This also should be understood about cop knocking. The practice of beating on a door. Police on a knock and talk should not continue to pound on a door, yet they do. Being told once to go away doesn't work, yet if a salesman did that it would be called harassment. Officers who approve of the knocking to irritate someone because they won't open a door need to grow up. A citizen Chooses not to talk to police because they don't have to. Beating on their door is harassment, but as usual there are no consequences for police misconduct.
Treat others the way you want to be treated. How about that? Leave people's shit alone. As far as I'm concerned, if a cop touches something under color of law, it's a seizure. Touching a person constitutes use of force. Handcuffs are an arrest, not a detention. It's an escalated use of force.
"Anyone" messing with my security is considered hostile! No exceptions. That is not acceptable for anyone on my property. And officer safety is no excuse. Citizen safety is the mission
Covering or moving the camera is theft by taking or conversion. While it's only a misdemeanor for a person on the street, it is still a criminal act under the color of law making it a felony at least at the state level.
There is a case where an officer shines a flashlight into a man's camera to prevent him from filming other police officers doing their job. Doing so was deemed "prior restraint" and was a constitutional violation of the man's rights. I'd argue that cops moving or covering a camera recording the police at the front door is also a prior restraint violation.
It should be mandatory for cops to have ongoing training on constitutional rights of citizens. This can save a lot of citizens from excessive force,worse yet, cops killing u!!
Yes,but cops operate under the concept of the end justifies the means. They don’t care about our rights,they care about filling their quotas so they get the next raise or promotion.
Exactly. If they can't see it or reach it, it's not getting moved or covered. I'd have an obvious camera for them to disable, along with a hidden camera.
A knock and talk should not exceed social norms, so no touching their security cameras, no putting their foot in the door, no sticking around after being asked to leave, no knocking on the front door and the wondering around the property, no banging on the door like a thug. Got it.
If I saw anyone disabling my recording device then I would be responding with "reasonable" assumption that they were conducting criminal acts on my property. His department needs to issue an immediate statement to the community that this illegal criminal activity is not condoned or sanctioned. Next step is the dirty pyg plants evidence, why did he put gloves on to move the cameras? Dirty pygs like this one are why citizens do not trust officers. A few years back officers justified doing this on a welfare check so the person inside could not track/ambush them. She called 911 and dispatch told those dirty officers to leave. Officers who feel a camera is a threat need to stay in the office. Fyi a link was posted to another lawyers channel regarding the criminal deputy who
Saw a recent video on this where a lady officer got her butt chewed out by a homeowner or renter because she was attempting to cover the ring doorbell camera. The officer tried to play the, "It's an officer safety issue" card, and I was like, REALLY!?!? Good on that home owner for chewing her butt! She'd got much worse on my property!
If rthe pig is worried about their safety they either need to NOT be such an asshole or they need to put the badge and gun down AND STEP AWAY FROM THE JOB!!!
How about a rural home owner? He had trail cameras on his property. Fish and game agents in camo were walking around on his property and took one or more of his trail cameras without warrant or permission to use as possible evidence of poaching /violations by the homeowner and or persons he allowed onto the property? Open fields was used to justify it. Oh the agents bypassed a locked gate on a driveway and no trespassing signs.
Why did you say destroying the ring doorbell would be wrong "if you didn't have a search warrant." (quotes for emphasis) The warrant does not entitle you to destroy anyone's property just because you want to - or because you want to hid your criminal acts.
take look at some aftermaths of both car searches were every tging thrown out doo panels ripped open even seats sliced and when they find nothin they drive away with there fake drug dog who was either taught a signal to alert or likes pleasing his handler and handlers i seen cannot control the dogs as they used to
Cops ARE civilians, only military qualify as non civilians. Covering or moving a camera should ( will in my case ) constitute an act of aggression and will be handled as a threat to my family.
Close the door. Anything you say can and will be used against you. If a salesman showed up at my door, I wouldn't talk to him I would just close the door. You are under on obligation to be polite.
If you interfere with my ownership interest on my property, it is a seizure, per the case cited in the video United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) and you have no legal authority to do so, such as a warrant, consent, and I don't see how exigency aside from the camera was somehow blocking entry, then that is the end of analysis. That is rather clearly a violation. It is as bad a cops who delete videos in attempt to hide their crimes. I would also strongly say it is as case of prior restraint, so 1st amendment. There is gathering of information on government actors, in a place that the camera is allowed to be, and a government actor prevents its new gathering. Classic violation.
Public employees, including law enforcement officers, have no expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties. They should behave as if every action they take and every word they say is being live-streamed (and recorded) for the world to see and for review by their elected official superiors, and that every word they write in the course and scope of their duties is subject to public review. If you want privacy, don’t accept money from taxpayers. Signed, a retired cop who still works as a state employee and knows my employers (the taxpayers) have a right to know how their money is being spent. P.S. ANY cop who has a problem being recorded while on duty should be terminated and have their peace officer license revoked. They should also be barred from working in private security, investigations, bail bonds, vehicle repossession or anything else that even LOOKS like a position of authority. As the police academy trained us to say when we’re trying to convince people to let us search when we have no probably cause for a warrant, “If you don’t have anything to hide, what’s the problem?” 😡
You see people dragged out of a car and BEATEN because the would not roll the window all of the way down. The constant creep of intrusion on public rights has become abusive. It is like the order to exit a vehicle during a traffic stop. I have seen literally a hundred videos where cops ordered people out of their vehicles more to show their power than to act for officer safety. The courts ruled that cops could order people out of the car if a reasonable officer would have reason to believe that the driver or an occupant presented a serious threat. I think that the basis for this would be in a case where the car matched the description of a car used in a robbery, or perhaps a stolen car, or maybe a case where a gun was flashed during a road rage incident, but cops abuse this just because they can. The do it because you invoke your rights, or because you don't roll down your window, or in one video, the cop did it because the guy in the car laughed at the reason he was being stopped. There is virtually no penalty to the cops for this kind of constant violation of rights and social norms though, but I think the tide is changing because those very acts are now being aired on social medial every day, and it isn't just a random case here or there. Every day that you care to look, you will see a cop abusing their powers. Every single day of the year, is all you have to do is look for it.
Why can police raid the wrong house, do 60k of damage and get QI and the city say they are not responsible. Meanwhile home insurance doesn't cover it because it was law enforcement.
You have on display “…interferes with the possesory interest…”. If you disable, even temporarily, a camera, I don’t see how it would be a stretch to call it a seizure.
I have 3 cameras pointed at each door. One obvious, two further away and hidden. There are two hidden cameras looking down each side of my home from opposite ends.
Great video. I'm new to channel and keep seeing really interesting questions I want to know the answers to. I'd like to know would covering up a camera, destroying a camera, turning it away, etc be considered expoliation of evidence, tampering with evidence, or a violation of the 1st amendment right of the home owner and extend that question to car dash cameras. Thanks.
These questions about law enforcement that begin with the word, "Can" are interesting. People "can" do whatever they want but what are the consequences? What if you declared a consequence for moving or covering your cameras? What if you declared a consequence if ANY agent of law enforcement or government came on to your property. What if you posted NOTICE that entering the land activates a fee? People have done so and the amount is enforceable for collection. 👍
What good could possibly come from covering a camera? You are goIng to have to explain what it was that you did not want to be seen in deposition. Since you have destroyed evidence the defense is free & clear to speculate in open court what it is you are hiding, what evidence was planted, an illegal entry etc. You can’t claim that you are protecting the accused or the innocent because they put the camera there.
A citizens arrest does not require physical restraint. The citizen can make the arrest. and just forwarded all information about the arrest to the proper authorities. If the person waits for the authorities to get their the citizen can file the proper paperwork to execute the arrest in front of the officer
How is having a search warrant justification for destroying a camera? I know this video is a year old, but with the recent killing of a man who only had a search warrant by the ATF, not an arrest warrant, where the agents/officers involved covered up cameras which prevented the subject of the search from knowing they were legitimate enforcement officers, instead of home invaders, wouldn't it be more intelligent for officers to leave cameras uncovered so long as they don't intend to violate the laws they are sworn to uphold?
Good video. Here’s something that I thought of when you had the billboard up for “seizure of property”. We’ve all seen the knock and talks where the cop anchors his foot on the threshold to prevent the homeowner from closing the door, no matter how many times they tell him to move it and leave. The cop is creating an assault charge where they can now bust in and arrest you, and incidentally search the house. Would you have a 4a case against the officer for interfering with your ability to operate your door as you wish, and would that create a criminal trespass also?
That's where a security chain is handy. It only allows the door to open a couple of inches - enough to talk or hand over a warrant, and the officer can stand there all day with his foot in the door, while the homeowner wanders off to get coffee or whatever. Sure, they could break it open, but that's a whole different rights violation. If the officer is trying to get the homeowner to step outside, he HAS to voluntarily remove his foot from the threshold so the door can be closed to release the chain. At that point, I'd lock the door...
It should be considered a first and fourth amendment violation. Under the first amendment, you have a right to film police in the performance of their duties. It's a taking under the fourth amendment because they physically obstruct your property from exercising your first amendment right to record.
I am curious on your take is someone has a locked gate in front ot the front door adorned with a sign that says "No trespassing. No solicitation. I revoke the implied consent to a knock and talk."
Question: When a person enters my property with the intent to commit crimes or violating my interests, (for example covering my camera ) Could i argue that he can not expect to be welcome and therefore is trespassing without notice?
I have never seen this argument. But I can see it being somewhat successful that covering your cameras is not consensual. Still I’m not sure what effect it would have under the fourth amendment since no evidence would be found. Therefore it’s a tort claim.
Great explanation and break down of this issue. Do you know any case law of someone lying during a consensual encounter or when requesting ID giving a fake ID?
I'm not going to waste time looking for the video which I'm responding to. In the case of the knock and talk I would hope the officers camera is on. and once the homeowner says officer you're under arrest for trespassing. The officer would take it seriously and allow the citizen to file the proper paperwork call in wait for other offices to get there preferably on the sidewalk off the person's property
From a legal perspective, would the 10th circuit opinion in Irizarry v Yehia cover the action of intentionally obstructing, with an item or a hand, from a security camera instead of a videographer? The facts aren’t identical, but the right to record police in the course of their duties was enough to deny QI in Izizarry v Yehia. Wouldn’t the simple right record police in the course of their duties also dispose of QI in the event an officer obstructs security cameras on private property?
I live in a 15-floor tower apartment building, where we only have one exit out of the apartments to a shared hallway. Would any form of curtalige apply to my situation? Or would that only apply to homeowners? I live in Connecticut.
I think you’re wrong. A knock and talk would presumably be part of a criminal investigation. 🙄 Just plain destroying evidence in a criminal investigation. 🤷 Hay, I know that District Attorney’s don’t want to charge these officers. That’s sounds to me like a good reason for the DA to get disbarred.
It was considered a crime, Scotus when a refrigerator was moved a few feet 2 steel the frig. The theft happened atbthe moment of movement. Pick pocket laws defime robbery from none violent theft. Oh yea ❤❤❤ you have a nice way of presenting the info.
What about no trespassing signs on a regular house with the fence and a gate? Is it reasonable to enter the gate to do a knock? Or no trespassing means no trespassing?
I don’t think police are “trespassing” by simply trying to talk with a homeowner. But if the gate was locked, or guard dog, or sign saying keep out, that may indicate cops should not try to talk with the homeowner. Anthony
My town has a no solicitation ordinance. Put up a sticker and if you knock the home owner can call the police. We should also have a no knock and talk sticker.
Someone messes with my cameras while im home to see it they get lead no matter who they are. A good rule of thumb for everyone is leave it as it was when you came. Only acception is if you are leaving a note or card to let them know you were there. If you mess with someone elses property sone have consequences already built into them. Just sayin.
Do all of us simpler folk and provide synonyms for words like CURTALGE OR EXENGENCY we are not all conversant with legalese just like if you were talking with an astrophysicist or geologist and the only words they're using are the words they learned during their college courses. All good people who talk to those who are not in or conversant with the technical language of a field they know very little about need to have you talk to them as equals but refrain from using words they don't know. I'm giving you a communication score of C-. DO BETTER!
This channel presupposes an honorable intent, by suggesting the cop is trying to gain information on a murder. Even so, i don't want to buy any vacuum cleaner today should be enough to end the conversation. LEAVE ME ALONE.
heres the video i believe yor question is about czcams.com/video/rZIej6X4fnM/video.html what i have a problem so many cops today look more like motor cycle gang member than what professional police used to look like now this is a seeming common threat now they done all have every trait but usually several including female cops . unshaven beards , except not usually age to be bald shaved heads looking like skinheads who caused so much trouble in the 90s , tattoos on hand arms and neks. overweight, battle vests with more mags than a Ukraine on the Russian front ,sloppy or no uniform there constantly blocking the body cams and right from the start even if person asks a question more expletives than a stevedore on the waterfront a term used in south philly . and anger again id person askes a question im 70 i got friends that are retired LEO 1retired sargent had contact and was charged by one of a arrogant deputy and because he was having cancer treatment had to take diversion , he did get to the deputies capyian supposably got retraining? but the SO dept only recently started body cams so this deputy got moved up the list. btw he was on foot and ran up to the sgt van so dashcam got nothin but i beed a delivery driver 3 million + in all the yrs i only got 2 tickets 1 under the idiotic 55 on turnpike and 1 from accident where i was sighted for not stopping at a stop sigh that was not there but now watching how older, handicapped, even paraplegic and deft are tased pulled slammed on ground over very slow response and the officers get no discipline then they really hurt or kill and media get records and long list of complaints and they resigh and get hired at another town at 70 i never though i see this much and mostly over very minor things vut the anger shown by hurt egos over often question why and then million dollar lawsuits and they still don't charge of fire . while money helps the damaged person or family who lost a member still a person is damaged for life or dead and only taxpayers are punished i must stop dont
Best advise when approached by police:
You: "Is this a consensual conversation?"
Cop: "Yes."
You: "I don't consent."
This also should be understood about cop knocking. The practice of beating on a door.
Police on a knock and talk should not continue to pound on a door, yet they do.
Being told once to go away doesn't work, yet if a salesman did that it would be called harassment.
Officers who approve of the knocking to irritate someone because they won't open a door need to grow up.
A citizen Chooses not to talk to police because they don't have to. Beating on their door is harassment, but as usual there are no consequences for police misconduct.
Treat others the way you want to be treated. How about that? Leave people's shit alone.
As far as I'm concerned, if a cop touches something under color of law, it's a seizure. Touching a person constitutes use of force. Handcuffs are an arrest, not a detention. It's an escalated use of force.
"Anyone" messing with my security is considered hostile! No exceptions. That is not acceptable for anyone on my property. And officer safety is no excuse. Citizen safety is the mission
Officer safety is guaranteed by doing their jobs legally and constitutionally. End of story.
Evidence tampering? Maybe proof that the cops had ill intent when they started the knock and talk that ended up in someone being hog-tied, again.
Wrong question, because the answer is: of course they can, they police themselves.
The proper question is, "Who is going to stop them, and when?"
that is what is required
So we can block all cameras at officer's private residence?,
Covering or moving the camera is theft by taking or conversion. While it's only a misdemeanor for a person on the street, it is still a criminal act under the color of law making it a felony at least at the state level.
There is a case where an officer shines a flashlight into a man's camera to prevent him from filming other police officers doing their job. Doing so was deemed "prior restraint" and was a constitutional violation of the man's rights. I'd argue that cops moving or covering a camera recording the police at the front door is also a prior restraint violation.
It should be mandatory for cops to have ongoing training on constitutional rights of citizens. This can save a lot of citizens from excessive force,worse yet, cops killing u!!
Ongoing training implies that there is any training on Constitutional Law. There is none.
And follow up monitoring
Yes,but cops operate under the concept of the end justifies the means. They don’t care about our rights,they care about filling their quotas so they get the next raise or promotion.
if i have the right to record them in their duties on public property, i should absolutely have the right to do the same on MY private property.
This is why some cameras you can see some you can't. Some you can reach and some you can't.
Exactly. If they can't see it or reach it, it's not getting moved or covered. I'd have an obvious camera for them to disable, along with a hidden camera.
A knock and talk should not exceed social norms, so no touching their security cameras, no putting their foot in the door, no sticking around after being asked to leave, no knocking on the front door and the wondering around the property, no banging on the door like a thug. Got it.
The courts have ruled that officers are not responsible for the public safety so how is it ligal for them to do a wellness check?
corruption
FYI. Cops are civilians.
Exactly correct. Thanks for pointing that out.
Pigs, actually! 😮🐷😂
Moving someones camera is an act if violence
If I saw anyone disabling my recording device then I would be responding with "reasonable" assumption that they were conducting criminal acts on my property.
His department needs to issue an immediate statement to the community that this illegal criminal activity is not condoned or sanctioned.
Next step is the dirty pyg plants evidence, why did he put gloves on to move the cameras?
Dirty pygs like this one are why citizens do not trust officers.
A few years back officers justified doing this on a welfare check so the person inside could not track/ambush them. She called 911 and dispatch told those dirty officers to leave. Officers who feel a camera is a threat need to stay in the office.
Fyi a link was posted to another lawyers channel regarding the criminal deputy who
Saw a recent video on this where a lady officer got her butt chewed out by a homeowner or renter because she was attempting to cover the ring doorbell camera. The officer tried to play the, "It's an officer safety issue" card, and I was like, REALLY!?!? Good on that home owner for chewing her butt! She'd got much worse on my property!
If rthe pig is worried about their safety they either need to NOT be such an asshole or they need to put the badge and gun down AND STEP AWAY FROM THE JOB!!!
How about a rural home owner? He had trail cameras on his property. Fish and game agents in camo were walking around on his property and took one or more of his trail cameras without warrant or permission to use as possible evidence of poaching /violations by the homeowner and or persons he allowed onto the property?
Open fields was used to justify it.
Oh the agents bypassed a locked gate on a driveway and no trespassing signs.
Why did you say destroying the ring doorbell would be wrong "if you didn't have a search warrant." (quotes for emphasis)
The warrant does not entitle you to destroy anyone's property just because you want to - or because you want to hid your criminal acts.
take look at some aftermaths of both car searches were every tging thrown out doo panels ripped open even seats sliced and when they find nothin they drive away with there fake drug dog who was either taught a signal to alert or likes pleasing his handler and handlers i seen cannot control the dogs as they used to
Cops ARE civilians, only military qualify as non civilians. Covering or moving a camera should ( will in my case ) constitute an act of aggression and will be handled as a threat to my family.
Close the door. Anything you say can and will be used against you. If a salesman showed up at my door, I wouldn't talk to him I would just close the door. You are under on obligation to be polite.
If you interfere with my ownership interest on my property, it is a seizure, per the case cited in the video United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) and you have no legal authority to do so, such as a warrant, consent, and I don't see how exigency aside from the camera was somehow blocking entry, then that is the end of analysis. That is rather clearly a violation. It is as bad a cops who delete videos in attempt to hide their crimes.
I would also strongly say it is as case of prior restraint, so 1st amendment. There is gathering of information on government actors, in a place that the camera is allowed to be, and a government actor prevents its new gathering. Classic violation.
If the police are afraid of the occupant knowing their presence, the police should already have a warrant for said occupant .
If a police officer covers up your camera, my question would be, " What does he NOT want to be documented ?"
We are cops. We can do whatever we want. Officers safety is our shield.🤥
Public employees, including law enforcement officers, have no expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties. They should behave as if every action they take and every word they say is being live-streamed (and recorded) for the world to see and for review by their elected official superiors, and that every word they write in the course and scope of their duties is subject to public review. If you want privacy, don’t accept money from taxpayers.
Signed, a retired cop who still works as a state employee and knows my employers (the taxpayers) have a right to know how their money is being spent.
P.S. ANY cop who has a problem being recorded while on duty should be terminated and have their peace officer license revoked. They should also be barred from working in private security, investigations, bail bonds, vehicle repossession or anything else that even LOOKS like a position of authority.
As the police academy trained us to say when we’re trying to convince people to let us search when we have no probably cause for a warrant, “If you don’t have anything to hide, what’s the problem?”
😡
You see people dragged out of a car and BEATEN because the would not roll the window all of the way down. The constant creep of intrusion on public rights has become abusive. It is like the order to exit a vehicle during a traffic stop. I have seen literally a hundred videos where cops ordered people out of their vehicles more to show their power than to act for officer safety. The courts ruled that cops could order people out of the car if a reasonable officer would have reason to believe that the driver or an occupant presented a serious threat. I think that the basis for this would be in a case where the car matched the description of a car used in a robbery, or perhaps a stolen car, or maybe a case where a gun was flashed during a road rage incident, but cops abuse this just because they can. The do it because you invoke your rights, or because you don't roll down your window, or in one video, the cop did it because the guy in the car laughed at the reason he was being stopped. There is virtually no penalty to the cops for this kind of constant violation of rights and social norms though, but I think the tide is changing because those very acts are now being aired on social medial every day, and it isn't just a random case here or there. Every day that you care to look, you will see a cop abusing their powers. Every single day of the year, is all you have to do is look for it.
Why can police raid the wrong house, do 60k of damage and get QI and the city say they are not responsible. Meanwhile home insurance doesn't cover it because it was law enforcement.
Not just no but hell no. It’s vandalism and prior restraint.
You have on display “…interferes with the possesory interest…”. If you disable, even temporarily, a camera, I don’t see how it would be a stretch to call it a seizure.
I have 3 cameras pointed at each door. One obvious, two further away and hidden. There are two hidden cameras looking down each side of my home from opposite ends.
Great video. I'm new to channel and keep seeing really interesting questions I want to know the answers to. I'd like to know would covering up a camera, destroying a camera, turning it away, etc be considered expoliation of evidence, tampering with evidence, or a violation of the 1st amendment right of the home owner and extend that question to car dash cameras. Thanks.
I always ask, what gives an officer the authority to cover a camera???? Still waiting for a lawful answer. Officer safety is not an answer.
Civilians? Cops are civilians. How about referring to non-cops as citizens.
Make that _innocent_ citizens, until proven guilty.
Since you just defined seizure. And the fourth protects against illegal seizure. How does this not violate the forth amendment?
These questions about law enforcement that begin with the word, "Can" are interesting. People "can" do whatever they want but what are the consequences? What if you declared a consequence for moving or covering your cameras? What if you declared a consequence if ANY agent of law enforcement or government came on to your property. What if you posted NOTICE that entering the land activates a fee? People have done so and the amount is enforceable for collection. 👍
Covering a camera or moving it in my words is a violation of my 4th amendment.
What good could possibly come from covering a camera? You are goIng to have to explain what it was that you did not want to be seen in deposition. Since you have destroyed evidence the defense is free & clear to speculate in open court what it is you are hiding, what evidence was planted, an illegal entry etc. You can’t claim that you are protecting the accused or the innocent because they put the camera there.
Great information! Thank you 🎉😊
A citizens arrest does not require physical restraint. The citizen can make the arrest. and just forwarded all information about the arrest to the proper authorities. If the person waits for the authorities to get their the citizen can file the proper paperwork to execute the arrest in front of the officer
How is having a search warrant justification for destroying a camera? I know this video is a year old, but with the recent killing of a man who only had a search warrant by the ATF, not an arrest warrant, where the agents/officers involved covered up cameras which prevented the subject of the search from knowing they were legitimate enforcement officers, instead of home invaders, wouldn't it be more intelligent for officers to leave cameras uncovered so long as they don't intend to violate the laws they are sworn to uphold?
Good video. Here’s something that I thought of when you had the billboard up for “seizure of property”. We’ve all seen the knock and talks where the cop anchors his foot on the threshold to prevent the homeowner from closing the door, no matter how many times they tell him to move it and leave. The cop is creating an assault charge where they can now bust in and arrest you, and incidentally search the house. Would you have a 4a case against the officer for interfering with your ability to operate your door as you wish, and would that create a criminal trespass also?
That's where a security chain is handy. It only allows the door to open a couple of inches - enough to talk or hand over a warrant, and the officer can stand there all day with his foot in the door, while the homeowner wanders off to get coffee or whatever. Sure, they could break it open, but that's a whole different rights violation. If the officer is trying to get the homeowner to step outside, he HAS to voluntarily remove his foot from the threshold so the door can be closed to release the chain. At that point, I'd lock the door...
It should be considered a first and fourth amendment violation. Under the first amendment, you have a right to film police in the performance of their duties. It's a taking under the fourth amendment because they physically obstruct your property from exercising your first amendment right to record.
And the presence of a “no soliciting sign”? Does that bar knocking? I think it should.
I am curious on your take is someone has a locked gate in front ot the front door adorned with a sign that says "No trespassing. No solicitation. I revoke the implied consent to a knock and talk."
Question:
When a person enters my property with the intent to commit crimes or violating my interests,
(for example covering my camera )
Could i argue that he can not expect to be welcome and therefore is trespassing without notice?
I have never seen this argument. But I can see it being somewhat successful that covering your cameras is not consensual. Still I’m not sure what effect it would have under the fourth amendment since no evidence would be found. Therefore it’s a tort claim.
Even if it consisted criminal process what DA actually will hold a policeman accountable. Not very many
If anything, I would think this would be a first amendment issue. I’m allowed to record. It’s protected.
This would be prior restraint, right?
Great explanation and break down of this issue. Do you know any case law of someone lying during a consensual encounter or when requesting ID giving a fake ID?
I'm not going to waste time looking for the video which I'm responding to. In the case of the knock and talk I would hope the officers camera is on. and once the homeowner says officer you're under arrest for trespassing. The officer would take it seriously and allow the citizen to file the proper paperwork call in wait for other offices to get there preferably on the sidewalk off the person's property
It would be vandalism.
That’s why I have hidden cameras several feet up, hidden in trees, facing my doors. Or do I?
From a legal perspective, would the 10th circuit opinion in Irizarry v Yehia cover the action of intentionally obstructing, with an item or a hand, from a security camera instead of a videographer? The facts aren’t identical, but the right to record police in the course of their duties was enough to deny QI in Izizarry v Yehia. Wouldn’t the simple right record police in the course of their duties also dispose of QI in the event an officer obstructs security cameras on private property?
How can any LEO alter or otherwise interfere w/ the property of another person?
So if the camera is blocked you should, prima facie, assume the faceless one is a criminal 😂 !
FYI. Here is the video where the police ripped off the ring camera and threw in bushes.
czcams.com/video/nQwprdVsBM8/video.html
You shouldn’t be destroying a person’s property whether you have a search warrant or not.
1st Amendment violation, citizens have the right to film government officials in the coarse of their duty.
I live in a 15-floor tower apartment building, where we only have one exit out of the apartments to a shared hallway.
Would any form of curtalige apply to my situation? Or would that only apply to homeowners?
I live in Connecticut.
Sounds like vandalism
How about they just leave peoples property alone and not be jerks!
Here's an idea: teach The Golden Rule in academy. First day and last day.
What if you have a no trespassing sign, with a sign that has a phone number on it
Prior restraint...it's definitely a 1st amendment issue
I think you’re wrong. A knock and talk would presumably be part of a criminal investigation. 🙄 Just plain destroying evidence in a criminal investigation. 🤷 Hay, I know that District Attorney’s don’t want to charge these officers. That’s sounds to me like a good reason for the DA to get disbarred.
It was considered a crime, Scotus when a refrigerator was moved a few feet 2 steel the frig. The theft happened atbthe moment of movement.
Pick pocket laws defime robbery from none violent theft.
Oh yea
❤❤❤ you have a nice way of presenting the info.
Is it a violation of 1 st amendment right violation of the right to record the police in the performance of their duties?
What about no trespassing signs on a regular house with the fence and a gate? Is it reasonable to enter the gate to do a knock? Or no trespassing means no trespassing?
I don’t think police are “trespassing” by simply trying to talk with a homeowner. But if the gate was locked, or guard dog, or sign saying keep out, that may indicate cops should not try to talk with the homeowner. Anthony
My town has a no solicitation ordinance. Put up a sticker and if you knock the home owner can call the police. We should also have a no knock and talk sticker.
NO, don't give a shit what a judge or some idiots law may say.
Someone messes with my cameras while im home to see it they get lead no matter who they are.
A good rule of thumb for everyone is leave it as it was when you came. Only acception is if you are leaving a note or card to let them know you were there.
If you mess with someone elses property sone have consequences already built into them. Just sayin.
How about recording law enforcement in their official capacity.
It done in my presence force intimidation coercion
Not TUFF - 1st and 4th Amendment violation.
no they cant and it destruction of evidence
Do all of us simpler folk and provide synonyms for words like CURTALGE OR EXENGENCY we are not all conversant with legalese just like if you were talking with an astrophysicist or geologist and the only words they're using are the words they learned during their college courses. All good people who talk to those who are not in or conversant with the technical language of a field they know very little about need to have you talk to them as equals but refrain from using words they don't know.
I'm giving you a communication score of C-.
DO BETTER!
Vandalism
We are all civilians, cops included, but citizens first! Cops are civilians with badges and certain powers.
This channel presupposes an honorable intent, by suggesting the cop is trying to gain information on a murder. Even so, i don't want to buy any vacuum cleaner today should be enough to end the conversation. LEAVE ME ALONE.
czcams.com/video/rZIej6X4fnM/video.html
heres the video i believe yor question is about czcams.com/video/rZIej6X4fnM/video.html
what i have a problem so many cops today look more like motor cycle gang member than what professional police used to look like
now this is a seeming common threat now they done all have every trait but usually several including female cops . unshaven beards , except not usually age to be bald shaved heads looking like skinheads who caused so much trouble in the 90s , tattoos on hand arms and neks. overweight,
battle vests with more mags than a Ukraine on the Russian front ,sloppy or no uniform there constantly blocking the body cams and right from the start even if person asks a question more expletives than a stevedore on the waterfront a term used in south philly . and anger again id person askes a question im 70 i got friends that are retired LEO 1retired sargent had contact and was charged by one of a arrogant deputy and because he was having cancer treatment had to take diversion , he did get to the deputies capyian supposably got retraining? but the SO dept only recently started body cams so this deputy got moved up the list. btw he was on foot and ran up to the sgt van so dashcam got nothin but i beed a delivery driver 3 million + in all the yrs i only got 2 tickets 1 under the idiotic 55 on turnpike and 1 from accident where i was sighted for not stopping at a stop sigh that was not there but now watching how older, handicapped, even paraplegic and deft are tased pulled slammed on ground over very slow response and the officers get no discipline then they really hurt or kill and media get records and long list of complaints and they resigh and get hired at another town at 70 i never though i see this much and mostly over very minor things vut the anger shown by hurt egos over often question why and then million dollar lawsuits and they still don't charge of fire . while money helps the damaged person or family who lost a member
still a person is damaged for life or dead and only taxpayers are punished i must stop
dont