It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Washington State man arrested for recording Swat Team from the sidewalk.

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChuckNasty

Originally posted by XTexan
Recording cops in public is legal.
Sure it is. Every state has the exact same laws.

There are no states with laws saying you cannot film in a public area, or that you can expect any amount of privacy in public.

Washington has a “two party consent” law, but that still only applies if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Its judged on a case by case basis. Since this was happening on a public street, and there was no expectation of privacy, the police will have a hard time winning this court battle.

In case you didn't notice they charged him with “obstruction” not “filming without consent”, they did that because they already know that they violated this guys rights, and it won't hold up in court. So they used a “stacking charge” in an attempt to cover their butts.
edit on 8/15/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I did notice the charge against him. He'll make some good cash from the cops mistake. Even that cop didn't understand the laws. This guy should walk and he should sue.

But was he really innocent...my belief is that he violated that states law only after he didn't stop once the cop approached him. I'm sure there is a stipulation that states once a police scene/assault area is established that it is no longer public area or some BS like that. I'm not from there so I really don't know or care to dwell into that states laws and definitions.

That public place thing isn't a blanket policy for the states that have those 2 party recording laws. Unless you can find the Washington law that has it in black-n-white, I'll call BS to any theoretical assumptions of law.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ChuckNasty
 
The problem is that then it would apply to news organizations as well, and no law is going to support that. The only time that you can run into issues with filming the police is if it includes undercover agents. As the swat team has the option to obscure their faces with their masks, that would not even apply here IMHO. SO they charged him with “obstruction” which like “reckless driving” is something that relies on the opinion of the officer at the time. That is the polices “out” in this case to get away with breaking the law and not get sued.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   


If you are recording in New Jersey or in one of the states or territories within the First, Seventh, Ninth or Eleventh Circuits, the First Amendment right to record should protect you against prosecution for recording the police or other public officials as they carry out their duties in public places.




posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


Not sure where you are going with this. No black and white answer here. Even if it was, the word should isn't an absolute. Unless it states will or shall, or the like, it is left up to human interpretation.

But I understand the thinking.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Now don't get me wrong, this cop was a POS. The video poster guy didn't handle himself to benefit from further legal actions. His immediate posting to YouTube might be his fail point. He leaves himself up to slanderous charges if the cop has any brains. Would the cop win, not likely. Your time and attorney monies will more than likely be lost.

The cop would have been better off not claiming obstruction, but of evidence seizure. It would mitigate any lawsuit damage and allowed for personal retaliations. But that is in hindsight and we all would love to act on that instead of what actually happened.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChuckNasty
That has got to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. When people start to apply what they have heard on TV as being a fact....well, that is just crazy.


Why do you assume I heard that from tv? Fyi, I've read the case law, I've read the lawyers statements. I've read the DA's statements.



Cops can and will take any footage they feel is evidence.


Nope, and repeating that wont make it true either.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by ChuckNasty
That has got to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. When people start to apply what they have heard on TV as being a fact....well, that is just crazy.


Why do you assume I heard that from tv? Fyi, I've read the case law, I've read the lawyers statements. I've read the DA's statements.



Cops can and will take any footage they feel is evidence.


Nope, and repeating that wont make it true either.
Pot calling the kettle black? That last statement is true, it is the reason why you hate them...



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Sorry, there's no such law. Tried searching all law sites with "pot calling" and "kettle".



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChuckNasty
But posting crap on YouTube, hoping to be the next viral video, is very low brow. This video, IMO, was total crap. Most simpletons will gravitate, and agree with, videos like this. Most simpletons will also use this video to fuel their hate for authority.




I couldn't disagree more. I say it's a very "high brow" and noble thing to do. People need to see this stuff. The mainstream media doesn't report on these matters nearly enough. And bad cops need to be held accountable. Self-publishing stuff like this via the internet is one of the most important, not to mention one of the ONLY tools we really have to fight against corruption in the system-- and people need to use it.


And your describing anyone who sees the world differently than you as "simpletons" is quite revealing about your attitude and (too high) opinion of yourself.

And as to your previous comment: yes, I'd agree-- it very much sounds like you've lead a privileged (and possibly sheltered) life. Good for you. Not everyone is so lucky.



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by ChuckNasty
But posting crap on YouTube, hoping to be the next viral video, is very low brow. This video, IMO, was total crap. Most simpletons will gravitate, and agree with, videos like this. Most simpletons will also use this video to fuel their hate for authority.




I couldn't disagree more. I say it's a very "high brow" and noble thing to do. People need to see this stuff. The mainstream media doesn't report on these matters nearly enough. And bad cops need to be held accountable. Self-publishing stuff like this via the internet is one of the most important, not to mention one of the ONLY tools we really have to fight against corruption in the system-- and people need to use it.
The ONLY tools...Really? How does a person think that this is the ONLY tools to fight corruption. Bad cops and BAD people need to be held accountable for their negative actions or lack of actions. Thinking YouTube is the ONLY means of fighting corruption is a cowardly thing to think. It takes Balls to openly sue a city and/or police department. When you win and influence further outcome is a victory...not some video that will be forgotten in a few more weeks. Without a judicial victory in a democratic society, any video is more than likely gonna be tossed in the 'no one cares' bin of majority of the people.




And your describing anyone who sees the world differently than you as "simpletons" is quite revealing about your attitude and (too high) opinion of yourself.

And as to your previous comment: yes, I'd agree-- it very much sounds like you've lead a privileged (and possibly sheltered) life. Good for you. Not everyone is so lucky.
Privileged maybe, but I like to call it 'not being a dumb ass.' Sheltered, heck no. I just choose to be observant and not stick my nose into matters that I will definitely not be able to influence. When I do choose to stick my nose into other matters, I will not fail. I'll take precautions and plan for most (not all) outcomes.

I know for a fact that I could have turned the video guys situation into a money maker. Rules were broken. The cop is dumb...not all cops are. People are dumb, but not all people are. This video is a good example of two dumb people who couldn't think things through before acting.

Yes, I do think highly of myself, as should anyone else (of themselves, not of me). When you start to play the 'I'm always the victim' game, you always will be. If you don't strive to be better than who you are now, you will never achieve anything more.

Again, I'm not defending the cops action or the video guys action. I'm just saddened that everyone thinks all cops are bad. I'm also ashamed that people think the cowards way out is the ONLY way.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
An update on this...

Yakima Herald

SUNNYSIDE — A Sunnyside man goes to court today in a dispute over what led to his arrest after he filmed a Sunnyside SWAT team raiding a home earlier this month.

Police say Thomas Warren was arrested and cited for obstructing a police officer after allegedly walking past a secured perimeter and not leaving when told to do so.

But Warren, a 28-year-old librarian, and two witnesses say he was arrested for filming the raid. A video taken by Warren shows Sunnyside police Sgt. Olie Hernandez threatening to arrest him for obstruction if he doesn’t stop filming, telling him it’s illegal to film in public without everyone’s consent.


And look, he got an apology so that makes it all better right?


Law enforcement officers certainly have discretion to create a secure perimeter at a raid, said Michele Earl-Hubbard, a lawyer with the Allied Law Group in Seattle and a founding board member of the Washington Coalition for Open Government. Earl-Hubbard has also represented the Yakima Herald-Republic in public records cases.

But that discretion has to be used reasonably and applied evenly, she said. “They can’t single a person out for filming.”

Officers can’t use overly broad restrictions, either, Earl-Hubbard said.

On Monday, Schenck apologized to Warren in person for Hernandez misstating state law.

But that doesn’t affect the citation, he said.


Anyway, just bringing things up to speed.



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Case Dismissed!

Yakima Herald


SUNNYSIDE, Wash. — SUNNYSIDE — Calling the whole thing a mistake, police on Tuesday asked for dismissal of a charge against a man arrested after he filmed a SWAT raid.

At the request of both police officials and prosecutors, Sunnyside Municipal Court Judge Steven Michels dismissed the charge against Thomas Warren, a bystander arrested earlier this month after filming the Sunnyside SWAT team search for a stolen laptop at a house they suspect has a history of gang activity and weapons.

“We made the mistake, we own it,” said Phil Schenck, Sunnyside deputy police chief.

Warren said he expected the dismissal, but still may sue the police department.

Schenck said he was uncomfortable with the “muddied” quality of the evidence against Warren, who was charged with obstruction for allegedly crossing a police line. However, Warren’s videotape showed Sunnyside Sgt. Oli Hernandez threatening to arrest him if he doesn’t stop filming the SWAT team’s activities the evening of Aug. 10.


Warren goes on to post in the forum i found this story in originally.
Opencarry.org


"Schenck said he has scheduled a refresher training in constitutional law and search and seizure for his whole department with a Yakima County prosecutor."
Like it needs to be said, who better to test the effectiveness of this training than me?

I had a fairly productive talk with the Dep. Chief afterwards. A number of things were discussed, why I do what I do, etc. I got a chance to go over a number of instances that motivated me to start the recording thing I do, such as officer's use of dishonesty to trick us into waiving rights, etc. He said they are not supposed to do that; there are instances when it's in the interest of justice that they do, but they are not supposed to use it wantonly to get a name for a warrant check or whatever. I have an open ear now if at any time I am bothered by conduct of SPD I can go directly to him to discuss it.

He also complimented the "legal brief" I wrote five years ago when my CPL app was denied. He said no one had ever done that. Reading it now I wrote it like a rambling nutcase, but I guess it got the job done. I had written it in between work, taking care of my baby, and way too much coffee.

I've had a lot of fun reaction from around town too. I've been thanked by more than one person. This is a small town. A lot of people know me and everyone knows Oli.
On the Yakima-Herald print copy, there is a large picture of the Sgt with the words "DON'T RECORD ME, I'LL ARREST YOU (it happened in Sunnyside)" on the front cover. It took me three different gas stations to find a copy; one of the guys said they sold them all real quick, 'must be something going on.' Maybe it was the settlement for a wrongful death lawsuit or the mosaic project stories that were also on the front though.

Oh yeah, the perimeter thing. Wow. I can't conceive anything other than after he radioed that he was arresting me for filming that someone tapped on his shoulder and said "um, you can't do that sarge..." So there had to be some other reason he arrested me. As you can see in the videos, there isn't a perimeter. The police report stated that the police cars blocking the street, as seen in one of the videos was what marked the perimeter. The other ladies were allowed to be there because they had 'connections' to the house, except my other neighbors who just lived down the street. So the perimeter, marked by a cop car with lights on in the street, was secured and only applied to me. I never knew it was illegal to walk past a cop car with lights on; oh, the possibilities with this one! He also stated he approached because he had seen me breech the perimeter and since I hadn't been frisked I "posed a danger to the SWAT officers." (I took of my gun right before I came outside, I was unarmed.) The intent of the confrontation about recording was actually him trying cause me to exit the perimeter, apparently with some weird mind-trick where I become aware of a perimeter that no one else knows about or is told about but learn about it from being told I will be arrested for filming...


So there ya go kids, it can be done.



posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Exactly what I have been saying all along. Despite the bootlicker attitude of some people even cops and prosecutors know they have no case. "We made a mistake" is the nice way of saying we screwed you over because you dare to try to hold us accountable.


(post by REALH3NDRIX removed for a manners violation)

new topics




 
22
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join