Police Question Videographer, Sorry I do not answer questions

[JYD]

So it looks like a couple guys were pulled over for no tie downs on a motorcycle in the back of their pickup. There were about 3 squad cars, and one motorcycle officer on scene, must have been a slow night.

One officer comes up to me, and another sneaks behind, so 2 deputy's at my 6 just because I was taking video of something the public finds interesting.

I am curious how many members on here give up their 5th A Right, and answer questions when police talk to them? IMHO it is never a good idea to answer questions when someone is on a "fishing expedition"

http://youtu.be/YdGHiHuHXtQ?t=3m36s

Real courage is found, not in the willingness to risk death, but in the willingness to stand, alone if necessary, against the ignorant and disapproving herd. — Jon Roland, 1976

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

[dogtown tom]

What does this have to do with guns?

[4thPoint]

Round table discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues.

According to the above, this is a fine place to discuss the subject. I appreciate the posting.

It's true that the original poster could have tied it in with firearms and not answering 'fishing' questions, but I'm sure most can make the connection on their own.

[JYD]

According to the above, this is a fine place to discuss the subject. I appreciate the posting.

That was my thinking

[teeroux]

Well if you don't like having your 5th amendment becoming an issue as it pertains to police questioning. You could stop stalking them and filming them for the purpose of cop bashing.

[4thPoint]

I'm pretty sure from watching the video provided that he didn't initiate, nor continue to pursue talking to them, but maybe we watched different video's. I also didn't see any "bashing" going, but maybe we live in different realities.

[Tom Servo]

I am curious how many members on here give up their 5th A Right, and answer questions when police talk to them?

The police are allowed to approach anyone they choose to. They're allowed to strike up a conversation with anyone they choose to. They're allowed to ask for anyone's identification.

If you don't want to deal with them, walk away. You weren't being detained. What was the actual purpose of this?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

The police are allowed to approach anyone they choose to. They're allowed to strike up a conversation with anyone they choose to. They're allowed to ask for anyone's identification....

Tom Servo is spot on.

Note also that (1) the Fifth Amendment only protects one against being compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case, not against talking with police; and (2) the Supreme Court has ruled that one's silence may be used against him (Salinas v. Texas, No. 12–246, 2013).

[Jim March]

I've seen tons of videos of this sort and many are far, far worse. Carlos Miller's blog/news site http://photographyisnotacrime.com has tons of them - one involving me I might add which is worse than this one because I had an official try and grab my camera:

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/20...ecording-them/

In about half a dozen of the cases on Carlos' site, law enforcement went so over the top they wrongfully threatened people pointing cameras at them with deadly force. In numerous other cases they commit at least strongarm robbery in grabbing the cameras and often follow up with assault and false arrest. The nearly inevitable cash payouts after such events never cost the cops a dime.

What this is all about is making sure that the right to record is understood as being legal BEFORE trouble starts. On the day I was recording at an elections office in Arizona it was clear the election officials were under the impression that they had a "right" not to be recorded in a public place where they were performing their public duties. That impression had to be squashed before an actual election monitoring session started on election night.

"Cop-watching" is the same thing: establishing the right when it's not vital so that it is understood as legal when it is.

[Mosin-Marauder]

Does some sense of rebelliousness arise from being rude and not giving officers something so simple as your name so much that you have to record their actions and nose around on the side of the highway? Cops are human beings just like us. And they're not all [evil], no matter how much anyone wants them to be.

[hartcreek]

I sure do not see anything that has to do with guns. Now if I was a taxpayer in that city I would be wondering why it takes so many officers to stop someone hauling an unsafe load.

[4thPoint]

Ever ask yourself, just why does the nice officer want my name? We can have a conversation on almost any subject in the world and what my name is would be of no consequence. I don't know JYD's name, nor Dogtown Tom, and I doubt Tom Servo is really the robot from MST3K.

The nice officer wants your name so he can put it down in his book, so he can run a background check on you, so he can put you in jail if you're wanted for a crime and so your name can be recorded for all posterity. In these modern times, that name is going to go into a database, searchable by other cops, and forever more you'll be 'someone the police have had an interaction with'.

If you're truly unlucky you may end up like Brett Darrow, who's name was shared amongst officers and of whom one CopTalk user repeating the address wrote, "Every copper, City and County, should etch this little punks [sic] name in their [sic] memory. Brett Darrow, [address deleted], city of St. Louis."

Reason enough not to give out what may be used against you?

[maestro pistolero]

Isn't there a difference in the law between clamming up without explanation and proactively asserting one's 5th amendment rights?

If I say something like, "Officer, I understand part of your job is to ask probing questions to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime has been committed, but I am going to rely on my rights under the constitution and decline to answer any such questions. Now unless I am being detained, I would like to be on my way."

Where a lot of these individuals lose me is that they seem to feel a need to be rude about it, repeat themselves, get al cagey, and then begin doing the very thing which they are claiming a right NOT to do, which is run their mouth.

In the case of a traffic stop (the most likely scenario under which most of us would be subject to police questions) I think it is possible to cooperate, not be a jackass, but politely decline to answer any questions unrelated to the original RS or PC for the stop. Most of these people, however, get so amped up that they come off as a nervous teenager smarting off to the school principle.

[JERRYS.]

I guess only rocket scientists and cops recognize that a motor cycle being hauled and not tied down is how a lot of criminals quickly steal motor cycles.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Isn't there a difference in the law between clamming up without explanation and proactively asserting one's 5th amendment rights?

If I say something like, "Officer, I understand part of your job is to ask probing questions to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime has been committed, but I am going to rely on my rights under the constitution and decline to answer any such questions. Now unless I am being detained, I would like to be on my way."

As Frank Ettin mentioned a few posts above, the Fifth Amendment is about being compelled to testify against yourself. I don't think the Fifth Amendment applies out on the street.

However, officers do not get to ask "probing questions" in order to establish reasonable suspicion. Based on Terry and Hibbel (sp??), an officer has to already have a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed before he/she can detain a person of interest and ask "probing questions." I think it was the Terry decision that specifically stated that a "mere hunch" is not enough to give an officer the right or authority to detain someone.

Police don't like being held accountable. In another town in my state a few years ago, the PD was hassling people of a certain ethnicity. A local priest began wandering around the downtown area with a video camera. Naturally, the cops arrested him on some trumped-up charge of obstructing justice and interfering with a police officer when they saw him recording one of their "interactions" with the citizenry. It came out at trial that the arresting officer amended his arrest report TWENTY SEVEN times in an effort to make the priest out as the bad guy. However, the video survived, and proved the cop to be a liar. Ultimately, the arresting officer was convicted and sentenced to 30 months in prison, his partner was convicted of several crimes and sentenced to five years, and two more senior officers pled guilty to lesser charges and were allowed to retire from the department. The department now has a new chief and is operating under a consent agreement with the federal government.

Police are supposed to enforce the law. How can there be any respect for the enforcers of the law if they choose not to follow the law themselves? That's the point of this sort of interaction.

[JERRYS.]

Police don't like being held accountable.

quite the contrary.

[maestro pistolero]

However, officers do not get to ask "probing questions" in order to establish reasonable suspicion. Based on Terry and Hibbel (sp??), an officer has to already have a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed before he/she can detain a person of interest and ask "probing questions." I think it was the Terry decision that specifically stated that a "mere hunch" is not enough to give an officer the right or authority to detain someone.

True with regard to detaining but nothing prevents an officer from asking probing questions during an otherwise legal stop (tail light out, etc) that are unrelated to the reason for the stop in order to gain additional RS for a search or additional detention.

"Do you have anything in the car you don't want me to know about?" Or they may ask general questions to give a respondant a chance to contradict himself.

During a traffic stop I have been asked "Where do you live?" I point out the address is on my license. Then: "How far is that?" Then: "Where are you coming from", me: "Work", then "Where do you work?" I tell him. "How far is that" (It's a major casino in Vegas)

At which point I tell him it's been a long night, and I politely ask if we could focus on the business at hand. (failure to stop completely at a stop sign) He told me to have a nice night. No citation.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

quite the contrary.

Maybe not in Alabama. Around here -- absolutely. Neither the locals nor the staties like to have their aw-thaw-rih-tay challenged -- hence the frequent arrest of people taking video of police in public places, and trumping up charges such as "interfering with an officer" when the videographer is on the opposite side of the street or otherwise completely out of the action.

[JERRYS.]

hence the frequent arrest of people taking video of police in public places, and trumping up charges such as "interfering with an officer" when the videographer is on the opposite side of the street or otherwise completely out of the action.

so what are the outcomes of these criminal cases and subsequent civil suits?

[maestro pistolero]

They lose. Courts have been very clear that there is no presumption of privacy on the part of police in public places executing critical public service.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

so what are the outcomes of these criminal cases and subsequent civil suits?

The one that springs immediately to mind was a couple or three years ago. Local police arrested a Roman Catholic priest for making a video of two officers shaking down a Latino-owned mini-market. The two cops arrested the priest and charged him with "disorderly conduct" and "interfering with an officer." The arresting officer claimed he didn't know what the priest had in his hand, and he (the officer) "feared for his life" because he thought it was a gun. However, the video (which miraculously survived) clearly showed that the first words out of the officer's mouth when he noticed the priest were, "Sir, why are you video recording me?" So the officer was a liar ... on camera.

The charges against the priest were subsequently dropped. The arresting officer had, by then, revised his arrest report TWENTY-SEVEN times, trying to find the exact right combination of words to portray the priest in as negative a light as possible.

I don't recall if there was a civil suit. On the criminal side, however ...

The arresting officer was sentenced to 30 months hard time, followed by some period of probation. The partner was sentenced to five years in prison (he had some other questionable actions on his record). Their supervisor and another senior officer pled guilty to reduced charges and were allowed to retire with their pensions intact. The chief is gone, and the department now operates under a consent agreement with the FBI as oversight.

That's just one department in one small town nearby.

[steve4102]

Here is an interesting article on Policing the police and filming officers in the line of duty by a Texas group called Open Carry Cop Watch.

If the name "open Carry" rings a bell it should, this is none other than Kory Watkins of Open Carry Texas Tarrant County.

These guys are not only filming Law enforcement, they are doing it with long guns. This should go over real big the the Legislators in Texas trying to put together a Open Carry Bill.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...DB&via=FB_Page

[Tom Servo]

These guys are not only filming Law enforcement, they are doing it with long guns. This should go over real big the the Legislators in Texas trying to put together a Open Carry Bill.

There are deeper issues as well.

They're not activists. They're bored suburban kids with nothing better to do than prank authority figures. The problem is, they drape themselves in our colors when it suits them, and we get the blowback.

[buckhorn_cortez]

They're allowed to ask for anyone's identification.

In the State of New Mexico, you are required by law, to provide identification to the police if asked.

This does not mean a driver's license or other government issued identification (although you can voluntarily provide that)- it requires you answer their question by giving them your name (identity). You do not have to provide an address or any other information - which you would give them if you gave them your driver's license as an ID.

30-22-3. Concealing identity. (1963)

Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.

Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

[teeroux]

I'm pretty sure from watching the video provided that he didn't initiate, nor continue to pursue talking to them, but maybe we watched different video's. I also didn't see any "bashing" going, but maybe we live in different realities.

Well from the post he is accusing the police of a fishing expedition when he is on one himself. Yes I do believe the purpose is plainly to bash the police. On the video description this is not the first interaction he has had with these officers he knows them by name. He has followed them and filmed them on more than one occasion. This would not be kosher to do to anyone else so I would have to say its not ok to do to the police. If I were one of the officers I would file a restraining order against him.