By Carlos Miller
In a clearly illegal move caught on video, an arrogant deputy from the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department in Central California brazenly confiscated a camera from a civilian last year, telling him he needed it as “evidence.”
The camera was returned two days later with an apology from Sheriff Adam Christianson promising to never allow an incident like that to happen again.
No other information is available about this incident on the Youtube video or anywhere else online that I have seen so far.
Still, a few of the commenters on the video consider the sheriff’s apology a victory.
A real victory would have been for the deputy to have been terminated.
Because it is obvious from his attitude that he believes he can do whatever the hell he wants. And by maintaining his job, he is probably right.
Somebody please provide his name. And more video of him in action.
Popularity: 1% [?]
18 responses so far ↓
1 the_lone_ white_ boy // May 5, 2009 at 1:43 AM
He needs to sue for having his civil rights violated.
Maybe if enough people sue… the higher ups will start coming down on the sheriff & then the sheriff on his men who are doing these things.
is there a lipreader out there that can read what the deputy was saying to the others as he was pointing out the copwatcher? Because I would be curious to know.
2 Mike Forester // May 5, 2009 at 4:46 AM
Why wasn’t this cop fired? What happened to our country. An apology doesn’t cut it, the officer should be fired.
3 Andrew DeFilippis // May 5, 2009 at 5:41 AM
He shouldn’t have been fired. This wasn’t THAT bad.
What should have happened is, along with an apology, the guy in the video should have received compensation for having his camera taken from him. The officer should have a formal complaint placed on his record and be disciplined.
More like, take a week’s pay from the officer and give it to the guy who had his camera taken from him. (Around $1,250.00)
4 genewitch // May 5, 2009 at 6:26 AM
the two cops i know personally make 75K a year or more. 1250 is a drop in the hat.
5 genewitch // May 5, 2009 at 6:30 AM
Also, andrew, at what point does it become “that bad”?
Arresting the guy so he has an arrest on his record? Prosecuting him maliciously so he has a possibility of a conviction on his record?
The first step to getting arrested for taking pictures is to have a camera. The cop took his camera…
Carlos, remember that wifi SD card i brought up a while back?
Well there are pocket wifi devices that can store your pictures in an encrypted format in a password protected operating system; if all goes well you can push a single button and have all the pictures uploaded to your flickr or picasa account with software that is free. If you have a bluetooth ready cellphone, this can be automated, and done while on the move. The device runs linux, and as such, everything can be scripted, such as “when you see a completely black picture (like you snap a photo with lens cover on, or otherwise covered) – Zip the files and upload them to website, and to flickr/picasa/photobucket.” How cool is that? all for less than the cost of a midrange consumer camera. (the Nokia N810 model has built in GPS, as well – and both the n800 and the n810 have cameras on board, they’re shitty cameras, but still. Furthermore, the N810 WiMax edition has the ability to get on the clearwire network without the aid of a cellphone, which is an even bigger bonus if you can afford the pricetag and monthly fees – around $35.)
I picked mine up for $150 shipped… and i use it every day, especially to look at your website!
Nokia N800. ebay 4 lyfe!
6 genewitch // May 5, 2009 at 6:42 AM
Oh snap, did i mention that the devices also have an audio recording application, and they can hold 1-2 SD cards themselves? Mine has a 2 gig and an 8 gig, but you can go as large as you need, since it’s SDHC compatible. The batteries also last all day on standby, and about 3 hours with heavy use with full screen brightness. The screens are widescreen, 800×480 pixels (think sony PSP size, it’s a smidge bigger screen). It’s also touchscreen, and the n810 is designed to work well with natural sunlight as a backlight.
I can’t believe i didn’t put 2 and 2 together already, but here’s a picture of mine pretending to be a PC:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/B8jWthRm5qfiuqFwPwygKA?feat=directlink
7 Karl Mansoor // May 5, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Carlos,
I’m of the mind that if the Sheriff so quickly returned the camera with a letter of apology acknowledging wrongdoing, it is quite likely that the deputy came close to having body parts removed.
I would be surprised if that particular deputy, or any others under the current Sheriff, ever tried anything like that again. They won’t want to attract the same heat and accrue further liability.
A new age has not dawned but this was a large step in the right direction.
8 chris // May 5, 2009 at 3:28 PM
so why has a lawsuit not been filed? this is a pretty open & shut case of theft and a first amendment right violation, $10k easy in NYC…
9 disgusted at the kneejerk hypocrisy // May 5, 2009 at 5:10 PM
The kneejerk hypocrisy here is astounding. You people are always screaming about how your rights are being trampled, but you’re quick to ignore the cop’s rights, deciding he should be fired simply because of an extremely biased website that makes claims that have no substantiation or proof. You pass judgment on the whole matter based on a one minute tape excerpt and bogus claims about an apology letter. You clowns are a disgrace. Call a crack whore the next time you’re in trouble.
10 Keith Henrickson // May 5, 2009 at 6:35 PM
It’s pretty simple… Cops have absolute authority, so they should have absolute responsibility on the other side. Once you put the badge and the uniform on, and then break the law…. even a jaywalking offense… Never again given a chance to do the same thing. Never again a badge.
11 Ariel // May 5, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Disgusted at the kneejerk hypocrisy,
You do realize that your entire post is a work of irony given your moniker? This website is one of the fairest on the web regarding police overreach, as fair, I think, as Mansoor’s who was a cop and works as a consultant on police ethics.
Carlos is simply tired of cops that exceed their authority. I don’t believe this deputy should be fired, so I disagree with Carlos, but he should be punished/retrained by the Department. You do realize that a cop who exceeds his authority comes perilously close to criminality and that a cop who breaks the law is a criminal, don’t you?
I hold dear what our Founding Fathers acknowledged and built a country on, that rights are unalienable and not granted by the State but are inherent in the People, and that when a Government or its representatives violate those rights, it is no longer deserving to be called a Government. This leaves all of us with the duty, expressed however large or small, to correct our Government and its representatives. Am I calling for perfection? No. But just as I, a citizen, will suffer punishment for transgressions, so should the Police, who are nothing but citizens given a greater power, and thus greater responsibility to uphold those rights of every citizen. And deserving of equal or greater punishment when they transgress. But then, that would really screw up recruiting wouldn’t it?
Damn, I wish I hadn’t grown up when it was taught that our Founding Fathers, our founding ideas, our grand experiment was a beacon to the world, no matter its transient imperfection. I wish I really could give up my Classical Liberalism, forget about Adams and Jefferson and all those other radicals in the Federalist Papers, and could just go along with the police are always right and every officer should keep his job no matter what. But I can’t, I’m an American. I can’t do it.
OK, pompous rant off.
12 Voice of Reason // May 5, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Note to “disgusted at the kneejerk hypocrisy”: The phrase “kneejerk hypocrisy” has always seemed like a malapropism to me. Most people will understand your meaning, but the rest of your post is clumsier.
You come across as a troll, but I gather that you aren’t one. You’re simply hot under the collar. Calm down and try to think rationally. No, I’m not claiming that I always meet that standard myself.
1. It’s not about people “screaming about how your rights are being trampled”. It’s about how everybody’s rights are being “trampled”. The officer in question enjoys the same rights. So do you.
2. People fought a war two centuries ago to establish these rights. If these rights are “trampled”, people are certainly going to “scream” about it. If necessary, they will eventually fight for these rights again, and they will die for these rights again. Which “side” will you be on then, “kneejerk” ?
3. You said that people are “quick to ignore the cop’s rights, deciding he should be fired simply because of an extremely biased website that makes claims that have no substantiation or proof”.
First, I’ll note that you personally are likely to call any website that offends you “extremely biased”. Your tone reminds me strongly of Fox News. It’s exactly the same thing as when sex abuser Bill O’Reilly complains about websites that criticize his involvement with events intended to benefit sex abuse victims. He calls the websites in question “Far Left websites”.
“Far Left”, extremely biased, it’s the same thing in your view, right? I’ll remind you of a point that you ought to keep in mind. Reality has a liberal bias. From your perspective, that’s unfortunate. It means that you’ll need to fight an uphill battle, because reality itself is biased against you. It’s not fair, but there’s not much that can be done about it, is there?
Second, I’ll note that no “substantiation or proof” would ever be enough for you. None. “kneejerk”, I’m autistic. Not the high-functioning kind. This makes me both more capable than you and less capable than you. The difference has to do with black and white. When I was young, I was bewildered by the fact that people didn’t respond to “substantiation or proof”. They talked about it, but if anybody offered it, there’d always, and I mean always, be something else that they’d demand. I didn’t understand this. To me, something was a fact, or it wasn’t. You’re not like that. Most people aren’t.
Later in life, I came to understand that people are animals, nothing more or less. If they have a tribe, or a “side” which includes specific people that they identify strongly with, they work backwards from that. They never respond to “substantiation or proof”. So please, with all due respect, don’t make me laugh and cry at the same time.
4. Don’t misunderstand me. It’s entirely possible that the incident discussed here didn’t happen as described. People are reacting to available information. There may be something that we haven’t been told. I’m only stating that based on the tone of your post, you personally are assuming that there must be something that’s been left out. It’s the same thing that I always see, and that I’ve always seen. It’s how your brain is wired.
5. You mentioned “bogus claims about an apology letter”.
Did I miss something? Are you able to present evidence that the “claims” are “bogus” ? Or are you the simple animal that I believe you to be, grazing contentedly on preconceived notions, reacting to things based on instinct and nothing more?
6. You closed with, “You clowns are a disgrace. Call a crack whore the next time you’re in trouble.”
Sigh. “jones” uses the word “clown” as well. I assume that it’s a Bill O’Reilly-ism. I seem to recall that O’Reilly likes the word. “kneejerk”, since you’re interested in O’Reilly and in “crack whores”, ask Pinandpiller to direct you to the audio of O’Reilly pretending to be a crack dealer. If I remember correctly, there’s supposed to be “crack whores” in some of the clips.
If your point is that police are more useful to society than “crack whores”, that’s true, but it doesn’t change anything. “kneejerk”, this isn’t a feudal society. We haven’t traded our rights in exchange for protection from 9/11! TERROR! 9/11! TERROR! or “crack whores”. The police are not allowed to break the law.
13 Ariel // May 5, 2009 at 10:53 PM
VOR,
While I agree with most of what you wrote about “kneejerk”, facts do not stand alone with equal weight, there is a hierarchy to them. Historians struggle with this all the time.
As I’ve noted before, while photography has taken a greater hit since 9/11, I doubt that filming Police in 1995 would have elicited any different response. Filming them is a record that might contradict their reports or at trial, at least the bad ones or the insecure ones, and would thus be a threat. The police are finally reacting to this threat, a threat they can’t control because it is out of their hands.
Your absolutism that people never respond to “substantiation or proof” needs modification: it takes a substantially greater “substantiation or proof” to overcome the tribalism, although for some no amount of “substantiation or proof” will breach the wall they’ve built.
This is what Carlos’ site is all about: to shake that wall to lower its height. To make the 75% who can’t acknowledge that the Police are human to understand these very facts: that some officers should not hold their jobs; and that some, if not most, Departments need to change.
Photography is not a crime, and doing it does not warrant harassment, intimidation, or abuse.
14 Mike Forester // May 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM
To disgusted at the kneejerk hypocrisy – I don’t see any bias in the post, my opinion is based solely on the video clip which I think speaks for itself. I am glad you have gone through your life without your rights ever being trampled on. A couple quotes that might help you…
With the first link a chain is forged, the first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.
And one of my favorites..
In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
Martin Niemöller
We pay these people to protect and serve and uphold the law. When they trample on our rights and abuse their authority, then we should give the job to someone who can do it better. You’re opinion would be vastly different if you’ve had a nightstick (real or metaphorical) shoved where the sun doesn’t shine.
15 Voice of Reason // May 8, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Note to Ariel: As usual, you’ve made some excellent points. I apologize for the fact that I didn’t respond to this post sooner. However, as I’ve explained elsewhere, there’s a reason. The link is here.
You said, It takes a substantially greater “substantiation or proof” to overcome the tribalism, although for some no amount of “substantiation or proof” will breach the wall they’ve built.
This is one of the most intelligent responses that I recall receiving from anybody on this site regarding anything involving tribalism. Thank you. Yes, my original point was “absolutism” and hyperbole. I exaggerated things for dramatic effect. Also, I was as “hot under the collar” as I accused “kneejerk” of being, though my post made more sense than his post did.
16 Doug // May 8, 2009 at 10:25 PM
I know we need police to protect us and such but many are hypocrites, if not all of them. Most police officers are actually felons. Falsifying anything, anything at all, on a police arrest report is a felony. Many many officers are guilty of this. Say they are mad at you and say you refused a breathalyzer test when you were actually not even asked, etc., and file report with this purposeful innaccuracy in it. They just became a felon. In a perfect world the police would be the most perfect upstanding citizens but we know how far this is from a perfect world. Copwatchers are needed, big time!
17 President // Jul 11, 2009 at 4:27 PM
I am the person who shot the video and got it confiscated. Detective Mineni is the officers name and he worked for the Stanislaus County Sheriffs Department. I filed a complaint and it was sustained. I was informed that the detective no longer worked for the department. Everybody seems to think that the apology letter is a lie. I am a citizen journalist who prides himself in truth and transparency, so why would I lie. If the apology is the smoking gun to anybody who doesn’t believe me I would be willing to send them a copy of it.
The President
18 modesto glee // Sep 15, 2009 at 12:27 AM
The Sheriff in the video above was dismissed. However, as our first entry points out, this sort of behavior is not limited to the Sheriff’s department in Stanislaus County, Modesto Police Department appears to be worse!
Leave a Comment