Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Picture demanded by LEO

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,628

    Post imported post

    A man was recently arrested in Lacaster, Pa., injured and lost his job as a result of refusing to allow law enforcement officers to take his picture. The charges were eventually dismissed and a law suit is pending.
    http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/212086

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Why on earth do LEOs insist on snapping pictures if they aren't going to arrest the person?? I can understand taking pics when investgating an assault/battery, domestic violence, trespass, etc....

    If you're not going to arrest someone then why take pictures? For the police report?

    Someone clue me in, I don't get it. This needs to stop.



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    Sounds like what happened to Molon Labe. : (
    -Unrequited

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    soloban wrote:
    Why on earth do LEOs insist on snapping pictures if they aren't going to arrest the person?? I can understand taking pics when investgating an assault/battery, domestic violence, trespass, etc....

    If you're not going to arrest someone then why take pictures? For the police report?

    Someone clue me in, I don't get it. This needs to stop.

    Because they can? Because it's legal for them to do so?

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    soloban wrote:
    SNIP If you're not going to arrest someone then why take pictures? For the police report?
    Gathering intelligence? Intimidation?

    When the FOIA requested information from Manassas came back, one of the e-mails that turned up was from a Manassas PD Lt. or Capt. requestingany information from the recipient. His recipient list wasfourteen individuals inlaw enforcement around the state.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    Wow is pretty much all I can grasp out. Let's just take everyone's picture who is "suspected" of a crime now. It will back it easier to round them up later on false charges. Too much power is being given.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    G27 wrote:
    Wow is pretty much all I can grasp out. Let's just take everyone's picture who is "suspected" of a crime now. It will back it easier to round them up later on false charges. Too much power is being given.
    It's not power given to cops, anyone can photograph anyone else in public. There is nothing stoping you from turning it around and taking a picture of the cops. As for the "why" behind a cop taking your picture, that does seem a bit scetchy. But the fact of the matter is, there is nothing saying they can't do it. The only thing I am not sure of is if it can be used as evedence, although I can't think of any reason why not.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    G27 wrote:
    Wow is pretty much all I can grasp out. Let's just take everyone's picture who is "suspected" of a crime now. It will back it easier to round them up later on false charges. Too much power is being given.
    It's not power given to cops, anyone can photograph anyone else in public. There is nothing stoping you from turning it around and taking a picture of the cops. As for the "why" behind a cop taking your picture, that does seem a bit scetchy. But the fact of the matter is, there is nothing saying they can't do it. The only thing I am not sure of is if it can be used as evedence, although I can't think of any reason why not.
    I was thinking the same thing too. I don't have anything against cops taking pictures of people... But I think you'll agree that cops don't have the right to "subdue" someone into having their picture taken. If someone who hasn't been charged with a crime is stupid enough to pose for a picture that police will document, then fine. But they shouldn't be thrown on the ground if they choose not to do so.


    What troubles me even more, though, is that apparently the paramilitary, er, police can raid a house without a warrant now. Not to mention that the last time I checked, it wasn't a crime in Pennsylvania to have a gun in a private residence. Though I can never really keep up with the latest decrees of King Edward.

    "A neighbor got into an argument with some of the men, called 911 and complained that someone had a gun at 346 N. Plum St.

    Lancaster police entered the home with guns drawn, according to documents, and after a pat-down search produced no weapons, police moved all the men outside."

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    soloban wrote:
    Why on earth do LEOs insist on snapping pictures if they aren't going to arrest the person?? I can understand taking pics when investgating an assault/battery, domestic violence, trespass, etc....
    Because they can? Because it's legal for them to do so?
    It's perfectly legal to take a picture of someone in public; however, forcing them to submit to it unwillingly is, in my opinion, another issue all together.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    What I really dislike about the situation:

    1.) The police were called by a neighbor claiming someone had a gun...

    -> Fine, someone is scared about a gun that was not found by the police...did this guy make that part up to make things more serious?

    2.) The police entered the residence with guns drawn, no warrant.

    -> Is it really necessary/legal to enter without knocking? I understand the police can't assume that everything is legit, but in the event that things are legit, I know I'd be upset if I was treated that way as a legally armed and carrying citizen. I mean, if someone calls the police because I'm open carrying, I'd be really upset if they came in my house guns drawn.

    3.) When Corll arrived, the men were on the ground in the driveway and police were checking their IDs to make sure they were valid, according to the lawsuit.

    ...further on in the article...

    During the hearing, Corll testified that because none of the men had picture IDs, police obtained their names, dates of birth, social security numbers and addresses.


    How can they check IDs if no one has them? Why was anyone detained for any period of time after no gun was found and everyone checked out without any warrants, etc?




    The police have a tough job and I'm not bashing them, but these are some serious issues here. I'm not a big fan of lottery by lawsuit, but unlawful actions can't be allowed, by the public or the police.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    FogRider wrote:
    soloban wrote:
    Why on earth do LEOs insist on snapping pictures if they aren't going to arrest the person?? I can understand taking pics when investgating an assault/battery, domestic violence, trespass, etc....
    Because they can? Because it's legal for them to do so?
    It's perfectly legal to take a picture of someone in public; however, forcing them to submit to it unwillingly is, in my opinion, another issue all together.
    I'm going to go ahead and apologize, and admit I kinda jumped the gun and replied without reading fully. Public photography is, and should be legal, but what actually happened in the article is nowhere close to right.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere in PA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    2) Entering a residence like they did would require a warrant or exigent circumstances, which I do not believe they had.

    3) I have no idea why they were on the ground. Asking for or checking ID's is fine and SOP. If they don't have a DL or photo ID, they run them by name and DOB.

    As a LEO myself, I think these guys went overboard. It doesn't matter if they have a "policy" to photograph them, policy is not a law or legal requirement that needs to be obeyed.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Another problem I have is how the paramilitary appear to have the authority to demand identification from people who are on private property with the permission of the landowner, especially when it is not obvious that a crime has been committed. If they're on public land, even on sidewalks, in the street, then fine. But it sounds like the paramilitary barged into a private residence with guns drawn, then detained and questioned everyone in that residence while demanding identification. Is this the kind of country we're living in?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    Law enforcement is out of control in this country.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    Steve in PA wrote:
    2) Entering a residence like they did would require a warrant or exigent circumstances, which I do not believe they had.

    3) I have no idea why they were on the ground. Asking for or checking ID's is fine and SOP. If they don't have a DL or photo ID, they run them by name and DOB.

    As a LEO myself, I think these guys went overboard. It doesn't matter if they have a "policy" to photograph them, policy is not a law or legal requirement that needs to be obeyed.
    About the SOP of running names and DOB, you usually don't need social security numbers right?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Another problem I have is how the paramilitary appear to have the authority to demand identification from people who are on private property with the permission of the landowner, especially when it is not obvious that a crime has been committed. If they're on public land, even on sidewalks, in the street, then fine. But it sounds like the paramilitary barged into a private residence with guns drawn, then detained and questioned everyone in that residence while demanding identification. Is this the kind of country we're living in?
    Can you cite a stop and indentify statute in PA? (when on foot)

    I'm unaware of one, but not too sure where I'd find one.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    It's not power given to cops, anyone can photograph anyone else in public. There is nothing stoping you from turning it around and taking a picture of the cops. As for the "why" behind a cop taking your picture, that does seem a bit scetchy. But the fact of the matter is, there is nothing saying they can't do it. The only thing I am not sure of is if it can be used as evedence, although I can't think of any reason why not.
    Isn't there something wherein you are allowed to request your picture NOT be taken?

    I know this applies to commercial usage, does it apply to shutterbug LEOs as well?
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    Isn't there something wherein you are allowed to request your picture NOT be taken?

    I know this applies to commercial usage, does it apply to shutterbug LEOs as well?

    I'm not sure what the deal is. Hopefully, the cops involved get their heads handed to them (figuratively speaking) unless there isa lotmore to the story than is being told.

    Cops are funny creatures. One minute they can be your protector and will stick their neck way out in doing so, and the next the same cop has his jack boot on your throat for not showing what he feels is proper deference. Who knows what the real scoop is here.


    I always hate it when this kind of thing comes out. Theguy who was roughed up so the cops could take his picture does not appear to be all that nice of a guy.It may also be that the terms of his probation require him to cooperate with police. It would be a lot easier to feel sympathy for the guy if he did not have a record.



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    A man was recently arrested in Lacaster, Pa., injured and lost his job as a result of refusing to allow law enforcement officers to take his picture. The charges were eventually dismissed and a law suit is pending.
    http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/212086

    Yata hey
    This is happening more and more. Starts sounding like Gestapolice in the U.S.

    I though this Country was FAR away from communism...Guess not:what:

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Richland, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    During the hearing, Corll testified that because none of the men had picture IDs, police obtained their names, dates of birth, social security numbers and addresses.

    "Then we took digital photos of all the subjects in question so that at some point these identifications could be verified as the investigation progressed," Corll testified, according to court documents.



    What investigation is he talking about? No one had outstanding warrants and there was no probable cause to arrest anyone. Why is there an investigation?

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Looks also like thepolice violated federal law by demanding that the epople, already unlawfully detained, disclose their Social Security Numbers!

    What is PA coming too?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    stevemark wrote:
    During the hearing, Corll testified that because none of the men had picture IDs, police obtained their names, dates of birth, social security numbers and addresses.

    "Then we took digital photos of all the subjects in question so that at some point these identifications could be verified as the investigation progressed," Corll testified, according to court documents.

    *

    What investigation is he talking about? No one had outstanding warrants and there was no probable cause to arrest anyone. Why is there an investigation?
    An investigation to create PC, it sounds like.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere in PA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    SSN's are usually asked because some people usually give a false or inaccurate name and dob. I've had a guy give his brother's info on a traffic stop. While he may know his brothers dob.........I really doubt he knows his brothers ssn.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Richland, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    According to the Lancaster Online article a neighbor called and complained that someone had a gun. I'd be interested in seeing the 911 call transcript. Did the neighbor say that someone was waving a gun around or just that he/she thought there was a gun in the house?

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    stevemark wrote:
    During the hearing, Corll testified that because none of the men had picture IDs, police obtained their names, dates of birth, social security numbers and addresses.

    "Then we took digital photos of all the subjects in question so that at some point these identifications could be verified as the investigation progressed," Corll testified, according to court documents.



    What investigation is he talking about? No one had outstanding warrants and there was no probable cause to arrest anyone. Why is there an investigation?
    In this context I would guess "investigation" means trying to come up with something that would remotely justify roughing someone up who committed no crime and who they did not even really have PC to search, much less detain.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •