Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 03/18/2008 8:27:25 AM PDT by Lester Moore
Randy Dean Sievert drew ire from Manatee County sheriff's deputies as he aimed his cell phone camera at undercover investigators executing a search warrant in his neighborhood.
A deputy confronted Sievert, demanding that he destroy any photos of investigators and their vehicles.
Sievert was not a welcome observer of the drug raid. Authorities called him a "known drug dealer" based on a couple of past arrests. Taking photos of undercover officers jeopardized their lives, deputies said.
Sievert refused to remove his hands from his pockets and step away from his car after he was confronted about the pictures. Deputies forced him to the ground. The 20-year-old unemployed Bradenton man was arrested on a misdemeanor obstruction charge.
Investigators could not access the images on the phone. Sievert "finally" gave up a code that allowed deputies to find and destroy a photo that showed two undercover vehicles, according to reports. The phone is in evidence but not the photograph.
Sievert's obstruction case is attracting criticism in the legal community. Some defense attorneys say Sievert was unlawfully arrested and forced to destroy a photograph authorities had no grounds to erase.
"While they may not have liked what he was doing, it was not against the law," said Sievert's attorney, Charles M. Britt III.
If the police do not want undercover vehicles identified, they should not bring the cars and trucks when they execute search warrants, Britt said.
The vehicles are nondescript, blending in to allow officers to secretly monitor suspected criminal activity. Undercover officers routinely wear masks in public when participating in searches.
Britt filed court papers challenging the arrest, and a hearing is scheduled for next month. Ultimately, the state could decide Sievert did not commit a crime and abandon the case.
But an assistant state attorney, addressing the merits of the charge at a hearing Thursday, called Sievert's photograph "egregious."
Prosecutor Angel Colonneso argued to keep Sievert locked up on a probation violation charge. Sievert was on probation in a drug case when he was arrested on the obstruction charge in late February in the 6000 block of Seventh Street Court West.
Sievert refused a lawful command to erase the photographs, Colonneso said. That "reasonable request" was to protect undercover officers.
Assistant public defender Jennifer Joynt-Sanchez called the arrest "beyond belief." Joynt-Sanchez, representing Sievert in court, said Sievert had a right to resist unlawful police detention.
Joynt-Sanchez wanted Sievert released from jail on his own recognizance. But Circuit Judge Debra Johnes Riva ordered Sievert held.
Obstructing the execution of a search warrant is a rare charge. In most cases the charge is applied to a person who is at a house -- and connected to the criminal investigation -- during the raid.
Britt said he is not aware of any law that makes it a crime to snap a photo of an undercover officer in the performance of his or duty.
State laws allow law enforcement agencies to black out the names of undercover officers in police reports, protecting their identity. But their names are often included on witness lists for trial. The officers cannot hide their faces in court.
At a recent trial in Bradenton featuring two undercover detectives, the prosecution sought and received a court order blocking the media from taking pictures of the officers in court. But, during breaks, the detectives congregated outside the courthouse -- where anyone could have snapped a photo.
Sievert's mother said her son was foolish to take a photo, but the picture taking did not justify a confrontation with police.
"It was something stupid, but they had no reason to do what they did," Leasa M. Pauli, 50, said. "They just ran up on him and slammed him for no reason. I think it is unfair."
During the raid, deputies seized a box of ammunition and a checkbook but did not find any drugs. Sievert was the only person arrested that afternoon.
What Sievert planned to do with the photos - if anything - remains unknown.
You quoted this portion of the article in post 11. This is the crux of the matter, IMO: The quote is about a "reasonable request" (which should be a direct quotation, considering the punctuation). But the first sentence transmogrifies this "reasonable request" into a 'lawful command' that was refused.
If there is no legal prohibition for taking the photos, then there is no legal basis for the arrest for obstruction. The article appears to be fairly clear that the 'order' to destroy the electronic photos was a "reasonable request" by the police, who then used force to enforce their "reasonable request".
Yes, the judge has apparently sided with the police/prosecutor, but I do not see where the probationer has broken any law. Even probationers do not have to obey "reasonable requests" of the police that are not founded in the law as currently written.
Catch-22. He broke no law, but the police decided to tackle him anyway. He did not hinder their access to the searched premises.
Now he is deprived of his liberty because he did not instantly obey a "reasonable request" from a police officer. To me, that's pretty scary.
nice
Presumption of innocence and the right to be left alone aren't important because the police KNOW what is truth and what is best.
/sarcoff
It's too bad the suspect can't throw out the judge's ruling as easily a you do.
To me, that's pretty scary.
It's not scary at all. If you're on probation don't interfere with the police doing their work. 99.9% of people have no trouble complying with that. In fact it's so simple they don't think about it or lose a minute's sleep.
Run to Mommy! Eek! Eek! The bad man said bad things! My estimation of you has risen to basement level.
That's the heart of my objection. I do not see how this person 'interfered' with the police, going simply by the information in the article, including the "reasonable request" become 'lawful command' commentary.
Granted, this discussion is founded on an article describing the events, and it is more than possible that some or much information is missing from the discussion. But, based on the information in the article, a baseless arrest is being taken as a valid basis for finding probationary violation.
Can you explain what he did to 'interfere'?
like I care what scum thinks of me! LMAO
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Ping
When the cops stop the hostile intentions, the rest of us might as well.
Heaven forbid. If you're on a power trip, traffic is the best place to be.
Thinking while human.
I'm hoping that Billy is just using some secret Arashikage Clan hibernation healing trance (or something like that) to cure himself. He's always been one of my favorites.
Some of us will remember you said that when we're all on probation.
It's coming.
Cops while in public must never be recorded, photographed or question with any suspicion. Got it.
If the cops were undercover, how did this guy even know he was taking photos of cops? He sees people busting into a house in his neighborhood and takes pictures of it. Seems reasonable to me.
Here's an advance look at Ray Parks in his upcoming role as Snake-Eyes. It actually looks pretty good, so I hope that the Korean guy who will be playing Storm Shadow does him justice as well.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. Although it seems to me that, from the content and tone of your remarks, your definition of Law Enforcements’ “hostile intentions” might include the intent to enforce the law.
One thing is sure, tho.’ No matter what the courts may rule in one case or another, if the police officers on the scene perceive an action, such as photographing undercover officers, as a threat, they will respond to neutralize that threat. They may be polite about it, as by requesting the photographer to erase a given shot; they might be more technical, such as siezing the camera/cell phone for evidence; or they might be purely forceful, such as just smashing any cameras or phone they come across.
I was wondering what happened to the motto "To Protect and Serve".
Now I know.
I think you have to take into account the question of serving whom by protectiong them from whom else?
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.