Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do police have the right to confiscate your camera?
Carlos Miller ^ | 21 Jan 2009 | Carlos Miller

Posted on 01/26/2009 7:36:02 AM PST by BGHater

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: jwparkerjr

I think it’s better to be alive than right or wrong. At least if you’re alive, you can keep telling people you were right...


41 posted on 01/26/2009 9:35:18 AM PST by stuartcr (If the end doesn't justify the means...why have different means?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AustinBill

Yeah, then the ISP could alter it anyway it wanted, before sending it on...


42 posted on 01/26/2009 9:36:52 AM PST by stuartcr (If the end doesn't justify the means...why have different means?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Why?


43 posted on 01/26/2009 9:38:57 AM PST by jaydubya2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Just like with Clinton and Bush. Just depends on who’s in office at the time, and if we like him...


44 posted on 01/26/2009 9:39:02 AM PST by stuartcr (If the end doesn't justify the means...why have different means?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jaydubya2

They didn’t have cell phone cameras when it was written!! or even situations that are remotely similar.


45 posted on 01/26/2009 9:41:12 AM PST by stuartcr (If the end doesn't justify the means...why have different means?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick
So don’t always ever assume that your rights will be respected by the police.

Fixed.

46 posted on 01/26/2009 9:42:59 AM PST by TankerKC (Yes we can? I already could.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

You betcha. What goes around comes around.


47 posted on 01/26/2009 10:21:19 AM PST by svcw (Great selection of gift baskets: http://baskettastic.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: svcw

...and keeps coming around and coming around...


48 posted on 01/26/2009 10:25:32 AM PST by stuartcr (If the end doesn't justify the means...why have different means?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Since a cop just shot an unarmed man in the back, do you really need an answer.

I stopped respecting police cause they no longer respect us. I try to avoid any contact with them whatsoever.


49 posted on 01/26/2009 10:42:58 AM PST by packrat35 (To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

“You have an obligation to give your name, address and date of birth. Beyond that, you don’t have to say squat.”

Actually you have a RIGHT to privacy and it has been ruled on by SCOTUS. So you don’t have to give them anything.


50 posted on 01/26/2009 10:44:58 AM PST by stockpirate (A people unwilling to use violent force to defend liberty deserve the tyrants that rule them. SP-200)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Seems to me that the police would get a better response if they simply got a copy of what was filmed. That way the state has their evidence and the people have theirs.

Obtaining the camera (or at least the memory card) at the scene precludes any questions about the images being Photoshopped or otherwise tampered with, so I can see their rationale for wanting the cameras.

That said, without a warrant, I don't want anybody presuming he can grab my property.

51 posted on 01/26/2009 10:49:39 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (We used to institutionalize the insane. Now we elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
Obtaining the camera (or at least the memory card) at the scene precludes any questions about the images being Photoshopped or otherwise tampered with, so I can see their rationale for wanting the cameras.

That's kinda my point. The images can be downloaded without taking the memory card or the camera. That way both witness and police have a copy that can be compared.
52 posted on 01/26/2009 1:07:27 PM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

“Actually you have a RIGHT to privacy and it has been ruled on by SCOTUS. So you don’t have to give them anything.”

Most states have what are known as “Stop and Identify” laws which in most circumstances obligate a citizen who is stopped by the police to identify himself or herself. I don’t know what state you are in, but Illinois has such laws. Obviously, if a cop stops you and asks you what time it is you don’t have to answer at all. But if a cop suspects something (and it’s the cop’s word against yours: All the cop has to say is “I smelled what I thought was pot smoke” or “I thought I heard a scream” or anythin gthat pops into his or her mind), SCOTUS has ruled that it is not a violation of the Constitution for a cop to ask you to ID yourself, and I can pretty much guarantee you you will be arrested on suspicion of something. Believe me, I saw these instances on a regular basis when our clients were law enforcement agencies, and they WERE sued on a regular basis, and I can count on one hand the times when the court ruled against the cops for that.


53 posted on 01/26/2009 1:28:15 PM PST by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
Needless to say, I now have Randazza’s cell phone number programed into my cell phone.

Given the theme of the story Mr. Miller, you'd be better served to have that number in your wallet. :P

54 posted on 01/26/2009 8:35:17 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Confidential to MSM: "Better Red than Read" is a failed business model.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
55 posted on 01/27/2009 6:10:11 AM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

What is the police going to do if I refuse to turn over my camera ?

Throw you on your face, stick his knee in your back and cuff you then, charge you with obstruction and take you in for processing. THEN you can pay a bunch of money to fight it with a lawyer. Sad but true.


56 posted on 01/27/2009 6:41:40 AM PST by TheKidster (you can only trust government to grow, consolidate power and infringe upon your liberties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

The position of the law seems to be that we, despite being private citizens are subject to being filmed practically continuously. How can a “public servant” except under extremely specific circumstances necessary to do their job, have more rights than those who pay their paycheck?


57 posted on 01/27/2009 7:09:55 AM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er
"It’s the few bad apples that sometimes give the rest of them a bad name."

Like the police who confiscated camera phones at the BART shooting? Sounds to me like the whole barrel of them were rotten.

58 posted on 01/27/2009 7:27:43 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: monday

well, I’ll get flamed for this, but if recording devices are seized at the scene, properly logged into evidence and the images copied and stored, and the recording devices returned to their owners I don’t see any violation of the 4th and 5th amendemnts

the evidence is “reasonably seized” - remember that the fourth amendment precludes unreasonable searches and seizures. creating a proper chain of custody from the scene to the courtroom is not unreasonable. allowing the recording device to leave the scene, where the recording can be tampered with, opens up all sorts of foundational objections at trial, requiring a lot of expert testimony to show that the images haven’t been tampered with

if the recording device is returned, complete with the images in the case of a reporter or professional photographer, there is no property to be compensated (fifth amendment)

just saying, if you assume the cops are on the up and up, an immediate seizure, recordation and return of the original isn’t a violation of anyone’s rights and creates a better evidentiary chain for prosecution or administrative action (in the case of officer misconduct)

I sort of disagree with the “first amendment” attorney, since we are talking about criminal investigations and sometimes different rules apply

flame away


59 posted on 01/27/2009 8:15:39 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
“well, I’ll get flamed for this, but if recording devices are seized at the scene, properly logged into evidence and the images copied and stored, and the recording devices returned to their owners I don’t see any violation of the 4th and 5th amendemnts”

The first sentence of the article states:
“Seconds 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.”

Kind of makes a shambles of your entire argument doesn't it? We don't know if any of the confiscated phones have been returned to their owners, but it seems unlikely. I mean if you give your phone to the police, how do you prove it? They can toss them in the trash and claim to have never heard of you. Still think police confiscating your phone is a good idea?

What if you lost all your contact information along with your phone, or you missed a really important phone call because the police stole your phone?

Face it, they were not collecting evidence of a crime for trial, they were collecting evidence of a crime to cover up that crime. The evidence they collected in the form of those cell phone images has been destroyed.

60 posted on 01/27/2009 10:04:54 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson