Photography is Not a Crime

137 responses so far ↓

• 1 Bob Karp // Mar 6, 2009 at 3:32 AM

  Unbelievable Carlos, it’s open season on anyone with a camera…it seems especially in Florida! I guess we ‘Northerners’ have it easy up here in New Jersey…

• 2 Andrew DeFilippis // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:48 AM

  This story needs to be picked up by the mainstream media. See if you can pull some strings Carlos and have her story on CNN or FOX or MSNBC…

• 3 PeterK // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:07 AM

  I beleve the best way for this story to gain tracking is to first add urls to commentary section of the Herald and the Sun Sentinel (So Fla local media)

  if enough people see it and discuss it, reporters might pick it up (specially in slow news day) I agree to the state above this absolutely must be seeded around. I will do my best to help

• 4 Jason // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:20 AM

  Public servants have no right to expect total privacy while carrying out their duties. NY State troopers used to love to pull this stuff, and it didnt hold water there. The cops need THEIR lesson that there is only one Washington DC making the laws, and I hope she sues them.

• 5 Jason // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:22 AM

  Better yet, lets all descend on the town with our cameras!

• 6 John // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:23 AM

  Some thoughts:

  1) “I hope you have a good cause for having my son in handcuffs” is not what a normal mother would say when arriving to the scene. It is combative. Her son, her precious baby boo-boo kins, was accused of a crime and the cops were doing their job – sorting it out.

  2) Immediately jumping out of the car with a video camera taping the cops is not normal. It screams “I am a difficult, nutjob. Arrest me please.”

  3) Police have enormous amounts of discretion in situations like this. She took a small situation and unnecesarily escalated it creating more problems for her and her kid.

  4) Tasha should get the help of Google to track down the sender of that email. I tend to think it probably was the cop in question. Stupid move. It will end up costing him money promotion opportunities. Also, if his judgement is that questionable he be counted on to do stupid things in the future.

  This is not a first ammendment issue.

• 7 Tom // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:44 AM

  John, I agree with your assertion that her tone in entering the exchange was combative. She cited a wish to protect herself legally as the reason for carrying a video camera into the exchange in the first place. Her actions were defensively combative. I also think she reacted in one of the many acceptable ways that mothers can be reasonably be expected to react.

  As for point number 2, there is no law that states a person can not record a public encounter with public servants with their knowledge (it wasn’t a hidden camera or microphone), so I don’t see how it screams “I am a difficult, nutjob. Arrest me please.” It screams you “You people are being recorded and I want you to tell me what’s going on and if you do something stupid you can bet other people will see this.” It scream, “I don’t trust you.”

  So what’s the issue? Is it that police don’t understand the law. Is it that police don’t react well to situations that create additional pressures for them? That their first instinct is to arrest someone on false charges and deal with the validity of those charges later. Contain and control the situation? Or is it simply that police have not been trained to deal with cameras? To expect that they will be recorded at all times with or without their consent and that any of those recordings can be used against them if they fail to perform their jobs to the satisfaction of the community they serve?

  I totally agree with 3, police do have “normous amounts of discretion in situations like this” and her actions did escalate it but only because those police didn’t have the common sense to address the situation correctly.

  One last note to the judge, verbally arguing that an arrest charge doesn’t make sense is not resisting arrest.

  This story needs more press.

• 8 jones // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM

  I agree with John, she should have been more concerned with being a mother then with her camera and I don’t blame the officer for siting the kid after the way the mother behaved. Officers do have a lot of discretion and in a lot of cases turning them over to their parents keeps the kid out of the court system while still teaching him a lesson and hopefully deterring future bad acts but when you get a parent like this the message the kid gets is I can do what I want because mommy has my back. She is lucky the kid didn’t get some kind of larceny charge on top of trespassing. She let her hatred for cops cost her kid a misdemeanor citation and that is just poor parenting. If you want to get yourself arrested to make a point I can respect that but when it effects your kid your just being selfish.

  As far as the e-mail, if it did come from one of the officers than he was wrong and should face whatever discipline the department sees fit. It’s unprofessional to send an e-mail like that and I can see where she is upset about it. This e-mail is another example of something that isn’t illegal but just because it’s not illegal doesn’t make it right.

• 9 Jason // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:55 AM

  Tom- In addition if it were truly illegal to tape the cops, one would think it would be illegal to have any serveillance cameras, dash cams, etc, filming Joe Citizen. I think there was a definite misuse of the all party law that usually concerns phone recordings.

• 10 Tom // Mar 6, 2009 at 11:08 AM

  Thanks Jason, that’s one of the points I was trying to make. The only difference between an individual carrying a camera and cctv is that the individual is going to represent their own interests in a way that is more obvious and visible to everyone being filmed.

• 11 Matt // Mar 6, 2009 at 11:24 AM

  This is going off subject but the theatre is going to end up with a huge lawsuit from this …… What theatre was this ? I am a full time staff photographer but once upon a time I was a United Artist theatre manager our security was NOT allowed to accuse people of “Ticket Slipping” “security” (who is most likely an off-duty local pd officer was not was allowed to ask for a ticket stub or perform any functions as a theatre employee they were there for visual presence and signed a waver saying that any action they took in an incident was solely their responsibility and the theatre would not be held accountable .) An usher could ask to see a ticket and if they did not have the stub they could ether speak to management or purchase another ticket and enter the theatre then. On a busy night you might get 20 of these incidents but if they are handled correctly they are no big deal Under no circumstances were we allowed to insinuate they were trying to sneak into a movie.

• 12 jones // Mar 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM

  Matt, maybe this theatre has different policy then the one you worked at. I would hate to see a business get sued because they stopped an “alleged” thief. If the security guard was an off duty officer he has every right to investigate if he believes there is a crime.

  On a further note if you were getting 20 of these a night maybe somebody should have re-evaluated your policy.

• 13 Matt // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:09 PM

  Jones, true each theaters have their own policy’s We were 18 screens that averaged 300 seats. if only a 100 plp a set show up for each theatre on an average night thats still 10,800 people coming through when most of these are kids losing a ticket or not having a stub is the most common thing you will see. Especially when they enter and exit the theaters to come to concession stand multiple times.

• 14 getaclue // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:39 PM

  Well of course the Gestapo doesn’t want to be filmed brutalizing the taxpaying public. That’s what you get in a country run by gangsters and thugs.

• 15 John // Mar 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

  Tom & Jason,

  I’m not saying it is illegal to videotape the cops. It’s not. But it is incredibly poor judgement because it shows the cops that you presume they’re crooked.

  Lets try the shoe on the other foot analysis: If the cop pulled you over and treated you as if they assumed you were a crook wouldn’t you be justifiably angry? This reverse situation is no different.

  Cops are like anyone else- you will usually get back what you give out.

  This wasn’t a Rodney King style beat down and it wasn’t worthy of all the drama and videotaping.

• 16 Everett // Mar 6, 2009 at 1:11 PM

  John,

  The issue is black and white: if it isn’t illegal, the police should have nothing to say about it. Should acting distrustful be grounds for retribution?

• 17 Duane Kerzic // Mar 6, 2009 at 1:12 PM

  Just another case of police making up the law as they go along. If it doesn’t fit the law we will push and push till we get something we can arrest you for. Cops know how to build the pretexts for interferring, resisting, trespassing and other charges. They do it all the time.

  Police wonder why they don’t get any respect even with the uniform and the equipement (gun). It’s because they have to earn respect. With all the ruses and lies they use to “get to the truth” is it any wonder they don’t get any respect.

  The cops didn’t want to be videotaped because they were most likely doing something wrong and they knew it. They didn’t want something that showed things exactly as they were happening that might disagree with what they wrote in reports and make them look bad. This is why cops tend to not like photography and no other reason. They only time they like it is when they are the ones taking photos of the ‘suspects’ and they are above being suspected of anything.

• 18 John // Mar 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM

  Everett,

  I am suggesting that you need to pick your battles in life and don’t make mountains out of molehills. The lady in this story was confrontational and a bitch from the word go – all when there was no reason to be.

  Who in their right mind hears that their son is arrested for sneaking into a movie theater and thinks ” oh I better grab my video camera, you know how those pigs are”. Pahleeze.

  Let’s not make this flaky, anti-establishment lady a paragon of first ammendment virtue. You’ll make me hurl.

• 19 Hazy // Mar 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM

  Filming cops is not illegal but people who do film should be aware that if they demand that you turn off your camera, that you better be prepared to go to jail for not complying. It’s not right, and the courts have yet to defend this 1st amendment right by striking down police with a very real punishment.

  What I suggest people do is that if you do start recording cops, and if they demand you turn it off, just drop the camera lens, but continue to audio record. This way you have the cops demanding you to silence any evidence gathering on your part, and you still are gathering audio evidence at least.

  This all depends on what you wish to accomplish. Most of the time people recording with cameras do not comply because they wish to make a political statement. If you wish to gather evidence, the best way is to fake compliance.

• 20 John // Mar 6, 2009 at 2:49 PM

  Duane,

  Did you just get back from a Caribbean vacation after getting all that cash? Haven’t seen you in a while.

• 21 Vic // Mar 6, 2009 at 2:54 PM

  I wonder if it would be feesible to try and get an attourney to file a class action against the Florida police departments for everyone that has ever been done like this. A major hit in the wallet would make Florida rethink how it handles its handlers

• 22 Ari // Mar 6, 2009 at 3:10 PM

  She could have jumped out of the car in a purple Barney the Dinosaur costume singing showtunes backwards while juggling beanie babbies. The police aren’t here to arrest anyone doing something legal but “not normal.”

• 23 Jamie // Mar 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM

  John:

  I’m sorry but all of your “advice” for this woman is pointless. I pay for the police with my tax money and I expect them to behave as professionals.

  Have you ever had to deal with people at a job? They can be a pain. It doesn’t matter — you’re job is to be as tolerant of them as possible. That’s what the police are to do.

  I could care less about the state of this woman’s mind, but I care deeply about the police’s behavior and you cannot find a credible legal expect who believes their action is appropriate — go ahead and try.

• 24 jones // Mar 6, 2009 at 3:58 PM

  Jamie, what she did may have been perfectly legal but if this lady wants to fight for her rights then let her but not at her son’s expense. If my child was arrested it would be perfectly legal for me to walk up to the cop and tell him he is a piece of shit pig. Knowing if I say that my child, who the cop is turning over to me instead of taking to jail, is probably going to suffer the consequences I don’t think I would say that. Like I said I can respect somebody for standing up for their rights when it is them who has to deal with the consequences but when a parent uses a child like this I think it’s disgusting. She should have picked him up, apologized for what he did and thanked the officers for not arresting him.

• 25 I. C. London // Mar 6, 2009 at 4:07 PM

  And then the “Cops” TV show comes along putting the police on national TV and they are suddenly fine with a camera following them all day to make themselves look good.

• 26 genewitch // Mar 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM

  the one thing you are all missing is the same thing that the judge and jury seemed to miss in Carlos’s trial.

  She was arrested for felony wiretapping.

  Those charges were dropped because they were bogus, trumped up, and bullshit.

  Resisting an unwarranted arrest, a bullshit arrest, isn’t a crime.

  Pretend you’re a female for a minute, if you’re not. An officer pulls you over, asks you to get out of your car. You say no. He then says he’s arresting you for whatever reason – that you had cocaine on you, felony possession. you resist arrest verbally, not violently. You spend the night in jail. you go before a judge, and they drop the felony possession charge because you didn’t have any cocaine on you.

  Then they proceed to ask you how you wish to plead on the resisting arrest… Doesn’t make much sense. If the officers didn’t have any damn reason to arrest you, you don’t have any reason to comply. Therefore wasting time, money, and manpower on garbage is silently “condoning” the behavior of these police officers that don’t understand the law.

  If all charges are dropped, the resisting arrest and other related charges SHOULD ALWAYS BE DROPPED.

  This small tidbit will change eventually with video cameras becoming cheaper and cheaper, where there is little doubt that the person was within their rights to resist the arrest, or even NOT COMPLY WITH AN ILLEGAL REQUEST.

  Refusing to comply with an officer is not a criminal offense if the officer is requesting that you do something that isn’t legal for him to request, or isn’t legal for you to do.

  Carlos knows this, he also knows that courtrooms don’t see it this way – yet.

  Hopefully if more of these stories get public view, the laws will change to reflect the paradigm.

• 27 John // Mar 6, 2009 at 4:59 PM

  Jamie,

  The advice wasn’t pointless but since you missed it let me clarify it for you.

  Cops don’t have a “regular job”, hence the guns on their hips. They are also invested by the state with powers that people working a regular job don’t have. Show them courtesy. You can state your point without being a dick. If you cannot, however, don’t blame the cop for your stupidity.

  I’m beginning to think some of you have serious “daddy” authority issues.

  P.S. – (Jamie) Being 6’3″, I strongly support the tall women movement – as long as I can march behind them

• 28 Joel Lawson // Mar 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM

  Consult…an…attorney…asap. As we’ve read in the NYTimes recently, this sort of egregious behavior has led to a series of monetary settlements and other judgements in favor of the victim. Seek out your local ACLU chapter as well, and approach them with the tremendous benefits to their org from jumping in: digital photography incidents are guaranteed to bring press coverage, viral online coverage, and therefore opportunities for membership and fundraising.

• 29 MillerTime // Mar 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM

  Any update on your appeal?

• 30 Marline // Mar 6, 2009 at 5:58 PM

  Respect… interesting you should say that. After the police handcuffed my grandson (yes, I was called down to pick up my grandchildren) the chief, in the white shirt, said to my son, he had no respect for the police. My grandson told him. Oh, I have a lot of respect for the police. I have no respect to you. Not the way you are treating me and my mother.

  To start off, IF there was ticket passing, then make the child pay or leave. Identify yourself as an officer of the law. The Boynton Beach Police that evening had on blue jumpsuits. Since my grandchild had no idea, as he has NEVER been in trouble before, and is a very standup child, had no idea who was ‘yelling’ at him from afar. He had the earplugs in his ear, listening to his Ipod. Oh, the officer never identified himself as officers of the law. My grandchild also mentioned that to the officer. He had the other half of the ticket in his pocket. However, he was never questioned about that this ‘ticket passing’. He was immediately thrown to the ground. Literally picked up and thrown to the ground. When the head officer questioned (yelled i.e., police communication), my grandson, and I identify him as the ‘head officer’ as he was the only one with the white shirt on, with arms crossed over his chest, he started with where are you from (not that it had anything to do with ticket passing). My grandson responded, from NY. He was then told oh, another smart MFer from up north. My grandson told him, I was born in NY but raised in DC. I’m sure the big chief had no idea the Washington DC was below the Mason-Dixon line.

  Anyway ….. I was called on the phone, and asked to come and pick up my grandchildren. I was told on the phone… Don’t come here confrontational. That totally took me off-guard. I answer the phone, I’m on my way and to have an officer tell me how and how not to act without meeting me. I told him. Don’t you tell me how to act, and disconnected the phone.

  While there, the token cop was standing telling my daughter about them impounding her car and keeping her until Monday. I was totally confused, though I acted as if I had not heard his comments. How is he going to tell my daughter, she will be there until Monday, and they will impound her car. I thought, everyone must meet in front of the judge within 24-hours of being detained (arrested). I then said I will drive your car home or to my house (which I did) and her sister drove my car home. Only because he kept talking about impounding the car and keeping her detained until Monday. Intimidation. Then you wonder why one records????

  And tell me… when is it legal to confiscate someones personal property without a legal document? I spoke with a deputy of PBSO the next morning, he thought it was the funniest charge. I spoke with a bail bondsperson, who said ‘I’ve been doing this for 11 years and have never heard of this’. The judge, who stated as long as he was on the bench had never heard of such, and had to review the code book only to say he saw no probable cause.

  When is it resisting arrest, asking the question why? NOT in a combative manner. As she said that evening, in front of the officer, Mom, the same way I am talking to you, I asked him.

  I can go on and on.. However, I’ll leave it for another venue.

• 31 Jason // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:04 PM

  In a nutshell, I have lived here on the western coast for more than 2 years now. With a 4 year criminal justice degree, I have concluded the entire FL policing system sorely needs federalizing until things are under control, and the policies reflect the will of the citizens.

• 32 Andrew DeFilippis // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM

  The citizens of Florida ARE the police. They are the only ones who have a voice in changing the way the police force down there works. If no one stands up and says that they are wrong, they will continue to believe that what they are doing is just and right.

  I will be visiting Florida this summer and I will witness first hand how the police down there present themselves. And you can bet your butt I will have my camera on me 24/7.

• 33 Duane Kerzic // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:27 PM

  John, all I can say is no comment in regards to certain things.

  I was away taking photos of lighthouses on the shores of Lakes Ontario and Erie for about 14 days. Working on getting set up for a possible calander for ’10 or ’11.

  Cops loose these battles all the time. Most of the time they push on the person so they resist. While it’s not against the law to ignore an unlawful order in NJ and NY at least (only ones I’ve bothered to look up) it is still resisting if they say they are going to arrest you and you resist.

  Per NJSA 2C:29-2 Resisting arrest, eluding officer
  a. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a person is guilty of a disorderly persons offense if he purposely prevents or attempts to prevent a law enforcement officer from effecting an arrest. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a person is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree if he, by flight, purposely prevents or attempts to prevent a law enforcement officer from effecting an arrest. (3) An offense under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection a. is a crime of the third degree if the person:

  (a)Uses or threatens to use physical force or violence against the law enforcement officer or another; or

  (b)Uses any other means to create a substantial risk of causing physical injury to the public servant or another.

  It is not a defense to a prosecution under this subsection that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest, provided he was acting under color of his official authority and provided the law enforcement officer announces his intention to arrest prior to the resistance.

  I don’t know how the Florida law reads. I left out the other parts because they are about auto chases and the like.

  So what I’m saying here is the last thing you want to do when they try to arrest you is not comply. Just let them arrest you. They are then the ones that will look like fools in the end.

  I’ll look up Florida law later and make another comment.

• 34 MillerTime // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:57 PM

  When Carlos wins his appeal these thugs will learn their lesson.

• 35 Oreilly // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:06 PM

  Millertime is probably Carlos Miller hyping himself up, pathetic.

• 36 Carlos Miller // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:14 PM

  No, MillerTime is actually Oreilly, according to the IP address.

  65.3.64.25

  You’re right. Pathetic.

• 37 Dr. Dex, J.D. // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:04 PM

  Part of the problem in the debate here is that people have let themselves become accustomed to allowing a double standard of behavior for police and the public. From a legal perspective (disclaimer: Yes, I graduated from Law School. No, this is not legal advice,) the police ARE the public, unless and until they have ACTUAL and PROPER legal authority to do something.

  The problem is, the symbolic uniform doesn’t disappear when they overstep their lawful and legal authority. Like paper money, the uniform is merely a valueless symbol – again but like money, people become fooled into thinking the symbol – rather than the substance – is what is important.

  Assault, battery, and all the other crimes that police officers are so eager to point out the existence of when it applies to themselves, are just as easily committed by them against the public – when ever they touch, prod, poke, nudge, push, hit, trip, kick, stomp others.

  Grabbing someone and wrestling them to the ground while hitting them constitutes all the necessary elements of felony battery if police do it without announcing that the person is under arrest FIRST. Not during, not after, but first, before initiating contact. Any member of the public may do the same thing in a citizen’s arrest – the average citizen merely has no immunity from a tort false imprisonment suit if the reason for the arrest doesn’t stick.

  Historically, there has long been case-law supported legal justification for resisting an unlawful arrest by a police officer. It is only quite recently that the “cult-of holy-police-actions” has infected judges who have rendered decisions saying that one may not resist an arrest even if it is obviously unlawful.

  But that doesn’t justify tackling one, punching them 5 or 6 times, wrestling them to the ground, handcuffing them, and then smirking that they are under arrest. There’s an issue of notice. Though one is entitled to believe that one is arrested, legally, if one is confined or surrounded by police in such a way that one’s movements are restricted, one is not REQUIRED to come to that conclusion. This doesn’t negate the legal requirement that the person be put on notice that that they are being arrested, and given a chance at that point to cooperate with the process.

  Family pets – Parrots, cats, and dogs – have all been known to take over entire houses of people by essentially engaging in bullying behavior and having the people react to them by drawing back, avoiding, and not maintaining their rightful place. The police are quite skilled at bullying – however this does NOT mean that it is somehow justified when it is applied to people whom they have no rightful legal authority over.

  Nor does it mean that when citizens “fail to respect them” or “are suspicious of them” or ” photograph them when they don’t like it” that they are “justified” in doing anything. One wouldn’t claim that a bully was” justified” in battering someone because they failed to be cowed by his bullying.

  Further, fabrication of charges – though very easy for police to do – is profoundly immoral even when those charges are later dismissed. It is in no way like “charges dismissed – no harm, no foul”.

  The State is the ultimate 100-lb gorilla – or “enforcer” if you will. Maliciously setting the legal process in motion is akin to hiring a hit man to assassinate your life. No one would be terribly amused if you put out a contract on someone that failed merely because the hit man recognized that the target was innocent in spite of your fabricated evidence identifying someone as the proper target.

  Police who usurp authority to do the same thing under color of law are several times more profoundly immoral than that – simply because their actions are cloaked within the general presumption of legality and lawfulness. It is a fundamental betrayal of the entire justification for their existence (in a philosophical sense).

  Things that seize power, whether bullies, politicians, police, or nipping and biting parrots cannot be contained by “being courteous to them” or “respecting them” or obeying them. They can only be contained by letting them know that their actions will never be tolerated.

  As a lawyerly sort, I know that it is sad when the disreputable 80% of the profession gives the other 20% a bad name. And of course that isn’t the right percentage – even for lawyers. But the people who choose to work in these professions don’t get to whine that such perceptions are “unfair” – they’ve existed for generations, and there was plenty of notice of them going in. If they don’t like them, then they can damned well do something about them – if only be making sure that every single person whom they come into contact with has no chance to ever form such an opinion – and by rooting out those who bring ill-repute onto the profession.

• 38 Carlos Miller // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:24 PM

  Very well said, Dr. Dex,

  As someone who has been fighting the system for more than two years now, I can tell you firsthand that when dealing with cops, you are guilty until proven innocent.

  And even then, you are still considered guilty because you did not bow down to authority.

  Although my photographic evidence showed that I was not standing in the middle street and although the three cops who were deposed before my trial all contradicted themselves, the State Attorney insisted on moving forward with the trial.

  During my trial, it became evident that the judge and State Attorney were pissed off that I had decided to blog about my case.

  In the end, that is what it really boiled down to because they had no evidence otherwise.

  If you ever want to read about my case in detail, here are two years worth of blog posts.

  http://carlosmiller.com/tag/state-of-florida-vs-carlos-miller/

• 39 Carlos Miller // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:32 PM

  Matt,

  I believe the name of the theater was Movie Town or something to that effect.

• 40 Carlos Miller // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:34 PM

  Andrew,

  Will you be coming down to Miami? If so, let’s have a beer.

• 41 Digger // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:38 PM

  brava Tasha! Good luck, it’s obvious the cops have no case. The original arrest was totally bogus; it was false imprisonment and you probably have a civil rights case. And asking questions is not resisting arrest…especially when it was a false arrest.

• 42 Oreilly MillerTime // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:44 PM

  Oh Goly Carlos you got me! No wonder you are Editor-in-Chief of a one man news outlet . . .

• 43 Carlos Miller // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:45 PM

  Duane,

  Here is an excerpt from my appeal regarding the law in Florida and resisting arrest without violence.
  
  Resisting without violence is governed by Florida Statutes 843.02 and requires proof of resisting, obstructing, or opposing a law enforcement officer performing a “lawful execution of any legal duty”. Therefore, lawful arrest is an element that the State must prove in order to establish that the defendant resisted arrest without violence.

  So if they dropped her felony charge, there is other charge to base the resisting arrest charge.

  This is the same thing that happened to me yet they convicted me anyway as they do to many people.

  Most people don’t appeal it because it’s a huge hassle.

  But the law is very clear on this, which is why the State Attorney is having a difficult time responding to the appeal.

  Here is another excerpt from my appeal, which I will post in its entirety if the State Attorney ever decides to respond to it.

  This point is further emphasized in Florida Jur 2d, Criminal Law, §4124, which cites Sims v. State, 743 So. 2d 97 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1sst Dist. 1999) and Huntley v. State, 575 So. 2d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1991):
  “A person is not justified in using force to resist arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer, but nonviolent resistance to an unlawful arrest is no crime. In fact, a lawful arrest is an essential element of the offense of resisting arrest without violence.”

• 44 Carlos Miller // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:50 PM

  Marline,

  Your daughter is doing the right thing by going pubic with this.

  While there will always be critics, I’ve learned that most people are not tolerant of police abuse.

  And the only way to stop it is to make an issue about it every time it happens.

• 45 Carlos Miller // Mar 6, 2009 at 11:15 PM

  Here are some of the discussions on this incident from other sites.

  http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=419988

  http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/82m15/south_florida_model_jailed_overnight_for/

  http://blahmni.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/06/2512794-south-florida-model-jailed-for-videotaping-police-officers

  http://digg.com/odd_stuff/South_Florida_model_jailed_overnight_for_videotaping_police

  http://www.plime.com/l/98091/1/#q1

• 46 Not // Mar 6, 2009 at 11:19 PM

  She arrived with an attitude. Cops have a dangerous job, and people “in their face” can be a threat. Too bad they didn’t club her.

• 47 Andrew DeFilippis // Mar 7, 2009 at 12:12 AM

  She had every right to go there with a camera, camcorder, or voice recorder. She had the camera in their face which made it LEGAL. The officers knew they were on camera and they had no legal right to charge her with eavesdropping. Everyone was out in public.

  And not to mention if a news crew would have stopped by to film the incident, they would have been able to film just like Tasha was attempting to do.

• 48 Duane Kerzic // Mar 7, 2009 at 12:46 AM

  Carlos,

  Thanks for the lesson on the law in FL. We don’t have the resisting without violence in NJ. I think they charge obstruction of justice for that in NJ and the statue I quoted is about if you get physical with the police. There is no mention of an unlawful arrest not being a definitive defense in that case.

  Dr. Dex,

  Thanks for joining in with something so thoughtfully written. You put together many thoughts I’ve had over the last couple of months on these issues. Keep up the good work.

  Tasha,

  I know how difficult and emotional a time this can be. You did the right thing. Keep up the good work and I’m sure this will work out for you.

• 49 Chaz McCabe // Mar 7, 2009 at 1:11 AM

  Great, finally a hot chick behind the camera and there’s no video.

  Thanks,
  Chaz

• 50 Carlos Miller // Mar 7, 2009 at 1:13 AM

  Chaz,

  Give it a few days. We’ll get the video.

• 51 Todd Baker // Mar 7, 2009 at 1:40 AM

  This sounds fake. Why go to pick up your son who you are so concerned about that you feel the need to freaking bust out a camcorder and tape everything! Sounds like drama follows this woman around. No wonder the cops had an attitude the way she acted. And I read on another site this woman is 28 and that would make her 12 years old when she had her son!? Damn girl you should have been doing your homework not doing guys. This country is so sexually immoral. And she seems the type who is in denial when he child does something wrong, she automatically goes into rabid defensive mode instead of TALKING TO HER SON and finding out if he maybe he did try to sneak his friend and him into the theatre on one ticket. This woman seems like a DRAMA QUEEN and I feel sorry for any guy in a relationship with her! The police were doing their job and they should be commended.

• 52 Todd Baker // Mar 7, 2009 at 1:47 AM

  So now these cops are thugs?! No the thugs are the damn gang bangers and criminal scum who brutally victimize the people of Florida and who the cops stand against!

  MillerTime // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:57 PM

  When Carlos wins his appeal these thugs will learn their lesson.

• 53 douglas // Mar 7, 2009 at 2:28 AM

  ok even if she was over the top to walk up with the camera rolling; The police are supposed to be professional in how they conduct themselves, including knowing how to deal with this situation.
  This is not always true in the big cities
  I’m originally from Chicago, and the city cops there are total prima-donnas too. goes with the territory.
  On the other hand if you were picked up even doing over 100mph by the state patrol it was all “may I see your license and registration sir?” “do you know why I pulled you over tonight sir?”
  Not with the city cops, blew a red light in a sketchy neighborhood, trying to find my way home after dark in a new luxury sedan, and they yanked me out,handcuffed me behind the trunk, and search the car for 20 minutes looking for drugs. I’m a professional person wearing business attire, over 35. They do it because they can, and there is not a damm thing you can do, except film it.
  She should have left the camera rolling from the house window, walked calmly and said, First of gentlemen you are being filmed, now what seems to be the issue with my son?

• 54 Marline // Mar 7, 2009 at 7:10 AM

  Tasha keeps her camera in her car/purse. Always has, always will.

  Next, you were not there when the officers called her and told her to come, we have your child in handcuffs. Is that a professional phone call? Also, when they called me, their grandmother I was told/asked. Can you come and pick up your grandchildren. I said I sure can. I’m thinking that’s the end of the conversation. Why did the officer have to tell me … over the phone, oh and don’t come here being confrontational? Is that a professional phone call?

  And as I said earlier, Tasha keeps her camera with her at ALL times.

• 55 Jason // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:17 AM

  Todd and Not-Perhaps you would care to leave my country, and dwell some place where the Constitution and first paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence do not exist?!

• 56 Jason // Mar 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM

  Doug- You bring up an interesting idea. It is that most people dont realize you are perfectly free to refuse a trunk search unless they find “something” in the cabin of the vehicle upon approach, to give them cause. If you dont give YOUR authority to search it, and they proceed anyway, contest it in court, get a badge number, and sue like hell! Unfortunately some cops dont get it that the Bush regime has been overthrown.

• 57 jones // Mar 7, 2009 at 2:48 PM

  Genewitch, if the police pull you over and ask you to get out of the car they won’t arrest you for whatever reason, they will arrest you for interfering, they have the right to order occupants out of a car.

  You believe if all charges are dropped, the resisting arrest and other related charges SHOULD ALWAYS BE DROPPED.

  What a ridiculous thing to say. If your husband beats you up and you call the police and they arrest him and then the next day you realize how much you love him and that he will never do it again and you drop the charges you think the fact that he resisted arrest should also be dropped?

  Just because charges are later dropped doesn’t mean the arrest was unlawful.

• 58 Robert // Mar 7, 2009 at 3:59 PM

  Jones, if the arrest was made for a charge that clearly is innaccurate, then yes, the arrest was unlawful, and the resisting arrest charge should be dropped as well.

  To arrest the woman for a felony which was specifically meant for an activity different from the one she was engaging in, and to quantify resisting as “asking too many questions” is indeed wrong.

  How do I make that judgement? Let me refer you to Miranda. Part of becoming involved in the process of the criminal justice system means you have the right to be informed of what is happening to you and why. In this instance, the mother is acting as the guardian of her minor child, and is entitled to ask questions.

• 59 Duane Kerzic // Mar 7, 2009 at 4:01 PM

  You believe if all charges are dropped, the resisting arrest and other related charges SHOULD ALWAYS BE DROPPED.

  I believe in all these situations where the police are pulling charges out of the air not only should all charges be dropped but the police officers involved should face some kind of penalty. At least two days off without pay and some kind of permanent mark on their records, and that this mark is open to the public and can be used in any subsequent trials the officer is involved in. That would put an end to this crap for good.

  Resisting without violence, what kind of charge is that anyway. It’s a perfect charge for the police to abuse that’s what it is. Oh, the arrestee called me a pig, the arrestee didn’t respect my uniform, the arrestee said my mother was a fat slob and hurt my feelings. Give me a break and get real.

  Some one fights with a cop and the cop has some bruises or other injuries that are consistent with what was claimed that’s a different story. This stuff is just BS by the police trying to control everything. You’re doing something they don’t like but isn’t against any laws so they feel the need to find or make something to arrest you for. To show you who is the one in control.

  You want to stop most of the crime in the USA, you want to shut down almost all the gangs in the USA? Legalize drugs. They tried the war on Alcohol and it didn’t work, just like the war on drugs isn’t working. Drug adiction isn’t a crime, just like alcoholizm isn’t. It’s a sickness.

  I’m not saying that selling the drugs doesn’t cause crime, it does. If the state took over that job and taxed the drugs we’d be much better off. So would Mexico and all the states that produce the raw materials because the crimes that go along with illegal drugs would go away.

• 60 jones // Mar 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM

  She said ALL the time the charges are dropped the resisting charge should be dropped. I gave one example of why that statement is absurd.

  What is resisting without violence? Officer says your under arrest put your hands behind your back, you say no and don’t do it, that is an example of resisting arrest without violence.

  Drug and alcohol addiction is a sickness? I think it’s a weakness. Try calling in sick to work because you had too much to drink or because your busy smoking crack and see how long you have a job.

• 61 Carlos Miller // Mar 7, 2009 at 5:38 PM

  Jones,

  When I was arrested, shortly after the header photo was taken, the cops swarmed me, tackled me and bashed my head to the ground.

  All they had to do was order me to place my hands behind my back.

  I never resisted them. I had two very expensive cameras on me with two very expensive lenses.

  The last thing I wanted to do is have a physical altercation or struggle with five Miami cops because I am very protective of my camera gear.

  So as they tackled me and bashed my head into the sidewalk and twisted my right hand back – after I was already handcuffed – I was verbally protesting.

  I was telling them that they didn’t have to do it this way. All they had to was just handcuff me.

  And I remember one cop yelling out, “he’s resisting” and another cop yelling out “if you don’t shut up, we’re going to tase you.”

  But verbally protesting is freedom of speech, not resisting arrest.

• 62 jones // Mar 7, 2009 at 6:54 PM

  Carlos, I wasn’t referring to your case, I just gave a random example because he asked what resisting without violence was.

• 63 Carlos Miller // Mar 7, 2009 at 7:14 PM

  Jones,

  I just think in most cases, possibly excluding the scenario you brought up with domestic abuse, if they drop all the other charges, there logically is no reason to not drop the resisting arrest charge without violence charge.

  Keep in mind that in Florida there is also resisting with violence, and the law does not allow that under any circumstances, and it shouldn’t.

  But Florida law, as I pointed out above, permits resisting arrest without violence if the arrest is not lawful.

  And Texas law does as well, if I remember correctly from the research I did when preparing my appeal.

  The other thing is, when I covered cops in Arizona and California and New Mexico, and a wife decided to not file charges against her husband, even though there is clear evidence he did beat her, they would go ahead and file the charges anyway.

• 64 Carlos Miller // Mar 7, 2009 at 7:16 PM

  Marline,

  I also never leave home without a camera. If it’s not my Canon 5D, it’s my compact Canon TX1.

  And I recommend everybody get into this habit.

• 65 genewitch // Mar 8, 2009 at 5:41 AM

  Jones: i misspoke (and i’m a guy, for the record);

  you’re right, not all situations warrant dropping the resisting arrest charges.

  I was referring specifically to situations where the charges OTHER than resisting arrest were total crap (as in the example i gave, carlos’s own case, and this article’s subject’s situation.)

  Just remember the mantra when you are confronted by police:
  “am i being detained? Am i free to go?” if at any point they tell you that you are being detained or are not free to go, immediately request legal counsel and refuse to say anything else.

  there’s a pretty awesome (if not long) example of this on youtube at a border patrol stop.

• 66 george // Mar 8, 2009 at 9:50 AM

  The Lack on Tax revenue should put the POLICE in their place The Police work for the Tax Payers and the Tax Payers can’t pay for the Police anymore. Because the Police let the Real Criminals ruin our Economy.

• 67 jones // Mar 8, 2009 at 2:54 PM

  Gene, your not free to go on a traffic stop, are you suggesting requesting counsel and refusing to talk at a traffic stop?

• 68 Duane Kerzic // Mar 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM

  How much to talk at a traffic stop. That’s always a tough one. It depends on the first impression the officer makes. If he seems like a nice guy I’ll talk to him. If you can tell he’s an asshole the moment he gets outta his car I tend to not talk at all. Sometimes you can tell the cop is an asshole before he even gets outta the car because the attatude is so large. You are only going to say something that’s going to piss him off and I don’t wanna give him anything to make me stand out.

  My lawer told me never speak to the police ever about anything. It can only get you in to trouble that you aren’t in.

• 69 jones // Mar 8, 2009 at 3:42 PM

  Not speaking can get you in trouble sometimes to

• 70 genewitch // Mar 8, 2009 at 5:53 PM

  jones: yes, you say that at a traffic stop. until you either get the “go ahead and leave’ or “here’s you’re ticket”

  “am i free to go?” if he says no “i refuse to answer questions without counsel present”

  ESPECIALLY if you’re asked to get out of the car. you are under no legal or moral obligation to speak to a peace officer or any other officer.

  A border patrol stop is a “traffic stop” – unless there’s some other definition that you would like to use? or are you just being contrary?

• 71 jones // Mar 8, 2009 at 5:59 PM

  I’m not saying you have to say anything, I’m just saying by refusing to talk your not doing yourself any favors, especially at a simple traffic stop where your chance of getting a ticket would go from say 50/50 to 100%

• 72 jones // Mar 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM

  Gene, if your suggesting crossing the border and refusing to answer questions your asking for a lot of trouble.

• 73 genewitch // Mar 8, 2009 at 8:03 PM

  Jones: there are “border patrols” that are part of homeland security that aren’t on the mexican or canadian borders.

  I wouldn’t expect you to concede that you’re wrong, as you’re an argumentative sort.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYQB8PEzqSI&fmt=18

  there’s proof. Now stop speaking nonsense. There’s many MANY videos of various people saying and doing the same thing.

  hint: there are “border patrol” agents posted on the oregon california border. that’s not “immigration”

• 74 Carlos Miller // Mar 8, 2009 at 8:07 PM

  When I lived in New Mexico, I would regularly have to go through a Border Patrol stop on the way from Las Cruces to Deming on Interstate 10.

  Also, I’ve been stopped by Border Patrol when driving from Columbus, which is a border town, back to Deming, where I was living at the time.

• 75 Carlos Miller // Mar 8, 2009 at 8:07 PM

  Actually, the Border Patrol doesn’t really work the Port of Entries. That is U.S. Customs.

• 76 genewitch // Mar 8, 2009 at 8:07 PM

  Furthermore, to answer #71:

  there are several legal advice videos and websites where they conclude by saying that refusing to answer questsions and asking if you’re free to go can stop officers (for instance – ) from doing searches on you and your vehicle, even if they ask you to get out of your car.

  Perhaps you need to review what the scope of power of a peace officer is? They’re around to ensure that laws are not being broken – NOT to harass and detain citizens that happen to be taking their picture. Regardless of the circumstances, taking a peace officer’s picture in public regardless of their prior knowledge is not illegal in this country.

  If it’s not illegal, then any charges brought upon a person such as carlos or the woman of the OP need to be dropped as both the arrest and detainment of them was unlawful. unlawful arrest = no “illegal” resisting arrest charge. (in the ‘non-violent category.)

• 77 genewitch // Mar 8, 2009 at 8:09 PM

  Carlos: i was using border patrol as a broad term. Change “border patrol agent” to “agent in an official capacity of law enforcement” and it applies to police, FBI, CIA, customs, NTSB, FAA, FCC, secret service, fire marshals, etc.

• 78 Carlos Miller // Mar 8, 2009 at 8:33 PM

  My point was to confirm that you don’t have to be crossing the border to be stopped by Border Patrol.

• 79 Duane Kerzic // Mar 8, 2009 at 8:46 PM

  Carlos,

  It’s Customs and Border Patrol now. So they are the same folks. A huge waste of money for the most part. For the most part they ask a bunch of silly questions the answer to which is obvious most of the time so way bother asking. I’ve gone through a bunch of check points in Texas like the ones you went through in southern CA and AZ. Yes the CBP agents are all over the place. You don’t have to be crossing a border to find one. Colbert has done some funny Nailed ‘Em segments on the northern boarder. One woman for subversive knitting, the other for LSD research 20 years ago.

  We need to make an easy way for Mexicans to come into this country legally, that combined with legalizing drugs would make just about all of the crime at the border go away in both the USA and Mexico.

  No illegal drug trade means no illegal drug trade profits. No profits, no gangs trying to keep control of the illegal drug trade profits.

  Easy ways to enter the USA means no people smuggling. No people smuggling means no people smuggling profits. That means almost no crime having to do with people smuggling.

  You want to find the real crimes for the most part all you have to do is follow the money. You take the ability to make money out most of the crime goes away. You can see this in the alcohol trade. There is almost no crime associated with the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol today. This wasn’t the case in the days of Al Capone when this was an illegal activity.

• 80 jones // Mar 8, 2009 at 8:56 PM

  Gene, I watched your video, try doing that when the police pull you over and the result will be a little different. If you don’t want to talk or identify yourself to the police when they stop you that is your right but your going to be arrested.

• 81 Duane Kerzic // Mar 8, 2009 at 9:13 PM

  Jones,

  I know I have to identify myself. In NJ I’m required to produce my Drivers License, Registration and Insurance Card. Just what is the crime for not talking?

• 82 jones // Mar 8, 2009 at 9:34 PM

  There is no crime, I never said there was a crime, all I said was by not talking your not necessarily doing yourself a favor. If your lawyer told you never to talk to the police that is bad advice.

• 83 Carlos Miller // Mar 8, 2009 at 10:24 PM

  If your lawyer told you never to talk to the police that is bad advice.

  What if a former cop tells you not to talk to police?

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSvxiaO-TG8

• 84 jones // Mar 8, 2009 at 10:49 PM

  I’ll agree that if your guilty of what they are accusing you of you shouldn’t talk to the police, but to say never talk to the police is stupid.

  Husband and wife are arguing, wife slaps husband and then calls police. Police show up, wife puts on good act and claims husband slapped her. Cops ask husband what happened and husband says I want to talk to an attorney. Who do you think is going to get arrested?

• 85 Duane Kerzic // Mar 8, 2009 at 11:09 PM

  Jones,

  Husband and wife are arguing, wife slaps husband and then calls police. Police show up, wife puts on good act and claims husband slapped her.

  Now that happened to me. I was stupid enough to talk to the cops, what a mistake. Guess who got arrested? Then everything I said got taken out of context to try to prove I hit her because she had a bruise on here arm where she hit it on the door way she was standing in when she slapped me.

  That’s the first time my lawyer told me to never ever talk to the police without a lawyer present. He said what’s going to be remember is that which supports what the cops want to use to support the crime you’re accused of. The rest of it is going to be forgotten or taken out of context. All one has to do is watch any of the reality detective shows to know that’s often what happens. Also since you are accused most juries and some judges are biased against believing what you say if you are contradicting what the officers notes say.

  It took more work to get those charges tossed out then it should have because I was stupid enough to talk to the police and believed they were after the truth. They were after only one thing, to convict a guy of domestic violence.

  That’s been my point all along. The cops are out looking to make arrests, not to find the truth. Not to bring peace but to find reasons and ways to arrest people for something.

• 86 jones // Mar 8, 2009 at 11:53 PM

  On that night do you think not talking to them would have kept you from getting arrested?

  What did you tell them that they took out of context? If you told them that she slapped you and in the process of slapping you she bruised her arm on the doorway how can that be taken out of context? I’m sure there is a lot more to that story then your telling us.

• 87 Duane Kerzic // Mar 9, 2009 at 12:13 AM

  I’m sure there is a lot more to that story then your telling us.

  That’s exactly the point. Even when there isn’t anymore to the story some cops always think there is more. There has to be more, it can’t be that simple. I was just a guy trying to justify hitting someone is how the one cop took what I was saying.

  Of course I still would have been arrested even if I didn’t talk to him. That’s the point, I knew he had his mind made up to arrest me, what I didn’t know what that nothing I said was going to help me. When you already know what’s going to happen why compound it by saying anything. Best thing is to keep your mouth shut. Anything that requires more then your name you don’t say. Well maybe a simple yes or no depending on the question.

  I know when to talk to cops also. I like to go fast. So I get pulled over for speeding from time to time. Most of the time I don’t get a ticket if the cop is a nice guy. I can generally tell what’s going to happen before the cop even opens his mouth. All you have to do is read the body language and you can tell if you have a resonable officer or a hard ass in less then 5 seconds.

  A reasonable guy you talk to. A hardass you are respectful to. Maybe you try a stroke or two to see if you can get through the shell. Other then that you keep quiet and just talk to the prosecuter on court day.

• 88 Luke Schultz // Mar 9, 2009 at 1:45 AM

  Carlos,
  Many kudows to you for standing up for you and all of our rights. It is awesome that you are not backing down or taking some kind of plea deal. I think that all the people that just take a deal are part of the problem that makes these things happen over and over. We have to make a stand and fight for truth and justice. You are a hero.

  As for Duane I have been following your case with interest. But instead of you also being a hero you took the easy way out. If your gonna start out being open and public about your case then to just stop and replace everything with “No Comment” is just wrong. You should have made a stand when they demanded you remain silent about this as part of the deal and instead said “Free speech is my right and the public has a right to know what the government is doing about this irresponsible act that the police affected on you.”

  The worst part about your whole incident is that you went on the Colbert Report. Way to totally mess that up and make you look like a total nut. So the greater public now just thinks that the police arrested a nut and you must have been wrong.

  I think your 5 minutes of fame are long past up.
  And since your stance on the whole thing now is no comment then maybe you should stop commenting on the internet in general.

• 89 John // Mar 9, 2009 at 9:10 AM

  Dr. Dex,

  I agree with everything you said. Very well put.

  Hope you continue to post here. You have much insight to give.

• 90 Mike // Mar 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM

  I tape all important events. I tape when I go to the vet, go my lawyer, to my doctor, to get a loan, and if I knew I was going to be dealing with police, I would tape that. I don’t do it out of mistrust, I do it because it’s very useful. Instead of just whatever notes I remember to take, I can review the actual meeting. I expected my doctor to kick up a fuss, but he thought it was a good idea.

  It’s almost 2010, folks. If you wanted to get creeped out about cameras everywhere, you should have done it thirty years ago. Too late now!!

• 91 genewitch // Mar 9, 2009 at 4:19 PM

  jones: Police stop?
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk

  it was linked on BOTH videos, ironically.

  I know you’re going to say that this doesn’t prove or disprove anything. But this isn’t for you. this is for people who might have an open mind about interacting with police.

• 92 Scott Bourne // Mar 9, 2009 at 5:27 PM

  Well I just crossed Boynton Beach off my list of places to buy a second home.

  My general rule still applies. Sue everyone involved. That’s the only way these punks learn that carrying a gun and a badge doesn’t make you God. And always, always, always assume that you’re in far more danger when dealing with cops than you might be in dealing with crooks. The crooks fear consequences (sometimes) of being locked up. The cops think they are Gods without any fear of consequences and that makes them more dangerous. I hope the woman sues. Win, lose or draw, a lawsuit that at least inconveniences the cops will “teach them a lesson” in the words of the judge. Photography is not a crime!

• 93 jones // Mar 9, 2009 at 6:06 PM

  Gene, that video is so REALISTIC. That driver was so witty the cop NEVER would have found that marijuana.

  In case you didn’t know the smell of marijuana is enough to search the car.

  Your right it doesn’t prove or disprove anything, it was a skit for crying out loud.

• 94 jones // Mar 9, 2009 at 7:02 PM

  Gene, I watched some more of those videos and found them really amusing and not just because of the lousy acting.

• 95 Duane Kerzic // Mar 9, 2009 at 7:43 PM

  Luke,

  I’m really sorry to hear you feel that way. But I have no way to tell your experience in these kinds of matters.

  Talking purely philosophically about nothing in particular.

  Like picking an f/stop, shutter speed and ISO setting for a photo there are many answers that provide an useable exposure. If all we did was change these settings all day long and calculate the resultant exposure we would never take any photos. At some point we have to accept our settings, commit to pushing the shutter button and making the photo if we are going to have any photos to show for our time and work.

  In other words we have to accept a compromise. If we seek perfection will will never attain anything.

  Life is very much like this. At some point it’s time to stop trying to make adjustments and just accept. It’s time to move on and do something else with our time and energies. To hope that we have left things better for those that come after us.

• 96 genewitch // Mar 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM

  Jones: you win. or, rather, there’s no winning with you.

  that video was about 10% of a full “video produced by law enforcement and lawyers for the public”

  Yes, they’re skits. because, in case you’re new here, cops generally confiscate and try to erase footage of themselves breaking the law.

  Or hadn’t you noticed that the entire point of this site is the discussion of those events? That would be the reason that there’s so few films about what i’ve been saying. I did link 1 real one. and you said “that won’t work for police.”

  you have an answer for everything except the original post, and your comments about that were contrary as well. Why bother posting on a website where you obviously disagree with the content and contributors?

• 97 jones // Mar 9, 2009 at 9:26 PM

  So now a cop is breaking the law when he searches a car. What was the point of that stupid video you posted anyways. I watched it and all it shows is how to try to get away with illegal drugs. You want to say cops are crooked and are wrong for what they do and your proof of this is a video about a bunch of kids trying to hide drugs from the police. Maybe you don’t mind people driving around getting high but I do.

  Your problem isn’t with the police who break the rules your problem is with all police. It is possible for cops to search and arrest people without violating their rights.

  The link you posted won’t work for the police that’s why I said it. I guarantee if you get pulled over and you do what they did in the video you will get arrested, are you saying you won’t?

  What was contrary about my comments on the original post?

• 98 genewitch // Mar 9, 2009 at 10:18 PM

  Jones: the weed was in a backpack in the trunk. they weren’t driving around getting high. regardless of that, why would i want the police to search my car at all? it’s called illegal search and seizure. but grab at anything you can, man.

  If the police have probable cause to search my car, they can ask my consent, i can decline, then they have to have a sergeant drive all the way to the scene, and confirm that there is probable cause…

  Now why do you think that is? They need a higher ranking officer to confirm their original suspicion before they’re allowed to trample your rights as a US citizen.

  Oh sure, they’ll threaten you with towing your car and arresting you for failing to comply with a lawful order, but they won’t follow through. If they really think you have heroin in the car or something you bet your ass the sergeant will think so to. Nonetheless, it’s fun to deny consent. Exercising rights is FUNDAMENTAL!

  They wasted my time by pulling me over (i have a completely clean driving record) – now i am gunna waste theirs for profiling me.

• 99 jones // Mar 9, 2009 at 10:39 PM

  Call a sergeant to confirm probable cause, are you for real? That would be funny if you really didn’t believe that but the sad thing is I think you do. Do you really think a sergeant is going to come to the scene of a traffic stop to verify probable cause, for that matter do you really believe a patrol officer would even make the request? If they have probable cause to search your car they will, if you try to stop them you will be arrested, you wouldn’t be the first.

  Maybe there are departments that would require an officer to call a supervisor if requested but that would be a matter of policy (poor policy) but not law.

  You think you are wasting their time. They are getting paid, they don’t care how long they stand around with you. If they stand there long enough they might end up with some overtime out of it.

  You can deny consent all you want but I hope you realize they don’t always need consent.

• 100 genewitch // Mar 9, 2009 at 11:38 PM

  jones: you just like naysaying so i’ll spell it out for you.

  “The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures,”14 and an investigative traffic stop is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.15 The United States Supreme Court has expressed a preference that police conduct searches and seizures pursuant to a warrant.”

  “A police officer cannot stop an individual for investigative purposes solely on the basis of an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch.’”24 The Fourth Amendment requires some “minimal level of objective justification” for making the stop.”

  and:
  “If a person remain free to disregard questioning by the government, there has been no intrusion upon the person’s liberty or privacy under the Fourth Amendment — there has been no seizure”

  that’s why you ask “am i free to leave?” and “am i being detained?”

  want more? of course you do!
  “Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”

  “Held: When police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and so may challenge the stop’s constitutionality. Pp. 4–13.” – http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-8120.ZS.html

  interesting, that tidbit. you have rights as a citizen to question the police… WHO KNEW?

  and while i don’t feel like doing any more trivial searches on google for state laws and penal codes: the general consensus is “without probable cause the officer must ask for consent to search during a 4th amendment seizure (which a traffic stop is) – if the driver or owner do not consent, a warrant must be obtained.”

  Now, the whole “sergeant” thing i mentioned earlier has to do with “arresting driver and towing car” – at least in some places in california around LA county for CERTAIN – a sergeant must be present for the arrest and/or confiscation of a vehicle to someplace where it can be inventoried.

  this isn’t really an argument. you’re making stuff up, and i’m actually finding relevant things to refute you. naysaying is not a proper debate technique in society. only presidential candidates are allowed to do it and look good.

• 101 jones // Mar 10, 2009 at 12:36 AM

  Did I ever say the police can just stop and search cars randomly? Do you know how to read?

  First you say, If the police have probable cause to search my car, they can ask my consent, i can decline, then they have to have a sergeant drive all the way to the scene, and confirm that there is probable cause…

  Then you say, the whole “sergeant” thing i mentioned earlier has to do with “arresting driver and towing car” – at least in some places in california around LA county for CERTAIN – a sergeant must be present for the arrest and/or confiscation of a vehicle to someplace where it can be inventoried.

  WOW, talk about backtracking. So just which one is true, the first one or the second one because they are completely different, and you say I’m making stuff up.

  I don’t recall ever saying you can’t question the police, I guess you just made that up.

  Just what stuff am I making up, please tell me one thing I said that I made up. Failure to do so will be probable cause that you don’t know what the hell your talking about.

• 102 genewitch // Mar 10, 2009 at 2:21 AM

  jones: other than saying you’re a master of the strawman and red herring; i’m done here.

• 103 John // Mar 10, 2009 at 11:42 AM

  genewitch,

  “A police officer cannot stop an individual for investigative purposes solely on the basis of an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch.’”24 The Fourth Amendment requires some “minimal level of objective justification” for making the stop.”

  Really.

  How do you explain the random stops that police do during holidays looking for drunk drivers? Are you saying that this very time honored practice is illegal? How do you explain the numerous DUI convicions that have come from these stops? Seems like they would all be overthrown if they were illegal.

• 104 Joel Lawson // Mar 10, 2009 at 5:50 PM

  John: Eleven states have outlawed random sobriety checkpoints, because they violate those states’ constitutions. The U.S. Supreme Court did hold that, if conducted in a certain way, checkpoints were permissible. In making that ruling, the Court balanced the greater societal good/protections, v. the constitutional protections.

  That having been said, I have no idea why you’ve entered the analogy of sobriety checkpoints into a discussion re: the rights to photograph. The balance test is nowhere near the same, so it’s a false analogy really.

• 105 Robert // Mar 11, 2009 at 2:24 AM

  John, don’t be a dunce.

  Those are not “hunch” based stops.

  Those are stops supposed to be done on the basis of driving that bears marks of being drunk. General erraticness, weaving, overcompensation of steering drift, random use of signals, use of signals to follow bends in the road, stopping improperly at stop signs and backing up to name a few.

  I explain those numerous DUI convictions because when you spot someone driving like they’re drunk, they’re probably drunk.

  Sobriety checkpoints are highly regulated because of the constitutional concerns, and frankly hard to miss; a lot of the people detained and tested don’t actually make it into the checkpoint, they’re the people doing frantic U-turns and turning around in plain sight of the assembled police.

  I’ve never been “detained” by being in line at one of these any longer than three minutes. I spend about thirty seconds exchanging pleasantries with an officer that go like this:
  Officer: “How are you doing tonight?”
  Me: “I’m fine, heading home from dinner. How are you doing?”
  Officer: “I’m fine, drive safe.”

  And then I’m waived along.
  I’ve even had an officer give me a kind reminder that one of the stickers my state requires for a vehicle to be legal was going to expire in two days. Thanks to his thoughtfulness, I got my new sticker in time to avoid any potential mishaps in the form of a fine.

• 106 John // Mar 11, 2009 at 3:41 PM

  Joel Lawson,

  Genewitch made an phoney-baloney assertion that the police couldn’t stop anyone “for investigative purposes based solely on a hunch” and I provided the brilliant analogy of the sobriety checkpoint. Yea for me.

  If you think those checkpoints are entirely random you are kidding yourself. Police follow their hunches because they are humans, not robots and they produce results. Many a life has been saved by that policemans hunch and I am glad for them.

  Robert, don’t be a douche.

  If cars are lined up three or four cars deep (as they usually are at these things) you are stopped until you coast to the next stopping point ten feet ahead of you. The cop cannot gauge your driving in a ten foot increment. Instead, he will wait until you lower the window to speak with him and smell for alcohol on your breath. if he smells it you become his “hunch”.

• 107 Kurt // Mar 11, 2009 at 5:07 PM

  Here in Alabama it is legal to resist an unlawful arrest (even with violence). I disagree with you, Carlos, that it should be illegal. So does the court in Alabama:

  Brown v. State:

  “It is not the duty of the citizen to submit to any other than a lawful arrest… It is not intended that he yield his person and liberty to the dominion of even a known public officer… No man would be safe from invasions of his personal liberty, and unlawful arrests would be made effectual…”

  Needless to say, I’m not aware of many unlawful arrests in Alabama.

  I can’t find any cases concerning photography, but ‘James Harrell Morris v. State’ throws out a resisting arrest charge for a man that was carrying an unconcealed firearm legally:

  “It is immaterial that the defendant did or did not have a pistol permit. He had the right to carry the pistol unconcealed at the time and place of arrest. Defendant was under no duty to submit to any other than a lawful arrest.”

  If it applies to handguns, I’m sure it applies to cameras!

• 108 Robert // Mar 11, 2009 at 5:20 PM

  John, my warning came too late. Not only are you a dunce, but you are either oblivious or deliberately dense for the sake of confrontation as well.

  There is a difference between being pulled over because of how you’re driving, which seems like a “random stop” to you, and a Sobriety Checkpoint.

  I specifically outlined the differences in my post. If you geneuinely need it spelled out, I can take the time to do so for you. Because it seems that you were quite confused by what I had to say, and I like to be understood; that is after all, the point to speaking (or typing) eloquently.

• 109 John // Mar 12, 2009 at 2:04 PM

  Robert,

  I didn’t provide the example of getting pulled over because of how you’re driving “which seems like a random stop to you”… YOU did. I referenced only the checkpoints.

  Checkpoints are clearly for investigative purposes only – thereby defeating the argument that they are not. Yea for me.

  Please don’t soil my clear, logical argument with your muddled, clouded thinking and then blame me for the resulting confusion.

• 110 omar // Mar 16, 2009 at 10:58 AM

  John,

  Show respect for the cops, show respect for the cops show respect for the cops.

  No sir, I didn’t volunteer to become a citizen. The police volunteered to become cops. They owe my rights respect, not the other way around. Cops are known as “public servants” and you demand that we serve them. No thanks!

  The rule says “you can use a camera and videotape the police”. The police do not have ANY discression here if they want to stay legal. That woman did everything right and those police did everything wrong. She doesn’t owe the police respect just to stay out of trouble any more than she does because they are wearing clown suits.

• 111 ceanf // Mar 16, 2009 at 11:28 AM

  man i hate pigs. i hate them more everyday because of stories like this. these pigs were on a compliance power trip. just because a pig doesn’t like the way you are speaking to them does not give them the right to arrest you. the tossing of the first charge was obvious. the second stuck because they needed some reason for actually arresting her so they at least have some footing when the civil rights law suit hits. of course that ridiculous charge will be tossed as well. running your mouth is not resisting arrest. the pigs and the pig supporting judge should be ashamed. it is obvious none of them deserve to be in the positions of power they currently hold.

• 112 SR // Mar 16, 2009 at 11:32 AM

  Just donated to your fund (sorry it couldn’t be more, I’m just a poor student). Keep fighting the good fight. Without people like you to keep the public servants honest, tyranny will arise.

• 113 John // Mar 16, 2009 at 2:27 PM

  Omar,

  I can already tell that you are one of those tedious little fuckers who demands that the world serve you. Mama’s little boy. Tell me, did she cut the crusts off the bread for you? Pussy.

  “I didn’t volunteer to become a citizen. The police volunteered to become cops. They owe my rights respect, not the other way around.”

  Here is where your retarded analogy doesn’t hold: You are a citizen of the city and state where you live. You have obligations, as a citizen, whether you like them or not. Things like taxes, code ordinance, and obeying laws are not optional.

  You MUST be from Miami. What a typical Miami attitude. “I can be as big a dick as I wanna be and you can’t do anything about it… it’s not illegal to be an asshole.” Actually it is.

  People who treat law enforcement like crap have that same level of respect for the laws those people enforce – ZERO. If you have no respect for those laws, you have no respect for my or any other citizen’s rights those laws uphold.

  Only YOUR rights, what OMAR wants… screw the rest of us.

  You are the mental compilation of every rude fucker I’ve ever lived next to who blasts the stereo at 4AM, dumps their kitty litter on the lawn, and drops their junk mail on the mail room floor. What a narcissistic douchebag.

• 114 Joel Lawson // Mar 16, 2009 at 3:12 PM

  Hey John: Six full days since I asked for the specific analogy of sobriety checkpoints in a discussion re: the rights to photograph, esp. re: the incident reported in the original post.

  Well, now you’ve tossed in taxes, building codes, stereos at 4AM, kitty litter on neighbors’ lawns, and junk mail on the mail room floor.

  How could you forget to mention undersized cotton candy servings at the county fair?

  Anyway, if you want to discuss the case reported, let us know when you’re back from the circus.

• 115 jones // Mar 16, 2009 at 7:10 PM

  Joel,

  Here is what you originally said.

  That having been said, I have no idea why you’ve entered the analogy of sobriety checkpoints into a discussion re: the rights to photograph. The balance test is nowhere near the same, so it’s a false analogy really.

  I don’t see a question in there and I don’t see a question mark. So how can you say “it’s been six full days since I asked for the specific analogy of sobriety checkpoints in a discussion re: the rights to photograph, esp. re: the incident reported in the original post.”

  You never asked a question, you made a statement. How can he answer a question you didn’t ask? Why would you lie about asking him a question when you didn’t.

• 116 JoyLeaf // Mar 16, 2009 at 8:46 PM

  Hey John, as a public citizen who goes nowhere with out a digital recorder and camara and who odes not trust the cops as far as can spit them, Who knows they have the “right to lie” to me and often make up the law as they go, My response it is straight out of the police handbook,”If you are not doing anything wrong then what is your problem?” P.S, I live next to a cop, have cops in the family, and aside from a couple of traffic tickets have had no trouble with the law. Living with or near a cop tends to erode respect for them.

• 117 Joel Lawson // Mar 16, 2009 at 10:25 PM

  If “I have no idea why…” doesn’t leave a question on the table, if it does not literally question the introduction of thought or information, then you sure do need things spelled out a bit much.

• 118 John // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:40 AM

  Joel Lawson,

  Here is the Dick and Jane review of the conversation so that you will be able to follow along.

  The conversation progressed (as they naturally do) from the original topic of first ammendment rights to the topic of fourth ammendment rights – freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

  My example of the random drinking checkpoint was evidence that fourth ammendment right, like all rights, has certain constraints placed upon it for the public good.

  All the disperate things you mentioned were used to clearly lay out the following:

  * People who disrespect law enforcement disrespect the laws they enforce.
  * Ergo they disrespect the rights of the people those laws protect.
  * Ergo they disrespect me.
  * Ergo you’re a shmuck.

  I can’t address cotton candy servings at the county fair and would need to call your mom as an expert witness. All that time in the bearded lady exhibit surely qualifies her. At least you used an actual question mark to denote a question this time. I’m sure she would be proud of your progress.

• 119 John // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM

  JoyLeaf,

  “Living with or near a cop tends to erode respect for them.”

  Living with or near ANYONE tends to erode respect for them. Familiarity breeds contempt but SOMEBODY has to do the job of law enforcement. Until we bring the Robocop idea to fruition we are stuck with fallable people.

  As for the “right to lie”, cops have no such right. Crooked cops give you the excuse you need to paint the good ones with the same brush. Good cops want them gone as much as you do.

• 120 jones // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:27 AM

  Cops can lie to suspects

• 121 John // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:38 AM

  Undercover work, investigations… sure… they have to in order to get to the truth.

• 122 Carlos Miller // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:42 AM

  Jones,

  Apparently they think they can lie to their superiors and to the judges as well.

• 123 Joel // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:14 AM

  So John’s bottom line appears to be that we should be respectful in our dealings with people who question us about our photography.

  But he can’t handle behaving the same way on a blog.

  Have fun in the sandbox.

• 124 John // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:10 PM

  Joel,

  I never should have mentioned your bearded lady mom. I’m sure that fact is painful and it is something you had no control over. Don’t blame yourself. I’m sorry I mentioned it.

• 125 John // Mar 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM

  Checkpoints.

  http://www.newsok.com/sobriety-checkpoint-tonight-in-oklahoma-city-area/article/3354104?custom_click=headlines_widget

• 126 Kristopher // Mar 17, 2009 at 5:52 PM

  Congrats, John. You have gone all the way to nothing but insults. I just started reading this post today … and you have made it clear that your opinions are of no value to me.

  If your purpose was to persuade people towards your viewpoint you have failed.

  If your purpose was to anger people, and give them even more reasons to limit the power of police officers, you have succeeded.

• 127 Joel // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:29 PM

  Hey John: Your advocacy for respectful behavior is really potent.

  If you were in uniform, acting this way, you’ve very strongly made your point re: our obligations to respond with equal respect.

• 128 jones // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:37 PM

  John, nice post on the checkpoint, we need more departments to start doing those.

• 129 Carlos Miller // Mar 18, 2009 at 2:13 AM

  SR,

  Thanks for the donation. Every little thing helps.

• 130 Alan Wilkinson // Mar 18, 2009 at 3:28 AM

  How do these low-life scum get to become judges? The US justice system is a disgrace to your constitution.

• 131 jla1125 // Mar 21, 2009 at 9:23 AM

  There’s an old saying that says, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” That saying should be updated for the 21st century, “The camera is mightier than the gun.”

• 132 terry // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:05 PM

  Once agian boyton beach police get away with making something from nothing. That department is nothing but a legal gang. They are no differant than the real criminals. good luck tring to fight the system. Yes there are good police officers and they need to stand up to the bad ones. A bad police officer’s need to be weeded out and FDLE needs to do there job and watch the police.

• 133 BJ // Dec 8, 2009 at 9:33 PM

  Gradually the police educate themselves, so I’m hoping things will be better in a few years, instead of worse. Which direction they go depends on the citizenry holding them to task.
  Hoping for the best . . .

• 134 Bob // Apr 18, 2010 at 6:53 PM

  Assuming that the facts are as presented:

  1)The cops were wrong from the start. There is no excuse for their behavior- regardless of how John tries to spin it.

  2) The wiretap/filing laws apply only if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Filming people going about their business in public is NOT illegal. If used for commercial purposes, the persons filmed may have a CIVIL action, but no crime has been committed. I would expect LEOs to know this.

  3) If filming LEOs doing their job is a crime- why aren’t news guys arrested daily? Because if that happens- the news media goes on the offensive immediately. And the LEO who stirred up that pot finds his ass looking for work.

  4) Before anyone starts arguing with me about this, be aware of 2 facts: I am a prosecutor (not in FL) and 2 of my brothers are LEOs. Therefore, I have every reason to be sympathetic with and highly supportive of LEO, but when they do something as stupid and illegal as this– they should be held accountable.

• 135 Bob // Apr 18, 2010 at 6:58 PM

  “Genewitch made an phoney-baloney assertion that the police couldn’t stop anyone “for investigative purposes based solely on a hunch” and I provided the brilliant analogy of the sobriety checkpoint. Yea for me.”

  It’s called “Reasonable Articulable Suspicion”. And yup- you’re right. A officer may indeed stop and briefly detain a person provided he can state with specificity his reasons for believing that criminal activity may be afoot. The SCOTUS first upheld this in Terry v. Ohio, well over 30 years ago.

  Checkpoints are constitutional if conducted in a “neutral” fashion which leaves very little, if any, discretion in the hands of the officers conducting the checkpoint.

• 136 People Power Hour // Apr 28, 2010 at 9:01 AM

  I’d like to know the name of this half-witted judge; Christ, where do we get Mongoloids like these cops and this “judge” from anyway?

• 137 david // Aug 9, 2010 at 7:15 AM

  you’re an idiot.im glad you got arrested.you’re looking for trouble, and you found it.i hope you film them again and they kick your ass.

Leave a Comment

Name

Mail

Website