They hate it when you record them, cont'd
Gresham police say their officer didn't seize her phone because he was unhappy that she was recording. They say he seized the phone because he was trying to protect video evidence he thought might be on the phone of the arrest he just made.
In Portland, he would have beaten her, too.
| Posted at 1:47 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (16)
No Rodney King beating videos allowed here.
Posted by ltjd | February 15, 2013 2:16 PM
"I need to examine your phone to see if it contains evidence of my misconduct."
Posted by reader | February 15, 2013 2:25 PM
Yeah, exactly--evidence the suspect's attorney would use to (a) get the charges dismissed, and/or (b) win a lawsuit against the city.
Posted by Dave J. | February 15, 2013 3:25 PM
Illegal search and seizure...
Posted by tankfixer | February 15, 2013 3:51 PM
Jack -
Perhaps I mis heard the TV reports, but though it was a Gresham Transit Police Officer, the seizure took place in PDX at Pioneer Square, IIRC.
Posted by Nonny Mouse | February 15, 2013 3:55 PM
The police state begun under W, and fully embraced by 'hope and change' Obummer dictates that it's just best if you don't go out in public. Not to work, shop, travel, spend money, or transact w society in any way. Much less video record big brother in action... Just stay at gime and depend on big brother to provide and keep you safe...serf/sheep!
Sad, effin' sad what our country has devolved into.
Posted by BB | February 15, 2013 4:57 PM
'gime' = 'home' above. Damn tiny keyboard and damn Obama for continuing 1984 as a manual vs a warning.
Posted by BB | February 15, 2013 5:03 PM
eyes rolling.....
Posted by Walter M. | February 15, 2013 5:24 PM
I'm confused -- TriMet can record my voice, but I can't record the voice of a police officer. So a police office can board a bus, but won't be able to speak because of the prior notification of recording? Or is this the reason for the lack of fare inspectors on the bus? This is very difficult to understand.
Posted by Old Zeb | February 15, 2013 6:39 PM
My understanding is we have first amendment rights to film police actions on public property.if the police seize your phone they are violating your first amendment rights.
Posted by matthew vantress | February 15, 2013 7:59 PM
So Gresham says they only wanted the phone for the evidence it might contain, and they had to have it now because of the danger the woman might destroy the evidence. Tampering with evidence is a crime.
The copwatcher was also worried the video might be erased if there was evidence of police misconduct. She has a 4th Amendment right to be secure in her papers and effects. If she had taken a couple of seconds to hide the camera out of view in her car, would the officer need a warrant to get it?
Could she email the video home and then turn it over for review?
So what are the 4th Amendment precedents, not involving video but paper and sound recording? And would the officer feel a duty to take the camera of a video guy from a TV station, seizing many thousands of dollars of video gear on mere suspicion?
Sounds like a fun case to me.
In the end, I think, the weight will go to the citizen because the Constitution is supposed to protect us, not them.
Posted by niceoldguy | February 15, 2013 9:30 PM
Local police agencies are happy to supply officers as transit police, because Tri-Met reimburses the city for their salary (probably benefits as well). They end up anywhere that Tri-Met goes, they do not stay in their own jurisdictions.
Probably over-reaction on both parties part, but it is more incumbent on the officer to act in a professional manner, and explain to the citizen why he is taking the actions that he is. After all, if the video had not been taken, there would have been no additional evidence to seize. Do officers detain witnesses so that their testimony can be compelled? I think it would amount to the same thing. And I would wager that very few resist arrest charges are ever prosecuted. Typically it is a throw away charge to use as leverage to get a plea. The officer was possibly within legal territory, but once again fails the public relations test.
Posted by Jimmy Carter | February 15, 2013 10:15 PM
The officer likely skipped the due process niceties and may have even committed assault by taking the device in the manner it was taken. Will the bully in blue be prosecuted? Of course not. No County Prosecutor is going to prosecute yet another overpaid/grandly benefitted lunkhead cop bacause the Prosecutor may have to rely on said cop for testimony or support in the future.
In the post-9/11 world we are in, cops and even fake cops like the TSA, get to determine what their job is, get overpaid, get all the OT pay they want, get uber benefits, get to retire at 25 years of service, and get to mess with you. Duh-bya set the tone. We all elected Duh-bya twice. We get what we deserve.
Posted by x-portlander | February 16, 2013 10:03 AM
Kion news explained how the cop has the right to take the phone for fear of evidence getting deleted. plain an simple,no rights violated. hink twice about recording a crime scene
Posted by mcinor | February 16, 2013 10:06 AM
This lady didn't press charges against the officer, so I guess she won't have an opportunity to assert her rights.
Posted by Frank | February 16, 2013 12:10 PM
Glad to see this made Carlos Miller's site, the clearing-house for "Photography Is Not A Crime" awareness:
http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/02/13/oregon-cop-snatches-camera-phone-from-woman-claiming-he-has-the-right-to-confiscate-it-as-evidence/
Follow-up story on local coverage. I was also a bit surprised at the mild reaction. Doesn't the media normally bristle at the idea of supressing reportage under the color of law?
http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/02/16/katu-news-in-oregon-proves-to-be-a-shill-for-local-police-department/
Doesn't sound like she's taking it lying down... should be an interesting story as it unfolds.
Posted by Downtown Denizen | February 16, 2013 1:34 PM