Boston cop takes phone from man who recorded arrest

[her209]

http://baystateexaminer.com/boston-cops-takes-phone-man-recorded-arrest/

Then wipes blood on his shirt.

Bickford never got the cop’s name, but he did call a lieutenant after getting home, who told him she had heard of the incident, defending the cop by saying he believed the phone contained evidence of a crime.

The cop was probably trying to delete the video he thought the observer record of him kicking the person he was arresting in the head. That would be a crime, right? Attempted murder perhaps?

 

[Thebobo]

Power trip - often to typical with police, bad training or ex military imo

 

[zanejohnson]

Typical cop douche bag thuggery.


we've let this problem get FAR out of hand in this nation. people are sick of it.

 

[OverVolt]

I don't really see anything that wrong in the vid tied to the article. The guy was being a little facebook drama queen. Oh my god oh look someone getting arrested let me videotape it.

The guy getting arrested didn't want to cooperate and refused to really walk upright on his own. Meanwhile busybody kid is all like "he can't see his face is covered wah wah." And as the cop said, the kid has no idea what went down other than herp derp someones getting arrested.

And the blood thing? If he minded his own business it never would have happened. Its all fun and games as a spectator until you become a participant.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I don't really see anything that wrong in the vid tied to the article. The guy was being a little facebook drama queen. Oh my god oh look someone getting arrested let me videotape it.

Even if he was being a "facebook drama queen" as you call it doesn't make the officers actions right. He was protecting a fellow human by being a witness and creating an objective witness by way of video. If you don't like being videotaped I suggest you don't go outside.

The guy getting arrested didn't want to cooperate and refused to really walk upright on his own. Meanwhile busybody kid is all like "he can't see his face is covered wah wah." And as the cop said, the kid has no idea what went down other than herp derp someones getting arrested.

So? The court of public opinion is usually dominated by police because they routinely control evidence that is leaked to news organizations. That's why police hate people with camera's because they no longer control the truth.

And the blood thing? If he minded his own business it never would have happened. Its all fun and games as a spectator until you become a participant.

And he was only a participant because of the mentality of cops these days. Ultra confrontational and belligerent with power. The phone itself is NOT the evidence but rather the video that contains the information. They can ask for a copy just like the rest of us do.

I get it though. No one should "question authority" and just do as they are told, just like you. You aren't alone in this cowardice though, as the majority of the population (2/3 in fact) will do the same. However, that non-thinking attitude typically has disastrous effects for society. Never mind the countless people you harm along the way as long as authority is worshiped amiright?

 

[Mai72]

Cops can do whatever.

We are doomed.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I don't really see anything that wrong in the vid tied to the article. The guy was being a little facebook drama queen. Oh my god oh look someone getting arrested let me videotape it.

The guy getting arrested didn't want to cooperate and refused to really walk upright on his own. Meanwhile busybody kid is all like "he can't see his face is covered wah wah." And as the cop said, the kid has no idea what went down other than herp derp someones getting arrested.

And the blood thing? If he minded his own business it never would have happened. Its all fun and games as a spectator until you become a participant.

Actually the COP`s cannot and are not suppose to use that "evidence" excuse to confiscate a phone!!

You on the other hand are one of the few who actually believes the COP`s are well within their right to lie and do as they please...

 

[The Merg]

Actually the COP`s cannot and are not suppose to use that "evidence" excuse to confiscate a phone!!



You on the other hand are one of the few who actually believes the COP`s are well within their right to lie and do as they please...

Actually, the police can do so legally. They can seize audio or video recordings that can contain evidence of a crime. Once in the custody of the police though, the officer will either need consent to access the recording or have a search warrant issued. That gives them the ability to access the video from the device. If done by a computer forensic unit (as it should be done), no data is altered on the device; it is merely copied off of it.

Of course, we now wander into the issue if the device is an iOS 8 device.

The exception to this would be if the police department has a policy regarding the seizure of recording devices.

- Merg

 

[Venix]

Actually, the police can do so legally. They can seize audio or video recordings that can contain evidence of a crime.

This is incorrect. The police can only seize a recording without a warrant if it contains evidence of a crime and there exists an imminent risk of the evidence being destroyed.

 

[The Merg]

This is incorrect. The police can only seize a recording without a warrant if it contains evidence of a crime and there exists an imminent risk of the evidence being destroyed.

True, but the courts have stated that data on a portable recording device can be easily manipulated or erased if not secured, which basically means that law enforcement can seize the recording without a warrant. As I stated though, they still need to obtain a warrant to view the recording though.

- Merg

 

[JEDIYoda]

Actually, the police can do so legally. They can seize audio or video recordings that can contain evidence of a crime. Once in the custody of the police though, the officer will either need consent to access the recording or have a search warrant issued. That gives them the ability to access the video from the device. If done by a computer forensic unit (as it should be done), no data is altered on the device; it is merely copied off of it.

Of course, we now wander into the issue if the device is an iOS 8 device.

The exception to this would be if the police department has a policy regarding the seizure of recording devices.

- Merg

I am sorry but it is not that cut and dry......in the majority og cases NO they cannot confiscate somebodys` cell phone under the guise of the word -- evidence....

 

[JEDIYoda]

True, but the courts have stated that data on a portable recording device can be easily manipulated or erased if not secured, which basically means that law enforcement can seize the recording without a warrant. As I stated though, they still need to obtain a warrant to view the recording though.

- Merg

again you are wrong........the Police would need a warrant to confiscate your cell and use what you recorded as evidence......sorry!

 

[The Merg]

again you are wrong........the Police would need a warrant to confiscate your cell and use what you recorded as evidence......sorry!

In certain situations that is true. If the recording had been made and was not immediately available a search warrant for the phone would be needed, such as the recording is later posted on the Internet and the police decide the recording is then needed for evidentiary purposes. However, if the officer has immediate access to the phone when the recording is made, they can seize the device as evidence.

- Merg

 

[BoberFett]

The phone had evidence? Evidence indicates there was a crime committed. Ergo, the cop admitted to committing a crime.

 

[The Merg]

The phone had evidence? Evidence indicates there was a crime committed. Ergo, the cop admitted to committing a crime.

Or the cop believed the video contained material that led to the subjects arrest or, if applicable, the subject's resistance to an arrest. Not saying that is what happened here...

- Merg

 

[Genx87]

The phone had evidence? Evidence indicates there was a crime committed. Ergo, the cop admitted to committing a crime.

That would be the logical conclusion.

 

[rudeguy]

Or the cop believed the video contained material that led to the subjects arrest or, if applicable, the subject's resistance to an arrest. Not saying that is what happened here...

- Merg

If he did believe that the phone was evidence, he would get a court order or a warrant. Police do not get to seize private property without just cause.

This is a trend that police departments picked up when the SC ruled that filming a cop in public was 100% protected under the 1st Amendment. They now fally back on "I will seize your phone for evidence" or claim you are violating wire tap laws that don't exist in public.

The police do not want their actions to be recorded and will stomp all over our rights to be sure they aren't.

 

[The Merg]

If he did believe that the phone was evidence, he would get a court order or a warrant. Police do not get to seize private property without just cause.



This is a trend that police departments picked up when the SC ruled that filming a cop in public was 100% protected under the 1st Amendment. They now fally back on "I will seize your phone for evidence" or claim you are violating wire tap laws that don't exist in public.



The police do not want their actions to be recorded and will stomp all over our rights to be sure they aren't.

Once again, in that situation the officer does not need to get a warrant to seize the phone. That's not to say that the officer can't have another officer secure the phone with the subject there (to make sure the subject doesn't alter or delete the video) and then obtain a search warrant for the seizure of the phone. But that is not necessary in that case.

Along a similar mindset would be if an officer went into a house legally and saw drugs in plain view. The officer has two options there. One, the officer can seize any evidence in plain view, but that's it. Two, the officer can secure the house to make sure no evidence is destroyed or removed and then write a search warrant for the drugs visible as well as a search of rest of the house for any more drugs.

In this case, if the officer was throwing around the phone and broke it, that is absolutely inappropriate. You also seem to think that if the police take the phone they are just going to the erase whatever is on it. That is not the case. The phone should be logged in the evidence and anything that's on it related to the case will be downloaded. The data on the phone itself should not be touched or altered.

- Merg

 

[TechBoyJK]

Always say "you know I'm streaming this, right? Even if you take my phone I still have the footage. In fact, it seems several people are viewing this live."

 

[The Merg]

I will add that many departments now have policies in place for how officers are supposed to deal with situations that evidence might have been recorded.

Also, the officer still needs probable cause to believe there is evidence on that phone. However, this can be as simple as the subject telling the officer that they recorded the incident or the officer observed them filming.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

Always say "you know I'm streaming this, right? Even if you take my phone I still have the footage. In fact, it seems several people are viewing this live."

Nothing wrong with that.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

I'll even add that if an officer takes a phone they should not be doing anything on the phone at that time except if the owner of the phone allows the officer to do so. When an officer takes the phone, they should be putting it into airplane mode and then shutting it off.

- Merg

 

[rudeguy]

Once again, in that situation the officer does not need to get a warrant to seize the phone. That's not to say that the officer can't have another officer secure the phone with the subject there (to make sure the subject doesn't alter or delete the video) and then obtain a search warrant for the seizure of the phone. But that is not necessary in that case.

Along a similar mindset would be if an officer went into a house legally and saw drugs in plain view. The officer has two options there. One, the officer can seize any evidence in plain view, but that's it. Two, the officer can secure the house to make sure no evidence is destroyed or removed and then write a search warrant for the drugs visible as well as a search of rest of the house for any more drugs.

In this case, if the officer was throwing around the phone and broke it, that is absolutely inappropriate. You also seem to think that if the police take the phone they are just going to the erase whatever is on it. That is not the case. The phone should be logged in the evidence and anything that's on it related to the case will be downloaded. The data on the phone itself should not be touched or altered.

- Merg

You are stating what should be done. I am telling you what happens, real world.

I have every right in the world to film a cop arresting someone in public. That cop has zero right to seize my camera.

Do just a tiny bit of research on this. PINAC

 

[The Merg]

You are stating what should be done. I am telling you what happens, real world.



I have every right in the world to film a cop arresting someone in public. That cop has zero right to seize my camera.



Do just a tiny bit of research on this. PINAC

You have every right to record an arrest by a police officer. However, if the police think you recorded a crime they can seize your phone.

Unless you directly interfere with the police, you are not committing a crime (and in that case it would be your interference and not the actual picture/video taking that would be illegal).

The officer should not be destroying cameras or phones. That misconduct should be punished.

- Merg

 

[Leymenaide]

You are stating what should be done. I am telling you what happens, real world.

I have every right in the world to film a cop arresting someone in public. That cop has zero right to seize my camera.

Do just a tiny bit of research on this. PINAC

You are correct as long as you accept that there is "Liberty and Justice for those who can afford it"

Ask the poor bastards who are having their cash stolen by the police on our nations highways.