Milwaukee Police officer shot on north side

LESGTINCT said:

Incorrect, police may seize the phone as evidence in this case. They would get a search warrant for the contents of the phone (the video).

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying that. You are indeed correct.

twoskinsonemanns said:

here's the question. Are you willing to be thrown in jail for not handing it over?

Click to expand...

Assuming you are actually given the option of willingly handing it over.

davidmcbeth said:

Most judges won't allow "big settlements" ... take a jury trial every time .. but juries are scared of the police...

Click to expand...

Usually doesn't get that far. Here's a relatively high profile case. Is $100,000 a big settlement for getting your face bashed in? I don't know...

http://vimeo.com/27026719

http://www.lvrj.com/news/las-vegas-police-agree-to-pay-100-000-to-beaten-videographer-143726156.html

LESGTINCT said:

Incorrect, police may seize the phone as evidence in this case. They would get a search warrant for the contents of the phone (the video).

Click to expand...

Well, if the camera was the instrument used to shoot the police officer in his north side the cops wouldn't need a warrant as stated in the DOJ thingy posted above. Since a firearm was used to shoot the officer and not a camera you would be mistaken. They can't take your camera. They need a warrant.

PolkaJoe said:

Thank you for clarifying that. You are indeed correct.

Click to expand...

Say what? An incorrect opinion with nothing to back it up is hardly clarification.

Cite?

Which is the north side of a police officer?

The side he was shot in.

:banana:

Thank you, here all week.

LESGTINCT said:

Incorrect, police may seize the phone as evidence in this case. They would get a search warrant for the contents of the phone (the video).

Click to expand...

Do you have a site for this?

LESGTINCT said:

Incorrect, police may seize the phone as evidence in this case. They would get a search warrant for the contents of the phone (the video).

Click to expand...

From the Rules...

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

Click to expand...

I'm sure making a legal declaration without a cite was an oversight, however, a cite would be greatly appreciated.

twoskinsonemanns said:

here's the question. Are you willing to be thrown in jail for not handing it over?

Click to expand...

protias said:

And then win a big settlement against the municipality for stealing your property and violating your 4A rights?

Click to expand...

davidmcbeth said:

Most judges won't allow "big settlements" ... take a jury trial every time .. but juries are scared of the police.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, 1983 cases are usually decided by judges, & rarely go to a jury.
And yes, there are still judges who uphold the Constitution, ruling against police when they break the law.
Or sometimes the subject(s) of the suit figure out that they're SOL & settle.

LESGTINCT said:

police may seize the phone as evidence in this case.

Click to expand...

HandyHamlet said:

if the camera was the instrument used to shoot the police officer in his north side the cops wouldn't need a warrant

Click to expand...

I agree with the duck.
The camera had nothing to do with the shooting.
This is a blatant attempt to suppress / destroy evidence showing the wrong (that's probably the nicest word I can come up with right now) actions of the officers.

If they really need video evidence of what they & the victims did, surely they have their dash cam video, right? Wouldn't installing dash cams & issuing personal recording devices be less expensive to MPD than the constant civil rights suits? Why don't they want to be recorded? Maybe they're worried about the wrong actions of ([strike]probably[/strike] hopefully a very few) officers?

Life in an imperfect world can be very frustrating - beats the heck out of the alternative though.

Stay strong MKEgal.

MKEgal said:

If they really need video evidence of what they & the victims did, surely they have their dash cam video, right? Wouldn't installing dash cams & issuing personal recording devices be less expensive to MPD than the constant civil rights suits? Why don't they want to be recorded? Maybe they're worried about the wrong actions of ([strike]probably[/strike] hopefully a very few) officers?

Click to expand...

Cops would never lie... :uhoh:

Fuller Malarkey said:

From the Rules...


I'm sure making a legal declaration without a cite was an oversight, however, a cite would be greatly appreciated.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure LESGTINCT was citing a specific law. It seems he is relating what cops do/will do regardless of what the law states.

LESGTINCT, I wonder if the cops use/used the "exigent circumstance" excuse to "view" the "video evidence" prior to obtaining a search warrant.

Ya just never know if the video evidence could be tainted after the cops steal the phone from the citizen(s).

Ok If I read this right The mother of the cop shot claimed he shot himself trying to handcuff the criminal. Then the other side was the criminal took the cops gun and shot the cop.Two things get me about this. One is why didnt the cop holster his weapon to secure the criminal? And why didnt the cop secure the weapon to avoid a criminal from taking it or was the cop over powered by the criminal?