Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

wrote:

I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to go about finding a good civil
liberties lawyer in advance, let alone in an hour of need.

Read the newspaper to find one! Not the classified ads though.
Look for pictures of folks headed for the slammer, and what you
want is the fellow in a suit sitting next to him!


Well, actually, what you want is to watch the headlines & photos for the
guy who's NOT heading for the slammer ... he probably had a better
lawyer than the guy who is.

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

Jer wrote:

My attorney is speed dial #3, and she's been witness to more than one
threatening situation. Yes, all calls to her office are recorded.



It is not legal in many states to record a phone call without direct
indication before hand. Thus ... anything on such a call may not be
admissible in court.


In many states, all that is required is that one party to the call consent.

salgud wrote:

no_name wrote:

wrote:


no_name wrote:


From the news story, the case is probably a slam dunk. He was standing
on his own back porch taking a photograph of something happening in the
street.
If he sues, he's got a good chance of collecting actual and punative
damages.


It looks like Cruz got it wrong, and the reporter didn't seek
clarification from anybody. Cruz wasn't actually arrested. The
police "threatened" to charge him with a lot of stuff.
Cruz was merely "taken into custody." This is a key point.
The police will intimidate or worse to stop the public from
photographing, but they apparently won't arrest.


Where I come from, "taken into custody" = arrested.


In a similar situation in 1997, I was thrown to the ground by a
plainclothes policeman who wrenched my camera from my
hand after I had _insisted_ that he arrest me if I was
doing anything wrong. The ACLU helped my get my camera
back, but they apparently weren't interested in pursuing
it further, though I didn't ask them to.

Police are vicious about this, and I can't put my finger
on any reason why. A couple of months ago a violent
hit-and-run crash down the street drew me out of my house
with camera in hand. an officer saw it and said
"Who are you with?" My neighbor looked me and said, puzzled,
"Uh, we're just residents." The officer then said that
if I took any pictures he would seize my camera "for
evidence." Since it was dark anyway, I decided not to
try, but also because I didn't want to cause a scene --
and didn't want my camera to be damaged in a struggle.

--
Charles Packer
mailboxATcpacker.org
http://cpacker.org/whatnews


I would have taken the pictures. And if they tried to impound my camera,
I would have sued.

And won.

Then again, I would have asked the officer what business of his it was
who I worked for.


You're probably right about winning the suit. However, I wouldn't want
to win a big lawsuit to help pay for the hospital bills you'd have
incurred had you been as foolish as you say you would have been. You
certainly talk the talk...


speaking from experience, not hypotheticals.

Volker Hetzer wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Volker Hetzer writes:

Er, not really. He didn't say that you should agree with the police
about the accusation, only that you are better off doing your part
in deescalating a nasty situation, particular in calming down a nervous,
possibly frightened and definitely tense police guy. They are people
too,
even if they are uniformed.


Is that how the United States won its independence?

Civilian daily life is not war.


Gettin' a lot closer to it in a lot of places as far as I can see.

no_name wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

wrote:

I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to go about finding a good civil
liberties lawyer in advance, let alone in an hour of need.

Read the newspaper to find one! Not the classified ads though.
Look for pictures of folks headed for the slammer, and what you
want is the fellow in a suit sitting next to him!


Well, actually, what you want is to watch the headlines & photos
for the guy who's NOT heading for the slammer ... he probably
had a better lawyer than the guy who is.

Wrong. See my other posts...

You want a guy who *regularly* deals with police. That means he
provides counsel for ever criminal that walks in the door on
their way to jail.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

HEMI-Powered wrote:

Today, Mxsmanic made these interesting comments ...


HEMI-Powered writes:


The ACLU is a group of nutbags who want 12-year-old girls to
be able to have consentual sex and women to have an abortion
in the delivery room.

The ACLU has an extremely consistent record of protecting
personal liberties in every form, even when that makes them
unpopular. Very few people are egalitarian and tolerant
enough to do this individually.


That depends highly on your definition of "protecting personal
liberties in every form."

I pay almost zero attention to what they do because my reading of
the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments is quite a bit
different with how they spin it. You are obviously free - 1st
Amendment - to believe otherwise.

The easiest example I can think of, BTW, is that the 2nd
Amendment does /NOT/ guarantee anyone the right to strap a Dirty
Harry to their hip, or to buy an assault weapon - no matter what
Charlton Heston might like you to believe. To understand why this
is so, you have to read the /entire/ text, in 4 clauses, as well
as understand what a "militia" meant to the Framers, why they
didn't want the Feds stealing their muskets, and what it means
today - the militia is now known at state National Guards.


Oh lord. This thread is going to really go down-hill now that you've
invited the gun-nuts into it. Not that I disagree with you, having been
a member of the organized militia for some 31 years (NCARNG), but you've
opened the flood gates and the kooks are going to overflow the banks.


Another easy one: the 1st Amendment does /NOT/ allow a reporter
to withhold the identity of the source of a story. Thousands of
men and women go to Federal prison every year for failure to do
so, e.g., some woman who was found in contempt of Congress for
refusing to divulge a source and spent 86 days in the slammer,
only being released on condition she'd talk.


Not thousands. Usually a handful of reporters are subpoenaed every year,
mostly in criminal cases of local importance at best and most work out
an accommodation with the prosecution. Mostly you don't hear about it
because A. it doesn't happen often, and B. it gets settled before it
becomes a court issue.

And many states DO have so called "shield laws" to protect reporters
from having to reveal sources.

In general, the courts do not look favorably on random fishing
expeditions by prosecutors. The 1st Amendment trumps mere prosecutoral
curiosity. Mostly reporters are seen as an outlet for whistle-blowers to
expose government corruption. So, unless you can produce evidence the
reporter is withholding evidence of a crime, you're not going to get
very far trying to compel them to produce in court.

The classic examples are the reporter writing about teenage gangs who
witnesses an actual shooting. Generally his notes about the gangs are
"privileged", but his testimony about the shooting he witnessed can be
compelled.

Another classic example is a reporter who wrote a series about
allegations of corruption within the DA's office. The judge refused to
allow the DA to compel the reporter to reveal his sources.

The particular federal case last summer, the prosecutor was able to show
the testimony requested was essential to proving a specific criminal
act, and that the prosecution had exhausted all other means of obtaining
the information required.

That's not to say there has not been prosecutoral abuse, but for the
most part, prosecutors won't pursue a reluctant reporter's notes unless
they have a damned good idea the court will uphold the request. And if
they're dumb enough to do it, the court isn't shy about slapping them down.

The real problem is the administration is now using warrentless wiretaps
and other state intelligence gathering apparatus not to target real
spies, but to silence critics and whistle-blowers who would expose
administration incompetence and wrongdoing.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Paul J Gans writes:


Same place as you.


In France?


40 miles NE of Baghdad.

Today, no_name made these interesting comments ...

That depends highly on your definition of "protecting
personal liberties in every form."

I pay almost zero attention to what they do because my
reading of the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments is
quite a bit different with how they spin it. You are
obviously free - 1st Amendment - to believe otherwise.

The easiest example I can think of, BTW, is that the 2nd
Amendment does /NOT/ guarantee anyone the right to strap a
Dirty Harry to their hip, or to buy an assault weapon - no
matter what Charlton Heston might like you to believe. To
understand why this is so, you have to read the /entire/
text, in 4 clauses, as well as understand what a "militia"
meant to the Framers, why they didn't want the Feds stealing
their muskets, and what it means today - the militia is now
known at state National Guards.

Oh lord. This thread is going to really go down-hill now that
you've invited the gun-nuts into it. Not that I disagree with
you, having been a member of the organized militia for some 31
years (NCARNG), but you've opened the flood gates and the
kooks are going to overflow the banks.

So be it. As I said, this is the easiest example of a right the
American people do /not/ have.

Another easy one: the 1st Amendment does /NOT/ allow a
reporter to withhold the identity of the source of a story.
Thousands of men and women go to Federal prison every year
for failure to do so, e.g., some woman who was found in
contempt of Congress for refusing to divulge a source and
spent 86 days in the slammer, only being released on
condition she'd talk.

Not thousands. Usually a handful of reporters are subpoenaed
every year, mostly in criminal cases of local importance at
best and most work out an accommodation with the prosecution.
Mostly you don't hear about it because A. it doesn't happen
often, and B. it gets settled before it becomes a court issue.

Maybe not thousands, but I think so. Certainly the high hundreds.
This occurs all the time, and seldom ever gets reported by the
same crowd. Besides actual court cases and the occasional
Congressional hearing, the biggest places these reports are found
in contempt or some other charge is when called to testify before
a grand jury. I haven't seen anything yet about the NY Times
alleged leaking of confidential information that hurts our
national security, but I imagine that the NY times reporter(s),
editor(s), managing editor(s), and perhaps the publisher /will/
be asked to reveal where they got the story from. Besides the
obvious, the Administration wants to know who the hell in their
camp leaked it. I would expect those hearings to be closed door,
not public on C-SPAN because President Bush is a very secretive
character who desperately needs to read the Constitution as well
as get an Attorney General who knows the law.

And many states DO have so called "shield laws" to protect
reporters from having to reveal sources.

/Any/ state shield law /will/ be declared unconstitutional if a
case reaches a federal appellate court or the Supreme Court
because the protection simply does not exist, and the courts have
long ruled that way, 100% of the time, albeit they are all narrow
rulings based on the specifics of the case. And, don't tell me
about "states rights" in the 10th Amendment, because it doesn't
say that.

In general, the courts do not look favorably on random fishing
expeditions by prosecutors. The 1st Amendment trumps mere
prosecutoral curiosity. Mostly reporters are seen as an outlet
for whistle-blowers to expose government corruption. So,
unless you can produce evidence the reporter is withholding
evidence of a crime, you're not going to get very far trying
to compel them to produce in court.

This is certainly true, but if there is a legitimate case,
whether it be a local prosecutor like the twit prosecuting those
lacrosse players for allegedly raping a known prostitute, a
normal criminal case, a civil (tort) case, or any number of cases
involving constitutional law at the state or Federal level, the
courts have consistently enforced the public's right to know
where stories come from, if nothing else, but to also allow the
defense the opportunity to impune the witness, i.e., the
reporter.

The classic examples are the reporter writing about teenage
gangs who witnesses an actual shooting. Generally his notes
about the gangs are "privileged", but his testimony about the
shooting he witnessed can be compelled.

I am not an attorney, but I don't think the privelidge of
protected notes actually exists. Easy example: Tricky Dickie and
Watergate. The only reason Woodward and Bernstein were not
compelled to reveal who Deep Throat was that the Special
Prosecutors wanted to know what the Hell was happening and not
have the Washington Post destroy all the evidence.

Another classic example is a reporter who wrote a series about
allegations of corruption within the DA's office. The judge
refused to allow the DA to compel the reporter to reveal his
sources.

I do not know case law as I am not an attorney, but you're citing
what I call above the /very/ narrow rulings of the courts. If
your cite is accurate, then there had to be some other reason to
protect this reporter /other/ than the simple 1st Amendment
claim. Go back and re-read what the Amendment actually says,
"free press" is simply stated, and not defined, and there is no
mention of reporters being protected. You're probably aware of an
offshoot of the Alien and Sedition Act and some others that made
it illegal for a time for newspapers to disparage a president or
senior government official. The parts of those laws were
ultimately declared unconstitutional because that /is/ protected
free speech and free press.

The particular federal case last summer, the prosecutor was
able to show the testimony requested was essential to proving
a specific criminal act, and that the prosecution had
exhausted all other means of obtaining the information
required.

That's not to say there has not been prosecutoral abuse, but
for the most part, prosecutors won't pursue a reluctant
reporter's notes unless they have a damned good idea the court
will uphold the request. And if they're dumb enough to do it,
the court isn't shy about slapping them down.

Attorney's are shysters and whores for money and will take cases
based on whoever has the deepest pockets. As for prosecutors,
those are elected folks and have to stand re-election
periodically, and they need to show they're on the ball. This is
exactly what is happening in that lacrosse player alleged rape
case. So, I am sure you are right about abuse. But, then, defense
attorneys are equal if not greater abusers. Can anyone really
state that the attorney for O.J. Simpson or Robert Blake didn't
/know/ they were guilty?

The real problem is the administration is now using
warrentless wiretaps and other state intelligence gathering
apparatus not to target real spies, but to silence critics and
whistle-blowers who would expose administration incompetence
and wrongdoing.

I strongly agree with this last statement. The Bush
Administration is not only trampling the **** outta the 4th
Amendment, it is /clearly/ NOT abiding by FISA. In some 15%+ of
the cases, a FISA application is never even filed! But, House and
Senate committees have failed 100% to get anyone in the Bush
Administration to even give them a straight answer on how many
people's phones have been tapped, much less who they are, what
the propable cause was, nor if a FISA warrant was ever issued
(which I'm sure it was not). I looked into FISA requests and
discovered to my sorrow that the /average/ length of an
application is 64 pages! WTF?! I don't know if that is some
bull**** requirement or if it is a transparent attempt by the
bully boys to delay and obfuscate the situation. And, while I
clearly favor taking timely, decisive action if terrorism or some
other crime may be in progress, it has long been my view that the
Feds can easily wake up a FISA judge, get him into the secret
room, present the probable cause evidence, and get a warrant
issued in a few hours, it hardly takes 72 hours, or whatever it
is now (I think the time was extended recently).

--
HP, aka Jerry

Member, Chrysler Employee Motorsport Association (CEMA)
http://www.cemaclub.org/default.html

no_name wrote:

I don't know of any jurisdiction where there is a law against illegal
search. What happens is that such evidence is thrown out of court
either in the trial or in appeals. It is not criminal to conduct an
illegal search unless there is a law against it. There are very few
laws against conducting an illegal search.


The term 'illegal' by default presumes there *is* a law predicated in
prohibitive statute, so how is any activity deemed 'illegal' if there's
no law that makes it so?

There is. It's called the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the
Constitution of the U.S.

Exactly. The constitution can make something illegal without any laws
on the books at all. Laws apply penalties for the illegal activity.
Without laws, the activity is still illegal but there is no penalty.
Only the courts can address the remedy. In many cases such as the
Miranda decision and other court decisions, the remedy doesn't involve
any law at all.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

no_name wrote:
Jer wrote:

Stephen Henning wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:


And if, as sometimes happens, the case actually comes to trial,
forget it. I can not remember a case in which a
cop was convicted of violating somebody's rights. Can any
one here remember such a case?




I don't know of any jurisdiction where there is a law against illegal
search. What happens is that such evidence is thrown out of court
either in the trial or in appeals. It is not criminal to conduct an
illegal search unless there is a law against it. There are very few
laws against conducting an illegal search.



The term 'illegal' by default presumes there *is* a law predicated in
prohibitive statute, so how is any activity deemed 'illegal' if
there's no law that makes it so?


There is. It's called the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the
Constitution of the U.S.

The mechanism of enforcing that law is called the "exclusinary rule".


Well, yes... but my comment was predicated on criminal law, which when
violated creates immediate risk for legal detainment and adjudication in
a criminal court. The exclusionary rule is predicated on (but not
limited to) the 4th Amendment, and would be adjudicated after the fact
by a court mandated to hear such constitutional cases when necessary.
Constituional issues raised in a criminal complaint can sometimes take
precedence thereby stalling the criminal case until the constitutional
issue is settled in a separate court.

To wit...
"Whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a
particular case is an issue separate from the question whether the
Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were
violated by police conduct."

Ergo, while law enforcement may employ fuzzy math with their evidentiary
process, it may not necessarily resolve to a criminal complaint against
the mathmetician - in fact, it simply serves to dismiss the original
criminal complaint. So, since the term "illegal" won't apply to an
improper search, the term "unconstitutional" could. This is all I was
trying to say.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'