LEOs only please. your take on this story

[virginiafiveo]

I for one hate the cyclists around the dallas area. and I believe the cop had a good enough justification for confiscation of it as evidence of what he believed were crimes.

Dallas Cop Westbrook Arrests Motorcyclist for Helmet Cam | Internal Investigation | Video | TheBlaze.com

would like comments on what the procedures are based on the information available on the incident. would really love to hear from dallas cops. for some reason many seem to think a warrant is required to take it to review the footage. I would think this is similar to smelling weed, good enough justification to search and prosecute if evidence is indeed secured, just like hmmm...motorcyclist with a helmet cam, I'm going to make a fair assessment either he was racing, etc, or his buddies were, I shall search the medium, either finding the evidence of the crime I believe was committed or I won't.

my thoughts.

 

[virginiafiveo]

bump

 

[CNTLOSE]

In Ohio it could be seized as evidence, but before viewing it I would obtain a search warrant. (Similar to a cell phone.)

 

[svtcop]

In Ohio it could be seized as evidence, but before viewing it I would obtain a search warrant. (Similar to a cell phone.)

Eh, I don't think our prosecutors would be happy with how that situation played out.

Especially when it merely pertains to some stupid biker tricks. Now if there were a homicide or other violent felony possibly captured things may be different.

Even then I don't think it would be necessary to arrest the rider in order to have access to it. A simple stop and explanation would be a little more prudent. If he argues still I would take my chances with obtaining a warrant while we wait. But again, not for stupid biker tricks.

 

[virginiafiveo]

Eh, I don't think our prosecutors would be happy with how that situation played out.

Especially when it merely pertains to some stupid biker tricks. Now if there were a homicide or other violent felony possibly captured things may be different.

Even then I don't think it would be necessary to arrest the rider in order to have access to it. A simple stop and explanation would be a little more prudent. If he argues still I would take my chances with obtaining a warrant while we wait. But again, not for stupid biker tricks.

bottom line, those "stupid biker tricks" put many lives and property at huge risk, not to mention the traffic congestion as a result of the impeding traffic and stopping traffic. costing innocents unnecessary money in gas etc. and stopping police from conducting their jobs which may include responding to a violent act or the scene of an accident an ambulance or fire truck is attempting to get to because they are being inconsiderate pricks. the video of the guy brake checking the cop so his buddies could get away would have been run the **** over by me. act like a jack ass, eat pavement. if he dies it's his own dumb ass fault.

 

[svtcop]

bottom line, those "stupid biker tricks" put many lives and property at huge risk, not to mention the traffic congestion as a result of the impeding traffic and stopping traffic. costing innocents unnecessary money in gas etc. and stopping police from conducting their jobs which may include responding to a violent act or the scene of an accident an ambulance or fire truck is attempting to get to because they are being inconsiderate pricks. the video of the guy brake checking the cop so his buddies could get away would have been run the **** over by me. act like a jack ass, eat pavement. if he dies it's his own dumb ass fault.

You can't charge someone doing dumb shit on a motorcycle with what if's. They were committing traffic violations and possibly a few misdemeanors at best.

You asked for opinions of LEO's. I gave you my opinion based on what I believe our Judicial process would likely see and how they would handle a situation like that. Still can't go around muscling peoples rights away.

So the GoPro video evidence shows a few bikes with no license plate doing wheelies. They had that on the cruiser camera. :shrug: These guys had enough balls to do this shit IN FRONT OF THE COP, what do you expect to see on a GoPro? (I know, I know, same shit.)

The Police could have just waited and copied the video from youtube when the Bikers posted it there. Would have saved a lot of bs.

The officer who took the camera lost his cool. Bottom line. He had other options that wouldn't have made him look foolish.



Darwinism will take care of those folks all by itself.

 

[mustanginky]

should have held biker there and then obtained a warrant.

 

[Lawfficer]

There are many legal issues for law enforcement officers to contend with in regards to Search and Seizure of persons and property. In order to effectively understand search and seizure law and procedure, it’s important to have a basic understanding of related history and case law.

One of the basic tenets of search and seizure in the United States is probable cause (PC), which is required prior to initiation of search or seizure by law enforcement officers. The modern definition of PC was established in 1989 by United States v. Hoyos, which held PC exists when “the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” (Lectric Law Library, n.d.).

U.S. v Dunn (1991) established the probable cause requirement regarding search and seizure to be that “a ‘man of reasonable caution’ must conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime” (Lectric Law Library, n.d.).

In accordance with the Fourth Amendment, probable cause must exist for all searches and seizures and must be approved by either the jurisdictional authority (e.g., local, state, federal government) or the person(s) who control the area being searched; However, there are exceptions to this rule.

While the courts generally prefer the use of a search warrant, the courts tend to allow a balance between individual rights and effective policing often negating the legal necessity to obtain a search warrant. The concept behind search warrants is having permission to conduct the search. Permission can either be granted by the individual being searched or the courts.

The ‘plain-view doctrine’ allows law enforcement to search and seize property if the officer sees it lying out in the open. The officer then must have PC to believe the item seen in plain view is illegal contraband, or stolen property, or evidence in a crime. ‘Exigent circumstances’ is the term used to legally articulate the concept of emergency conditions. This doctrine allows searches to be conducted by law enforcement to prevent the destruction of evidence, the escape of a suspect during hot pursuit, or to prevent physical harm to self or others.

The point of vehicle privacy was addressed in Pennsylvania v. LaBron 116 S. Ct. 2485 (1996). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision that previously stated the U.S. Constitution required police to obtain a warrant before searching a vehicle unless the police were able to demonstrate they had no time to do so.

I'm not an attorney, but I think the above information is MORE than enough for an officer to seize and copy the tapes. The courts are not very clear on this and I think at most it would be an error in good faith. Further, it may force a decision on this topic by the courts resulting in clarification. What if Joe Citizen filmed some thing more serious, such as a rape or murder, and said the police couldnt have it. I think we can all agree although the infraction is greatly different, the concept of seizing someones property who created evidence is the same.

 

[virginiafiveo]

There are many legal issues for law enforcement officers to contend with in regards to Search and Seizure of persons and property. In order to effectively understand search and seizure law and procedure, it’s important to have a basic understanding of related history and case law.

One of the basic tenets of search and seizure in the United States is probable cause (PC), which is required prior to initiation of search or seizure by law enforcement officers. The modern definition of PC was established in 1989 by United States v. Hoyos, which held PC exists when “the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” (Lectric Law Library, n.d.).

U.S. v Dunn (1991) established the probable cause requirement regarding search and seizure to be that “a ‘man of reasonable caution’ must conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime” (Lectric Law Library, n.d.).

In accordance with the Fourth Amendment, probable cause must exist for all searches and seizures and must be approved by either the jurisdictional authority (e.g., local, state, federal government) or the person(s) who control the area being searched; However, there are exceptions to this rule.

While the courts generally prefer the use of a search warrant, the courts tend to allow a balance between individual rights and effective policing often negating the legal necessity to obtain a search warrant. The concept behind search warrants is having permission to conduct the search. Permission can either be granted by the individual being searched or the courts.

The ‘plain-view doctrine’ allows law enforcement to search and seize property if the officer sees it lying out in the open. The officer then must have PC to believe the item seen in plain view is illegal contraband, or stolen property, or evidence in a crime. ‘Exigent circumstances’ is the term used to legally articulate the concept of emergency conditions. This doctrine allows searches to be conducted by law enforcement to prevent the destruction of evidence, the escape of a suspect during hot pursuit, or to prevent physical harm to self or others.

The point of vehicle privacy was addressed in Pennsylvania v. LaBron 116 S. Ct. 2485 (1996). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision that previously stated the U.S. Constitution required police to obtain a warrant before searching a vehicle unless the police were able to demonstrate they had no time to do so.

I'm not an attorney, but I think the above information is MORE than enough for an officer to seize and copy the tapes. The courts are not very clear on this and I think at most it would be an error in good faith. Further, it may force a decision on this topic by the courts resulting in clarification. What if Joe Citizen filmed some thing more serious, such as a rape or murder, and said the police couldnt have it. I think we can all agree although the infraction is greatly different, the concept of seizing someones property who created evidence is the same.

very logical post. I would agree 100% flat out a crime is a crime, regardless of it's level damage.

 

[svtcop]

very logical post. I would agree 100% flat out a crime is a crime, regardless of it's level damage.

But what you guys are missing is the human factor in this. Which plays a HUGE roll in how cases are decided and how case law is made.

You all probably know as well as I do that unfortunately a Judge might have his/her opinion swayed based on public perception. (we all know it's bs but it's the truth) as Judge's are only human. Take into account their political views, election years, career advancement opportunities, personal views, etc..

It would be easier to walk the line when obtaining things like this as evidence, so as not to lose it later in court or worse yet, be on the losing end of case law with your name ever held in that shit storm. The Officer set the tone for that interaction and muscled his way to what he wanted. That is what has everyone in an uproar. If the Officer had made a stop and informed the rider the proper reason for the stop (obstructed plate) and was polite about his interaction he could have talked his way to the video footage. But nobody would have given a shit about that being posted on youtube. :shrug:

 

[COBRA_ESQ]

If the Officer had made a stop and informed the rider the proper reason for the stop (obstructed plate) and was polite about his interaction he could have talked his way to the video footage.

Except this does not appear to be true the reason for the stop, but a determination made after the the fact.

 

[svtcop]

Except this does not appear to be true the reason for the stop, but a determination made after the the fact.

I understand that, which is why I am not supportive of how things went down.

Maybe I wasn't clear on that. :shrug:

 

[COBRA_ESQ]

I understand that, which is why I am not supportive of how things went down.

Maybe I wasn't clear on that. :shrug:

Communication is a two way street so I take half the blame. No offense meant and I have no doubt none was taken :beer:.

 

[svtcop]

Communication is a two way street so I take half the blame. No offense meant and I have no doubt none was taken :beer:.

Oh goodness no, lol not offended one bit.

If I came off that way it wasn't intended.

<hugs> :lol1: