eye95
Well-known member
It is reasonable for the police to set a perimeter around the scene. That perimeter would not include telling someone that they have to go indoors. A 25-foot (or even possibly a 50-foot) perimeter would not be unreasonable.
-
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.
-
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.
Rochester, NY Woman arrested for videotaping police
- Thread starter JamesCanby
- Start date
It is reasonable for the police to set a perimeter around the scene. That perimeter would not include telling someone that they have to go indoors. A 25-foot (or even possibly a 50-foot) perimeter would not be unreasonable.
Badger Johnson
Regular Member
When we look at the actions of the LEO, what comes to the fore?
1. There is obviously no danger to the LEO(s) from this 110lb woman filming them, and it would be easy to just ignore her. But for some reason he did not.
2. What is the real reason he pressed the issue?
3. Could she not have continued filming from inside her house? Telling her to go inside is not a remedy for filming the event where a man may have been cuffed inappropriately.
I really don't get it, and the thought that this video could have been used to help the case of the guy being detained and searched and cuffed doesn't make sense. However, consider they may have done something harsher and not let him go without charges, had there not been a video.
To me, putting himself on the line and going onto her property and detaining her and arresting her improperly/illegally is not worth the outcome which may not be favorable to him.
In addition he seems to have given the camera to a bystander who continued filming.
It's puzzling behavior.
1. There is obviously no danger to the LEO(s) from this 110lb woman filming them, and it would be easy to just ignore her. But for some reason he did not.
2. What is the real reason he pressed the issue?
3. Could she not have continued filming from inside her house? Telling her to go inside is not a remedy for filming the event where a man may have been cuffed inappropriately.
I really don't get it, and the thought that this video could have been used to help the case of the guy being detained and searched and cuffed doesn't make sense. However, consider they may have done something harsher and not let him go without charges, had there not been a video.
To me, putting himself on the line and going onto her property and detaining her and arresting her improperly/illegally is not worth the outcome which may not be favorable to him.
In addition he seems to have given the camera to a bystander who continued filming.
It's puzzling behavior.
eye95
Well-known member
Likely the officer would have.
I made the post because of the overwhelming idea being projected that the officer could not react to someone he thought was too close to an arrest going down. It is reasonable that they can. It is not reasonable to demand that the woman go in here house. Asking her to back off a bit is reasonable.
Of course, the more we learn, the more it looks like the officers were rousting the detainee, didn't really have anything on him, and the officer was reacting unreasonably to the prospect that evidence of the roust was being recorded.
eye95
Well-known member
I am not disputing any of that. I was refuting the notion that the officers have no authority to secure a perimeter around their action. They do. Reasonably. This officer did so unreasonably.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
cite?
since9
Campaign Veteran
As the pin-headed cop dragged her off her own private property, the woman was crying, saying "What the hell is going on, here?"
Well, I'll tell you.
It begins with two small heads and a severe desire to make up the deficiency. It continues with substandard training exacerbated by a warped departmental culture which encourages power trips while minimizing gross infractions of the law on the part of its officers. As with all Top Fuel dragsters, however, they cannot run on mere alcohol fuel, and require a lot of nitro-methane fuel, which in this case is characterized by a serious lack of repercussions when pin-headed LEOs commit heinous crimes against law-abiding citizens.
The correction, at least within Rochester, NY, 19th Ward, is to sue the offending copy, the police department, and the city for all they're worth, and keep at it until a favorable $$$ judgement is obtained. Perhaps then the officer, the police department, and the city might sit up and say, "Wow. That was expensive! You mean we cannot grossly violate the rights of law-abiding citizens engaged in lawful activities while they're standing on their own property?"
No, you can't. For that matter, you cannot legally violate their rights regardless of where they're standing. Rights are rights. It's Rochester, and the date is 2011. It's not Berlin, and this is not 1943.
Well, I'll tell you.
It begins with two small heads and a severe desire to make up the deficiency. It continues with substandard training exacerbated by a warped departmental culture which encourages power trips while minimizing gross infractions of the law on the part of its officers. As with all Top Fuel dragsters, however, they cannot run on mere alcohol fuel, and require a lot of nitro-methane fuel, which in this case is characterized by a serious lack of repercussions when pin-headed LEOs commit heinous crimes against law-abiding citizens.
The correction, at least within Rochester, NY, 19th Ward, is to sue the offending copy, the police department, and the city for all they're worth, and keep at it until a favorable $$$ judgement is obtained. Perhaps then the officer, the police department, and the city might sit up and say, "Wow. That was expensive! You mean we cannot grossly violate the rights of law-abiding citizens engaged in lawful activities while they're standing on their own property?"
No, you can't. For that matter, you cannot legally violate their rights regardless of where they're standing. Rights are rights. It's Rochester, and the date is 2011. It's not Berlin, and this is not 1943.
eye95
Well-known member
Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. In order to stop a citizen, and officer must have a suspicion that the citizen has committed, is committing, or will commit a crime. That suspicion must be reasonable. In other words a "reasonable man" with the same set of circumstances and facts would have the same suspicion. That reasonable suspicion must be articulable. The officer must be able to put into words how he came to that suspicion. It cannot be based on nebulous stuff like actions seeming "hinkey." That is not to say that the officer must articulate his suspicion during the stop. He just must be able to do so before making the stop--and to later convince a judge that he was able at that time.
Alabama law (and, I suspect, most others) specifically call for "reasonable suspicion" prior to a stop. The A in RAS comes from Terry v. Ohio. If you would open carry, please read this decision. You need to know what it says.
I hope that helps.
since9
Campaign Veteran
This gross and quite childish abuse of authority so reeks of immaturity I'd like to throw in the other 98 cents:
Here are a few points with respect to the "Obstructing Governmental Administration" charge:
1. The lady was being quiet and standing on her own private property (sidewalk or not; see #4, below). She in no manner whatsoever interfered with the traffic stop.
2. The arresting officer initiated contact. It was he who interrupted the traffic stop, not the lady with the iPhone. If anyone is guilty of "Obstructing Governmental Administration," it was the arresting officer.
3. The arresting officer interrupted the traffic stop then proceeded to trespass on private property without a warrant, reasonable articulable suspicion, or probable cause.
4. In nearly all jurisdictions throughout the United States of America, a sidewalk constitutes a public easement on one's private property. While a property owner cannot block public access to the sidewalk, the portion of the sidewalk inside the property boundary as demarcated on the plat filed with the city/county assessor's office remains private property. It doesn't matter whether she was standing on grass or concrete. If it's on her plat, she was on her own private property.
5. While the arresting officer appeared both suspicious and afraid, neither his suspicions nor fears meet the requirements under "reasonable articulable suspicion." (RAS). His fear of a minimally-clad lady with an iPhone standing on her own property is not reasonable. The term "suspicion" must be a suspicion of criminal activity or intent to commit a crime. There is no such reasonable suspicion of either in the case of a woman quietly standing on her own private property.
6. A lady standing quietly on her own private property does not constitute "probable cause" as required for either the officer to violate trespassing laws or arrest the woman. The arresting officer's order for her to go inside was unlawful under the circumstances (quiet, non-interferring, on her own private property). Because the order was unlawful, her refusal to obey the arresting officer's unlawful order does not constitute probable cause, either.
Bottom Line: The officer goofed, big time. The ONLY reason the officer arrested the woman is because when he gave her an unlawful order and she stood on her rights to remain where she was on her own private property, the arresting officer reacted in a very childish and unlawful manner. He clearly does not possess the maturity to own a firearm, much less hold a position of trust as a law enforcement officer.
I seriously hope this couple sues all parties for all they're worth! By filing an obviously fraudulent charge, the police department and/or the DA's office has demonstrated their own culpability and immaturity in the matter, and should be punished along with the arresting officer. The mere fact that the arresting officer could ever do what he did, that he was not immediately disciplined, that no apology was offered to the lady, that fraudulent charges were filed, indicates the City of Rochester, NY has been negligent in their oversight of their own police force, and is therefore culpable in this matter, as well.
I sincerely hope the others in the department have a sense of humor and award him with a Pacifier of the Year award. While they're at it, they should send extras to whatever idiot(s) in the department or the DA's office signed off on the ridiculously trumped-up charge in their pathetic attempts to save their own backsides.
The arresting officer is the laughingstock of that force for his actions. Following through with such a ridiculous charge makes the entire Rochester police force, as well as the city of Rochester, NY, the laughingstock of all New Yorkers, not to mention the entire nation.
Here are a few points with respect to the "Obstructing Governmental Administration" charge:
1. The lady was being quiet and standing on her own private property (sidewalk or not; see #4, below). She in no manner whatsoever interfered with the traffic stop.
2. The arresting officer initiated contact. It was he who interrupted the traffic stop, not the lady with the iPhone. If anyone is guilty of "Obstructing Governmental Administration," it was the arresting officer.
3. The arresting officer interrupted the traffic stop then proceeded to trespass on private property without a warrant, reasonable articulable suspicion, or probable cause.
4. In nearly all jurisdictions throughout the United States of America, a sidewalk constitutes a public easement on one's private property. While a property owner cannot block public access to the sidewalk, the portion of the sidewalk inside the property boundary as demarcated on the plat filed with the city/county assessor's office remains private property. It doesn't matter whether she was standing on grass or concrete. If it's on her plat, she was on her own private property.
5. While the arresting officer appeared both suspicious and afraid, neither his suspicions nor fears meet the requirements under "reasonable articulable suspicion." (RAS). His fear of a minimally-clad lady with an iPhone standing on her own property is not reasonable. The term "suspicion" must be a suspicion of criminal activity or intent to commit a crime. There is no such reasonable suspicion of either in the case of a woman quietly standing on her own private property.
6. A lady standing quietly on her own private property does not constitute "probable cause" as required for either the officer to violate trespassing laws or arrest the woman. The arresting officer's order for her to go inside was unlawful under the circumstances (quiet, non-interferring, on her own private property). Because the order was unlawful, her refusal to obey the arresting officer's unlawful order does not constitute probable cause, either.
Bottom Line: The officer goofed, big time. The ONLY reason the officer arrested the woman is because when he gave her an unlawful order and she stood on her rights to remain where she was on her own private property, the arresting officer reacted in a very childish and unlawful manner. He clearly does not possess the maturity to own a firearm, much less hold a position of trust as a law enforcement officer.
I seriously hope this couple sues all parties for all they're worth! By filing an obviously fraudulent charge, the police department and/or the DA's office has demonstrated their own culpability and immaturity in the matter, and should be punished along with the arresting officer. The mere fact that the arresting officer could ever do what he did, that he was not immediately disciplined, that no apology was offered to the lady, that fraudulent charges were filed, indicates the City of Rochester, NY has been negligent in their oversight of their own police force, and is therefore culpable in this matter, as well.
I sincerely hope the others in the department have a sense of humor and award him with a Pacifier of the Year award. While they're at it, they should send extras to whatever idiot(s) in the department or the DA's office signed off on the ridiculously trumped-up charge in their pathetic attempts to save their own backsides.
The arresting officer is the laughingstock of that force for his actions. Following through with such a ridiculous charge makes the entire Rochester police force, as well as the city of Rochester, NY, the laughingstock of all New Yorkers, not to mention the entire nation.
Last edited:
since9
Campaign Veteran
This fact alone absolutely undermines any claim they may have of RAS. It's not enough merely to articulate it in court. They must demonstrate in court that they would have been able to articulate it at the time of arrest.
Since it took at least two of them more than an hour to pull it out of their backside following the arrest, they have instead clearly demonstrated they hadn't a clue as to what to articulate at the time of arrest.
KBCraig
Regular Member
When concerned citizens of Rochester scheduled a gathering at a local community center to plan protests over this arrest, Rochester PD dispatched four squad cars to check every car parked on the surrounding blocks for registration/inspection/insurance, and ticketed every car parked (arguably) more than 12 inches from the curb. They even carried a cute pink ruler, something not typically part of a cop's duty gear.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/rochester-cops-resort-to-retalitory-tactics-against-citizens
http://www.pixiq.com/article/rochester-cops-resort-to-retalitory-tactics-against-citizens
Badger Johnson
Regular Member
IMO, it sound like they need to do a New Orleans style shake up and can the whole dept from the top down and put in people who can be LEOs in a professional manner.
In addition, I hope her lawyer adds charges like kidnapping, along with trespassing, because he came onto her property and illegally detained and arrested her.
(If you, as a private citizen tries to detain and hold a person who you think committed a crime on your property, one thing they may try to do (if they're corrupt) is to add a kidnapping charge, or so I recall from my readings.)
In addition, I hope her lawyer adds charges like kidnapping, along with trespassing, because he came onto her property and illegally detained and arrested her.
(If you, as a private citizen tries to detain and hold a person who you think committed a crime on your property, one thing they may try to do (if they're corrupt) is to add a kidnapping charge, or so I recall from my readings.)
the last gunfighter
Regular Member
A report has come out that this lady is a radical activist for private property right she has been arrested in the past for rushing police when they are enforcing eviction notices, so she has a past with police confrontations now I am not a pro-cop/anti-cop and I'm not saying the police were right with what they did but there may have been more on her mind than taping police.
Badger Johnson
Regular Member
Got a link? Doesn't matter if she's a radical Black Panther or a Sunday School teacher. She did not 'rush' the cops, but was in place on her property. Each incident has to stand on its own. It also doesn't matter if she was thinking 'Death to all Bluecoats', afaik, there is no such thing as thought crime.
I have to say she didn't act like a newbie, but ladies have been known to 'act' up a storm (as have gentlemen).
It seems to me:
1. The LEO indicated 'things you said to me before you started taping make me think you are anti-cop'. Others at the scene did not support this and said no words were exchanged.
2. People are not generally 'anti-cop' they're anti-unprofessional behavior, and pro-individual freedom.
$.02
the last gunfighter
Regular Member
The story is on the blaze.com and I didn't say she rushed the police I said that she has rushed police in the past so they have a reason to know her and a reason to think she might do it. All I'm saying is there are 2 sides and the other shows her as a troublemaker so I don't want to rush to judgement on the police.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Police Harass Community Members Attending Meeting in Support of Emily Good
http://rochester.indymedia.org/newswire/display/27098/index.php
[video=youtube;Ytk_FpvHquw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytk_FpvHquw[/video]
Time to take it back people.
http://rochester.indymedia.org/newswire/display/27098/index.php
[video=youtube;Ytk_FpvHquw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytk_FpvHquw[/video]
Time to take it back people.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
Wow. That was stupid of the Rochester police. Not only did they paint their whole department in a bad light, opening them up to ridicule world-wide, these tickets will be unenforceable as they are clearly arbitrary and capricious. Any reasonable judge and/or jury will find the action as being done for retaliation and intimidation, opening the department up to civil damages. I would hope those actions could also result in criminal prosecution.
Let's see how the leadership of the city and department react to this story. I hope that they decry it and take punitive action against these officers and any in the chain of command who supported or had a part in it.
Let's see how the leadership of the city and department react to this story. I hope that they decry it and take punitive action against these officers and any in the chain of command who supported or had a part in it.
sraacke
Regular Member
You said it better than me. My reply would have certainly violated several fourm rules and probably have gotten me banned.
eye95
Well-known member
You're welcome. Articulable doesn't seem to appear in many dictionaries and is always underlined by my spell-checker as misspelled.
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
Big surprise: Today all charges were dropped.
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/27/6958849-woman-who-recorded-police-is-off-the-hook
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/27/6958849-woman-who-recorded-police-is-off-the-hook
eye95
Well-known member
The city took the precise correct position on the issue, but fell short in two regards:
1. What are they going to do to make the woman "whole" for the indignity and inconvenience that she suffered?
2. What are they going to do to the officer who overstepped what they have announced is propriety and to the officers who took retaliatory action against the woman's supporters?
This story is not over until those two concerns are properly addressed.
1. What are they going to do to make the woman "whole" for the indignity and inconvenience that she suffered?
2. What are they going to do to the officer who overstepped what they have announced is propriety and to the officers who took retaliatory action against the woman's supporters?
This story is not over until those two concerns are properly addressed.