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.
Originally posted by ChuckNasty
Sure it is. Every state has the exact same laws.
Originally posted by XTexan
Recording cops in public is legal.
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.
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.
Cops can and will take any footage they feel is evidence.
Pot calling the kettle black? That last statement is true, it is the reason why you hate them...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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...