• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

police departments running me for warrants every time i show up to film them

Status
Not open for further replies.

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
What this boils down to is "expectation of privacy". The police do not have that exception because they have a public job. The press is ALSO a public job, unless Onus wants to admit he is not a member of the press.

Both parties are in public view, a public place, with no expectation of privacy.
 

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
The invasion of privacy occurs when they get your name, not when they check for warrants.

and the way they got my name is because I film them and they follow me around.

iv never been cited. ive never provided any personal info to police.

ive never been arrested by them.

I have busted their surveillance teams many times.

This is a war. Its the government against the citizen.

Its just that simple.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
and the way they got my name is because I film them and they follow me around.

iv never been cited. ive never provided any personal info to police.

ive never been arrested by them.

I have busted their surveillance teams many times.

This is a war. Its the government against the citizen.

Its just that simple.

Sorry to say this, but you have zero credibility with me. I don't believe you. You have evaded and deceived way too many times.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
you are correct.

The thing that should worry residents of my city (besides the constitutional rights violations) is that on at least two occasions they have said I was on scene filming and run me for warrants.......and I wasn't even there.

Today was the best one though. I was at the beach laying on the sand listening to my scanner and playing with my Go Pro. I heard the police telling dispatchers that I just arrived on their scene with usual filming partner and to run us both for warrants. Only problem was I wasn't there.

Cops are stupid.

That's called market penetration.

Also, very effective marketing. Even when you're not there, you and your product are on their mind.

:D
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I think PALO and Eye are overlooking something.

Why are police checking him for warrants? They're hoping there is one so they can stop his filming.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I think PALO and Eye are overlooking something.

Why are police checking him for warrants? They're hoping there is one so they can stop his filming.

They are doing it because they know it bugs him, and there is nothing he can do about it. His only recourse is a RO, and he could no longer harass police with one. He would have to obey it also. They are probably reading this thread having a good laugh.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
They are doing it because they know it bugs him, and there is nothing he can do about it. His only recourse is a RO, and he could no longer harass police with one. He would have to obey it also. They are probably reading this thread having a good laugh.


Well, they are going to be harassing him and then get a bullet in the head from the perp that they have stopped ... not wise
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I'm sure Idaho has a "LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA SYSTEM." And I would bet, like Ohio, misusing or abusing the system by law enforcement is a crime. I'm just saying.......
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Well, they are going to be harassing him and then get a bullet in the head from the perp that they have stopped ... not wise

The problem is he is interfering with their job. He is not just filming he is yelling at the officers and the people they are interacting with. He incites the suspects by his comments to them making the job of the police more dangerous. If he wants to film he should film and keep his big mouth shut.

It would not affect their job IMO in the least bit to tell the dispatcher to run him. Like I already said his only option is a RO, and that would destroy his little game. That is probably what they are hoping for, if not they get to read his whimpering online and have good laugh.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I'm sure Idaho has a "LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA SYSTEM." And I would bet, like Ohio, misusing or abusing the system by law enforcement is a crime. I'm just saying.......

Again it boils down to expectation of privacy, as a self proclaimed member of the press he has no expectation to privacy. Tough noogies!
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
I don't know about state systems, but accessing NCIC without a valid LE purpose is a major no-no, and has gotten people fired and even prosecuted.

Valid purposes don't include checking up on friends, lovers, daughter's boyfriends, or any political purpose.
 

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
They are doing it because they know it bugs him, and there is nothing he can do about it. His only recourse is a RO, and he could no longer harass police with one. He would have to obey it also. They are probably reading this thread having a good laugh.

If it bugged me I would have stopped filming police a long time ago.

The reality is it bugs police that I film them. Just like it bugs you that I film police.

The only way the police can respond is to attempt to arrest me. They figure if they arrest me then it will stop me from exposing their corruption and civil rights abuses.

The problem the police have is that I am a law abiding citizen and there is nothing they can do to silence me. I don't break the law and I have no warrants and I have NEVER had any warrants.

I haven't had a traffic violation in 19 years !!!

Obviously the higher ups in the department have instructed to beat cops to run a warrants check on me whenever they see me.

The police are butt hurt and they are retaliating.

They are so desperate they run warrant checks on me when I am not even there !!!

It doesn't bug me personally because I knew when I started exposing police that they would attempt to destroy me.

What bothers me is the government and police long standing policy of retaliating against free press and people who challenge them and expose them.

This is a new era in America and its a war by the government against the citizen.

Come at me bro.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I don't know about state systems, but accessing NCIC without a valid LE purpose is a major no-no, and has gotten people fired and even prosecuted.

Valid purposes don't include checking up on friends, lovers, daughter's boyfriends, or any political purpose.

It would appear the police in his case are doing none of the above.

Oooops forgot to ask for a cite.
 
Last edited:

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
RS or PC should be required to run names and car plates, is that guy that tries to drum up the support here in Washington. If so can you link.

Also did you read Hibbel, where SCOTUS actually seemingly countered some of your claims.

Again the comparison of government agents to private individuals, the constitutional restraint to remain secure from infringement of my person and my effects applies to cops and their masters.

It's been a loong time since I read Hibbel and I'd have to brush up, but given that I find your belief ABSURD. Seriously. Lunatic. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just saying the idea (criticizing the idea not the person. you may be a great guy n stuff) that cops should need ANY indicia of suspicion to run a name or a car plate makes no sense from a libertarian or other perspective that I can think of

heck, in some circs, we (police) advertise to everybody in the community that person X is wanted or has a warrant and is wanted. It's totally disclosable and should be.

Justice delayed is justice denied and society, the victim of the crime (that caused the warrant to be issued), and in some cases even the defendant are best served by expeditious service of a warrant.

As time goes by witnesses' memories fade and/or are altered by discussion of the incident with others, reading about it, etc. Many may have already given a statement etc. to cops or defense attorney or whatnot by the time the warrant is issued, but in many cases not. Generally speaking, with rare exception, the sooner a witness is questioned the better and from a defense angle, as time goes by it is usually harder not easier to find rebuttal evidence etc. People move away, die forget etc. If the suspect is innocent he is going to want his defense attorney/investigators to have a better chance of finding evidence/people that can rebut the states' case and the passage of time is usually going to work against that.

For the victims, they can get closure quicker, and for society - we can get justice more quickly and it is more likely that justice will be served , defining justice in this sense as getting a verdict that reflects what actually happened.

Note also, that when delay of trial is due to DEFENDANT's actions (iow hiding away and avoiding trial /warrant service), there are several hearsay exceptions that may work against him IF he is innocent. For example, the general principle is that one has the right to confront the accuser and that others can;t testify as to what OTHERs said etc. (which is what hearsay is). But there are exceptions when the witness dies, can;'t be found etc. again that sometimes kick in WHEN THE DEFENDANT was the reason for the delay. For an innocent suspect, having the ability to challenge testimony is an extremely important right.

The presence of a warrant merely says there is PC to believe X happened in the past. And that X is a crime. Setting aside "victimless" crimes (which i generally oppose e.g. war on drugs etc), it is a way to bring an accused to account for what he is suspected of, to either (hopefully) clear the air and his name if he is innocent, or give closure and serve justice if he is guilty.

I could AT least see the argument for example, that cops should have indicia of suspicion to run a registration to see the NAME of the vehicle owner.

I can;'t grok what argument would say that cops need an indicia of suspicion to see if it has been stolen which unlike most warrants references a past crime AND a current crime (if it is being operated at the time).

The only "argument" I can see to require indicia of suspicion to check for warrants or stolen hits for a car (doubly so for a parked unoccupied car) is the argument that 'darnit, it should be harder for the state to bring persons before the courts to answer for their suspected crimes.

And the harder you make it to locate a subject of a warrant, the greater incentive you give to a criminal to abscond and in the case of a stolen car, the greater incentive you give a criminal to steal a car and to flee. Ceteris paribus, the greater a criminals perception as to the ease of remaining outside the grasp of justice if they commit a crime, the greater incentive to commit crime.

I'd seriously love to hear your theory as to why indicia of suspicion should exist in order to check for warrants.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
It would appear the police in his case are doing none of the above.

Oooops forgot to ask for a cite.

I would say it is arguably a political purpose--they don't want misdeeds exposed.


Separately, police have no standing to complain about citizens with cameras. Police won't clean out the rotten apples themselves, forcing us to work on the housecleaning.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I would say it is arguably a political purpose--they don't want misdeeds exposed.


Separately, police have no standing to complain about citizens with cameras. Police won't clean out the rotten apples themselves, forcing us to work on the housecleaning.

The press has there own rotten apples as well. And the press answers to the public. The police have as much right to make inquires when their is no expectation of privacy. As a member of the press, while engaged in matters of the press, there is no expectation of privacy. Which means the police can film or record the press, and run names for warrants of members of the press.

BTW anybody can run a person for warrants or records by paying the whatever the fee a state charges. If your name is out there, it is public access.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top