PDA

View Full Version : Why do cops do illegal things to prevent photography?



ryang
11-10-2008, 03:53 PM
Okay, I realize there's an OpSec component where officers prefer keeping a low profile for fear of recognition while off duty. But, there are many LEOs who do illegal things to prevent their photographs from being taken. Case law has long established that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. That applies whether you carry a badge or not.

I just saw a tape of a guy recording video in a mall store. He had permission to videotape as two uniformed officers verified before leaving. As those two officers left, a third walked by and asked the guy in a hostile tone why he was videotaping cops. Not satisfied with the answer that he had permission, the officer approached and knocked the camera down, damaging it.

That was bad enough, but apparently there were other officers (on an unknown forum) who applauded those actions. So that brings me back to my original question: If you share those views, why do you think it's okay to commit assault (verbal threats), battery (physical acts) and destruction of personal property to prevent Joe Citizen from taking your picture in a public location?

finfanfromWA
11-10-2008, 03:58 PM
I'm pretty sure this has been covered already.

SOI
11-10-2008, 04:01 PM
Here we go again!! WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LA DEP
11-10-2008, 04:04 PM
This is a VERY dead and well beaten horse.....

stormz5192
11-10-2008, 04:24 PM
Just so civilians have more of a reason to bitch and hate us.

Citizen85
11-10-2008, 04:24 PM
Could someone link to an old thread that covers this type of thing, I am curious about this.

Fëanor
11-10-2008, 05:06 PM
It may be a dead horse for some of you but I am personally unclear about how this works. If you're sick of seeing it then please feel free to ignore the thread.

I thought it was illegal to record video and audio of someone without their permission. I thought that's why businesses post signs that say things like, "This property under video surveillance". I also though that's why everyone on Cops who didn't sign the waiver gets their face blurred out.

On the other hand, LEO's daily record audio and video of people on dash cams without consent.

Is a mall store really "public" or is it private property? How about my front porch, is that "public"? What about through my front windows in my kitchen? Do I have to black out the windows to have it be considered "private" rather than "public" or "in plain sight"?

PS - To the OP, you picked a poor way to word your question. Why does anyone do illegal things? I think the real question is, "Why do a-holes with cameras insist on pointing them at people who don't want to be recorded?"

Monty Ealerman
11-10-2008, 05:17 PM
So let's say I set up a CCD camera with maybe 7 cell modems and a processor to split the video stream into packets that can be sent in pareallel to provide realtime video to remote locations. And my buddy across the street has the same setup. Go ahead, do something interesting.

KapsFB
11-10-2008, 05:24 PM
But, there are many LEOs who do illegal things to prevent their photographs from being taken.

If you share those views,

You just cited one instance. How do you come to the conclusion "there are many?"

I personally don't share "those views". I could care less if someone wants to take my pic in public. Just hope my fly is up. Although quite frankly, I would hope someone has better things to do with their time.

I wouldn't intentionally damage anyone's personal property. What is it you're after here? Besides inciting adverse comments?

1two9
11-10-2008, 05:28 PM
I thought it was illegal to record video and audio of someone without their permission. I thought that's why businesses post signs that say things like, "This property under video surveillance". I also though that's why everyone on Cops who didn't sign the waiver gets their face blurred out.


Keep in mind there are thousands of retail stores, malls, and outdoor shopping centers around the globe that use CCTV for theft detection, prevention, and security, all WITHOUT notification of customers. As for COPS, methinks that is a matter of "Hey, since we're going to put your picture on national t.v., mind signing a permission slip that says you can't sue us if you look like a moron, which you probably will?" There are differences between the two.


Is a mall store really "public" or is it private property? How about my front porch, is that "public"? What about through my front windows in my kitchen? Do I have to black out the windows to have it be considered "private" rather than "public" or "in plain sight"?

A mall store is private property. The public does not own it. The business owns it. Actually, the business leases it in most cases, but for all intents and purposes, it's their property.

As for the second part of your question, if people can see in during their normal course of business, it is considered plain view. If you don't want people seeing what's in your house, shut your windows.


PS - To the OP, you picked a poor way to word your question. Why does anyone do illegal things? I think the real question is, "Why do a-holes with cameras insist on pointing them at people who don't want to be recorded?"

+1. Antagonistic. :rolleyes:

cbr600_kitty
11-10-2008, 05:33 PM
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p301/cbr600_kitty/troll.jpg

Mitchell_in_CT
11-10-2008, 05:37 PM
Just so civilians have more of a reason to bitch and hate us.

Hold on, sparky...

We need a REASON to hate cops? Isn't the snazzy uniform and the haircut enough? ;)

ryang
11-10-2008, 06:19 PM
I'm pretty sure this has been covered already.

This is a VERY dead and well beaten horse.....
Sorry, but this horse may be so well buried I wasn't able to find it. Care to provide links?

Taylor1430
11-10-2008, 06:28 PM
Its funny. I was working secondary in a particular neighborhood that was having many juvenile issues. They loved to run their video cameras. Well, I got tired if running these guys corner to corner all night...so, whad did I do? Took out my camera and started snapping photos. Really wasn't even taking photos of them but setting off the camera flash. Its funny how the dynamic changes when its the police officer taking the photos of you.

cbr600_kitty
11-10-2008, 06:33 PM
A good reason the police become pretty irked when people take pictures/video of them is because sometimes that person then cuts/edits the video and takes it out of context to attempt to show the officer in a bad light.

ryang
11-10-2008, 06:46 PM
I thought it was illegal to record video and audio of someone without their permission.It depends, and state law plays heavily into this. For example, some states require both parties in a telephone conversation to agree before it can be recorded by one of those parties. Other states only require one party's permission.


I also though that's why everyone on Cops who didn't sign the waiver gets their face blurred out.I think that's more due to SAG rules regarding "acting" on TV and pay rates. That's different from news programs, where live reporting often includes people in the background with unblurred faces who didn't sign waivers.


Is a mall store really "public" or is it private property? How about my front porch, is that "public"?Malls are usually private property. Your front porch however is considered a public area in that you have no expectation to privacy.


What about through my front windows in my kitchen?This can be a gray area--at least with respect to california laws. Normally you'd have an expectation to privacy if the blinds were closed, even if the blinds had gaps that allowed someone to see inside. If you have open blinds, you could be cited for public indency if you like to wash dishes in the nude. Meanwhile CA courts have ruled LEOs can use passive means to monitor a house--even if those passive means include thermal scanners or sound amplification devices.


PS - To the OP, you picked a poor way to word your question. Why does anyone do illegal things?Alright, let me rephrase: Why do LEOs who have sworn an oath to uphold the law consider it ethically acceptable to commit illegal acts to prevent their picture from being taken? Sorry if that sounds like troll-bait but I can't think of any other way to phrase the question.

I already know (or think I know) the reasons for other ethically questionable actions, but not this one which is why I posed the question. And lest you think I'm just trying to cause trouble, I am a sworn LEO. I'm not Joe Citizen with an axe to grind against cops. I really want to know what justification some officers may have for doing this.

FutureCop47
11-10-2008, 07:24 PM
A good reason the police become pretty irked when people take pictures/video of them is because sometimes that person then cuts/edits the video and takes it out of context to attempt to show the officer in a bad light.


I have to agree with kitty on this one.

Most of these people with the cameras filming officers are just antagonizing the officers on purpose to get a rise out of them. Then when the officer gets fed up with it and retaliates, then its "oh, police brutality police brutality."

I really have a lot of respect for the officers that just do their job without even batting an eye at the camera person. I'm not so sure I would appreciate being filmed in my duties either.

There's really no reason to be filming the officer in the first place other than to get a rise out of him/her.:rolleyes:

-Be safe out there officers.:cool:

Monkeybomb
11-10-2008, 07:42 PM
I wear several rare earth magnets on my duty belt and also have a small electromagnetic pulse generator to prevent those pesky photo problems......................

exComptonCop
11-10-2008, 07:43 PM
So that brings me back to my original question: If you share those views, why do you think it's okay to commit assault (verbal threats), battery (physical acts) and destruction of personal property to prevent Joe Citizen from taking your picture in a public location?

No LEO here on this forum condones those actions of which you speak. Maybe you should peddle your rhetoric on that other unknown forum.

Sworn LEO indeed. :rolleyes:

FutureCop47
11-10-2008, 07:44 PM
I wear several rare earth magnets on my duty belt and also have a small electromagnetic pulse generator to prevent those pesky photo problems......................

:eek::D

btfp
11-10-2008, 07:51 PM
Personally I don't care if someone is photographing me as I posted previously, if I am not acting in a professional manner that's on me.
As long as you stay where I tell you to stay you can shoot all you want. I cannot comment on other officers. The officer in Newark was suspended. Many more officers that tried to interfere with camera people have been disciplined.
With that being said, if you duck under the tape to get your shot, you get arrested. If you go where you were told not to go, you get arrested. If you ask permission to go into restricted areas, and it's cleared through the OIC no problem.
There will always be bad officers and there will always be bad photographers. The funeral for this horse is 11:00 2morrow.

FutureCop47
11-10-2008, 08:02 PM
The funeral for this horse is 11:00 2morrow.

:D Where is the ceremony?:confused:

Monty Ealerman
11-10-2008, 08:07 PM
I wear several rare earth magnets on my duty belt and also have a small electromagnetic pulse generator to prevent those pesky photo problems......................:D What else is on that utility belt? Do you use a special pouch for the magnets, or do you just park them on your handcuffs or something? That small EMR pulse device -- can you aim it? Can you stop a car with it, or just motorcycles and cameras? :D

Monkeybomb
11-10-2008, 08:12 PM
Car, planes, helicopters whatever it takes. I used to have an EA6B Prowler (Intruder) that would do the occasional flyover to take care of loud paties but the current wars have put a slight dampner on that:D

ManInTan
11-10-2008, 09:52 PM
It's not that I mind you taking my picture, but when you interfere with a traffic stop it becomes a problem. It comes down to officer safety.

Surf
11-10-2008, 11:44 PM
Okay, I realize there's an OpSec component where officers prefer keeping a low profile for fear of recognition while off duty. OK now if your gonna get all highspeed and stuff at least get the lingo correct. It is PERSEC. Dork.

Looker
11-11-2008, 05:38 AM
never mind. i had something to add, but decided against joining in the frackas. horse be damned

FireCop86
11-11-2008, 07:20 AM
"Why do cops do illegal things to prevent photography?"

The real question is:

Why do people come onto this law enforcement forum asking stupid questions like this?

Fuzz
11-11-2008, 11:59 AM
It depends, and state law plays heavily into this. For example, some states require both parties in a telephone conversation to agree before it can be recorded by one of those parties. Other states only require one party's permission.
.

Please show me a state law that prohibits filming in public without someone elses agreement/consent. You are sorely mistaken......you have no expectation of privacy from video or audio recordings in public. Have you seen the news, the today show, etc..... they film every day without the "permission" of the people in public view.

As far as telephone conversations....that is another story as if you are in your home on the telephone you are not in public

fahrenheit
11-11-2008, 05:06 PM
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z174/rubberpoultry/dont_feed_the_trolls.jpg

SgtScott31
11-11-2008, 07:15 PM
Case law has long established that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

Airports are public places, but still private property owned by the Airport Authority. Those that wish to conduct photography or video must receive permission from marketing or they will be asked to leave. ;)


For example, some states require both parties in a telephone conversation to agree before it can be recorded by one of those parties.

Quite a bit different than the topic at hand. There IS an expectation of privacy regarding phone conversations (hence why we need a warrant for a wiretap).


Your front porch however is considered a public area in that you have no expectation to privacy.

Not really the right choice of words. Your porch is private property, but if you are in public view (on your porch), then a lesser expectation of privacy exists. One could stand on the street and photograph/videotape me on the porch, but expect to be contacted by the local PD since this sort of surveillance is common among pedophiles and other weirdos.


Alright, let me rephrase: Why do LEOs who have sworn an oath to uphold the law consider it ethically acceptable to commit illegal acts to prevent their picture from being taken? Sorry if that sounds like troll-bait but I can't think of any other way to phrase the question.

I already know (or think I know) the reasons for other ethically questionable actions, but not this one which is why I posed the question. And lest you think I'm just trying to cause trouble, I am a sworn LEO. I'm not Joe Citizen with an axe to grind against cops. I really want to know what justification some officers may have for doing this.

Funny, you just do not sound like a LEO, unless maybe a newbie. Keep in mind that if a crime is being investigated and you prevent said officers from conducting normal investigative business (i.e. getting in their way), you can (and probably will) face an obstruction charge.

The bottom line, it all depends on when, where, and your conduct during the photographing as to how "legal" it is.

stormz5192
11-11-2008, 08:37 PM
It is strictly against the law to photograph or film inside or outside of the mall in the jurisdiction that I work. It is listed as a soft target and not allowed. No air traffic is allowed directly over as well.

Strange for a mall, but true. Film crews must obtain special permission to be on the property and then they are forbidden from filming the mall itself.

mdrdep
11-11-2008, 11:12 PM
Okay there are several things wrong here. You make refrence to an event but provide no link. You make refrence to another discussion on a different website but provide no link.

This begets the question of what is your agenda and from where do you draw your source of information. There have been various discussions around this board about issues similiar to this. Most often it's because the person recording gets himself into a position where they are interfering with an investigation or otherwise disregarding lawful orders of a peace officer. Do officers screw this up sometimes, of course. Does the general public frequently misinterpet police actions, of course. Do knuckleheads deliberatly post things on the internet that are heavily edited to make the cops look bad, YOU BET YOUR A##.

You say your a sworn officer but if so I don't know how much experience you got brother. There are several issues you have with things you posted about law.

Here is an example;


. Meanwhile CA courts have ruled LEOs can use passive means to monitor a house--even if those passive means include thermal scanners or sound amplification devices.


Sorry but you need to research your case law a little better. You can not monitor what is going on in the interior of a house with thermal scanners or sound amplification devices. You can use binoculars to improve vision of something you can already see with the naked eye. You can use sound amp. devices in public. It's questionalbe but probably permissive to use a sound amp. device to hear what is going on in a house, IF you are in a place you have a legal right to be AND can hear a discussion in the house with your naked ear (from outside the house) the you could POSSIBLY use a sound amp. device to improve the sound quality of what you can already hear. But this will probably be a 50/50 split in supression hearings around the state.

dbphotos
11-12-2008, 01:56 AM
May I have and 8x10 please? :D

dbphotos
11-12-2008, 02:05 AM
It is strictly against the law to photograph or film inside or outside of the mall in the jurisdiction that I work. It is listed as a soft target and not allowed. No air traffic is allowed directly over as well.

Strange for a mall, but true. Film crews must obtain special permission to be on the property and then they are forbidden from filming the mall itself.

I know this is a little off topic, but...

Illegal? I don't think so unless NJ has some restrictive laws that will more than likely be thrown out if contested. A mall is private property and they can restrict a photographer (or anyone) from taking photos on their property and can make their granting permission for film crews, etc. contigent on whatever rules they want to put in place. If their property is visible from a public sidewalk, roadway, etc. you can take photos all day long. You can take photos of pretty much anything if you are on public property. Now that doesn't mean LEO's won't talk to you, but from public property you can take all the photos you want.

Commanders of military installations can limit what can be photographed but even then they generally don't say the public can't photograph as a blanket statement, there will be certain areas and buildings that they won't want photographed.

I refer you to this guideline: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

DOAcop38
11-12-2008, 02:12 AM
because( and I'm sure others have said this) cops are people too, and like 90% of the folks out there are honest, so are "99%" of the cops...........

DOAcop38
11-12-2008, 02:19 AM
I know this is a little off topic, but...

Illegal? I don't think so unless NJ has some restrictive laws that will more than likely be thrown out if contested. A mall is private property and they can restrict a photographer (or anyone) from taking photos on their property and can make their granting permission for film crews, etc. contigent on whatever rules they want to put in place. If their property is visible from a public sidewalk, roadway, etc. you can take photos all day long. You can take photos of pretty much anything if you are on public property. Now that doesn't mean LEO's won't talk to you, but from public property you can take all the photos you want.

Commanders of military installations can limit what can be photographed but even then they generally don't say the public can't photograph as a blanket statement, there will be certain areas and buildings that they won't want photographed.

I refer you to this guideline: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

double +1 on this - yes ,off topic, but i keep trying to tell the younger officers I work with that all their " consentual detentions" where they transport a person HANDCUFFED ,place them in a secured holding tank( jail cell) then sit for up to several hours "consentually" detaining an individual while they search their bags, check their camera shots and run them for criminal records,all cause that person was "filming or photographing the airport area or locations" isn't a CRIME- just waiting for the ACLU lawsuit to come down and the rulings and sanctions by the 9th circuit when unlawful arrest and detention case law hits home..................

Sarkis
11-12-2008, 03:00 AM
Sorry, I forgot this happens sometimes.

Sarkis
11-12-2008, 03:02 AM
Sorry, I forgot this happens sometimes.

Sarkis
11-12-2008, 03:03 AM
Sorry, I forgot this happens sometimes.

Sarkis
11-12-2008, 03:04 AM
I'm not a police officer, but this is something I read from the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, if I remember right it went like this "...protecting people against oppression, deception and intimidation." I don't know about you, but I would think someone is trying to intimidate me if they had a camera up in my face.

Let's imagine your mother was walking down the street and all of a sudden some guy comes up and starts filming your mother, someone on the other end is taking pictures and she calls the police and their response is, "That's fine, then maybe you should go into a private place, like your house and close your blinds."

Would your mother not feel intimidated, oppressed and threatened? I'm sure she would, and are police officers not people and that sort of activity is okay to commit against them?

Also, that video you are speaking of, I heard that was a security guard.

SgtScott31
11-12-2008, 10:56 AM
I'm not a police officer, but this is something I read from the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, if I remember right it went like this "...protecting people against oppression, deception and intimidation." I don't know about you, but I would think someone is trying to intimidate me if they had a camera up in my face.

Let's imagine your mother was walking down the street and all of a sudden some guy comes up and starts filming your mother, someone on the other end is taking pictures and she calls the police and their response is, "That's fine, then maybe you should go into a private place, like your house and close your blinds."

Would your mother not feel intimidated, oppressed and threatened? I'm sure she would, and are police officers not people and that sort of activity is okay to commit against them?

Also, that video you are speaking of, I heard that was a security guard.

Funny, I was speaking with Jamie L. Spears (Britney's sister) and her mother about this the other day while escorting them through the airport. Folks with celebrity status deal with this on a daily basis, and as long as they are in a public place, the little paparazzi bast***s will do what they can to get a shot that may get them some money. I think such photographers are the scum of the earth, but that doesn't mean I can snatch them up just because they intimidate (or even harass) the people they are photographing.

rubyrose
11-12-2008, 11:42 AM
The problem with this is that it is a loaded question.

Like: when did you stop beating your wife?

For those who are curious about the legality:

1) Property owners may do whatever they need to protect their property, include using closed circuit tv. However, they cannot invade a location where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as place cameras in dressing rooms) without providing a warning to that effect.

Inside a store itself you have no expectation of privacy. Although you are on private property, you can reasonably expect that people you do not know will enter that same property.

2) An individual not associated with the property owner cannot take pictures inside the place of business without the owner's consent.

Nonetheless, a person on a public street may take a photograph of anything visible from that public location -- except for an interior of a private home. (There are exceptions for even that depending on the status of the individual being photographed -- politicians and celebrities, e.g., are public figures and are granted fewer privacy rights than ordinary citizens.)

The police DO have a right to control where you stand in the case of a crime scene. But legally they cannot stop you from taking pictures if you are outside the crime scene tape.

As far as PUBLISHING those photos (these days much of it happens on the web), Privacy Law applies and violations can result in a successful civil lawsuit, as follows (per a handout I created for my journalism students):


The right to privacy refers to your right to be left alone. The most common instances of invasion of privacy are:

1) False light: A representation that places someone in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. False light cases most often involve visual rather than verbal representations.

“False light” is best explained by examples. Example: placing the photograph of someone who has never committed a crime on an “America’s Most Wanted” website. Example: taking the face of one person in a photograph and placing it on the nude body of another, and publishing the result. Example: placing someone’s photograph on a pornographic website, if that person is in no way connected to the operation of that website. Example: publishing a photograph that makes it appear that someone is committing a lewd act when in fact they are not.

[Thus, for example, an officer whose reputation was damaged from the publication of a video edited to put him/her in a "false light" could in fact sue the publisher if he/she so chose.]

2) Disclosure of Private Facts: the revelation of true but private or embarrassing facts about an individual without relation to a legitimate public concern. Example: revealing (without the person's permission) that someone was hospitalized for depression or has AIDS. Such disclosures are defensible if it can be argued that there is a legitimate public interest. For example, if the person is a government official, it could be argued that the past hospitalization for mental health issues is relevant to current conduct of public affairs.

As with libel, public officials have far fewer defenses against invasion of privacy than other persons, since it can be argued that virtually anything a public official does has implications for his or her moral fitness for office.

Any fact that is part of the public record, regardless of how private or embarrassing may be disclosed. Examples: arrest records, convictions, divorces, ownership of property, the disposition of civil lawsuits, and so forth. However, for the sake of maintaining its own reputation, the publishing agency should consider whether publishing such facts serves a legitimate purpose and is not intended merely to harm an individual.

3) Intrusion: intruding upon a person in a situation where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Example: taking a photograph of someone in his or her own home without his or her knowledge and consent, eavesdropping on telephone conversations, or opening someone else’s mail. (However, if the mail is found in a trash bin on public property you are free to read and use it.)

4) Use of a person's picture without his or her permission.

Photographs taken in public settings do not require permission for use. For example, you can take and publish a photograph of anyone walking down the street or in a public park. However, if the photograph gives the impression that the person is doing something embarrassing (such as walking out of an adult video store), you can be sued for putting the person in a "false light" (unless the person is in fact exiting an adult video store).

You may also use photographs that are part of the public record. For example, if someone has been arrested for a crime, you may use that person's name without permission as well as any mug shot provided by the police. The names of any and all government officials as well as the names of persons in charge of publicly held corporations do not require permission. You may also use the name and photograph of anyone who participates in a public event (for example, speaking before a city council meeting).

****
Hope this helps.

grumpyirishman
11-12-2008, 12:56 PM
He was probably just "camera shy!":rolleyes:

ManInTan
11-12-2008, 05:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ2f7mP5wb8&feature=related

The first 15 seconds sums it up..

Till
11-13-2008, 02:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ2f7mP5wb8&feature=related

The first 15 seconds sums it up..

What an *** hole. (The cameraman)

SoCalSheriff
11-13-2008, 05:12 PM
That's when you call BP and ask them to respond for "translation assistance." They would clear the crowd out quick.

alexg
11-13-2008, 05:33 PM
It's cause cops are all ugly. :D

btfp
11-14-2008, 11:42 AM
That is disorderly conduct.
I have no problem with them wanting to film the stop. When they start screaming and shouting that is when they get loud and boisterous and cause even more of a crowd to gather. These cops showed incredible restraint.
Immigracion Immagracion . Unreal. The driver may have only gotten a warning but I am sure it went much worse for him as the people showed up for his cause.

KapsFB
11-14-2008, 11:54 AM
Good grief! Try that chit in Mexico and see what happens. You're family would be lucky to ever see you again.

When's that fence ever going to be built???

Looker
11-17-2008, 04:55 AM
Protesting without applying for a city permit first? :confused:

dbphotos
12-26-2008, 02:38 AM
actually..i wouldn't want my picture to be taken. you don't know what they're gonna do with the photographs, maybe he's in a gang and gathering information of LEO's and their faces and do bad things with them. such as hire assasins, or kidnaps. never know. in the end i wouldn't want my picture to be taken even if they seen like innocent tourists. just my 2 cents.


I can understand not wanting it taken, but don't get into LE thinking you can prevent it. Easier to go about your job and go 10-8 as soon as possible than argue with them about taking your photo.

ISPY4U2
12-26-2008, 10:06 AM
there are many LEOs who do illegal things to prevent their photographs from being taken.

THere are many PEOPLE who do illegal things to prevent that. Movie stars do it all the time. Sports figures. Politicians. You're singling out one demographic that probably does it LESS than the rest of the population but is penalized because it gets publicized MORE. We expected Colin Ferrell to slap around a paparazzi, but when a cop stops someone from filming, that's news.

Seriously, there ARE some instances like the one you mention, but if you have one you're ticked about, why not be specific so the ladies and gentlemen of this forum can address it specifically. Generalities rarely serve to reveal any truths.


I wear several rare earth magnets on my duty belt and also have a small electromagnetic pulse generator to prevent those pesky photo problems......................

I knew there was a reason my MP3 player was erased after you pulled me over! You owe me some illegally downloaded....oh, never mind. :D

ISPY4U2
12-26-2008, 10:09 AM
Funny, I was speaking with Jamie L. Spears (Britney's sister) and her mother about this the other day while escorting them through the airport.

Something about this makes me lol. Not at you...but kind of FOR you. :D

RoadKingTrooper
12-26-2008, 10:18 AM
Gee I don't know.

Perhaps you need to contact the Officer's you claim did this and ask them? And don't forget to take your Xanax today, you really need it

LOL

RKT

CityCopDC
12-26-2008, 11:27 AM
You just cited one instance. How do you come to the conclusion "there are many?"

I personally don't share "those views". I could care less if someone wants to take my pic in public. Just hope my fly is up. Although quite frankly, I would hope someone has better things to do with their time.

I wouldn't intentionally damage anyone's personal property. What is it you're after here? Besides inciting adverse comments?

Im with Kaps. I could care less if you film me, take pictures or whatever. I always assume Im being filmed anyway. But you will NOT hover over or near me while im in the course of my duties. As long as you dont intefere with me, you can keep your toy. The minute you intefere with or obstruct me from doing my duties, you are going to jail, and I could care less if your toy is damaged in the process.

Dwntwn317
12-28-2008, 05:45 AM
Im with Kaps. I could care less if you film me, take pictures or whatever. I always assume Im being filmed anyway. But you will NOT hover over or near me while im in the course of my duties. As long as you dont intefere with me, you can keep your toy. The minute you intefere with or obstruct me from doing my duties, you are going to jail, and I could care less if your toy is damaged in the process.

Not only that, if I think the video/recording has evidence of the crime, I might actually have to confiscate it as evidence and put the owner on subpoena. My guess is that would be the last time they video tape a police officer in action!!