It's now illegal to photograph police officers on duty... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

KnifeMissile · 07-30-2006, 04:45 PM

Here are a pair of articles detailing police officers claiming that photographing or videotaping them was a crime.

Quote:

Cell Phone Picture Called Obstruction of Justice

A Philadelphia family said they are outraged over the arrest of one of their family members.

The family of Neftaly Cruz said police had no right to come onto their property and arrest their 21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's camera. They told their story to Harry Hairston and the NBC 10 Investigators.

"I was humiliated. I was embarrassed, you know," Cruz said.

Cruz, 21, told the NBC 10 Investigators that police arrested him last Wednesday for taking a picture of police activity with his cell phone.

Police at the 35th district said they were in Cruz's neighborhood that night arresting a drug dealer.

Cruz said that when he heard a commotion, he walked out of his back door with his cell phone to see what was happening. He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene.

"I opened (the phone) and took a shot," Cruz said.

Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate.

"He opened the gate and took me by my right hand," Cruz said.

Cruz said the officer threw him onto a police car, cuffed him and took him to jail.

A neighbor said she witnessed the incident and could not believe what she saw.

"He opened up the gate and Neffy was coming down and he went up to Neffy, pulled him down, had Neffy on the car and was telling him, 'You should have just went in the house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures off your picture phone,'" said Gerrell Martin.

Cruz said police told him that he broke a new law that prohibits people from taking pictures of police with cell phones.

"They threatened to charge me with conspiracy, impeding an investigation, obstruction of a investigation. … They said, 'You were impeding this investigation.' (I asked,) "By doing what?' (The officer said,) 'By taking a picture of the police officers with a camera phone,'" Cruz said.

Cruz's parents, who got him out of jail, said police told them the same thing.

"He said he was taking pictures with his cell phone and that was obstructing an investigation," said Aracelis Cruz, Neftaly Cruz's mother.

The NBC 10 Investigators asked the ACLU union how they viewed the incident.

"There is no law that prevents people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street," said Larry Frankel of the American Civil Liberties Union. "I think it's rather scary that in this country you could actually be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street."

Frankel said Cruz's civil rights might have been violated.

"He was unlawfully seized, which is a violation of the 4th amendment the last time we checked," Frankel said.

Cruz, a Penn State University senior, said that after about an hour police told him he was lucky because there was no supervisor on duty, so they released him.

"They said if the supervisor was there I wouldn't be a free man and that he is letting me go because he felt that I was a good person," Cruz said.

Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also denied that they told Cruze he was breaking the law with his cell phone. Cruz's famly said it has filed a formal complaint with the police department's Internal Affairs division and are requesting a complete investigation.

I think the fact that the officers didn't actually charge him with anything, at the end, is rather telling. Really, can you let a criminal go because your "supervisor wasn't there?" Does that make any sense? Also, what difference does it make if he were on his own property or not? You are allowed to take pictures of a public spectacle on public property...

Quote:

Man charged after videotaping police

A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man’s sons.

Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon’s wife, Janet Gannon, and police reports filed in Nashua District Court.

Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective’s consent.

The Gannons’ son, Shawn Gannon, 18, is charged with resisting detention and disorderly conduct, and his wife also was cited for disorderly conduct, she said.

Janet Gannon said the family plans to hire a lawyer, and expects to sue the police department.

PDF
Click here
to read a copy of police reports filed in Nashua District Court.
The couple’s 15-year-old son also was arrested, charged as a juvenile in an unrelated robbery case, according to police reports and Janet Gannon.

The Gannons installed a video and audio recording system at their home, a four-unit building at 22-28 Morgan St., to monitor the front door and parking areas, family members told police. They installed the cameras about two years ago, buying the system at Wal-Mart, Janet Gannon told the police, according to reports filed in court. The Gannons have owned the property, which is assessed at $382,700, for the past three years, city records show.

Janet Gannon spoke with The Telegraph by phone Wednesday afternoon, before going to bail out her husband. She said they installed the system in response to crime in the neighborhood, and at their house.

“We’ve had two break-ins. One guy came right up our stairs and started beating on my husband, and we called the cops,” she said. Another time, after someone broke into a camper on their property, Janet Gannon said an officer suggested they were “too rich” for the neighborhood, and should move.

The security cameras record sound and audio directly to a videocassette recorder inside the house, and the Gannons posted warnings about the system, Janet Gannon said.

On Tuesday night, Michael Gannon brought a videocassette to the police department, and asked to speak with someone in “public relations,” his wife said and police reported.

Gannon wanted to lodge a complaint against Karlis, who had come to the family’s house while investigating their sons, Janet Gannon said. She said Karlis showed up late at night, was rude, and refused to leave when they asked him.

“He was just very smart-mouthed. He put his foot in the door, and my husband said, ‘Excuse me, I did not invite you in, please leave,’ and he wouldn’t,” Janet Gannon said. “We did not invite him in, we asked him to leave, and he wouldn’t.”

After the police arrested the Gannons’ sons, Janet Gannon said, they “secured” the house, and told her and her sister-in-law they had to stay out of it from around 8:45 p.m. Tuesday until about 4 a.m. Wednesday.

Police said they were waiting to get a warrant to search the house, Janet Gannon said.

“They were waiting for a warrant to seize the cameras and the tapes in my house . . . because they said having these cameras was against the law. They’re security cameras,” she said, adding, “They said they could do that. They could seize my apartment.”

Karlis went to the Gannons’ home at about 11:30 p.m. Friday night and again at about 7 p.m. Tuesday, police reported. Karlis was investigating the Gannons’ 15-year-old son in connection with a June 21 mugging outside Margaritas restaurant, for which two other teens already have been charged, according to police reports. The boy also is charged with possessing a handgun stolen three years ago in Vermont, and resisting detention, police said.

The boy wasn’t home when Karlis went there, and the Gannons were “uncooperative” regarding his whereabouts, police reported.

The Gannons felt police were harassing the family, Janet Gannon said.

“There were six cops in my yard,” the first time police came, she said. “My husband was very upset. How many cops does it take to talk to a 15-year-old.”

Karlis didn’t know about the security camera until his second visit, when Michael Gannon told him to “smile” for the camera, police reported.

Janet Gannon said her husband explicitly warned officers of the camera, later adding “smile,” as a joke.

“I heard him say it,” she said. “He said, ‘Gentlemen, there’s a camera right there.’”

According to police, however, Janet Gannon told officers she didn’t remember her husband warning police about the security camera.

Police reported that Gannon “has a history of being verbally abusive” toward police, and that after his arrest, he remarked that the officers “were a bunch of corrupt (expletives).”

Not only was this video of this man's own home but the lack of a warrant is also quite disturbing.

Really, what is going on here? This is a clear violation of civil rights and it isn't even in the guise of the War Against Terror (indeed, if it were, that would just be another thing to complain about). In both cases, the police have overstepped their bounds and I don't believe that either of these citizen's actions were illegal in any way...

Honestly, if I were a police officer, I'd be embarrassed to claim anything of the like. How do they do it? Why would they do it? It makes no sense to me...

raeanna74 · 07-30-2006, 05:12 PM

In the first story I cannot see how this young man could have been arrested and then just released without having actually done something truely illegal. I can understand the police perhaps not wanting pictures to circulate of a situation involving a drug dealer if they wanted to continue investigating something. But if that was the case I don't see why they couldn't have approached the man and simply asked that he delete the pic and explain that they need him to do so to assist them. If I were him I would have deleted it. The story does not say they requested that at all. Granted he could have e-mailed it already but the article does not say that.

As for the second story - I get the feeling that we're not getting the whole picture. What was the gripe that this family had with the police. What was the police doing in the first place that was so terrible? It almost sounds like a snooty rich family wanting to spoil their troublemaker son and get him out of trouble instead of making him actually deal with it. Whiners and troublemakers. But then again the police weren't dealing with their complaints properly. If the police knew the cameras were there why couldn't they have asked the kid to come to the station for questioning? I don't know all the legalities there but it seems it would have been more appropriate.

krwlz · 07-30-2006, 05:22 PM

The whole concept is just wrong. Now we give our police even greater authority, but making illegal part of the process of exposing unjust acts?

It's absurd, this is a ridiculous law that never shoul;d have been passed in the first place.

Willravel · 07-30-2006, 05:23 PM

I say we arrest the police officers on a bogus charge from their homes at 2 am.

JumpinJesus · 07-30-2006, 06:55 PM

Hey, if the police have nothing to hide, then why don't they want us photographing or videotaping them?

Isn't that the argument that's used against civilians all the time?

I'm fairly positive that this law will get struck down when - and if - it's challenged in a court.

Gatorade Frost · 07-30-2006, 07:10 PM

It's not even a matter of photographing and videotaping. They were in these people's house. There was a sign saying they had videotaping equipment. The officer tried to get in and would not leave despite not having a search warrant.

I don't know what the kid did, but it seems like the above is a pretty clear violation of the law and trying to bust these people under eavesdropping laws is bogus, in my opinion.

Ustwo · 07-30-2006, 07:33 PM

First both families sound like jaggoffs.

Second the police have the same rights as anyone else about not being secretly taped. A law meant to keep perverts from putting a video camera in their bathrooms at home can be applied to the police. It seems stupid but my guess its more due to a poorly written law than any government malice.

Cynthetiq · 07-30-2006, 07:40 PM

An officer I met recently explained a few things to me that I have always found useful. He explained to me exactly what to say to make sure that my 4th amendment rights were not violated.

When stopped for any reason and being asked if you would consent to a search or seizure, I have always declined stating I do not give them the right to search or seize anything. He said that was not enough but to also include a question to the officer, "Are you asking me to forgo my 4th Amendment rights? If so, I am stating for the record I do not give up my right to the 4th amendment."

He said that many officers are afraid of being charged with violating someone's civil rights and this would be a clear case of bringing them forward to the situation so that they too understand what is going on.

Any of the law enforcement folk care to corroborate or rebuke what I was told? I've never bothered to fact check it.

Willravel · 07-30-2006, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

First both families sound like jaggoffs.

Second the police have the same rights as anyone else about not being secretly taped. A law meant to keep perverts from putting a video camera in their bathrooms at home can be applied to the police. It seems stupid but my guess its more due to a poorly written law than any government malice.

What law is that?

Luckly, the article has the response to this already.

Quote:

There is no law that prevents people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street," said Larry Frankel of the American Civil Liberties Union.

analog · 07-30-2006, 07:44 PM

I'm not commenting on the second story, but the first one is blatantly stupid. You can't be detained or arrested for taking a picture of that which is out in the open and can be seen plainly by everyone (public view). That's just nonsense.

Toaster126 · 07-31-2006, 01:08 AM

Sure you can. The question is "is it legal?".

Psycho Dad · 07-31-2006, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

He said that was not enough but to also include a question to the officer, "Are you asking me to forgo my 4th Amendment rights? If so, I am stating for the record I do not give up my right to the 4th amendment."

I can't remember the specifics, but in jr-hi my American Government teacher told us something very similar. I don't know if it was anything that would have been actually efective but it damn sure sounded impressive.

Lady Sage · 07-31-2006, 04:57 AM

In my opinion, willravel and jumpinjesus said it all.

raeanna74 · 07-31-2006, 05:20 AM

From what I can find, It is not illegal to do what the young man in the first story did. In most states you are allowed to take photographs of anyone in a public place for personal use. NOW the laws come into play when you intend to use it for commercial use. Then in most states you are required to have the subject of the photo sign a release form in order for you to publish the photo. Law enforcement are no different than any other person.

The only exceptions to this is if you were to be taking photos with a zoom lens from the street into someone's house or bathroom, or taking photos of a government facility where usually there are signs posted (no photography of video taping) but those are exceptions. I think I would be safe to say that neither of these came into play in the first article.

As for the second article - I would like to hear, from a neutral party, that the house actually did have signs posted announcing the use of cameras. The family says it does but the police didn't mention it. Are the labels in fine print on the back door only? Where are the labels, are they in clear view, and did the family actually remind the officers that they were using videos surveilance? I'm sceptical because there are gaps in that story.

Ustwo · 07-31-2006, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What law is that?

Luckly, the article has the response to this already.

Ummm thats the first article and no one was charged with that, its just what the family said the police said. The second article is the one that matters, the first is really quite pointless from a legal stand point.

Willravel · 07-31-2006, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ummm thats the first article and no one was charged with that, its just what the family said the police said. The second article is the one that matters, the first is really quite pointless from a legal stand point.

By "pointless" you mean that in the first article the police were clearly at fault? From a legal standpoint, some kid was dragged from his own property and arrested for taking a picture of a public occourance. Where I come from, that's called illegal. Shouldn't the police be heald responsible for their actions? Aren't laws supposed to protect the innocent?

rofgilead · 07-31-2006, 06:48 AM

I think this is a sign of things to come. After september 11th, I would go to protest rallies in Madison, WI and there would be undercover police videotaping and taking pictures of the crowd for records. Kids in the protests would recognize the undercover cops and point them out and take pictures of them - at which point these cops would become very upset. I think it is quite hypocritical to just stand at the side of a march and take pictures of kids for identification of potential criminals - while not accepting that the lens can be turned back on you.

Ustwo · 07-31-2006, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

By "pointless" you mean that in the first article the police were clearly at fault? From a legal standpoint, some kid was dragged from his own property and arrested for taking a picture of a public occourance. Where I come from, that's called illegal. Shouldn't the police be heald responsible for their actions? Aren't laws supposed to protect the innocent?

IF what the family said is true then yes the police are at fault. Abusive police breaking the law is not nearly as dangerous to society as laws which would allow them to be abusive.

Story one is maybe the cop did something wrong, big deal to the people involved maybe the cops need to be disciplined, but its no different than any standard abuse of power. Its handled at the individual level.

Story two is the only one that matters from the concept of it being against the law to film the police, and in such my OP stands unchallenged. Its most likely due to a law meant to PROTECT private citizens from unauthorized surveillance due to the cry for privacy laws once the hidden camera craze started (we all remember those stories about the couple with a camera hidden in their bedroom and there were no laws against it). The fact that it can be used to not videotape police on your own property was most likely due to the law being poorly written. Its a concern, but that doesn't mean its anything deeper than that and should be changed. I won't get up in arms about the police state coming.

Jinn · 07-31-2006, 07:04 AM

Juvenal's expression "who will watch the watchers" has never been more applicable to US Politics than now with the emerging police state. They can video tape us in public (ever seen COPS?) but returning the favor is now a crime? It's the last step, friends.

My only hope is that these police officers are indeed human and simply made an error. If policy continues moving in this direction, we might soon be prosecuting "sense crimes."

*Gets up in arms*

pan6467 · 07-31-2006, 11:08 AM

Story 1: It was blatantly wrong by the officers, however, we truly do not know the whole story. The fact that the police offer NO reasonable excuse or appology sets the tone. If the picture was taken in public there is nothing the cops could do and to have held the 21 yr. old in custody is wrong and makes me wonder what exactly was happening there.

(He was not "arrested" as no charges were brought upon him. Police can hold anyone for 24 hours without charges for whatever they wish. That is media bias to not report this and to make it sound as if he were charged with something and then released.)

Story 2: It seems that both the family and the police force have animosity towards each other. From what I could tell it sounds like the family tends to antagonize the police and the police tend to handle the family like nuisances.\

The signs posted that there was surveillence supercedes any "rights".... as it is the right of the owner to have cameras so long as there are signs or the visitors have been told. Noone's rights supercede those of the landowners in this aspect..... (otherwise you would have people suing every store and casino and pretty much any place of business).

Now, if this family has had this system for 2 years, and has had all these problems listed in the article, why did the family never show the tapes to the police? If they had the police would have known of the cameras and thusly had no leg to stand on. If the family, never showed the police the film then why not?

Also the article states that the cameras are used to watch the front doors and parking lots..... Shared public areas, so again, no true privacy invasion.

If this were a true law and if the police have a leg to stand on saying this was violating state wiretapping and eavesdropping laws.... then I would be very worried if I owned anything in that state. Simply for the fact the next time a criminal gets caught commtting a crime and the main evidence is the tape, it will be ruled as invasion of privacy and in and of itself illegal. Thus, the true criminal would get off, the owner arrested for breaking the laws and possibly sued for invading the criminal's privacy.

flstf · 07-31-2006, 11:31 AM

It would seem to me that in public or on someone else's private property that there would be no expectation of privacy from being photographed or video taped except for obvious privacy violations like bathroom and upskirt cams, etc..

If true, I had no idea that it was illegal to have a security camera in your house or on your porch and driveway.

The_Jazz · 07-31-2006, 11:35 AM

God, I know that it's a rough day when I find myself nodding in agreement with Ustwo over and over again.

Nice use of the word "jagoffs". You must have been hanging out with some South Siders recently.

filtherton · 07-31-2006, 11:42 AM

The first one isn't very shocking; as far as i can tell, the police can generally get away with a whole lot of ethically and legally questionable things. It doesn't help that there are plenty of them who are complete douchebags.

The second one is silly if the guy warned them about he camera. Even if he didn't warn him about the camera, imagine how many robbery convictions would become null if it were actually illegal to videotape someone without his/her consent.

pan6467 · 07-31-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

It would seem to me that in public or on someone else's private property that there would be no expectation of privacy from being photographed or video taped except for obvious privacy violations like bathroom and upskirt cams, etc..

If true, I had no idea that it was illegal to have a security camera in your house or on your porch and driveway.

In some states you can do have whatever you like for security purposes. In the vast majority (and I believe Ohio is one) you need some form of warning. That's why you tend to see a lot of "this property protected by....." signs. Yes, it advertises the security company but also allows anyone coming onto the property that the maybe observed.

Just like stores, 99% of the stores you go into in Ohio have a sticker on their door announcing video surveillence (this also allows them to hide cameras from view (i.e. the ceiling globe, mannequins eyes, etc.)). The rest just have them in plain sight, usually with a sign around them.

The purpose for advertising that you are under video/audio surveillence is so that in court you cannot in any way fight the tapes, i.e. "I didn't know I was being observed, had I known I would have acted differently", "you violated my client's civil rights by videotaping him....".

It's also like taping a phone conversation. In some states like Ohio, as long as one side knows that it is being taped it's ok as long as you have at regular intervals a beeping sound from the recording device audible to both parties.

In most states you must inform the person you are taping them. If the call is interstate you must inform them the call is being taped or monitored.

That's why most telemarketers and telephone service people tell you that the conversation maybe taped or monitored. That way if you threaten to kill the guy/lady or decide you want to go nuts and kill everyone in a 100 mile radius and you decided to tell them for some reason..... that tape can be used for court prosecution against you. (Not the reason why they tape you.... but .....)

krwlz · 07-31-2006, 01:25 PM

I think I'm going to fill in for UnclePhil with a quote from one of my favorite songs:

Quote:

Now Ill play a public servant
To serve and protect
By the law and the state
Id bust the punks
That rape steal and murder
And leave you be
If you crossed me
Id shake your hand like a man
Not a god

KnifeMissile · 07-31-2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

An officer I met recently explained a few things to me that I have always found useful. He explained to me exactly what to say to make sure that my 4th amendment rights were not violated.

When stopped for any reason and being asked if you would consent to a search or seizure, I have always declined stating I do not give them the right to search or seize anything. He said that was not enough but to also include a question to the officer, "Are you asking me to forgo my 4th Amendment rights? If so, I am stating for the record I do not give up my right to the 4th amendment."

I'm not sure I understand. What's to stop the officer from saying "no, I'm not asking you to give up your fourth amendment rights, I just want to search your person and sieze your property..."

Gatorade Frost · 07-31-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

I'm not sure I understand. What's to stop the officer from saying "no, I'm not asking you to give up your fourth amendment rights, I just want to search your person and sieze your property..."

Seriously?

Because searching and seizing of property like that is unconstitutional.

dksuddeth · 07-31-2006, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

First both families sound like jaggoffs.

Because ANYONE that would dare challenge abused authority must be jagoffs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Second the police have the same rights as anyone else about not being secretly taped. A law meant to keep perverts from putting a video camera in their bathrooms at home can be applied to the police. It seems stupid but my guess its more due to a poorly written law than any government malice.

Because the government is never wrong, just so long as we remain the perfect loyal citizen and abide by their rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

God, I know that it's a rough day when I find myself nodding in agreement with Ustwo over and over again.

This doesn't surprise me any knowing how you feel about police and being from chicago.

no police state here, nothing to see, just move along now citizens.

The_Jazz · 08-01-2006, 04:39 AM

DK - I've always been consistent in asking for evidence or at least both sides of the story. So me proof of a police state and I'll believe it, but the preponderence of evidence is against it. Sure there are occassional abuses of power, and sometimes innocent people are arrested. However, those are the exceptions to the rule.

Given that you've taken the stance that the killing of an officer serving a legal warrant is justifable in a previous thread, I really don't have anything more to say to you.

dksuddeth · 08-01-2006, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Given that you've taken the stance that the killing of an officer serving a legal warrant is justifable in a previous thread, I really don't have anything more to say to you.

If a police officer, executing said warrant, enters the wrong address, say MINE for example, he gets all he's asking for. Killing someone, later proven to be a police officer, because they bashed down your door at 3 am and fired flash grenades in your home is completely the fault of the idiot busting down the door.

Your problem in Illinois is that you've been spoonfed this 'police are the only ones' crap, that THEY are your protection, for so many decades that you can't fathom the possibility that I am better qualified to provide for my families defense in a moments notice, therefore you bash anyone that doesn't think like you do.

How do I know this? Because I was born and raised in Illinois, two hours west of chicago. I believed most of it myself until I got the hell out of there.

Most of the people in chicago are so ignorant (as in completely unkowledgable, not moronic) of the outside world that they blindly follow the words of their socialist and communist representatives as if they were kings. THAT will be it's downfall and it's also why chicago is in the running for murder capital of nation, yet again.

Ustwo · 08-01-2006, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Most of the people in chicago are so ignorant (as in completely unkowledgable, not moronic) of the outside world that they blindly follow the words of their socialist and communist representatives as if they were kings. THAT will be it's downfall and it's also why chicago is in the running for murder capital of nation, yet again.

Living an hour or so west of Chicago, this describes me to a T.

Illinois DOES have a lot of asshat politicans, Durbin being the worst asshole of the bunch, but I don't think we are brainwashed quite yet

dksuddeth · 08-01-2006, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Living an hour or so west of Chicago, this describes me to a T.

Illinois DOES have a lot of asshat politicans, Durbin being the worst asshole of the bunch, but I don't think we are brainwashed quite yet

Keyword was 'MOST'.

After being on here for a few years and reading most of your posts, I hardly classify you as one of the ignorant. You have SOME extreme viewpoints, but nowhere are you one of the brainwashed.

Most of your politicians, especially those north of I-80, are extreme leftist asshats, Durbin being chief among them. Hopefully you'll be able to get rid of Blago, though topinka will hardly be much better, and chicago would do well to get rid of daley, either by voting him out (not likely to happen) or convicting him out.

Ustwo · 08-01-2006, 08:12 AM

Illinois isn't all that far left really, but the Republican party has been grossly incompetent for the last 10 years or so and had very poor leadership so its not like Topinka is much of an upgrade from blago.

I don't like Daley in a lot of ways, but the one good thing is nothing extreme will happen under him (outside of Miggs, thats where I decided I didn't like him). He's very much a realist and the family is closet Republicans which is why I don't expect anything to extreme from him in the long run. I won't go into how I know this about Daley beyond that someone close to me used to sit on Old man Daley's chair when he was growing up and was even on the payroll for a while.

shakran · 08-01-2006, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

So me proof of a police state and I'll believe it, but the preponderence of evidence is against it. Sure there are occassional abuses of power, and sometimes innocent people are arrested. However, those are the exceptions to the rule.

Well what's scary isn't the "police state" (you're right, we're not in a police state. . .at least not yet). What's scary is that so many people accept it. The citizens of that town should be going crazy protesting this obvious violation of civil rights. If they violate his rights and haul him to jail for taking photos of a public scene, they're willing to violate YOUR rights too. That's not saying the whole government is a police state, but the officers that apparently WANT it to be a police state, should be sacked.

Willravel · 08-01-2006, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Well what's scary isn't the "police state" (you're right, we're not in a police state. . .at least not yet). What's scary is that so many people accept it. The citizens of that town should be going crazy protesting this obvious violation of civil rights. If they violate his rights and haul him to jail for taking photos of a public scene, they're willing to violate YOUR rights too. That's not saying the whole government is a police state, but the officers that apparently WANT it to be a police state, should be sacked.

I honestly don't believe that most people want to be in a police state. To the contrary, I suspect that if they suddenly found themselves oppressed ina direct and obvious way, they'd be up in arms ready to defend freedom. The problem is that of the boiling frog. Toss a frog in to boiling water and it jumps right out. Put a frog in tepid water and slowly bringing it to a boil with olive oil, salt and pepper, onion, carrot, celery, flour, white wine and canned tomatoes, and the frog becomes delicious. If people went from a relatively free society to a very much not free society and they'll know it immediatally. They'll stand up and fight and do everything they can to get back their beloved freedom. Erode freedom over a very long time, however, and very few are likely to react. It's hard to notice movement over a long period of time.

KeithC2006 · 11-14-2006, 10:43 PM

the cops just don't want to get caught in the act of something illegal

ASU2003 · 11-14-2006, 11:14 PM

If my tax dollars are paying for the police, and they are on public property or my personal property, there really shouldn't be a problem with taking pictures or video of them.

They probably just are afraid of this getting on the internet.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...police+beating

Mondak · 11-17-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I honestly don't believe that most people want to be in a police state. To the contrary, I suspect that if they suddenly found themselves oppressed in a direct and obvious way, they'd be up in arms ready to defend freedom. The problem is that of the boiling frog. Toss a frog in to boiling water and it jumps right out. Put a frog in tepid water and slowly bringing it to a boil with olive oil, salt and pepper, onion, carrot, celery, flour, white wine and canned tomatoes, and the frog becomes delicious. If people went from a relatively free society to a very much not free society and they'll know it immediately. They'll stand up and fight and do everything they can to get back their beloved freedom. Erode freedom over a very long time, however, and very few are likely to react. It's hard to notice movement over a long period of time.

I thought of this when I read what you wrote:

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

—Martin Niemoeller

So if you have a long term plan to curtail society's freedom, you put up some test balloons and see what the reaction is. If everyone freaks out, politicians will "race to our aid" and denounce the obvious wrong even if they were directly or indirectly responsible for it in the first place. If not, they move on to the next thing on their list.

Seems that in the last few years, lots of test balloons are having no problem going through.

Willravel · 11-17-2006, 01:15 PM

Well put, Mondok.

I like your signature. Who would have thought Spoiler: Ronald Reagan would say such wonderful and appropriate words....

1010011010 · 11-17-2006, 04:52 PM

The second case will fall apart because they've had the system for several years. They were not taping the detective to eavesdrop. They were taping the goings-on of their property for security purposes.

The police will probably get their peepees slapped for trying it.

07-30-2006, 05:12 PM	#2 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	In the first story I cannot see how this young man could have been arrested and then just released without having actually done something truely illegal. I can understand the police perhaps not wanting pictures to circulate of a situation involving a drug dealer if they wanted to continue investigating something. But if that was the case I don't see why they couldn't have approached the man and simply asked that he delete the pic and explain that they need him to do so to assist them. If I were him I would have deleted it. The story does not say they requested that at all. Granted he could have e-mailed it already but the article does not say that. As for the second story - I get the feeling that we're not getting the whole picture. What was the gripe that this family had with the police. What was the police doing in the first place that was so terrible? It almost sounds like a snooty rich family wanting to spoil their troublemaker son and get him out of trouble instead of making him actually deal with it. Whiners and troublemakers. But then again the police weren't dealing with their complaints properly. If the police knew the cameras were there why couldn't they have asked the kid to come to the station for questioning? I don't know all the legalities there but it seems it would have been more appropriate. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

07-30-2006, 06:55 PM	#5 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	Hey, if the police have nothing to hide, then why don't they want us photographing or videotaping them? Isn't that the argument that's used against civilians all the time? I'm fairly positive that this law will get struck down when - and if - it's challenged in a court. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

07-30-2006, 07:10 PM	#6 (permalink)
Gatorade Frost Rookie	It's not even a matter of photographing and videotaping. They were in these people's house. There was a sign saying they had videotaping equipment. The officer tried to get in and would not leave despite not having a search warrant. I don't know what the kid did, but it seems like the above is a pretty clear violation of the law and trying to bust these people under eavesdropping laws is bogus, in my opinion. __________________ I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well." Emo Philips

07-30-2006, 07:33 PM	#7 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	First both families sound like jaggoffs. Second the police have the same rights as anyone else about not being secretly taped. A law meant to keep perverts from putting a video camera in their bathrooms at home can be applied to the police. It seems stupid but my guess its more due to a poorly written law than any government malice. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

07-30-2006, 07:40 PM	#8 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	An officer I met recently explained a few things to me that I have always found useful. He explained to me exactly what to say to make sure that my 4th amendment rights were not violated. When stopped for any reason and being asked if you would consent to a search or seizure, I have always declined stating I do not give them the right to search or seize anything. He said that was not enough but to also include a question to the officer, "Are you asking me to forgo my 4th Amendment rights? If so, I am stating for the record I do not give up my right to the 4th amendment." He said that many officers are afraid of being charged with violating someone's civil rights and this would be a clear case of bringing them forward to the situation so that they too understand what is going on. Any of the law enforcement folk care to corroborate or rebuke what I was told? I've never bothered to fact check it. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

07-30-2006, 05:22 PM	#3 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	The whole concept is just wrong. Now we give our police even greater authority, but making illegal part of the process of exposing unjust acts? It's absurd, this is a ridiculous law that never shoul;d have been passed in the first place.

07-30-2006, 05:23 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I say we arrest the police officers on a bogus charge from their homes at 2 am.

07-30-2006, 07:44 PM	#10 (permalink)
analog Banned	I'm not commenting on the second story, but the first one is blatantly stupid. You can't be detained or arrested for taking a picture of that which is out in the open and can be seen plainly by everyone (public view). That's just nonsense.

07-31-2006, 01:08 AM	#11 (permalink)
Toaster126 Extreme moderation Location: Kansas City, yo.	Sure you can. The question is "is it legal?". __________________ "The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand) "The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

07-31-2006, 04:57 AM	#13 (permalink)
Lady Sage Mistress of Mayhem Location: Canton, Ohio	In my opinion, willravel and jumpinjesus said it all.

07-31-2006, 05:20 AM	#14 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	From what I can find, It is not illegal to do what the young man in the first story did. In most states you are allowed to take photographs of anyone in a public place for personal use. NOW the laws come into play when you intend to use it for commercial use. Then in most states you are required to have the subject of the photo sign a release form in order for you to publish the photo. Law enforcement are no different than any other person. The only exceptions to this is if you were to be taking photos with a zoom lens from the street into someone's house or bathroom, or taking photos of a government facility where usually there are signs posted (no photography of video taping) but those are exceptions. I think I would be safe to say that neither of these came into play in the first article. As for the second article - I would like to hear, from a neutral party, that the house actually did have signs posted announcing the use of cameras. The family says it does but the police didn't mention it. Are the labels in fine print on the back door only? Where are the labels, are they in clear view, and did the family actually remind the officers that they were using videos surveilance? I'm sceptical because there are gaps in that story. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

07-31-2006, 06:48 AM	#17 (permalink)
rofgilead Crazy Location: Nowhere	I think this is a sign of things to come. After september 11th, I would go to protest rallies in Madison, WI and there would be undercover police videotaping and taking pictures of the crowd for records. Kids in the protests would recognize the undercover cops and point them out and take pictures of them - at which point these cops would become very upset. I think it is quite hypocritical to just stand at the side of a march and take pictures of kids for identification of potential criminals - while not accepting that the lens can be turned back on you.

07-31-2006, 07:04 AM	#19 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Juvenal's expression "who will watch the watchers" has never been more applicable to US Politics than now with the emerging police state. They can video tape us in public (ever seen COPS?) but returning the favor is now a crime? It's the last step, friends. My only hope is that these police officers are indeed human and simply made an error. If policy continues moving in this direction, we might soon be prosecuting "sense crimes." Gets up in arms __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

07-31-2006, 11:08 AM	#20 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Story 1: It was blatantly wrong by the officers, however, we truly do not know the whole story. The fact that the police offer NO reasonable excuse or appology sets the tone. If the picture was taken in public there is nothing the cops could do and to have held the 21 yr. old in custody is wrong and makes me wonder what exactly was happening there. (He was not "arrested" as no charges were brought upon him. Police can hold anyone for 24 hours without charges for whatever they wish. That is media bias to not report this and to make it sound as if he were charged with something and then released.) Story 2: It seems that both the family and the police force have animosity towards each other. From what I could tell it sounds like the family tends to antagonize the police and the police tend to handle the family like nuisances.\ The signs posted that there was surveillence supercedes any "rights".... as it is the right of the owner to have cameras so long as there are signs or the visitors have been told. Noone's rights supercede those of the landowners in this aspect..... (otherwise you would have people suing every store and casino and pretty much any place of business). Now, if this family has had this system for 2 years, and has had all these problems listed in the article, why did the family never show the tapes to the police? If they had the police would have known of the cameras and thusly had no leg to stand on. If the family, never showed the police the film then why not? Also the article states that the cameras are used to watch the front doors and parking lots..... Shared public areas, so again, no true privacy invasion. If this were a true law and if the police have a leg to stand on saying this was violating state wiretapping and eavesdropping laws.... then I would be very worried if I owned anything in that state. Simply for the fact the next time a criminal gets caught commtting a crime and the main evidence is the tape, it will be ruled as invasion of privacy and in and of itself illegal. Thus, the true criminal would get off, the owner arrested for breaking the laws and possibly sued for invading the criminal's privacy. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-31-2006, 11:31 AM	#21 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	It would seem to me that in public or on someone else's private property that there would be no expectation of privacy from being photographed or video taped except for obvious privacy violations like bathroom and upskirt cams, etc.. If true, I had no idea that it was illegal to have a security camera in your house or on your porch and driveway.

07-31-2006, 11:35 AM	#22 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	God, I know that it's a rough day when I find myself nodding in agreement with Ustwo over and over again. Nice use of the word "jagoffs". You must have been hanging out with some South Siders recently. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

07-31-2006, 11:42 AM	#23 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	The first one isn't very shocking; as far as i can tell, the police can generally get away with a whole lot of ethically and legally questionable things. It doesn't help that there are plenty of them who are complete douchebags. The second one is silly if the guy warned them about he camera. Even if he didn't warn him about the camera, imagine how many robbery convictions would become null if it were actually illegal to videotape someone without his/her consent.

08-01-2006, 04:39 AM	#29 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	DK - I've always been consistent in asking for evidence or at least both sides of the story. So me proof of a police state and I'll believe it, but the preponderence of evidence is against it. Sure there are occassional abuses of power, and sometimes innocent people are arrested. However, those are the exceptions to the rule. Given that you've taken the stance that the killing of an officer serving a legal warrant is justifable in a previous thread, I really don't have anything more to say to you. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

08-01-2006, 08:12 AM	#33 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Illinois isn't all that far left really, but the Republican party has been grossly incompetent for the last 10 years or so and had very poor leadership so its not like Topinka is much of an upgrade from blago. I don't like Daley in a lot of ways, but the one good thing is nothing extreme will happen under him (outside of Miggs, thats where I decided I didn't like him). He's very much a realist and the family is closet Republicans which is why I don't expect anything to extreme from him in the long run. I won't go into how I know this about Daley beyond that someone close to me used to sit on Old man Daley's chair when he was growing up and was even on the payroll for a while. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-14-2006, 10:43 PM	#36 (permalink)
KeithC2006 Upright	the cops just don't want to get caught in the act of something illegal

11-14-2006, 11:14 PM	#37 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	If my tax dollars are paying for the police, and they are on public property or my personal property, there really shouldn't be a problem with taking pictures or video of them. They probably just are afraid of this getting on the internet. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...police+beating

11-17-2006, 01:15 PM	#39 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Well put, Mondok. I like your signature. Who would have thought Spoiler: Ronald Reagan would say such wonderful and appropriate words....

11-17-2006, 04:52 PM	#40 (permalink)
1010011010 Psycho Location: Virginia Beach, VA	The second case will fall apart because they've had the system for several years. They were not taping the detective to eavesdrop. They were taping the goings-on of their property for security purposes. The police will probably get their peepees slapped for trying it. __________________ *Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions*