YASECT: Are these cops out of line?

[SandEagle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_va1ioLMxFQ

Man films himself while cops detain him for "suspicion of terrorist activity"

Police in Kentucky detained a man for "suspicion of terrorist activity" after he supposedly video recorded a police station.

He never admitted to video recording the building but he did record the encounter with two cops.

Not that it really matters because video recording the police department from public is not a crime.

But the man who goes by Zack Skull on Youtube was telling the cops that he was only reading his emails on his iPhone when they approached him, which is why he was holding the phone close to his face.

They then spent the next few minutes debating whether or not he was telling the truth about that, which is a pointless argument considering there is no crime in doing either.

The incident took place June 14, 2012 in Hopkinsville, which has a population of just over 31,000.

One of the cops brought up 9/11 for the detainment, which is guaranteed to produce an eye roll or two - 11 August

hmmm, cops have a surprising calm demeanor, but appear to not know wtf they are talking about.

 

[techs]

Yeah, the guy was acting within his rights.
He was still an asshole.

 

[waggy]

guy did nothing wrong. cops in the wrong.

 

[jlee]

PIASECT.

nocaps.

 

[Garet Jax]

I have strong views on the rights provided by the constitution and its amendments.

I firmly believe that the 4th amendment protects citizens from being detained for no good reason. The encounter transitions from a conversation to being detained as soon as the cops do not let him leave. Whether they do so verbally or physically make no difference to me since this is the authority police have. When someone asks if they are free to go, IMO police must answer this question with a yes or a no. From what I have seen, cops will more often than not ignore the question when they do not have "probable cause".

If they say yes, then he is under no obligation to stay or even show an ID.

The minute they say no, the 4th amendment kicks in and the police must have "propable cause" to detain him. As soon as they say no, he must also furnish an ID.

It seems to me that the officers feel they have "probable cause". It seems to me that they do not.

 

[jlee]

I have strong views on the rights provided by the constitution and its amendments.

I firmly believe that the 4th amendment protects citizens from being detained for no good reason. The encounter transitions from a conversation to being detained as soon as the cops do not let him leave. Whether they do so verbally or physically make no difference to me since this is the authority police have. When someone asks if they are free to go, IMO police must answer this question with a yes or a no. From what I have seen, cops will more often than not ignore the question when they do not have "probable cause".

If they say yes, then he is under no obligation to stay or even show an ID.

The minute they say no, the 4th amendment kicks in and the police must have "propable cause" to detain him. As soon as they say no, he must also furnish an ID.

It seems to me that the officers feel they have "probable cause". It seems to me that they do not.

Reasonable suspicion is required for a detention (e.g. traffic stop). Whether or not someone is considered "detained" is based on the reasonable person standard - if a reasonable person would feel they are not free to go, that's considered a detention.

 

[sourceninja]

Reasonable suspicion is required for a detention (e.g. traffic stop). Whether or not someone is considered "detained" is based on the reasonable person standard - if a reasonable person would feel they are not free to go, that's considered a detention.

Which to me would be the moment a police officer refuses or ignores the question "Am I free to go?"

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Did the cops mention the word "terrorist"? Then yes, they were out of line.