taking picture of police car

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by couss, Dec 28, 2006.

  1. couss

    Otter Guest

    There are no non-existent entities reading this thread. That would almost
    include you, but you are (of course) a non-sentient entity. So close. No
    steak knives, but keep playing.
    Otter, Jan 2, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. couss

    Bryan Olson Guest

    How else would anyone know if it's true?
    I guess at this point we can conclude that you don't really
    have anything to support your claim: "You can assume that if
    you are talking to an on duty police officer that the tape
    recorder was turned on before a word was spoken."

    They decide whether to prosecute cases.
    If the other issues are worthy of a case, then one has a case.
    It's like the old saying, "that and a dime will get you a cup
    of coffee."

    I hope people realize that the police make bad stops all the
    time. DWB (driving while black) has gotten some attention, but
    it took millions of stops before it motivated any change in
    police methods. Why didn't all the lawsuits from the individual
    stops force a change? Because suing over one five-minute
    detention is a fantasy.

    It went:

    The fact that under the law they need reasonable suspicion
    is theoretical, since one cannot tell if they have it or not.

    Since one can *ask* if they have it, and get a binary answer
    indicating yes or no, it seems absurd to say "one cannot tell".

    If they're demanding, rather than requesting, your name, then
    they've already implied that they have what suspicion they
    need. Detention is an insignificant distinction.

    The question in this thread was whether the police can require
    one to give his name. The answer is that in many states they can.
    The constitutionality of such requirements depends upon the
    police havening reasonable suspicion at the time. But when they
    demand one's name, one pretty much has to give it, because
    there's no way to know whether they actually have reasonable
    suspicion or not.

    The Supreme Court cases on such matters are about the
    admissibility of resulting evidence, not about police
    culpability for doing illegal searches. Setting any penalty
    for illegal searching is up to the legislatures. Local law
    varies, but wining a legal action based on having to
    disclose one's name is a fantasy.

    That would be great, as your contributions have been
    significantly worse than useless.
    Bryan Olson, Jan 2, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. couss

    Bryan Olson Guest

    I'm asking you to back up what you wrote. You're asking me to
    back up something you made up and put on me. There's a sense
    in which "police can do anything not prohibited" is right,
    and a sense in which it's wrong; as it's your own invention
    I'm not really interested.
    Bryan Olson, Jan 2, 2007
  4. Stand on the street corner and call you racist names...
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 2, 2007
  5. couss

    Otter Guest

    Otter, Jan 2, 2007
  6. couss

    Otter Guest

    Amazing! What's the cause? All that snow?
    Otter, Jan 2, 2007
  7. couss

    Sylvia Else Guest

    Still, the protected one is apparently unable to get his newsreader to
    kill a thread, so how can you expect him to keep track of the
    ontological status of purported deities?

    Sylvia Else, Jan 2, 2007
  8. couss

    Bryan Olson Guest

    No, if you read the tread you'll find that no one has here shown
    whether the police can require that a witness give his name.
    Neither side has provided anything like a reasonable citation.

    I found a FAQ by "criminal.lawyers.com" that says a witness does
    not have to cooperate with the police, but it does not specifically
    address the issue here, and does not cite any laws or court


    The question is still open here.

    Too much imagining all round.
    Bryan Olson, Jan 2, 2007
  9. couss

    Otter Guest

    That looks suspiciously like a veiled insult, alleging the very worst kind
    of Usenet incompetence.
    Otter, Jan 2, 2007
  10. Bryan, this isn't a court of law, nor is this a PhD thesis.
    It's just a conversation on Usenet. I gave my opinion, you do
    *not* have to believe that it is true.
    I guess at this point your ignorance is astounding. Whatever,
    a typical department policy is,


    "Operating Procedure:


    Officers will be issued a body microphone to be worn
    during their duty shift.


    Mobile video/audio recording equipment will automatically
    activate when the vehicle's emergency warning devices are
    in operation."

    If you can find a copy of "The Impact of Video Evidence on
    Modern Policing", prepared by the International Association of
    Chiefs of Police for the U.S. Department of Justice, it has a
    great deal of information. Here is a significant example:

    "IACP In-car Camera Model Policy Concepts and Issues Paper


    D. The following incidents shall be both audibly and
    visually recorded:

    1. All traffic stops (to include but not limited
    to traffic violations, stranded motorist
    assistance, and all crime interdiction stops.)
    2. All priority responses
    3. All vehicle pursuits
    4. All prisoner transports
    5. All crimes in progress
    6. Any situation or event that the officer through
    his/her training and experience believes should
    be audibly and visually recorded.

    I'm sorry, but so far I have not been able to find the time to
    look for proof that it is SOP for a police officer to have a
    functional ink pen... please forgive me.
    Exactly. Now just what does that have to do with a *civil*
    It isn't *if* you have the rare chance to prove it! You perhaps
    don't think that ever happens, but I've seen it more than once.
    The most striking thing I've ever seen in a court room was the
    sudden outburst of one juror, a senior citizen, who upon hearing
    one bit of testimony was heard to exclaim, "He *lied*!". It was
    a reference to testimony previously given by an Alaska State
    Trooper. That particular Trooper eventually was actually
    arrested, and in plea bargaining agreed to leave Alaska forever,
    though perjury was not the charge that brought him down there is
    little doubt that his time was short as of that particular
    NOT TRUE. The police officer can ask you just about *anything*,
    and if you willingly do it, he does *not* need 1) reasonable
    suspicion to get ID, or for that matter 2) a court order to
    search your car.

    They are well aware of that and it is a technique they are
    *trained* to use as a way of getting around various legal
    But only *if* you are under detention.
    No you do *not*. You can ask if you are under detention, and if
    the answer is no then you can take a hike.

    The same is true when an officer asks for permission to search
    your vehicle. You do *not* have to say yes.
    I don't agree. I do agree that it is an expensive and not
    highly promising action.
    Your misinformation is of no value.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 2, 2007
  11. So a US Supreme Court decision that says so isn't enough, eh?
    Did you even bother to read it?

    Q: Do I have a duty to cooperate with police?

    A: No, you don't have to answer any questions or supply names
    to the authorities. Neither you nor anyone else has a legal
    obligation to assist the police in solving a crime. While you
    may feel morally obligated to do so, there is no legal
    obligation to do so.

    Just how clear can it be stated? "you don't have to answer any
    questions or supply names to the authorities. ... there is no
    legal obligation..."
    You seem to be the one who is imagining...
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 2, 2007
  12. couss

    Otter Guest

    Hmmmm. There is a common law offence of misprision of felony. The oofence
    occurs if a person is aware that a felony has been committed, and fails to
    bring it to the attention of the authorities. It is one of the rare cases
    where there is an obligation to provide information. In some jurisdictions,
    the common law offence has been abolished, but it is usually replaced by a
    similar statutory obligation, for serious offences.

    This is only one example. The problem is that you are overstating the
    principles involved.

    Generally, there is no obligation to cooperate with the police, or with
    other authorities. But, sometimes, there is.
    Otter, Jan 2, 2007
  13. couss

    Sylvia Else Guest

    No, no. It was just an innocent question. Honest.

    Sylvia Else, Jan 2, 2007
  14. couss

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Indeed. My opinion is that you don't really know what you're
    talking about.
    And sill cannot show what you claimed.
    In-car Camera? Sure, we've all seen those. Obviously that's not
    going to record every conversation.
    But you had all conversations being recorded. That would be
    a neat, short, clear list item. But is not there. I like the
    in-car cameras but they don't record every conversation with
    an on-duty police officer.

    If we look at the the situation actually at issue in this
    thread: he wasn't driving; they found him incidentally, not
    because they were called to him; no prisoner transport etc.
    Even if the in-car camera could record it, the the policy
    does not call for it, or at best leaves it up to the
    officer's discretion.

    Well who was so silly as to suggest such a thing?

    Did you not see my discussion of a civil action? You hadn't said
    whether your "false arrest/detainment" action (for being detained
    long enough to state your name, and not arrested) was criminal or
    civil, so I noted both.

    If you've seen it cite it, not this "most striking thing" that
    doesn't seem to have anything to do with the issue. Or was this
    case about having to give one name?

    I was stopped by a police officer about two months ago. I was
    walking back from a store a few blocks from my home, an night.
    He said there as an incident in the apartments in front of which
    he stopped me. Oddly, he also said he had seen me walking by the
    other way, which was when I was headed to the store; odd because
    he didn't stop me then. I had to be less suspicious walking back
    with a bag from the local store than I was when walking away
    from the scene.

    The officer asked for ID. I was unsure of my rights at the time.
    Years ago I learned that there was no "let me see your papers"
    law here, but I had heard of recent updates. I gave him my
    driver's license. He did a basic police trick of holding on to
    the license, saying he wasn't finished with it, in order to
    detain me. I knew this trick ans asked if he was detaining me;
    he said yes. He kept it, and me, for about five minutes, long
    enough for him to call in my info and get a response, longer
    than needed to get my name and address. I went home and Googled
    up Terry and Hiibel.

    I don't think he had reasonable suspicion. If he did, he's an
    idiot for not stopping me from walking away from the scene on
    the way to the store. But it was a total five minutes; my
    damages are diddly-squat.

    Of course.
    I'm talking about "demand", not "ask".

    Here, we are in agreement. I don't see why you think this
    supports your side.

    I'm answering the question asked. Can they *demand* one's
    identity? Yes, they must have reasonable suspicion in order for
    the law to compel an answer.

    The question to which I responded was not about what one might
    do if they merely ask. It was whether they can demand.

    If your point is that the police are good at stating what sound
    like orders but they can legally argue to be optional requests,
    I agree.

    Ah, well then let me add that any time you decide to stop responding
    to me, I do not need an announcement of it.
    Bryan Olson, Jan 2, 2007
  15. couss

    Bryan Olson Guest

    O.K., if that appeared I missed it. What decision?

    Do you have any idea how much more work it takes to look up these
    things than to just shoot off whatever you think?
    No, that's not about identifying one's self on the scene. But
    I'll certain look at the US Supreme Court decision you mention.
    Bryan Olson, Jan 2, 2007
  16. Keep trying. So far, you are not getting it.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 2, 2007
  17. couss

    Otter Guest

    Who's trying? I'm merely casting pearls before swine.
    Otter, Jan 2, 2007
  18. couss

    Bill Funk Guest

    Actually, yes, they can tell the camera crew to "toddle off."
    Ever notice the blurred faces? The producers couldn't get releases for
    those people.
    However, since alcohol plays heavily in such activities, as well as an
    overwhelming stupidity, the idea that they have the right to remain
    silent (and still) doesn't seem to be something they want to exercise.
    Bill Funk, Jan 2, 2007
  19. couss

    George Kerby Guest

    Some folks realize that they have the right to remain silent.
    However their problem is that just don't have the ability...
    George Kerby, Jan 2, 2007
  20. couss

    timeOday Guest

    I suppose you are right, but I still enjoy these (presumably)
    hypothetical situations, so long as the resulting discussion is
    substantive. When you really need the answer, it's too late to do the
    research. I find it strange that we are not taught our rights in
    school. The whole concept of being "under detention" is new to me from
    this thread.
    timeOday, Jan 2, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.