Sen. Waltz has introduced SB 156 which would prohibit police from downloading cell phone information for purposes of determining whether a person had violated the “no texting and driving” statute or other ordinance violation; unless the officer has a warrant or probable cause to believe the device has been used in the commission of a crime. (The texting and driving statute is penalized as an infraction and, therefore, not a “crime” I believe.)
I would suggest amending this to include probable cause that the telecommunications device contains evidence of a crime rather than solely in commission of a crime — or at least specify that an officer is allowed to secure the device long enough to get a warrant where he or she has probable cause that it contains evidence of a crime. If the cop saw a person taking a video of a robbery with their phone, chased them down and stopped them while they were driving and texting their buddy about the crazy thing they just saw, the officer should probable be allowed to at least take custody of the phone until he or she was able to get a warrant from a judge authorizing them to look for the video of the robbery.
Hell no.
There have been enough cases of citizens filming police while the police are working & then the police taking their camera away because they didn’t want to be filmed. See http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/
If I film a crime or film the police, that film is mine. You can’t take that away without due process.
If all you want is a copy of the picture or video for your records, most likely all you need to do is ask the photographer nicely. Almost all of us want criminals brought to justice.
If a murderer used my handkerchief to wipe his victim’s blood off his hands, the police can seize it as evidence. Not sure why you believe a video should be any different.
Mainly, because the police office cooperates, the video can be easily copied, giving the police the evidence they need without taking property from a citizen.
Police haven’t been seen stealing handkerchiefs to cover up their own misbehavior, so it isn’t a good analogy.
If blood splattered onto my phone/camera, sure, I get that. If all you need is a digital file, you don’t need to take my property to do that.
If you aren’t the type to voluntarily be cooperative with the police, it might be necessary to secure the camera in some fashion to make sure that you don’t delete it in the time it takes to go get a warrant.
Then we need a way to keep the police, the camera, and the photographer together to make sure neither the police nor the photographer erase the evidence.
That said, if I catch a crime on my device, I (along with most people) want the guilty punished, as I said, and will give a copy to the police. Just give me a blank USB drive & I’ll put it on there for you, and don’t put my camera in a locker for weeks.
In terms of police deleting evidence, things like iCloud, EyeFi, and other services like this are making it harder to delete something simply by stealing the device, so hopefully this whole debate becomes moot in the future.
Just re-read your comment & thought of a simple solution:
Police: Your device has evidence of the crime. I need to review it & get a copy if it does.
Outcome 1:
Nice guy: Sure, I’ll hold the device while you watch. Let me know if you need a copy of anything & I’ll get that for you right now.
Police: Thanks! Here is my email or a blank memory device that I keep in my car for collecting evidence.
Outcome 2:
Asshole: Screw off, cop.
Police: Either let me get a copy of what is on there, or I’m going to take the device.
Asshole: Fascist!
*takes the device*
I just want a way to make sure we have checks and balances, not a one-way exchange. Sadly, more laws have been geared for it being one-way lately.
What makes me think that there are more media coverage and court cases involving Outcome 2 than Outcome 1?
I have to say that in terms of frequency of either outcome, I have no idea.
I personally know some policemen that would start with being polite, and personally know some policeman that would start with “give me your camera, now”, and when you don’t, would say you are interfering with a police investigation.
As for the ratios of them, I have NO idea.
I’d just like to see laws written in a way that encourages police cooperation, not just forcing citizen compliance.
If an officer wants a recording device because they believe a recording might be used as evidence, they need a subpoena for it. They can’t simply seize it based on that claim.
The only way they can currently simply seize the recording device is if it was actually used in the commission of a crime.
That’s been gone over multiple times on the PINAC site and elsewhere.
(Which is to say:)
“I would suggest amending this to include probable cause that the telecommunications device contains evidence of a crime rather than solely in commission of a crime — or at least specify that an officer is allowed to secure the device long enough to get a warrant where he or she has probable cause that it contains evidence of a crime.”
Is not likely to pass constitutional muster, and is really just handing police a tool to abuse, making it easier for them to interfere with lawful recording.