Man Claims Cell Phone Taken By DC Police For Taking Photos 318
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."
Chief? (Score:5, Interesting)
Chiefs don't make laws.
Re:Chief? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Chief? (Score:5, Interesting)
By making it official policy, it opens up lawsuits that can break the usual qualified immunity that cops get.
Re:Chief? (Score:3)
Re:Chief? (Score:2, Insightful)
It also was already illegal... she just clarified it with policy.
Re:Chief? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Chief? (Score:2)
Re:Chief? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Chief? (Score:3)
There's a policy at my job (in government) that disallows wearing shorts or sandals in the office. I cant be fined or arrested if I fail to comply.
Re:Chief? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Chief? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This looks like a job for Super Man. (Score:3)
Almost all large American cities (you know, the places that tend to have the largest police forces) have "Liberal/Progressives" in power. Of the ten biggest cities in the US, only New York and San Diego have non-Democratic mayors. Quite simply, police brutality is a function of a city's size more than its politics. Thanks for trying to make a partisan issue out of it, though.
Please show me where in my post I mentioned Democrats or Republicans?
It's Liberal/Progressives in both parties.
And it isn't just the large cities, either. Wherever the Lib/Progs hold power, the government including the police abuse their power and engage in corruption.
You can take cities of comparable populations/police forces (or add together cities where Lib/Progs are not in charge to balance the pop./cop numbers) where one is run by Lib/Progs and the other by more conservative/libertarian types, and my point still stands.
Liberal/Progressives get elected repeatedly in large cities because that's where Lib/Prog tactics and methods..."machine politics", community organizers/organizations, unions, and special-interest groups...are most effective...among a large and concentrated population that is under-educated, ill-informed, poor, un- and under-employed, and already angry and desperate because of those things. This makes them easily-exploited by Liberal/Progressive rabble-rousers and race-pimps.
Strat
Dropbox (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Dropbox (Score:5, Interesting)
Set up some blog or guide or webpage for that so others can learn how to use their phones web features.
Re:Dropbox (Score:5, Informative)
On most modern Android devices, its supported out of the box. You need only turn the feature on. Dropbox not required.
Re:Dropbox (Score:3, Informative)
iCloud does the same.
Re:Dropbox (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dropbox (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dropbox (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dropbox (Score:2)
Re:Dropbox (Score:3)
Re:Dropbox (Score:5, Insightful)
So when they grab your phone they also get to trawl your dropbox?
You'd be better off choosing an upload site out of the country with contribute only access from the phone.
Re:Dropbox (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, it would probably be a good idea to offload anything in your dropbox to a safe location, AND change your password.
There are plenty of options, but Dropbox is the most ubiquitous one.
Re:Dropbox (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think these dim bulbs would even think of Dropbox and instant-upload features?
Sounds like the police observer handbook needs to be updated. Everyone that wants to document possible police action should now do this.
Re:Dropbox (Score:2)
Re:Dropbox (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dropbox (Score:5, Interesting)
Does that constitute destruction of evidence and property, interstate (federal?) jurisdiction violations, and potentially wire fraud charges?
Destroying an SD card kills the ability to prove much. But servers would retain records of transactions.
Re:Dropbox (Score:5, Informative)
That could make for a very interesting legal case... Grabbing a phone and destroying the memory card is one thing, but what are the legal ramifications of an officer illegally searching a storage technology on a server almost assuredly in another state over wired technology, and then destroying evidence there?
Hacking laws: Accessing another's computer or server without or exceeding authorisation.
Re:Dropbox (Score:4, Insightful)
If the user was guilty of some infraction that justified taking the phone/card, then destroying the card (or even just deleting photos) is destruction of evidence.
If the user wasn't guilty of any infraction that justifies taking the phone/card, then destroying the card (or even just deleting photos) is illegal seizure of property.
Either situation can result in Bad Things for the officer involved.
Re:Dropbox (Score:4, Insightful)
If the law was FULLY followed, a police officer grabbing the phone without a valid reason (particularly after a memo from the chief clarifying that) is guilty of armed robbery and the fact that it was done under the color of law is an extra aggravating factor. Not seeing the memo is no defense since for anyone else "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
So the question is, does the D.C. Police Department willingly employ armed robbers as officers?
Re:Dropbox (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Dropbox (Score:3)
I've never made a Google+ posting, but it's great to have the backup of my photos!
Re:Dropbox (Score:2, Informative)
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.
I can. It is really simple. Install Google+ and turn on Google Instant. The same thing you get with Dropbox, but it uploads to a private area on Google+. There are integrated editing tools crop, exposure, etc. right there on the G+ site too. The only thing Dropbox would do that might be more useful would be automatically syncing it back to your computer too. But all of the other features of Google Instant are better. I even use it for getting screenshots of messages from lab machines, etc. When I get back to my desk to document stuff the picture is already there on G+ and I can edit it, etc. and then directly use it.
Re:Dropbox (Score:2)
better be fast with getting to your dropbox and copying it before they log in and delete it.
Re:Dropbox (Score:3)
and then you can use the "previous versions" feature to undelete the pictures plus
"and then the officers in full knowledge of the contents deleted a remote backup of the pictures in question to cover up their obvious abuse of civil rights and grievous assault on this innocent citizen"
or a simple court order could have DropBox fishing in their backups for the files
Re:Dropbox (Score:5, Interesting)
Well.. at least they have to be creative and come up with a reason to get a court order at that point.
They aren't going to go the judge and say that they need a warrant because the backup files might show brutal police action... are they?
Re:Dropbox (Score:3)
Google Plus and Drive have similar options for people who use those.
The Google Plus option is nice because it uploads all the images to an album only visible to yourself, which you can then choose to share directly on Plus later.
Re:Dropbox (Score:2)
Re:Dropbox (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dropbox (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dropbox (Score:4, Interesting)
It's an app from the ACLU which lets you one-touch photograph or video an event and upload it to a secure location. (There is also plenty of useful information and now-what guides for interacting with police, laywers, an arrest, etc.) A very useful app [that I did not write].
Spread the word. Get the eyes watching the watchers.
Re:Dropbox (Score:3)
http://www.justin.tv/p/android [justin.tv]
Re:Dropbox (Score:2)
I can't think of a better way to handle such abuses.
Similarly, activists have been using Qik [qik.com] video streaming for a few years. They have decent social network integration, so you also have a way to let your friends know you've just been repressed.
Arranging a social group who will actually do anything when you post a video of you being repressed is not included. Best to do that part ahead of time.
Re:Dropbox (Score:2)
Well... (Score:4, Funny)
Should have used an iPhone! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Should have used an iPhone! (Score:3)
Then it would have been "accidentally" destroyed.
A smartphone that uploads all its photos to the web is the way to go for this kind of thing.
Re:Should have used an iPhone! (Score:3)
Maybe Apple should come up with a solution like that. They could call it iCloud.
Re:Should have used an iPhone! (Score:2)
In a police action? Good luck getting them to do anything at all.
Re:Should have used an iPhone! (Score:2)
Nope, you can send them a bill and they will never pay it.
Re:Should have used an iPhone! (Score:2)
Thats what lawyers are for.
Re:Should have used an iPhone! (Score:2)
Which cost more than the phone, and you still won't get the money.
And why should anyone be surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And why should anyone be surprised? (Score:3)
Re:And why should anyone be surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't be "Is anyone really surprised?" guy. I hate that guy. He is one of the standard guys that makes his comment in stories on the internet. Maybe some people are surprised, which the question seems to imply that someone would be sort of dumb to be surprised. Most of the people, however, are not really surprised at all but thought it was an important issue to bring up. The "Is anyone really surprised?" guy seems to be telling them that the whole issue is a waste of time, and they should just kind of shut up about it. Sometimes, though, "Is anyone really surprised?" guy is just trying to look detached and cool, like he's seen it all before, and its all old hat now, and he has to let people know he's detached and cool like that. I don't know which variety of "Is anyone really surprised?" commenter you are, but I've never seen that guy's comment bring good things to a conversation.
Please don't be "Is anyone really surprised?" guy.
Thank you.
So Kick His Ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So Kick His Ass (Score:3)
Re:So Kick His Ass (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Don't ever resist an officer with force, because after whatever violence the cops do response you're pretty much guaranteed to lose in court. Resist as this guy did, gathering evidence and filing appropriate legal claims. That does in fact make a difference for somebody else, while beating up a cop doesn't help anybody.
See a cop interacting with a citizen, film it. If the cops harass you for filming, do your best to call attention to the encounter so that somebody else can film them going after you for filming them. And if the cops go after that guy, help ensure somebody else is filming them do that. Each time you do that, you're either eventually going to have physical evidence of what they're up to, or a steadily increasing pool of witnesses, both of which will help you win in court and actually change the policy and the practice.
Re:So Kick His Ass (Score:2)
DC Robbery law
Robbery in D.C. is a felony, with a penalty of 2 to 15 years imprisonment. Using a weapon in the commission of the theft from the person turns the offense into armed robbery. A conviction for srmed robbery could increase the maximum sentence to 30 years.
GEORGIA ROBBERY CRIMES OCGA 16-8-40
A robbery can occur by:
Use of force;
Intimidation, threat, or placing the other person in fear of immediate serious bodily injury to himself or another; or
By sudden snatching.
Punishment for Robbery
Punishment for Robbery can be imprisonment for 1-20 years with one exception. If the robbery is committed on someone 65 years old or older, the punishment is 5-20 years.
ARMED ROBBERY OCGA 16-8-41
An Armed Robbery is a robbery committed with an offensive weapon, any replica of an offensive weapon, or a device having the appearance of any such weapon. It is actually possible to be convicted of armed robbery if you did not have a weapon. For example, if you put your hand in your pocket and cause someone to believe you have a gun, you could be convicted of Armed Robbery.
Punishment for Armed Robbery
Depending upon the circumstances, punishment for Armed Robbery can be
Death penalty;
Life in prison;
No less than 10 nor more than 20 years in prison. Keep in mind that the minimum prison time is 10 years with no early release.
Defense of property other than habitation; Lethal force cannot be used to protect real property unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.(16-3-24)
Forcible Felony - Any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person. (16-1-3 as used anywhere in Chapter 16, except 16-11-131)
Re:So Kick His Ass (Score:2)
Apparently you still think you live in some sort of egalitarian democracy where the rule of law is enforced. Newsflash. That ship has sailed.
Re:So Kick His Ass (Score:2)
That would be justice, if our system were just enough to let it prevail.
Re:So Kick His Ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Treat a cop the same way you would treat a 12-foot gator in the backyard. Keep your distance if possible. Never anger it. Appease it until it is gone, and call in a greater power ASAP. For a croc you call animal control, for a cop you call the only higher power citizens have access to - a lawyer.
The actual gap between the power a cop has and the power you have in literally any interaction makes any other course of action untenably risky.
Re:So Kick His Ass (Score:3)
Treat a cop the same way you would treat a 12-foot gator in the backyard. Keep your distance if possible. Never anger it. Appease it until it is gone, and call in a greater power ASAP. For a croc you call animal control, for a cop you call the only higher power citizens have access to - a lawyer.
I thought you were going to say "... for a cop you call the only higher power citizens have access to - The A-Team. [youtube.com]"
Re:So Kick His Ass (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. I really wish someone had taught me this before I swore right back at a cop who swore at me. He severely beat me and nearly choked me to death and then charged me with assault and battery against him. I would never have sworn back at a gang leader alone at night with no witnesses and no way to escape. I fell for the whole idea that cops were basically the same as anyone else. That they were still human. Now I realize that most of them are sociopaths who would feel not the slightest remorse over severely beating or even killing a citizen who disrespects their authority in even the slightest way. In other words they are not just gang members. They are unusually violent gang members with no limit to their actions.
Most people I know have never had any serious interaction with a cop. More than just traffic tickets. Like me, they had no idea that a cop would be willing to kill you or put you in the hospital for even the slightest hint of disrespect like swearing back at them in response to them swearing at you first. I consider it my duty to try to educate others about the difference between an actor playing a cop in a movie or on TV and the real thing. I didn't end up going to prison, but I did end up with lingering memory problems from the concussion, a violent criminal record (beating up a cop), and in debt for thousands to pay my attorney fees (even though I took a plea bargain). I do plan to eventually tell my story to the FBI, but not while still living in the same state as the crazy cop. I have no doubt he would come to my house and kill me if I caused him any sort of trouble like that.
Re:So Kick His Ass (Score:2)
You should verify that before you kill someone and end up destroying a handful of lives (including your own) over a cell phone.
Verified.
Please allow me to refer you to my post below [slashdot.org], or perhaps the source of that info [georgiapacking.org], or perhaps the actual code [lexisnexis.com].
God forbid the day should ever come when I actually need to shoot someone, but rest assured I will feel no guilt. Any lives ruined in the process will be the offenders fault. I didn't ask/tell them to put their life in jeopardy in order to rob a law-abiding armed citizen.
Re:So Kick His Ass (Score:3)
That's right. Lethal force is allowed in Indiana for third parties who aren't directly involved in a situation. Followed by:
source [in.gov]
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Next time .. (Score:3)
"Gimme yer phone, punk"
"Where's the memory card?"
"There is no memory card, the video was sent directly to the cloud."
Oops!
Re:Next time .. (Score:2)
Of course, officer, no problem.
Oh, btw, in case you're wondering, I didn't upload the video to YouTube or create a torrent of it. Some bad people seem to have hacked my server in Europe...
Re:Next time .. (Score:3)
Doesn't always work that way. There are apps like Qik, Ustream, and TapIn that record directly to web-hosted services and which people can watch live as they stream. TapIn in particular was designed for cases exactly like this, uploading immediately and providing no way to delete the video off the server from the phone itself. It's no longer stored on any equipment owned by the videographer and by the time the police can take any action against the company hosting the video, (ostensibly) millions will already have viewed it, saved it, shared it, etc.
Apps like these really deserve more publicity because they're the best weapon we have against police misconduct. Proof of misconduct that immediately becomes widely-available and which is immune to police coverups.
Re:Next time .. (Score:2)
You forgot the rest of it:
"Sir, I've obtained a search warrant for all digital storage devices in your residence..."
Exactly, let them try to get a search warrant. After a few denied requests they will learn to not abuse powers. In fact, I doubt they are willing to go further then intimidate peoples with empty threats. When high-school bullies graduate they enrol the police academy...
Re:Next time .. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like this inaccuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I don't like this inaccuracy (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Yes, it's true. Neither the court's ruling or the Chief's announcement made it illegal. It always was. The big difference is that, unlike real people, the police normally get to claim ignorance of the law. If these allegations turn out to be true, the police chief will find it hard to justify a slap on the wrist. I don't trust him to do the right thing, but people are going to hold his feet to the fire on this one.
Live stream (Score:4, Insightful)
Either of these will re-broadcast your video live and also create an archive for watching in the future.
easy fix for this guy (Score:2)
1 DEMAND that his memory card be returned to him Intact and certified as not having been copied (or any copies made have been destroyed)
2 speak to a lawyer about suing the officer (not the PD the actual Officer in question) for "theft of images for the purpose of creating Child Pornography" (this is an optional Nuclear Option but..)
3 DEMAND that the officer be put on not less than 10 days UNPAID leave
Re:easy fix for this guy (Score:2)
So how do you compel them to comply with your DEMANDs?
Re:easy fix for this guy (Score:2)
actually in my case i don't have a car and have a very boring life. But anyway if they did get nasty you just have your lawyer file a harassment suit with the PD.
and one of the reasons i said in 2 to sue the OFFICER and not the PD is to prevent Thin Blue Line Problems (y'all can't be faulted for having a loose cannon unless you don't deal with him)
Qik (Score:3, Informative)
The Cop is the Criminal (Score:2)
Re:The Cop is the Criminal (Score:2)
It's legal to film cops.
It's the police deparment's policy that it's legal to film cops.
The cop didn't let this guy film him.
Soooooo yeah, the cop is the lawbreaker here.
I guess in some scenarios, there are bad laws and it'd be nice if cops ignored them. But that isn't this case.
Cellphone and camera not the best choice... (Score:2)
If you want to record cops beating someone up, you need to buy a camera they cant spot.
http://looxcie.com/ [looxcie.com]
I have one and it works great. I havent caught a cop beating someone up, but it works awesome for other uses as well.
and cops are far too stupid to realize your bluetooth headset is a camera.
shame the cop wasn't dumber (Score:2)
ACLU Police App Lets People Police The Police (Score:5, Informative)
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 [aclu-nj.org]
an iPhone version is probably still awaiting approval from Apple
DropBox / G+ (Score:2)
Or just use ACLU App (Score:2)
Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans? (Score:2)
It's run by Congress, technically (the whole Congress, House and Senate). So neither party controls it by themselves, since the Senate is controlled by one party and the House by the other.
Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans? (Score:2)
Sorry if it's wrong, I'm in Oz and can only guess. But hey, it's a 50/50 chance so I took a stab at it.
Re:File a police report. (Score:2)
You may be joking, but file a report and get the yellow press on it and watch the turd hit the spinning thingie.
Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it. (Score:3)
More evidence is better. Context can wait until it's in the courtroom. Otherwise you're just giving permission for the cops to beat the shit out of anyone for any reason because anyone nearby will just keep walking.
Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Congratulations. You're a fascist. American citizens absolutely have the right to hold police accountable when they cross the line. Suggesting otherwise is reprehensible.
Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it. (Score:4, Insightful)
What keeps the police from issuing a statement that puts the record straight? If I'm not too mistaken, they even have a PR department just for this reason, have the spin doctors work for their dough!
Of course it is possible to show the police in an unfavorable light by showing selected snippets of a video, there are, though, a few things that you simply cannot explain with "selective reporting". Like, say, beating a person who is already lying on the floor and trying desperately to keep the blows from hitting his face...
Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it. (Score:2)
Move to Cuba.
That's all.
Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it. (Score:2)
Up yours, Barney Fife. You don't want folks getting the "wrong impression" about cops beating the shit out of people or otherwise breaking the laws they swore an oath to uphold? Here's a tip: Stop beating the shit out of people and breaking laws.
Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it. (Score:2)
Barney Fife was allowed only one bullet for a reason.
Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it. (Score:2)
Re:U$A (Score:2)
I dunno, the UK's trying for that title...
Disclaimer: I'm British.
Re:U$A (Score:2)
I dunno, the UK's trying for that title...
Disclaimer: I'm British.
Glad to see I'm not the only person who recognizes the race between the UK and US governments, to see which one can repress it's citizens the most.
Re:"Made it illegal" (Score:2)
It's not illegal. if the cfop that did it is not fined, has to PERSONALLY pay restitution and spend jail time, then it's not illegal.
It's time we started jailing dirty cops.
Re:is that not armed robbery? (Score:2)
In my state, [learntocarry.com] residents have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves from armed criminal action, regardless who's committing it... probably explains why we don't get a lot of these kind of stories coming out of the midwest.