Slashdot Mirror
Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them
MobyDisk writes: A lawsuit was filed yesterday over a case in which a woman was arrested for recording the police from her car while stopped in traffic. Ars Technica writes, "Police erased the 135-second recording from the woman's phone, but it was recovered from her cloud account according to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City lawsuit, which seeks $7 million."
Baltimore police lost a similar case against Anthony Graber in 2010 and another against Christopher Sharp in 2014. The is happening so often in Baltimore that in 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to the police reminding them that they cannot stop recordings, and most certainly cannot delete them.
Local awareness of this issue is high since the the Mayor and the City Council support requiring police body cameras. The city council just passed a bill requiring them, but the mayor is delaying implementation until a task force determines how best to go about it. The country is also focused on police behavior in light of the recent cases in Ferguson and New York, the latter of which involved a citizen recording.
So the mayor, city council, police department policies, courts, and federal government are all telling police officers to stop doing this. Yet it continues to happen, and in a rather violent matter. What can people do to curb this problem?
Baltimore police lost a similar case against Anthony Graber in 2010 and another against Christopher Sharp in 2014. The is happening so often in Baltimore that in 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to the police reminding them that they cannot stop recordings, and most certainly cannot delete them.
Local awareness of this issue is high since the the Mayor and the City Council support requiring police body cameras. The city council just passed a bill requiring them, but the mayor is delaying implementation until a task force determines how best to go about it. The country is also focused on police behavior in light of the recent cases in Ferguson and New York, the latter of which involved a citizen recording.
So the mayor, city council, police department policies, courts, and federal government are all telling police officers to stop doing this. Yet it continues to happen, and in a rather violent matter. What can people do to curb this problem?
And get new ones. What's so difficult about that?
It's simple, if the police are flouting the law then fire the individuals concerned - the others will soon get the message.
Arrest the cops for violating your rights?
Have a very obvious delete button on the recording device and make sure that all recording is backed up to the ‘cloud’ so it doesn't matter if said button is pressed.
Cop happy, you happy, everyone happy.
$7M paid by...The taxpayer!
No need to correct the problem when it's everyone else who pays for their mistakes.
Best solution? Encourage everyone to record every interaction with the police. This will systematically education the police on the rights of citizens.
Just like the 2nd Amendment public carry folks with a big old riffle slung over their shoulder on the sidewalk - it educated the police & public at the same time, and nobody gets hurt. (The the latter case, jimmes get russeled by some liberals, but, meh)
If theyre being recorded beating, torturing, or killing, as was the case in New York, they wont even be indicted. If they are, it just means they're acquitted later. If theyre suspended, they'll return to work after the public scrutiny latches onto something else. If they're fired, there are countless other departments that will hire them instead without so much as second-guessing their termination. Lawsuits dont seem to change the culture or nature of law enforcement in america, most citizens are simply viewed as the enemy, not those theyve been sworn to protect and serve.
Good people go to bed earlier.
And if you didn't know, DWB is Driving While Black:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Yet it continues to happen, and in a rather violent matter. What can people do to curb this problem?
How about putting police who violate peoples' civil rights in prison?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Someone needs to organize a flash mob of people just showing up and recording police in public all over the city.
Force those thugs they call police to behave.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You want to curb the problem? Have some high profile prosecutions.
Charge them criminally, kick them off the force, strip them of their pensions, make examples of them. It should be a felony for a police officer to do this, because they wield so much more power in this equation.
If the police aren't going to bother either learning, or following the law ... they have no business being police officers. If they can't get it through their heads they have no right to prevent this, then when they do it, bloody well lay charges.
The police are becoming thugs. And if they want to be thugs and criminals, start treating them as such.
And if the "good" cops won't stand up and get rid of the bad cops, they're just as guilty.
None of this circling the blue wall crap, and being on paid suspension. Fire the bastards.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It should be legal for, when any cop trying to do this, to assault and detain them. They're breaking the law, violating the constitution, destroying evidence, and committing fraud, all in one and what the hell are you supposed to do, call the police? I'd knock him the fuck out and make him prove in court that I didn't need to. Surprise, I needed to in order to preserve evidence of him committing a crime. You know, a citizen using force to prevent a crime from being committed...that thing that's completely legal in 50 states. OH THAT'S RIGHT police officers are magic and immune to the law and can go around making up their own laws. I forgot.
If the police are going to break the law and become criminals, then we need vigilante justice to bring them to terms. The current systems in place don't hold them to account. If an officer is shot for any reason it should be automatically considered self defense and completely justified. If I need to worry about any interaction with a thug in blue being dangerous for my life, then preemptive killing of all thugs in blue is the only way to stay safe. They can't stay within the law, then they need to be taken out of the population.
I truly do feel a bit of joy every time I hear about a cop being killed. They have been out of control for far too long. And don't even try to say they aren't all bad. If the good ones aren't turning in their buddies for the crimes they see being committed or even arresting them, then they are bad too. It stands to reason if you turn in your fellow officers your work place will be very uncomfortable and you will not get the back up from others when you need it. So even the "good" ones turn bad when they are complicit in the crimes going on around them.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Here in the police state of Illinois, our legislature has passed a bill, which was larded onto another, completely unrelated bill, which makes recording cops and government officials a class 3 felony, with up to 2-4 years in prison. The bill was added as an amendment to the unrelated bill, which passed with over 90% support in both chambers, essentially making it veto-proof.
It uses the word 'eavesdropping' a lot, so it may be argued that it applies only to audio; however, a chance at having a sentence like this would certainly scare off most people who would try to film the cops.
It will be interesting to see how this develops - a similar bill was struck down by the state supreme court in March, and the US supreme court has ruled that police have no expectation of privacy when they're in public, and on duty.
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
Move to a malpractice system, like doctors have. Make individual officers personally liable for their own behavior. They carry professional liability insurance, and can be sued if they do something egregiously stupid. Screw up enough, and no insurance company will cover them. Changing jurisdictions won't help, because the insurance companies will be sure to trade information.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Tampering with evidence, for example by deleting a recording, is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. While in this case the consequences were negligible, I suggest prosecuting these cops for tampering with evidence.
0x or or snor perron?!
When the officer asks for your phone, it's easy.
SAY NO.
There. 'nuff said.
Officer: "Have you been recording me? Let me see your phone."
Person: "Officer, you may have my phone when I am presented with a signed warrant from a judge."
Between the city allowing illegals to roam free and police attempting to (or succeeding) erase encounters with the public, there isn't really a reason to visit.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The Fourth, and the othe nine, Amendments in the Bill of Rights, are not criminal statutes. They are proscriptions against specific judicial, executive, and legislative actions.
Violations can be tortious and civilly actionable, but not criminal.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Forget this boring job, I'm driving to Baltimore with my camera phone tonight!
People keep saying "fire the officers", but this should be a criminal matter. Tampering with evidence, violation of civil rights under color of law, etc. Fire them, jail them as provided by law, make the settlement come out of their pocket (or, perhaps, the pension fund) instead of making the taxpayers foot the bill. HOLD THEM PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE. Then, and only then, will it stop.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
I have friends who are cops. It's a shitty, thankless job where you get to enjoy the worst of human behavior. Oh, and occasionally your life is on the line; risking widowing your wife and leaving your kids without a father. Many of them were soldiers who enlisted, had a gun put in their hand at 18 years old, and taught to kill other people. It's easy to see how cops can become jaded and not give a crap about rights. A lot of them are pretty nice work-a-day randos just trying to get through life like the rest of us.
That said, I think in this instance the best way to police cops is to let them police themselves by hitting them where it really hurts: personal finances. So for example, the resulting remuneration from a lawsuit where cop takes your phone and erases a video is paid for from the police pension fund. Further, that officer's personal pension is reset to zero, or halved or some other appropriate consequence. That's a pretty powerful motivator, and there will be huge pressure from within the ranks to keep their shit wired tight. I also think it would need to be very narrowly defined. The last thing we want is officers afraid to do anything for fear of losing their pension.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Here is you valid use case for Google Glass. Make every officer be required to wear it at all times. All arrests recorded from initial contact to Miranda. Traffic stops are recorded from the minute they get out of their car to the minute they get back in. All video footage is uploaded to the cloud and stored on third party servers. When a person is issued a citation or is arrested, The DA and they are provided a copy of or at least access to the video. No video available = no valid citation or arrest. It also eliminates the excuse of "Well, things look different when you are in the field" as you will see things exactly as they looked form the officer's own eyes. Failure to use the camera = suspension on first offense, termination on second. Simple enough.
I reject your reality
Won't the bear have a problem with you taking his arms?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
the chokehold is not a valid police measure. Just because you can speak does not mean you can breathe.
http://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/2odvre/the_pernicious_myth_of_if_you_can_speak_you_can/
From the article:
"Hearing that phrase come out of someone's mouth always upsets me, because it can easily lead to a preventable death.So let's explore why this is false, because anyone who comes up against a situation like this needs to realize that You CAN speak if you cannot breathe!!
This is true for multiple reasons, so let's explore them:
The lungs have what are called "Volumes" and "Capacities". The link describes all of them. For our purposes, you need to understand these two phrases: Functional Reserve Capacity (the amount of air left in the lungs after a normal exhalation) and Expiratory Reserve Volume (the amount of air you can still force out of your lungs after a normal exhalation).
When you take a normal breath you breathe in and out you are breathing about 500ml of air. After breathing out, you are left with ~2400ml of air inside your lungs, this is the Functional Reserve Capacity. If you try to force out as much air as possible, you can still force out ~1200ml more air. This is the Expiratory Reserve Volume. This is air you are able to speak with even if you cannot take a normal breath. Important Note: Notice that the Expiratory Reserve Volume is more than twice the size of a normal breath. That is a lot of air you are able to force out, and a lot of speaking you can do even if you can't breathe.
The lungs work on negative pressure. So, your lungs, when you breathe in, are at a lower pressure than the outside air. This draws the air into them. This is caused by your diaphragm and intercostal muscles. Your lungs are very elastic, and will move back to their normal size during exhalation. This is where the problem begins for officers. If you are kneeling on a suspect, or you have them handcuffed on the ground so that they are on their chest, there is a strong possibility that you can cut off their ability to breathe. Once the lungs begin to exhale, they collapse, but if you they are being pressed down on by body weight, they may not be able to re-expand. They then continue to collapse, forcing out the Functional Reserve Capacity of air, but not drawing in a new breath. So, your suspect may be pleading for breath, they may actually be incapable of drawing one in, and the reason is you. If someone is saying they cannot breathe, you need to believe them, because you might be killing them. Furthermore, during any kind of physical altercation, that person may be breathing deeply and rapidly, making their lungs collapse faster when you are kneeling on them or holding them on the ground.
Asthma. Some of you may be saying "Well, the guy who died in LAPD's care had asthma, that wasn't the officer's fault or the jail's fault." Oh yes it was. If someone is telling you they have asthma and they can't breathe, you need to believe them. Asthma is a constriction of the airways, no different than being strangled. They will still be able to speak and they will still be dying slowly. It took 30 minutes for that man to die, and that was entirely preventable.
We put cameras in places where risk is high -- banks, retail stores, convenience stores, ATMs, etc., etc., are all being recorded and we don't complain about them, because the risk of corruption and crime is very high.
Police officers are at high risk for corruption, and they always have been. Their personal opinion of someone can be used to punish that person physically, emotionally, and financially. It's not too much to ask that their actions as employees be more closely monitored.
False, and false. The chokehold is *not* a valid police measure and is in fact specifically prohibited by his department's regulations. He was *not* released as soon as he said he couldn't breathe, and in fact said he couldn't breathe several times.
I would suggest that when someone is being choked and can barely breathe, their words will not be complex, nor will they carry nuanced meanings such as the level of difficulty they are having with respiration. When faced with life-threatening situations, our minds focus, and become exceedingly direct: "I can't breathe" is entirely within the acceptable range of philosophical inaccuracy under those circumstances. You wanted him to say, instead, "my fellow man, I'm having a rather hard time re-oxegenating my blood -- would you mind releasing the pressure on my trachea for a moment?" Or, "I'm panting because you're crushing my thorax, and am unable to draw a full breath -- would you mind removing your knee from my chest?" Or, "my inability to form full words is because you've pinched off my carotids, and I'm facing imminent loss of consciousness -- would you mind removing your bear-sized hands from my neck?"
If someone in a highly stressful situation tells you "I can't breathe" then you should act accordingly to prevent loss of life. Simple as that.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
The untold part of this story is the reason he was being arrested, and evidence of a Police State, was because he was selling "untaxed cigarettes" aka Loosies. The state, using the force of government will collect its taxes from the serfs.
ALL taxes are regressive, and generally oppressive. While we accept that taxes are a necessary evil, we have forgotten that they are, and will remain, evil. The true goal of a free people is to reduce taxes. Period.
However, too many people only care about controlling others, and using taxes is an easy way to exercise our evil tendencies towards tyranny.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
See the article, below, for more evidence of the problem:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
This is really important.
A buddy of mine posted an article the point of which was something like "never enact a law you're not willing to kill to enforce." Because, at the end of the day, that might be how you enforce it, and this is exactly that sort of case.
I don't care if this guy sells cigarettes. Seriously, of all the wrongs in the world, this is one I can't possibly care about. I don't want someone choked out because they might be selling cigarettes. I don't want them accidentally killed, for sure. Worst case, write the guy a ticket and go on your way. Best case, repeal the law and officially stop caring whether this some guy sells cigarettes or not.
Regardless of what she did, the police should not have stolen her phone and deleted stuff from it. If she was committing some sort of crime, that's destruction of evidence. If not, that's just illegal anyway.
The police committed an illegal action, and there's going to be a lawsuit. Fine. If the woman in question violated the law in other ways, she can be prosecuted. That's how the system should work.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes