Here’s yet another example of a police officer who falsely thinks, or at least claims, that he has the authority to seize a video device being used to record him on duty. And it happened right here in Michigan, in the city of Waterford. Carlos Miller, as always, has the story.
One officer even says the guy has a right to do it, but another officer then comes up and says that if he continues filming, he’s going to seize the video:
The Waterford police officer approached the citizen who was recording the aftermath of a police pursuit turned traffic collision involving serious injuries and said:
“You have two choices. You can either turn it off or I’m going to take it as evidence.”
When the citizen asserted his Constitutional right to continue video recording, the cop said, “You do have the Constitutional right to not videotape that.”
Here’s the video:
8 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Crip Dyke, MQ, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden
June 3, 2012 at 11:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
LIstening to it, it appears he says,
“You do have constitutional rights; you cannot videotape that,” rather than the quote at the end of your post.
But, yeah. F*d up to the Nth degree.
Doubting Thomas
June 3, 2012 at 12:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What I heard the cop say was, yes you have the right to video whatever but since the video could be considered evidence in a legal case, he will confiscate it. And it appeared that the first cop was simply attempting to give the victim some privacy.
I guess my personal dislike for rubberneckers at accident scenes brings me down on the side of the cops in this one case. It did not appear that the cops were trying to hide anything they were doing.
otocump
June 3, 2012 at 12:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This seems to be a bit of a nitpick. Yes the second guy is a bit more…abrupt? But so what?
Crime scene? Sure no problem with your stance here Ed. I’m not seeing a crime. I’m not seeing anything other then a bunch of rubber-neckers.
Rubber-necking an accident and the approach of the first officer is bang on. He wants to NOT have someones tragic moment being played out for the world inappropriately, so handles it in a ‘hey don’t be a dick’ manor. The second cop is a little overbearing, but common.
Honestly, this post is an overreaction to an overreaction. There is enough other perfectly legit examples out there, this one is boarding the nit-picked-uninteresting line.
gshelley
June 3, 2012 at 1:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m not sure that the motives of the person taping the incident are relevant. People have the right to film the police, no the right to film the police as long as they are doing it for a reason the police approve of.
Childermass
June 3, 2012 at 5:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can see in some cases the recording being legitimately considered evidence as some here suggest. Since every police cruiser these days has a computer installed in it, I don’t consider it illegitimate to ask for a copy of the file. There is no need to had cover the camcorder let alone take the camcorder and a few weeks later return it with all its files erased.
Saying that cops can ask to make a copy then and there but may not erase would have the advantage that the effort of doing so will only help the cops when there is actual evidence.
And of course, any side in any legal dispute resulting from the recorded incident has the right to demand to have a full and unedited copy of any recording.
Ichthyic
June 3, 2012 at 10:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
onlookers ask the guy why he is filming this accident, as it’s obvious they think it inappropriate, as do the cops.
the first cop patiently explains TO THE ONLOOKERS that it’s this guy’s right to film if he wants to.
the guy responds with “Yeah, I’m filming it because I can”
seriously, Ed, this is about the WORST POSSIBLE example to use of police censorship.
the cops here had the right attitude from the very beginning.
Evolouie
June 4, 2012 at 1:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m sorry but I have to disagree with those who think the cop has a right toseize this guy’s phone/camera.
It’s simple.
“The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.”
If the cop thought the video was of some value in the case then he should have gotten a warrant to seize the property.
Ichthyic
June 4, 2012 at 2:35 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If the cop thought the video was of some value in the case then he should have gotten a warrant to seize the property.
look at the video.
did the cop actually take his camera?
it’s pretty clear that, while maybe an inappropriate way of expressing it, the second cop was using leverage to try and get this guy to stop filming something that EVERYONE around there, except the guy with the camera, thought it very insensitive (towards the victims) to film.