Citizen Photographers v. The Police?

Several hundred readers commented on yesterday's Slashdot post about citizens arrested for photographing police either in public or in the photographer's own property. Read on for some of the comments which defined the conversation in today's Backslash summary.

Anthony Boyd is one of the readers whose inclination to believe the police is mitigated by the facts as reported in the case of Philadelphia's Neftaly Cruz:

"Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him."

OK. I'm more inclined to believe the cops... wait a second...

"A neighbor said she witnessed the incident and could not believe what she saw."

"He opened up the gate and Neffy was coming down and he went up to Neffy, pulled him down...

Oh, you dumb, dumb cops. Of course Neftaly Cruz was "not on his property" during the arrest if you went onto his property and dragged him off! Why would you do that in front of witnesses?

To tomstdenis's argument that, even if the police really did violate people's rights, they should be treated leniently because "[P]olice are people and do bad things," reader alienmole points out a crucial difference:

The difference is that police have powers which ordinary citizens don't have, so when police do bad things, it can have severe consequences. Quite often, they're not held accountable for that, which again results from an abuse of power. That's what this is all about: accountability for the actions of public servants, particularly those with extraordinary powers. Cops in general are not the enemy, but bad cops are certainly an enemy which needs to be guarded against and eradicated whenever possible.

Reader BINC wants to know whether Pennsylvania actually has a law which would illegalize Neftaly Cruz's cellphone photo of police in the act of arresting a suspect. He writes

This seems to be part of a national push. In Montana it extends beyond photography. I have recently been threatened with being charged with "Obstructing" for not yielding to a warrantless search of my property, so I looked it up. See data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/7/45-7-302.htm especially paragraph (2). !!

General defense in Montana is insisting on trial by jury — provided one represents himself; otherwise it invites rapid bankruptcy — but trial by jury is not guaranteed by all states' consitutions for all crimes.

Many readers linked to online information and commentary on the recognized rights of photographers (at least in the U.S.). Reader pen was one of several to point to Bert Krages' site:

Here is a handy pamphlet called The Photographer's Right that provides some advice for dealing with a situation like this.

Reader hacker linked to an informative PDF and offers a useful summary:

Except in special circumstances (e.g., certain government facilities), there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs on public or private property. If you can be there, you can take pictures there: streets, malls, parking lots, office buildings. You do not need permission to do so, even on private property.

Trespassing laws naturally apply. If a property owner demands you leave, you must. But if a place is open to the public — a mall, office-building lobby, etc. — permission to enter is assumed (although it can be revoked).

In terms of the law, trespass and photography are separate events; the former is illegal, but the latter is not. Only if the use of photographic equipment itself violates a person's privacy (e.g., by using a long lens to look into someone's private room) might it violate privacy law. Further, while people have a right of privacy, businesses do not except as it relates to trade secrets.

Subject to specific limits, photographers can publish any photos they take, provided those photos do not violate the privacy of the subject. This includes photos taken while trespassing or otherwise being someplace they shouldn't be. Taking photos and publishing photos are two separate issues.

Please read the full PDF here with much more detail. I print copies of this on 4x5 index cards and keep them with me at all times when I'm taking photos in any public place.

Also, if someone demands your "film" or your camera, let them know that it is not legal for them to take it, unless you have been arrested of a crime involving that camera and that film. The crime for someone to demand and take your camera or film, is called theft, and threatening to do so (or to "break your camera"), is called coercion. Don't tolerate either of them, and if your equipment IS taken or broken, call the police and file charges.

PsychosisC contributed a link to a short video called " BUSTED - The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters," writing "I've only had two encounters with police officers... but both of them sort of leave me thinking less of them."

Rights on paper aside, many readers posted horror stories of arrest-happy police; leereyno pointed to one that made the news in the Mid-Atlantic region, writing

[T]here does seem to be an increase in cases of police officers getting confused and thinking they work for the Gestapo. There was a case a month back or so where the daughter of a police officer was arrested for "trespassing." She and a friend were lost and had stopped to ask a police officer for directions. The officer refused to help them, stating that they would have to find their own way out. A few moments later they spotted another officer and drove over to where he was to ask for help, at which point the first officer rushed over and berated them for daring to ask her partner for help when she had already told them to get lost. ... A few minutes later these same officers arrested them for "trespassing" ..... on a public street. The girl and her friend spent the night in jail. They weren't charged of course because they hadn't committed any crime.

I don't know how this case turned out for the officers involved, but it shows a serious lack of oversight when two cops are able to run wild and abuse the public in that manner.

[...]

In most parts of the world, being a police officer is met with about the same level of respect as a personal injury lawyer would be here, if not less. The police are held in contempt because in most parts of the world, particularly the 3rd world, corruption and abuse are almost part of the job. Police officers in the U.S. are, at least among healthy segments of society, viewed with respect if not admiration. But this esteem is fragile because at the end of the day the police are armed agents of the state and that makes them difficult to love. So when officers abuse and betray the trust of the public and make false arrests, all it does is make life that much more difficult for them and and their fellow officers. Things like these are noticed, and remembered.

According to reader rs79, this sort of thing on wouldn't happen north of the border; rs79 writes "I've photographed cops here in Canada arresting people a couple of times. They don't care." To this, RajivSLK says

It's not so rosy up here in Canada. This past Canada Day the Victoria police instituted a policy of mandatory searches on all buses heading downtown. They can get away with this because, on Canada Day, the bus is used mostly by young people going to clubs. I objected to being searched thinking that I would simply not be allowed back on the bus. Instead, to my complete surprise, the officer began to become very verbally abusive and I was arrested for "Drunk and Disorderly Conduct."

No breathalizer, no sobriety test, nothing. 100% solely based upon the officers "observation." I was processed and thrown into a dirty cement holding cell that lacked even toilet paper let alone a bed. As it stands, the Victoria police can arrest anyone at anytime under the charge of "Drunk and Disorderly" with no evidence and no sobriety test.

I can't wait for the day when *I* can video tape everything. That should provide a little balance to things.

ZorbaTHut suggests the sort of technological answer that RajivSLK's looking for, which might remind Neal Stephenson fans of the "gargoyles" in Snowcrash.

I've been waiting for a mini-stealth-camera-and-recorder to appear. I want a little device, the size of a cellphone camera, that fits in a button or a necklace or a belt buckle or something equally inconspicuous. It should be connected to a waist controller, which would include battery pack, storage (hard drive or flash), and wifi. Wifi so that, whenever it can find an available internet connection, it can upload its contents to a secure server located elsewhere.

Just imagine that. "Sorry sir, you took a picture of something you weren't supposed to. I'm going to have to confiscate your camera." "The pictures are already in Texas, and in ten minutes they'll be posted online. Same as the recording of what you're saying right now. You really want to illegally take my possessions, Officer Frank, Number 3894?"

---

Many thanks to the readers (especially those quoted above) whose comments informed this discussion.

The bottom line is this

This was a local police department, they were in the wrong, they guy was released, and hopefully the citizen and/or others who are concerned will press this so that the officer(s) involved are subject to some sort of corrective action.

This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.

It's an action of a local municipal police department, period. These inappropriate actions have been executed by people in positions of authority since the beginning of time. The point is we heard about it, it got covered, and hopefully it will be corrected. And hopefully the police department will issue a directive to think twice before they harass and/or arrest other citizens who aren't doing anything wrong from exercising their own rights.

Re:The bottom line is this

This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.

Holy shit! I think we just found the world's only omniscient individual.

First of all, the future depicted in 1984 is fast approaching, or did you miss the fact that there's a lawsuit proceeding (besides the one just thrown out) against AT&T for allowing the feds to tap their communications? Sure, it's twenty years late, but he was remarkably aware of the date.

is because of the environment fostered by the PATRIOT act. In particular, law enforcement all over the country is utilizing the U SAP AT RIOT act to bypass process and protection. Did you really think that attitude wouldn't become essentially endemic of the freedom-less atmosphere engendered by that piece of trash legislation?

It's an action of a local municipal police department, period.

The corellary to "actions have consequences" is that they also have causes. This didn't just come out of nowhere. Everything that you can see is the result of pressure in other forces. Period. This works at all levels, in all systems; they're not all genetic, but ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. When you see light, that's the result of photons; those photons were in turn released when an electron's energy state was reduced; that in turn occurred because it was first increased. "Pressure" - or more to the point energy - makes things happen.

Re:The bottom line is this

I have absolutely no doubt your comment will be quickly moderated up to +5, with a flurry of violent agreement.

But, to answer your questions honestly:

No, I don't "see" 1984 coming. All I see is a government availing itself of everything possible technologi

Trust the government.

All I see is a government availing itself of everything possible technologically to do what it believes is the right thing, with technology enabling the kind of massive, omnibus monitoring.

This may be all you see. I've noticed a lot of people are willing to turn a blind eye on this (and the last) administration.

If the government is only trying to protect us, why are they so quick to step outside the bounds of legality to accomplish its goals? Why have they often resorted to lies and misdirection to accomplish their goals? Why have they so readily blocked investigations that might clear up their honor?

My Dad used to tell me, "If they act untrustworthy, they probably are untrustworthy." Respect and trust are to be earned, not demanded, nor due. This current administration has destroyed the little bit of trust and respect I had after the *last* administration.

The government that demands transparency from its citizens, but is in turn completely opaque, is hiding something dishonorable. *That* is why some of us make a big deal about seemingly insignificant details. After all, most of us realize it takes a lot of pixels to make a picture.

Personally, I'm glad we're making a big deal about this. Part of it is education. There are too many people who think police have the right to infringe on *your* right with no just cause. Too many people are unaware that we as citizens *have* many rights.

And finally, it's always nice to see a bully get his come-uppance. I really hope that fucker gets nailed to the wall. I mean, literally. I've got a hammer they could use.

Re:The bottom line is this

All I see is a government availing itself of everything possible technologically to do what it believes is the right thing, with technology enabling the kind of massive, omnibus monitoring.

This is a fairly accurate description of 1984, though perhaps the justification is different.

Re:The bottom line is this

Sorry to those people who thought this was insightful, but really, what kind of informed rebuttal is this?

Well, those with two neurons to rub together already understood what I was trying to say, so it wasn't necessary for me to expand. Those who don't already get it won't really get much out of an explanation of any level of detail, so I won't go into it here.

"Drinkypoo should be DrinkyKoolAid" is just as insightful a comment.

Actually, the consensus here on slashdot is that my name couldn't be much more ridiculous than drinkypoo.

Re:The bottom line is this

I think the big deal here is NOT that big brother had a bunch of cameras. Our own government has a lot of cameras, and others do too. Big deal. The problem as I see it is that Winston Smith and his fellows didn't have their own cameras. Only Big Brother ha

Re:The bottom line is this

We're involved in a war and that is bearing down on our civil rights -- THIS IS NOTHING NEW.

Of course this isn't new. We are at war. We have always been at war. Oil production is up 13% this year...

Re:The bottom line is this

Of course this isn't new. We are at war. We have always been at war.

Yeah, but I could have sworn it was with Eastasia.

Re:The bottom line is this

The problem is that, like '1984', we are involved in a war with a nebulous enemy with no real end or finish visible (or perhaps even possible). So when we give up rights for the war on 'terrorism' how can we EVER get them back? Will 'terrorism' give up and sign a surrender? Will the government say "Ok, we didn't need these extra powers after all, so we'll give them up."? I don't see either case happening.

Just because is is a cliche doesn't mean that it is an inaccurate or useless comparison.

Re:The bottom line is this

The problem isn't the "War on Terror".

Yes it is. As the post you replied to mentioned, you can't go to war against an idea, much less expect to win.

Terrorists are real.

No they aren't. Criminals are real and soldiers are real, but there's no such thing as "terrorists." Everyone you call a "terrorist" is, in reality, either a civilian criminal or a soldier, as defined by the Geneva Convention.

The problem is the people willing to give up their rights because of it, and the people willing to take advantadge of it to create their facist states, or the theocracies or whatever they plan on doing.

This mentality and the belief in "terrorists" and a "war on terror" go hand-in-hand. They're all the result of cowardice and intolerance.

Re:The bottom line is this

But in addition to the "war on terrorism" we're involved in closing up the results of an actual war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're also contemplating the consequences of getting involved in North Korea and Iran, and one of our allies is functionally at war with Lebanon due to their official government's support of another terrorist organization.

"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts." -- J. Michael Straczynski

Re:The bottom line is this

Where were the repercussions for the offending officer though?

The simple fact is the police can arrest you at anytime if they don't like what your doing, under the guise of being drunk/abusive/offensive etc. It's more hassle than its worth to try and make a complaint and even then it's unlikely any action will be taken (your word against theirs) also police are just people and 'people make mistakes'. So what happens is as a citizen do you stand up and have the inconvinience of spending the night in a cell? no, it ends up being far easier to just do as they say...

Re:The bottom line is this

[Where were the repercussions for the offending officer though?]

Most likely nothing. And that's as it should be. Why? Because he most likely thought that he was in the right

That doesn't matter -- he was out of line, no matter how justified he believed his actions to be and he needs to be accountable for them. By your logic, very few crimes of passion would be punishable... unless you believe there's a different standard for members of law enforcement. In point of fact, I believe there is a different standard, but it is and must be a more strict standard than that applied to the general public. If we cannot expect those who enforce the law to avoid even the mere appearance of impropriety, how dare we expect the general public to abide by, much less the law those individuals enforce?

Re:The bottom line is this

Most likely nothing. And that's as it should be. Why? Because he most likely thought that he was in the right

That doesn't matter -- he was out of line, no matter how justified he believed his actions to be and he needs to be accountable for them. By your logic, very few crimes of passion would be punishable... unless you believe there's a different standard for members of law enforcement.

Ok. I load our criminal code onto our police department's cars, and they all have easy access to it. Now, I'm sure it's in the general orders manual that they should know/read and be famailiar with everything in the criminal code book. That's an ideal. Usually, they train to a given standard and for all types of crimes write up the report in a form manner. Patrol's charge's usually have to be revised by CID. CID usually determines if a crime actually fits what the state criminal charge is or revises the charges to the closest one that they can charge the suspect with. When I stated he most likely thought he was in the right, I'm saying that the cop most likely actually thought that what the guy was doing happened to be illegal and for CID to find the charge/a charge to make it stick. What most likely happened is CID looked through their Lexis Nexis criminal code and couldn't find any mention of public citizen's taking police officer's photos being against the law.

If the person was using the images to threaten undercover policemen, then it might have been, but just the act of taking photos shouldn't be. The person incharge of CID should have sent a memo/called the person in charge of Patrol and had him make and annoucement at all the shift's roll call that it wasn't illegal and not to do it again. Police aren't perfect. They revise their standards, and what their written policies are all the time.

The problem is that the public usually just sees the lowest level patrol person on the street. That person isn't responsible for changing policy or running things. Usually a Captain writes/changes policy so that's the level that you'd need to complain to. The individual patrol person should be just carrying out their general orders manual with some slack every now and then for the unexpected. Do you really want to know the number one thing that the general public complains to their local pd about? I'll let you in on it. Animal services is the number one section that recieves the most compliants, and citizens will not be happy with whatever the policies are. Take animal's to the animal shelter and the citizen isn't happy if their critter dies when it isn't picked up after 2 weeks. I've heard of an entire shift chasing down a stray animal that there was a complaint over when nothing else more important was going on.

You want to change your police department? Communicate with it. Find out who you need to talk to and phone them up about once a month or so. Make sure all your neighbors also know the individual to contact. You will be listened to, and the police in your neighborhood will change their policies when it is possible and within reason for them to do so.

I don't know if your police department offers this, but mine has these "close watches" and any citizen can request for the police to keep and extra eye on their property if they are going out of town for week or have seen strange people in the neighborhood. Both individuals and business owners request this from the police department. They send out a group e-mail for the close watches.

Re:The bottom line is this

When I stated he most likely thought he was in the right, I'm saying that the cop most likely actually thought that what the guy was doing happened to be illegal and for CID to find the charge/a charge to make it stick. What most likely happened is CID looked through their Lexis Nexis criminal code and couldn't find any mention of public citizen's taking police officer's photos being against the law.

I appreciate your expanded explanation for your comment, but I still think it's missing the seriousness of what happened -- when someone doesn't do their job right, there's cause for concern. When their job includes actions that directly restrict one's liberties (arrest even if charges are never filed certainly falls into that category), then there's cause for serious concern. Correct me if I'm wrong, but arrests stay on your record, regardless of what happens after that. Moreover, you'll always have to answer that you have been arrested on job applications etc., doing otherwise could bring serious legal consequences but doing so may well exclude you from opportunity. Pulling back, no matter if one genuinely thinks they're doing their job correctly, if they make a serious error in judgement, they need to be held accountable -- and they would in many professions. I see no reason why the case of a police officer is any different.

Re:The bottom line is this

Just a snippet of advice: Stand up for yourself if some officer of the "Law" is harassing you. Do it in a respectful manner and respectfully tell them that they cannot legally arrest you for whatever it is they are trying to arrest you for illegally.

Thi

Good News: It's so bad it's a big deal

I agree with the parent post, and yes, I agree with the criticism of this incendent. I don't think it's representative of police nationwide. After all, the media made it public knowledge based on the word of the victim; the ACLU may be getting involved (the family should sue -- they have a case); and there is already an investigation. So the good news here is that it's a big deal. When is it time to start worrying, and not just making a fuss about it, but taking real action against a police state? That time will come when incidents do not provoke the kind of outrage we have seen here. I understand how police -- especially unseasoned patrolmen -- can become jaded quickly without having the experience or training to know how to deal with a situtation they don't like. Police so often get a very warped view of the world since they most often are responding to terrible situations and people who would have very bad karma on Slashdot.

Re:The bottom line is this

the officer(s) involved are subject to some sort of corrective action.

Some sort? They should be subjected to dismissal and incarceration.

This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about.

What this does represent is that for the first time, middle-class white America is subjected to the same kinds of abuses that poor and/or minority comminunities have been for decades.

That's what's new here. That's what's different.

LK

Re:The bottom line is this

But don't even try to play it off as if poor and/or minority people never deserve to be arrested, or that crime rates really are higher in poorer sections of towns, and that current black "culture" is towards self-destructive, violent behavior, completely eschewing education in light of acquiring "hos" and "ice".

Even if all of that is true, I STILL don't deserve the kind of treatment that I've recieved from coward cops over the years.

Unless you have evidence or reason to believe that I am involved in some kind of illegal activity, don't bother me. That's not unreasonable, but it doesn't happen that way. I have been pulled over for DWB, several times. I have been stopped while walking down the sidewalk for no reason other than the police just wanted to know who I was. I have been threatened by the police, Sgt. CJ Hartman, formerly of the North Versailles PA Police Dept once said to me "I don't care if you've done anything or not, there's a book 'this thick' and I'll find something in it to nail you on."

So, don't demean my intelligence or belittle my experiences by blaming me for the misconduct of others.

But racism doesn't count when it's against white people, right?

Being that white people are the majority of the electorate, official conduct on the part of elected officials (police chiefs, city councilmen, etc) and their subordinates isn't racism when it's directed against white people.

It's abusive, it's corrupt, it's dishonerable but it's not racism.

LK

Hang out on photo.net some time.

This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.

Bullshit. You don't read sites like photo.net, where stories of police harassment and intimidation are the norm, not the exception, and many photographers have stopped trying to photograph anything they think they might get in the slightest trouble over.

• Photography student is detained and his IDs 'reviewed' after taking night-time photos of a firehouse [photo.net].
• Man was physically intimidated and threatened by private security and police after photographing, from public property, a commercial chemical plant.
• Young photojournalism student in Provincetown is roughed up by Provincetown police after shooting some pictures of cops beating a bunch of drunks.
• MBTA has never permitted photography anywhere on its property, and is well known for its officers harassing photographers. NYC just instituted a no-photography rule in the last year or two.
• Vacationers at the Golden Gate Bridge have had film confiscated for taking pictures of the bridge. When they said they were just tourists, they were told to buy a postcard from the vendor nearby. Security risk, or helping the postcard sellers?
• Photograhpers are often harassed for taking pictures of public buildings, bridges, reservoirs, dams, etc. It has been a prevalent experience that anyone with a camera taking a picture of some sort of infrastructure is deemed a potential terrorist, or terrorism is trotted out as an excuse (see the Golden Gate postcard fiasco.)
• Parents are reported to police by film development labs for taking pictures of their babies playing in the bath and have been threatened with having their children removed from them.

Those are just the few examples that immediately come to mind.

Try this search on for size [google.com]. Add on fun keywords like "harassment","arrested", "questioned", etc.

People are rotuinely roughened up, threatened with arrest or being "reported" to the FBI, arrested and detained then released before the charge-or-release 24 hours are up, lied to about their rights, what the law is, or what they are criminally liable for, had film/cards confiscated, their IDs demanded (would it scare you more if I called them "papers"?), and so on. These days just about anything gets you on various watch lists and that means even more fun.

We live in a country where you can be arrested for taking a picture of a bridge on vacation and get harassed trying to board a flight home because you were placed on a "watch" or "no fly" list. Wake up and smell the fucking coffee- we're fast headed the way of fascist and communist countries.

Re:The bottom line is this

Tried to take a picture of the President lately? Hell, tried to go to a Bush even lately? Did you sign you loyalty oath? No? THen you didn't get in.

Re:The bottom line is this

On the contrary, this is _representative_ of a police state. Whether the US has _become_ a police state or is becoming a police state is debatable, but certainly the fact that police commonly arrest people for doing something that isn't in _their_ best in

[P]lease read my post

even if the police really did violate people's rights, they should be treated leniently because "[P]olice are people and do bad things"

If the [P]olice do something wrong, they should be [P]unished just like the rest of us!

Re:[P]lease read my post

If the [P]olice do something wrong, they should be [P]unished just like the rest of us!

Yes they should, and they should also IMMEDIATELY lose their job. They are given powers and abilities above that of normal citizens and with that comes responsibility. We place our trust in them and once one of them violates that trust there is absolutely no reason at all to keep them. A crooked or corrupt cop is a much greater risk to society than your average joe.

If a cop is caught abusing his power, violating the law, or anything of that nature, he needs to be fired ASAP. No cushy desk job, no paid leave, gone. We as a society have become far too accepting of crooked cops and the police community is far to protective of its own, even when they are giving all a bad name.

Finkployd

It's everywhere in the US now

I've had a couple [utah.edu] of incidents [utah.edu] as well with police and now city run facilities where people want to restrict photography. It's getting really discouraging for folks that enjoy photography and all anyone has to do is invoke the spectre of "National Security".

Arrested != Convicted

You can get arrested for pretty near anything. Even on "trumped up" charges. Getting convicted is another matter. If the guy in Philly has a civil case, I expect he'll press it. If he wins, it's payday.

Arrested is a penalty

Being arrested IS a penalty in itself.

When a foreigner enters the US they don't ask if you've been convicted of a crime, they ask if you've "ever been arrested".

Also an arrest in many areas means you get fingerprinted and put in the databases. Plus in more and more places you have to give a DNA sample.

Re:Arrested is a penalty

That's very true, not only for the bad marks on your paperwork and such, but because of the immediate threats that an arrested person faces.

Everything in your personal life shuts down for however long it takes to process you. Apart from the "one phone call," there's no way to let everyone who needs to know that you're alive and well instead of just missing. Dependents are a whole other issue in themselves. There could be everything from a pet that doesn't get fed to a grandmother who doesn't get reminded to take her pills to children who don't get picked up from school. The emotional stress your family goes through seeing you dragged off in handcuffs or simply not coming home when you should is really not measurable. And woe be to the single parent in this situation..

Aside from family obligations, there are the business ones. How important are you at your job? Are you the type of employee who can be covered for for a day or two? Will your employers react well to your excuse the next day? Never mind that if you're a sole proprietor of a struggling business, the whole thing could be pretty much destroyed by nobody opening the door for a day.

Basically, no matter how innocent you are, being arrested can screw with your life and any others involved in it on a major scale.

Re:Arrested is a penalty

True. In Philly, they won't return all your bail money [2600.com] even if the judge finds the charges ridiculous. This guy is out 1 week of jail and $750, for no good reason.

The biggest problem is...

that usually they don't or hardly get punished or even rewarded (they get 1-3 days paid leave) for doing such things. Another problem is that if you go after them (using an expensive lawyer) you can hardly sue for damages (spending a night in jail) because they have the right to put you in jail for a long time (48h or look @ Gitmo) without even charging you with anything. If the police wants to be anal they can hold you even longer (ongoing investigation without charging you) and I heard of people spending a week in jail without getting anything back (no damages rewarded, nearly lost their job, the neighbourhood viewing them as criminals) while they were not doing anything wrong (unless you say that a peaceful demonstration is illegal). The officers just got their kicks out of it. Then they wonder why they get shot (recently 2 officers in this area got shot) or dragged behind an ATV. I recently heard of someone in this area that got EXECUTED (as in shot after being in custody) according to witnesses after resisting an arrest warrant. 3 witnesses against a small police force don't stand up in court so what are we going to do about it. Yes this was the USA.

That Montana law *is* scary!

Did you guys read that? You should:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/7/45-7-302.htm [mt.gov]

"It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, provided that the peace officer was acting under the peace officer's official authority."

What???

So, if the police are acting illegally by not having a warrant to search my house and asking to search it anyway, I'm obstructing and this law makes it legal?

Ohhh - but they were acting under official authority. That's so comforting.

Re:That Montana law *is* scary!

If you prevent them or resist them performing the illegal search, yes you are obstructing.

If you simply do not consent this isn't obstruction. If they acted improperly the evidence should be disallowed if it is actually found to be an illegal search. And t

Get a Recording - Call 911

I feel that your best defense in these situations is to call 911, if possible. No, it won't help you at that immediate point in time, but now there is a recording of the conversation you had with the law enforcement agent: Police, Sheriff, FBI, etc.

In this case, if the person called 911, there would be a recording where you could hear them being dragged off the porch and hear the gate being opened and closed. Proof that the person was not on public property as claimed. If someone is attempting a warrantless search, you can have it on record that you aren't giving them permission to enter the premesis, and have a recording of any threats that they make to you to force their way in.

Another benefit is the recording is now stored off-site. With a video camera, regular camera or phone if they take it, you lost your evidence. If you can get that data off-site, they can't take it from you without a lot more work. (Maybe the 911 tape disappears, but without the FBI or NSA, AT&T isn't going to delete the record of the phone call to 911.)

Now, I don't think that all cops are bad. In fact, I have nothing bad to say about any of my experiences with law enforcement. However, I am white and live in a low crime area - the last "major" arrest in my town was over 10 years ago. So my experience may be different than yours.

Perhaps the best advice I can give is to think about the best thing to do if you were ever in these situations. Everyone does it for RPG games, just think about real life in those same terms.

FBI wants to search my house?

My wife calls 911 and tells them armed men are trying to get past me to enter the house without my permission. Didn't lie. Just didn't mention that they are federal agents. I'm sure the Sheriff will show up pretty fast with a call like that. Now, I have an officer that will hopefully be on my side in the matter. If not, I have pissed them off, but am no worse off. I also have a record that I didn't give them permission to enter. Then my wife can start calling the neighbors to come over and call the TV station, and I have made a big enough scene to (hopefully) be protected. I don't know if that is the best thing I can do, but at least I have thought about it enough to have a plan. In this case? Immediately send the photo to everyone in your address book. They can get the phone, but not the data. (It may cost you $0.50 or something, but probably worth it.)

This is nothing new. They are trained to do this.

Despite what some might believe, this is not uncommon. It has to do with the way police are trained, and will remain an inherent flaw until something changes. I personally see it all the time. I live in Isla Vista, California, which is what I affectionately call the nicest ghetto in the world. It is only one to two square miles, with a population of about 20,000 people (not a typo). It is comprised almost entirely of students attending UCSB and Santa Barbara City College, as well as a large latino population. Here, we have the Isla Vista Foot Patrol, which many people don't exactly like. They constantly lie to students, illegally enter property, and illegal search people, usually in the name of writing an alcohol or marijuana possesion ticket. I was at a friends house when the IVFP entered the party for a "noise violation" and proceeded to bang on the door of the room we were in. The door was opened and the office claimed that he could smell marijuana. No one would admit they had any, and no one had been smoking atleast since I had entered the room. The cop proceeded to take people out of the room one by one. When he called me up, he stuck his hands in my pockets, and I immediately objected, claiming he had no probably cause or consent from me to enter my pockets. In my pockets, I had nothing illegal, though I did happen to have rolling papers, which I made quite clear were legal. This caused me to be taken into another room, and tested to see if I was drunk. As RajivSLK mentioned, this is what happens when you anger a police officer. Aslo, as he pointed out, there is no evidence(i.e. breathalyzer) required to cite you with drunk in public, or drunk and disorderly conduct. After determing I was not drunk, the other officer said he was "going to be nice and let me go this time" as if I had commited a crime. No marijuana citations were issued that night.
A month later, at another house, police arrived, again for a noise violation. One of the officers promptly recognized me and called me "the marijuana man", and proceeded to pat me down. He stayed over my clothes, keeping the search legal this time, however he kept yelling at me to spread my legs farther apart until you would have sworn I was an olympic gymnast. Furthermore, I was lucky. I can't even fit on one hand the number of friends I have had arrested for saying something to the police when someone else was being arrested. Things were so bad here at one point that the student government had to launch a campaign against the police, informing students of their rights and accepting police complaint reports that they would then file for you. Thankfully we also have free legal advice available to all students and are currently forming an official position called Office of the Student Advocate.
Anyways, here is the point:
Police officers operate this way on purpose. This is how they are trained! It is not really good cop bad cop thing as much as you would believe. The police's job is not really to uphold the law. That is the court's job. The police are there to investigate crime and catch "bad guys". If the 4th ammendment gets in their way, oh well, let the courts decide that. They are trained to lie, decieve, and push the boundaries, usually in search of a verbal confession. Most cops don't even know the law, they are just there to do what they were trained to due. Read Breaking Rank, by Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief, to learn about how the police system fosters violence, racism, and homophobia as a matter of practice. Finally, if you don't know how to deal with police and refuse a warrantless search, please please please watch Busted. There is a YouTube link already in the slashback. Finally, if you are afraid to talk to police officers in such a situation, keep something like the NORML Freedom Card [norml.org] in your wallet. Simply invoke your right to remain silent, and hand the card to the officer. Its simple yet very effective.

What the hell?

Police officers in the U.S. are, at least among healthy segments of society, viewed with respect if not admiration.

Uh... no?

Idea: Police Photography Day

Here's an idea: We should organize a "Police Photography Day." On this day, the participants would go around legally taking photographs of police officers. This would be done in the most polite manner possible, and would be photos of officers doing their everyday activities. There could be a set of documents participants would carry, explaining th