Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Remove the memory card indeed!
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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.
The phone shouldn't have been wearing such slutty firmware. It was just asking for this to happen!
Everything is better with chainsaws.
True. The article is poorly worded. However, Chiefs do set policy within their department.
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.
By making it official policy, it opens up lawsuits that can break the usual qualified immunity that cops get.
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.
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
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.
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?