Transit police execute rider

[Kamakazie Sith]

The legal right to confiscate the cameras is somewhat dicey at best. Given the laws for "plain sight" vary from state to state and the tricky nature concerning digital evidence, we don't actually know for sure whether or not they had the legal authority to take those cameras. (However I'd be willing to lean towards "they didn't", given various interpretations).

Right now that decision is still on the chopping blocks. It'll be interesting to see what direction it goes.

[Kamakazie Sith]

They dont actually have a legal right to sieze it at all, KS has frankly made that shit up.

You base that off of one of the three sources that just used the word contraband? Fascinating. Perhaps, you should look at the case law that I directly cited. Specifically, Horton v. California in which led to what is called the three prong horton test.

The three-prong Horton test requires the officer to be (1) lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed, (2) the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and (3) the incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent.”[2]

(Note that it uses the word evidence, Keevan)

They can request it.

They can get a court order to take it.

They cannot sieze it.

The plain view doctrine does not apply to anything but contraband. Something that is illegal in itself to posess. If it applied to anything that an officer felt was evidence of something then there would effectively be no 4th ammendment protection of a person and their effects.

It's funny that you choose one of the three sources I present to grasp desperately on to. I enjoy watching you struggle.

KS has been bullshitting through this entire fucking thread and frankly I'm fed up with it.

OOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooh. You gonna cry about it more?

He has not actually posted anything to show that what he claims is in fact legal. The legal sources concerning constitutional law specifically state that he is wrong.

Right, then again you just ignored the others I cited in response to your "contraband" nitpick. Case law apparently doesn't mean much to you, I guess.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Unless you're looking for fingerprints, the cameras are not evidence. One specific data file on each camera is evidence, and it's beyond silly that the law doesn't yet mark that distinction.

If you are capable of removing the data from the device, the cops are supposed to accept that. When the police ask my bank for video captures of crimes caught on tape, they don't demand the entire server. We burn them a copy to CDR. But with a phone, the item is portable and the likely hood of an immediate device to copy the data is remote. However, the cops would be obligated to copy said data and return the phone immediately. If the person has a grievance over the potential short term loss of the phone (say it replaces a land line or is a business phone) the cops should have allowances to schedule a time to remove said data at the owners convenience.

That brings us back to my hypothetical of offering to copy the file and either hand the copy or the device with a copy residing in internal memory to the cop.

Personally, if the cop insisted on all copies, my 'coverup' alarm goes off.
At that point, I use the phone to call the local media and/or the nearest state police (in my state the ISP investigates local police wrongdoing) or FBI office.

To answer your question that would be perfectly acceptable.

[Keevan_Colton]

KS none of your fucking sources actually say that police have the authority or the right to do what you claim.

[Dargos]

Police would be within the law to confiscate the cameras without a warrent. Exigent Circumstances (emergency conditions) existed. A crime was commited, evidence ( i.e. photos/films taken by bystanders) was in danger of being destroyed/removed from the crime scene. Police secured the evidence.

[Keevan_Colton]

Police would be within the law to confiscate the cameras without a warrent. Exigent Circumstances (emergency conditions) existed. A crime was commited, evidence ( i.e. photos/films taken by bystanders) was in danger of being destroyed/removed from the crime scene. Police secured the evidence.

Except those rules apply to a belief that life is in danger etc if they do not act and specifically excludes searches intended primarily to seize evidence. That was in no way the fucking case. Try again.

Or does the notion that people are supposed to be secure in their person and their effects not apply if it inconveniences the police.

They have the right to request such items or apply for a court order to obtain them, they do not have a right to seize recordings from bystanders without their consent or a court order compelling them.

It's pretty fucking plain when you read the fucking case law examples provided and even the wonderful selection of links offered by KS, all of which state that they may request recordings but that the plain view seizure exception is limited to contraband, i.e. plainly illegal items or items which the officer has a probable cause to believe are such.

Interestingly, by this sort of messing about the 4th amendment could be argued to exclude all video collected by the officers involved. Since it was collected in an improper manner...gee, I'm sure such a situation would really upset them.

[Dargos]

Police would be within the law to confiscate the cameras without a warrent. Exigent Circumstances (emergency conditions) existed. A crime was commited, evidence ( i.e. photos/films taken by bystanders) was in danger of being destroyed/removed from the crime scene. Police secured the evidence.

Except those rules apply to a belief that life is in danger etc if they do not act and specifically excludes searches intended primarily to seize evidence. That was in no way the fucking case. Try again.

Or does the notion that people are supposed to be secure in their person and their effects not apply if it inconveniences the police.

They have the right to request such items or apply for a court order to obtain them, they do not have a right to seize recordings from bystanders without their consent or a court order compelling them.

It's pretty fucking plain when you read the fucking case law examples provided and even the wonderful selection of links offered by KS, all of which state that they may request recordings but that the plain view seizure exception is limited to contraband, i.e. plainly illegal items or items which the officer has a probable cause to believe are such.

Interestingly, by this sort of messing about the 4th amendment could be argued to exclude all video collected by the officers involved. Since it was collected in an improper manner...gee, I'm sure such a situation would really upset them.

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES - Emergency conditions. 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).

A search is reasonable, and a search warrant is not required, if all of the circumstances known to the officer at the time, would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry or search was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officer or other persons/the destruction or concealment of evidence/the escape of a suspect, and if there was insufficient time to get a search warrant.


Emergency situations or conditions which the law recognizes as excusing compliance with some procedural requirement or recognition of another's property or other interests. Most commonly used to refer to the variety of contexts in which a valid search and seizure may be conducted without a warrant. If the police action must be taken on a "now or never" basis to preserve evidence, it may be reasonable to permit a seizure without obtaining prior judicial approval. 413 U.S. 496, 505.

Bolding mine. You want links?

[Keevan_Colton]

Except that relies on the assumption that there is a desire to destroy evidence on the part of bystanders. If that was the case then why record in the first place?

The provision is to do with suspects that have a motive to destroy evidence...that'd be the fuckers that were collecting it in that case.

[Dargos]

Can you be sure that Joe/Jane Bystander wouldn't delete/alter possible critical photographic/film evidence of the crime? No you can't. Confiscation to preserve the evidence.

[Edi]

Can you be sure that Joe/Jane Bystander wouldn't delete/alter possible critical photographic/film evidence of the crime? No you can't. Confiscation to preserve the evidence.

Confiscation by the suspects, Dargos. You don't see a problem?

[Bilbo]

Unless you're looking for fingerprints, the cameras are not evidence. One specific data file on each camera is evidence, and it's beyond silly that the law doesn't yet mark that distinction.

Especially when said evidence can be deleted with the push of a button.

[Bilbo]

For another, the victim was a fucking thug (he'd been in prison a few times) - that doesn't justify the shooting, mind you - he's hardly a saint and portraying him as such (father, peacemaker, he's the reincarnation of MLK Jr!) makes the writers appear deceitful, and in any case doesn't have anything to do with the officer's culpability and guilt.

This would matter if the police in general had his name and already ran it for his background and new his criminal record and that said criminal record was for violent offenses. Then the police would have reason to be a little more paranoid. But like I said this was one guy standing up while everyone else was sitting down and there were several officers around him.

In the best of circumstances it will amount to this officer being a complete moron who mixed up his gun with his taser. But then considering the number of officers there and the fact that the suspect was already pinned down what would have been the justification for using taser? Which then puts another nail in the coffin for officers carrying tasers. They already use them more often than justified and if an officer can mix the two up then they are too dangerous to be in the hands of the police.

[Bilbo]

Interestingly, by this sort of messing about the 4th amendment could be argued to exclude all video collected by the officers involved. Since it was collected in an improper manner...gee, I'm sure such a situation would really upset them.

Which would make it damn lucky that at least one person made a recording and left with it. Chain of custody only begins when the file is legally obtained

[Ryan Thunder]

Can you be sure that Joe/Jane Bystander wouldn't delete/alter possible critical photographic/film evidence of the crime? No you can't. Confiscation to preserve the evidence.

Confiscation by the suspects, Dargos. You don't see a problem?

Because the other two officers are guilty by association?

Yeah, let's start with the desired conclusion and work back from there.

Which then puts another nail in the coffin for officers carrying tasers.

That was already settled in another thread. Tasers are useful, less than lethal tools for a lawful officer.

[Edi]

Can you be sure that Joe/Jane Bystander wouldn't delete/alter possible critical photographic/film evidence of the crime? No you can't. Confiscation to preserve the evidence.

Confiscation by the suspects, Dargos. You don't see a problem?

Because the other two officers are guilty by association?

Yeah, let's start with the desired conclusion and work back from there.

Go back under your bridge, troll. The other two officers are not guilty by association, they are part of the mess even though they did not shoot. They have a conflict of interest since they would be gathering evidence against their colleague in a case related to his and their own activities and keep the investigation into said incident uncontaminated, which simply cannot happen because they are too close to it.

Your inability grasp the distinction is not in any way surprising, but until you do understand it, please keep your mouth shut.

There are several concerns if they should gather that evidence: Looks like a coverup, may contaminate the evidence due to improper methods of obtaining it, rendering it useless in court, and other issues that have been raised already. It's not enough that the investigation happens by the numbers, it must also look like it's being done by the numbers and above reproach to avoid a whole fucking lot of trouble later and the way it was done here is NOT it.

[White Haven]

Can you be sure that Joe/Jane Bystander wouldn't delete/alter possible critical photographic/film evidence of the crime? No you can't. Confiscation to preserve the evidence.

And we don't have to. You can't prove a negative, so by that argument, all information everywhere that might pertain to any crime should be immediately confiscated, because you can't prove that anyone won't destroy it for shits and giggles. If you have reason to believe that the people in possession of the recordings are likely to destroy them, you might have an argument, but there's no motive. For fuck's sake, it's being recorded by people, voluntarily, to create evidence of what actually happened in the first place. These are the LEAST likely people to destroy evidence, not the most.

[General Zod]

Can you be sure that Joe/Jane Bystander wouldn't delete/alter possible critical photographic/film evidence of the crime? No you can't. Confiscation to preserve the evidence.

And we don't have to. You can't prove a negative, so by that argument, all information everywhere that might pertain to any crime should be immediately confiscated, because you can't prove that anyone won't destroy it for shits and giggles. If you have reason to believe that the people in possession of the recordings are likely to destroy them, you might have an argument, but there's no motive. For fuck's sake, it's being recorded by people, voluntarily, to create evidence of what actually happened in the first place. These are the LEAST likely people to destroy evidence, not the most.

Not to mention the fact that since a cop just shot someone in cold blood, witnesses would have absolutely zero reason to trust the police who were with him and just hand over their phones. It's not too hard to see the thought process going through someone's head who saw it happen: "Hey, this cop just shot someone for no reason! What if his buddies are helping him? " It's not exactly unreasonable to assume this if you're a bystander who's not used to violence.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You base that off of one of the three sources that just used the word contraband? Fascinating. Perhaps, you should look at the case law that I directly cited. Specifically, Horton v. California in which led to what is called the three prong horton test.

The three-prong Horton test requires the officer to be (1) lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed, (2) the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and (3) the incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent.”[2]

(Note that it uses the word evidence, Keevan)

You know, I am actually reading the supreme court cases that led to this, and they do not say what you claim. It was never intended to apply

First off, the Horton case only discusses searches authorized by a warrant that find stuff the cops did not list on the warrant applicartion, in fact the case goes on at length on how even though the police did not have warrant for the objects seized, the search is itself legal because of the specific nature of the warrant. It specifically does NOT authorize warrantless seizures.

Moreover, this case fails at LEAST the third prong of the test, even if we expand it to include searches not already allowed by warrant. Why? Because the incriminating nature of people's cameras and cell phones... against them I would like to stress, is not immediately apparant. It is not an Uzi while investigating an Uzi shooting, or pictures of tortured victims.

The second prong of the test might be violated because the police may well not have a legal right of access to the items. Why? because the search was without warrant and frankly, the seizures themselves especially given the probable (due to the rapidity with which they had to take the cameras and phones) lack of recipts for the items, likely to themselves have been a crime. You yourself have admitted if I recall that the circumstances were a tad shady. They could have easily stopped the train and called in another unit to handle investigation, perhaps have IA do it. Instead they tried to rapidly take as much as they could.

The obvious conflict of interest here probably invalidates the search.

[Coyote]

While there's no way to know if the cops were thinking that far ahead, there is also the thought that they'd want to confiscate the evidence before it gets plastered all over YouTube, creates an uproar, and virtually guarantees that it will near impossible to find an impartial jury untainted by news of the case.

But still, we're at the place where we don't know if the police had the right to confiscate the cameras & phones, since the only police on the scene are the ones directly involve din the situation.

In an ideal situation, the Transit cops would have asked everyone to remain until other, uninvolved police showed up (City, County, etc) who would then gather the devices, issue receipts, etc. And of course the people would do that-- in an ideal situation.

[White Haven]

Then again, in an ideal situation, a police officer wouldn't have shot an unarmed man in the back.

[Coyote]

Then again, in an ideal situation, a police officer wouldn't have shot an unarmed man in the back.

True, but since that is, unfortunately, a given (or we wouldn't have anything to talk about), it's the critique over the crisis-management skills of the officers we have to look at.

[Ryan Thunder]

Go back under your bridge, troll.

You should drop by for a visit some time. I've had central heating installed recently. And a door.

There are several concerns if they should gather that evidence: Looks like a coverup, may contaminate the evidence due to improper methods of obtaining it, rendering it useless in court, and other issues that have been raised already. It's not enough that the investigation happens by the numbers, it must also look like it's being done by the numbers and above reproach to avoid a whole fucking lot of trouble later and the way it was done here is NOT it.

Oh for fucks' sakes. If anybody else had shot the guy, the cops would've done the same thing, and nobody would've given a shit, much less cried "cover up!" But because it was a cop, now there are fucking riots because his dumbfounded colleagues tried to do their job.

Furthermore, you are assuming that merely because they were working together that day, they are willing to destroy/hide/distort evidence to cover up the fact that he killed a man. But of course, these are cops we're dealing with, so I guess that makes it OK.

[General Zod]

Oh for fucks' sakes. If anybody else had shot the guy, the cops would've done the same thing, and nobody would've given a shit, much less cried "cover up!" But because it was a cop, now there are fucking riots because his dumbfounded colleagues tried to do their job.

Do we have to define precisely what a "conflict of interest" is or are you just being retarded? It's not that he was "just" a cop. It's that he was one of their partners you fucking idiot.

Furthermore, you are assuming that merely because they were working together that day, they are willing to destroy/hide/distort evidence to cover up the fact that he killed a man. But of course, these are cops we're dealing with, so I guess that makes it OK.

What part of "conflict of interest" do you not understand? The fact that they're personally involved in the crime means that any evidence they gather has a risk of being contaminated. It would be no different than if a cop were investigating one of their family members. It makes it impossible for them to maintain impartiality and objectivity in this kind of situation, which means a judge could throw out the case due to improper procedures being followed; but clearly you're ignorant of how investigations work.

[Alyrium Denryle]

To add to this, if someone ELSE had shot the guy, that person would have immediately been arrested. The train probably would have been stopped, and passengers would have been given receipts for phones and cameras that they gave up willingly, or arranged to have the data copied from.

As it stands, the police scrambled to snatch cameras after one of their own appeared to execute someone... the ones they missed were because the train started to move, which means they probably did not issue receipts.

What does this look like? If a guy on the street shot someone and his buddies went around collecting the sources of videotape, would you easily conclude that they were faithfully collecting evidence?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Another video here, with a better angle. Still looks crazy.