Man Claims Cell Phone Taken By DC Police For Taking Photos

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Claims Cell Phone Taken By DC Police For Taking Photos

Posted by timothy on Friday July 27, 2012 @03:15AM from the safest-city-in-the-world dept.

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."

66 of 318 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Chief? by Hatta · 2012-07-27 03:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just one day after Chief Cathy Lanier made it illegal for MPD cops to take recording equipment
Chiefs don't make laws.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1. Re:Chief? by Spritzer · 2012-07-27 03:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  True. The article is poorly worded. However, Chiefs do set policy within their department.
2. Re:Chief? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 03:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It also was already illegal... she just clarified it with policy.
3. Re:Chief? by Freddybear · 2012-07-27 03:41 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  By making it official policy, it opens up lawsuits that can break the usual qualified immunity that cops get.
4. Re:Chief? by Jahf · 2012-07-27 03:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
5. Re:Chief? by Feyshtey · 2012-07-27 04:00 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
6. Re:Chief? by gstoddart · 2012-07-27 04:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
7. Re:Chief? by scubamage · 2012-07-27 04:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
8. Re:Chief? by Trailer+Trash · 2012-07-27 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Do you have ESP?
9. Re:Chief? by yt8znu35 · 2012-07-27 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  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.
10. Re:Chief? by LifesABeach · 2012-07-27 06:35 · Score: 2
  
  Has anyone considered the violation of law enforcement confiscating property without a judges order?
Dropbox by ilsaloving · 2012-07-27 03:17 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:Dropbox by AHuxley · 2012-07-27 03:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
2. Re:Dropbox by schlachter · 2012-07-27 03:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  iCloud does the same.
  
  --
  My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
3. Re:Dropbox by icebike · 2012-07-27 03:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
4. Re:Dropbox by Kenja · 2012-07-27 03:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That was my first thought, however iCloud waits for a wifi connection before uploading.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
5. Re:Dropbox by ilsaloving · 2012-07-27 03:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
6. Re:Dropbox by unk98 · 2012-07-27 03:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Dropbox does allow you to set a separate password to open the app on the phone. Might help a bit.
7. Re:Dropbox by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-27 03:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
8. Re:Dropbox by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 03:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  On most modern Android devices, its supported out of the box. You need only turn the feature on. Dropbox not required.
9. Re:Dropbox by Kenja · 2012-07-27 03:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Most people are not interested in jail breaking their iPhone.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
10. Re:Dropbox by AngryDeuce · 2012-07-27 03:46 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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.
11. Re:Dropbox by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 03:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
12. Re:Dropbox by RaceProUK · 2012-07-27 03:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And for the six of us on WinPhone7, we have SkyDrive.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
13. Re:Dropbox by MikeBabcock · 2012-07-27 03:56 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
14. Re:Dropbox by RobertLTux · 2012-07-27 03:59 · Score: 2
  
  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
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
15. Re:Dropbox by Feyshtey · 2012-07-27 04:07 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
16. Re:Dropbox by Antarius · 2012-07-27 04:28 · Score: 2
  
  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! :-)
17. Re:Dropbox by IorDMUX · 2012-07-27 04:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
18. Re:Dropbox by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-07-27 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  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
  
  --
  insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
19. Re:Dropbox by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-27 04:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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?
20. Re:Dropbox by gnasher719 · 2012-07-27 04:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
21. Re:Dropbox by Jason+Levine · 2012-07-27 05:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
22. Re:Dropbox by ixidor · 2012-07-27 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  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.
23. Re:Dropbox by grub · 2012-07-27 06:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There is an iOS app called CopRecorder which sends the recordings away.
  
  --
  Trolling is a art,
24. Re:Dropbox by Belial6 · 2012-07-27 06:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Cop Recoreder is also an Android App.
25. Re:Dropbox by sjames · 2012-07-27 07:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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?
26. Re:Dropbox by Altanar · 2012-07-27 08:28 · Score: 2
  
  Also, G+.
Well... by AngryDeuce · 2012-07-27 03:18 · Score: 3, Funny

That sure didn't last long.
Should have used an iPhone! by Kenja · 2012-07-27 03:18 · Score: 5, Funny

Remove the memory card indeed!

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
1. Re:Should have used an iPhone! by h4rr4r · 2012-07-27 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  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.
2. Re:Should have used an iPhone! by tooyoung · 2012-07-27 03:52 · Score: 2
  
  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.
And why should anyone be surprised? by na1led · 2012-07-27 03:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
1. Re:And why should anyone be surprised? by interval1066 · 2012-07-27 03:52 · Score: 2
  
  Doesn't make it right and this shit needs to be exposed. "any" is a dumb shit.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
2. Re:And why should anyone be surprised? by NEW22 · 2012-07-27 06:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
So Kick His Ass by Spritzer · 2012-07-27 03:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:So Kick His Ass by Culture20 · 2012-07-27 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  In the District of Columbia, no one has any rights.
2. Re:So Kick His Ass by dkleinsc · 2012-07-27 03:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
3. Re:So Kick His Ass by PatDev · 2012-07-27 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:So Kick His Ass by camperdave · 2012-07-27 05:58 · Score: 2
  
  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."
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
5. Re:So Kick His Ass by Altanar · 2012-07-27 08:44 · Score: 2
  
  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
6. Re:So Kick His Ass by 0111+1110 · 2012-07-27 09:35 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Well... by Antipater · 2012-07-27 03:21 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Next time .. by ackthpt · 2012-07-27 03:27 · Score: 2

"Gimme yer phone, punk"
"Where's the memory card?"
"There is no memory card, the video was sent directly to the cloud."
Oops!

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1. Re:Next time .. by CelticWhisper · 2012-07-27 03:53 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
  http://www.tsanewsblog.com
2. Re:Next time .. by JudgeFurious · 2012-07-27 05:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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".
  
  --
  Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I don't like this inaccuracy by jdavidb · 2012-07-27 03:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
1. Re:I don't like this inaccuracy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 03:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
Live stream by bobbutts · 2012-07-27 03:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Qik by eyeota · 2012-07-27 03:37 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
The Cop is the Criminal by hd6tor · 2012-07-27 03:45 · Score: 2

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:You shouldnt be allowed to record it. by SJHillman · 2012-07-27 03:50 · Score: 2

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. by Hatta · 2012-07-27 03:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it. by Opportunist · 2012-07-27 03:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

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...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
ACLU Police App Lets People Police The Police by colordev · 2012-07-27 03:55 · Score: 5, Informative

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:This looks like a job for Super Man. by BlueStrat · 2012-07-27 11:40 · Score: 2

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

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.