backtop


Print 122 comment(s) - last by just4U.. on Jul 2 at 12:32 PM


Police in several U.S. states have begun arresting people who videotape or photograph them using a creative legal interpretation. The ban and arrest come after the capture of recent police brutality incidents, such as the beating of William Cardenas in 2008.  (Source: YouTube)

Police claim that citizens have no right to videotape them, some lawyers argue otherwise.  (Source: Bolger Now)
"You will respect my authoritah!"

Chalk photography up as the latest freedom to become endangered in the United States.  Wiretapping or eavesdropping laws conveniently provide police justification for arresting those who video tape or snap pictures of them acting in public locations as they forbid citizens from "obstructing law enforcement". 

Now the most extreme example of photography crackdown yet has occurred.  A man named Francisco Olvera was having a house party and was confronted by a local cop.  The cop entered his house.  Olvera photographed the cop and was promptly arrested.  
Courthouse News reports:

Olvera says the trouble started when Alderete responded to a complaint of loud music coming from his home. In front of the home, Alderete asked Olvera to show identification and as Olvera walked into his house to get it, Alderete followed him in.
"Olvera did not believe that Alderete had the authority to enter Olvera's residence and, therefore, took a picture of Alderete using his cell phone," the complaint states.
Olvera claims that Alderete saw a can of beer on a kitchen counter, next to Olvera's wallet, and immediately handcuffed him.

Olvera was detained on charges of illegal photography, public intoxication, and loud music.  Since the arrest he has been acquitted of all charges and now is seeking punitive damages from the city for violation of his rights.

Many courts on a state level have ruled that taking videos or photos of police using your phone qualifies as obstruction.

A rash of YouTube videos and pictures have captured police brutality in various areas, but now police have the legal means to threaten those who might snitch them out.  In many areas even if you are snapping photos or video to use in your own defense, you will face additional charges and the media evidence will be disallowed.

Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley is among the members of the legal community fighting these provisions on the grounds that they represent a gross violation of Constitutional and legislatively-guaranteed freedoms.  Turley states, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

While the Olvera case seems closed -- other than this pending lawsuit -- the battle over whether citizens should be able to photograph or video tape police in public or in private (in their homes) is unlikely to go away.  It would not be surprising if the U.S. Supreme Court at some point is forced to rule on this issue.  At that point, we may finally know, once and for all, whether U.S. citizens have lost this freedom and means of accountability.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Public Intoxication?
By aegisofrime on 6/24/2010 2:57:46 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not American, so forgive me if this question sounds silly. In the USA a man can't get drunk inside his own house? Is there a designated place for drinking?




RE: Public Intoxication?
By KillerNoodle on 6/24/2010 3:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
Basically, not in view of the public.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Danish1 on 6/25/2010 3:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
So let me get this straight, it's illegal to get drunk on your own lawn even though you are not harassing anyone else?


RE: Public Intoxication?
By SLEEPER5555 on 6/25/2010 4:37:42 AM , Rating: 2
as dumb as it sounds that is correct, even if you were not saying a word to anyone or doing anything otherwise "wrong" it is public toxication and you can be arrested (though it wouldn't be likely)


RE: Public Intoxication?
By psaus42 on 6/25/2010 5:43:29 AM , Rating: 5
Sadly what SLEEPER5555 is saying is 100% correct. Specifically though, if you are on the front lawn, in public view is where the law limits. Fenced back lawn, or in your house is fine. How is the cop justified to claim public view when the beer was IN HIS KITCHEN!? (guess that's why he was acquitted)

Further, the cop following him into the house without a warrant or his permission to follow him is illegal as well.

What is happening these days? Sad...


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Cypherdude1 on 6/25/2010 8:34:08 AM , Rating: 2
I did a search for that "I'm gonna kick your ass" in poster form to buy but I couldn't find it. Maybe someone should produce one.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By tenks on 6/28/2010 6:14:26 AM , Rating: 2
Uhh someone did already produce it..forever ago..His name is Shepard Fairey..Its an Obey Giant poster..

He only does one offs..one print run and its done..Its sold out buddy..

http://obeygiant.com/store/home.php?cat=1


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Danish1 on 6/25/2010 8:34:50 AM , Rating: 5
That's some fucked up law you got there.

You may shoot trespassers but you can't drink on your own property.
Can't say I'm surprised though, I already knew your 18 year old boys are old enough to die for you country but not old enough to legally have a drink.

It's an amazing set of double standards.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Samus on 6/25/2010 9:05:19 AM , Rating: 5
If a cop walked in my home uninvited, I wouldn't hesitate to treat him like I'd treat any other trespasser...drunk or sober.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By thurston on 6/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: Public Intoxication?
By Samus on 6/26/2010 3:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He probably wouldn't hesitate to kick the living shit out of you or blow out your brains.(he's allowed to you are not)


He isn't allowed to violate the constitution. Entering my home unlawfully entitles me to kill a motherfucker...and with the sheer number of shitty police officers on the streets (living in Chicago, I'd guess 10% of them are in it for something other than money or power) I'm sure my vast experience with firearms and hunting will guarantee my victory.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Dewey115 on 6/26/2010 9:48:14 AM , Rating: 2
Most officers are trained A LOT to make sure they can kill people who try this very thing. Now I dont know you so Im not saying you can't, but without personally knowing you or the cop, I will put my money on the cop every time. There is a world of difference between being trained in close quarters self defense and shooting a deer... and nobody is ever guaranteed a victory against a cop. He is exponentially more prepared that you in that situation unless you planned the whole thing in an attempt to lure and murder a cop in which case if you are quick you stand a decent chance to get the first one... but I doubt you will be so lucky with the 2nd-100th ones.

Also I dont know the details of this arrest besides whats written here, but I read it to mean that the cop was arguing that he had legal right to enter the home AFTER he saw the beer can. If he has reason to believe anyone there is drinking and underage then he is legally allowed to enter the home. Cops are trained to peek through the door when you open it, if you are careless and left something in plain sight then thats all they need. My guess is if it was thrown out everyone was of age, or the obviously young ones hid. When I was in college for parties we had a large comforter we put up behind the door in case of noise complaints so there was no way to see inside without actually coming inside.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Dewey115 on 6/26/2010 10:11:08 AM , Rating: 2
I read some more news reports and the guy was working on his patio listening to his computer, so no party or anything. The beer can was used as the excuse the cop used to enter the home since he was "drunk" in "public"


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Mojo the Monkey on 6/28/2010 8:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
no, not "any reason to believe" - they would need a reasonable suspicion... and THEN they would need to go get their ass a warrant. Or consent to enter. Once a cop tip-toes in, most people are at a loss and give up. you should clearly REVOKE consent and demand he leave again.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By just4U on 7/2/2010 12:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
I've had police at my door a good dozen times in my life and I've always invited them in so they never really had a reason to try and enter without my permission.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Just Tom on 6/26/2010 2:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually in most places you are not entitled to shoot anyone who enters your domicile absent a threat to your safety. And no matter what your vast experience is, unless you have your gun in your hand when the cop walks in - and if you do he is doing a piss poor job - he is most likely going to shoot you before you can retrieve your weapon.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By SilthDraeth on 6/27/2010 10:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it doesn't.

In the United States, Texas is the only state that allows provisions to resist an officer breaking the law. Notice, it doesn't say kill him. Granted, if he walks into your home, as you enter the home, there is no way you could argue that he was going to kill you or your family.

At most, you could tell him to step back outside, and if he resists, you could call the cops on the cop, and then argue in court and be ok. You could also theoretically remove him from your home by force, without breaking a law, but if you draw a weapon, or kill him, then you are breaking a law.

I am glad I live in a one party consent state.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Hoeser on 6/29/2010 11:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
whoa... take it easy there Ted Nugent.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Camikazi on 6/25/2010 9:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
If you shoot the trespasser make sure you kill him though, if he lives you might just get a law suit out of it... and lose


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Samus on 6/26/2010 3:45:07 AM , Rating: 2
True story. I used to think I'd just aim for the knee's, but now its going to be a headshot or a few to the upper torso. I aint paying no medical fees to some theif breaking into my home. His problem.

If I broke into YOUR house, I'd fully expect you to kill me. The number of variables, such as why they are in my home, are they armed, are they a threat to me and my family, entitles me constitutionally and rightfully to take the most extreme measures available to stabilize the situation.

I wouldn't even let him know it was coming.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Dewey115 on 6/26/2010 9:56:17 AM , Rating: 2
Be careful of the "few to the upper torso." People have been found guilty of murder when the first shot immobilized the person and they continued firing until the person was dead. Even if you are not charged with murder (its not TOO hard to argue you couldn't tell he was immobilized and still saw him as a threat) but you also walk the lawsuit line with the family of the guy suing you for wrongful death which would probably be a little harder to defend in that case.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Camikazi on 6/26/2010 12:11:48 PM , Rating: 5
Wow that sux that someone could break into your house, potentially endangering you and your family and yet you can still be charged for murder for it.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Phoque on 6/26/2010 6:51:04 PM , Rating: 3
In the Quebec province ( don't know for the rest of Canada ), if a thug enters your house and is injured by your dog and you had no signs warning you owned a dog on your property, the thug can sue you and is likely to win the trial.

I was shocked when I learned that. But you know, it's Quebec province, probably the first place in the world where thugs will have their union eventually.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Danish1 on 6/27/2010 12:10:00 AM , Rating: 2
It could be worse....In Soviet Scandinavia it's your fault the thug who robbed you had a bad childhood.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By hathost on 6/30/2010 6:04:31 AM , Rating: 2
This is why when you are shooting a home invader you use a shotgun. You're practiacally guarunteed a kill if you use the proper shells with it. Then it's simply a matter of waving it in the general direction of the invader and removing their head. =) Any idiot with about 50 shells going out for an hour shooting it could easily take out a guy no problem.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Fireshade on 6/28/2010 8:56:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's an amazing set of double standards.

Even funnier:
In most of US people can -with consent- have sex when they're aged 16 or older. So you have this situation, that a 17-year old guy starred a porn movie, but he is not allowed to buy or see the movie. How odd is that? :)


RE: Public Intoxication?
By ShaolinSoccer on 6/29/2010 11:16:50 AM , Rating: 2
It's not as bad as you think. Most people can drink on their property. As long as you're respectful to the cops, they won't mess with you. We do have public parties in many cities. Stuff like Mardy Gras is famous and there are thousands of people who drink in public without getting arrested. Not to mention tailgate parties. Heck, I even know a lot of people who have gotten pulled over right after smoking a joint. Cop asks if they were smoking weed. As long as you fess up and be respectful to the officer, there's a good chance he'll let you go with a warning. Cops are human. They will bend the law as they see fit.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By chunkymonster on 7/1/2010 10:55:38 AM , Rating: 2
It is important to note that this is not 100% true.

Public alcohol consumption and drunkenness laws and statutes vary from State to State, County to County, and Town to Town.

Where I live in New Jersey I am damned well within my rights to sit in my front lawn within public view and drink as much as I want and get as drunk as I want. There is nothing the cops can do to stop me.

Now, if I am causing a public disturbance, harassing passers-by, then the police have an opportunity to intercede. But as far as just sitting in public view on my property and drinking and getting drunk, I am well within my rights and township ordinances to do so.

Overzealous cops with small dicks, a mail order law degree, and an overgrown sense of importance are the real issue. It was right for this guy to be acquitted.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Just Tom on 6/26/2010 2:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
as dumb as it sounds that is correct, even if you were not saying a word to anyone or doing anything otherwise "wrong" it is public toxication and you can be arrested (though it wouldn't be likely)


Actually, this is incorrect. In the United States public intoxication laws vary by jurisdiction; there is no overriding Federal statute. In most, if not all, states one can be as drunk as he cares to be in public as long as he does not cause some sort of disturbance. However, there are many places which have open container laws so you be perfectly sober and still be arrested if you have an open container with alcohol in it.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Spivonious on 6/24/2010 3:11:49 PM , Rating: 5
I'm from the US and I don't get that one either. Public drunkeness means you were out on the street. This guy was inside his house. The only real charge here is a noise ordinance violation.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By KillerNoodle on 6/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Public Intoxication?
By amanojaku on 6/24/2010 3:25:51 PM , Rating: 5
Olvera met the cop in front of his home, but that didn't give Alderete the right to walk in. That's clearly illegal as he wasn't attempting to arrest Olvera. That's why Olvera was acquitted of all charges.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By KillerNoodle on 6/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Public Intoxication?
By wiz220 on 6/24/2010 4:05:40 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, but it sounds like the man went outside to meet the cop, as opposed to being outside the whole time.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By dragonbif on 6/24/2010 7:20:03 PM , Rating: 1
He may have been outside when the cop came over. It really is not clear here. From what I can tell is the author wanted to get a nice heated discussion about the taking a photo or video of a cop without permission and not about how it happend.

For all we know the guy could have told the cop he could come in so he could get his ID. In most cases a cop does not like to let poeple go inside without being watched, and the reason is because they could go in to get a gun. If the guy was drunk then yes there is no way the cop is not going to keep an eye on him but he should have told him that he was coming inside also. If he did not tell him that he was going to follow him in then that the cop was in the wrong.

Really we do not know anything because this is more of an lets all get heated and argue about it article then one that provides real info.

Now for the public intoxication questions, it is not a US or state thing but most of the time a city law. The state could have one but the city can add to it. Where I live if you are drunk out on the street you could be taken to jail for 24hrs and fined. If you are in your home drunk it is ok as long as you are not yelling or flashing people out on the street or somthing like that.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By afkrotch on 6/24/2010 9:55:15 PM , Rating: 5
A cop has absolutely no right to enter your home, without probable cause or being invited.

quote:
For all we know the guy could have told the cop he could come in so he could get his ID.


No, he didn't. Hence them taking a picture of the officer.

quote:
If the guy was drunk then yes there is no way the cop is not going to keep an eye on him but he should have told him that he was coming inside also. If he did not tell him that he was going to follow him in then that the cop was in the wrong.


He was in the wrong to enter at all. He has no right to enter, as he wasn't given permission. Nor was there enough probable cause to allow him to enter under the rights of a peace officer.

There's a reason all charges were acquitted.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By knutjb on 6/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: Public Intoxication?
By MrBlastman on 6/24/2010 3:32:24 PM , Rating: 5
The can of beer was inside his house on his kitchen counter though. This is nothing but a case of police harassment and abuse of their power.

I'm glad the case was thrown out. The fact that many municipalities are beginning to rule and consider that photographing officers is setting a dangerous precident.

Our public servants should be accountable for their actions. They must also be willing, as public arms of our government, to endure scruitiny and public criticism through freedom of speech, be it verbal, or verbal plus representation through video or pictures. We, as citizens, have rights to our free speech and protections against forceable searches and seizures that are unwarranted.

Pictures and video are our methods to fight back--as obviously if we were to draw a firearm on an officer we thought was doing something unjust, the officer would dutifully gun us down and call it attempted assault on an officer. Video is passive. If the cops don't like it, perhaps they should find a new job. Our congress is on television every single day via C-SPAN.

I am very worried about where this is going.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By omnicronx on 6/24/2010 3:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
I just don't understand how this law was ever passed.. Its a law that the government can blatantly ignore, but the public cannot.

If this is truly an enforceable law, then I never want to see a street facing camera again. (yep that includes red light cameras).. I never gave consent right??

This is just flat out wrong, and a step in the wrong direction for society.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By MrBlastman on 6/24/2010 4:01:05 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly. We should all go out about our towns tonight and spray some black paint over every single public camera in an intersection we find. If we find a parked squad car, we should spraypaint the camera there too.

It is high time the people need to stand up and do something about all this crap.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By JediJeb on 6/24/2010 4:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If this is truly an enforceable law, then I never want to see a street facing camera again. (yep that includes red light cameras).. I never gave consent right??


This may be what solves this dilemma in the end. If it is ruled that both parties have to consent to being photographed or video taped or else it is illegal in all circumstances, then for sure redlight cameras would be illegal since unless they get a warrant against every possible driver who could pass by it would be illegal surveillance. Since there are probably precedences covering the use of security cameras in department stores and such I would think that the same would cover the photographing and taping of police officers in public places or private homes.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Fritzr on 6/25/2010 1:05:23 AM , Rating: 2
The "consent" issue is the reason for the many "This area is under video surveillance" signs. By telling you there is a video camera watching you give your consent by not leaving.

Red light cameras fall under a similar assumption. It is published in the newspaper that red light cameras are installed at "selected" intersections and you then withhold consent by not using those intersections :)


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Tewt on 6/25/2010 1:19:07 PM , Rating: 3
Could the homeowner or neighborhood post similar signs then or are we screwed because it must be approved by some city council? i.e. just making a hand-written sign and placing it in your window for all to see is not enough because it is not recognized by the local laws.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By erple2 on 6/25/2010 7:35:58 PM , Rating: 3
I have noticed that posted at every intersection where I've seen a red light camera, there's a sign that says "Red Light Cameras Ahead". It's an official sign, not a cardboard sign that a citizen has put up.

I think your first statement is exactly correct. I can tape every single phone conversation that I have, and use them in any way that I like for legal purposes, provided I tell the other party that they are being recorded. If they don't agree to being taped, their choice is to simply hang up. Is it therefore implied that if they continue to remain on the phone, they give their implied consent?


RE: Public Intoxication?
By just4U on 7/2/2010 12:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
An easy way around most of that would be for them to make you give your consent to such things if you have a license to drive. Not sure how that would translate for joyriders without licenses though hmm..


RE: Public Intoxication?
By NullSubroutine on 6/24/2010 5:17:26 PM , Rating: 5
What is more ironic is that many of these municipalities have CCTV cameras recording all of the American public, even without their "consent".

I used to work as a dispatcher for County/City of a place in South Dakota, our Officers and Deputies always desired to not only have car cameras recording during any interaction with the public, but also the body mic. Not only does it provide evidence for court, but also provides proof of what was said or done TO PROTECT THE POLICE.

Far as I am concerned the police should always be interested in being recorded (video/audio) while on duty, because if they do right thing, they will be vindicated of doing wrong. Not wanting to be recorded makes it seem like they may want to cover up (or lie) what is going on. The only time I can understand them not wanting to be photographed is when they are off duty. But if you ask me, if you are there as law enforcement, you are a PUBLIC official.

Where I worked it was public record what every person (every cop, every dispatcher, secretary, etc) made for salary, because we was paid by public funds. What makes these departments think that as PUBLIC officials they have a right on duty to NOT be recorded?


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Belard on 7/1/2010 4:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
When I have to deal with a possible Police situation (with other parties) I hit record on my recording device, or cell phone which also does audio recordings so I can record with the phone in my pocket and other people will behave like the jerks they are.

When going to court... I've destroyed the defense (bad guy) by having such evidence. Which is funny when the Defense tries to block some recordings on the basis that it made their client look bad... duh


RE: Public Intoxication?
By omnicronx on 6/24/2010 3:32:20 PM , Rating: 5
I don't see how that is relevant, the beer was inside.. Either he was intoxicated, in which he should have been arrested on the street, or he was not.

The cop had absolutely no authority to arrest him once he was inside. Otherwise its basically arresting someone and collecting evidence without a warrant on private property afterwards.. Probably the reason he was acquitted..


RE: Public Intoxication?
By slickr on 6/24/2010 4:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
Only in the USA.
They seem to loose all their rights due to political corruption, courts corruption and controlled by big companies and few guys in power.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By NullSubroutine on 6/24/2010 5:19:28 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah right, if you think corruption of police/public officials is bad in the US, then you have never traveled outside the US. Despite still have some corruption, the US has the lowest levels of corruption when dealing with the police.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By robert5c on 6/24/2010 5:44:20 PM , Rating: 4
haha, atleast Only in the USA do we have rights to lose in the first place. What country are you from? Take a look at your Police and State corruption, and stop pretending your better then America just cause its the cool thing to do on the internet.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By rtk on 6/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: Public Intoxication?
By espaghetti on 6/25/2010 2:06:24 AM , Rating: 1
Just curious. How many people risk their lives and sneak into your country every day?


RE: Public Intoxication?
By jabber on 6/25/2010 6:43:15 AM , Rating: 2
If its the UK?

Quite a lot. Ask the cross channel truck drivers. The US isnt the only land of milk and honey to a lot of desperate folks.

Any country where its not likely to have torture inflicted on you at any time is a good place to head for. It's not Disney Land or IHOP they come for.

However, its good to see that the UK is leading the world and the rest of the free world is following its repressive regime. Yes the US is usually a couple of years behind taking on any of our initiatives (in this case arresting folks for taking pictures) but its a start.

I guess they have yet to come round to arresting people for being 'too tall', yes thats happend here in the UK.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By jabber on 6/25/2010 6:45:24 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Public Intoxication?
By Kurz on 6/25/2010 11:45:12 AM , Rating: 2
I guess 1 CCTV camera for every 14 people in the UK is not repressive?

Making a new criminal law every day Parlament is in Session?
Or was it two... I cant remember.

The 'repressive' taxes that VAT imposes on its citizenry.
The Central Bank that is common in most other countries including USA, though still a constant evil.

The sub par Health care system as well, in comprison to USA's. Please don't pull out infant mortality rate... Since we atempt to save and count all babies even if they are still born. The cut off date in UK is what 22 weeks, if the child is born before then it doesn't recieve treatment. Use the medical outcome rate when it comes to diagnosing and treating diseases.

UK is far worse... Though USA is heading that way.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By mydogfarted on 6/25/2010 12:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
How can you not count infant mortality rates? The U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world because of doctor intervention. How can you consider the U.K. health system sub-par considering we rank significantly lower than the U.K.?


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Kurz on 6/25/2010 12:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
I explained it in my post.
The statistics are skewed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

Under Comparing infant mortality rates

In the end it comes down to Medical Outcomes which are a better indicator of the health care system.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By jabber on 6/25/2010 4:06:53 PM , Rating: 1
You completely misunderstood/misread my post totally.

I guess thats the sub par US education system at work.

Oh well......


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Kurz on 6/25/2010 4:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
No I didn't you said Repressive regime.
It could be extended to Nanny State Laws dictating everything you do on a day to day basis to Economic, Social, Medical, etc..

Definition of Repressive
1. acting to control, suppress, or restrain
2. subjecting people, a society, etc. to a state of subjugation

The problem is your mind is too ridged. I am sorry that I was able to think outside of the box and extend the meaning of Repressive Regime to other aspects of your repressive life.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By jabber on 6/25/2010 9:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
You still dont get it.

It was written tongue in cheek.

Nevermind.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By jabber on 6/25/2010 9:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and I was refering to the UK as repressive...not the US.

Again please read carefully.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Kurz on 6/26/2010 10:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
Sessh, Sorry I missread your post.
There tends to be many UK FTW here.

Again sorry for that, I should really spend more time reading than the usually skimming I do while at work.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Kurz on 6/26/2010 10:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
Sessh, Sorry I missread your post.
There tends to be many UK FTW here.

Again sorry for that, I should really spend more time reading than the usually skimming I do while at work.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By jabber on 6/26/2010 1:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
No probs old chap!

Have a good one!


RE: Public Intoxication?
By JS on 6/25/2010 1:22:48 AM , Rating: 3
The U.S. consistently scores well above average on the global corruption index, but far from the best. Most Western European countries score better, along with Canada and a few Asian countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perception...


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Just Tom on 6/26/2010 2:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
The corruption index is extremely problematic as a true measure of corruption, it measures attitudes regardin corruption rather than actual corruption. Cultural expectations towards corruption is an enormous confound when comparing corruption surveys between different cultures. What might be seen as ethical in one culture would be seen as corrupt in another, furthermore the CPI changes its methodology constantly making even year to year comparasions in a single country suspect.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By callmeroy on 6/25/2010 8:30:27 AM , Rating: 1
Agreed.

9 times out of 10 I'm a defender of cops, mainly because my extended family is chuck full of law enforcement...but if this DT article is 100% accurate this cop was nothing short of being a dick.

And this "law" seems BS to me -- you can't video tape police brutality now? Why the hell isn't something like this blowing up the cable news channels and all over the major newspapers?


RE: Public Intoxication?
By knutjb on 6/26/2010 12:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And this "law" seems BS to me -- you can't video tape police brutality now? Why the hell isn't something like this blowing up the cable news channels and all over the major newspapers?
Video has sound and that sound can fall under the Fed Wiretapping rules if the state requires two party acceptance of such. As for the video once it gets out it goes viral and the source then becomes irrelevant anyway unless you're filming Acorn offices.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Dewey115 on 6/26/2010 10:07:44 AM , Rating: 2
According to other news stories he was outside working on his patio when the cop came, so he was technically in public. He also had just got back from "getting supplies" so he was off of his property. The cops argument was probably that he was in public and the beer can on the counter meant he was drunk in public. Obviously not very legal in hindsight, but probably enough at the time to give him the excuse he needed to come inside. Supposedly the cop was making racist jokes to and about him to other cops after he was arrested and during the whole confrontation never asked the guy to turn down the music (so couldn't have been THAT loud,) so this definatly doesn't sound very legit.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Just Tom on 6/26/2010 3:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
It is not illegal to be drunk in public in Texas. Here is the relevant penal code language...

Sec. 49.02. PUBLIC INTOXICATION.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.

Most likey a neighbor called this in because of noise or disruptive behavior. I doubt the car just randomly picked it up on patrol. His alleged crime was not being intoxed in public it was being intoxed and a danger to himself or others. Assuming he was actually charged with public intoxication and not disorderly conduct.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Steven Morgan on 6/24/2010 3:51:09 PM , Rating: 3
It's probably why all the charges were dropped.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By walk2k on 6/24/2010 5:49:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Is there a designated place for drinking?


NASCAR.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By gorehound on 6/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Public Intoxication?
By judoman1222000 on 6/25/2010 12:56:56 AM , Rating: 3
Here's the thing, I'm no lawyer, not licensed anyway, but I like to keep up to date with my rights and the like...

Firstly, one can misconstrue the cops' entry into the mans house without proper consent as an illegal search and seizure. Secondly, the cop saw the beer inside his house, on the counter, next to his wallet. What person leaves their wallet out in public?
quote:
Olvera claims that Alderete saw a can of beer on a kitchen counter, next to Olvera's wallet, and immediately handcuffed him.

Granted, just a claim, but still. A kitchen is not a public place.

Now, on to the main point. Technically speaking, audio or video recording without consent of the recorded is not admissable in a court of law (apparently), but then again, what about surveilance cameras outside of your store? Inside your house? Are those things illegal as well? Can a criminal caught on tape robbing a bank and killing people to be able to contest the admission of said tape into evidence because "he didn't give consent"?

I find what the police are doing to be utterly outrageous. Additionally, I seem to remember this happening in many countries that were once, or still are, considered dictatorships. In the Philippines, Spain, Cuba, Korea, Japan, China, and most likely in many other countries.

State, local and federal authorities used the mantle of public safety to enact laws and leniencies that turned those countries into dictatorships, giving even the lowliest of public officials the power of authority to utterly destroy lives on a whim.

I have spent a great deal of my life seeing, experiencing, and detesting corruption. I now see it's seeds taking root in America, my homeland. Perhaps I should call it my "Motherland"* now. The government is taking great liberties at our expenses, reducing our freedom so that they may have more of it.

What a shame.

*http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18840


RE: Public Intoxication?
By Jeffk464 on 6/25/2010 12:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
No way, everyone having a video camera has been the best tool in the world for busting cops that behave outside the law. We should not stand for this, these laws have to be changed. It has always been true that there is no expectation of privacy when in public places. How is it that cops now are able to get around this law. Law enforcement is starting to get out of control. At the very least people need to be willing to violate this law to bust law enforcement. Let them arrest you, its more important to get bad cops of the police force.


RE: Public Intoxication?
By marvdmartian on 6/28/2010 11:05:17 AM , Rating: 2
Basically, the law is intended so that you can drink publicly (in most places), but not be (obnoxiously) drunk in public. I'm sure, in this case, it was just a way for the cop to tack another charge on the home owner (although, in a way, if the home owner was legally intoxicated, once he stepped out of his house he might be considered publicly intoxicated).

Don't be surprised if this goes to SCOTUS. People will keep pushing it, until there's no other choice but to let the court decide the constitutional legality.


Un...
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/24/2010 2:57:06 PM , Rating: 4
Fucking believable, arrested for taking a video/pic of a cop in his OWN FUCKING HOUSE?

Ok, it's official, this country is going to shit....




RE: Un...
By SpaceRanger on 6/24/2010 3:14:15 PM , Rating: 5
going to shit? What makes you think we aren't in shit already?


RE: Un...
By RjBass on 6/24/2010 3:23:09 PM , Rating: 1
I thought our country went to shit when Bush was appointed our president as opposed to being elected.


RE: Un...
By redbone75 on 6/24/2010 5:25:24 PM , Rating: 1
See what happens when you dare speak the truth? You get down-rated into oblivion!


RE: Un...
By redbone75 on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Un...
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/24/2010 4:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I know it has gone to shit, there is no doubt, but arresting someone for taking a picture of an officer, INSIDE THE HOME OF THE person, that IMO, is going way to far.


RE: Un...
By sonoran on 6/24/2010 4:44:24 PM , Rating: 3
"Land of the free" has become such an oxymoron. It's sad what's happened to the America I once knew.


RE: Un...
By bupkus on 6/25/2010 1:47:31 AM , Rating: 3
I know this isn't a discussion of race but I thought the timing was right.

If you were a black person growing up in the U.S.A. the chances are that America was probably never "...the America I once knew."

I'm not harping on some "liberal" cause but just doing a reality check about many living in America over the previous century.


RE: Un...
By CyborgTMT on 6/26/2010 2:24:55 AM , Rating: 2
You can add those of us who are of Native American decent in that mix too. We've been getting screwed since day one.


rights conflict
By dgingeri on 6/24/2010 3:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
This is total garbage. This is part of freedom of the press. If we can't record what happens in public, then it can't be properly reported. This violates the whole meaning behind freedom of the press. I don't care if it is a cop or a regular citizen, if you're in public, you should have no expectation of privacy. In a private residence, sure, but not in/on publicly available areas.

Freedom of the press is one of many laws implemented in the Bill of Rights that is intended specifically to reduce government oppression and to enable government accountability. This, combined with right to assembly, right to bear arms, and right against search and seizure are what keep the government in its place: a service to the citizens, not a ruling class.

I'm not a fan of the ACLU, they go far beyond where they are supposed to for protecting rights in some areas and conveniently forget to enforce others, but this is definitely a case where they are needed.




RE: rights conflict
By mcnabney on 6/24/2010 3:27:41 PM , Rating: 4
ACLU fights for causes that are either unpopular or who have no advocates. The example often stated is why they aren't involved with with second ammendment issues and the reply is that the NRA is more than capable of handling that. They stand behind people like Fred Phelps that have no support (thank GOD), but should have their freedoms protected all the same.


RE: rights conflict
By KillerNoodle on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: rights conflict
By omnicronx on 6/24/2010 3:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is not the case here. The officer told Olvera to get identification not to take pictures. Olvera did not initially cooperate in that order so the officer arrested him. "Obstruction"
Its a noise complaint (i.e most likely a local bylaw and not a criminal offense), unless he had a reason to believe it was not his house, I really doubt he even had the authority to demand ID in the first place.. Let alone the fact he entered the house at all. The guy never would have reached for his camera if the cop had not illegally entered his house in the first place.

Thus its kind of hard to make the case he was obstructing ..


RE: rights conflict
By dgingeri on 6/24/2010 4:12:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Freedom of the press involves the participation of a third party.


wrong. freedom of the press involves reporting to the public at large (this includes blogs, whether the courts agree or not) of facts and/or occurrences. in this day and age, this includes recording such things for credibility. no third party needs to participate.

If one person wants to print out fliers about what happened, with pictures or not, then he has the right to do just that, even if nobody actually reads the fliers. That's freedom of the press. Since there are now other ways to publish information so that the public can access it, such as blogs, those should also be included as part of the greater "press" term.

If something false is reported, then libel laws come into effect. However, the government cannot interfere with that. Surveillance laws prohibiting public photography like that cannot be enforceable, no matter the subject.


RE: rights conflict
By Lerianis on 7/1/2010 12:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, taking pictures of what a police officer is doing, even in a 'raid', is part and parcel of free speech and a way for the American people to 'be the watchmen of the police' to make sure that the police are not doing things that they shouldn't.

Whatever judges and lawmakers put into place those laws saying that you could not record the police, need a kick in the butt as a wakeup call.


RE: rights conflict
By acase on 6/24/2010 3:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, and what if I have my own closed circuit security system videotaping my front porch or inside my house? Am I automatically arrested should a cop decide to come on my property and get videotaped?


what about the dashboard cameras?
By kattanna on 6/24/2010 3:24:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."


if the cops are claiming all parties have to give consent, then what about them taping citizens via their cruiser mounted cameras, like the highway patrol use?

wouldnt they have to leave the cameras turned OFF until the citizen being detained agreed to be filmed?

or even better yet, red light cameras. hey i most assuredly didnt give them permission to tape me running that red light, so it should therefore not be allowed to be used as evidence.

2 party consent works both ways




RE: what about the dashboard cameras?
By WorldMage on 6/24/2010 3:31:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
if the cops are claiming all parties have to give consent, then what about them taping citizens via their cruiser mounted cameras, like the highway patrol use?
[...]
2 party consent works both ways

The government will give consent for you ;)


RE: what about the dashboard cameras?
By Syran on 6/24/2010 3:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
According to their policy, they would need an active court order allowing them to video you, with specifics on the person they were taping.

Course, by this measure, any company that uses surveillance cameras for security, and tape things, would not be admissible in court either.


By beerhound on 6/24/2010 3:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
I know you were making a joke, but it isn't that far off from what they will actually do to preserve their right to tape us, but keep us from taping them. They will make it a part of the TOS for getting a drivers license or registering a car.

"By signing this drivers license agreement, you agree to be taped by law enforcement personal or automated traffic cameras without prior notice"


By Lazarus Dark on 6/25/2010 9:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think I will go rob a bank. Video surveillance will be inadmissible of course, because I didn't give consent.

Seriously, non-consensual video is the best thing that ever happened to police and courts and justice. Do they really want to go down this road? Because they will surely have to give this right to all criminals as well.


BS
By wiz220 on 6/24/2010 4:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hearing this sorta BS makes me numb with rage. It's so obviously a totalitarian attempt to keep cops from ever being held accountable for their actions. We always hear crap from people like, "If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" when it comes to privacy rights being taken away, wiretapping, eaves dropping etc. But when the tables are turned the cops get to claim that you're "obstructing justice" and they get to destroy evidence that could show them acting inappropriately, how convenient!!!

So we have no privacy and no rights, and they have no accountability, that sounds like a great recipe for a fair and just legal system. I really hope cases about this sort of thing get to the Supreme Court in the near future so this can be settled once and for all (hopefully with the correct decision being made to protect citizens rights).




RE: BS
By dgingeri on 6/24/2010 4:28:56 PM , Rating: 4
This is what the second amendment was made for.


RE: BS
By boobo on 6/24/2010 6:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'm usually one to say and will continue to say "If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" when it comes to privacy rights being taken away, wiretapping, eaves dropping etc. IN PUBLIC AREAS.

However, I'm completely with you in this case. What is good for the goose is good for the moose. You have the right to video tape your own property regardless of who is in it. Recording events that are happenning in public places has the potential to be journalism and should be protected as such.


Police are public servants!
By holymaniac on 6/24/2010 3:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
People need to remember that all government and all law enforcement are working for YOU! Not the other way around. they have to answer to YOU not the other way around. Most people in positions of authority go corrupt in some degree and need oversight. they get too big for their britches.
Police have a tough job to do but that is no excuse for abuse of their power. They derive their power from US. And they answer to us.And it must be taken away if it is abused. They should be filmed more and kept an eye on. The Government should not be videoing the citizens...the citizens should be videoing the government.




RE: Police are public servants!
By mmatis on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Police are public servants!
By Tuor on 6/24/2010 10:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
The police do not derive their power from the US (Constitution). The federal government gets is power from the US Constitution, and so that is where agencies like the FBI ultimately derive their authority.

The cops that stop you for speeding work for the city, county, or state, not for the federal government. So, if you want to ask where they get off doing X, then look at the appropriate source.


RE: Police are public servants!
By callmeroy on 6/25/2010 10:30:22 AM , Rating: 1
You never took paid much attention in school did you?

First each state is bound by federal laws, second each state has their own constitution and most of them are heavily modeled and/or influenced by the federal constitution, don't believe me? I encourage you to look up your state's and then skim off the US constitution for comparison.

Of course the pecking order of laws in this country go...in order from lower "authority" to higher "authority"...

township -> county -> state -> federal

So to say that cops don't get their authority from a federal level is really just semantics / technicality...since the source of government that empowers them is heavily influenced by the US constitution and answers to the federal government.


RE: Police are public servants!
By callmeroy on 6/25/2010 10:31:51 AM , Rating: 1
ugh sorry for typos...(again)


I call BS
By AEvangel on 6/24/2010 9:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many courts on a state level have ruled that taking videos or photos of police using your phone qualifies as obstruction.


Ok, Jason please show me where "many states" have shown this to be the case. This to me seems like you are WAY stretching the truth to drum up hits on your article.

The only state I'm aware of that does this is Maryland and in those case it is not illegal since their state law clearly states where there is an expectation of Privacy you cannot record the other party without their consent. An since a cop in public performing their duty has no expectation of Privacy this law would not apply.

Even with that being the case power mad police officers in Maryland are still arresting people for it even though no case has been successfully tried to my knowledge and most of them have been dropped.

The only reason this is an issue for the Police right now is because of their own actions and how they feel they have more rights then the average citizen. They are grossly violating the law on a daily basis and then lying about in court to cover their own misdeed and the public armed with recording devices is the only thing catching them.

If anyone is interested in finding out more about Police Abuse I would recommend the following website.

The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?p=1070




RE: I call BS
By Broddie on 6/29/2010 5:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
It's sad to admit, but England, or rather the United Kingdom itself, is at the forefront of these surveillance society methods.

Northern Ireland, and the 'Troubles' which allowed us to spy on and record those citizens, was our testing ground.

In London, I've been detained/arrested twice under the Prevention of Terrorism Act - and then released without charge.

The first occasion was when I observed thirty-six police officers (in Dayglo jackets) and with drug sniffer dogs, openly searching immigrants as they exited a London tube station. They behave like the Stasi.

I didn't feel happy about this so I started taking pictures: until the cops covered my camera - and then detained me under the PTA.

As a humourous aside one officer asked: 'Is that pram with you, sir?'

I responded, yes. I had just pushed it out of the station.

'Would I be correct in saying that there is a child inside it, sir?' (There was, my 1 year-old daughter! A true weapon of mass destruction I can tell you.)

The second time is when I was making a video recording of a yellow junction box. (Don't know if you have these over the side of the Pond but they are to control traffic and you can't stop on them in a car, unless you're turning right.

This junction box was/is a cash cow for the local council/Transport for London. I was collecting my own evidence of the cameras that filmed and trapped the motorist. Again I was detained under the PTA.

Another funny side bar being that the officer (one of about seven) asked me 'which box should I put you in?'. He meant which ethnic listing do you go under. I refused to offer this and later discovered that this had been ticked 'white'; which I'm certainly not. (A few months later Princess Beatrice attended the college adjacent to this junction box, and perhaps this was the reason for my detention.)

So... I'm reminded of that rousing speech by Winston Churchill long before I was born: "WE SHALL MEET THEM, AT THE BEACHES." I really do wonder how ironic it may have been for Hitler to realise that the defeat of his Nazis was undertaken by a nation that then moved towards a surveillance dictatorship - within 50 years. And now all the building blocks stand in place for something much more sinister.

But if you have nothing to hide...

Sorry if all that's overlong, but I may not get another chance to say it openly.


The truth of the matter...
By dxf2891 on 6/25/2010 10:56:20 AM , Rating: 2
Olvera was aquitted due the following reasons:

1) He was in his home when the cop arrived and exited it to greet the cop. He could not be charged with public drunkeness as the cop asked him to step outside.

2) He was then asked for identification. He could have legally refused as he was not in public. He agreed to show his ID, but had to retrieve it from his kitchen. He and the cop exchanged no words, the cop just entered the premises. This is against police regulations as it puts the cop in a potentially dangerous situation. He had no clue who or what awaited him in the home.

3) A home owner does not need your permission to record on their premises. Property owners do it all the time with security cameras. A photograph or video in no way prohibits a cop from carrying out his or her LEGAL execution of duty.

All in all, this should have been a coversation at the door for Olvera to "keep it down." It sounds like there was an over zealous cop who wanted to abuse his authority. He was wrong and the law proved it.




RE: The truth of the matter...
By Jeffk464 on 6/25/2010 12:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
Luckily I think a lot of judges are well aware that over zealous cops often violate our rites. It is in the interests of private citizens to get the supreme court stacked with Liberal judges as these are more likely to side with the rights of private citizens.


Solution = Streaming video
By Shadowmaster625 on 6/29/2010 2:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
Record these bastards and broadcast live as they try and violate your rights. Just make sure it is also being archived at a remote location. Whether your camera has the capability or not, make sure you tell the officer that your phone is streaming and uploading to a wifi access point. That should scare off most of them.

Of course, some of them simply do not care who is watching.




RE: Solution = Streaming video
By Belard on 7/1/2010 4:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
Just to note, most cops are GOOD... like anything else, there are BAD apples and I have had my own bad experiences.

Streaming is not something that most people can do, even with an EVO-4G or iPhone4.... How long does that take to setup? The cops or anyone else won't be waiting for you prep your hardware. So best we have is our camera phones that can record on the spot.

- - -
As stated above, most Police officers PREFER cameras as they usually show the COP is not doing anything improper.

Look at the incident from 1-2 weeks ago when a white officer is trying to give two black women a ticket. From the headline "officer punches 17 year old girl in the face" and the photo shows his punch into a black womans face. Watching the video, the girls were the problem. How was he to know that one of them was 17? She was bigger than the cop! He took control of the situation and his actions were justified. As many have stated, they'd rather be punched than tazered.


Am I missing something?
By Performance Fanboi on 6/24/2010 3:02:34 PM , Rating: 3
Why would a cop who isn't doing anything wrong have a problem with being photographed or videotaped? Wouldn't such photos/videos protect him from false accusations of brutality or misconduct? More and more we are seeing 2 kinds of peace officer - the ones that do their job to the best of their ability and ones like the loser in the article who committed an unlawful entry and then further abused his power by applying a law to a situation that it was surely not intended for. I bet real cops are even more bothered by this behavior than citizens are.




Thanks Bush...
By redeyedfly on 6/24/2010 4:34:14 PM , Rating: 1
for new hyper security laws..(bs homeland security). I am getting really tired of these gestapo tactics. this place is getting closer and closer to a police state. The other day I saw a car marked as "federal security force"...uuhh sounds alot like the SS to me. watch out everyone, history is doomed to repeat itself.




RE: Thanks Bush...
By ClownPuncher on 6/24/2010 5:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, they are just here to help. If you disagree with what I have said, please identify yourself. You will be submitted for proccessing.


Stupid editorial news reporter article
By sweetspot on 6/24/2010 7:05:01 PM , Rating: 1
Wow to show such shoddy fact article writing which eludes to facts not related to the actual article of being arrested for taking photos.

He was arrested for public intoxication and obstuction of justice ( he dint turn the music down ) nothing here states he was arrested for taking photos as none of the charges where about picture taking at all, they were all typical drunk and disorderly charges.

Reason for getting charges dropped or not, was if the guy was on private or public property, which if he was at home then the public arrest was bad so they had to drop the charges. All of which has zero to do with picture taking of anyone. Its all related to a drunk noisy party at someones house, this guy is trying to make a case that him taking photos is the cuase, so he can minimize the effects for any claims due to he was a drunk stupid person making typical loud noise party at home, all of which again is nothing to do with being arrested for taking photos.




By ssobol on 6/25/2010 8:58:33 AM , Rating: 2
If the police use the two-party consent law to disallow photos/video of them (i.e. both parties must agree to be recorded), then anyone should also be able to use this interpretation to prevent the use of survellience video recordings to be used against them in court.


Watching the watchdogs.
By Silver2k7 on 6/25/2010 4:57:16 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't it good that someone (people in this case) is watching the watchdogs.

If someone capturing police brutality, and doing something about it, isn't that good?? They are perhaps removing police from the force who are acting in a criminal way.

Does the police have a problem with criminal officers beeing removed from the force or penalised for their actions ?




RE: Watching the watchdogs.
By Silver2k7 on 6/25/2010 5:05:59 AM , Rating: 1
I heard about this yesturday..

A driver got an ambulance with full on sirens behind them on a 1 lane way with steel wires on the sides.... they decided to speed up to not hinder the ambulance from reaching the ER as fast as possible. So they speed up until there was 2 lanes so they could let the ambulance pass.

The driver later lost his drivers license and got a ticket of iirc something like $400 for speeding. Althought he had the ambulance driver on his side. The Traffic Cop, heavily penalised this well intentioned driver, who according to Driver Shools around here did the right thing!!

This is IMHO a very shameful act of the traffic cop..
if there is one time to look the other way, its when someone is speeding up to help an ambulance get on their way.


With this logic
By YashBudini on 6/24/2010 6:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
This article suggests the police have more than enough cause to arrest everyone in the Hell's Angels.

Yeah, good luck with that one.




Two-Party Consent?
By osalcido on 6/29/2010 2:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
I never consent to my vehicle being photographed by those red-light cameras either




Here's a tip to a citizen.
By monkeyman1140 on 6/29/2010 2:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
NEVER EVER leave a door open for a cop. That is an automatic invitation to search.

During traffic stops people have a bad habit of leaving the car door open when asked to get out. You have NO OBLIGATION and you should immediately shut the door and lock it when you step out. Handing the officer the keys is a consent to search, leaving the door open is a consent to search.

Leave your front door open? That's a consent to search. Its just how things are in the United States.




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki