Photographer Hassled by Police

Glad I went back to film now lol....delete? Sorry no can do!

Miyagi-san wrote in post #5864296
Glad I went back to film now lol....delete? Sorry no can do!

Uh, there is a solution for that too......

yeah but that would require a much 'firmer hand' from the cops = more fun for all

Miyagi-san wrote in post #5864408
yeah but that would require a much 'firmer hand' from the cops = more fun for all

True that.......

Southswede wrote in post #5864120
What the cops should have done is taken both his scooter and camera as evidence..............​.I know it would have taken me MONTHS to figure out where the film was. Then another 2-3 months just to figure out what that pesky little card was all about. But I WOULD have been able to determine his scooter had no value to the investigation and returned it.

Camera? He might have gotten it back within the next year, give or take.........

evidence to what the POWER of the BADGE?

Southswede wrote in post #5864120
What the cops should have done is taken both his scooter and camera as evidence..............​.I know it would have taken me MONTHS to figure out where the film was. Then another 2-3 months just to figure out what that pesky little card was all about. But I WOULD have been able to determine his scooter had no value to the investigation and returned it.

Camera? He might have gotten it back within the next year, give or take.........

That would have been PERFECT.

Media would of had a field day with that and it would have solidified a civil rights violation complaint against the department.

Southswede wrote in post #5864205
You based this on that article alone, or do you have additional information?

Having over 20 years experience as a cop, I can tell you this: there are three sides to every story. His side, the cops side and some where in the middle, is the truth. You don't even have ALL of his side in this story......

Granted I only had 5 years as a city cop (to your 20 but then again I come from a family of active and retired police officers) and yes there are usually more than one two or even three sides to a story.

However we are commenting solely on the info that was presented in the article. Opinions can be readjusted when new information becomes available.
Unless the officer didn't act that way, or that photographer was running around all over the crime scene there really isn't any justification for the threat (again unless he is lying and the officer didn't threaten to arrest him for taking pictures).

I CAN say however that I personally know cops that abuse the authority of their office... and have had cops tell me to put away the camera or that I could film or take pictures of them or they would arrest me.

Since I do happen to be an ex-cop (and now a licensed PI) I knew the proceedures to go through to have them corrected but not everyone knows these and can be easily bullied.

My method is to say OK (I don't delete anything) and request to speak to their sgt. or shift commander (usually a LT)... if that doesn't work then I get on the phone and call the station (or non-emergency dispatch if after hours) or if I have to, dial 911 (preferable because calls are usually recorded and a record of the call kept) calmly explain the situation and ask to speak to the shift commander.

Only had to do that once... the 2nd time my old partner was on the scene and he told them to back off (we then reminicsed about the old days and he tried to recruit me LOL).

A lesson from my days on the street (as well as a PI) is I always carry a tape recorder to document the situation. If you have a cell phone with video that is handy too but less "covert".

My philosophy is if someone wants to act like a perp than I will treat them like a perp.

Oh yeah, and I hate bullies.

Confiscating a Nikon camera is a civil service, not a civil rights violation!

dispatchermike21 wrote in post #5865932
evidence to what the POWER of the BADGE?

Well we wouldn't have known, until after the pictures were reviewed....

thebishopp wrote in post #5866551
That would have been PERFECT.

Media would of had a field day with that and it would have solidified a civil rights violation complaint against the department.

Yeah....right.....

thebishopp wrote in post #5866654
However we are commenting solely on the info that was presented in the article.

Oh yeah, and I hate bullies.

So you don't know what happened either (just like me!)

Oh yeah, I hate bullies too.

Southswede wrote in post #5867070
So you don't know what happened either (just like me!)

Oh yeah, I hate bullies too.

LOL, yes you got me there. I already admitted that.

But on a serious note...

Don't forget there have been a lot of officers charged with false arrest (kidnapping in some states).

Take the chicago case that was recently decided (final disposition of the case was just this past month or so). I believe it was to the tune of 7.7 million against the city (city lost).

Here is a link:

http://www.chicagotrib​une.com …dictjun13,0,463​0555.story

You know as well as I do that an actual arrest is not always neccesary to constitute an "arrest". As long as a reasonble person believes that they are not allowed to leave, that can constitute an arrest.

You also know that the burden of proving probably cause for the arrest lies solely on the officer making it.

For example, if that officer had confiscated that camera as well as the scooter as "evidence" he would have to be able to show probably cause of a crime committed. In fact, you probably would have to actually arrest the photographer to justify the confiscation (remember you are confiscating the objects as "evidence"... evidence of what exactly if you don't hook and book the photog?). Heck, I am not even sure one could show "articuable suspicion".

You would pretty much be signing your own suspension papers unless you have a chief that's going to try and cover for you.

Say you have a chief that's willing to do that, in this day and age you better start praying that the incident doesn't get a lot of media coverage because if so, even with the cover up, you are going to get screwed.

The probably now (more so than before I think - or at least it's becoming more noticeable), is a lot of cops don't know the very laws they enforce.

We get what, once a year 40 hour mandatory recertification (most states- which doesn't really go over new laws). Departments rarely keep up with current supreme court rulings (hell I had to pay for my own law subscription).

While my initial instinct is to jump to the defense of the officer, I have seen too many knucklheads with a badge.

But again, you are right, we don't know all the facts.

thebishopp wrote in post #5867347
LOL, yes you got me there. I already admitted that.

But on a serious note...

Don't forget there have been a lot of officers charged with false arrest (kidnapping in some states).

Take the chicago case that was recently decided (final disposition of the case was just this past month or so). I believe it was to the tune of 7.7 million against the city (city lost).

Here is a link:

http://www.chicagotrib​une.com …dictjun13,0,463​0555.story

You know as well as I do that an actual arrest is not always neccesary to constitute an "arrest". As long as a reasonble person believes that they are not allowed to leave, that can constitute an arrest.

You also know that the burden of proving probably cause for the arrest lies solely on the officer making it.

For example, if that officer had confiscated that camera as well as the scooter as "evidence" he would have to be able to show probably cause of a crime committed. In fact, you probably would have to actually arrest the photographer to justify the confiscation (remember you are confiscating the objects as "evidence"... evidence of what exactly if you don't hook and book the photog?). Heck, I am not even sure one could show "articuable suspicion".

You would pretty much be signing your own suspension papers unless you have a chief that's going to try and cover for you.

Say you have a chief that's willing to do that, in this day and age you better start praying that the incident doesn't get a lot of media coverage because if so, even with the cover up, you are going to get screwed.

The probably now (more so than before I think - or at least it's becoming more noticeable), is a lot of cops don't know the very laws they enforce.

We get what, once a year 40 hour mandatory recertification (most states- which doesn't really go over new laws). Departments rarely keep up with current supreme court rulings (hell I had to pay for my own law subscription).

While my initial instinct is to jump to the defense of the officer, I have seen too many knucklheads with a badge.

But again, you are right, we don't know all the facts.

You will have to define "a lot" of false arrests for me. I guess I'm just a little slow. Of the tens of thousands of arrests annually, how many are "false arrests"?

Sad so SAD

Southswede wrote in post #5867643
You will have to define "a lot" of false arrests for me. I guess I'm just a little slow. Of the tens of thousands of arrests annually, how many are "false arrests"?

A lot to me is more than 1. I have been told by numerous cops that ignorance of the law is no excuse. So that better apply to the arresting officers as well.