What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
409 Comments
- Ardiente, on 01/21/2009, -4/+517Why was it necessary to confiscate private property against their will? No, they absolutely do not.
- MikeHarpe, on 01/22/2009, -2/+382The short answer is no they don't. Anyone who had a camera taken should file a complaint. He's not a cop anymore and has had criminal charges filed against him.
Check out the ACLU's website for more about this. - enantiodromia, on 01/22/2009, -3/+277quick story:
a few years ago, i was at my friends house in Fremont (close to Oakland in fact). we were in the front yard smoking cigarettes when suddenly several police cars and vans screeched around the corner. some of the police cars parked directly on my friends front yard.
they were raiding the house across the street. we went inside and grabbed our cameras, to take pictures of the police cars on "our" property.
one of the cops saw this, and she ran over and forcefully grabbed the cameras from our hands, yanked out the memory cards, and threw the cameras down on to the grass.
she started yelling to produce our driver's licenses. we refused (because even though we knew she was wrong, we were both on probation) and ran into the house, locking the door behind us.
we yelled through the door she was not welcome on the property and eventually she left us alone, but we never go our memory cards back. calling the police department did no good, because there was no report of the incident! - virtualonliner, on 01/22/2009, -2/+240Short answer, No.
Long answer, in almost all cases, no. - absolutelytrue, on 05/26/2009, -5/+178Dirty pigs make them all look bad.
- prguitarman, on 01/22/2009, -4/+154Seconds after BART police officer Johannes Mehserle shot and killed Oscar Grant, police immediately began confiscating cell phones containing videos that have yet to see the light of day.
In fact, the only videos that have been seen by the public were filmed by people who managed to leave the scene before police confronted them.
In one instance, police chased after Karina Vargas after she stepped on the train, banging on the window after the doors closed and demanding her to turn over the camera. The train sped away with Vargas still holding her camera.
Her video, which did not show the actual shooting but captured the turmoil before and after, was one of the first to pop up on the internet. And soon after more videos popped up showing the actual shooting.
In the most vivid video, the train doors can be seen closing seconds after the shooting as the train sped away.
But the truth is, police had no legal right to confiscate a single camera.
“Cops may be entitled to ask for people’s names and addresses and may even go as far as subpoenaing the video tape, but as far as confiscating the camera on the spot, no,” said Marc Randazza, A First Amendment attorney based out of Florida and a Photography is Not a Crime reader.
Bert P. Krages II, the Oregon attorney who drafted the widely distributed The Photographer’s Rights guide, responded to my inquiry with the following e-mail message:
“In general, police cannot confiscate cameras or media without some sort of court order. One exception is when a camera is actually being used in the commission of crime (e.g., child pornography, counterfeiting, upskirting).”
It didn’t appear that the BART videos were being used in a commission of a crime, so what could people have done to prevent police from illegally confiscating their cameras?
“Probably not a whole lot,” said Randazza. “You don’t want to get into a situation where you are refusing to comply with law enforcement, especially when that law enforcement officer just shot and killed somebody. No camera is worth losing your life over.”
But what can you do if you’re as stubborn as me and have a tendency to refuse unlawful orders?
“Make sure you have an attorney that specializes in First Amendment law,” he said during Monday’s phone interview. “Make sure you have his cell phone and home number. Sometimes calling an attorney on the spot can be helpful.”
Needless to say, I now have Randazza’s cell phone number programed into my cell phone.
-30-
I am a multimedia journalist who has been fighting a lengthy legal battle after having photographed Miami police against their wishes in Feb. 2007. Please help the fight by donating to my Legal Defense Fund in the top left sidebar.
Don’t forget to cast your vote in the South Florida Daily 2008 Blog Post of the Year contest, where I have three posts in the running. - maloconn, on 01/22/2009, -2/+147They even confiscated the article... sneaky bastards...
- jadenton, on 01/22/2009, -1/+142The real question here is where those cameras turned over to the grand jury who brought the indictment? Have they been turned over to the prosecution? If they haven't been, the police are guilty of both theft (because the cameras where not gathered with the intent of being used as evidence), and obstruction of justice. Both felonies, and both deserving of hard time.
- unusualbob, on 01/22/2009, -3/+144actual long answer, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
- geardosdotnet, on 01/22/2009, -0/+106cops who steal from you aren't real cops anymore.. They have crossed the line and become crooked cops.
In a fair world (not ours) you would deal with them the same way you deal with any thief. - trsitton, on 01/22/2009, -3/+106There has to be a law against an officer confiscating evidence for a crime that he committed, even if he hasn't been prosecuted yet.
And as an officer of the law, he should know these things. For shame. - Nerys, on 01/22/2009, -6/+107Because when I commit a crime I want to take and dispose of any evidence that proves I committed said crime.
Thats why its necessary. Cute ehh :-) - afruff23, on 01/22/2009, -0/+84"Do police have the right to confiscate your____?"
No, I never gave them the right to confiscate my ____. If they can confiscate my ____ without permission, then I should be allowed to confiscate their ________ without permission. - inactive, on 01/22/2009, -7/+88When an officer dies while undermining our civil liberties, an angel gets its wings.
- scyphozoa, on 01/22/2009, -1/+77this is an extension of the "blue wall of silence" - technically speaking, i doubt police have the right to confiscate cell phones, but they of course would take them first and then be slapped on the wrist later, as opposed to letting that footage leak on the internet and create an outrage...
- ZapZilla, on 01/22/2009, -2/+78should've got it on camera dude!
- petemorley, on 01/22/2009, -1/+74Pics, or it didn't happen.
- NSResponder, on 01/22/2009, -0/+69Government employees routinely do things they have no right to do. The question is, when someone tries to deprive you of your property without due process of law, will you resist or comply? Whether this is a free country or not depends on how many people would resist.
-jcr - a117, on 01/22/2009, -2/+70I put "Penis" in the blank spots. =D
- gamabunta, on 01/22/2009, -0/+67No they do not have the right. The question I want to see raised is "Do you have the right to defend your property from an officer if they are illegally trying to take/steal it from you?"
- amortization, on 01/22/2009, -0/+64A few months ago, I spotted several police vehicles with their lights on. I pulled out my cell phone and started to take a picture of the police cruisers. An officer came over to me and demanded I hand him the cell phone. After taking my cell phone, he realized he was incapable of deleting the picture I had taken. He handed the cell phone back and demanded that I delete it. After I showed him I deleted it, he proceeded to tell me that it was "my last warning." I don't know what kind of consequences I would have been faced with had I decided to snap another shot. For the record, I was not taking a picture of any accident or altercation, but stationary police vehicles. In the future, however, I will make sure to get his badge number.
- Karai, on 01/22/2009, -0/+59Perhaps...
- SarahC, on 01/22/2009, -1/+48You should have asked to be taken to the police station where they could explain your warning, and potential charges in detail!
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -0/+46Aye. Fremont PD are some 'we're making this up as we go' pricks.
- Zaphrod, on 01/22/2009, -1/+47@Silent It most certainly is *not* illegal to videotape a police officer.
Where do people get this stuff?
Edit: Way to delete your post Silent - Nerys, on 01/22/2009, -2/+47Over my dead body would they have gotten that camera from my hands.
- sandyw123, on 01/21/2009, -14/+57Great post
- borez, on 01/22/2009, -0/+43No, the Police should be there to protect you from trouble... not cause it. They should work for, and not against public interest. This line seems to be becoming increasingly blurred, especially in America. Some of the youtube footage I've witnessed over the last three years is shockingly fascist to say the least.
As Robert Peel once said: "the police are the public, and the public are the police." He'd be turning in his grave right now if he knew the abuse of power that's been going on.
The Police need to know their place and who pays for their service. Period. - CoreyHalliwell, on 01/22/2009, -6/+48No. Cameras work both ways. They allow us to hold criminals and the police responsible for their actions. If i take a picture of something it's my picture and I have a right to decide where it goes. Also, you should have the right to decide weather you want your recordings/pictures put forth as evidence because if you are sucked in by the court/law drama, it's a violation of your right to live peacefully.
- kerouac906, on 01/22/2009, -1/+42To add to this, the only times an officer can legally take your camera, is if you are shooting images that could be deemed to infringe on National Security, or you are invading privacy, i.e. committing a crime. Even if there is something in plain sight on private property it is legal to photograph if you are standing on public property. This event on the BART train was clearly in plain sight on public property, involving public servants. If they want the cameras as evidence there are channels to go through. It is touched on a bit in the article, by Bert P. Krages II, who has written a comprehensive guide to Photographers Rights. It has helped me enormously as I am working towards a career in photography.
Oh, and witnesses help in these situations. - vector86, on 01/22/2009, -0/+41Those amendments mean nothing if people just roll over and accept the police's actions.
- macinit1138, on 01/22/2009, -0/+39Soon, due to the ever more miniaturization of video recording-capable devices, the police won't be able to discern they're under video surveillance at any given time. Poor bastards. Then they'll have to pray they're actually do their jobs BY the book or face criminal prosecution at the public's discretion. Cheers!
- anaclagon, on 01/22/2009, -0/+37The owners of the cameras are now going to be charged with creating Snuff films.
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -1/+38Actually even in cases where you may be infringing on National Security they only have a right to file a complaint.
I have had 3 federal complaints filed on me! ;-) - oxdeltaxo, on 01/22/2009, -1/+36They all think about covering their asses, hell they cover their co-workers asses sometimes.
- FrellMeDead, on 01/22/2009, -2/+37Most police officers either never bothered or cared to learn the laws in the first place or they choose to deliberately go against the law to cover another officer's butt. Whichever reason it is doesn't matter in the end since they are all breaking the law and should be charged with theft and intimidation of witnesses. If the local police are unwilling to follow through with the charges against the officer(s) then one will need to go to the state police, etc. and have them follow through on the charges since it is a gross violation of your rights as well as a violation of the oath/pledge that they took to uphold the law as well as there job to protect and to server the people.
This isn't the first time this has happened, many times cops don't want to be filmed for whatever the reason. Usually this attitude "that they can do whatever they feel like and get away with it" comes back and bites them in the ass, but only if people stand up for their rights. - smotpoker, on 01/22/2009, -0/+35"Police, unfortunately, do have a legal right to gather evidence or potential evidence at a crime scenef"
Nope, only if they have reason to suspect it was used to commit the crime. Otherwise allowing them to collect it is "voluntary" (ie they may act like they have a right to take it by force and tell you as much but they really don't) without a court order. - Nerys, on 01/22/2009, -1/+33I am not kidding when I say my reply would have been this.
Officer I respect your job and your dedication but there is ZERO chance of you peacefully taking this camera from me.
Decide how you want to proceed. - Nerys, on 01/22/2009, -0/+32Not when the CONFISCATING PARTY is the "party of interest" in the crime radu79 :-)
that would be like saying its OK for the terrorist to confiscate all footage to "preserve" the evidence.
Allowing this is the OPPOSITE of preserving the evidence. - smotpoker, on 01/22/2009, -0/+30It wasn't just the suspect-officer, but his partners/accomplices.
- Nerys, on 01/22/2009, -0/+30The mark of a true CITIZEN journalist not backed by a corporation.
- sturmgiest, on 01/22/2009, -0/+30yeah, its called the 1st and 4th amendments
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -0/+30---------It is our duty as Americans to cooperate with the police in the collection of evidence.----------
Go fvck yourself - BradHAWK, on 01/22/2009, -0/+29@ro2ert
Do tell... - Jareth86, on 01/22/2009, -0/+28Don't you worry about Planet Express. Let me worry about ____.
- fightingforair, on 01/22/2009, -3/+28*WARNING*
This post has been confiscated by the web police. Leave this site now or the virtual clubs come out.
*WARNING* - blqysmg, on 01/22/2009, -0/+24Has anyone explored the level at which a police officer issues commands that are in no way in line with his job duties? I keep hearing that "complying with the orders of a police officer" is the law, but at what point does his behavior break the law? What can be done if a police officer does something illegal using the "command authority" he believes is given to him by the State?
Confiscating someone's camera applies, here. If I used force (and all police actions are a use of force) to take someone's property, that's armed robbery. When the police do it, it's "well, we didn't have the legal right to do it, but we were just trying to do our jobs." It should be armed robbery. The police are armed, and they are taking property without the owners consent by using the threat of force.
What can we do? Will the Judicial branch of the government EVER back we the people in reigning in the abuse of power of the Executive branch of the government? - kerouac906, on 01/22/2009, -0/+23That's when you tell them to go do their job they arrived to do...
- foomojive, on 01/22/2009, -0/+23hear, hear! that's the tricky part. in the article there is a sidebar summary that talks about a trial the author was in where a judge sentenced him to the maximum for "resisting arrest" even though his arrest was for taking photos of police on public property which was totally legal. He got something like 90 days probation and 1000 hours of community service and 500 hours of required anger management classes! i'd be angry too if police arrested me when i didn't do anything illegal. the judge also criticized him in the courtroom for blogging about his trial. what the hell is wrong with that?
it's not just the police that are in on preventing you from capturing their misconduct on film, the judges and attorneys are in on it too. you may be exonerated from any crime for photographing/recording police but you might get charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. that is really messed up. - ryanhayn, on 01/22/2009, -13/+35***** the police, ***** the police, ***** 'em.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 423 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is