February 13th, 2013

Oregon Cop Snatches Camera Phone From Woman, Claiming he has the Right to Confiscate it as Evidence 205

By Carlos Miller

An Oregon cop named Taylor Letsis illegally snatched a woman’s camera from her hand as she was video recording an arrest, telling her that he had the legal right to seize it as “evidence.”

He was dead wrong, of course, but the Gresham police officer obviously believes he is above the law.

“He assaulted me,” said Carrie Medina, the 29-year-old woman who was video recording.

“He twisted my arms back. I had nail marks on my arm.”

The entire exchange was captured in the above video beginning at 4:15, showing that Medina remained professional and cordial, but firm about her rights, before Letsis turned aggressive.

In a telephone interview with Photography is Not a Crime, Medina said that once the camera was turned off and in his possession, Letsis demanded she show him how to view the footage.

“He said if I did not show him how to use it, he would take me to jail, so I showed him,” she said.

“I asked him if I was free to go and he said no, so I was being detained.”

After viewing the first 30 seconds of the clip, he was satisfied that she had not recorded two other officers tackling a teenager in the middle of the street.

“I started recording after I saw two huge cops slam a teenage boy to the ground,” she said.

It is understandable that Letsis is a little paranoid around cameras because he was one of several cops caught on citizen video for beating and tasing a man for not having a ticket on a transit system.

Click here to view Letsis’ engagement photos to see him in a much more jovial mood.

In the latest incident, Letsis obviously wasn’t too concerned with his own behavior being caught on camera but that might not be a bad thing considering he was one click away from deleting the footage as he fiddled with her phone.

“I was live streaming but I had not uploaded it yet,” she said, explaining that Ustream requires users to upload the footage in order to save it or else it will just vanish after being visible to only those watching the live stream.

A live streaming alternative to Ustream is TapIn, which records directly to a server without having to click anything, but that only works with iPhones.

The incident took place on Tuesday in Portland. While the officers making the arrest were from the Portland Police Department, Letsis is a Gresham police officer, a small municipality just east of Portland.

After Letsis returned her phone, she recorded a follow-up video where she explained what just happened.

Medina plans to file a complaint against Letsis with his superiors. She said she is uncertain as to whether pursue legal action against Letsis because she has no confidence in the system, which is understandable, but maybe an aggressive lawyer will step up to the plate because he clearly violated the law.

In a set of guidelines issued last year, the U.S. Department of Justice stated that police are only allowed to confiscate phones under “exigent circumstances,” which is mainly when police fear the video evidence of a serious crime will be destroyed.

Otherwise, they must obtain a subpoena, which is what Medina told him prior to him snatching the phone from her.

Yet we can clearly hear him tell her that “I don’t need a subpoena to search your phone for evidence of a crime.”

Unfortunately for Letsis, the only evidence of a crime that she recorded was his own doing.

In fact, a Portland police officer walked up to them after he had snatched her phone and shook his head at him as if to tell him he had crossed the line.

“That was when he let me go,” she said. “I noticed he became extremely nervous after that. He started shaking.”

So what is the Greshan Police Department going to do about this considering they state the following on their website?

Respect for the Individual

We will respect and protect the constitutional rights of all citizens, treating them with courtesy and respect, using force only when necessary. We are dedicated to protecting the rights of our employees by providing equal employment opportunities and enhancing their work lives through fair and equitable treatment. The dignity of each individual is central in the way we conduct our business.


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • Common Sense

    Wow, another abuse of the system! Guess Letsis was absent the day the academy taught the 4th Amendment! I hope Medina does follow up!

    Thought Medina was VERY professional, calm and definitely in the right!

  • lady bug

    This video doesn’t prove anything, the officer was within his rights, he just simply asked for the phone to see if there is any evidence to the case that he was on. The lady was mean and uncooperative, sorry.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

      You must be the wife.

      • Christina

        Why? Because her opinion is different than yours?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

          Because her opinion is different than the law.

          • Christina

            That makes no sense at all. She doesn’t know the law so she is automatically his wife. There is some logic.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

            Maybe it wasn’t his wife. It really doesn’t matter. It was just some slight sarcasm on my part because only somebody with a personal investment in the cop’s career would be blind enough to say “the video doesn’t prove anything.”

          • El Guapo

            Of course it was sarcasm. If people didnt get that, they’re idiots and should be ignored.

    • http://www.facebook.com/allan.sportiello Allan Sportiello

      Are you high? He has no right to tell a citizen she has to hand over the phone because she did not record the actual crime being committed, only the arrest. She was clearly far far away from the police as to not interfere in any way with what they were doing, he had to walk about 75 yards to even get to her. You can go ahead and hand over your Constitutional rights, but we will not, knucklehead.

      • Barking Dog

        Had that at my local precinct. Said I was interfering but they had to shout and still couldn’t hear me because I was back far enough.

        You Tube:

      • Difdi

        Even if it did contain evidence of the actual crime being committed, the officer would have still needed a warrant to seize the phone or a subpoena to compel her to give him a copy of the recording.

        If the police officer reasonably believes the woman would destroy the evidence, then he could seize the phone, but ONLY if he had a reasonable belief that she would do so. In order to legally view the recording on the phone or use it as evidence in court, he would need to get a warrant, or he’d render the evidence inadmissible for use by the prosecution. Simply not knowing her would not give such a reasonable belief, and her statements to him regarding the phone and recording further destroy any claims he might make of such a reasonable belief.

    • http://twitter.com/JGritty Joshua David


    • http://www.facebook.com/allan.sportiello Allan Sportiello

      The video clearly shows him snatch the phone out of her hand, which is assault and possibly robbery.

      • Barking Dog

        definitelyrobbery, he stole intellectual property.

        • ExCop-LawStudent

          No, it’s not. Not even close, and we’ve had this discussion on the board before.

          • Difdi

            Depends on the state. In Washington it absolutely would be armed robbery, and if he did it to an educated, informed citizen he’d be under arrest within seconds.

            I don’t know the specifics of Oregon, do you?

          • ExCop-LawStudent

            Well, I know that in Washington it absolutely would not be armed robbery, see State v. Hicks, 683 P.2d 186, 188 (Wash. 1984) (en banc) (A person cannot be guilty of robbery in forcibly taking property from another if he does so under the good faith belief that he is the owner, or entitled to the possession of the property); State v. Self, 713 P.2d 142, 143-44 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).

            In a legal seizure, the officer would be entitled to the property. This means that if the officer improperly seizes the material, incorrectly believing it to be proper, he won’t have the requisite mens rea. Sorry.

            In Oregon, see State v. Broom, 297 P. 340 (Ore. 1931) (it is necessary for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was taken and carried away with felonious intent, to deprive the owner permanently of his property).

            Wouldn’t it be easier for you to just go to an attorney and have him explain this to you?

          • Difdi

            Butting heads with you has certainly improved the precision of my use of language…
            In order to lawfully seize the property, the officer must have either a warrant or exigent circumstances. If he has neither, then he lacks good faith if he follows through on the seizure anyway. Exigent circumstances are clearly defined in Oregon state law.
            The fact that the woman is not a police officer does not create the minimum level of evidence to believe she intends to destroy the video. The fact that the officer does not personally know her does not do so either. Her own words indicated her intent to publish the video, which absolutely negated any exigency in the seizure.
            When the officer threatened her with arrest if she didn’t stop exercising her 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights, that was (under Oregon statutes) coercion, a class C felony. When he stole the phone out of her hands without a reasonable good faith belief that he had a right to it, while he was visibly armed, he committed first degree robbery, which is a class A felony. Taken together, that’s a maximum of 25 years in state prison. Even without the robbery charge, there’s still the 5 years for the coercion.
            Then there’s the seldom-used but still on the books 18 USC 242. Is being visibly armed while committing a crime considered to be a threat of a dangerous weapon in federal case law? You’re in a better position to research that than I am. But depending on whether it does constitute such a threat and depending on whether each amendment worth of rights was treated as a single color of law offense or as individual violations, federal law could add anywhere from 1 year to 40 years to the potential sentence.

          • ExCop-LawStudent

            I actually enjoy our discussions.

            I would have to research the coercion statute, but he doesn’t have the intent or mens rea required for robbery.

            I won’t argue that an argument could be made on 18 USC 242, but from the practical side, no US Attorney is going to file a case on these facts.

          • Barking Dog

            No US Attorney is going to file a case, period.

          • MassCentral420

            I think I love you,,,,

          • Barking Dog

            Wouldn’t be hard to prove.

            If you look this guy up, one of the pages that lists all personal info had a vid of him attacking with others, an old man who wasn’t resssisting and had only gotten on the train with no ticket and had offered to leave.

            So here a second guy gets tackled in the street and Letsis is filmed helping and suddenly he’s on some girl with no legal reason?

            You ain’t much of a law student. Maybe you went to Dershowitz’s Harvard.

          • ExCop-LawStudent

            Nope, I go to CrackerJack U.

          • ndmike12

            Since he was acting in a manner contrary to clearly established law that would be known by any reasonably well-trained police officer, I wouldn’t assume that a court would find he acted in good faith. I don’t for a second think that he sincerely believed he had the legal authority to forcibly seize the camera. His attitude on the video makes it pretty clear that he was not considering the limits of his legal authority when he acted. If a court agrees, then he will not be entitled to qualified immunity, which means he could be personally liable in addition to the department being liable.

            You are still probably correct that he is not guilty of robbery, since there is no evidence he intended to permanently deprive the woman of her camera. However, if it is found he acted in bad faith (not unlikely, having viewed the video), then he would be facing potential criminal and civil liability for excessive force and illegal seizure of property and of the woman’s person (since he detained her, however briefly, when clearly established law provided he had no right to do so).

          • ExCop-LawStudent

            I agree. That is what I’ve indicated all along, although I’m not sure that the seizure of her person would fly (a detention is considered a seizure). She never indicated a desire to leave and he never told her she could not leave. The other issues are, IMO, clear cut.

          • ExCop-LawStudent

            The likelihood of criminal charges is slim to none.

            The best civil claim is through the PPA.

          • Barking Dog

            Good. So I can come to your house and twist your arm and take your phone if you film me committing a possible crime? Good to know…

          • ExCop-LawStudent

            Sure, just kick in the door at about 2:00 AM and we’ll talk briefly, until I can exert 4.6 lbs. of pressure with my right index finger, several times in a row.

            Then I can explain to your family that common sense was about as good as your legal reasoning.

    • Alex

      There are all kinds of mean people all around the U.S. (which this lady, clearly, was not)…and they still have rights. Your husband violated her rights and bullied her…on camera. This video proves violation in real-time. If he asked…then he can be denied, as it is only a request. Furthermore, your hubby needs some serious retraining on rights, peace officer etiquette, and anger management.

    • Mander

      Odd because the 4th amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. This cop had 0 probable cause. You must be extremely sensitive if you think this lady was in any way mean.

    • steveo

      he didn’ ask for the phone, he said he was going to confiscate it if she didn’t give it to him. If a CNN photojournalist was there with a 10K camera, would this leo have taken the reporter’s camera? I know they do sometimes, but they end up on graveyard shift at public housing or tending the evidence room.

      And he wasn’t within his rights, he unlawfully detained her without a well founded RAS that a crime was afoot that’s a violation of the 4th Amendment. He searched her phone without her consent, that’s a violation of the 4th Amendment. He confiscated her property without a warrant, that’s another violation of the 4th Amendment. Then he restrained her newsgathering activities and that’s a violation of the 1st Amendment. So, no, he wasn’t within his rights because he took an oath to defend the Constituition of the US against all enemies foreign and domestic. That’s what it means to be a “sworn” leo.

      Whenever the 4th Amendment is impacted by the 1st Amendment (in other words, the property or person being seized is protected by the freedom of the press) the govt has to use what the SCOTUS called “scrupulous exactitude” in following the warrant requirements:Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649.655 (1980) . Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 468 (1985) In this case :The Maryland Court of Special Appeals agreed that a warrant is required both to seize allegedly obscene materials (camera?) and to arrest the distributor in order to provide a procedural safeguard for the First Amendment freedom of expression. The SCOTUS talked about the risk of prior restraint, which is the underlying basis for the special Fourth Amendment protections accorded searches for and seizures of First Amendment materials. When the contents of the package are books or other materials arguably protected by the First Amendment, and when the basis for the seizure is disapproval of the message contained therein, it is especially important that this warrant requirement be scrupulously observed.

      This is exactly what happened here. The leo committed prior restraint because he was too lazy to follow the warrant requirements which any judge would have told him to pound sand over.

      And as for the clip not proving anything: au contraire, that vid is worth at least 50K, but if she didn’t want to go to federal court, she could sue them in small claims and pick up the max probably 5K.

      • ExCop-LawStudent

        Subpoena requirement in this case – a warrant can’t be used under 42 U.S.C. 2000aa.

    • COP WATCH 4 U

      Ladybug are you a cop luver?? or worse yet a cop??

    • JdL

      This video doesn’t prove anything, the officer was within his rights,

      Please clarify what an “officer’s rights” encompass. Ordering people at gunpoint to turn over personal property, though no law supports his actions? This is what you’re defending.

      • Barking Dog

        personal property that shows him committing the same crime he committed on an old man once before

    • Barking Dog

      So he can just rip the phone away and twist her arm if she has evidence? Is that the procedure?

      “Yes, Your Honor, we have the evidence, we ripped it from some girls hand…”

      • Difdi

        Judge reply: “…thus rendering it inadmissible in court unless you had a warrant to do so. Did you? No? Well, I hope your case didn’t rely on it.”

    • ExCop-LawStudent

      Gee, that’s nice, but he didn’t simply “ask” for the phone, he demanded it, and when refused, illegally seized it.

      The video proves that the officer doesn’t know the law, nor, for that matter, do you.

    • Difdi

      Police have the right to break their sworn oath AND federal law? That’s news to me.

      Being mean does not justify the way the officer acted. U.S. courts have ruled that the first amendment protects far greater meanness and rudeness towards police than what that woman displayed. Likewise, citizens are not required to be cooperative except when required to by law. The officer did not give her a lawful order, therefore her failure to cooperate was perfectly legal.

      On the other hand, there’s Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 242 of the U.S. Code, which classifies the officer’s actions in the video as a crime punishable by a $10,000 fine or up to 10 years in federal prison or both. He also broke his service oath.

      The officer was not only not within his rights, the woman would have been within her rights to use force to defend herself against his criminal act.

    • Barking Dog

      So she was mean so that gives him ground to attack her?

  • Virtualfrog

    This is the perfect chance for her to go to the chief and have the force trained in the correct law and procedures. We don’t always have to sue for money due to smaller incidents when the training will accomplish so much more. If the chief does not cooperate then that is another problem and there are ways of taking care of that.
    As far as Lady bug’s statement everyone has already said how bad her comment is and I agree with all.

    • COP WATCH 4 U

      I emailed the chief and sent him a copy of the video.

      • Gordon Freeman

        Did he/she get back to you?

  • Gordon Freeman

    HA, 404 error on Letsis’ photo’s. Guess those chickens started showing up fast.

  • Difdi

    Letsis was quite correct that the camera contained evidence of a crime. His. And just like any criminal, he immediately became worried about whether there was court admissible evidence against him.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Benjamin-Filbert/1142133665 Benjamin Filbert

    Multiple U.S. Circuit courts have ruled that filming a police officer during the execution of their duties is legal and also a “matter of public interest”

    • steveo

      11th Circuit: Smith v. City of Cummings, GA 212 F 3d 1332

      1st Circuit: Glik v. Cunliffe Aug 26th 2011 655 F.3d 78

      7th Circuit: ACLU v. Alvarez: not published yet but good reading.

      all of the defendants in these cases asked for cert to the SCOTUS and were turned down because there never has been any disagreement between the different circuits.

      • ExCop-LawStudent

        Those cases aren’t really on point–two of the three deal with arrest or criminal penalties, while the third merely states the standard of the First Amendment (as it affirms the dismissal of the case due to Smith not alleging a specific violation).

        Here, Medina is collecting information for dissemination to the public. This brings 42 U.S.C. 2000aa into play and limits how the police can gain access to the material. With a couple of exceptions, which do not appear to apply here, the police may not seize the camera phone and video with or without a search warrant. As Carlos noted, they have to use a subpoena for the video.

        See Citicasters v. McCaskill, 89 F.3d 1350 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding that the Privacy Protection Act generally prohibits government officials from searching for and seizing documentary materials possessed by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate information to the public); Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, 816 F. Supp. 432 (W.D. Tex. 1993) affm’d 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that is no excuse that the agents were not knowledgeable of the law, the conduct of the United States Secret Service was in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000aa et seq); Morse v. Regents of Univ. of Calif., Berkley, 821 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (N.D. Calif. 2011) (holding PPA generally prohibits government officials from searching for and seizing documentary materials possessed by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate information to the public).

  • Prophet

    Just saw this story on Katu 2, so maybe something will come of it.

  • Christina

    At the end of the day he is just a dude trying to do his job. I don’t know if what he did was “legal” or not but he certainly isn’t worthy of vilification. I think the “injuries” (if you can even call them that) were exaggerated and ridiculous. If he did overstep his bounds then guess what? He’s human! And if any of you haters think you can do a better job please go apply!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

      If Carrie had been doing something illegal, she certainly would have been arrested, so who are you to tell us this isn’t worthy of vilification?

      What he did was violate her Constitutional freedoms. Are you familiar with those?

      And unfortunately, many of us would never be hired as cops because they tend to reject those with higher IQs.

      • Christina

        Wow. You are articulate and rude. I can see you have a sizeable chip on your shoulder. So its your way or the high way huh? Hilter=evil Someone takes your phone……. not seeing the comparison. I am sad that you have such a hate for people that would gladly take a bullet for you.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

          Cops are more likely to put a bullet in me than take a bullet for me.

          • Christina

            That is an emotionally charged fear based conclusion and not the least bit factual

          • RaymondbyEllis

            Have you been watching the Dorner fear based reaction? “Oh, God, it’s a pickup, whatever make, shoot them even if they’re Asian female or white male, after all they could be black, maybe, but safer to shoot”.

            “emotionally charged fear based conclusion and not the least bit factual” is a long phrase for “officer safety” in the circumstance above. Thank you for the insight, however much you missed it.

          • Barking Dog

            I liked the LAPD chief’s weasel words about the PYRO-technic gas cannisters.

            “Well they do produce a lot of heat!” when asked about the possibility of the gas setting the fire.

            I thought the meaning of pyro was fire……

            And the radio tapes of them looking to burn it down. And the 71 bullets fired at the wrong truck with no warning.

        • steveo

          We all have a sizeable chip on our shoulders when it comes to the 1st Amendment. I can’t speak for everyone here, but for me, the 1st Amendment needs to be defended maybe even to the point of sacrificing one’s life, non-violently, to defend these freedoms.
          Everytime someone is out there on the street recording govt activity, they are defending the 1st Amendment. The leos should be guarding her right to film even at the cost of allowing their arrestee to flee if that’s what it takes.

          • Christina

            Wrong. That is a nonsense. That LEO’s job is to maintain order and enforce laws set by local government. The local government you elect by the way. If you wish to film then its absolutely your right. You should understand though that by doing so you may have involved yourself in a criminal case and your video could be used as evidence. That is the law.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            Simplistic at best, stupid at worst. You’ve used all the canards, and they don’t help you. The recordings are often post the “crime” but certainly of the arrest. The Police often delete the video taken, though they seized the recording device because it was evidence. Are you congenitally incapable of understanding what is actually happening? “you may have involved yourself in a criminal case” except it isn’t the criminal case you think it is. Go back and read, let it sink in.

            Yes police can seize recorders if they think the evidence is going to be destroyed, but they have to have cause not just that it isn’t in their hands (the reason is obvious to us). They can only keep it in their possession if a warrant is issued. They can’t delete the recording because that’s an effing crime (destruction of evidence). Do you have any idea of how many times police have seized recording devices then destroyed the record? Too many frigging times to give any justification to your argument. Too many frigging times as Carlos, Balko, Turley, et al, have documented.

            Glad you ended with “that is the law”. Destroying evidence is against the law, it’s a crime and a bad one. I assume you’ll be first in line to demand prosecution of all the police who have destroyed evidence as documented here and elsewhere.

          • Barking Dog

            And what are the procedures for making one involved in such a fashion turn over the cam? Twist their arm and take it?

          • hazy

            The law is that they must obtain a subpoena to confiscate an item they believe may contain evidence unless exigent circumstances exist. Exigent circumstances would mean that he believed the evidence would be destroyed. When the filmer is saying. “I will give you the link to the video for you to see”, a reasonable person will not believe the exigent circumstances exception was here.

          • Difdi

            Wrong. The LEO’s job is to maintain order and keep his oath. His oath is to enforce and obey the law. If he violates his oath because it’s convenient, then he’s worthless scum. If he breaks the law because he feels like it, he’s a criminal. If he does both, then he’s worse than any normal criminal.

            But I doubt you’ll believe me, so will you believe the FBI? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes/#section242

          • MassCentral420

            I don’t mind being involved in a criminal case to make sure that justice is served,,, we all should, you know, it what being an American means,,, get involved.

        • Freedomlover

          Christina do you support the 1st Amendment or not, simple question?

          • Christina

            I have in no way inferred that I disagree with any portion of the constitution. What I am troubled by is the over reaction to a man’s mistake.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            In other words, another isolated incident. All incidents being isolated when you ignore the pattern. Try Radley Balko, now at HuffPost, for some real pain to your Weltanschauung.

            OT, but you might Bing “testilying”. To me, perjury is a heinous crime, given the results. Remember though “some” is not “all”, but if you ignore the “some” to support the “all” you’re Cleaver’s “part of the problem”. You are that.

          • hazy

            Under the 4th amendment a person has the right to be free of search and seizure. If a police officer is to seize someone or their effects they must have probable cause or exigent circumstances. None were present; he broke the law and violated her civil rights. Defending a person’s actions when they are in the wrong just makes you look foolish. Your opinion is not supported by case or constitutional law.

          • Barking Dog

            Mistakes kill

            And since this was the second time he was recorded abusing a suspect on the ground, he had ample reason as a violator to look in the cam

        • JdL

          I am sad that you have such a hate for people that would gladly take a bullet for you.

          A cop who would “gladly take a bullet” for a mundane? What fantasy world do YOU live in?

          • Christina

            I know quite a few who have and will get in between a citizen and someone out to harm them. Everyone hates them and has no need for them until it hits the fan and they have to call 911.

          • Barking Dog

            What are your qualifications to make any statement at all about PD? I’ve been running the calls in NYC for more than 30 years and I’ll calling you on it.

            You’re either a fan or MOS. Which is it because you don’t have a clue.

            Know how many times I’ve had to handle the job because the cops don’t bother to show up? Had them run away many times, including during the Rodney King riots here in NYC which you were told didn’t happen.

            While we raced in to a fire in the Queensbridge houses at the Police substation, we passed the cops going the other way. As we were monitoring the radio we knew the call was in the other direction.

            They were running away. We waited on 21st Street to follow FDNY into the projects while they tried to convince the cops to back them from stone throwers but those cops ran away too.

            WE BACKED FDNY, NYPD RAN AWAY!!! First time I have pics of a police station on fire with no cops anywhere around.

            And keep the miscreants at bay we did. The cops shoot them, they die, we shoot them with a cam, they live to suffer

            And let’s not forget the garbage carters strike when it was the Mafia. I have a picture of one piece of shit NYPD officer looking over his shoulder at strike violence while he leans over the hood of a car with a pregnant woman holding a baby inside while he puts a summons on the car for being in the crosswalk by 1 foot for 5 minutes

            He too ran away and it was left to me to call cops because this coward ran off and didn’t reappear when other officers arrived. And the cops gave me a bullshit story about this coward why he didn’t call or return.

            Too many of these stories of mine and I only do NYC. Seems to be a national problem

            Queensbridge: take out the space before the com
            http://www.myspace. com/shaneodelano/photos/65209498

          • Christina

            That sounds terrible. I don’t know what an MOS is. It seems there is no hope that anyone I have conversed with on this board so far is open the possibility that their own experience is not a universal truth. I also don’t know what a troll is….unless you mean the kind under the bridge. So no, I am not a troll. I will politely go about my life and let you all vent your anger and high five each other. As you were.

          • RaymondbyEllis


            The problem is we’ve all had experience with cops, personally or by others, but you think yours is the only universal truth. I’ve had cops train guns at me (revolvers and shotgun, so long ago), threaten my life, watched one purposely hurt a friend by slamming his head into the ground while he was nothing but polite and compliant (I know in your world if the cop hurt him he did something to deserve it), and watched them go on and on about how they had solved a crime at scene. Total, effing, presumutious idiots. If it weren’t for one smart, decent cop out of five I’d have a criminal record. It’s why I trust cops but with reservation because I know some are dangerous idiots and some aren’t. I’m redskined NA white, greater chance than white-white, but less than brown or black, to suffer police idiocy.

            Before you make any remark, we were totally innocent of what they thought we did. The only thing “we” were guilty of was getting into a car with an idiot that had to show us how fast his car could go (over 155, and over all our protestations). Only one listened, the others were so cock-sure that their minds were solidly made up and they acted accordingly.

          • Barking Dog

            My own experience? Lady, I stared out to make hero pics of tehm for the news. If I have an axe, they gave it to me….

            And that’s for 30 years, almost universally among my peers on the street.

            My guess is you’re ex mil with no clue as to what goes and and what’s supposed to go on in the streets.

            MOS is Member of the Service, cop lingo for a policeman.

          • Barking Dog

            And as far as calling 911, we didn’t do that when we had a burglar downstaris. He was chased into the street where he assaulted my neighbor. I ran up with a machete, trying to subdue a man twice my size and half my age.

            I managed to knock him down in the middle of the street but couldn’t keep him there as a machete is no a defensive weapon and I couldn’t kill or harm him as I could have.

            At one point we were in the middle of a big street tussling for the machete. Fortunately for me he had the blade and I had the handle so I pulled it from his grip without hurting him.

            I could have easily sunk the thing into the back of his skull but not knowing if he was just a trespasser or a foreign agent looking to silence me, I couldn’t.

            The cops who came had guns out because of a report of a guy with a machete, which I hid seeing them coming.

            Despite video of the guy and the license plate of a known burglar who drove up throwing open the door and yelling “Get in” like a bad “A Team” episode, the cops never came back with a suspect.

            They did come back and write 8 summonses to the neighbors on the stoop,thinking they were on private property with a few beers. A week later they came back and rolled by slowly, going around the block to make sure no beers.

            Oh forgot the cops writing a riding on the sidewalk summons at 6AM who didn’t want to bother with a burglary right inside where they were. Guy climbed up the fire escape and stole the bike there, right next to their sleeping heads.

            I gave them a $400 bike just to get out of going to the police station as they were illegals. Real tough guys, convince me this crew would take a bullet.

            BTW, the cop who shot the National Guardsman on the GCP got off tonight. Al Sharpton had a good take on what that was….

          • RaymondbyEllis

            I knew guys in the USCG that did it routinely (the difference being that you can’t pepper spray, taser, or shoot what they faced in the Bering Sea). I know now a number of non-police that would also put their life on the line for an innocent, without the tool belt or the time lag.

            “Everyone hates them and has no need for them until it hits the fan and they have to call 911.” I called 911 early last Sunday morning and no cop showed up, but the PhxFD and Paramedics were here quickly. You did the “all” again with “everyone hates them” (I like polite, respectful, non-rude police that attempt to understand and don’t assume everyone is a criminal or low-life) and just expressed your own bias. You’re right that I have “no need for them until it hits the fan”, why would I otherwise? I should call police when nothing is going on that involves them?

            You’re other implied presumption was that they get there when the stuff is still on the fan. They mostly do mop-up unless the crime is still on-going and that is seldom, so very seldom, the case. That’s not their fault, it’s just logistics. You take the “few” or “some” and elevate it to “all”, unless and except “all” doesn’t support your argument, then it’s the “few” or “some”.

            BTW, I’ve cops in my family. One is an Assistant Police Chief with 200+ officers under her control. She wouldn’t buy you either, though she would be more sympathetic than I am with your naivete. The last time I saw her we had a good conversation on cops she wished she could fire because they don’t follow the law.

          • Barking Dog

            Case in point was the “Perfect Storm” All died to save the one Japanese guy, with no hesitation.

            That was the Air Force BTW, not CG. I think the actual unit was the 386th out of Southampton NY. I have a pic of the place.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            We literally bent our Cutter’s bow to get two burn victims within the range of an Air Force helicopter. The CGs main mission when I was in was SAR (implied is saving lives, why would you do search and rescue otherwise?), the Air Force was next, the Navy, Marines, and Army a distant third.

          • Difdi

            I dislike criminals, and the only time I wouldn’t spit on an oathbreaker were if he were on fire.

            I have nothing against good cops. But there are very few of them around.

          • Nathan Josephs

            I could unleash a virtual floodgate of articulately rude responses to your generalizations, however, I will be as civil as possible. Some people do have chips on their shoulders and rightfully so. Even in the LEO community they warn their friends to be careful of people with other departments.
            Example: In Central Florida, you are would hope to be pulled over by an Orange County Sherrif’s deputy or State Trooper than one of the local police (see: Orlando or Winter Park).
            That is not to say that ALL members of OPD or WPPD are corrupt but they have a reputation of being on a power trip.
            Unfortunately there is a culture of deception when it comes to prosecuting the bad apples from the bunch which lead to law abiding folks like myself to have a natural chip on our shoulders when it comes to trusting the police.
            As for your apparent desire that everyone just be good little drones and do as they are told by the police: If we are willing to surrender our liberties and “God Given” rights as outlined by the constitution of the United States of America because a police officer demands that we do so, then we are not half as free as this great nation claims to be.
            Also… if a police officer tells you to go jump infront of a moving train, will you do it?
            Then why should you do anything a police officer tells you that violates your rights and is not their authority to do so?

          • Difdi

            Venting your spleen on someone who you disagree with? Natural part of life on the internet. Venting your spleen at someone who agreed with you, by mistake? Not cool, man.
            Be careful what you click on in the future and double check before hitting submit, no matter how hard it is to think straight. Especially take the time to double check when you can’t think straight from the rage.

        • RaymondbyEllis

          “I am sad that you have such a hate for people that would gladly take a bullet for you.” That is one of the most naive statements I’ve read in a long time. You again did an “all” statement, that’s an idealization representative of hero worship not reality. Some will, some won’t. Both want to get home to dinner, as is so often written in the comments at Policeone.

          I find this adulation of the badge even more insulting, beyond it’s intellectual shortcomings, because there are a hell of a lot of men who would put their lives on the line without the toolbelt. Worshiping a uniform and a badge is just idolatry. They are paid to run to the violence, the rest of us that do aren’t.

          I like Southland a lot, I think the gay cop represents the good but pissy cop, but Southland isn’t reality.

          • hazy

            You guys realize this person is the wife of a cop, don’t you?

        • RaymondbyEllis

          “You are articulate and rude.” Well, you told him didn’t you. How dare he overshadow your own.

        • Difdi

          Being articulate is a bad thing? Telling someone the truth is rude? You must live in a state of bliss throughout your entire life.

        • FTP

          These cowards would never take a bullet for anyone. We have a hate for rights violators ! Respect our rights we love you, violate them we hate you.

      • Christina

        I am familiar with manners. I know those. Also how do you know so much about the police hiring process? Were you rejected because of you high IQ? Might want to brush that chip off your shoulder.

        • Bob

          What does manners have anything to do with constitutional rights? This officer asked, was denied, and then threw a temper tantrum because he didn’t get his way. He is a human piece of garbage with a badge and a gun.

          • Christina

            Manners have to do with flinging insults at a group of people. Last time I checked insulting and misjudging a group of people based on the actions of a segment of that group was called being prejudiced. Or does that not apply when someone is insulting cops?

          • RaymondbyEllis

            Unfortunately, this “insulting… a group of people based on the actions of a segment of that group was called being prejudiced” is also true when you do the opposite: praise a segment of the group that doesn’t deserve the praise other than they are part of the group The ellipse is over “misjudge”, that’s still in question.

            “Or does that not apply when someone is insulting cops?” You moved from segment to “all”. A segment, not all, deserves insulting. I’m sure you’d agree.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

          No, Christina, I was never rejected from the police academy or any department. I chose a different career path.

          I’ve read stories about their hiring process. It’s very well-documented.

          • Christina

            I can see you have taken a different path. I am glad that you are using your talents but your view of police is very fear based and unbalanced.

          • Barking Dog

            Christina’s a troll

          • RaymondbyEllis

            Not when you’re writing about a segment of the police, one which can only be identified after the fact. “Unbalanced” is a weasel term meaning he isn’t saying what you want to hear. It’s “unbalanced’ because it isn’t your “balance”. Cops do a lot of damn good things; they also do a lot of bad especially when they don’t know the law and the only law is their authority.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            As for fear-based, have you watched any of these videos? People that use violence because they have to also use violence when they don’t. Especially when there is little chance they will be punished.

            Remember the college kid that “kicked the police horses”? He didn’t , and it was in fact gratuitous police violence. The second excuse by the police was other college kids were doing violence so he deserved it because, well , he was a college kid at the scene. Anyone at the scene will do…

            Lord Acton explained all this in a very concise phrase that embraces all organizations that have the power of the state. He just left out all the excuses they make when caught, which are best summed up by “blame, then dirty, the victim”. BTW, victim doesn’t mean virginal innocence, just innocent at the time. Thus the technique of “dirtying”. A technique to obscure their fault, their crime, that neither I nor you could morally or ethically embrace, I’m sure. No decent person would or could. Nor would they excuse.

          • Difdi

            Acton was arguably wrong. I’ve heard a variation on his phrase that goes “Power does not corrupt. The problem is that it is irresistible to the easily corrupted”

          • Barking Dog

            Right. 7 arrests in 30 years for taking pictures where the cops never show up, not even once while I do 6 or 7 appearances each time.

            That’s to punish me for being a big mouth NY’er and not taking any shit the asshats of the NYPD want to dish out.

            I’m not talking legal orders, I know the rules..I’m talking bullies. But my view after 7 arrests abd a broken rib is just an unbalanced fear thing.

            Ever have a nightstick jammed into your chest so hard it snaps the rib on the side, right where you may be tickled?

            I have

          • Difdi

            Actually, if anything, Carlos has a very optimistic and balanced outlook when it comes to police, given how many times he’s been abused by police, been the target of false arrests and had to go to court to defend himself from trumped-up charges with no basis in reality.

          • MassCentral420

            Yeah,,, Question 1,,,, Who do you know or related to???

        • rick
          • Barking Dog

            I remember. Even I was shocked and nothing surprises me.

        • Barking Dog

          Police Reject Candidate for Being Too Intelligent

          I remember this.was In Connecticut

          Plus being a NYC crime reporter for 30 years, yes I do know of the hiring process and the psych test they take that so many morons amazingly pass.

          Last time I was in court, there were 3 children wearing NYPD uniforms. Big hulking children, but children just the same.

          When I heard their conversation, I was jonesing for a cam, I gotta record this, no one would believe it.

    • Alex

      What he is, Christina, is a man wearing a cop’s uniform…and so ‘trying to do his job’ isn’t what it’s all about. It’s about doing what the law says he’s supposed to do, and representing the laws he swore to protect and uphold. Since you “don’t know if what he did is ‘legal'”, then please go educate yourself before you make some ignorant comments. Lastly, how does her actions interfear with his job? He walked up to her and interfered with her rights as a citizen. And lets say, hypothetically, he doesn’t accurately know the law, ignorance is no excuse….especially from a LAW MAN. But oh we’ll, right? He’s just a dude trying to do his job. I suppose you would be ok shrugging off a violation of your rights if someone violated them.

      By the way, I don’t think you should be able to vote because you’re a woman – protected by the 19th amendment. Who cares, we’re all human….we can let that one go.

      • Christina

        You obviously are so much smarter than me. I can tell by your nasty insulting tone. It would be nice if you could make a clear concise argument without having to result to character attacks against a complete stranger. He did indeed mess up. I am glad you have never messed up. It must be nice living in your glass house.

        • Alex

          I’m not making any character attacks. As you said, you are a stranger and I don’t know you or your character. I’m just calling it as I read it (or your comments). Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.– Abraham Lincoln

          • RaymondbyEllis

            Yeah, you aren’t making character attacks whatsoever other than you disagree with her and you aren’t being servile. In the future though to show her the respect she needs you might start out with “Memsahib, please forgive me” while being on at least one knee if not both.

          • Difdi

            Actually Alex, that was Mark Twain not Abe Lincoln.

        • RaymondbyEllis

          Hurt feelings aren’t an argument.

          This is a Tu Quoque argument (look it up if you don’t know this form of kindergarten reasoning) and a category mistake: “He did indeed mess up. I am glad you have never messed up. It must be nice living in your glass house.” His glass house, the category error, doesn’t have the power of government behind it; doesn’t involve the “have you ever been arrested” on an employment form; doesn’t involve violence that will be given the rubber-stamp by most PDs; or a number of other differences that people here can give, if only the humiliation of being hand-cuffed.

        • hazy

          Your understanding of constitutional law does not even pass at a common sense level. You will not have anyone agreeing with you on this thread.

    • steveo

      What you don’t understand, is that this happens regularly to me anyway when I’m copwatching. I’ve learned to keep my camera going because usually just before I’m about to leave, one of the leos comes up to me as the designated intimidator. They always say something stupid like, may I help you or did you get any good shots? I jgnore them and tell them to leave me alone, that really gets them agitated. Now, I just say” I dont’ want to talk to you. Please go back to whatever you were doing.”
      I’ve learned the process of requesting an emergency court hearing in my jurisdiction, so if a leo ever takes my camera. I’ll be right over there with my pre-prepared motions to compel the PD to return my camera immediately. And they will too. I also have a pre-prepared writ of mandamus that I can take over to the appellate court, if the circuit court won’t give me a hearing. Never had to do that though. Most leos don’t understand how serious it is to take a citizen journalist’s camera. The courts take it real seriously. The SCOTUS has never ever upheald a prior restraint (govt stopping someone from newsgathering or publishing) in the history of the US. There are no legal precedent’s on the side of this leo. The SCOTUS even ruled unanimously in favor of the 1st Amendment in Larry Flynt’s case after he called them, “eight axxholes and a token cxnt” in 1987 as they were asking questions.”

      • Difdi

        In many states, catching a LEO in the act of committing a felony or breach of the peace permits a citizen to make a perfectly lawful citizen’s arrest on the LEO. In a few, this extends to misdemeanors as well.

        In my state, taking something out of the owner’s hands against the owner’s will without a warrant or exigent circumstances is robbery. Value of the property taken is irrelevant, it’s the confrontational taking that matters. Intent to return the property immediately or in the more distant future is also irrelevant, it’s the violent act that matters. In other words, a breach of the peace. Doing so while visible armed with a dangerous weapon makes it an armed robbery, which is a felony.

        I’ve never had a camera snatched by anyone. But within three seconds after someone does so, I will be making an arrest. Under my state’s law, there is no legal difference between resisting a LEO’s arrest or resisting a citizen’s arrest.

        • ExCop-LawStudent

          LOL, except there is strict liability for a citizen making a false arrest, such as for “robbery” in this case.

          Why don’t you try that and see what happens?

        • steveo

          I wouldn’t do that but I’d make the leo arrest me before handing over my camera. I’ll let him arrest me for obstruction (in FL 843.02) and then go off on the judge the next am. I’d make a stupid misdemeanor arrest into the crime of the century, just like Carlos did.

    • sfmc98

      Yes, who cares about what is “legal?” I may spit in your face but gosh, how pesky that it is “illegal” and any “Injury” you suffer would be exaggerated and ridiculous. After all, I’m only human.

      • Christina

        It might be rude and prove that you have absolutely no upbringing if you were to spit in my face, but I wouldn’t feign an injury to draw attention to myself. I don’t think I’d lose any sleep or anything.

        • RaymondbyEllis

          You do realize that spitting in a cop’s face is a prosecutable assault? Thus, by you, they feign injury to draw attention to themselves.

          Your sense of propriety doesn’t apply to the police. Nor do they apply it to you; you’re a bitch, whore, or c*nt who should shut the f*ck up if you’ve listened to any of the recordings here or elsewhere. The police today aren’t 1-Adam 12, Dragnet, the Naked City, or even Law and Order in the early years. They are as rude and profane as the rest of society, more so because they have a professional responsibility not to be, and if you don’t like it they have all sorts of charges to make you suffer for your dislike.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            Replying to myself, I listened to the video again. He seized the phone without reasonable cause (look to the DoJ interpretation of “citizens are as trustworthy as cops” in this regard) and claimed a power to search it. A cop can seize a phone because he can claim any reason he can make up at the time if only to be pragmatic about police abuse of power, but the search requires a warrant as Johnny Law explained over and over. The cop can hold with the excuse that evidence will be destroyed, but the search requires a warrant. It’s that pesky 4th from our experience with the Crown.

            If anything makes me hate Americans, it’s that they don’t have a f**king understanding about the why and the wherefore of this country based on the history of the Crown and the excesses of all theocracies or monarchies during or before then. I got grounding on this in the California school system for God’s sake, let me repeat, in California. What the hell were they teaching elsewhere?

        • sfmc98

          Its not just rude, its illegal. There’s no need to “feign an injury,” you are misunderstanding the use of the word “injury.” Not all injury is physical injury. By virtue of either battering someone or depriving them of their rights, they have suffered injury, as a matter of definition.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gregg-Jones/527975393 Gregg Jones

      He’s a treasonous, traitorous piece of shit.

      • Christina

        And you are a judgemental assuming potty mouth.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gregg-Jones/527975393 Gregg Jones

          You’ve made your judgement, with your assumptions. I’ve made mine. Do have a problem with that? Would you care to make more judgments about me, as well as the piece of “filth” cop? (You won’t be able to claim “potty mouth” again.) You’ve made an awfully lot of comments here judging others to be claiming to be offended by others making them.