Police Question Videographer, Sorry I do not answer questions

J

JYD

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I am curious how many members on here give up their 5th A Right, and answer questions when police talk to them?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Tom Servo said:
I am curious how many members on here give up their 5th A Right, and answer questions when police talk to them?
Click to expand...
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....
Click to expand...
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).
 
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/2...on-officials-call-cops-on-man-recording-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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
maestro pistolero said:
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."
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
JERRYS. said:
Police don't like being held accountable.
Click to expand...
quite the contrary.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

so what are the outcomes of these criminal cases and subsequent civil suits?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top