One of my true aspirations is to have increased financial resources so I can more easily keep an attorney on retainer for immediate jail release so that I could then use some good video recording equipment for purpose of deliberately filming police in action and busting those who responded illegally and/or inappropriately.
bar, that's a feel-good story. Thanks for sharing.
I'm always thinking of the law that states you have to follow a police officer's direction or you can be arrested. What's the proper interpretation of that? I noticed your buddy didn't hand over the videocam when the officer asked. Couldn't he be charged with failure to follow the direction of a police officer?
No, he was asked to "turn off the camera".
In most jurisdictions the law you're thinking of would be more likely worded, "Failure to follow the lawful order of a police officer".
This means an officer can tell you to "step out of your car" (for one example), but he cannot tell you, "Consent to a search".
In the case of my friend, the command to "turn off the camera" does not jibe with any legal constraints against peaceably filming an officer from a distance that is clearly not interfering with anything the cop is doing.
To put it another admittedly absurd way, a cop could not during a traffic stop tell you to drop and give him ten pushups and then arrest if you if you failed to comply.
However, he could demand that you consent to a "field sobriety test" and your failure to comply could then trigger clearly defined penalties - most commonly, arrest for "suspicion of DUI" and also a likely suspension of your drivers license. The latter due to your having preemptively consented to comply with such an order at the time you were issued your drivers license. (read the small print for full details)
Radley Balko is interviewed here by John Stossel this past Thursday on FOXNews
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4657141/the-war-on-cameras/?playlist_id=87185
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4657141/the-war-on-cameras/?playlist_id=87185
The previous link is about 8min and includes Balko showing how his cell phone can videotape and instantly upload the content to a secure website. This protects his recording in the event police (or anyone else) tries to erase the content and/or damage the recording device.
Yes, that's it: "Failure to follow the lawful order of a police officer."
I know you don't have to submit to the drunk tests like counting backward or walking on a line or touching your nose with your finger. I guess I'm still confused as to which commands are considered a "lawful order". The example you gave to step out of the vehicle could be construed by some to consist of an act that could incriminate you. If you are drunk or even incapacitated due to illness the officer could use that as incriminating evidence in court.
The fifth amendment states that we don't have to do anything that may incriminate us. Are there other reasons that this may be considered a "lawful order" and not something that may incriminate you?
Thanks for all the great answers.
We relinquish a number of otherwise protective liberties when we elect to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway.
Stepping out of a vehicle is not likely to produce any evidence that might incriminate you. That noted, it's as legally required (if the officer requests) as being required to show your operator's license, your proof of insurance and - depending on circumstances - papers identifying the owner of the vehicle.
When we receive our driver's licenses, we implicitly and preemptively consent to a short list of 'demands' that might be made by a police officer.
Showing the above information are three examples. Agreeing to participate in a 'field sobriety test' is another and/or submitting to a breathalyzer exam.
We are always free to NOT consent to any of the above at the point of a legal traffic stop, but there are preemptive penalties established for doing so. Suspension of license; possible arrest for "suspicion of DUI"; possible arrest for "failure to obey a lawful order" etc
----
Returning to the incident that led this Thread topic - the man was not operating a motor vehicle, so his level of cooperation is almost 100% voluntary provided the officer has no Reasonable or Probable Cause to believe he is otherwise engaged in a criminal or illegal action.
Clearly, this particular incident was clusterfucked in several ways. The guy saying "I don't live here" MIGHT (dubious...but might) give officer reasonable cause to believe he is trespassing on someone else's private property.
But the appropriate response in such a case would be to ask for identification and/or to reiterate the question of "Do you live here? Because if you don't live here, you might be guilty of trespassing."
The response is certainly not to physically accost the guy and wrestle him to the ground for the purpose of - at least - a temporary arrest.
When asked the first question and then even when asked again, the guy most certainly retains the right to remain silent. And it is then in the officer's court to decide if he (the cop) has Reasonable Cause to believe the guy is committing a crime (trespassing).
Given the info at hand (thanks to the video evidence), it would have been extremely unlikely that he could have made such a call had the guy simply remained silent.
Unfortunately, the whole incident went awry the moment the officer began proceeding from the flawed stance of "You should not be videotaping me. Turn off your camera"
Stepping out of a vehicle is not likely to produce any evidence that might incriminate you. That noted, it's as legally required (if the officer requests) as being required to show your operator's license, your proof of insurance and - depending on circumstances - papers identifying the owner of the vehicle.
When we receive our driver's licenses, we implicitly and preemptively consent to a short list of 'demands' that might be made by a police officer.
Showing the above information are three examples. Agreeing to participate in a 'field sobriety test' is another and/or submitting to a breathalyzer exam.
We are always free to NOT consent to any of the above at the point of a legal traffic stop, but there are preemptive penalties established for doing so. Suspension of license; possible arrest for "suspicion of DUI"; possible arrest for "failure to obey a lawful order" etc
----
Returning to the incident that led this Thread topic - the man was not operating a motor vehicle, so his level of cooperation is almost 100% voluntary provided the officer has no Reasonable or Probable Cause to believe he is otherwise engaged in a criminal or illegal action.
Clearly, this particular incident was clusterfucked in several ways. The guy saying "I don't live here" MIGHT (dubious...but might) give officer reasonable cause to believe he is trespassing on someone else's private property.
But the appropriate response in such a case would be to ask for identification and/or to reiterate the question of "Do you live here? Because if you don't live here, you might be guilty of trespassing."
The response is certainly not to physically accost the guy and wrestle him to the ground for the purpose of - at least - a temporary arrest.
When asked the first question and then even when asked again, the guy most certainly retains the right to remain silent. And it is then in the officer's court to decide if he (the cop) has Reasonable Cause to believe the guy is committing a crime (trespassing).
Given the info at hand (thanks to the video evidence), it would have been extremely unlikely that he could have made such a call had the guy simply remained silent.
Unfortunately, the whole incident went awry the moment the officer began proceeding from the flawed stance of "You should not be videotaping me. Turn off your camera"
"Crooks' attorney, David Otto, on Thursday sent police a statement from Crooks, along with a demand for $500,000 to cover Crooks' medical care, pain and suffering."
This is probably one instance where Crooks wishes he was black, lol. Bring in the race card and the lawyer would be asking for 5 million instead of 500K.
This is probably one instance where Crooks wishes he was black, lol. Bring in the race card and the lawyer would be asking for 5 million instead of 500K.
A couple months ago I had a sore knee that would give way slightly if I put too much pressure on it. If I stepped out of my vehicle occaionally would cause me to stumble. I would think that would incriminate me if I was pulled over for DUI. The same goes for someone who is inebriated.
I can see your point about having your DL taken away. After all, blowing into a breathalyzer is giving incriminating information about yourself. I can see why the state could take that away since you agreed to that when you sign up for a DL.
As far as field sobriety tests such as counting backwards and standing on one leg, I've read where not all states require this. I'll have to read up on which ones do.
