Gresham officer snatches cell phone from bystander during arrest

Not oc but we do record
A woman says she was recording video of an arrest on her cell phone in downtown Portland this week when a Gresham police officer approached her and tried to take away her phone
http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/loca...s-cell-phone-from/xBicH2-5_0GNZ5YHPtNbPQ.cspx

My state lag is trying to protect cops even more regarding this subject matter

General Assembly


Raised Bill No. 237

January Session, 2013


LCO No. 1394


*01394_______JUD*

Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY


Introduced by:


(JUD)


AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECORDING OF POLICE ACTIVITY BY THE PUBLIC.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2013) (a) For the purposes of this section, "peace officer" has the meaning provided in section 53a-3 of the general statutes.

(b) A peace officer who interferes with any person taking a photographic or digital still or video image of such peace officer or another peace officer acting in the performance of such peace officer's duties shall, subject to sections 5-141d, 7-465 and 29-8a of the general statutes, be liable to such person in an action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceeding for redress.

(c) A peace officer shall not be liable under subsection (b) of this section if the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the peace officer was interfering with the taking of such image in order to (1) lawfully enforce a criminal law of this state or a municipal ordinance, (2) protect the public safety, (3) preserve the integrity of a crime scene or criminal investigation, (4) safeguard the privacy interests of any person, including a victim of a crime, or (5) lawfully enforce court rules and policies of the Judicial Branch with respect to taking a photograph, videotaping or otherwise recording an image in facilities of the Judicial Branch.

(c)(4) about makes it worthless as a law.:banghead:

Gunhobbit said:

(c)(4) about makes it worthless as a law.:banghead:

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. However, I thought the entire super-section made it a useless law. When you have those exemptions worded in the way they are the entire law would become useless on its own. Why even introduce such idiotic legislation?

KYGlockster said:

My thoughts exactly. However, I thought the entire super-section made it a useless law. When you have those exemptions worded in the way they are the entire law would become useless on its own. Why even introduce such idiotic legislation?

Click to expand...

Why introduce it?

Because it seems to make it OK for LEOs to take your camera and not be held accountable.

This law isn't a protection of the 1st Amend. but an infringement on it.

From kptv.com
The officer has the legal right to ask for the video because there's perishable evidence there, " said Lt. Claudio Grandjean with the Gresham Police Department.

More than one using a video

If, say, three people were using a video, could the LEO snatch all three?

bwboley said:

From kptv.com
The officer has the legal right to ask for the video because there's perishable evidence there, " said Lt. Claudio Grandjean with the Gresham Police Department.

Click to expand...

He can ask all he wants. No authority to demand or seize unless the LEO has RS to believe that there is evidence of a crime on the video and that the 'owner' would destroy said evidence. In this case he did not even know that the woman was videoing, only that she was pointing her phone at them.

In any case, he still needs to get a subpoena or search warrant - which requires PC.

From what I saw on the video, there is no possible way that camera captured anything evidence.

bully with a badge...

I had a cop demand my video camera ... he did not like my response and slithered away ...

davidmcbeth said:

I had a cop demand my video camera ... he did not like my response and slithered away ...

Click to expand...

Did it have a four letter word having to do with self procreation?

JUST SAY NO

The police are trying to expand an exception to the fourth amendments requirement for a warrant. An expansion that will not hold up in court as the exception is intended to allow confiscation of CONTRABAND and other evidence from persons who they have probable cause have committed a crime. I know of no NONE, ZERO ZILCH NADDA Supreme Court cases in which the court has upheld the warantless confiscation of property from a person who was not the criminal suspect.

The Supreme Court constructed exceptions to the fourth's requirement to have a warrant are few (though more than they should be) and every one that I can think of has been constructed by the states OVERWHELMING interest as balanced against the interests of citizens to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. A main protion of that balancing act is whether society (i.e. THE PEOPLE) are willing to accept the state action as reasonable. I have a hard time believing that society accepts these camera confiscations as reasonable.

Unfortunately, we're going to need a Supreme Court decision directly addressing the issue before the police stop their intimidation and violation.

WalkingWolf said:

Did it have a four letter word having to do with self procreation?

Click to expand...

Nope.