taking picture of police car

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

  1. Because it is SOP in most jurisdictions.
    If someone wants to claim false arrest/detainment, yes it is
    going to court.
    No shit. Where ever did you get the clue?
    And you do *not* have to provide your name first.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 1, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. couss

    J. Clarke Guest

    You are putting the word "only" there yourself. The fact that that is
    one circumstance under which you may be required to identify yourself doce
    not preclude others.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 1, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. couss

    J. Clarke Guest

    You're right that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In the US
    "assault" is a statutory criminal offense with the conditions under which
    "assault" has occurred clearly delineated by the statute. The common law
    definitions do not apply when there is an overriding statute that
    provides a different definition, and "least touching" is not within the
    definition in any jurisdiction of which I am aware. I am not at all
    conversant with Australian law but would presume that they also define
    "assault" by statute.
    There isn't?
    Nope. In the US there is a very important distinction, which relates
    to admissibility of evidence. Generally in the US "arrest" begins with
    "you have the right to remain silent" and when you hear those words you
    know that you've stepped into some deep doodoo. Sometimes they'll say
    those words before they toss you in the cruiser, sometimes after you've
    been in the interrogation room or holding cell for nearly 24 hours.
    Please provide a link to a statute that defines "assault" as including
    "being detained by police".
    If you have visions of becoming a lawyer don't quit your day job.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 1, 2007
  4. couss

    J. Clarke Guest

    Sylvia, "arrest" is a "term of art" in law that has a specific meaning to
    lawyers and "being taken into custody by police and dragged to the police
    station and made to sit there for a while while police do police things"
    is not it. It's kind of like a photographer talking about "speed" to a
    non-phographer.

    If you are going to talk about the law and be adamant that your view is
    correct then you should run it by some lawyers and make sure that it
    really is correct.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 1, 2007
  5. couss

    J. Clarke Guest

    Jail is not, in general, a possible outcome of a civil trial, at least not
    anywhere that I know of with the justice system derived from English
    Common Law. For an officer to get locked up would require that criminal
    charges be filed, not civil.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 1, 2007
  6. couss

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Of course you can, IF the officer believes your information may qualify
    you as a witness to criminal activity until he can ascertain who you
    are, and where you may be contacted. Trying to manage an investigation
    when witnesses may just walk away would be impossible.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 1, 2007
  7. couss

    Bryan Olson Guest

    To record every conversation? You have a ref for that?

    Detained you for long enough to say your name and address --
    yeah the state's attorney is sure to prosecute that one,
    especially since it's against their enemy the police. Another
    chance for them to make enemies of the police. Maybe they'll
    show you some real crime victims to give you a clue.

    Then there are civil actions. Do they have a trivial-claims
    court where you live? You could win a thousand get-over-its.

    So how do you tell if they had reasonable suspicion? Your
    way was to ask them. See, that's where the clue comes in.
     
    Bryan Olson, Jan 1, 2007
  8. couss

    Sylvia Else Guest

    If you're going to make comments like that, then maybe you should do the
    same.

    Sylvia.
     
    Sylvia Else, Jan 1, 2007
  9. couss

    Frank ess Guest

    Here's what I know: I am not a lawyer, but in my part of the world
    (USA Left Coast, down low), "detention" and "arrest" are two different
    animals, and like the difference between pornography and
    not-pornography, I know it when I see it. Like pornography, many times
    the status of a detention/arrest is not determined until well after
    the fact.

    Here's what I think: Sylvia has some misapprehensions, and even though
    her assertions are actually "It would sure be nice if ... " wishes,
    they are for the most part the kind of thing an individual hopes are
    part of the way the world operates. Unfortunately, an individual's
    "hopings" don't carry as much weight as law or custom and practice. If
    an individual's ideas and hopings are not too far off base, and the
    person has charisma, intelligence, tenacity, patience and fortitude,
    s/he might become a revolutionary and instigate a little or a lot of
    change.

    Otherwise, an unsophisticated wishful-thinker is just another dreamer,
    and subject to slings and arrows, et cetera.

    By the way: in Mexico, basically a Napoleonic Code state, witnesses
    CAN be arrested and held pending investication of an incident,
    including a vehicle accident. Late one night one of my acquaintances'
    cars was struck by a drunk driver, who was hurt seriously. The victim
    (my friend) suffered no injury, and his car little damage. His
    immediate action was to flee, tear down part of the concrete block
    wall around his back yard, drive his car in, and rebuild the wall.

    Several other witnesses were detained for up to three weeks (that's in
    the Tijuana jail, not a pleasant environment) while the lawyer hired
    by the perpetrator (dead-drunk guy) stalled the investigation as
    _mordidas_ were settled upon and paid. The police eventually stood up
    and admitted there was plenty of evidence the drunk was at fault. Lots
    of severe discomfort in all directions. Whatever else is true, I think
    most developed countries behave better in most situations.

    But you can be detained pending whatever criteria the detainers deem
    sufficient for ending it, in most places on the globe. The process is
    more transparent in some spots.

    --
    Frank ess
    "In this universe there are things
    that just don't yield to thinking
    -plain or fancy-Dude".
    -J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson
     
    Frank ess, Jan 1, 2007
  10. couss

    Otter Guest

    PKB. The term "arrest" is not a term of art.
     
    Otter, Jan 1, 2007
  11. couss

    Otter Guest

    I don't, because I can't. You won't be able to work out the reason for that.
    I will choose to do as I please.

    Anyone reading your post will be immediately struck by the paucity of
    anything remotely resembling an argument. Given that the OP is in
    Australia, where I am and you are not, you will have no rational basis for
    any conclusion you might reach about the matter. But rationality is never
    your strong point, eh?
     
    Otter, Jan 2, 2007
  12. Bullshit. Have bothered to read this thread. Detention requires
    reasonable suspicion... of criminal activity. The fact that you
    are a witness is *not* sufficient.
    Not impossible at all. Few people will actually walk off. But
    the proof positive that is isn't impossible is that police
    manage such investigations every day...
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 2, 2007
  13. We need a reference for that? I have no idea what sort of
    environment you experience, or what sort of contact you have
    with police officers... but in Alaska I doubt there are *any*
    patrol officers from any certified police department in the
    entire state that are not equipped with a tape recorder. Same
    with a gun, handcuffs, a radio and an ink pen.

    Do you need a reference that they have an ink pen?
    What would the "state's attorney" have to do with it?

    Sounds like a civil action to me...
    The state's attorney's enemy is the police?

    You watch entirely too much television.
    Such cases go to trial often enough. That is rarely the main
    issue, but it isn't uncommon for it to be one of several issues.
    Nobody is saying that a ruling on the reasonableness is
    available. Stop being silly. The point is *only* that you
    *can* determine if the police officer is claiming to have
    "reasonable suspicion", which is the determining factor in
    whether a person can be detained or not. Lacking such claim,
    the individual can simply *leave* (or not, if that is what they
    *choose* to do).

    If you can't carry on a reasonably intelligent conversation
    about this topic, I will not continue to respond.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 2, 2007
  14. Maybe you should provide a reference for this concept that
    police can do anything not prohibited.

    It's the other way around, they can only do what has been
    specifically authorized.
    A trivially *bogus* connection. A judge can order someone to
    testify. A police officer cannot.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 2, 2007
  15. couss

    Otter Guest

    Wrong. In any common law jurisdiction, anyone is free to do as they wish
    unless restricted by law. That includes any police officer. In addition, a
    range of things restricted by law for most people is authorised for police
    officers, usually with some safeguards eg the action must be reasonable,
    etc.
    Both propositions, while broadly correct, have important qualifications in
    all jurisdictions which make the propositions legally incorrect.
     
    Otter, Jan 2, 2007
  16. "Anyone" is an individual private citizen. "Any police officer" is *not*
    just anyone, but *is* the government. The government *is not* free to do
    as they wish.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 2, 2007
  17. couss

    Paul Rubin Guest

    That the department is equipped with tape recorders doesn't mean they
    record every conversation. They have ink pens too, but do they write
    down every conversation?

    I don't think they routinely record conversations here in California.
    I don't think they're even legally permitted to record conversations
    without notifying the person, and I've conversed with cops numerous
    times (routine traffic stops etc.) without ever being told I was being
    recorded. It wouldn't surprise me if they do record conversations
    (after notifying the person) with arrested suspects inside the police
    car, but I don't have experience with this.
    A -claim- of reasonable suspicion is not the same thing as the actual
    presence of reasonable suspicion. The police can detain you and
    assert reasonable suspicion even though they have none, because they
    simply didn't like your skin color or hair style.
    and you answered:

    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".

    But, just because someone says there is reasonable suspicion doesn't
    mean there really is. I don't understand your confusion over this
    concept. I'll go with "one cannot tell".
     
    Paul Rubin, Jan 2, 2007
  18. couss

    Otter Guest

    What can't a police officer do that an individual private citizen can do?
     
    Otter, Jan 2, 2007
  19. couss

    drwxr--r-- Guest

    Please God, let this thread die!
     
    drwxr--r--, Jan 2, 2007
  20. couss

    Paul Bartram Guest

    Judging by the many clips shown on various reality shows like 'Disorderly
    Conduct Caught On Tape' no mention is made of a recording in progress when
    the officer walks up and starts talking. One also wonders if the offender is
    asked whether he or she wants their subsequent bad behaviour shown on
    international TV?

    It amazes me that someone appearing on 'Cops' is faced with a Betacam and
    blitz light (therefore making it pretty obvious what the intention is) will
    continue to make a total ass of themselves for us all to see. I assume they
    have the right to tell the TV crew to toddle off? I certainly would...

    Paul
     
    Paul Bartram, 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.