Flushing the toilet is now cause for a search

[Kamakazie Sith]

I realize Police have tools to break down reinforced doors. However, my guess is they wouldn't be readily on your person unless you had a warrant in hand to begin with. The point of a reinforced door would be to prevent situations where police "smell marijuana" which could be a dubious claim at best, and decide to kick in someone's door to begin with. The whole "If you're not doing anything wrong then you've got nothing to worry about" mantra isn't exactly comforting...

My point is that citing "slowing the police down from raiding my home because they may fabricate that they smelled marijuana and I flushed the toilet" as your reason to fortify your home is irrational.

I'd like to believe that, but then you've got so many instances where there is police misconduct and the response from the police dept seems to be to cover it up, or spin it as best they can. If police misconduct were pursued as vigorously as other crimes, then we wouldn't have to fear such trust being abused nearly as much.

You have many instances of alleged police misconduct. I hate to spoil your fairytale but people do lie about those instances. It's not a good situation though for sure. But when you start to make claims like "you've got so many" without any supporting figures or information it just makes you look emotional.

[Kamakazie Sith]

No. We're saying that the police being able to skip the middle man and bust into someone's home without a fucking warrant is total unconstitutional bullshit. Then again, according to one of your own posts, so long as we're innocent, we have nothing to fear from jackbooted thugs with delusions of glory being able to bust in our doors at a whim.

Since you failed to quote this post of mine I have no choice but to assume you're being dishonest and quoting me out of context.

Now moving on. So, you feel that the exceptions listed to the requirement for a warrant are unconstitutional? http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrim ... antreq.asp

One of those in the plain view exception which under that doctrine is listed plain smell. Other expansions into this doctrine include plain feel, and plain hearing.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I say something because smelling a drug is a pretty easy thing to falsify the same as hearing what could be a guy taking a dump after smoking a joint. Anything that makes it more likely that SWAT enter faster and with less prep time is always going to be a bad thing in my books. If anything they ought to cut the water and stopper the flow of the target house at the main line. Something that can be done prior to the raid and without raising any eyebrows.

That might work in some situations if you knew where the water to the house was located. However, it probably wouldn't work very well in an apartment building. However, even if you do shut it off they'll likely move onto another method of destroying it or hiding it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If investigating the crime means kicking in a families door because their teenage son's friend sparked a joint in the shitter and flushed on his way out I'd say they likely shouldn't be allowed that level of freedom. As for what I think most police are capable of, I'd honestly say not too very much based on personal experience. Of course they're supposed to have basic first aid training, be able to talk to people calmly in highs stress situations, and use nonlethal force in many situations and we know how often they manage to fuck that up.

So, Norade can I use my personal experience involving interactions with minorities to make a sweeping judgement against that minority? Of course not because that would be fucking stupid. Just like you're being whenever you make statements like that.

By the way...how often do they fuck up? I want numbers...

The fact is American police are on an institutional level gung-ho and trigger happy enough without being given anymore freedom without public oversight. Your nation's war on drugs is a sad joke, and your nations level of police corruption is rather high. The mere fact that we see so many stories of this nature from the US with your near third world level prisons give valdiation to the fact that I wouldn't trust a US cop with any task more complex than kicking in a door and shouting loudly.

Translation - This is an opinion I've formed without doing any real research.

[Master of Ossus]

You can't flush more than an insignificant amount of drugs anyway so you really have no point here. Care to rethink your position without the rose colored glasses?

What would you consider "an insignificant amount of drugs," and what's your evidence that you can't flush more than this? Are you assuming that there's only one flush involved? What's the maximum that you can flush at once?

The fact is American police are on an institutional level gung-ho and trigger happy enough without being given anymore freedom without public oversight. Your nation's war on drugs is a sad joke, and your nations level of police corruption is rather high. The mere fact that we see so many stories of this nature from the US with your near third world level prisons give valdiation to the fact that I wouldn't trust a US cop with any task more complex than kicking in a door and shouting loudly.

Evidence for any of this?

And US corruption rates are in line with other nations in the First World. We're high compared to (e.g.) Iceland, but are lower than countries like Japan and France.

You're ignoring the rest of the paragraph and the fact that all through the American police it seems that if you aren't corrupt you're just incompetent. As for this story, who really gives two shits how much coke they got, unless the gov't is making mint off it this war is costing a ton for no real gain. Just grow the shit yourself America and ave everybody a ton of hassle.

Can you actually cite evidence for any of this? And why are you acting as if this case is entirely about drugs? It's about searches in general.

[Norade]

I say something because smelling a drug is a pretty easy thing to falsify the same as hearing what could be a guy taking a dump after smoking a joint. Anything that makes it more likely that SWAT enter faster and with less prep time is always going to be a bad thing in my books. If anything they ought to cut the water and stopper the flow of the target house at the main line. Something that can be done prior to the raid and without raising any eyebrows.

That might work in some situations if you knew where the water to the house was located. However, it probably wouldn't work very well in an apartment building. However, even if you do shut it off they'll likely move onto another method of destroying it or hiding it.

Which is something you would be able to find if you took the time to do your research which you should if you think you're about to be raiding a place with a fair bit of drugs in it. Also, why would they start dumping it when a city utility van pulls up and crews start to fiddle with the water main on the street?

So, Norade can I use my personal experience involving interactions with minorities to make a sweeping judgement against that minority? Of course not because that would be fucking stupid. Just like you're being whenever you make statements like that.

By the way...how often do they fuck up? I want numbers...

I doubt any site out there has a full list of numbers for every bust that got a wrong house, every animal shot on a raid, every minority falsely harassed, but I'll see what I can find. I doubt that anything I do find will be good enough for you though because while you do oppose some of the crazier things that they let police do you still defend their actions as doing what they're asked to do. I'll tell you that people in Nazi Germany and Stalin's regime were doing the same thing, and while the example is harsh it shows that causing harm simply because it's your job is no excuse. This by the standard police don't get off the hook for simply doing a tough job that they've been mandated to do.

Also while I can't yet produce numbers for botched raids per year, I can start a list of all the ways they can fuck up a raid:
-Wrong house
-Shooting occupants and innocent by standers (This can range from shooting unarmed people to people carrying weapons they have every legal right to be carrying at anytime they wish to)
-Shooting family pets that are located behind barriers
-Destroying property on houses they are falsely searching

The fact is American police are on an institutional level gung-ho and trigger happy enough without being given anymore freedom without public oversight. Your nation's war on drugs is a sad joke, and your nations level of police corruption is rather high. The mere fact that we see so many stories of this nature from the US with your near third world level prisons give valdiation to the fact that I wouldn't trust a US cop with any task more complex than kicking in a door and shouting loudly.

Translation - This is an opinion I've formed without doing any real research.

I really need to point out the fact that US cops shoot a higher percentage of people than their Canadian, British, and Japanese counterparts. This isn't even mentioning Scandanavian police forces.

[Norade]

You can't flush more than an insignificant amount of drugs anyway so you really have no point here. Care to rethink your position without the rose colored glasses?

What would you consider "an insignificant amount of drugs," and what's your evidence that you can't flush more than this? Are you assuming that there's only one flush involved? What's the maximum that you can flush at once?

I'd consider anything less than a few kilos to be small potatoes not worth the polices time and that amount is not likely to be flushed if a regular beat cop makes a note that he might have seen something an instead gets the proper paperwork to get the house raided properly. A house with a large amount is also the exact type of place a single squad car isn't equipped to handle.

The fact is American police are on an institutional level gung-ho and trigger happy enough without being given anymore freedom without public oversight. Your nation's war on drugs is a sad joke, and your nations level of police corruption is rather high. The mere fact that we see so many stories of this nature from the US with your near third world level prisons give valdiation to the fact that I wouldn't trust a US cop with any task more complex than kicking in a door and shouting loudly.

Evidence for any of this?

And US corruption rates are in line with other nations in the First World. We're high compared to (e.g.) Iceland, but are lower than countries like Japan and France.

They look high from where I'm sitting in Canada given that they're ten percent more corrupt than the police I already dislike dealing with. It's made worse by the fact that the US conducts more SWAT style raids than Canadian forces. I'm currently doing some quick research into the matter of how many raids are done yearly per capita, but would you personally feel safer holding a lot of drugs in Canada or the US?

You're ignoring the rest of the paragraph and the fact that all through the American police it seems that if you aren't corrupt you're just incompetent. As for this story, who really gives two shits how much coke they got, unless the gov't is making mint off it this war is costing a ton for no real gain. Just grow the shit yourself America and ave everybody a ton of hassle.

Can you actually cite evidence for any of this? And why are you acting as if this case is entirely about drugs? It's about searches in general.

The fact that they can enter your home because they think they smell drugs and think they hear you flushing evidence is pretty self evidently more freedom than any government should have. I'm going to ask you how many weapons can actually be flushed? Handguns are out, knives are out, rifles are right out so that makes every common weapon unflushable so they're not a concern in this context. What other illegal stuff can be flushed? I guess you could flush money, along with drugs those are about the only things you can actually flush.

[Norade]

What can be proven is that since their inception SWAT have started to see increased use and the likelihood of them being used coupled with the fact that they are now more likely to enter with a quick knock or no knock at all means they they are being involved in more deaths each decade.

Edit: Also, a question for the two of you. How many people a year die from marijuana use?

[Master of Ossus]

I'd consider anything less than a few kilos to be small potatoes not worth the polices time and that amount is not likely to be flushed if a regular beat cop makes a note that he might have seen something an instead gets the proper paperwork to get the house raided properly. A house with a large amount is also the exact type of place a single squad car isn't equipped to handle.

Holy shit. "A few kilos" is dramatically more than anyone could describe as personal use. That's MAJOR distributor levels, right there. How is it not worth "the polices [sic] time" to go after people who are sitting on two kilos of heroin, for example?

They look high from where I'm sitting in Canada given that they're ten percent more corrupt than the police I already dislike dealing with. It's made worse by the fact that the US conducts more SWAT style raids than Canadian forces. I'm currently doing some quick research into the matter of how many raids are done yearly per capita, but would you personally feel safer holding a lot of drugs in Canada or the US?

Why are you so hung up on SWAT raids? What do SWAT raids have to do with any of this?

And not knowing anything about Canadian laws, I think I'd feel safer in Canada with two kilos of heroin, given that apparently Canadians don't see that sort of thing as being worth police time to address.

The fact that they can enter your home because they think they smell drugs and think they hear you flushing evidence is pretty self evidently more freedom than any government should have.

Why?

I'm going to ask you how many weapons can actually be flushed? Handguns are out, knives are out, rifles are right out so that makes every common weapon unflushable so they're not a concern in this context. What other illegal stuff can be flushed? I guess you could flush money, along with drugs those are about the only things you can actually flush.

If the police had probable cause that the homeowner had illegal firearms, a flushing toilet would not constitute an exigent circumstance that would allow the police to enter the home. I've already described other things that could be flushed and destroyed, along with things like thumb drives, and described how other forms of evidence could easily be destroyed. You've made ZERO effort to understand the law, and as far as I'm concerned all the rest of your bullshit is just a giant red herring. What the hell does the War on Drugs have to do with allowing police with probable case to enter a residence if they have reason to believe that evidence is being destroyed while they sit outside doing nothing? What does SWAT have to do with any of this? What does police corruption have to do with whether or not an officer should have the ability to enter a property if they suspect that the property owner is destroying evidence, when they already have probable cause that a crime has been committed, for the limited purpose of preventing destruction of evidence and not to permit a further search?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Which is something you would be able to find if you took the time to do your research which you should if you think you're about to be raiding a place with a fair bit of drugs in it. Also, why would they start dumping it when a city utility van pulls up and crews start to fiddle with the water main on the street?

Are we talking about the same thing? It sounds like you're back on a narcotic related search warrant for drugs with SWAT support. You do understand that we're not talking about that, right?

I doubt any site out there has a full list of numbers for every bust that got a wrong house, every animal shot on a raid, every minority falsely harassed, but I'll see what I can find. I doubt that anything I do find will be good enough for you though because while you do oppose some of the crazier things that they let police do you still defend their actions as doing what they're asked to do. I'll tell you that people in Nazi Germany and Stalin's regime were doing the same thing, and while the example is harsh it shows that causing harm simply because it's your job is no excuse. This by the standard police don't get off the hook for simply doing a tough job that they've been mandated to do.

You're correct. There is nothing out there that supports your outrageous claim that US law enforcement is composed of two types of cops. Corrupt or incompetent. That's why I said you've formed your opinion without proper research. Thank you. I feel I should point out that this is the second time that you and I have discussed this topic and this is the second time you've failed and will be the second time you'll be forced to concede. Do you suffer from amnesia?

Also while I can't yet produce numbers for botched raids per year, I can start a list of all the ways they can fuck up a raid:
-Wrong house
-Shooting occupants and innocent by standers (This can range from shooting unarmed people to people carrying weapons they have every legal right to be carrying at anytime they wish to)
-Shooting family pets that are located behind barriers
-Destroying property on houses they are falsely searching

I asked you to provide evidence that you can reasonable claim that even most US police are corrupt or incompetent let alone the implication that you made that US police fall into one of the two categories. You failed to do so...again...in a different thread.

I really need to point out the fact that US cops shoot a higher percentage of people than their Canadian, British, and Japanese counterparts. This isn't even mentioning Scandanavian police forces.

You need to explain how the US having deadly force incidents of a higher percentage than any of those countries supports your claims. How many of those are justified? How many of those are not justified. Did you take into consideration the difference in firearm possession, violent crime statistics, etc when deciding to use this to support your ridiculous prejudiced argument?

What can be proven is that since their inception SWAT have started to see increased use and the likelihood of them being used coupled with the fact that they are now more likely to enter with a quick knock or no knock at all means they they are being involved in more deaths each decade.

Edit: Also, a question for the two of you. How many people a year die from marijuana use?

SWAT is used when there is reason to believe that there are weapons or other special hazards in the home such as reinforced steel doors. In some cities SWAT is used in all drug raids because many, if not all, drug dealers in major cities also happen to be gang members which are usually armed. In addition the availability and proliferation of deadly arms such as the AK-47 which can defeat standard police body armor. Thus, SWAT is needed.

I don't believe anyone has died due to marijuana use. Now I challenge you with a question. Who decides what the mission objectives of law enforcement?

[TheHammer]

I realize Police have tools to break down reinforced doors. However, my guess is they wouldn't be readily on your person unless you had a warrant in hand to begin with. The point of a reinforced door would be to prevent situations where police "smell marijuana" which could be a dubious claim at best, and decide to kick in someone's door to begin with. The whole "If you're not doing anything wrong then you've got nothing to worry about" mantra isn't exactly comforting...

My point is that citing "slowing the police down from raiding my home because they may fabricate that they smelled marijuana and I flushed the toilet" as your reason to fortify your home is irrational.

The real reason behind having a reinforced door would be to have an officer think twice about trying to kick it in without a warrant. He'll have to think "Well I could get my super-special-door-breaker-downer, but then it would be a lot harder to say I had an 'imminent need' to get past this door without a warrant". Besides that, what if I as a law abiding home owner had a gun for protection, didn't hear the "Its the police" and think I'm having my home invaded and fire in self defense? I'd rather not have to be put in that position.

You might be right in that it is irraitional - right now. However, to this point restrictions on police "kicking in your door" seemed to be much stronger. Now that the fourth amendment appears weaker given the light of the SCOTUS decision, it might become more prudent depending on how many more "door kicking without a warrant" incidents occur in the near future.

I'd like to believe that, but then you've got so many instances where there is police misconduct and the response from the police dept seems to be to cover it up, or spin it as best they can. If police misconduct were pursued as vigorously as other crimes, then we wouldn't have to fear such trust being abused nearly as much.

You have many instances of alleged police misconduct. I hate to spoil your fairytale but people do lie about those instances. It's not a good situation though for sure. But when you start to make claims like "you've got so many" without any supporting figures or information it just makes you look emotional.

The biggest example I can think of was the BART shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Polic ... scar_Grant). That may be extreme, but given how they basically tried (and failed) to seize all the video evidence, and the story they came up with afterwords, it makes you wonder how many other incidents are successfully covered up. And you also have incidents where citing "wire tap laws" people are being arrested for video taping officers in performance of their duties. Many in law enforcement seem to be fond of saying "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" - Why then be afraid of being taped in performance of your duties? All of that leads to the trust gap.

Aside from that, I do know that in many instances of law breaking by police officers is overlooked by fellow officers. Usually its just minor traffic violations, and the like. But that breeds a culture where you "let things slide for brother officers", and makes certain individuals believe they are "above the law". I don't want to make it seem like I feel that police abuse is "common place", but like any other position of power, you have assholes who will abuse their authority, and a badge grants a lot of authority.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The real reason behind having a reinforced door would be to have an officer think twice about trying to kick it in without a warrant. He'll have to think "Well I could get my super-special-door-breaker-downer, but then it would be a lot harder to say I had an 'imminent need' to get past this door without a warrant". Besides that, what if I as a law abiding home owner had a gun for protection, didn't hear the "Its the police" and think I'm having my home invaded and fire in self defense? I'd rather not have to be put in that position.

You might be right in that it is irraitional - right now. However, to this point restrictions on police "kicking in your door" seemed to be much stronger. Now that the fourth amendment appears weaker given the light of the SCOTUS decision, it might become more prudent depending on how many more "door kicking without a warrant" incidents occur in the near future.

Fair enough.

The biggest example I can think of was the BART shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Polic ... scar_Grant). That may be extreme, but given how they basically tried (and failed) to seize all the video evidence, and the story they came up with afterwords, it makes you wonder how many other incidents are successfully covered up. And you also have incidents where citing "wire tap laws" people are being arrested for video taping officers in performance of their duties. Many in law enforcement seem to be fond of saying "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" - Why then be afraid of being taped in performance of your duties? All of that leads to the trust gap.

It's not an extreme example. It's a terrible example. You're assuming that the other BART officers were collecting the video evidence so they could cover it up and you're doing so without any supporting evidence that this was their intention. You ignore the fact that police are well within their authority to seize evidence. If they weren't allowed to seize evidence then you'd have an argument. Tell me you understand this? Do you have some other evidence that their intention was to cover it up?

Please reference the exceptions of the warrant requirement, specifically plain view.

Aside from that, I do know that in many instances of law breaking by police officers is overlooked by fellow officers. Usually its just minor traffic violations, and the like. But that breeds a culture where you "let things slide for brother officers", and makes certain individuals believe they are "above the law". I don't want to make it seem like I feel that police abuse is "common place", but like any other position of power, you have assholes who will abuse their authority, and a badge grants a lot of authority.

Again, this is an authority that is perfectly legal. It is called discretion and police officers are not the only persons that benefit from it. Many citizens benefit from the use of officer discretion.

I wanted to add that yes abuses do happen. I personally would like to see greater accountability but not at the sacrifice of due process for the accused officer.

I would ask that you educate yourself so we can avoid this ignorant opinions.

[TheHammer]

The biggest example I can think of was the BART shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Polic ... scar_Grant). That may be extreme, but given how they basically tried (and failed) to seize all the video evidence, and the story they came up with afterwords, it makes you wonder how many other incidents are successfully covered up. And you also have incidents where citing "wire tap laws" people are being arrested for video taping officers in performance of their duties. Many in law enforcement seem to be fond of saying "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" - Why then be afraid of being taped in performance of your duties? All of that leads to the trust gap.

It's not an extreme example. It's a terrible example. You're assuming that the other BART officers were collecting the video evidence so they could cover it up and you're doing so without any supporting evidence that this was their intention. You ignore the fact that police are well within their authority to seize evidence. If they weren't allowed to seize evidence then you'd have an argument. Tell me you understand this? Do you have some other evidence that their intention was to cover it up?

The reaction of BART claiming it was all an "accident", and essentially trying to cast blame on the victim after the fact is why I feel the way I do about this particular incident. Perhaps the officers were going to collect the evidence, but if they had successfully gotten all the camera's in view, one has to wonder how much of it would have been "lost" because it painted BART officers in a bad light. The fact that some video got out is reason enough that they could not cover it up, and thus its hard to say for certain what the officer's intentions were.

I also wanted to highlight the fact that it is ILLEGAL in many places to tape officers performing their duties. One of the only tools the public has, in a court system where officers are almost always given the benefit of the doubt in a he-said she-said, and its illegal to do it. And again, I have to ask "Why is this the case?". It leads to mistrust, and why some people might feel that they need a reinforced door to prevent their rights from being abused...

Please reference the exceptions of the warrant requirement, specifically plain view.

Not sure I see the relevence?

Aside from that, I do know that in many instances of law breaking by police officers is overlooked by fellow officers. Usually its just minor traffic violations, and the like. But that breeds a culture where you "let things slide for brother officers", and makes certain individuals believe they are "above the law". I don't want to make it seem like I feel that police abuse is "common place", but like any other position of power, you have assholes who will abuse their authority, and a badge grants a lot of authority.

Again, this is an authority that is perfectly legal. It is called discretion and police officers are not the only persons that benefit from it. Many citizens benefit from the use of officer discretion.

I'm aware of the discretionary power police have, however my point is that police are allowed to get away with more than your average citizen. I also understand that goes with the territory. The problem is that as I said it breeds the idea in some individuals in law enforcement that they are above the law, and that they can essentially do what they want. History is full of incidents where there were police abuses and good cops looked the other way where they otherwise would have made an arrest.

I wanted to add that yes abuses do happen. I personally would like to see greater accountability but not at the sacrifice of due process for the accused officer.

I would ask that you educate yourself so we can avoid this ignorant opinions.

I don't think anyone is asking for a sacrifice of due process, merely the accoutability you just noted. I personally would like nothing more than the process to be fair and to show that most cases of alleged abuse of authority are in fact based on false claims. Its nice to know that the side of law and order tends to be on the up and up. It would also be nice to know that in situations where abuse does occur that police and prosecuters pursure just as vigourously those persons who perpetrate said abuse.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The reaction of BART claiming it was all an "accident", and essentially trying to cast blame on the victim after the fact is why I feel the way I do about this particular incident. Perhaps the officers were going to collect the evidence, but if they had successfully gotten all the camera's in view, one has to wonder how much of it would have been "lost" because it painted BART officers in a bad light. The fact that some video got out is reason enough that they could not cover it up, and thus its hard to say for certain what the officer's intentions were.

Well, the shooting was an accident. This is evident by the reaction on Merseles face and the fact that only a complete fucking insane idiot would shoot a man in the back while he's lying face down in full view of numerous witnesses. As for the victim. I don't recall if Oscar Grant was resisting arrest or not, however, in any situation where a person refuses to obey commands they do bare some responsibility for the force used against them up to a point. Does that mean anything though? No. Police are expected to apply the necessary level of force to effect an arrest. So, regardless of what they say it doesn't really matter if Oscar Grant was resisting when they go beyond that reasonable level. However, making such statement does not a indicate there was any intention of creating a coverup.

I also wanted to highlight the fact that it is ILLEGAL in many places to tape officers performing their duties. One of the only tools the public has, in a court system where officers are almost always given the benefit of the doubt in a he-said she-said, and its illegal to do it. And again, I have to ask "Why is this the case?". It leads to mistrust, and why some people might feel that they need a reinforced door to prevent their rights from being abused...

It isn't illegal though. This understanding was based off of wiretapping laws which make it illegal to record conversations unless all parties consent. The subsequent trials of those individuals arrested for this violation were found innocent and the conclusion was that the government does not enjoy such protections.

Not sure I see the relevence?

During the BART incident. It would have been immediately apparent that those people who had been video taping the incident would have recorded the shooting, and thus those recordings would be considered evidence and subject to lawful seizure.

I'm aware of the discretionary power police have, however my point is that police are allowed to get away with more than your average citizen. I also understand that goes with the territory. The problem is that as I said it breeds the idea in some individuals in law enforcement that they are above the law, and that they can essentially do what they want. History is full of incidents where there were police abuses and good cops looked the other way where they otherwise would have made an arrest.

I'm sure in some areas that is the case. I have no doubt. However, it is nearly impossible to quantify. For example, a lot of people complain to me that they see officers speeding in their mark cars without the use of light and sirens or running red lights by flipping their emergency lights on then off once they clear the intersection. They automatically assume that the officer is abusing their power without considering the possibility that they are responding to a call in a legitimate manner. That being said I'm sure some are abusing that authority.

I don't think anyone is asking for a sacrifice of due process, merely the accoutability you just noted. I personally would like nothing more than the process to be fair and to show that most cases of alleged abuse of authority are in fact based on false claims. Its nice to know that the side of law and order tends to be on the up and up. It would also be nice to know that in situations where abuse does occur that police and prosecuters pursure just as vigourously those persons who perpetrate said abuse.

Some do ask for the sacrifice of due process, but they just don't realize it. A good example is the Rodney King beatings. Do you feel they arrived at the correct conclusion by aquitting those officers?

[TheHammer]

The reaction of BART claiming it was all an "accident", and essentially trying to cast blame on the victim after the fact is why I feel the way I do about this particular incident. Perhaps the officers were going to collect the evidence, but if they had successfully gotten all the camera's in view, one has to wonder how much of it would have been "lost" because it painted BART officers in a bad light. The fact that some video got out is reason enough that they could not cover it up, and thus its hard to say for certain what the officer's intentions were.

Well, the shooting was an accident. This is evident by the reaction on Merseles face and the fact that only a complete fucking insane idiot would shoot a man in the back while he's lying face down in full view of numerous witnesses. As for the victim. I don't recall if Oscar Grant was resisting arrest or not, however, in any situation where a person refuses to obey commands they do bare some responsibility for the force used against them up to a point. Does that mean anything though? No. Police are expected to apply the necessary level of force to effect an arrest. So, regardless of what they say it doesn't really matter if Oscar Grant was resisting when they go beyond that reasonable level. However, making such statement does not a indicate there was any intention of creating a coverup.

I just have to wonder if this guy were simply an armed security guard, and not police, if the story would have been painted the same way.

I also wanted to highlight the fact that it is ILLEGAL in many places to tape officers performing their duties. One of the only tools the public has, in a court system where officers are almost always given the benefit of the doubt in a he-said she-said, and its illegal to do it. And again, I have to ask "Why is this the case?". It leads to mistrust, and why some people might feel that they need a reinforced door to prevent their rights from being abused...

It isn't illegal though. This understanding was based off of wiretapping laws which make it illegal to record conversations unless all parties consent. The subsequent trials of those individuals arrested for this violation were found innocent and the conclusion was that the government does not enjoy such protections.

I'm not aware of that. Do you happen to have a link that is more recent than the below incidents?

http://www.dvafoto.com/2010/06/three-us ... y-illegal/

Not sure I see the relevence?

During the BART incident. It would have been immediately apparent that those people who had been video taping the incident would have recorded the shooting, and thus those recordings would be considered evidence and subject to lawful seizure.

Not disputing that it would be lawful to seize video as evidence. Merely my skepticism to the officer's intent in light of the BART's reaction after the fact.

I'm aware of the discretionary power police have, however my point is that police are allowed to get away with more than your average citizen. I also understand that goes with the territory. The problem is that as I said it breeds the idea in some individuals in law enforcement that they are above the law, and that they can essentially do what they want. History is full of incidents where there were police abuses and good cops looked the other way where they otherwise would have made an arrest.

I'm sure in some areas that is the case. I have no doubt. However, it is nearly impossible to quantify. For example, a lot of people complain to me that they see officers speeding in their mark cars without the use of light and sirens or running red lights by flipping their emergency lights on then off once they clear the intersection. They automatically assume that the officer is abusing their power without considering the possibility that they are responding to a call in a legitimate manner. That being said I'm sure some are abusing that authority.

Just to be clear, I've got little concern regarding minor traffic violations. The real concern is that there are those officers who are willing to abuse the authority given to them. That is what results in overall mistrust some people have with law enforcement in general.

I don't think anyone is asking for a sacrifice of due process, merely the accoutability you just noted. I personally would like nothing more than the process to be fair and to show that most cases of alleged abuse of authority are in fact based on false claims. Its nice to know that the side of law and order tends to be on the up and up. It would also be nice to know that in situations where abuse does occur that police and prosecuters pursure just as vigourously those persons who perpetrate said abuse.

Some do ask for the sacrifice of due process, but they just don't realize it. A good example is the Rodney King beatings. Do you feel they arrived at the correct conclusion by aquitting those officers?

Its been a long time since I've seen the video. I'm aware that he was drunk and resisting arrest, but beyond that I'd have to do research on the trial and charges levied.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I just have to wonder if this guy were simply an armed security guard, and not police, if the story would have been painted the same way.

I understand but I don't see what good speculation does other than to sustain a particular impression in this case. Basically, your speculation is sustaining the idea that BART acted in a corrupt manner.

I'm not aware of that. Do you happen to have a link that is more recent than the below incidents?

http://www.dvafoto.com/2010/06/three-us ... y-illegal/

Link This is a supreme court ruling and thus will set an important precedence.

Not disputing that it would be lawful to seize video as evidence. Merely my skepticism to the officer's intent in light of the BART's reaction after the fact.

Can you refresh my memory as to this reaction because from what I recall they weren't saying that Oscar Grant was at fault for his own death or even anything remotely like that. What they were doing is probably trying to paint a picture as to why force was used on Grant.

Just to be clear, I've got little concern regarding minor traffic violations. The real concern is that there are those officers who are willing to abuse the authority given to them. That is what results in overall mistrust some people have with law enforcement in general.

Ok, well that's a valid concern.

Its been a long time since I've seen the video. I'm aware that he was drunk and resisting arrest, but beyond that I'd have to do research on the trial and charges levied.

Disregard this. I was mistaken about some of the information regarding the use of the video evidence during the trial. I forgot that the original was shown during the trial and not the edited version.

[White Haven]

On the subject of the confiscation of evidence, I think at least some of that stems from seriously outdated policies on the part of the police. Rewind time twenty years and if there was a guy there with a camera and you wanted his pictures, you had to take the camera. Now, there's zero reason to confiscate photographic or video evidence, with all the adversarial relationships and potential for corruption that involves. Given the number of incidents of police getting pissy about being videotaped, I imagine they're in no hurry to change that sort of policy over to a more modern 'I need a copy of that, right now' system, either.

[Kamakazie Sith]

On the subject of the confiscation of evidence, I think at least some of that stems from seriously outdated policies on the part of the police. Rewind time twenty years and if there was a guy there with a camera and you wanted his pictures, you had to take the camera. Now, there's zero reason to confiscate photographic or video evidence, with all the adversarial relationships and potential for corruption that involves. Given the number of incidents of police getting pissy about being videotaped, I imagine they're in no hurry to change that sort of policy over to a more modern 'I need a copy of that, right now' system, either.

I think you're mistaken about certain capabilities, White Haven. I don't carry a universal device that can mate with all models of cell phones and video cameras to extract data and I don't know of any department that does have that ability to deploy to the field. So the modern "I need a copy of that, right now" system is fantasy. The reality is "we need your cell phone in order to create a copy"

(I'm mistaken. Apparently there is such a device called the UFED. I concede that issue)

I'd like you to elaborate more on why you feel police have zero reason to confiscate photographic or video evidence. Do you feel they don't have a right because the police can't be trusted with evidence and you feel that the public is more trust worthly?

EDIT - One point though is evidence collection isn't really decided by policy but by the constraints of the constitution. So, it is more like outdated constitutional law.

[White Haven]

I feel that public access to evidence PRIOR to police confiscation is an important check on possible police corruption. I'm not saying that the police will fuck with evidence every time, or anything silly like that, but a self-policing organization that is empowered to confiscate evidence of its own misdeeds is a system I have a hard time trusting. Physical evidence is one thing; it has to go somewhere, and police custody is better than any alternatives. Digital evidence and the hardware it's stored on, however, is an entire other story. The police still get the evidence, and if it 'goes missing,' oh look, the originals are still right here, and who was it who was supposed to turn in that footage?

[Gaidin]

Digital evidence and the hardware it's stored on, however, is an entire other story. The police still get the evidence, and if it 'goes missing,' oh look, the originals are still right here, and who was it who was supposed to turn in that footage?

Is it really that different? There's still the issue of chain of custody with digital evidence and how it can be modified if chain of custody is not followed.

[White Haven]

It's different for the same reason that piracy and theft are different. The evidence isn't a physical object that has to either be in or out of police custody, it's data that can be (and, in my opinion, should be) both in and out of police custody at the same time. Call it a way to keep things honest.

[TheHammer]

I just have to wonder if this guy were simply an armed security guard, and not police, if the story would have been painted the same way.

I understand but I don't see what good speculation does other than to sustain a particular impression in this case. Basically, your speculation is sustaining the idea that BART acted in a corrupt manner.

There is a large perception seem to support that they at the very least acted in an inappropriate manner, if not outright corrupt. When the primary point of all this is fear that some police would abuse authority if given such broad discretion to forcibly enter someone's home (without a warrant), then events such as the above where there is a percieved cover up only feed in to that.

I'm not aware of that. Do you happen to have a link that is more recent than the below incidents?

http://www.dvafoto.com/2010/06/three-us ... y-illegal/

Link This is a supreme court ruling and thus will set an important precedence.

While welcome news, that is only a Michigan Supreme Court ruling. While this may have some influence, other state supreme courts might come to different conclusions. Until SCOTUS takes up the issue, I'm afraid we're still dealing with a state by state situation.

Not disputing that it would be lawful to seize video as evidence. Merely my skepticism to the officer's intent in light of the BART's reaction after the fact.

Can you refresh my memory as to this reaction because from what I recall they weren't saying that Oscar Grant was at fault for his own death or even anything remotely like that. What they were doing is probably trying to paint a picture as to why force was used on Grant.

I believe it was in the legal response to the lawsuit from the Grant family. I've tried to find specific text for that response, but I can not. You may be correct in that they were trying to paint that picture, but it looks bad to the public when a guy is shot in the back while lying face down and the response is "well, it was an accident, but he was resisting!".

Doing further reading, its entirely possible the cop was intending to Taze Grant and somehow mistook his gun for his tazer. I've seen others say that the weight and location of each should have told him otherwise, but you never know.

[Serafina]

In certain cases confiscation of digital storage devices can still be justified. If you capture a crime boss who stores the data about his criminal organization on his laptop, do you really just want to make a copy of it and leave him or others with access to that data?
And in other cases, the data in question is of course by itself illegal - child pornography for example. Making a copy of that is pointless, so you might as well confiscate it.

You have a point when the data is neither dangerous nor illegal. You would have to make sure that the copy process is overseen well, or else it does nothing to limit forgery of said evidence: It's just as easy to fake the copied data than it would be to put that fake data on the original storage device, and maybe even easier.

[TheHammer]

I feel that public access to evidence PRIOR to police confiscation is an important check on possible police corruption. I'm not saying that the police will fuck with evidence every time, or anything silly like that, but a self-policing organization that is empowered to confiscate evidence of its own misdeeds is a system I have a hard time trusting. Physical evidence is one thing; it has to go somewhere, and police custody is better than any alternatives. Digital evidence and the hardware it's stored on, however, is an entire other story. The police still get the evidence, and if it 'goes missing,' oh look, the originals are still right here, and who was it who was supposed to turn in that footage?

I suppose it depends on how fast you can upload to facebook, or send a copy to your friends...

[Kamakazie Sith]

There is a large perception seem to support that they at the very least acted in an inappropriate manner, if not outright corrupt. When the primary point of all this is fear that some police would abuse authority if given such broad discretion to forcibly enter someone's home (without a warrant), then events such as the above where there is a percieved cover up only feed in to that.

That perception is based off of ignorance. And ignorance is not a valid reason to change things. Many people, including people on this board, felt it was straight up illegal for the police to seize the videos during the BART trial. However, if you have an education in law and understand the exceptions to the requirement for a warrant then you'd know that it is legal. Just check out your own argument...you are unable to specifically say how they acted in an inappropriate manner.

Now, that being said. Having concerns over the very real possibility that there would be a conflict of interest is certainly valid and worth addressing by changes to policy and law in situations where it is practical. For example, the use of a device to create a copy of the cell phone data would have been a better solution then depriving people of their cell phones, however, if such a device were not available (and it probably wasn't available during the BART incident) then seizing is the only practical option left and again perfectly legal and most importantly perfectly reasonable.

While welcome news, that is only a Michigan Supreme Court ruling. While this may have some influence, other state supreme courts might come to different conclusions. Until SCOTUS takes up the issue, I'm afraid we're still dealing with a state by state situation.

Sure, it could. However, courts usually do consider precedence when considering issues previous dealt with and in this case I can't see any court making a ruling that the police deserve privacy when executing their duties in a public area.

I believe it was in the legal response to the lawsuit from the Grant family. I've tried to find specific text for that response, but I can not. You may be correct in that they were trying to paint that picture, but it looks bad to the public when a guy is shot in the back while lying face down and the response is "well, it was an accident, but he was resisting!".

I think those remarks are taken out of context. Nobody has even implied that Grant deserved to be shot.

Doing further reading, its entirely possible the cop was intending to Taze Grant and somehow mistook his gun for his tazer. I've seen others say that the weight and location of each should have told him otherwise, but you never know.

Well, after this case there has been a big push to have the taser holstered on the support hand side. I don't recall where that particular officer kept his taser holster. However, again the evidence from the video and remarks heard by witnesses all support the claim that it was a mistake. Even Grants own friends indicated this...