Transit police execute rider

[General Zod]

Good find. However, I disagree with your conclusion. If I'm doing something and someone is pointing a camera at me, a cell phone, etc and continue to do so for the duration of the action I'm currently performing it is hardly unreasonable to conclude that the device probably has video evidence of the event.

All you need to remember is the person who was pointing the cell phone at you. Now, if they through up a net and seized any video recording device without reason then it would be an illegal seizure.

You honestly expect people to believe they would have been able to pay attention to who had a cell phone or camera pointed at them while they were busy trying to restrain someone? This isn't an isolated street corner we're talking about. There were dozens of witnesses involved.

[Enigma]

Kaz explain to me this, an unarmed man who did not resist arrest is restrained on the ground by an officer while the other one shoots him. You trust them to collect evidence to the crime they've committed? Are you fucking insane? The evidence collecting should be done by other officers not involved or someone from SIU\IA. The same reason why an ambulance cannot bring a patient to the hospital because they were the one that hit him\her. To me, any evidence that they collected is tainted and thus useless which I guess was the point.

Overall I support the law enforcement but the actions made by BART does lessen it.

[Keevan_Colton]

*Shortened due to length*
What are the exceptions to the warrant requirement?
the plain view/plain feel doctrine, which allows the seizure of evidence when there has been a prior valid intrusion into a constitutionally protected area, an item is spotted in plain view or is within “plain feel,” and there is probable cause to believe the item is evidence.

Two things you stupid fucker:

One, that clearly states that it only applies when a prior valid intrusion into a constitutionally protected area is made. That means that you can do so when you have a valid warrent to search somewhere and then spot something else in plain sight that is illegal or evidence of wrongdoing.

Two, the contents of the phone are not in plain view, so the container section would be more apt to quote and it states quite clearly that it only applies in automobile stops, and so that wouldnt apply either.

But I'm sure none of that gets in the way of standard procedure you goat molesting fuckwit.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes, but this is rather different from a plainview exception (which does excist in Germany too, btw, to answer your question about that). Plain view exceptions are not supposed to cover police officers confiscating every cellphone. Three to make sure the video is alright I can get behing, but every cellphone? That seems very unreasonable to me. And after all, those exemptions from the need for a warrant are supposed to be within the scope of a reasonable execution.

You're absolutely right. Which is why anything that was seized and not supported by probable cause is an illegal seizure.
"Example - I seized this camera because I saw the person pull it out of their purse." That's isn't probable cause to me.

Furthermore, I am very certain that the plainview exception does not allow the police to suppress evidence which seems to be the case.

It doesn't. However, I question your reason for making that conclusion.

From the OP:

The police then ran around and terrified witnesses by taking away their cell phones and video cameras for “evidence.” The video, which was shot by a witness named Karina Vargas and has been seen by everyone on KTVU, was also going to be confiscated, except her train started moving as police attempted to snatch away her camera.

Immediately after shooting the guy, they just happen to need to confiscate all the video cameras? What, the three guys who restrained the victim and all the eyewitnesses were not enough?

Actually, they didn't confiscate all the video cameras. Just the ones that article identified as belonging to witnesses. Therefore, I'm assuming that they had probable cause that the device contains evidence.

Need, or were required to. All departments that I know of have very strict evidence policies.

[CaptainChewbacca]

They get around it by forcefully demanding the camera or phone, and hoping people don't realize that they CAN refuse to give it up. If someone complains later, the police just shrug and say they didn't compel the person to turn over evidence.

[Thanas]

You're absolutely right. Which is why anything that was seized and not supported by probable cause is an illegal seizure.
"Example - I seized this camera because I saw the person pull it out of their purse." That's isn't probable cause to me.

So why shouldn't this be the case here?

From the OP:

The police then ran around and terrified witnesses by taking away their cell phones and video cameras for “evidence.” The video, which was shot by a witness named Karina Vargas and has been seen by everyone on KTVU, was also going to be confiscated, except her train started moving as police attempted to snatch away her camera.

Immediately after shooting the guy, they just happen to need to confiscate all the video cameras? What, the three guys who restrained the victim and all the eyewitnesses were not enough?

Actually, they didn't confiscate all the video cameras. Just the ones that article identified as belonging to witnesses. Therefore, I'm assuming that they had probable cause that the device contains evidence.

I don't follow. Via your standard, the police had every right to confiscate every camera. Because that is what they were attempting to do.

[General Zod]

You're absolutely right. Which is why anything that was seized and not supported by probable cause is an illegal seizure.
"Example - I seized this camera because I saw the person pull it out of their purse." That's isn't probable cause to me.

Neither is seizing a camera because it's pointed your way or because someone was holding it. How do they know it was turned on and thus captured evidence for certain without checking? There's still the "immediately know" part of plain view doctrine.

Actually, they didn't confiscate all the video cameras. Just the ones that article identified as belonging to witnesses. Therefore, I'm assuming that they had probable cause that the device contains evidence.

Sounds like hairsplitting to me given how many witnesses there were.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Two things you stupid fucker:

Do those words make your penis seem larger?

One, that clearly states that it only applies when a prior valid intrusion into a constitutionally protected area is made. That means that you can do so when you have a valid warrent to search somewhere and then spot something else in plain sight that is illegal or evidence of wrongdoing.

No, it doesn't. The plain view exception is called an exception because otherwise a warrant would be required. If a warrant would be required anyway then it wouldn't be an exception. Jesus H Christ. I can't believe I have to explain a simple concept like this to you. It's not that complicated.

Example - I come to your house to just talk to you. I'm on the sidewalk where I have a legal right to be. Through your window I see you smoking some crack (which is probably why you're such a fucking retard). I now have a right to come through your door and seize that. I never had a warrant and until I saw you smoking that crack I did not have a right to be inside your home, and I did not have a right to seize that device. This exception applies to ANYTHING where a warrant would be required.

Two, the contents of the phone are not in plain view, so the container section would be more apt to quote and it states quite clearly that it only applies in automobile stops, and so that wouldnt apply either.

Which is why the part of the exception states "there is probable cause to believe the item is evidence." Again, if you see someone pointing a video camera at you is it unreasonable to say that it probably is recording you?

But I'm sure none of that gets in the way of standard procedure you goat molesting fuckwit.[/quote]

[Keevan_Colton]

They get around it by forcefully demanding the camera or phone, and hoping people don't realize that they CAN refuse to give it up. If someone complains later, the police just shrug and say they didn't compel the person to turn over evidence.

We've certainly never had any officers of the law posting on this board saying they lie about the law to achieve their own ends before after all, it's shocking that you might even suggest that an officer of the law might behave in an underhand manner in order to make their own life easier.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Neither is seizing a camera because it's pointed your way or because someone was holding it. How do they know it was turned on and thus captured evidence for certain without checking? There's still the "immediately know" part of plain view doctrine.

Do you know what probable cause means? Hint - It does not mean KNOWS without a doubt. It means probably. I take it you think it's unreasonable to conclude that you're being recorded by a video camera when it is being pointed at you during a dramatic event?

Sounds like hairsplitting to me given how many witnesses there were.

Like I said it depends if they had probable cause. All I'm defending is that the police do have a right to seize evidence if it meets the requirements under the plain view exception.

[CaptainChewbacca]

We've certainly never had any officers of the law posting on this board saying they lie about the law to achieve their own ends before after all, it's shocking that you might even suggest that an officer of the law might behave in an underhand manner in order to make their own life easier.

I was going to flame you, then I realized it was sarcasm. Who was the poster here who turned out to be a dishonest cop? I can't remember.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Kaz explain to me this, an unarmed man who did not resist arrest is restrained on the ground by an officer while the other one shoots him. You trust them to collect evidence to the crime they've committed? Are you fucking insane? The evidence collecting should be done by other officers not involved or someone from SIU\IA. The same reason why an ambulance cannot bring a patient to the hospital because they were the one that hit him\her. To me, any evidence that they collected is tainted and thus useless which I guess was the point.

Overall I support the law enforcement but the actions made by BART does lessen it.

I missed the part in the article that said these officers collected the evidence. Again, if procedure was followed then other officers responded to the scene, set up a crime scene, and collected the evidence.

[Keevan_Colton]

Two things you stupid fucker:

Do those words make your penis seem larger?

One, that clearly states that it only applies when a prior valid intrusion into a constitutionally protected area is made. That means that you can do so when you have a valid warrent to search somewhere and then spot something else in plain sight that is illegal or evidence of wrongdoing.

No, it doesn't. The plain view exception is called an exception because otherwise a warrant would be required. If a warrant would be required anyway then it wouldn't be an exception. Jesus H Christ. I can't believe I have to explain a simple concept like this to you. It's not that complicated.

Example - I come to your house to just talk to you. I'm on the sidewalk where I have a legal right to be. Through your window I see you smoking some crack (which is probably why you're such a fucking retard). I now have a right to come through your door and seize that. I never had a warrant and until I saw you smoking that crack I did not have a right to be inside your home, and I did not have a right to seize that device. This exception applies to ANYTHING where a warrant would be required.

Yes, and you're a fucking moron because you cant tell the difference between witnessing a crime and committing a crime.

Do the words, "prior valid intrusion" mean anything at all to you or do they have too many letters for you?
What you are getting confused with is the ability to conduct a limited search and seizure based upon articulable suspicion of a crime being committed.

Two, the contents of the phone are not in plain view, so the container section would be more apt to quote and it states quite clearly that it only applies in automobile stops, and so that wouldnt apply either.

Which is why the part of the exception states "there is probable cause to believe the item is evidence." Again, if you see someone pointing a video camera at you is it unreasonable to say that it probably is recording you?

But I'm sure none of that gets in the way of standard procedure you goat molesting fuckwit.

[/quote]

Where does it state that in the relation to witnesses?

Does seeing a crime invalidate your 4th amendment right to be secure in your person and effects? Because fuck all you've posted so far actually supports that. Despite your bleating about standard procedure.

[Thanas]

Like I said it depends if they had probable cause. All I'm defending is that the police do have a right to seize evidence if it meets the requirements under the plain view exception.

And nobody claimed otherwise. What people are saying is that pulling every camera is not something that is covered under that exception, since there is no need for it.

We've certainly never had any officers of the law posting on this board saying they lie about the law to achieve their own ends before after all, it's shocking that you might even suggest that an officer of the law might behave in an underhand manner in order to make their own life easier.

I was going to flame you, then I realized it was sarcasm. Who was the poster here who turned out to be a dishonest cop? I can't remember.

Wasn't it the affair in which Death from the Sea said that he was lying to people about laws just to make his life easier?

Kaz explain to me this, an unarmed man who did not resist arrest is restrained on the ground by an officer while the other one shoots him. You trust them to collect evidence to the crime they've committed? Are you fucking insane? The evidence collecting should be done by other officers not involved or someone from SIU\IA. The same reason why an ambulance cannot bring a patient to the hospital because they were the one that hit him\her. To me, any evidence that they collected is tainted and thus useless which I guess was the point.

Overall I support the law enforcement but the actions made by BART does lessen it.

I missed the part in the article that said these officers collected the evidence. Again, if procedure was followed then other officers responded to the scene, set up a crime scene, and collected the evidence.

No, the article says that immediately after the shooting the officers then proceeded to get the cellphones. These are the same guys.

[General Zod]

Do you know what probable cause means? Hint - It does not mean KNOWS without a doubt. It means probably. I take it you think it's unreasonable to conclude that you're being recorded by a video camera when it is being pointed at you during a dramatic event?

Once again, what makes you think the police were paying any attention whatsoever to which witnesses were recording? They were rather busy at the time, so they had no way of knowing which cameras were pointed at them.

Like I said it depends if they had probable cause. All I'm defending is that the police do have a right to seize evidence if it meets the requirements under the plain view exception.

The fact that the police had no way of knowing which cameras were actually pointed at them during the time the incident took place makes the claim that they did meet the exception rather dubious at best.

[Keevan_Colton]

Given the fact that someone managed to witness it and leave on a train in the time within which the seizure was taking place then any police on the scene are likely to be those involved in the incident as a very very very fucking short interval of time has passed.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Kamakazie Sith, as a police officer, one would expect that you would be familiar with the term "conflict of interest"?

Don't you see a problem with a situation where a group of police officers is arresting subjects, one of them shoots an already restrained suspect point blank to death and then all of the officers start confiscating recordings made by eyewitnesses.

Investigating a situation where you are a suspect in a crime? This is standard operating procedure and accepted? Any officer who did that here would automatically face suspension without pay and various criminal charges just for taking that evidence from the eyewitnesses precisely because of the conflict of interest, on top of being a suspect or suspected accomplice in the killing.

I see many problems with the way the United States justice system is setup. I'm not sure why we're discussing this to be honest as I have not claimed that it is a perfect system. I just said that under law the police seizing evidence is not illegal.

There is a very good reason why the police are absolutely distrusted in the US when it comes to investigating, prosecuting and punishing their own in situations like this. The blue wall of silence and the lack of transparent accountability makes people assume that any crimes committed by officers will be covered up if at all possible and only addressed if there is no other recourse. The account in the opening post of the behavior of these officers in that situation fit that pattern precisely.

Yes, I understand that. Again, I'm just citing fact in law. This concept seems to be escaping a few of you. I'm not entirely sure why. From what I've seen the officer is screwed based off his excuse alone. "I confused by taser for my firearm"...right.

This event would be a tragic news story with just the shooting. The actions of the officers afterward make it look like a coverup and make it a national prime time news headline.

Actually, we don't know all the facts. We don't know who confiscated it. It says "officers" took the cameras. It does not state that those officers involved took the cameras.

If you can't understand that, there isn't really much more to say. It doesn't matter what the supposed SOP of the department is. It's almost guaranteed that the eyewitnesses would come forward and surrender the evidence later on their own initiative, or enough of it to conduct an open, impartial investigation. NOT an investigation where the suspects investigate themselves. I'd love to be a criminal in a system where I could do investigation into my own crimes and gather the evidence, after all.

Chances are their policy doesn't allow them to investigate crimes that they themselves are involved in.

An important question. Which officers seized the evidence? If the article stated which officers seized the cameras then I missed it. It just says "officers".

[Alyrium Denryle]

Actually, they didn't confiscate all the video cameras. Just the ones that article identified as belonging to witnesses. Therefore, I'm assuming that they had probable cause that the device contains evidence.

I will repeat this because you apparently ignored it.

Are you familiar with the term "conflict of interest"? The police in this case are the ones committing MURDER, and you think it is OK and Kosher for them to collect the evidence of their own fucking crime? Are you nuts?

Yes, they should. Now do you have some information to share with us that says they did not provide the owners with a receipt?

Burden of proof is not on me fucker. It is on you to show they did. From the OP, we are told that the camera were "taken" and "snatched". I realize that you are desperate to never, EVER admit wrongdoing by police officers, but come the fuck on.

Also, there was probable cause that those cameras were evidence since they were being pointed at them when the situation occurred. If that isn't probable cause then I don't know what is. Do you think it's unreasonable to conclude that a camera pointed in the direction of a potential crime probably contains evidence of that crime?

Oh of course it is. But guess what cock-muncher (and I mean that in the 2002 german sense), the cops who commit the fucking crime dont get to collect said evidence!

[General Zod]

Chances are their policy doesn't allow them to investigate crimes that they themselves are involved in.

An important question. Which officers seized the evidence? If the article stated which officers seized the cameras then I missed it. It just says "officers".

I realize it's hard, but try and think this through. The article states that one woman who was recording the incident nearly had her camera snatched by an officer as her train took off, one of the ones who was confiscating cameras. Given that she had been recording it, and that trains generally don't stick around for long once they're boarded, it's not unreasonable to assume that the people who were doing the confiscation were, in fact, the ones responsible for the shooting with the timeframe we have to work with.

[Dominus Atheos]

One thing to remember is these aren't real cops, these are Rentacops that work for the subway company, so while the people are on the subway train the Rentacops can seize whatever they want and aren't bound by the law like regular cops are.

Also a lot of rentacops are people who were kicked off the police force for whatever reason and usually aren't trained very well. I have no idea why subway renatcops were carrying guns.

Ummm, not totally sure about BART but I know that most Transit Authority Police tend to be government employees and are empowered by the state, or states as the case may be, to act as officers with a jurisdiction limited to the transit agency property. In other words they ARE cops.

Now again that may not be the exact case with BART but I know that Port Authority, DC Metro Transit, MD Transit POlice, all of those agencies are state agencies whose police are sworn officers and not "rent-a-cops."

The why do the articles keep saying stuff about BART? Protests in front of BART headquarters, BART Spokesmen, BART Police Chief Gary Gee (San Francisco chief of police is Heather Fong). It sounds like this is BART's own private security force and not actual police officers. I could be wrong though.

[Alyrium Denryle]

One thing to remember is these aren't real cops, these are Rentacops that work for the subway company, so while the people are on the subway train the Rentacops can seize whatever they want and aren't bound by the law like regular cops are.

Also a lot of rentacops are people who were kicked off the police force for whatever reason and usually aren't trained very well. I have no idea why subway renatcops were carrying guns.

Ummm, not totally sure about BART but I know that most Transit Authority Police tend to be government employees and are empowered by the state, or states as the case may be, to act as officers with a jurisdiction limited to the transit agency property. In other words they ARE cops.

Now again that may not be the exact case with BART but I know that Port Authority, DC Metro Transit, MD Transit POlice, all of those agencies are state agencies whose police are sworn officers and not "rent-a-cops."

The why do the articles keep saying stuff about BART? Protests in front of BART headquarters, BART Spokesmen, BART Police Chief Gary Gee (San Francisco chief of police is Heather Fong). It sounds like this is BART's own private security force and not actual police officers. I could be wrong though.

Could just be a separate police department. Most large universities have their own independent police departments for example, even though they are within a major city.

[Edi]

Actually, we don't know all the facts. We don't know who confiscated it. It says "officers" took the cameras. It does not state that those officers involved took the cameras.

For reasons unknown to us, the police officer pushed Grant to the ground. One officer kneeled on his neck while the other officer pulled out a gun and shot him point blank in the back. The bullet went through his back, hit the ground and bounced back up and pierced his lung, killing him.

The police then ran around and terrified witnesses by taking away their cell phones and video cameras for “evidence.” The video, which was shot by a witness named Karina Vargas and has been seen by everyone on KTVU, was also going to be confiscated, except her train started moving as police attempted to snatch away her camera. The cops obviously did not see the other video cameras buzzing away.

If you're in any way familiar with any kind of reading comprehension and/or textual analysis of narrative, this part here is contiguous with NO break in time or a shift of scene where other officers unaffiliated with the suspect ones arrived and did anything. Quite the contrary, all indications are that the seizing of video cameras and cell phones began immediately after the shooting when these turds realized just how badly they had fucked up. You look like you're stretching for excuses, even if you honestly believe that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes, and you're a fucking moron because you cant tell the difference between witnessing a crime and committing a crime.

And did all the officers involved shoot the subject or did just one? Or right just one. Now did he collect the evidence? I haven't read anything to suggest that he did. So, that would make the other officers involved witnesses would it not? Yeah. Fuck off.

Here's a site with a bit better description of the plain view doctrine.
[url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... 04/04.html]

Do the words, "prior valid intrusion" mean anything at all to you or do they have too many letters for you?
What you are getting confused with is the ability to conduct a limited search and seizure based upon articulable suspicion of a crime being committed.

That just means that the officer has a legal right to be where they are when they observed the evidence.

But I'm sure none of that gets in the way of standard procedure you goat molesting fuckwit.

I see you've failed to address why it's not probable cause yet again. That's fine.

Where does it state that in the relation to witnesses?

Does seeing a crime invalidate your 4th amendment right to be secure in your person and effects? Because fuck all you've posted so far actually supports that. Despite your bleating about standard procedure.

Again, one of the exceptions to the fucking fourth amendment is the plain view doctrine. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

[Keevan_Colton]

Did you read the fucking link or just harvest it off the wikipedia page, it states clearly that the item in question must be contraband.

''Plain View.'' --Somewhat similar in rationale is the rule that objects falling in the ''plain view'' of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure without a warrant 104 or that if the officer needs a warrant or probable cause to search and seize his lawful observation will provide grounds therefor. 105 The plain view doctrine is limited, however, by the probable cause requirement: officers must have probable cause to believe that items in plain view are contraband before they may search or seize them. 106

The Court has analogized from the plain view doctrine to hold that once officers have lawfully observed contraband, ''the owner's privacy interest in that item is lost,'' and officers may reseal a container, trace its path through a controlled delivery, and seize and reopen the container without a warrant. 107

*fixed tags

[Kamakazie Sith]

I will repeat this because you apparently ignored it.

Are you familiar with the term "conflict of interest"? The police in this case are the ones committing MURDER, and you think it is OK and Kosher for them to collect the evidence of their own fucking crime? Are you nuts?

No, the only one at risk for being charged with murder is the officer who fired. The others are witnesses, and are still police officers.

Burden of proof is not on me fucker. It is on you to show they did. From the OP, we are told that the camera were "taken" and "snatched". I realize that you are desperate to never, EVER admit wrongdoing by police officers, but come the fuck on.

Likewise, I understand that you're desperate to conclude wrongdoing against police officers when you are not in possession of all the facts. You're the one claiming that they did not give a receipt to those witnesses whose property was confiscated. You base this conclusion on the fact that the article does not cover every single detail. Furthermore, I also stated that if they failed to do this then it is one more nail in this officers coffin. Thus, I don't really care. I'm just saying that they would be required to do so. End of fucking story. It's not even a argument point. Again, I was citing a fact of policy. Jesus.

Oh of course it is. But guess what cock-muncher (and I mean that in the 2002 german sense), the cops who commit the fucking crime dont get to collect said evidence!

[/quote]

Only one cop committed the crime. What information do you have in the article that says restaining Mr. Grant was illegal?