Marijuana.com

Randøm_

Niteshift is on the mark concerning the legality of the matter. What is often not addressed are the mysterious disappearances of things such as video-tapes and even jewelery amid police searches (some cops are criminals, too). The thing is if you have an issue of caution, do not open the door for a cop without a warrant. Keep it locked and ask them to slip the search warrant under the door. However, in most states, they'll bust down your door if they have a warrant before you could even answer them. Also, in most states, they cannot break into your home, even if they have an attachment out on you (warrant), unless the crime in question is a felony. Note that laws vary from state to state.

 

SonOfAGlitch

Ok, I know that videotaping someone, even in the privacy of their own home, even from within their own home without their knowledge is LEGAL. At least it was until recently.

I remember one csae study I did where they couldn't convict this one man for videotaping some poor couple in bed through their window and from an attic space above their bedroom because there was no law in place covering the act...

So wouldn't it be legal to do the same to an arresting officer? Just put the camera down, turned on, and let him know it's recording?

Niteshift

Random,

"What is often not addressed are the mysterious disappearances of things such as video-tapes and even jewelery amid police searches (some cops are criminals, too). "

I'd say the opposite..it's addressed in greater proportion than it happens. The media loves to sensationalize things and this is something they'd seize, then they'd run it again and again.

"The thing is if you have an issue of caution, do not open the door for a cop without a warrant."

Just be aware that there are certain circumstances that will allow me to enter without a warrant and without you opening the door.

"Keep it locked and ask them to slip the search warrant under the door. "

I can't picture too many cops not breaking your door in at that point. There are a number of darn good reason that this is not a good idea from our side of the issue, ranging from you having time to destroy evidence, me having to stand directly in front of the door to do this to you having plenty of time to decide which gun you want to shoot me with.

Bad idea and I completely disagree with it.

SOG:

"I remember one csae study I did where they couldn't convict this one man for videotaping some poor couple in bed through their window and from an attic space above their bedroom because there was no law in place covering the act..."

Many states now have laws addressing that, which is why I answered as I did.

"Just put the camera down, turned on, and let him know it's recording?"

The rest of the story is that as soon as you are cuffed, most would turn it off.

BTW, just remember, anything on that tape can be used against you too. It works both ways.

Randøm_

Niteshift, you always make me narrow my posts down to specifics ... I like that, it keeps me on my toes. It may help to explain that you likely deal with those criminals who are actually violent. My vantage point is from those I associate with and my experiences. If I were to not open the door for a non-felony issue and the police were to break in, there is a decent chance the case "evidence" would be dismissed for illegal search status. I know that if a person opens the door, let's say because of a complaint on loud music, police have a habit of forcing there way in (once again, from my experiences). At that point, if they see a MJ roach in an ashtray. it's off to the joint (<---prison, not a cigarette) with the civillian.
An enemy of mine avoided paying child support for years because he'd never open the door to be served with a subpoena, then when an attachment was issued for his detainment, he still wouldn't open the door even though they knew he was home.
Maybe you, Niteshift, are law-abiding, but many of your cohorts in my area are blatant liars. The only way to get some of the badge-boys to admit that the evidence was seized improperly is to have physical proof of a busted door. BTW, while my refusal to open the door may give me time to figure out which gun I want to shoot you with (noted by you), meanwhile, your gun is already quite handy and ready to put red stains on my carpet. And if I were wanted for an offense dealing with violence (which would be a felony and allow you to enter my premises with or without a warrant, to my knowledge) you'd likely have a small army with vests and some impressive firepower. As for destroying evidence, yes, but the Constitution is supposed to protect civillians from unreasonable searches and warrants. Many cases get thrown out because of this, but only after the "perp" has hired an expensive lawyer to prove this.
I'd expect you to disagree with me, Niteshift, but the courts may or may not share your opinion, depending on the circumstances and local laws.
Your priority is to watch out for your safety, mine is to watch out for my own. If I were a perp and you the officer, our goals would, of course, be opposite each others. The cops got me on the last one (MJ ... how dangerous) ... but I strategized, successfully, many cases which proved the officers to have acted improperly, hence the cases were dismissed from lack of admissible evidence.

My ambition is not to help people break good laws, only avoid being victimized by stupid ones.

Randøm_

Niteshift, with all due respect, here is an exerp from the ACLU regarding searches. (URL: http://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal/bustcardtext.html )

"1. If the police knock and ask to enter your home, you don't have to admit them unless they have a warrant signed by a judge.

2. However, in some emergency situations (like when a person is screaming for help inside, or when the police are chasing someone) officers are allowed to enter and search your home without a warrant.

3. If you are arrested, the police can search you and the area close by. If you are in a building, "close by" usually means just the room you are in.

We all recognize the need for effective law enforcement, but we should also understand our own rights and responsibilities -- especially in our relationships with the police. Everyone, including minors, has the right to courteous and respectful police treatment.

If your rights are violated, don't try to deal with the situation at the scene. You can discuss the matter with an attorney afterwards, or file a complaint with the Internal Affairs or Civilian Complaint Board.

Produced by the American Civil Liberties Union."

If cops bust down my door upon my requesting a warrant, they are violating the law, which is the opposite of their job description (allegedly). The again, with a warrant, seldom would cops wait for you to even request to see the warrant before making one's front door into splinters. You're a cop, you can disagree with me, and I respect your opinion. But you, too, are bound by laws, whether or not you opt to abide by them. I am, after all, an ACLU pup (not wolf, for I'd need to be an attorney for that).

 

Slate

dialcg,
In direct response to your original question, I would have to say that the camera would eventually be turned off. I personally would rather not be video taped while doing my job. Simply because I don't know what that person would do with the raw footage. Sure, experts would be able to detect if the video had been spliced or tampered with, but that determination would be made a long way down the road.

So therefore, if I was involved in a contact (other than consenual) I would simply turn the recorder off. During a custodial situation I can, and would do that.

On the other hand, if an idependent third party (not involved in the contact) was recording the incident, from a safe distance, I would have no say so over their actions. What's a safe distance? It depends on the situation and as long as they didn't interfer with my investigation, either physically or verbally, I'd let them continue.

Niteshift

"2. However, in some emergency situations (like when a person is screaming for help inside, or when the police are chasing someone) officers are allowed to enter and search your home without a warrant. "

That's exactly what I meant when I said that we can enter sometimes without a warrant and without your permission. Called exigent circumstances. There are, however, more than just those 2 examples.

"3. If you are arrested, the police can search you and the area close by. If you are in a building, "close by" usually means just the room you are in."

That's not entirely true. We can make a "protective sweep" to locate other people in the house. Anything in plain view while doing that is fair game.

" If your rights are violated, don't try to deal with the situation at the scene. You can discuss the matter with an attorney afterwards, or file a complaint with the Internal Affairs or Civilian Complaint Board."

Good advice.

" If cops bust down my door upon my requesting a warrant, they are violating the law, which is the opposite of their job description (allegedly). "

Not true at all. Courts have consistently upheld us making forced entry if the door is not opened after we knock and announce our authority. My particular state has routinely held 10-12 seconds as being sufficient time to open the door, less if we he sounds indicating evidence being destroyed or resistence being mounted.

"But you, too, are bound by laws, whether or not you opt to abide by them."

And I do. I have never intentionally violated someones rights or perjured myself to get a conviction.

"many of your cohorts in my area are blatant liars."

Maybe, maybe not. However, even if true, that leaves many who are not.

"you'd likely have a small army with vests and some impressive firepower."

And some people will still resist.

"As for destroying evidence, yes, but the Constitution is supposed to protect civillians from unreasonable searches and warrants."

Partially true. You didn't read the rest of the amendment where it says except with a warrant based on probable cause.

Destroying evidence is NOT a Constitutional right and no court has held that it is. To the contrary, they have held that the imminent destruction of evidence is considered an exigent circumstance.

"but the courts may or may not share your opinion"

So far, most court cases have followed along with what I'm saying here.......My answers are based on them.

Randøm_

As usual, nice retort, Niteshift. I notice that Courts of Appeal often lack unanimous decisions, some of the mentioned arguments here obviously prove why this is so.Originally posted by Niteshift
"2. However, in some emergency situations (like when a person is screaming for help inside, or when the police are chasing someone) officers are allowed to enter and search your home without a warrant. "

That's exactly what I meant when I said that we can enter sometimes without a warrant and without your permission. Called exigent circumstances. There are, however, more than just those 2 examples. Yes, but I do believe most examples would have to constitute a reasonable cause (such as screaming for help) to suspect that there is a felony being involved. I was moreso speaking of misdemeanors.

"3. If you are arrested, the police can search you and the area close by. If you are in a building, "close by" usually means just the room you are in."

That's not entirely true. We can make a "protective sweep" to locate other people in the house. Anything in plain view while doing that is fair game.
I would hope protective sweeps are not routine for suspicions of crimes that would not likely involve 3rd parties or something like indoor cultivation (the latter being a felony).

" If cops bust down my door upon my requesting a warrant, they are violating the law, which is the opposite of their job description (allegedly). "

Not true at all. Courts have consistently upheld us making forced entry if the door is not opened after we knock and announce our authority. My particular state has routinely held 10-12 seconds as being sufficient time to open the door, less if we he sounds indicating evidence being destroyed or resistence being mounted. I meant to refer to their not having a warrant. If they do (or felony), I would already assume that I'd need to replace the door. In some states, the officer yells that he has a warrant and can force entry immediately afterwards.

"But you, too, are bound by laws, whether or not you opt to abide by them."

And I do. I have never intentionally violated someones rights or perjured myself to get a conviction. ... I believe you, that's why I want you cloned

"many of your cohorts in my area are blatant liars."

Maybe, maybe not. However, even if true, that leaves many who are not. Umm, I don't lie and I don't have the given right to legally ruin people's lives. I should hope those who have this "authority" would have higher standards than common thieves, and the number of liars should be a definite zero.

"As for destroying evidence, yes, but the Constitution is supposed to protect civillians from unreasonable searches and warrants."

Partially true. You didn't read the rest of the amendment where it says except with a warrant based on probable cause.
I thought I incorporated that in there by precluding with the word "unreasonable".

Destroying evidence is NOT a Constitutional right and no court has held that it is. To the contrary, they have held that the imminent destruction of evidence is considered an exigent circumstance.
Rights are not granted with the intention of the ability to destroy evidence, however, within the limits of these rights one could take advantage of their rights by doing so, but of course that is not the intention of the law.

So far, most court cases have followed along with what I'm saying here.......My answers are based on them.
Most is not all, and most criminals are represented by court appointed attorneys ... I don't deal with them. I deal with those facing charges and have paid attorneys, and of these, (with attorneys that actually prepare for a case) none of my projects led to convictions withstanding a first appeal.
Niteshift, I don't question your facts, only that some are debatable in a court of law, where lawyers roam free and annoy the hell out of my side and yours!

Niteshift

"I would hope protective sweeps are not routine for suspicions of crimes that would not likely involve 3rd parties or something like indoor cultivation (the latter being a felony). "

It applies to any arrest. Cops get killed writing traffic tickets, so it would be unrealistic to try to pretend that one crime or another poses no danger. The sweep is for my protection.

"In some states, the officer yells that he has a warrant and can force entry immediately afterwards. "

The 10 seconds I mentioned is a preference by the court. If I can reasonably articulate, based on the circumstances, why less is prudent, the court will go with it.

"I don't lie"

I wasn't implying you were. I'm a pretty straight forward guy. If I don't believe you, I'll tell you flat out. What I was saying is that I wasn't going to get hung up on debating that.

However, you can be wrong without being a liar. Consider the number of cops you've actually had contact with, the number of times and the relatively limited geographic area that it was in. Now balance that against the over 740,000 sworn cops in the US. Is it fair to indict a big section of the profession based on your limited contacts? I'd submit to you that it's not.

"the number of liars should be a definite zero."

That department exists......it's in Utopia.

The police force is made up of the community it serves. While it is certainly reasonable for us to try to cull the undesireables from our midst, it's not realistic to believe we will ever be completely successful. Consider other profession: doctors, lawyers, bankers, teachers, clergy, accountants, contractors............they all hold a significant amount of influence in many people's lives, sometimes even a live or death influence. Yet there are bad apples in those professions too.

We had a motto in the Military Police: "Of the troops, for the troops." It applies here. We are drawn from the community to serve the community. Until that community is completely without "sin", there will always be one that slips through the cracks.