• 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.

Picture demanded by LEO

M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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?
 
A

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
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?
Click to expand...

An investigation to create PC, it sounds like. :cuss:
 
S

Steve in PA

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
158
Location
Somewhere in PA
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.
 
S

stevemark

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
14
Location
Richland, Pennsylvania, USA
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?
 
I

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
possumboy

possumboy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,089
Location
Dumfries, Virginia, USA
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....
Click to expand...
Because they can? Because it's legal for them to do so?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

In PUBLIC. This sounds like it was on private property. Which gives the person the right to deny.

Did the officers force everyone to the street/sidewalk to take the pictures? I didn't get that from the references provided.
 
U

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

possumboy wrote:
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....
Click to expand...
Because they can? Because it's legal for them to do so?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

In PUBLIC. This sounds like it was on private property. Which gives the person the right to deny.

Did the officers force everyone to the street/sidewalk to take the pictures? I didn't get that from the references provided.
Click to expand...

Still...even on Public street there needs to be reasonable behavior....OH, yes I FORGOT...we are talking about LEO's. Reasonable doesn't exist unless they need to arrest you wish is ALL the time.

Hey possumboy. Are you telling me that if you were on a Public street and I wanted to take a picture of you and you said -"NO". I could beat you with a stick til you "comply":lol:? Or use any force nessecary except deadly force ???
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

It occurs to me that this picture-taking business is a little like mission creep.

It used to be that the only folks photographed were those posing for mug-shots.

So now the police are taking photo's of whoever?

It just goes to show that the authoritarian streak will find a way to stretch the envelope.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Maybe,next time we send a FOIA about a police encounter, we should FOIA also for the file photo of the officer in question so we can start our own files on abusive police officers.

Can't hurt to have a file photo ready to give the press.
 
N

ne1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
460
Location
, , USA
imported post

It wasn't too long ago that our local PD had a website which included photos and short bios of all the friendly officers. Something happened since 'homeland security' and now all the officers' ID's are a mystery and only generic contact information is given for the department.
 
A

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

ne1 wrote:
It wasn't too long ago that our local PD had a website which included photos and short bios of all the friendly officers. Something happened since 'homeland security' and now all the officers' ID's are a mystery and only generic contact information is given for the department.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Harrisonburg PD had these trading cards for a while.

I've noticed they have been a bit hard to find the last few months, after I heard an officer mentioning something about "target", and "collecting" in reference to them.

And.... not surprisingly enough, web searching for "Harrisonburg Police 'Trading Cards'" brings up pron... :shock:
 
possumboy

possumboy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,089
Location
Dumfries, Virginia, USA
imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:
Still...even on Public street there needs to be reasonable behavior....OH, yes I FORGOT...we are talking about LEO's. Reasonable doesn't exist unless they need to arrest you wish is ALL the time.

Hey possumboy. Are you telling me that if you were on a Public street and I wanted to take a picture of you and you said -"NO". I could beat you with a stick til you "comply":lol:? Or use any force nessecary except deadly force ???
Click to expand...
Didn't say anything about being forced to "pose" for it. Was just answering another post about it being legal if it was on public property. It is basically legal to take picture of anything on public property as long as it is not used for gain.

With that said, you have every right to turn your head, cover your face, leave, or wear a reflective body suit to interfere with the camera.

So, to sum it up:
I could take your picture if I wanted to and I was on public property and I could see you from that property.

I could not force you to stand still, poses, move to a better location, or have you turn for your good side.

Understand the difference as to what you are saying?
 
U

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

possumboy wrote:
UTOC-45-44 wrote:
Still...even on Public street there needs to be reasonable behavior....OH, yes I FORGOT...we are talking about LEO's. Reasonable doesn't exist unless they need to arrest you wish is ALL the time.

Hey possumboy. Are you telling me that if you were on a Public street and I wanted to take a picture of you and you said -"NO". I could beat you with a stick til you "comply":lol:? Or use any force nessecary except deadly force ???
Click to expand...
Didn't say anything about being forced to "pose" for it. Was just answering another post about it being legal if it was on public property. It is basically legal to take picture of anything on public property as long as it is not used for gain.

With that said, you have every right to turn your head, cover your face, leave, or wear a reflective body suit to interfere with the camera.

So, to sum it up:
I could take your picture if I wanted to and I was on public property and I could see you from that property.

I could not force you to stand still, poses, move to a better location, or have you turn for your good side.

Understand the difference as to what you are saying?
Click to expand...

I think we are on the same page. I was just playing with you:lol:.

I agree that you can take a picture on any PUBLIC street. But I believe IF you say no, it's NO. I am a believer of that privacy as well. Paparazzi and Popo = A$$holes
 
I

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:
possumboy wrote:
UTOC-45-44 wrote:
Still...even on Public street there needs to be reasonable behavior....OH, yes I FORGOT...we are talking about LEO's. Reasonable doesn't exist unless they need to arrest you wish is ALL the time.

Hey possumboy. Are you telling me that if you were on a Public street and I wanted to take a picture of you and you said -"NO". I could beat you with a stick til you "comply":lol:? Or use any force nessecary except deadly force ???
Click to expand...
Didn't say anything about being forced to "pose" for it. Was just answering another post about it being legal if it was on public property. It is basically legal to take picture of anything on public property as long as it is not used for gain.

With that said, you have every right to turn your head, cover your face, leave, or wear a reflective body suit to interfere with the camera.

So, to sum it up:
I could take your picture if I wanted to and I was on public property and I could see you from that property.

I could not force you to stand still, poses, move to a better location, or have you turn for your good side.

Understand the difference as to what you are saying?
Click to expand...

I think we are on the same page. I was just playing with you:lol:.

I agree that you can take a picture on any PUBLIC street. But I believe IF you say no, it's NO. I am a believer of that privacy as well. Paparazzi and Popo = A$$holes
Click to expand...
What privacy does one have on a public street, though? If someone doesn't want their picture taken, they can turn away from the photographer. If the photographer pursues them, then by all means file for harassment and such. I don't really have a problem with the photography aspect of this situation, but rather 1) the unlawful invasion of private property and 2) the unlawful use of force to coerce people into having a "usable" picture taken. While it does seem a bit Orwellian for government officials to be photographing us passively, and to be surveilling us with video cameras and such, I can't see a good reason to prevent them from doing so in public spaces.

Disclaimer: I am a photographer (see profile for website), so perhaps that biases my opinion a bit. Then again, I'm not a paparazzi, either.
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Yikes,

1. On probation for exercising constitutional right to keep and bear arms at 19.

2. 5 months incarcerated awaiting trial, not too speedy.

3. Bogus charges dismissed by judge, not even close enough for judge to send to jury.

It seems that PA is heading toward amommy stateutopia very quickly. I think that something besides the damn bell has cracked in PA!
 
T

tes151

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
14
Location
York, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

jtkratzer wrote:
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.

Seems to me that if the police barge into a house and if the " legal " occupant realizes they are cops, they probably will live. If not, they can be shot as BGs.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top