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

[PALO]

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.

It does not bother "the police" that you are filming them. That is a broad brush with the same perniciousness as the broad brushes of racism or sexism or whatnot.

Many cops certainly do not like being filmed. Many are ambivalent though. Others (like me) are in favor of it.

I've also filmed cops myself on many occasions. I enjoy filming them AND I like being filmed (mostly because I know that the greater %age of time that I am being filmed while doing my job, the greater chance I will have to rebut false claims with evidence)

And cops certainly have every right to feel butthurt that they are being filmed.

They just should not be able to punish people for doing so. And note that running your name for warrants is not punishment. Whether or not you have a warrant (quantum theory aside) is a given regardless of what any individual cop wants or doesn[t like about you, etc.

If you could show that the cops are singling out people who are filming them for warrant checks, then I'd be behind you. However, cops often run people and especially people in proximity to them (because people who are close to them can do them harm , the more you know about a person in your presence, the better able you are to make better decisions as to how to act and because if the person does have a warrant, they get to make an arrest and hopefully get the wheels of justice churning towards that individual and for their victims if they are guilty and to get the wheels to free them, if they aren;t

 

[onus]

It does not bother "the police" that you are filming them. That is a broad brush with the same perniciousness as the broad brushes of racism or sexism or whatnot.

Many cops certainly do not like being filmed. Many are ambivalent though. Others (like me) are in favor of it.

I've also filmed cops myself on many occasions. I enjoy filming them AND I like being filmed (mostly because I know that the greater %age of time that I am being filmed while doing my job, the greater chance I will have to rebut false claims with evidence)

And cops certainly have every right to feel butthurt that they are being filmed.

They just should not be able to punish people for doing so. And note that running your name for warrants is not punishment. Whether or not you have a warrant (quantum theory aside) is a given regardless of what any individual cop wants or doesn[t like about you, etc.

If you could show that the cops are singling out people who are filming them for warrant checks, then I'd be behind you. However, cops often run people and especially people in proximity to them (because people who are close to them can do them harm , the more you know about a person in your presence, the better able you are to make better decisions as to how to act and because if the person does have a warrant, they get to make an arrest and hopefully get the wheels of justice churning towards that individual and for their victims if they are guilty and to get the wheels to free them, if they aren;t

post the videos you have filmed of police. I want to see them.

 

[Primus]

Have you ever run your mother for warrants ?

Definitely have my friend. What you may not get is that a warrant check doesn't even show personal information. Its not running your bop.

If you have a warrant.... bing it comes up.

If you don't... it doesn't.

Any questions?

"Come at me bro"

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[davidmcbeth]

Definitely have my friend. What you may not get is that a warrant check doesn't even show personal information. Its not running your bop.

If you have a warrant.... bing it comes up.

If you don't... it doesn't.

Any questions?

"Come at me bro"

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Do Obama .. post results ...

 

[Primus]

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.

This is the best post I've read on this forum solely for the last line. I've never heard anyone say that in all seriousness. Now I guess I have seen/heard it.

Thank you onus I appreciate it.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

o

]I have never once seen ANY case law that even implies that GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU KNOW SOMEBODY's NAME (iow we are not talking about making a stop to obtain it or something like that where all sorts of factors govern whether it is lawful or not), that you need ANY indicia of suspicion to run that person's name... or any car registration for that matter. [/COLOR]

Fwiw, there is a guy who nearly every year tries to drum up support for either law or court action to require police to at least have some indicia of suspicion before they run license plates... in the course of a couple of hours on patrol it's not unusual for me to run a dozen license plates or more, and of course there is no case law that demands I need any reason whatsoever to do so. , He's never been successful of course.

If there is ANY jurisdiction that either through case law or statute, requires ANY indicia of suspicion to run somebody's name for warrants etc. I'd love to know, but I am not aware of any.

Put briefly, there is NO expectation of privacy, in regards to law enforcement, in whether any jurisdiction has issued warrants for your arrest. In many states, the flowery language on the actual warrant reads something like "To any peace officer having jurisdiction to arrest...". Iow, it's an open call to LEO's to enforce them and no reason needed.


~SNIPPED~

My God, how can someone use that many words and say nothing?!?!

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...law-enforcement-officers-law-enforcers-misuse

http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-cases-show-crooked-cops-abuse-fbi-database-162152158.html

NYC Cannibal Cop used a police database to find his victims. Was convicted of it too.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...cy-kidnap-illegal-databases-article-1.1286075

"Each unauthorized use of her private information, made while acting under color of state law, violated Rasmusson's federal civil rights and constituted behavior prohibited by federal statute," the lawsuit states.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/10/anne_marie_rasmusson_names_cops_data_breach_lawsuit.php

http://rense.com/general26/top10list.htm

It appears there are some federal protections from ethically challenged police officers that just haven't quite developed that "high moral fiber" so often alluded to yet.

 

[Primus]

o

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...law-enforcement-officers-law-enforcers-misuse

http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-cases-show-crooked-cops-abuse-fbi-database-162152158.html

NYC Cannibal Cop used a police database to find his victims. Was convicted of it too.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...cy-kidnap-illegal-databases-article-1.1286075

"Each unauthorized use of her private information, made while acting under color of state law, violated Rasmusson's federal civil rights and constituted behavior prohibited by federal statute," the lawsuit states.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/10/anne_marie_rasmusson_names_cops_data_breach_lawsuit.php

http://rense.com/general26/top10list.htm

It appears there are some federal protections from ethically challenged police officers that just haven't quite developed that "high moral fiber" so often alluded to yet.

Fuller we were specifically taking about warrant checks. Not personal information such as residence or anything else. All you need is a name and DOB. He's given said name and DOB in the last on its on file in some report somewhere.

You are correct that there are rules against utilizing info to look up ex girlfriends and phone numbers etc. Etc.

That is not what we were talking about.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Citizen]

Fuller we were specifically taking about warrant checks. Not personal information such as residence or anything else. All you need is a name and DOB. He's given said name and DOB in the last on its on file in some report somewhere.

You are correct that there are rules against utilizing info to look up ex girlfriends and phone numbers etc. Etc.

That is not what we were talking about.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Yeah. And, you're really hoping to keep the subject on whether its illegal to do that warrant check, instead of why they're doing that warrant check.

 

[Primus]

Yeah. And, you're really hoping to keep the subject on whether its illegal to do that warrant check, instead of why they're doing that warrant check.

To see if he has any warrants obviously. Other posters have explained it pretty well already.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[PALO]

o

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...law-enforcement-officers-law-enforcers-misuse

http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-cases-show-crooked-cops-abuse-fbi-database-162152158.html

NYC Cannibal Cop used a police database to find his victims. Was convicted of it too.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...cy-kidnap-illegal-databases-article-1.1286075

"Each unauthorized use of her private information, made while acting under color of state law, violated Rasmusson's federal civil rights and constituted behavior prohibited by federal statute," the lawsuit states.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/10/anne_marie_rasmusson_names_cops_data_breach_lawsuit.php

http://rense.com/general26/top10list.htm

It appears there are some federal protections from ethically challenged police officers that just haven't quite developed that "high moral fiber" so often alluded to yet.

None of which are remotely relevant to the issue here.

I wrote a long winded (brilliant ) post to try to explain this, but maybe I need to simplify for you.

As to the above irrelevancies.

Whether you have a warrant or not is NOT private information.

There are lots of private things that have lots of strict rules etc. as noted in your links and there are LOTS of ways to get in trouble, and many cops have, by using various police databases for unlawful purposes etc.

Which is groovy, but not the issue here.

It is completely lawful to check somebody for warrants without having any particularized suspicion(s) about them.

I know some fuzz nutted rookies who run EVERYbody they contact. blech

If you take the trouble to read your links, you will see there are qualitative differences between what the offending officers did in those various cases and what the officers are doing in the example given in this thread.

From what I've seen, most of the time cops get in trouble for using police databases , it's a "chick thing".

Either using the database to research a prospective date, or doing it for your new gf (she asks you to run her sister's new boyfriend because she thinks the guy looks like a sleaze but she can't convince her sister to stay away from him), etc.

stuff like that can get a cop SERIOUSLY jammed up.

But the case here is simply a guy who films the police and is known to them (we don't know how, but it's clear they know his name, etc.). When the cops see him on any given day, one of them runs a warrant check.

Not a violation. Not unethical.

Assume the cop who ran the guys name dislikes him intensely. Groovy, but that doesn't make it a violation even if true.

The cop gains nothing by running the name, except the knowledge of whether the guy has a warrant. Clearly distinguishable from any # of different kind of violations

THe ironic thing is that there are TONS Of entirely legal avenues to research a person that will give you most of the information in the cop databases, but that one doesn't need to be a cop to use. And if a cop uses them, he doesn't have to worry about getting jammed up.

I have a link to the district and superior court computers on my dept. laptop

I can't (and won't) use that system for anything except clearly work related queries.

But ANYBODY can go down to the local district court and use THOSE terminals. They redact some info that the cop accounts show , but you could still find out tons of criminal history, civil history, without violating any law.

Lots of web resources,. Some free, some pay.

 

[PALO]

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.

Not overlooking that at all.

But the cops are not prohibited from checking a person for warrants, if they happen to dislike what he is doing.

I am sure some ARE hoping he has warrants so they can stop his filming.

That does

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Fuller we were specifically taking about warrant checks. Not personal information such as residence or anything else. All you need is a name and DOB. He's given said name and DOB in the last on its on file in some report somewhere.

You are correct that there are rules against utilizing info to look up ex girlfriends and phone numbers etc. Etc.

That is not what we were talking about.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

No. Let ME tell YOU what we're talking about. The abuse of power, malicious prosecution, harassment, defamation of character. Vindictive acts in retaliation for contempt of cop. The OP determined what "WE" were talking about. If you want to establish and interpret topics, start your own thread.

Here. This was "isolated incident" 87, 321.

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/09/11/news/lawsuit-driver-license-data

The BS flag is down on the play. While the smoke screen is up that police never look beyond issued warrants for people they have no positive ID on, let's not ignore that attorneys appear to have had considerable success in getting prosecutions and getting civil rights violation lawsuit settlements for harassment in retaliation for perceived "contempt of cop". Keep in mind, some of this legal interpretation is coming from a cop that encouraged a newcomer to shoot at police. Meaning, consider the source.

 

[Grapeshot]

Can we please leave the personal animosity outside.

This thread is extemely marginal as it is and likely to be deleted.

 

[KBCraig]

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

Oooops forgot to ask for a cite.

Running checks to harrass and intimidate is certainly a political purpose.

Oooops, forgot to include the cite: http://goo.gl/vrl2dA

 

[onus]

Hey Palo, you never answered if you have run a warrants check on your mother ?

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Hey Palo, you never answered if you have run a warrants check on your mother ?

Should start a pool. "Guess how many paragraphs it takes Chatty Cathy to say "yes or "no"." :monkey


When this one reads you your rights, one of the rights is "intermission".

 

[sudden valley gunner]

He didn't provide me info with the guy in Washington pushing for a bill to limit "random" license plate checks either. I'd be interested in that.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Google searches are NOT cites, it is the chickens way out of providing actual data.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Running multiple warrant checks on a law abiding citizen is a total waste of tax payer dollars.

Clearly the LEOS have more important police work to attend too with tax payer dollars.

My.02

Best regards

CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

This is another example for never given LE your name and or DOB.

CCJ