can police seize your video helmet cam??

[Grimmy]

"Plain view" as all call it, is not as simple as you all think it is.

My Lawyer, and the crown, both agreed in my case that closely scrutinizing each and all of the contents of my vehicle from the exterior of the car by use of a flashlight to illuminate the interior through the windows was considered improper search.

As for the seizure of video - the officer would need to be able to articulate what he expects to see (not suspects to see) on the video camera footage prior to viewing its material. In a nutshell, he cannot simply seize it by making up a BS charge (speeding etc) so that he can seize it and later charge for a completely different or unlrelated charge. Often times, that means needing a court order to seize the camera.

Fact is: Police officers often lie to serve their own purposes, so be wary of this. One thing taught to rookie officers, and I've worked with plenty of officers that like the quote: "It's not what actually happened that matters, it is what is written in your notes that counts" - because, unfortunately, an officers testimony is considered more reputable than non-police testimony, though both are ordinary citizens, and both have something to lose if their testimony is proven correct - often times the officer has more to lose.

 

[imnothng]

I think a cop can do whatever thy want on the side of the road to get you to admit to something. Doesn't make it right but they have the gun, not you.

Anything anybody does to me while wearing a gun will be under duress and intimidation. I will be respectful, but will not give evidence against myself.

 

[Grimmy]

I agree.

The officer has the gun and the badge. He has the power (not necessarily authority) to arrest anyone, with cause or not. It all comes down to how far he wants to go to make something stick.

As such, I am polite and responsive to police, but I pretty much refuse to answer any of their questions unless it has to do with identification etc (requirements to answer by law). Call me "uncooperative" [read: cooperative=admits guilt/agrees with police theory], and thats fine, but I give nothing and offer nothing when dealing with police.

 

[BusaBob]

thanks, Coyo. That was very informative.

 

[kanabis]

remember this guy? news said he got *** raped for this video[video=youtube;BHjjF55M8JQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ[/video]

 

[Rob MacLennan]

remember this guy? news said he got *** raped for this video

All of the charges except for the traffic violations were ultimately dropped, because the felony wiretap charges were a gross misuse of the Maryland statutes.

*EDIT* Text of that decision: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38308423/State-of-Maryland-v-Anthony-John-Graber-III

 

[FiReSTaRT]

All of the charges except for the traffic violations were ultimately dropped, because the felony wiretap charges were a gross misuse of the Maryland statutes.

*EDIT* Text of that decision: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38308423/State-of-Maryland-v-Anthony-John-Graber-III

Unless his lawyer worked pro-bono and he got compensated for his time and aggravation, he still had to pay for speaking out against the untouchables, in some way.

 

[Grimmy]

All of the charges except for the traffic violations were ultimately dropped, because the felony wiretap charges were a gross misuse of the Maryland statutes.

*EDIT* Text of that decision: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38308423/State-of-Maryland-v-Anthony-John-Graber-III

damn... your net-fu is strong.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Unless his lawyer worked pro-bono and he got compensated for his time and aggravation, he still had to pay for speaking out against the untouchables, in some way.

I recall that the ACLU became involved in this.

 

[suprPHREAK]

It's not what actually happened that matters, it is what is written in your notes that counts" - because, unfortunately, an officers testimony is considered more reputable than non-police testimony, though both are ordinary citizens, and both have something to lose if their testimony is proven correct - often times the officer has more to lose.

I think you interpret this backwards. They use that statement because if an offender spits in their face, and that isnt written down, it didnt happen. Police notes are held to a high standard in court, and they are expected to be very thorough.

 

[toysareforboys]

I had two onboard cameras during my motorcycle accident July 17th, 2011. One was destroyed in the accident, and the other was slightly damaged but still functional. The ambulance took me away from the scene of the accident before the police arrived.

In the hospital the cop said "We played the video on the camera that was mounted on your tank, and were able to watch the accident video a few times but then the camera shut down. It's being returned to you, here it is" and hands me a sealed evidence bag.

A few months later I get out of the hospital and take the SD card from the camera and plug it in my computer to get the video. The last video file is only about 15 seconds long. In the video you can see me turn on the camera then begin to ride off on my motorcycle (just prior to the accident), then the video suddenly switches to a view of the ground (I assumed as the mount broke/bike collided and fell to the ground, etc.) and assumed the video file was just corrupt, missing the middle part. I send the SD card to Panasonic in an attempt to recover the video and guess what...

"The video file in question was OVERWRITTEN and is not corrupt or missing any information! To accomplish this using the camera you would have to play back the video file, pause it during the playback, then click the shutter button to begin recording over top of the original footage, which would start at that point in the original video file. Because the video was overwritten, we were not able to recover any of the original footage other than what is plainly visible in the video."

So, it looks like while the cops were playing back the accident video file, one of them accidentally clicked the shutter button and overwrote the video!!!

When I asked him what gave him the right to even TOUCH the camera he said "It was in plain sight, and might have contained evidence."

Hmmmmmmmm.

-Jamie M.