Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Photograph the Police, Get Arrested 902

Servo writes "Last month a man was arrested in New Hampshire after presenting evidence of a police officer being verbally abusive that he had captured on his home security camera system. Now just recently in Philadelphia a 21 year old student was arrested on his property after he took a photo of the police who were in the process of arresting a drug dealer down the street." From the article: "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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Photograph the Police, Get Arrested

Comments Filter:
  • by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @04:31AM (#15810039)
    They were overstepping their bounds, citing bullshit (nonexistent) laws and violating 4rth amendment rights:

    From TFA:
    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.

  • by hattmoward ( 695554 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @04:36AM (#15810051)
    I don't think it's required, but not hearing your miranda rights can make a big hole in a case against you. The cop who blew it won't look so hot at that point. It's kinda funny in that it doesn't apply if you're not in custody. more reading here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mira ndaqa.htm [about.com]
  • by NoName Studios ( 917186 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @05:04AM (#15810131) Homepage
    There is a great document put together by a lawyer called Photographers' Rights. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm [krages.com]

    Basically, it is 100% legal to photograph any emergency personal in the line of duty as long as you are not interferring with their work. As well, no one can confiscate your film or digital media. However, both of that is null and void if you do get in the way of emergency personel. If you are on private property, such as a shopping mall, they can ask you not to take photos, but you can't be penalized for it unless you continue against their will.
  • by PsychosisC ( 620748 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @05:06AM (#15810137)
    I understand you've probably seen this before, but if you haven't, this is pretty important. BUSTED - The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters [youtube.com] I've only had two encounters with police officers... but both of them sort of leave me thinking less of them.

    I was lost while looking for where to pick up my nephew from his babysitter, so I pulled over and walked up to a house and asked for directions. My car was a pretty old car, in a reasonably nice neighborhood. When I came back to my car, a person was walking around it, looking in each of the windows. I asked him why, he said, "I'm a cop, I'm supposed to".

    Around two in the morning, I had to go home from campus (Lan Party =)). A police officer pulled me over on the way out. Her stated reason, "It's suspicious for someone to be getting their car out of the parking lot this late at night." The traditional image of police is protectors, but to be honest, they are just paid to arrest people. There is a very big difference. A highly visible police patrolling the ghetto does us more good than a traffic trap. One actually lowers crime, the other gets arrests.

  • by pen ( 7191 ) * on Sunday July 30, 2006 @05:16AM (#15810163)
    Here is a handy pamphlet called The Photographer's Right [krages.com] that provides some advice for dealing with a situation like this.
  • Its not just the US (Score:5, Informative)

    by Instine ( 963303 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @05:20AM (#15810169)
    I'm in the UK, and I've seen this and worse happen for years. At an anti capitalist demo (I'm not a loony, but I do think some of the issues raised at those demos need to be raised - like subsidising the third world out of the world markets etc... but lets not go off topic)I've been charged at by police on horses FOR NO REASON AT ALL!.

    And yes I've seen cameras blocked, and their owners arrested. I've seen the unlawful detainment of hundreds of demonstrators (I would have been one of them, if I hadn't been light on my feet, and had a friend to help me over a piked fence. Ironically the fence of the Royal Courts of Justice I believe).

    So its not news, that there's a problem. But whats the solution?
    I propose that a form of open source decentralised government evolve that slowly but surely makes the centralized government more and more obsolete. Leaching the power from centralised government will force them to be more democratic, and less hyopocrytical. I hope.

    Of course "what about the money"?!?!

    Well - taxes can be legaly sidestepped. Previously it was only the rich who could afford off shaw accounts etc... With this shiny new interweb of ours, we can build open source solutions to tax, for the masses!

    So - imagine a karma system generating elected, regional education 'node leaders', for home and comunity eductator to amasses comparible resources as those in state schools. Now health, security, transport, energy,....

    Yes this might sound wacky, but there's nothing stopping us trying. And I'm sick of the winging in here. YES your government is crap! Do something!
  • by Max Threshold ( 540114 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @05:22AM (#15810172)
    you could say that the police have a right to privacy

    Sure, you could say it. But you'd be wrong.

  • Re:Rodney King? (Score:3, Informative)

    by krunk4ever ( 856261 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @05:31AM (#15810203) Homepage
    Resisting arrest is usually tacked onto something else; the reason why they're arresting you. I've never seen it as a stand-alone reason for being arrest. I mean how can you resist arrest, if you're not being arrested in the first place.
  • by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) * on Sunday July 30, 2006 @05:32AM (#15810208) Journal
    Excerpt from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

    10.Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

    (a)to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

    (b)to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and

    (c)to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

    At the very least they have to tell you that you may retain a lawyer and, if I am not mistaken, the Supreme Court has ruled they must also tell you that you have the right to remain silent. I don't know where you get this idea that the police in Canada don't have to tell you your rights, you see them do it all the time on the Canadian version of Cops.

  • by Instine ( 963303 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @05:33AM (#15810209)
    Oh for crying out loud! I'M DYSLEXIC!!! http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=191914&cid=157 64157 [slashdot.org]

    Now if you have anything constructive to add....

    This is not the police's fault. Its the Government's. And the judicial system's. Otherwise why are these cops not in the doc? And I'm not suggesting sweaping changes. I'm suggesting we slowly build our own system.
  • Why just Americans? (Score:2, Informative)

    by hackwrench ( 573697 ) <hackwrench@hotmail.com> on Sunday July 30, 2006 @05:40AM (#15810226) Homepage Journal
    Why not "Traitor to sentient beings of the universe, wherever and in whatever form they might be"
  • by EvanED ( 569694 ) <evaned@@@gmail...com> on Sunday July 30, 2006 @05:45AM (#15810242)
    In what case? In the case linked, it really sounds like the officers had no justification for arrest and that he was perfectly in his rights to photograph.

    General rule of thumb is that if you're on public property, you can take the picture. You can't impede emergency crews, you can't be a peeping tom, and you can't take a picture of Area 51, but just about anything else is OK. This guide [krages.com] has been linked by a couple other people and goes into more detail. It doesn't address the copyrighted architecture though.
  • by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <slashdot,kadin&xoxy,net> on Sunday July 30, 2006 @05:47AM (#15810247) Homepage Journal
    See this very well-written article, by an intellectual property attorney:
    http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html [photosecrets.com]
    Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. Fortunately for photographers, the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. So you don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a public building. You don't need permission to photograph a public building from inside the building (although you may need permission to photograph separately-owned decorative objects in the building, such as a statue). You don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a private building such as a church or a house.
    This "photographer's exception" to the copyright-owner's rights applies only to buildings, a category which includes houses, office buildings, churches, gazebos, and garden pavilions. The exception does not apply to monuments (protectable as "sculptural works") or other copyrighted works, such as statues and paintings.
    No idea how it works in other countries; I've heard unconfirmed reports that the situation in France is particularly bad. Apparently you can't take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night without violating somebody's copyright there. (I think it's the lighting.)

  • by Dr. Donuts ( 232269 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @05:51AM (#15810259)
    No no no no no.

    Under constitutional law, you have ALL rights. Law dictates limitations or prohibitions, it does not grant them. A law doesn't have to explicitly state you have a right.

    Laws are subtractive, not additive.

    This is a common misperception by the public at large.
  • Re:Question..... (Score:5, Informative)

    by tigga ( 559880 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @06:28AM (#15810342)
    If you kick a cop who is trying to arrest you for something that is not illegal, can you be charged with anything?

    I believe you can be charged for resisting police. Police could be in error arresting you and sometimes circumstances play a role in the arrest - "wrong time, wrong place". They usually free person soon and apologize if it was their fault - about that happened with Cruz. No apology though... Kicking a cop is worse then run away. That allow them forcefully restrain you, perhaps kicking you and beating with batons - do you want it?

    There is a difference between arrest and detainment, but it depends on local rules.

  • by MyNameIsFred ( 543994 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @07:08AM (#15810423)
    Reading the article, he got in trouble for recording conversations, not for taking video pictures. In his state, it against the law to record conversations without warning all participants. The legal question will be whether the warning stickers on the outside of his house are sufficient.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30, 2006 @07:14AM (#15810435)
    Sure, Canadian police are angels and never do anything wrong. For example, spraying photographers with pepper spray [cjfe.org] or arresting photographers at a rally [blogspot.com] or slapping a handcuffed woman [canada.com] Etc. Etc.
  • by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @07:15AM (#15810436)
    You can still photograph pictures of copyrighted buildings, statues, etc. if it's for your own use. If you start selling them, you might run into a problem, but taking a picture is perfectly legal.

    You can publish and sell them. You created the photo, not the architect; the photo's copyright belongs to the photographer regardless of what it's of. See The Photographer's Right [krages.com]: "Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations." The architectural plans are copyright, not the building itself, and certainly not an image of the building taken by someone else. I'm unsure of how one could copyright a statue or building, though anything is possible these days. A few iconic buildings have their images trademarked, but that's an entirely different matter, and not common.

  • Re:Rodney King? (Score:2, Informative)

    by rixkix ( 205339 ) <rixkix AT myrealbox DOT com> on Sunday July 30, 2006 @08:22AM (#15810584)
    It happens. Cops don't have to make sense.
  • by CommandNotFound ( 571326 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @08:27AM (#15810595)
    Think about it for a moment. During any time in U.S. history can you think of any other president about which such comments have been raised?

    Yes, on multiple occassions, during wars, the Great Depression, during the civil rights movements, etc. I'm not saying Bush hasn't made mistakes, but remember that we as people (I'm included) are pretty narrow-scoped in our knowledge of history, and we forget the details of history all too quickly, or we are never taught the details. By details, I mean the day-to-day outlook, not the two line summary in the history book 100 years later.

    Switching topics but not the principle, take Iraq as an example: many think 3 years is too long to stabilize a country. Go search the NY Times archives from 1945 until about 1947 with the key words "Japan" and "violence" or "unrest". You can only see the headlines and a small bit of text unless you pay for them, but it should be enought text to get the meaning. Article after artcle questions the stabilization of post-war Japan, when will it ever end, what about Korea now, etc, etc. Iraq is taking much longer, but fifty years from now none of the difficulties will be remembered, assuming the effort is successful. It's scary to think about how much history is forgotten.
  • by tdemark ( 512406 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @08:57AM (#15810661) Homepage
    I don't know why anyone would mod the parent as flamebait. Think about it for a moment. During any time in U.S. history can you think of any other president about which such comments have been raised?

    A lot of "history" is recounted via the media. There may have been the same comments back in the early 1940s, but no newspapers would give credence to them via publication. For comparison, if the New York Times then had the same cavalier attitude they have now, they probably would have published the location and planned route of the USS Indianapolis (CA-35) [wikipedia.org] during the summer of 1945.

    We want to blame the guy in charge for the stte of affairs, but in this case, many of the changes we've seen have been directly related to the over-reaction to terrorist threat... cues taken from Bush himself. But there's more to it than that I think. But it certainly seems to have started at the top.

    If that's so, perhaps you can provide a link to the Bush equivalent of Executive Order 9066 [wikipedia.org]?
  • Re:Question..... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30, 2006 @09:36AM (#15810763)
    I know that in Washington state it is specifically illegal to resist unlawful arrest. This (abominable) law rests on the justification that, while such rights might have been necessary in the past, they are no longer needed in a civilized society where we enjoy such an enlightened judicial state. Thus yet another right almost as old as the Magna Carta is lost to the citizens of the Land of the Free (TM).
  • by David_W ( 35680 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @09:54AM (#15810833)
    What right do the police have to delete my own data?

    Pretty much none [krages.com].

  • by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @09:58AM (#15810848) Homepage
    it does not inspire confidence that a public organisation who allegedly operate inside the law, to uphold the law, should feel it necessary to use their power to conceal the detailed workings of their activities.

    Well said, and may I expand:

    If the judicial system works so poorly that photographs of the executive branch during the public execution of their duty are dangerous, what does that say of the same judicial system when faced with a suspect who cannot provide sufficient proof of his innocence? If the judicial system is making so many mistakes that the police do not trust it, how can we?

    Anyone able to point a finger at the legislation that enables them to do this? Or is there none, and they are just overstepping the mark?

    I believe it is a part of the NEAC-SEFA Act - Nine Eleven And Children's-Safety Executive Free Action Act. It states that the executive can do anything, without oversight, if they are protecting children or fighting terrorists. It was written by the NSA, approved by two senators and Dick Cheney, and signed into law by GWB. Of course, the law must remain secret, because making it public would lend aid and comfort to the terrorists, who hate our freedom, and help child molestors escape justice.

    So the question is not whether NEAC-SEFA is a good law - it is a necessary and vital law enforcement tool. The question is, do you support child molestors and terrorists, or do you support NEAC-SEFA?
  • by pravuil ( 975319 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @10:33AM (#15810986) Homepage Journal
    They are public servants in the end. If you have a problem, raise it at an open forum for the community. If no one listens, educate them until your fingers bleed or find someone who can do it with/for you.

    However, I fear this nation's apathy has got the better of us to the point where we don't know what's no longer right or wrong. So much is obscured by agenda that one can pretty much get away with anything when it's in their favor. What happened to: "this government of the people, by the people, for the people" Abraham Lincoln

    One last thing. If someone wanted to use that photo for a vendeta they would first have to identify themselves to get that information, therefore incriminating themselves. Considering legal fees and other expenses I doubt anyone would want to make things worse for themselves not to mention an attempt of acting out a federal crime. To get access to a photo of the cops that arrested them seems foolish when they could just get a copy of the arrest warrant listing the names of the officers involved in the arrest. Any legal action is recorded and obtainable by the public. Go to http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/ [uscourts.gov] or your local city hall and pay the fee to get a copy of it.
  • by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tmsNO@SPAMinfamous.net> on Sunday July 30, 2006 @10:36AM (#15811004) Homepage

    Actually, presidential approval ratings have varied from 90% (Bush II after 9/11) [yahoo.com] to 24% (Truman after removing MacArthur from command in Korea) [nwsource.com].

  • by transporter_ii ( 986545 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @10:37AM (#15811012) Homepage
    wikipedia: A police state is a state in which the government maintains strict control over the population, particularly through suspension of civil rights...

    One of the things I really appreciate about the founders is that they gave us equality under the law (if we could keep it, and apparently we couldn't).

    One of my personal definitions of a police state, is when the police can do things that are illegal for "normal people" to do...because they are above the law.

    Well, they want to photograph us, video tape us, monitor our every move, but they however, not only expect their privacy...they freaking get it by force of law and a jack boot for those that still don't "get it."

    Here is a perfect example:

    http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,728 04,5.html [villagevoice.com]

    Since 2003, the NYPD has been filming protesters at political demonstrations, regardless of whether anything illegal's going on. City lawyers were in court last month defending the practice, arguing that what happens in public view is fair game.

    But police evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them--particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges.


  • by DeusExMalex ( 776652 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @10:39AM (#15811023)
    Ahh, the old "guilty until proven innocent" mantra.
  • by luder ( 923306 ) * <slashdot&lbras,net> on Sunday July 30, 2006 @11:02AM (#15811133)
    Apparently you can't take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night without violating somebody's copyright there. (I think it's the lighting.)
    You can take the picture, but you can't publish it commercially without a property release, unless it's for editorial use (like a newspaper). That's because the light show is a copyrighted work. Usually, and if they agree, you can get the release by paying a fee to the copyright holders. Here's a list of more places with similar restrictions [istockphoto.com].
  • by DeusExMalex ( 776652 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @11:05AM (#15811142)
    What way can you put arresting a citizen for taking a photograph of a police officer doing his job? If that officer is automatically assuming that photograph will be put to illegal use then what is it other than guilty until proven innocent.

    Here is a transcript of the posts and replies that were involved:
    GP - "If I don't have anything to hide, why do they need to watch me?"
    P - "Because they don't know that?"
    Me - "Ahh, the old 'guilty until proven innocent' mantra"

    So you see, I was identifying the post above me as "guilty until proven innocent" which is a Bad Thing.
  • Re:Question..... (Score:2, Informative)

    by guibaby ( 192136 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @11:12AM (#15811181)
    Being a former law enforcement officer, always resist away from the officer. Resisting arrest is not USUALLY a stand alone offense. Resisting arrest toward the officer, better known as assault on an officer, is always a stand alone offense.
  • by hacker ( 14635 ) <hacker@gnu-designs.com> on Sunday July 30, 2006 @11:57AM (#15811455)

    Except in special circumstances (e.g., certain government facilities), there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs on public or private property. If you can be there, you can take pictures there: streets, malls, parking lots, office buildings. You do not need permission to do so, even on private property.

    Trespassing laws naturally apply. If a property owner demands you leave, you must. But if a place is open to the public -- a mall, office-building lobby, etc. -- permission to enter is assumed (although it can be revoked).

    In terms of the law, trespass and photography are separate events; the former is illegal, but the latter is not. Only if the use of photographic equipment itself violates a person's privacy (e.g., by using a long lens to look into someone's private room) might it violate privacy law. Further, while people have a right of privacy, businesses do not except as it relates to trade secrets.

    Subject to specific limits, photographers can publish any photos they take, provided those photos do not violate the privacy of the subject. This includes photos taken while trespassing or otherwise being someplace they shouldn't be. Taking photos and publishing photos are two separate issues.

    Please read the full PDF here [nyud.net] with much more detail. I print copies of this on 4x5 index cards and keep them with me at all times when I'm taking photos in any public place.

    Also, if someone demands your "film" or your camera, let them know that it is not legal for them to take it, unless you have been arrested of a crime involving that camera and that film. The crime for someone to demand and take your camera or film, is called theft, and threatening to do so (or to "break your camera"), is called coercion. Don't tolerate either of them, and if your equipment IS taken or broken, call the police and file charges.

    Know your rights, and don't tolerate this supression.

  • Re:Bad cops (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @12:26PM (#15811628) Homepage
    Riddle me this, Batman : when does 'got arrested' ever come off your personal life record? As in when a prospective employer says 'have you ever been arrested?'

    Answer : never. If the charges get dropped you can always say 'Yes, but ... ' and then fill in the rest of the story about how 'bad cop' or 'violated my rights' or whatever, but the employer checks the 'got arrested' box and you don't get hired.
    There isn't a state in the union where an employer can legally ask if you've been arrested before. Convictions and pending charges, yes. Arrests not resulting in conviction, absolutely not, for exactly the resons you outline above.
  • by buzzn ( 811479 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @12:38PM (#15811686)
    Try cops killing you [cato.org] while you are doing something perfectly legal, and the cops get away with it. It's ironic that the cops want to install cameras [safetyvision.com] everywhere [npr.org] (because one of YOU [collegegags.com] is a criminal), but it's not ok for you to tape them.
  • Re:Bad cops (Score:3, Informative)

    by samkass ( 174571 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @01:17PM (#15811894) Homepage Journal
    They do it all the time, and always have (e.g. the Clinton haircut at LAX uproar).

    I think the difference here is that the Nashville event actually happened. The Clinton haircut "delays" were pretty much an invention of the right-wing media.
  • Re:Bad cops (Score:2, Informative)

    by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @01:25PM (#15811936) Homepage Journal
    Dun Malg (230075) wrote:
    There isn't a state in the union where an employer can legally ask if you've been arrested before. Convictions and pending charges, yes. Arrests not resulting in conviction, absolutely not, for exactly the resons you outline above.

    Employers can ask you whatever they want. You don't have to volunteer an answer. Which in itself is an answer.
    And they can run background checks including arrest records, and frequently do.
    And yes, some jobs (like working for DCF (Department of Children and Families)) requires that you haven't been arrested for certain things, even if no charges was brought. In order to avoid this, you must fight to get an arrest record deleted, a process that costs time, money and requires luck and liberal state laws. In some states you must have had a clean record for 7 years before you're allowed to get an arrest record deleted, and a speeding ticket is enough to damn you.

    Liberty, equality and brotherhood, my ass. Neither exist anymore, if they ever did.
    ACLU is a joke, and fights for the gloss on the paper, and not the paper itself.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30, 2006 @02:01PM (#15812149)
    They can't harrass you if they don't know what you are doing...

    LOL. You must be new here too.
    Bush's new America uses the Constitution as toilet paper.
    Americans voted him in and allowed him to orchestrate 911, and now Americans can reap the benefits.
    The entire continent is now a Fourth Amendment Free Zone.
  • by sorphin ( 14046 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @03:48PM (#15812748)
    A fellow I used to work with (he's since moved to other employment), was getting ready to move down here from Chicago, so being touristy, he took pictures of lots of things. He noticed a caravan of black SUVs. He made the mistake of taking pictures of them, as well as when taking pictures of a building, apparently, the security camera was in the picture. One of the SUVs promptly drove up onto the curb where he was. He was detained and questioned several times over the span of a few hours..

    The whole story is here: zweck.unixhosts.us/terrorist/+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk &cd=1&client=firefox-a [] (Please use this googlecache link to NOT take down his site :) )
  • by rhavyn ( 12490 ) * on Sunday July 30, 2006 @03:50PM (#15812761)
    Actually it is a big deal because you can't be arrested in your own home without an arrest warrant. Cops can attempt to use deceit to get you to leave your home, but they can't physically drag you off your property. So the arrest, on it's face, was a violation of his rights.
  • by Xofer D ( 29055 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @03:54PM (#15812780) Homepage Journal
    Third, even though the guy "got off," the chilling effect (just what the police/government hoped for) is VERY "far reaching." Who among us after reading about incidents like this will not henceforth think twice before photographing police or any other government official?
    Although I agree that this was the intended effect, I have to object that the first thing I thought was "hell, I need to go find some cops to photograph". I'm thinking very well of volunteering with the cop watch [pivotlegal.org] program in my city as well. Bullying really pisses me off; I don't think that I'm unique in that regard.
  • by radish ( 98371 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @04:43PM (#15813011) Homepage
    You also can't legally arrest someone on bogus charges and make up fictional laws to back up your actions, but it seems they did that too. So it seems they screwed up on many fronts.
  • by FirstOne ( 193462 ) on Sunday July 30, 2006 @04:47PM (#15813034) Homepage

    "Don't be surprised if the police department is forced to apologize. "

    If I were arrested and jailed unjustly, I would want a lot more than an apology.
    Especially since the case is all about citizen attempting to report police abuse.

    At a minimum .. dismissal of the police detective in question, official reprimands for the other officers who co-operated conspiracy to cover the detective's misdeeds, and compensation for the victims.

    The Nasuha police department offered up a Plea Bargain, but the victim wisely refused [nashuatelegraph.com]..

    "After Gannon turned down that deal, a police prosecutor, attorney Kathleen Brown, dropped all charges against Gannon on Wednesday, but said his case will be sent to the Hillsborough County Attorney’s office for further prosecution. "

    “It’s going to be presented to a grand jury,” Brown said.

    That would be a very dumb move.. on Ms. Browns part..

    Hopefully, the presiding judge would set her straight. That police activities in public (with other witnesses present) are not covered..
    I.E. Police officers acting in concert have no right to privacy. Each is sworn to tell the whole truth and testifiy agains't each other if need be.

    I would petition the court to allow a special appearance before the grand jury. And ask them to consider charging the detective and all associated police officers with conspiracy to commit (trespass, unlawful entry, unlawful detention, B&E, and theft property more than $500) under color of law(authority). All transgressions become federal felonies [typepad.com].

    "Thus, “under ‘color’ of law” means “under ‘pretense’ of law,” and “[a]cts of officers who undertake to perform their official duties are included whether they hew to the line of their authority or overstep it.”

    From first link..

    "Gannon had set up cameras outside his home, a four-unit apartment building, to record video and audio in response to threats from a former tenant and incidents of vandalism, his wife said. A sticker on the outside of the building warns of the recording system."

    "Karlis and other officers went to Gannon’s home repeatedly last month while looking for the Gannon’s 15-year-old son, who was implicated in a late-night mugging downtown. "

    Second strike.. note the word "repeatedly".. I.E. The detective was well aware of the security cameras, BEFORE they entered the property. That is called implied consent..

  • by falconwolf ( 725481 ) <falconsoaring_2000NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Sunday July 30, 2006 @06:14PM (#15813426)

    And what about TJ doesn't present a bit of a contradiction? A slave owner - indeed a slave-raper - who beleived that "all men are created equal", for crying out loud.

    Yes, slavery was another contradiction in TJ, though he owned slaves he didn't believe in slavery. When he wrote the Declaration of Independence he wanted to include the right of all men to be free but because others had to approve the DOI this was stricken from the DOI.


Loose bits sink chips.