re:easy fix for this guy

[Phreakiture]

So how do you compel them to comply with your DEMANDs?

Re:easy fix for this guy

[RobertLTux]

actually in my case i don't have a car and have a very boring life. But anyway if they did get nasty you just have your lawyer file a harassment suit with the PD.

and one of the reasons i said in 2 to sue the OFFICER and not the PD is to prevent Thin Blue Line Problems (y'all can't be faulted for having a loose cannon unless you don't deal with him)

Re:easy fix for this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

5. Watch as your demands are carefully considered by an understanding liason. At least according to some spokesperson. In reality, those demands are simply ignored and the suit is sent up to legal without being seen by said officer.

Re:easy fix for this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

By exercising your second amendment which is essential to secure a free state.

Re:easy fix for this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Any person using FTFY or editing my postings is entitled to a US$50.00 payment.

FTFY. YW. Will send bill shortly.

Re:easy fix for this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol! Yeah, threatening the police with a gun is a good way to stay secure... securely underground, that is.

Re:easy fix for this guy

[Entropius]

This happens already in Washington. The average Washington resident has $600 in unpaid parking tickets. Commercial trucks drive around with them still hung under their wipers. They're a significant component of street-gutter litter.

Qik

[eyeota]

qik.com has an app for iPhone/Android, etc allows you to stream video you're recording directly to your account over 3G/4G, etc. People dealing with TSA Abuse have been documenting and recording them using this app and similar. Even if your phone is confiscated, the video is already on the server.

You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Im glad they took it and the photos.

People will say "I have a right. This is abuse of authority." and so on but in the end it protects police to a certain extent. People will take photos and pictures and upload them with the wrong context.

Lets say a man is attacking someone and violently beating them. The police show up and then have to use force to subdue the man. If its all recorded but just the part of the police physically assualting the man is shown everyone that see's it will say the police went too far, they will distrust the police, they will be afraid of the police, they will make some ignorant and kneejerk comment about america not being free and etc. When in fact they dont know the real context or the real truth of what was going on but people wont care because they WANT to see things in a bad light, they WANT to bitch about the police and they WANT to be outraged. They dont care about context at all. American citizens dont always have the right to stick their nose into things dont involve them. If something is going down then you get the hell away from it and let the cops sort it out because it has nothing to do with you. Not to mention when something like that is going on tensions are running high, nerves are shot and everyone is edge so if you come along with a cell phone and get in on it by recording it of course youre going to get yourself involved when you have no business doing so and they wont be happy about it.

True you technically have the right but you should be considerate enough and smart to leave certain things alone instead of becoming part of it. Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should.

People fear the police and when people fear something they tend to hate it. People also have double standards about the cops. They bitch the police dont do enough when something bad happens, but then the police then pull that person over for speeding and give them a ticket they bitch about the cops just for doing their job. If someone is doing something violent and the police respond in kind because its the only way to end it quickly before more damage is done then people blame the police instead of blaming the person who caused the whole situation.

So do yourself and the cops a favor and just keep on walking or go the other direction if something is going down and mind your own fucking business.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[SJHillman]

More evidence is better. Context can wait until it's in the courtroom. Otherwise you're just giving permission for the cops to beat the shit out of anyone for any reason because anyone nearby will just keep walking.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[Hatta]

Congratulations. You're a fascist. American citizens absolutely have the right to hold police accountable when they cross the line. Suggesting otherwise is reprehensible.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[Opportunist]

What keeps the police from issuing a statement that puts the record straight? If I'm not too mistaken, they even have a PR department just for this reason, have the spin doctors work for their dough!

Of course it is possible to show the police in an unfavorable light by showing selected snippets of a video, there are, though, a few things that you simply cannot explain with "selective reporting". Like, say, beating a person who is already lying on the floor and trying desperately to keep the blows from hitting his face...

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[MikeBabcock]

Move to Cuba.

That's all.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[CanHasDIY]

Anybody else smell bacon as they read this post?

Up yours, Barney Fife. You don't want folks getting the "wrong impression" about cops beating the shit out of people or otherwise breaking the laws they swore an oath to uphold? Here's a tip: Stop beating the shit out of people and breaking laws.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You left off the sarcasm tags. We shouldn't hold police accountable for their actions because someone might take something out of context? What about innocent people being arrested, harassed, beaten, or killed? People fear the police because of institutionalized abuses of power that only become public when citizens speak out, often at great risk of police harassment or unlawful arrest. The problem isn't any one instance of abuse, it's a system that protects the innocent and the guilty alike and resists all attempts at external regulation. Doing nothing when you witness abuses may be safer in the near term, but the end result is an environment where law-abiding citizens are more likely to be victims of abuses of power. When you just walk away, you make everyone less safe, including yourself.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[Lithdren]

If ever there was an argument for the police to video tape every encounter they have, its the above comment by AC. I agree with him on many points, someone very well could videotape the police and present the video out of context in an attempt to make the police look bad. The only way you could counter this, is to actually videotape the entire thing and present that as a rebuttel to the original edited tape. So....yeah you're an idiot AC.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking Rodney King would have disagreed with you.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[MickyTheIdiot]

Barney Fife was allowed only one bullet for a reason.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, never help someone that is in trouble. The Republican way. It is your fault that you are a poor nigger, and it is your fault that the cops are beating the shit out of you.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[jdavidb]

For that matter, why don't the police just produce photos and video from their own cameras to prove what really happened? They should have nothing to fear from the truth, right?

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[0111 1110]

Actually if you are a foreigner, the Cuban police will generally be extremely nice and polite to you. How they treat native Cubans is another matter. And, yes, I know this based on personal experience.

IMHO, Cuban cops are much less likely to have been schoolyard bullies. Lots of normal people take the job over there because it is one of the highest paid (legal) jobs in the country and it's mostly pretty easy. A lot of standing around on a street corner occasionally asking people for their papers. They weren't motivated by watching violent cops in movies beat the crap out of people. Cuba has a lot of fucked up laws, but the people actually doing the enforcement are a lot less likely than American cops to be angry, sadistic sociopaths jerking off to torture porn every night and beating up their girlfriends. At least based on what I've personally seen.

After nearly being killed by an American cop, I yearn to live in a country where the police are less violent. Pretty much every other country I've ever lived in or visited would qualify. Note that I haven't visited the middle east, Africa, or Russia. I've heard Russian cops are particularly nasty. Maybe worse than American ones. That's scary.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The parts where once the cops stops beating the person, the person turns right around and starts attacking the cop. You need a full video to understand what's going on. Anything and everything can be taken out of context.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[ukemike]

When in fact they dont know the real context or the real truth of what was going on but people wont care because they WANT to see things in a bad light, they WANT to bitch about the police and they WANT to be outraged. They dont care about context at all.

Clearly you WANT to see police in the best light. Fine. Different people have different biases. If the police were subduing a violent criminal they'll be fine even if they do get recorded. I find that most people do care about context. You seem to. Aren't you a person?

American citizens dont always have the right to stick their nose into things dont involve them.

Actually it is quite clear that American Citizens DO have the right to monitor the activities of our employees. In fact in order to maintain our society as a free society, it is our RESPONSIBILITY to keep tabs on our government.

People fear the police and when people fear something they tend to hate it.

Many people do fear the police, but that fear comes from personal experience not TV or youtube. Perhaps you live in lillywhiteville and you get a free pass, but in most big cities the citizenry, particularly the poor have learned fear from generations of ill treatment.

They bitch the police dont do enough when something bad happens, but then the police then pull that person over for speeding and give them a ticket they bitch about the cops just for doing their job.

I do this. I bitch when police fail to deal with really bad stuff then spend tons of hours on fairly inconsequential stuff. I bitch when the police spend hours manning speed trap when there are hundreds of unsolved murders in the same city. I bitch when they run prostitution stings and harass the poor women when their pimps, just a block away go scott free, or when there is someone slinging crack or heroin on the same block.

If someone is doing something violent and the police respond in kind because its the only way to end it quickly before more damage is done then people blame the police instead of blaming the person who caused the whole situation.

I don't find this to be the case at all. People tend to be understanding about that. People don't tend to be understanding about when police get violent for no apparent reason, or when they get brutal or murderous. There is never justification for brutality, yet it happens frequently.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it.

[MikeBabcock]

I live in Canada, we Canadians do the Cuba thing quite often. I was speaking specifically of how they treat their own, and the rights you have as a Cuban citizen once taken into custody.

Note: I hear French police aren't a lot of fun either.

"Made it illegal"

[TorrentFox]

She didn't "Make it illegal". It was illegal and has always been illegal - she just recognized this fact.

Re:"Made it illegal"

[Lumpy]

It's not illegal. if the cfop that did it is not fined, has to PERSONALLY pay restitution and spend jail time, then it's not illegal.

It's time we started jailing dirty cops.

Re:"Made it illegal"

[number11]

It's not illegal. if the cfop that did it is not fined, has to PERSONALLY pay restitution and spend jail time, then it's not illegal.

It's time we started jailing dirty cops.

Hehe, good luck with that. You think their co-workers are going to arrest them? You think the local prosecutor (who works with them every day) is going to prosecute them? You think most judges are going to believe you, rather than them? You think most juries (composed of suburbanites and retirees who watch cop "reality" TV, people who have themselves had run-ins with the cops will be excused from jury duty) are going to believe you, rather than Officer Friendly?

Around here, we had a situation where a bunch of cops were confiscating stuff (cars, big TVs, etc.) and then taking it home, giving it to their buddies, selling it, etc. It finally got noticed and there was an investigation. The night before the investigation began (wotta coincidence!), those cops pulled an all-nighter shredding papers. So... investigate... hot potato... investigate... until finally the prosecutor says "Gee, how time flies! Will ya look at the time! It looks like the statute of limitations has expired, nothing we can do now!".

Re:"Made it illegal"

[Stan92057]

Ya our prisons are full of people who think like you. yes Ive said this many time

Re:"Made it illegal"

[Anonymous Coward]

The 4th Ammendment to the US Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

is that not armed robbery?

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure seems like it would be. The cop is using the threat of violence to steal the guy's personal property. I don't know how the courts look it, but if I'm on the jury, my vote would be to send him to jail.

Re:is that not armed robbery?

[CanHasDIY]

Yes, it is.

In my state, residents have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves from armed criminal action, regardless who's committing it... probably explains why we don't get a lot of these kind of stories coming out of the midwest.

Re:is that not armed robbery?

[Spritzer]

Amen! Until you mentioned the midwest I thought you might be right here in Georgia with me.

The Cop is the Criminal

[hd6tor]

Hopefully the law breaker, I mean the police officer, will be charged with assault and theft under, then prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Re:The Cop is the Criminal

[Mashiki]

No, the cop isn't. The policy is criminal. Sadly in most places, not following the policy set by the chiefs of police/civilian oversight board is grounds for immediate termination and/or being called before a disciplinary commission. The real problem, that most people don't seem to understand is, that there are little tin pots at the highest levels of policing that have a chip on their shoulder.

Now you might say, well a cop should just ignore bad laws. Well, plenty of them do. The problem is, they're not ignoring a law in this case, and ignoring policy is much worse than ignoring a bad law. That's just how fucked up it is now. I probably shouldn't get started on the whole political correctness run amok bit either.

Re:The Cop is the Criminal

[HeckRuler]

I think you're a bit confused. The cop broke the law and the official policy if he took this guy's cell phone. That's what makes this so face-palmy. The chief just announced that this sort of behavior is against policy. She made that policy because someone won a court case against the police department, but that doesn't change much.

It's legal to film cops.
It's the police deparment's policy that it's legal to film cops.
The cop didn't let this guy film him.
Soooooo yeah, the cop is the lawbreaker here.

I guess in some scenarios, there are bad laws and it'd be nice if cops ignored them. But that isn't this case.

Policing the Police

[jetcityorange]

This my friends is why we take video & photos of the police. Shine a little sunshine on them. Tip the balance in *our* favor. Prevent them from working unseen and unchallenged. http://www.jetcityorange.com/OccupyYourCamera/

Cellphone and camera not the best choice...

[Lumpy]

If you want to record cops beating someone up, you need to buy a camera they cant spot.

http://looxcie.com/

I have one and it works great. I havent caught a cop beating someone up, but it works awesome for other uses as well.

and cops are far too stupid to realize your bluetooth headset is a camera.

Re:Cellphone and camera not the best choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also it will stream to a phone over bluetooth, range is pretty good so have the phone that's receiving/restreaming the data carried by a friend nearby.

Re:Cellphone and camera not the best choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it records audio, it would violate wiretap laws in many states. A clearly identifiable recording device that is used out in the open to record where there is no expectation of privacy is legal everywhere. In two party consent states, a recording made without the knowledge of the other party due to being hidden is illegal. You could technically record without sound to get around this, but that only helps you after you get arrested. You might want to look up the wiretap laws in your state.

Re:Cellphone and camera not the best choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like a camera to me. I don't think you're fooling anyone with that... thought I'm sure it works great.

Re:Cellphone and camera not the best choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about wiretap laws. it's for posting up the video so the cops faces get public viewing of their deeds. The only way to win against cops is to get the public to see what scumbags they are.

Re:Cellphone and camera not the best choice...

[ukemike]

If you want to record cops beating someone up, you need to buy a camera they cant spot.

Careful! The recent court rulings holding up the rights of citizens to record police, require that the citizen be overt, not covert about it. If you were being secretive then the wiretap laws could still apply.

shame the cop wasn't dumber

[DynamoJoe]

it would have been great if he had simply blanked the memory card and handed it back. It would have given a forensics app something to work with.

There needs to be an app for that

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to create an Android app that can record video directly to youtube. Go ahead and take my phone and/or memory card, I still got your dirty ass on video.

ACLU Police App Lets People Police The Police

[colordev]

The Android “Police Tape” app records video and audio discreetly, disappearing from the screen once the recording begins to prevent any attempt by police to squelch the recording. In addition to keeping a copy on the phone itself, the user can choose to send it to the ACLU-NJ for backup storage and analysis of possible civil liberties violations

more information here

an iPhone version is probably still awaiting approval from Apple

Re: ACLU Police App Lets People Police The Police

[Rich0]

From what I can tell from the reviews/descriptions, this app doesn't upload anywhere in realtime. So, if the police officer takes your phone, you lose the video. It is a bit more discreet, but if the officer sees you pointing your phone at him, he is going to assume you're recording and just stopped before he took the phone.

What is needed is an app that discreetly records, and also uploads the video in realtime to some repository that does not allow you to delete the recording from the phone (or ideally from anywhere if you want real rubber-hose safety). So, they can do whatever they want to the phone and the video is still safe somewhere, ideally in the hands of some organization that will do something with it that is in some other jurisdiction.

I've seen suggestions of dropbox/etc, but unless you somehow set it up to sync instantly and not allow access to delete the files, that isn't going to be good enough.

DropBox / G+

[Grizzley9]

At least for iPhones (which wouldn't have a memory card anyway), you have an instant upload such as what is available with G+ that automatically puts new pics into a special folder online. Same that you can enable on DropBox as well. I'm sure there are many more apps that do this automatically as well without needing to run a special app, they just do it automatically. While technically it's not direct upload to the cloud or instant unless you take with the app itself, by the time they get around to it, gotten past your password, it likely will have uploaded.

Re:DropBox / G+

[Rich0]

It will have uploaded, but then those services will happily delete the photo when the cop opens the app (likely password-free) and asks the app to delete it. It is the right general idea, but you need some way to ensure the phone can't be used to delete the files, ideally even with the owner's cooperation.

Did he get that on video?

[BetaDays]

I wonder if he got that one video.

OpenWatch

[Anonymous Coward]

OpenWatch is a great app.

On Android, recording takes place secretly, and it stops when you press the "back" key three times.
After that, you are prompted if you want to upload the video or not.

ProTip: Record from a distance where you can press back three times and press the upload button before the cop can reach you.

Or just use ACLU App

[managementboy]

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.aclunj.policetape&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsIm9yZy5hY2x1bmoucG9saWNldGFwZSJd description: Citizens can hold police accountable in the palms of their hands with "Police Tape," a smartphone application from the ACLU of New Jersey that allows people to securely and discreetly record and store interactions with police, as well as provide legal information about citizens' rights when interacting with the police.

Re:Or just use ACLU App

[Rich0]

Good concept, but as far as I can tell it doesn't upload in realtime, so the cops can still get the video when they take your phone. The ACLU won't see a thing unless the cop doesn't take your phone in the first place, so you have the opportunity to hit the upload button.

Subjective

[fluffythedestroyer]

This article is too subjective as one must know what is police brutality. Simple thing to say but without the full story and full context, its impossible if there was any police brutality. I'm not saying I defend them as I don't like when cops abuse their power but when I hear all those stories on murders and assaults, I don't know if I want to be soft on someone who I'm about to arrest. Some fight back as others are good comedians to simulate fake pain...We've seen it in media everywhere... just saying.

Re:Subjective

[Hatta]

There's nothing subjective about the illegal confiscation of this mans camera. The theft of the equipment was illegal whether or not there was any police brutality. The officer in question is undeniably a criminal.

Re:Subjective

[CanHasDIY]

A) Doesn't matter. The cop still broke the law when he stole the man's camera and subsequently vandalized it to destroy evidence.

B) Knowingly and illegally destroying evidence does not help the cops case; to the contrary, it shows a desire to keep the events hidden from the public, and thus invites suspicion.

As they so oft like to say to we non-LEOs, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.

Re:Subjective

[jeko]

Knowingly and illegally destroying evidence does not help the cops case

Never mind about helping their case. Destroying evidence and obstructing justice are felonies in their own right, whatever the outcome of the initial case.

Re:Subjective

[fluffythedestroyer]

Go read the new policy. In my eyes, theres lots of grey area as it's not detailed enough but that could be me. I mean is there suppose to be any exception to those rules ? nothing is being said about that. Some points in that policy could give right to the police officer in plain clothes by the way that took his camera. Like I said, without any clear scenario right now, its only subjective and nothing is clear. All I know is a "he says, he says" situation. Theres no proof of anything either from Earl Staley or that police officer.

Like I said before, without knowing the full story I could point to section E paragraph 2 which gives the police officer to take that camera legally. But who knows... until both sides tell their story.

Re:Subjective

[fluffythedestroyer]

oops, here is the link : http://dcist.com/2012/07/yes_you_can_photograph_the_popo.php

Re:Subjective

[fluffythedestroyer]

Forgot to tell, I only read confiscation...not destroyed evidence.

Re:Subjective

[CanHasDIY]

Police department policy does not supersede Federal law.

Like I said before, without knowing the full story I could point to section E paragraph 2 which gives the police officer to take that camera legally.

Section E, para. 2:

If a member has probable cause to believe that a camera or other recording device contains images or sounds that are evidence of criminal acts, the member shall request that the person [with the recording device] either:
a. Voluntarily provide the device or recording medium (e.g., the memory chip) to the member; or
b. Where possible and practicable, and in the presence of the member, voluntarily transmit the images or sound via text message or electronic mail to the member’s official government electronic mail account.
c. Consent to take possession of a recording device or medium must be given voluntarily. A member shall not, implicitly or explicitly, coerce consent to take possession of any recording device or any information thereon.

No where does it state that the officers have a right to take the recording device without the owners consent; much to the contrary, it specifically outlines that they may not do so without the explicit, voluntary consent of the recording device's operator.

This looks like a job for Super Man.

[jellomizer]

Man Claims Cell Phone Taken By DC Police For Taking Photos

"Just one day after Chief Cathy Lanier made it illegal for MPD" (Metropolis Police Department) "cops to take recording equipment, a 26-year-old local man had his phone taken as he was trying to record a violent arrest. They eventually gave back his phone, but without the memory card which also contained photos of his daughter along with the record of the alleged police brutality."

Darn it it looks like Lex Luthor had gotten control of the police department again.

Re:This looks like a job for Super Man.

[BlueStrat]

Darn it it looks like Lex Luthor had gotten control of the police department again.

I know I'll get modded down for this, but...

No, it's worse than Lex Luthor. Much worse.

It's the Liberal/Progressives.

They actually exist here in not-a-movie-land, unlike the fictional Luthor. Just Google for police brutality incidents and see where the vast majority of these incidents occur: In cities/towns/counties where Liberal/Progressives hold power.

"Protecting And Serving The Shit Out Of You."

Strat

Re:This looks like a job for Super Man.

[Omestes]

I don't know why I'm feeding the polititrolls, but...

You realize that most large cities are generally more liberal and progressive than smaller cities and towns, right? That means there would be more cases in general, completely regardless of political slant. There probably is more violent crime in these cities as well. But then you realize that the 7 largest cities in the U.S. all have Democrats as mayor (well, Bloomberg isn't one, but he was). Actually there is one a single Republican mayor in the ten largest cities in the U.S. Thats 21 million people, excluding San Diego (the only town I've ever been to where I've seen an audience of people was cheering on a man assaulting a bum, classy) under the insidious rule of liberals. Obviously there will be more cases of asshole police, since they have more police and people the most other places.

Statistics, they are fun.

But not as fun as moronic political cheerleading.

Re:This looks like a job for Super Man.

[Anonymous Coward]

An armed populace makes criminals afraid to practice their art. Criminals who exist on both sides of the thin blue line. Once Police get a pseudo-monopoly on guns, they seek to abuse it.

Re:This looks like a job for Super Man.

[jheath314]

Almost all large American cities (you know, the places that tend to have the largest police forces) have "Liberal/Progressives" in power. Of the ten biggest cities in the US, only New York and San Diego have non-Democratic mayors. Quite simply, police brutality is a function of a city's size more than its politics. Thanks for trying to make a partisan issue out of it, though.

Re:This looks like a job for Super Man.

[sumdumass]

The problem is probably more likely associated with overall enforcement then political leadership. We a cop puts 7 months into tracking down the criminal behind a crime just to find they got sentenced to 2 months community service or off free on a technicality, they tend to start thinking justice isn't being served and perhaps adopt a mentality of dishing it out on their own when making the arrest.

This might not be true in all situations, but it sort of became extremely obvious when cops would repeatedly tazer suspects of misdemeanor violations more casually then grabbing something for dinner.

Re:This looks like a job for Super Man.

[BlueStrat]

Almost all large American cities (you know, the places that tend to have the largest police forces) have "Liberal/Progressives" in power. Of the ten biggest cities in the US, only New York and San Diego have non-Democratic mayors. Quite simply, police brutality is a function of a city's size more than its politics. Thanks for trying to make a partisan issue out of it, though.

Please show me where in my post I mentioned Democrats or Republicans?

It's Liberal/Progressives in both parties.

And it isn't just the large cities, either. Wherever the Lib/Progs hold power, the government including the police abuse their power and engage in corruption.

You can take cities of comparable populations/police forces (or add together cities where Lib/Progs are not in charge to balance the pop./cop numbers) where one is run by Lib/Progs and the other by more conservative/libertarian types, and my point still stands.

Liberal/Progressives get elected repeatedly in large cities because that's where Lib/Prog tactics and methods..."machine politics", community organizers/organizations, unions, and special-interest groups...are most effective...among a large and concentrated population that is under-educated, ill-informed, poor, un- and under-employed, and already angry and desperate because of those things. This makes them easily-exploited by Liberal/Progressive rabble-rousers and race-pimps.

Strat

Re:This looks like a job for Super Man.

[Omestes]

I think it is just individual cops. I've been on both sides of the legal fence, and have met some very nice officers and some terrible assholes. Hell, I've met cops who were terrible to me, as a victim, and cops who really wanted to help me, as a criminal. Cops are people.

check with osha

[way2trivial]

... fined maybe...

Will be buying one ASAP!!!

[logicassasin]

I already have a couple of small spycams for just this reason, but the video and still quality is pretty subpar unless the lighting is absolutely perfect (which it never is). This one is now on my shortlist of cams to buy.

I always arm a camera whenever I see cops around, having been on the receiving end of a cop beating about 20 years ago and have endured a lot of police harassment over the years. Devices like these are a godsend for those that live in communities where police regularly harass the citizens because of their age, appearance, or race.

Illegal to confsciate

[nitehawk214]

The rule only makes it illegal to confiscate, it said nothing about smashing said device to little pieces.

tracfone... $15 w/ camera

[Yakasha]

Step 1: Start Cop Recorder on your real phone.
Step 2: Use tracfone to record everything
Step 3: When cop steals your phone, demand loudly to know why Officer XYZ, Badge #1234, is stealing your phone
Step 4: profit.

Sure it did

[Anonymous Coward]

Oppression has been around since the dawn of organized coercion. There is no such thing as unabused power. Power itself is the abuse.

A list of the felonies here...

[jeko]

Just off the top of my head. I'm sure a prosecutor could come up with a more comprehensive list.

1. Destruction of evidence
2. Obstruction of justice
3. Theft/Robbery, which since it's committed while carrying a gun makes it an automatic felony.
4. Corruption/Conspiracy to commit the crime of obstruction of justice.
5. Hacking/Data Theft/Unauthorized access of digital data

I'm inviting everyone to play. Let's list all the felonies a civilian would be hit with if they had stolen evidence from the police...

Re:A list of the felonies here...

[FirstOne]

Additionally..

Civil rights violation. (federal)
Witness tampering.. (federal)
Obstruction by violence... (federal felony).

If another cop is present and observes the illegal act by another cop and does nothing to report it or stop it. Tack on conspiracy charges.

Re:A list of the felonies here...

[Reziac]

Specifically, US Code Title 18 Sections 241 and 242
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

BTW, put that notice on your front gate, and police (and more important, pseudo-police like regulatory thugs) will not pass it without an invitation or a warrant.

Implanted phones

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if that was a pair of iGlasses SCREWED into your skull.

Imagine trying to remove them.

It's about professionalism, not "soft" or "hard"

[jeko]

When you are a law enforcement officer, and your duty calls upon you to arrest someone, you have a procedure to follow and a set of rules to adhere to. It's not about how "soft" or "hard" you want to be. It's not personally about you. It's your job to apprehend and ensure custody of a suspect who is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I grew up on military bases where we expected 18-year-old kids to be calm and professional and to do their jobs in the middle of battle while taking enemy fire, and sometimes while seriously wounded. I see absolutely no excuse for the 'roid rages I've personally seen our civilian police officers indulge their egos in. An officer who is apparently enraged while dealing with the public is already out of line. An officer who commits offenses while under the color of authority should be subjected to HARSHER punishments without the benefit of the doubt, since law enforcement is charged with avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.

Yes, this means you have to be "man enough" to carry the badge. It's been a long time since I've seen an officer worthy of the uniform.

kryptonite for Sheldon Cooper

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: Why can't programmers tell the difference between Labor day and Halloween?
A: Because DEC25 = HEX31

Obligatory....

[Anonymous Coward]

"You know the score, Dekker- if you're not cops, you're little people."

They may have taken and erased

[Stan92057]

They may have taken and erased his camera but they didn't erase his brain. The Lawyers has an eye witness anyway you look at it.

ACLU has an app for that

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out this article about a mobile app developed by the ACLU of New Jersey for stealthily recording police interactions: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/aclu-police-app-lets-peop_n_1655257.html

Exactly. It's all about policy.

[Max Threshold]

The law grants police departments the authority to make policies necessary to carry out their duties. Only within the limits of those policies is a police officer who confiscates property not a thief.

Sue the officer

[reboot246]

Earl Staley should sue the officer who grabbed his phone for violation of his rights. When law enforcement officers realize that they can be sued as an individual and THEIR property put at risk, then their attitudes will change.

A law enforcement officer has no immunity if he's violating somebody's civil rights. Sue him and hopefully take everything the idiot owns.

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Charge them with armed robbery. After two or three of their "brother officers" get thrown in prison it might make the rest of them think twice.

Truth spoken here....

[King_TJ]

The fact is, most people still haven't really grasped this reality. Especially when you're talking to older people, who probably don't really do much to cross a police officer's path these days (and when they were "wild and crazy" as teens or young adults, things were different than today), they think you're over-reacting. They may even give you examples of people they know personally in the police force who "aren't like that at all".

Truth is, many cops aren't psychopaths on a power trip. But it doesn't really matter when you've got a good sized minority who are. You wind up having to treat EACH encounter as though you're expecting the worst.

The other problem is, even the "good cops" out there have LOADS of leeway to do as they please in any given situation. And actually, being human and having this kind of power handed to you leads to temptation to do some very illogical and unjust things. (If you want a real basic and relatively harmless example? I'm on a car enthusiast's forum for a sports car I own, and there are several cops on the forum who own the same car. We've had a few discussions about people who were caught speeding in their cars, and someone asked one of the cops point blank, "Would you arrest me or let it slide if you caught me driving the same car you have?" He said, "I'd probably just let you go with a warning, as long as you didn't have an outstanding warrant." Obviously, that's misuse of power, if he's going to apply the law with bias, just because he likes a certain car you happened to be breaking a traffic law in. But that's the kind of discretion they have.) Of course, I've known a few cops over the years myself, all of whom drive with radar detectors and have "muscle cars" which we can be 99.9% sure they're not simply driving at or below the legal speed limits at all times.... Hypocritical, isn't it, to punish others for the same behaviors they exhibit in their personal lives? But then, we've got cops on motorcycles issuing violations for failure to wear a seatbelt too.

Power corrupts .... It's really that simple.

Re:Truth spoken here....

[Reziac]

I'm reminded that recently I was nearly T-boned at an intersection, by a cop car that ran a stop sign for no reason whatever. I'd stopped out of habit since there used to be a stop sign there, or I'da been crunched. Recently saw another one turn on his lights and siren so he could run a red light, apparently didn't want to sit there for the 3 minutes that light takes to cycle, but wasn't in any hurry after making the turn, just tooled on up the street, so he wasn't on a call and had no excuse.

Does anyone think We The People could get away with the same behaviour?? So why do we permit it in our... ahem, overlords. All is explained.

Re:passwords don't work

[minstrelmike]

If you are actually filming at the time your camera is confiscated, they don't need your password to access your phone. The legal user is already logged in.

Re:Exactly. It's all about policy.

[Reziac]

If within the limits of such department policy, the police officer can seize anything he wants for any or no reason, is he still not a thief?

mod parent wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

This function is not supported 'out of the box'
You need an app to do this.

Re:Exactly. It's all about policy.

[Max Threshold]

Philosophically, yes. Legally, maybe not. This is why so many cops (literally) get away with murder. We need closer public review of police department policies and their legal authority to make them.

Instant upload

[GRW]

Make sure you have instant upload turned on and you won't lose any photos or movies.