The following post was shared with the CopBlock Network by a reader going by the pseudonym “Ghost,” via the submissions page. The post was originally published at under the title, “Indianapolis Cops Must Allow Citizens to Film Police Activity After $200K Settlement.

The terms of a recently settled lawsuit in Indianapolis, Indiana will require the city’s police force to remind officers that it’s legal for civilians to videotape on-duty cops, but it will also cost the department more than just that.

In addition to having to adopt an official policy recognizing the right for citizens to record law enforcement officials, the City of Indianapolis is also cutting a $200,000 check for a local man who was arrested and injured by police in 2011 after he refused to stop filming a nearby arrest.

Willie King was watching Indianapolis police officers arrest a young man in his neighbor’s driveway three years ago this month when he decided it would be a good idea to grab his cellphone and start recording. The cops weren’t too keen about being caught on film, however, and ordered King, then 66 years old, to hand over his phone.

“Sir, you know that if he resists any more they can take your phone as evidence,” an officer was caught saying, according to transcripts published this week by local news network WISH-TV.

“I don’t give a [expletive] what you do, y’all just don’t harm him,” King responded.

When King refused to stop recording from his neighbor’s porch, he was tackled to the ground, arrested and charged with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and public intoxication.

King was ultimately found not guilty of those charges, but turned around and filed a civil suit against the city over alleged First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations.

That case was scheduled to go to trial starting March 10, but it’s now been reported that the city decided to settle this past January.

King is being awarded $200,000 from the city as part of that settlement, but the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department is also being forced to institute a new policy prohibiting police officers from bothering with eyewitnesses who are recording their actions.

According to excerpts of the policy published on Thursday by WISH-TV, local law enforcement officials have 60 days to adopt a policy that states “police officers should not interfere with civilians who are observing or recording their actions by video or audio in public, so long as the civilians maintain a safe and reasonable distance if necessary from the scene of a police action, do not physically interfere with the officers’ performance of their duty and do not represent a physical danger to the officers, civilians or others.”

“Willie King was wronged when the officers stopped his videotaping and took away his cellphone,” King’s attorney, Richard Waples, was quoted as saying by The Indiana Lawyer website. “We want to make sure that in the future police officers understand that people have the right to video record their actions.”

“We thought it was important in this case, not to just try to get compensation from Mr. King which we were able to do, but also to get the police department to realize, hey, they need to train their officers, and say you can’t interfere with people’s rights to record and observe what you’re doing in public,” Waples told the network.

According to Marilyn Odendahl at The Indiana Lawyer, Waples added that the recent victory “secures the right of all citizens to observe and record police officers’ public actions.”

Previously, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit — whose jurisdiction includes Indiana, among other states —acknowledged that “The act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording.”

“Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities and police and other government officials carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs from public places, and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply,” reads a portion of the American Civil Liberties Union’s official website.

– Ghost


  1. Good.

    Record away. Just stay out of the way. Gonna be my new t-shirt design.

    Note though that the decisions don’t in anyway preclude me from seizing a phone that may hold potential evidence :)

    1. “When King refused to stop recording from his neighbor’s porch, he was tackled to the ground, arrested and charged with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and public intoxicating.”

      Not just for evidence it seems. Retaliation is a good one word explanation for this police action.

      1. Did you see me defending that action?

        Or did you see where I wrote “Good.”

        You are starting to act like Ariel, RadicalDude and even Alvin. You react negatively without reading.

        1. No you said Good so as to make it seem like you support the decision. Then you stated how you would take the phone anyways. This can all be solved by officers being required to have cameras at all times mounted to either a shoulder, lapel, or glasses.

          1. If you’d look back, you’ll find that I have always supported the idea that CB says they are for. Unfortunately they don’t really stick to that idea. They choose to initiate contact and then conflict with the police. There is a huge difference.

          2. I agree that antagonizing the police into a response is not the way to do it. That is why I advocate the use of personal cameras on the officer. As long as only a third party has access to the video and not the officers then I could see a rule implemented that required press to stay back atleast 100 feet. But until the day that every cop across the nation is required to have a camera then there has to be accountability for both parties involved, including the camera man.

          3. Dayton,
            And so long as they can’t turn them off as they please.

          4. Raymond,

            Yea I was thinking that it just didn’t make it to the keyboard.

          5. Dayton,
            Same here. I meant to add that I agree with t. that overall this would benefit the officers, but would also benefit those they treat unlawfully or unprofessionally so long as the officer can’t choose when it records.

        2. See, just more insult.
          You might spend more time looking at what you do.

          You might read the letter from the DOJ to the Indianapolis PD. It does not give police carte blanche to sieze phones. It in fact addresses the probable cause issue, and that refers to whether there is PC to believe the person recording will destroy/tamper the evidence. The DOJ has said that repeatedly. PC isn’t “not in my hands”.

          1. A “letter” is not only ‘not’ binding to the agency to which it is written…it certainly is t binding to any other agency.

            I don’t work for DOJ. just FYI. I don’t really think you know that. I’ll just add it to the list of things you don’t know. It is a voluminous collection.

          2. Gee, did I use the word binding anywhere? Let me go back…Nope.The point was that the DOJ CRD has a completely different take on the “not in my hands” probable cause. It does not give police carte blanche on “not in my hands”.
            Still doing well on making up theories so they can be tested? If ignorance is a 27 volume set, I have the first volume, the last 26 are all yours.

          3. Did I say you said binding? Let me look back. …. ….. ….. Nope. I didn’t say you said binding.

            Figured it out yet that local officer don’t work for the DOJ? And that their opinion letters aren’t “binding”?

            Say it with me…”exigent circumstances”. Read up on it.

          4. Exigent circumstances = “not in my hands” in your case. All circumstances become exigent.

          5. Possibly. Phones and therefore their contents are extremely portable. That portability makes the likelihood of the loss of that evidence quite high.
            Now don’t misunderstand…which with you is an almost certainty….I don’t predict this to be much of a real issue. I’m just trying to educate the unwashed folks that come here to the truth. But the recovery of all sources of available information / evidence is important. There are many examples where a video from one source (fix or limited angle) shows something remarkably different than other videos of the same event ….recorded from a different angle / location….show a vastly different scene.

            If you CBers really want truth and accountability….why aren’t you leading the charge to have all of the video of an incident entered into evidence?,

          6. 1. If you were including me as a CBer, you’re very mistaken. If it’s because I disagree with you, you’re intellectually lazy. As long as you insult me (“which with you is an almost certainty….) as a matter of course, I will insult you.
            2. “I’m just trying to educate the unwashed folks that come here to the truth.” No, you’re just being arrogant. You’re one cop among many, and I go to Policeone often enough to know that no one cop agrees with you on any one point.
            3. “But the recovery of all sources of available information / evidence is important.” Yes, which is why you can take down the information from the witnesses necessary to gather the evidence later with a warrant rather than seize and/or detain. You can instruct them as to the importance of the evidence, and the crime they would commit if they destroy or tamper with it. You can let them go on their way after.
            What probable cause do you have to believe that any or all citizens will destroy or tamper with that evidence? Recording an incident, a crime, is not definitionally “involved in the commision of a crime”. The portability is a special pleading to justify a lack of probable cause, expediancy, and laziness. Worse, what you’re implying is that all those citizens, the large majority, that are pro-police can’t be trusted to not destroy evidence.

        3. I would have applauded your comment had it not been for the dig you threw in at the end. I like the idea of the t-shirt. You should wear it over your vest with your badge pinned to it. That would be fucking awesome!

          As far as comparing me to others. You better take a look at the Facebook likes for Cop Block and take a moment to ponder that. It grows everyday.

          1. Broken record right there – “more of us, less of you” is all he can claim. Never any empirical source, just his spewage.

        4. 188 thousand + Facebook likes this morning. 190 thousand + right now. 2000 in a day. Must be some scary shit for the likes of you. All from a blog Ademo created after being fucked over by your kind. My best guess is your in the very department that fueled the creation of this site. slappy too. You’ve been here since the beginning and follow the post and comments like it’s your job. 190,000. That’s a big number t. On one site. That doesn’t account for the silent masses tired of this shit. Think about what you’ve become and make a moral decision about how to live the rest of your life.

          1. What are you talking about?

        5. Whoa… guy… take it easy there, don’t get your panties in a bunch.

    2. as long as you get a warrant.

      1. No, it doesn’t work that way. An officer who believes you have recorded something can take your phone or camera into evidence. If your camera or phone was used in the commission of a crime, they can take your camera and/or your phone. Probation can allow me to confiscate a phone or camera when or if I feel that person committed a crime with it or has been using it against the terms of his/her release. I don’t need a warrant for that. If I believe someone’s phone has videoed a probation client doing anything that would violate their probation, I can take that phone and I don’t need a warrant. The only time I would need a warrant is if you have taken that phone into your residence and the residence has to be searched.

        1. Slaps proven a liar once more. You’re no parole officer slaps. I’m not a parole officer, nor have I ever been arrested, or on parole or probation, and even I know that you give up all rights while on either. A parolee or anything in his possession can be searched because it’s Friday, or because it’s raining, or because the cop sees somebody he knows is on probation and wants to kill some time. Pole Officer Slaps. POS. That’s why the first question you hear them ask is “Are you on parole or probation?”

        2. The ONLY reason a cop would take your phone is to try and piss you off, and to throw his authority around!. Come on dude be truthful..

          1. Prove your statement.

          2. Here’s just a little proof

        3. IF you want evidence from a bystander you need a warrant unless you have some reason to believe that evidence may be destroyed you cannot just take it. My phone uploads ALL recordings immediately so I would have no worries about it being deleted but you would have lawyers on the phone with your boss and his boss within minutes of any kind of bullshit because I am not one of your scared and poor usual victims. As far as parole or probation goes, I have never been on either and you wouldn’t have that crap to use. You are one of those cops (it appears from your comments) that doesn’t seem to know the laws as well as they know the procedures… these are far too often not the same thing.

          1. No, the officer can take the camera. It is evidence. I already explained that. I personally don’t care what people can do or not do with their phones. I have been in court many times where the phones were taken for evidence on scene. I should suggest you talk to a detective or some law enforcement in your community.

          2. The very last person you would talk to about law is a cop. Most of you have very very little knowledge of law and instead know procedure. Personally I retain a lawyer. If you want my property you will need a warrant. I will not hand it over without one. I won’t, in fact even entertain any sort of discussion with a police officer without my lawyer present and it is pretty miraculous what kind of attitude change happens when the lawyer arrives. You may get away with such nonsense when you are dealing with people who cannot afford to defend themselves but you would not with me.

          3. Why? We arrest them all the time.

          4. That’s called Criminology or Criminal Law. It’s legalistic and has a greater emphasis on general policy and procedure than on the specific, and highly refined, meaning of words and phrases in Law or someone with a Criminology/Criminal Law degree could pass the Bar. In practice, after the degree and employed as a LEO, they depend on the interpretations handed down to them by their jurisdiction as hard and fast lines of legal behavior.

            (that’s a syncretism of various colleges from a search of “basis of criminology criminal law”)

          5. Jake C.,
            And I’ve pointed out the DOJ CRD stance as to probable cause for seizing the phone and how it should be done if you have no probable cause to believe the evidence will be destroyed or tampered with, ala ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. It really comes down to “not in my hands” or there is a true, good reason to believe that everyone other than a cop will destroy or tamper with evidence.

            But that’s not really what burns my butt, it’s when cops seize phones for evidence then delete the evidence with a big smile and aren’t charged for it, they destroyed evidence by their own words. It’s the whole double standard from beginning to end.

            OT, sort of if you don’t get the drift, but I’ve taught my children that the vast majority of cops are trustworthy, just like the vast majority of the rest of us are. I’ve also taught them to be cautious, because there’s no telling which cop isn’t, just like stranger danger.

          6. I can seize the phone. I need a warrant to search it.

        4. Jake C.
          Do police officers routinely seize cameras/recordings of a crime when those cameras/recordings are the property of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, et al? Do they usually let them go on about their business, get a warrant later, and retrieve the evidence later? If so, why are they special? More trustworthy, or more likely to put the cop in deep shit by financial and politcal clout?

          The DOJ CRD opinion on this matter isn’t binding, I’ve never written nor implied it was, but they clearly take the position that if you have no probable cause to believe that the citizen making that recording will destroy or tamper with that evidence, then you should not seize their camera (smartphone or just my old Motorola Razor) nor detain them beyond taking down the necessary information (with the obligatory and needed warning) to retrieve the evidence at a later time. It’s an opinion higher on the Constitutional scale than “not in my hands” is probable cause.

          I’m sure that in some very few cases the camera/phone was used in the commission of a crime, but a bystander taking a recording isn’t “involved” in the commission of a crime without making the meaning absurd.

    3. Ah look it’s a cop! That’s in love with he’s authority, and doesn’t give a damn about his oath or your rights.. Dude you got i will show them thug cop attitude..Good luck with that.

      1. How’s that? You should’ve wanting that video on he record and placed into evidence. You should voluntarily assist by going to the police and getting us a copy for evidence. That’s evidence of what we do..right and wrong.

        I don’t get your resistance.

        1. “You should voluntarily assist by going to the police and getting us a copy for evidence”

          LMBOFF- How can you “voluntarily assist” when you use force and take it? I don’t get your resistance.???? Do some home work on youtube about thug cops, and you will know why theres resistance….

          1. Again….why not just volunteer it? You want truth and justice right? Why not a nice ” hey officer, I got all of that on video. Can I send it to you?” Oh….that would eliminate the editing fun though huh?

          2. Hey officer, I got all of that on video. Can I send it to you?” Officer runs over beats your ass and takes it. volunteer? LOL Get real.

          3. So…you’ll just be sticking with being
            an idiot then? K.

          4. NO! I don’t hang around cops…..

          5. Ike I said…you’ll be sticking with the
            stupid then. K.

          6. And like i said i don’t hang around cops. K..Next

    4. That is t’s way of blocking a recording, showing the lie that he has no problem with it. No doubt t will delete the ‘evidence’. Funny thing, cops have done this, seizing the camera, then delete. Notice they didn’t get charged with tampering with evidence?

      1. Dude, they get a pass for attempted murder. Who gives a shit about a little evidence tampering?

  2. Every single cop should have a tamper proof camera attached to their uniform at all times. Removal/blocking of the camera should be a criminal offense.

    1. We’ve gone through this several times. It’s not quite as simple as that.

      We have to consider peoples right to privacy. To go inside people homes all the time. We have people telling us their personal information and their most personal thoughts and details of their lives….all the time, everyday.. With FOIA all of that would be then accessible to everyone for youtube upload. Do you think that’s good?
      Heck even PETE ERYE has abandoned his call for this. He realized that us recording everything, everywhere we go would capture the images and actions of those that we encounter. With that comes the likelihood of review that would identify people, capture additional crimes that the officer may not have seen I real time. Pete abondoned the idea as he (i think) now sees it as a possible infringing on rights (which is really funny as there no right to privacy while in public right?)

      And none of that even touches on the huge costs involved in what you are talking about. Millions and millions of additional tax dollars. Millions.

      1. 2 points.
        1.If the police had cameras and people knew they were exposing themselves in such a way when they interacted with them then maybe finally people would stop volunteering up information to the police, shut up and lawyer up like they should.
        2.With the decriminalization of marijuana spreading throughout North America, there will be plenty of room in the budget for cameras. (btw cameras are cheaper than most of the equipment cops carry, including their handcuffs thesebdays…)

        1. No guy. The OVERWHELMING number of police contacts are at the request of the citizen. Most of types of interactions that you are thinking of are already recorded via dash cans and body mikes.

          The legalization of marijuana in man places is not going to stop crime….it’ll likely increase crime.

          1. So removing an item from the “black market” will increase crime associated with that item, will it? Knowledgeable cop, aren’t you? What do you have? 17 years on? LOL.

          2. What are you talking about now?

          3. Dude, lay off the weed. I guess what they say about short term memory loss is true. –

            “The legalization of marijuana in man places is not going to stop crime….it’ll likely increase crime.”

          4. See my reply to “ya hooligan” above. Maybe you’ll see how it works.

          5. And just maybe you’ll see it doesn’t work how you think it works. Maybe you’ll see there are a lot more societal costs than seen in your tunnel-vision.
            Nah. That would require a questioning, inqusitive mind. Not a sheeple mind.

          6. Something you don’t understand, but something you get in 1st or 2nd year Economics.

          7. What a load. You know what ACTUALLY increases crime rates? ESPECIALLY drug related arrests? Increased police budgets and intrusive policing. Do you really think people are too stupid to see whats going on?

          8. “Intrusive policing”. Get a dictionary guy. See how really dumb that statement is.

          9. Pot kettle.

          10. No, the overwhelming number of police contacts are made in traffic, via traffic stops. That’s how they’re paying your salary T-bag.
            Legalizing marijuana will greatly decrease crime. Prisons are full of marijuana offenders. I would love to hear your theory on how legalizing pot will increase crime. Sounds like the type of propaganda that has kept us in an unwinnable drug war, costing billions while creating more drug users.

          11. No. Way no. Not even. Way no, not even close. Almost all police activity is at the request of citizens. ‘Calls for service’ my friend. That’s where officers spend 90% of their time.

            As for the increase in crime. Guy….how do you think most people fund their drug habits, to include marijuana? Do you think it’s through legal means?
            Now….focus on younger users. Teenagers and college kids. How do you think they are affording ‘headies’ yet run about $500 an ounce where I work? Honest jobs? Allowances? No. Crime. Thefts. Robbery. Legalizing marijuana does nothing to reduce those crimes. They still have to pay for it somehow.
            Then there are the crimes associated with use. Impaired driving. Assaults. Do those magically disappear with legalization?
            Alcohol is legal. Did that in anyway eliminate all of the crimes associated with that? Nope. Increase a lot of it? Yep.

            See how it works. It’s not really that hard if you are honest about it.

          12. You’re an embicile. It’s a documented statistic and you can easily look it up. Most contacts are in traffic stops period.
            Most marijuana users are taxpayers that hold down jobs. So yes, they pay for their habit through legal means. We aren’t talking about meth, heroin, or crack. Marijuana users don’t rob to support their habit. With you yokels believing DEA propaganda, no wonder you have such a hard on for a harmless plant. Legalizing marijuana automatically eliminates hundreds of thousands of arrests per year.
            Alcohol and marijuana are two different animals. Apples and oranges. But to answer your question, the repeal of prohibition eliminated a hell of a lot more crime (and more serious crimes like murder) than the act of prohibition itself, which created mob violence in epidemic proportions.
            I’m convinced you’re no cop. You know nothing. If you are a cop, you’re the worst kind. The kind who thinks he knows and has seen it all, but you’re really a moron.

          13. Never try to separate t.’s truths, afterall he’s here to bring truth to lesser beings, from simple fact. It leads to more assertions by him and more ad hominems from him. He’s been a cop for 18 years, and he’s lost something in all that time: the ability to understand that he has authority by the badge, but no authority beyond the badge. He’s just one flawed and limited man, thinking he isn’t.

          14. I’d like to see stats on that versus assertion. You leave police ticketing bad drivers as less than 10% of their time (given there’s likely more categories than “calls for service” and bad drivers, though I do forget that cellphones today allow “calls for service” on bad drivers that didn’t happen in 1975).

          15. Sigh. “Then there are the crimes associated with use. Impaired driving. Assaults. Do those magically disappear with legalization? Alcohol is legal. Did that in anyway eliminate all of the crimes associated with that? Nope. Increase a lot of it? Yep.” No, because you’ll never eliminate all crimes associated with anything. You’ll never eliminate crime. What you’re ignoring with alcohol is that the repeal of the 18th and Volstead did decrease the overall crime associated with Prohibtion. The important question is did overall crime go down, and the repeal of Prohibition was an outstanding yes. Tunnel-vision is not an argument nor a proof.

            What decreases crime, if laws and police can decrease crime, is the laws and police actions dealing with an explicit crime. If pot cost less, even for teenagers, why would most people steal to buy pot? I doubt that most do even now. You should be able to supply proof for your assertion to which I responded with an opinion. Proof not assertion.

            “See how it works. It’s not really that hard if you are honest about it.” The problem is that you don’t see the big picture, you see a picture with blinders. So honesty doesn’t apply, unless you do see the big picture…

          16. Yahooligan,
            Be glad that traffic stops, a very fearful stop for cops because those stops do have the myth of most dangerous, aren’t treated as violence first, listen later. Anticipation is a song.

          17. If the overwhelming number of police contacts are at the request of the citizen, what difference would a recording make versus your own eyes as the recording?.

            “The legalization of marijuana in man places is not going to stop crime….it’ll likely increase crime. ” Except that it has been actually just the opposite where it has been legalized, and legalization isn’t just using it but the buying and selling of it. Otherwise, you’ve just decriminalized the end user but kept the profit motive for criminals. The Netherlands saw a decrease in crime and Portugal has seen the same. I’m ahead of you regarding both.

            The assertion that it will just increase crime needs to be proven, and that the increase in one area is a greater societal cost than the savings in the legalization. Economists are great at this evaluation and they overall do not support your argument. Look up the 18th Amendment, which never abolished the consumption of alcohol, but only sale and buy. The Volstead Act followed to put teeth in the 18th, but the production of ethanol wasn’t stopped, not was it’s consumption (Communion for example). There is an interesting parallel though…

            The paraquat poisoning of marijauna, and the damage done to users, has an exact parallel in the bathtub-gin poisoning during Prohibition. Methanol is a very slight secondary reaction in the production of ethanol, in fact moonshiners produce ethanol with little or no methanol, and not at levels that cause poisoning. The bathtub-gin poisonings took place when the Federal government, fighting the bootleg chemists who routinely broke denaturatants, chose the methanol-ethanol azeotrope as a denaturant. Previous denaturants could be distilled out to produce pure ethanol. The Feds kept the change as a secret, to defeat bootleggers, while knowing full well that it would kill thousands (10s actually) and damage even more. The ends justifying the means, no matter the social cost. And, please, understand that those who consumed it without buying it committed no crime.

      2. Pursuing a court case takes millions and millions. Evidence that keeps it from court saves millions and millions.
        While it’s very noble of you, no condescension expicit or implicit, to save people from having their innermost thoughts and details of their lives being exposed, your reports don’t and they are FOIA accessible.

        The practice of Arpaio’s MCSO, and that of many other PDs, to post mugshots of people who have only been arrested but not convicted shows that your fellow police aren’t as high-minded. But then you’re only one cop.

        The practice of some PDs to put out false or misleading information over a high-profile case is less than noble also. We in Arizona went through the Pima County spin on Guerena, where every press conference release of info led to a back-track in just a few days. From the protective vest to the Border Patrol hat to the guns, they had to back down from their intial attempt to dirty. They weren’t concerned with FOIA. They weren’t concerned with privacy or the damage they did to his wife and children. They were concerned with CYA. Ultimately, the settlement of $3.4 million justified anything the PDs involved said about him and their concern for truth and privacy. /sarc

  3. I have spoken with officers who deal with these types of situations. They aren’t forbidding anyone to video. But it is the officer’s discretion to set up the scene and determine how close you can or cannot be to that scene. Checking on a number of lawsuits that have been filed in this country, those who are moved away from the scene or arrested because the were too close and argumentative do not win their lawsuits. Now if a police officer takes your camera so you are not recording, they can’t do that and those are the lawsuits that at times win. If that officer feels you have recorded something on scene that could be evidence, they will take your phone. Your only recourse for that is to go to court but you more then likely will not win.

    The author says, “Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities and police and other government officials carrying out their duties”. Yes you can record but you cannot interfere. You cannot record in certain parts of a federal building such as security checkpoints. When you are inside that building you have to follow those rules or you will be asked to leave or made to leave.

    The author tries to paint a successful picture about one recent lawsuit that favors the plaintive. It needs to be kept in mind that recording is not an all and all reason to break the law.

    1. Really slaps? Cops go to Turkish bathhouses? Wow, I can’t believe you would allege such a thing. I think you’re going to have to provide some pictures or a video, slaps.

    2. “favors the plaintive” LOLOL. You’re a laugh a minute, slaps. Why don’t you take a vocabulary lesson or something. And yet I used the phrase “paradigm shift” wrong, did I slaps? Well, how could I doubt it, coming from somebody with such a mastery of the English language…..

      1. Prove me wrong. All you do is call names. Prove my statements wrong. Oh wait, you can’t. The reason, I am right and you are a bottom feeder.

      2. slappy say, “mmpphh mmmpphhhh, Am I doing it the way you like Sargent? mmmppphhh, mmmppphhh”

        Sargent says “Shut the fuck up you little faggot! Suck my dick bitch.”

        slappy says, “mmmpphhh, mmmpphh, MMMMMPPPPHHH!!!”

        1. Interesting. You and keepitreal are the only ones talking about your sick homosexual fantasies and goats. You two need serious help. You will continue on because you don’t know how to communicate any other way. Eventually you will end up in jail or prison. Your kind always do. Then you can talk about all the homosexual activity you want because you will be the star

          1. Fucking moron.

    3. Bullshit. Cops hate being recorded, and actively try to forbid it, least it capture their crimes. I’ve seen videos where the cop ‘decided’ he needed them over a hundred feet away for a basic DUI arrest and such.
      Historically, cops had such control that any evidence against them could disappear. They can say anything they want in a report. With DV technology, that is changing fast.

      “But it is the officer’s discretion to set up the scene”
      And no, it isn’t entirely up to his discretion. I recall there was a court case here where a cop tried that line to send any filmers as far away as possible. The court ruled he could only send them a REASONABLE distance. Now that is subjective, but unless you want to hand free money to hated activists, I suggest erring on the side of caution.

      Of course cops don’t care about giving out free money. It isn’t theirs. This is why lawsuits should come out of police budgets. If they had to be afraid a bad cop would break the budget and require a few layoffs, other cops wouldn’t put up with his shit.

      1. Sorry Shawn, Not all cops hate to be recorded. I can see how they are irritated when you have people walking around their scene having cameras shoved in their faces. You wouldn’t’ like it either. What makes it so different if a police officer doesn’t want you pestering him/her during a stop.

        You said, no, it isn’t entirely up to his discretion. I recall there was a court case here where a cop tried that line to send any filmers as far away as possible. The court ruled he could only send them a REASONABLE distance. Yes, the scene is set up by the officer and it is his discretion. Period. No one has won a court case in which an officer had the person with a camera move away from the scene. Activists are not a priority on scene. Period. A paramedic friend of mine has anyone with a camera moved very far from the scene or arrested if they get to close. He doesn’t tolerate cameras in his patient’s faces. They even did an article on him a while back. I will have to see if i can find it. Again it’s his scene. Not an activists.

        I have noticed on copblock people are making statements about police officers as a whole as being these evil out of control people. Got news for you, that is very far from the truth. I won’t stand by and read ridiculous stories and not say anything. Again, I always back up my statements. What kind of work do you do? Now apply out of control people with cameras harassing you while you are doing your job.

        1. OK, slaps. Always back your spewage up, do you? OK, then, back up not knowing that the person bringing a complaint in court is the “plaintiff”, and not the “plaintive” as you keep repeating. Or back up the many lies and misquotes you post here. Want ME to back that statement up, slaps? Won’t take long. Several examples just within the past dozen or so posts. POS.

          1. Again your BS over a misspelled word just shows your immaturity. You need to grow up

          2. Not misspelled, slaps, you just didn’t know the correct word. Just repeating what you thought you heard said on Law and Order or some such. Funny, If you really were a parole officer it seems you would have written the words defendant, plaintiff, complaint, etc so many times that it would be impossible for you to misspell any of them. Much less use the wrong word 3 times in a row. That shows that you actually thought the word was plaintive. You flat didn’t know the right word, slaps. Plus your entire diatribe on parolees in the military, which another poster shut down as complete bullshit. But hey, slaps, it’s your story. You can claim to be whatever you want to. But, since you’ve long since run out of credibility, don’t be surprised when people tell you that you’re full of shit. And I think that most of us here, in regard to your claim of being a parole officer, agree that you’re not, and that you just added an “ar” to your actual job title.

          3. Again your ridiculous rants continue to support your diagnosis of psychotic. You are a very sick and diseased man. You are ugly in societies eyes. You are the reason copblock is turning into a joke and no one else wants to contribute to these forums. It’s always the same people. Crawl back under the rock you came from. You don’t know anything and you prove that every time you write something. You remain the true token weenie of copblock.

      2. No guy. We are recorded all the time by our own cameras. You are allowing the lies that are spread by this site to effect your thinking

        1. Oh yes, and those cameras never “malfunction” at a critical point now, do they. And how many thousands of hours was it discovered that the Seattle PD had deleted? LOL. And for you specifically to talk about liars on this site is priceless.

          1. Technical issues happen everywhere, all the time, every minute of the day.

          2. No, they don’t. You have no idea what you’re talking about. I do. I put video cameras into flying drones and subject them to an entire flight testing regimen including impact studies, environmental factors, and the like. I’ve seen maybe 4 or 5 cameras go bad in about 10 years of this kind of work. And the on-board solid state storage is more reliable than ever.

          3. Far different things. Far different costs. Ours are made so that we can’t alter or sometimes not even review the video. Met hey are also made to upload automatically. The biggest issue that I’ve seen is battery life. We lose a lot of audio due to that factor.

          4. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You think a locked out recording device is some kind of “state of the art” or something? Moron. And building in a web server for auto-upload is old news as well. But keep trying, dipstick. Battery life, huh? So tell me, what kind of current draw you dealing with on those cameras. Since you know so much about it. Because you know, new battery technology, say Li-Ion, provides a good deal of power in a fairly small package. And a CMOS sensor recording to solid state uses very little power. Some come on, professor, let’s hear some more of your reasoning. I do this for a living, and have for about 25 years now.

          5. Again…what are you talking about!
            I said nothing about “state of the art”
            But for you to say that there isn’t a huge expense involved is more
            than just inaccurate….it’s a lie.
            Our videos have the requirement to be un-editable to be used as evidence
            (that’s why I laugh when you tools
            come up with the nonsense that we
            edit videos.

            As for the transmitters…again guy…whatever you’d like to try and sell people. They are what they are…they do what they do. Some are better than others. But none that I’ve ever seen
            Last through a 12 hour shift. Not even
            close. Closer on an 8 hour shift…but not if they are used a lot (some can suckle power from our radio…but the current move is away from that type
            And none of that even begins to get into data storage. Think if someplace like NYPD. 40,000 plus officers. Not getting into the huge costs of acquiring the cameras themselves…all of the server space is emornous. 40,000 guys….all with 8 hours of video a day. That’s a bunch ‘o me memory guy. But
            you know that right there mr techno?
            Sure ya did.

          6. First of all, douchebag, I’ve never accused anybody of editing video. Ever. And yes, I do know about video storage. With cameras recording at 24 FPS, and the newest compression format (h.264) running around 6-8K per frame. Depending upon whether i frame or p frame, but you’re expert on all that, right? So what if they’re 40K cops. They all in one building on one server? No, they’re spread out all over the place. And these days you can get 1800 terrabytes of hot swappable RAID6 storage in 1 72″ rack. But you know all this, right? I mean, you’ve forgotten more about this than I know, right? LOL. You’re nothing but a lying fuck stick, ass-wipe. LOL. Saying I’m the one who started the nambla stuff. Which means you’re fairly stupid, too. ANYBODY can review posts and see you mentioning that sick shit before I ever signed up for copblock.

          7. And it would be the taxpayers dealing with the expense, douchebag. Not the cops. And I’m sure most of them would rather pay for cameras than spend the same money on lawsuit payouts. You know, the ones made as an “accounting decision”. LOL.

            Yep, You’re a real cop, aren’t you? LOL, you’ve proven yourself as big a liar as slaps.

          8. Right. It is the taxpayers idiot. That’s my point you freaking tool.
            Cost costs costs. And a lot of them. Damn but you get dumber all the time.

          9. LOL. Don’t cherry pick half my answer to prove your point or anything.

            And I get dumber, do I? Wow. Pretty amazing coming from somebody who would flat lie, when everybody he is lying to can look at the archives and see for themselves. To me, that really sounds like somebody who started at stupid and didn’t get very far down the road from there.

          10. Cherry picking ?!?!?

            The high cost has been my point each and every time this topic has come up. YOU are arguing that it isn’t expensive.


          11. OMG describes you perfectly. Good signature. Obvious Moron Group. Perfect. Let me point out in detail your cherry picking, since your comprehension is so weak –

            I said, yes there is a cost, but for the taxpayer it is merely a choice of paying for the cameras or paying for police abuse settlements. For example, Chicago paid $100 million last year, and expects about the same amount this year. In settlements. All made for accounting reasons, of course, none of those cops actually did anything wrong. LOL. At today’s prices, do you know how many PD’s that would equip with cameras, supporting infrastructure, storage, maintenance? $200 million? Your 40K cops in NYC? At most, $30-$40 million of that $200 million. And I’m probably significantly overstating the amount required.

            You ignore the fact that I point out that the $$ is going out the door regardless, whether to technology or settlements, and point out, “see you admit it would cost a lot”, while ignoring the entirety of my response. That’s why you’re a douchebag liar. Well, that and the whole nambla thing, fucking lying turd.

          12. This is why you and yours can’t be trusted T-bag.

        2. A bullshit lie, t. You know full well that cops often make video disappear. That malfunction line can only go so far. It is as overused as “dog ate my homework.”

    4. How can you speak with anyone with your mouth full of dick slappy? The departments favorite POLE OFFICER! Shout out to keepitreal! Fucking moron.

      1. This is why your story was ridiculous. Keep the lies coming. It makes us all laugh.

        1. I can’t wait for a cop to stick his nightstick up your ass. Oh yeah, you do that for fun. Fucking moron.

        2. LOLOLOL. Let’s see –

          The Slappy Fan Club: 2 members

          The Slappy is a Complete Douchebag Club: 23 members and growing everyday

          So who is it laughing, slaps?

      2. Dude I don’t get you. Jake never says nasty stuff to you or any one. Why do you wish to silence his opinion so badly?

        1. Hey douchebag, slaps posted bestiality videos and publicly named various CB posters as being the star. Fuck him, and fuck you, whose favorite thing used to be accusing people of belonging to some fucking weird ass club for child molesters. Figures you knew the freaking acronym and everything. I had to look it up the first time I saw you accuse somebody of being a member. Sick ass. You and slaps should date or something.

          1. Prove your statements liar

          2. Slaps, some truths, as they say, are held to be self evident.

          3. Again, prove it. Liar

          4. I already did, slaps. You don’t know common court terms, although you claim to be a parole officer. You claimed that you go to Sacramento for these Parole Officer duties, to see the DA. Only person you’d go to see in Sac would be the AG, not the DA. You’d see him in San Diego. You know, the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office. Which is in San Diego. Not Sac. You made up some bullshit about parolees in the military, then when a military person challenged your story, you started changing it. Your complete horseshit about dealing with service members on probation because of child support. So what has to be proved, slaps? That you belong to the liar’s club with t? Done deal, slaps.

          5. F you’re referring to me…[email protected] was the one that brought up…and kept up the NAMBLA idea.

            Are just another one that can’t stay on topic as the concepts and truth elude you?

          6. Truth eludes me, you lying motherfucker? So certain brought up the nambla thing, huh? LOL. ROFL. LOLOLOLOL. I am certain, you fucking lying shmuck. The disqus switch changed my name. And it was YOU, you fucking lying fuck-stick,that brought that sick shit here. Like I said before, I didn’t know what you were accusing people of until I looked it up. LOL. What a lying little tool you are. So what, you think others here fucking don’t remember you saying that sick shit? Do you think all of the posts aren’t sitting in the archives, ready to be flung in your lying freaking face? You are a lying piece of shit, dirt-bag. You’re no fucking cop. I can’t tell you who I really am, I’ll get call floods. Yeah, right. And you sued somebody for a false complaint and won. More than once. And you’re an expert on video technology. What you are is a lying freaking douchebag.

          7. Show me anywhere that I have lied or have been inconsistent.

            I won’t wait.

    5. That’s “plaintiff” moron. Yeah, slaps, you’re a parole officer, in court all of the time, and you don’t know a basic word describing one of the participants. Because this is the 3rd time you’ve called them “plaintive”. Sure slaps. Better get back down to the bathhouse now. Where your real job is. And you call others a liar. LOL. Credibility, slaps. It all boils down to credibility.

  4. The article misses some key points and is really not the “slam dunk” you might think it is.

    King (intoxicated) had apparently captured his friend (Harris) resisting arrest on his cell phone. This lead the police to state that the camera (cell phone) now was evidence of that crime and sought to seize it. King refused. There is no mention of the police’s desire to stop King from recording but rather they sought to seize the evidence to avoid destruction.

    In comments on the 1st Amendment violation, the court stated:

    “The Court cannot say with certainty that it was clearly established in February 2011that Mr. King’s actions during a tense active arrest situation with crowd control concerns would not be viewed as subject to some reasonable restrictions. Therefore, Mr. King’s right was notclearly established and Defendant Officers are granted qualified immunity on this claim.”

  5. Common sense,

    If the date of this incident took place before the Glik decision, then that makes sense as no court at that time had ruled that is is a clearly established right. That is all moot now.

    When it comes to seizing cell phones without a warrant, you are not going to convince reasonable people they are using exigent circumstances in order to save evidence facing imminent destruction. They are doing it because they can and nothing more. Trying to convince us that reasonable officers are seizing cell phones to save evidence that they believe is facing imminent destruction isn’t going to fly. People record police to hold them accountable, not to destroy evidence, from their p.o.v. that may show police misconduct!

    Personally, I am against that practice because we can fill pages here of police who did exactly this and deleted the video. Detain the person and force the officer to articulate on a sworn affidavit so that way there is a paper trail and to see if we have a cop blowing smoke or not! The story of the Minnesota man who was acquitted had his videos deleted or the Officer Stephanie Lopez who was working security on site at a rave party location. She detained a KOB reporter and ultimately took her “whatever” to her own home and searched it and deleted the recordings. Sorry but even jjust 1 incident is enough for me to say, get a warrant and go from there. Just my own personal opinion though!

    1. YF: Glik isn’t a “bright line” type of decision and is limited to the specific facts of that incident.

  6. The city went the cheap route… paying the $200,000 settlement was cheaper than court costs and lawyer fees.

    1. That excuse is getting pretty old. “They paid to avoid court costs” is starting to rank right up there with “stop resisting” as a strong indicator that something is unjustifiably wrong.

      Because what expenses are they avoiding? Paying for the courthouse? No, it has to be paid for anyway. Paying the judge or city attorneys salary? Uh, nope, they get a paycheck every 2 weeks regardless. So I have to admit being a bit lost on just what expenses they avoid by settling. I can certainly see that from the plaintiff’s side, but not the state’s.

      1. It’s generally an accounting decision. That’s all.

        1. Easy to say. But as I already asked, an accounting decision based upon what?

          1. Lawsuit defense gets extremely expensive. Just ask any business man who’s ever been sued. The guy I just sued was facing a 6 figure suit. He could have fought …. Maybe could have won (not really…..the mountains of evidence piled up against him was massive) so he move to settle. I accepted as it was costing me money to if it went forward.

            $200,000 in a big city isn’t even a hick up. It’s far cheaper to settle than fight. And like I said earlier…it’s not abad decision.

            But the variables involved in any case or lawsuit are huge.

            And I think one of things that you guys don’t get or know is that court cases…. The ones that get appealed to high levels and to SCOTUS…aren’t generally the good ones. They are where an officer pushed an envelope or just repeated some stupid mantra they heard somewhere. I entered a culture at my former agency where every officer repeated over and over “I’m searching you for my safety”. Someone (and I finally figured out who) had spread that nonsense thinking it was a catch all. It isn’t and I weeded out of that agency. It was just as stupid as the “am I been detained” or “never talk to the police”. All 3 are db ideas and full of peril.

            But lawsuit settlements are generally accounting decisions and not much more. It’s not even generally based on the strength of the case. Just the costs of it.

          2. OK, one more time, WHAT COSTS? You keep parroting the party line, but what costs are being saved? I mean, if it’s a small town and they use an outside atty for litigation, fine. But that doesn’t fly for LA, Houston, NYC, etc.They save NOTHING by avoiding trial. The judge is still working, the courthouse is still open and using utilities, the clerks and bailiffs are still working, so where does this savings come into play? Short answer – It doesn’t! They pay because they know it’s a good probability that a jury will bend them over. LOL. “Our cops did nothing wrong by shooting that unarmed guy, it was totally justified, but we’re going to give the family 2 million dollars to avoid the expenses of a jury trial.” Something a bull left in the field after a heavy meal, I think.

          3. Huh? Costs don’t go away just
            because it is a large city. The 200,000
            In this instance wouldn’t likely even begin
            to cover the cost of defense.

            If you notice…and no offense you most
            likely don’t…the officers involved are seldom
            disciplined in this instances. Why? It’s
            not because of corruption of any kind.
            It’s because they didn’t do anything wrong.

            If you want to see major change for the
            positive in this country….seek and work for
            tort reform. Even just a move to a
            “Loser pays” model would help.
            With that…cities and departments would
            likely fight these suits. Remember….you
            are paying for all this frivolous lawsuits
            everyday. Higher tax rates, insurance
            rates, product costs. All throughout our
            society the costs are huge. There are book-
            shelves full of books about how to do it. Now,
            the costs are small for these junk lawsuits.but
            to properly defend them…the costs are huge..

            I really don’t get which part you aren’t
            understanding and why you don’t think the costs
            are big. Even for departments that have staff
            attorneys….they have to stop whatever else they
            are doing and spend their time researching, preparing
            for court, interviewing witnesses, conducting
            dispositions, and then there is the court time itself.
            That’s where the accounting comes in. Which is

  7. T,

    Agreed it isn’t. Those come from SCOTUS. As far as the very specific facts, the first question they 1st had to answer was does the first amendment protect the rights of citizens to record public officials. That had to be answered because the 3 members of the Boston PD who arrested GLIK, made the claim that filming police wasn’t an established right and the court said on no! It’s a form of expression! That’s why the Glik ruling isn’t just some ordinary everyday ruling.There was a question about rights to be answered and that had a drastic impact on the New England states. The GLIK ruling was even referenced, if I remember correctly, in the 7th’s ruling on the Illinois wiretapping law

    It wasn’t bright line but it was a landmark ruling nonetheless as there was a very specific claim that filming public officials isn’t protected speech and the circuit disagreed. If it didn’t have a rights question, I would totally agree with you!

    1. YF: I didn’t argue with you….I was pointing out that many people see GLIK and think it’s something it isn’t. It shouldn’t surprise me….they still can’t even get Miranda right around here

  8. The court first addressed the question of whether Glik’s First Amendment
    rights had been violated. It noted that “we have previously recognized
    that the videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First
    Amendment liberties”[5] and held that Glik had a constitutional right to videotape a public official in a public place.[13] The court noted that this right was not limited to reporters and journalists,
    but a right of all citizens, subject to reasonable limitations of time,
    place and manner. It was clear in the current case that none of those
    limitations applied.[5][7]

    The first question, as you can see, is broad in it’s application to the New England residents in the 1ST Circuit!

  9. Hmm I never understood not wanting to be video taped. Yes I am a LEO, say anything you would like. But in all honestly whether I am being video taped or no I act the same way. Video tape me all you want and I will gladly give you me First initial, Last Name and my employee number.

    If your doing nothing wrong then a video tape will only help my case in court.

    1. The reason they object is because they are probably NOT doing everything legally.

      They are either purposely and knowingly committing illegal acts while performing their duties or they fear that there is some law somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of lines of criminal code that makes what they are doing a crime. It’s a Catch-22 for LEOs. The good ones fear being tripped up by a corrupt system and the bad ones fear being caught for their illegal actions. Video evidence is a bad thing for either case.

      Becoming a Peace Officer used to be an honorable thing. These days it is like selling your soul to Satan. Even a good person will not last long before being corrupted or coerced into silence by the Thin Blue Line.

      And for all you LEOs out there just remember, Satan doesn’t offer or honor returns.

    2. In the large majority of cases, recording you will be to your benefit, so I agree with you. The problem is when it isn’t and those cops who believe, rightly or wrongly, the recording will not benefit them but indict them seize phones, “erase” the recording and usually hand the phone back with a self-serving and self-satisfying smile. PINAC has a lot of recovered videos showing just that behavior.

      The double-standard regarding non-cop and cop is quite apparent when not one cop I can think of has been charged with a felony for seizing video evidence by their own claim and then destroying it, even when recovery shows they did just that. Any cop here should be calling for that cop to be charged with destruction of evidence.

  10. And in typical LEO behavior, we will be hearing about multiple citizens fighting charges for this very practice. I believe their very reaction to such a practice is a great indicator of how “well-meaning” any given police officer might be. As I recall, after having denied an LEO to illegally search my vehicle, “I must have something to hide.”
    Is that why you piggies don’t like cameras?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *