leos

[Stray Cat]

So evidence for a traffic violation falls under the same category as murder or imminent danger to people or property?
Would you be okay with a cop during a routine traffic stop to confiscate your GPS because it perhaps might contain a stored top speed that is over the posted limit? Not that he can prove when or where this happened.
Remember, there was no crime, the cop was fishing. He was hoping to obtain evidence to use against the riders. So what if the camera showed somebody doing a wheelie or stoppie or whatever. The cop has to witness it and then use the video as evidence. Confiscating video and then hoping it contains some illegal activity is not supported in our constitution. There is no grounds in this case that I can see.
No different then a LEO entering my home and taking my camera with the hope it might contain video evidence of something illegal.
   

[zer0netgain]

So evidence for a traffic violation falls under the same category as murder or imminent danger to people or property?
Would you be okay with a cop during a routine traffic stop to confiscate your GPS because it perhaps might contain a stored top speed that is over the posted limit? Not that he can prove when or where this happened.
Remember, there was no crime, the cop was fishing. He was hoping to obtain evidence to use against the riders. So what if the camera showed somebody doing a wheelie or stoppie or whatever. The cop has to witness it and then use the video as evidence. Confiscating video and then hoping it contains some illegal activity is not supported in our constitution. There is no grounds in this case that I can see.
No different then a LEO entering my home and taking my camera with the hope it might contain video evidence of something illegal.   

No, you are comparing apples to oranges.

A LEO pulling you over and wanting to confiscate your stuff because MAYBE there is evidence on it (with no other basis for probable cause) is not going to pass the stink test.

A LEO pulling you over because he saw you with a group engaged in criminal behavior AND likely recording it does create probable cause to confiscate the media for inspection.

In this case, the biker had a video camera.  He was riding with a group of hooligans, and the camera mounted on his helmet established that he may have captured criminal behavior on "tape."  Probable cause is established.   As the camera was not in a fixed location and its contents were readily destructible, seizure for the purpose of preserving the evidence would be valid.

Again, I'm not sure if this standard could be imposed on a 3rd person who witnessed/recorded criminal behavior (did not directly participate) or if it only applies to someone who was directly involved, but the cop wasn't "fishing" in this case.

As the saying goes...."If you're going to do something illegal, DON'T record it."

Also, stunting on a public roadway (especially if there are other motorists or pedestrians around) does constitute reckless endangerment.  One wrong move and you could inflict serious bodily harm on other around you.  So, no, it's not just a minor traffic violation.

[FJR1300]

+1

[Stray Cat]

A LEO pulling you over and wanting to confiscate your stuff because MAYBE there is evidence on it (with no other basis for probable cause) is not going to pass the stink test.

A LEO pulling you over because he saw you with a group engaged in criminal behavior AND likely recording it does create probable cause to confiscate the media for inspection.

This LEO did not know that the camera recorded anything. Because the rider has a camera does not mean that he did (likely isn't good enough) recorded anything.
"Likely" doesn't cut it. It's the same as "maybe"... Far all anyone knows it's a video of his sister's wedding or brother's bah mitzvah. The cop didn't know and that's why he is going to get dinged for this. Having a video camera is not probable cause of any crime. If it is, everyone of us can end up in jail.
However he did know that he couldn't just take the camera without charging the rider with something, so he came up with an obstructed plate. Since when is that an arrestable offense? Next time your plate gets muddy, you might get thrown in jail and whatever you have get confiscated. But don't worry, for several thousand dollars you can hire a lawyer to clear it all up. Yeah, that all seems right.

There are lot's of ways to handle this, and this one was wrong. Pulling this guy over was stupid and will never hold up in court no matter what is on that camera. It will be un-admissable. He had no right to confiscated it. Period. The traffic stop and the arrest was bogus.

[FJR1300]

My guess is if the rider wasn't an ass, things would have gone differently.

Sent from my HTC Inspire using Tapatalk 2

[Playinthestreet]

My guess is if the rider wasn't an ass, things would have gone differently.

Sent from my HTC Inspire using Tapatalk 2

The kid was shooting his mouth off before the cruiser was stopped.  

[Formerly Known as Bigfoot]

If one should ever need a criminal lawyer you'd be foolish to go out and hire one when we have all the legal experts you'll ever need here on ST.N.  

[expatbrit]

I hear these stories but can never make the mental leap to believe them.  Maybe the west is different and allows this type of nonsense.  PA does not allow vehicles to be stopped unless they are doing at least 6 over the posted limit by statute.  Speedometer error alone would void a ticket for 1 over.

When I did IT for the DA's office they were very proud of this. They pulled someone over for 2 over, on I40 - local sheriff.

Then they got permission to search the car, and the guy had 100lbs of marijuana in the boot. But the initial stop was traffic, 2 over, in a 75mph limit.

[Stray Cat]

If one should ever need a criminal lawyer you'd be foolish to go out and hire one when we have all the legal experts you'll ever need here on ST.N.  

And if somebody needs any sort of intelligent contribution to a discussion they should include you.  

 

[Stray Cat]

My guess is if the rider wasn't an ass, things would have gone differently.

Sent from my HTC Inspire using Tapatalk 2

Transcript:
MOORE: "Was I doing something wrong? What am I being pulled over for?"

WESTBROOK: "The whole group of you guys."

MOORE: "No. I was not, individually. How can you pull me over?"

WESTBROOK: "The reason you're being pulled over is because I'm gonna take your camera and we're gonna use it as evidence of the crimes that have been committed by other bikers."

MOORE: "I have not committed any crimes, and you cannot take my personal property from me, sir."

WESTBOOK: "That's fine. Need to see your license and registration."

A real mean guy there... It's almost like "yep... you caught the tater"...  

[zer0netgain]

This LEO did not know that the camera recorded anything. Because the rider has a camera does not mean that he did (likely isn't good enough) recorded anything.
"Likely" doesn't cut it. It's the same as "maybe"... Far all anyone knows it's a video of his sister's wedding or brother's bah mitzvah. The cop didn't know and that's why he is going to get dinged for this. Having a video camera is not probable cause of any crime. If it is, everyone of us can end up in jail.

Probable cause does not require certainty.  This guy was in a group of bikers doing stunts.  He had a helmet cam.  The odds are that a "reasonable person" would conclude that there may be evidence of a crime recorded on the camera, and that is sufficient to seize the camera and examine the contents.

The contrast you are asserting would require a lone biker with a camera on his helmet.  Without the fact pattern of this case, yes it would be a ludicrous stretch to believe any evidence of a crime may be on the camera in such a situation.

However he did know that he couldn't just take the camera without charging the rider with something, so he came up with an obstructed plate. Since when is that an arrestable offense? Next time your plate gets muddy, you might get thrown in jail and whatever you have get confiscated. But don't worry, for several thousand dollars you can hire a lawyer to clear it all up. Yeah, that all seems right.

There are lot's of ways to handle this, and this one was wrong. Pulling this guy over was stupid and will never hold up in court no matter what is on that camera. It will be un-admissable. He had no right to confiscated it. Period. The traffic stop and the arrest was bogus.

Um, not so.  Police don't have to take you in custody to confiscate evidence of a crime.  However arresting you for something can let them easily justify it as search incident to arrest.  Going a step farther, start paying attention to SCOTUS rulings.  Cops can now (for better or worse) justify STRIP SEARCHING you for even minor offenses.  1 MPH over or weaving in your lane, any minor infraction is an arrestable offense dependent on the officer's discretion.  You won't prevail by saying they can't do it.

Even if the traffic stop and arrest was bogus, it does not make the evidence INADMISSIBLE.  Particularly since the evidence would not incriminate the rider, but another person.  The only way to make evidence inadmissible is for it to be illegally seized.  As the warrant requirement for search and seizure doesn't apply items in motion or subject to immanent destruction or alteration, I don't see a court tossing out the evidence because of how it was obtained in this case.

[Formerly Known as Bigfoot]

And if somebody needs any sort of intelligent contribution to a discussion they should include you.  

 

Was I wrong?

[Stray Cat]

Probable cause does not require certainty.  This guy was in a group of bikers doing stunts.  He had a helmet cam.  The odds are that a "reasonable person" would conclude that there may be evidence of a crime recorded on the camera, and that is sufficient to seize the camera and examine the contents.

The contrast you are asserting would require a lone biker with a camera on his helmet.  Without the fact pattern of this case, yes it would be a ludicrous stretch to believe any evidence of a crime may be on the camera in such a situation.



Um, not so.  Police don't have to take you in custody to confiscate evidence of a crime.  However arresting you for something can let them easily justify it as search incident to arrest.  Going a step farther, start paying attention to SCOTUS rulings.  Cops can now (for better or worse) justify STRIP SEARCHING you for even minor offenses.  1 MPH over or weaving in your lane, any minor infraction is an arrestable offense dependent on the officer's discretion.  You won't prevail by saying they can't do it.

Even if the traffic stop and arrest was bogus, it does not make the evidence INADMISSIBLE.  Particularly since the evidence would not incriminate the rider, but another person.  The only way to make evidence inadmissible is for it to be illegally seized.  As the warrant requirement for search and seizure doesn't apply items in motion or subject to immanent destruction or alteration, I don't see a court tossing out the evidence because of how it was obtained in this case.

I totally understand what you are inferring here. But isn't what you are saying a bit like "two black guys were seen robbing houses in my neighborhood (which is predominantly non black) and the cop sees two black guys in a car in my neighborhood so he pulls them over and searches their car? In no way would that stand up, even if like you say a "reasonable person" might think that these two had to be the guys.

I'm not defending asshatery here. The jokers on the bikes should be prosecuted, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't interfere with our rights. This cop IMHO did so much wrong, and it's these kind of stops that give all the cops a bad rap.

My original post of the video stated "I see no reason for a cop acting this way. Maybe a LEO here would like to explain this reaction?"
look at the posts that the LEOs on this board posted. Way to be stand up guys there chaps. Nice that you could at least try to explain why this guy acted like he did, or shouldn't have acted like he did.

[cruisin]

If on a group ride, and johnny law decides to pull up behind you, does that mean everyone else does too? I would not think so.

  None of this make any sense at all; did "johnny law: hit his lights, siren, or both or did he just pull up behind you?  What is it everyone else is supposed to do?  

Hint: complete thoughts expressed with correct grammar will yield more sensible answers.

[county]

Was I wrong?

I have never known a law enforcement officer to be wrong...

[zer0netgain]

I totally understand what you are inferring here. But isn't what you are saying a bit like "two black guys were seen robbing houses in my neighborhood (which is predominantly non black) and the cop sees two black guys in a car in my neighborhood so he pulls them over and searches their car? In no way would that stand up, even if like you say a "reasonable person" might think that these two had to be the guys.

Well, using that example....

If two black guys are seen in a predominantly "non black" neighborhood robbing houses.  THEN, if a cop sees two black guys in a car in your neighborhood, he MAY have probable cause to pull them over...more so if they are acting suspiciously (e.g., driving up and down streets with no particular destination in mind).  If during that stop they act in a manner that arouses suspicion as to why there are in the neighborhood (e.g., evasive answers, belligerent attitude, nervous behavior), that MAY establish further probable cause to search them and their vehicle for evidence of criminal behavior.

Probable cause is a continuum.  It isn't 100% from the first moment an encounter starts.  It's like an onion...layer after layer with the more the cop wants to intrude on a citizen's rights, the more probable cause must exist which the officer must be able to articulate when when questioned about why he/she did the things that were done during the stop.  At no time must the officer be 100% certain that something will be found or that something is going on...but it must be more than just a "hunch" or feeling that something ill is afoot.

Again, given the circumstances preceding that video, I don't see any problem with the officer being able to articulate probable cause to do what he did.

[Carbonero]

I totally understand what you are inferring here.

Implying.

[Tejasbusa]

I have never known a law enforcement officer to be wrong...

I hope that statement was meant to be a little tongue in cheek because the ones I know and call friends are wrong just about as much as the non LEO's

[Carbonero]

I hope that statement was meant to be a little tongue in cheek because the ones I know and call friends are wrong just about as much as the non LEO's

It's like you're new to ST.N and County's posts.