Home / Massachusetts Cop Threatens to Smash Camera into Man’s Face

Massachusetts Cop Threatens to Smash Camera into Man’s Face

 

A Massachusetts cop threatened to smash a camera into a man’s face if he dared take one more photograph of her.

Instead, he started video recording her.

The video shows Barnstable police officer Gretchen Allen walking away from Robert Bastille, who runs a local news site called Hyannis News.

“You’re going to hit me?” Bastille can be heard saying. “I”m sorry, you’re going to threaten me, officer?”

“Are you trying to cause a scene right now cause I’ll arrest you for disorderly instead,” an obviously distraught Allen tells Bastille.

Instead of what?  Smashing the camera in his face?

According to Bastille, her exact words, which prompted him to turn on his video camera, were, “I swear… take one more photo and I’ll take that camera and smash it in your face.”

Barnstable police officer Gretchen Allen: “I swear… take one more photo and I’ll take that camera and smash it in your face.” Photo by Robert Bastille

Barnstable police officer Gretchen Allen: “I swear… take one more photo and I’ll take that camera and smash it in your face.” Photo by Robert Bastille

In the video, Bastille continues to berate her for threatening him, an allegation she never denies.

She instead calls for back-up and orders him to “stop taking my photograph.”

Meanwhile, some clueless wanker walks up and tells him to “be nice to the officer, be a gentleman.”

After a minute when it dawned on her that he was shooting video and not taking photos, she informed him that it was illegal to record her.

“Are you recording right now?” she asks.

“I am videotaping, which is within my Constitutional rights,” he responds.

“It most certainly is not,” he replies.

He then brings up the Glik vs. Boston landmark case, which not only took place in the same state, but established the citizens do have the right to record cops in public.

But that didn’t stop her from threatening to seize his camera “as evidence,” a threat which he also brushed off.

It is clear that Bastille knew the law and that Allen didn’t, even though she tries to berate him by pointing out that he is not a cop, so there is no way he can know the law better than her.

Lieutenant Michael Clark eventually arrived on the scene and straightened her out, according to Bastille’s write-up on the incident, where he goes to great lengths to explain he is not anti-cop.

But he doesn’t hesitate to state that Allen is not fit to be a cop, which anybody can see from this video.

Here is a synopsis of the incident from his write-up:

The patrol officer was inspecting a bag in plain view and I was naturally curious as to what was going on. When the severity of an investigation is unknown, it is the policy of Hyannis News to take several still photos of the action just in case it turns out to be something interesting.

I took my first photo and looked up. The officer was angry about something, but having an earplug for the scanner in one ear… I was unable to discern precisely what she was trying to say. I only sensed she was very angry.

I walked closer so I could hear, she told me she didn’t want her picture taken or placed on the internet in one of my stories. Her tone struck me as aggressive. She wasn’t requesting I withhold a photo as a courtesy for some good reason. She was basically ordering me not to take pictures of her whatsoever.

At this point I raised my camera and took another photo. The officer stopped, abruptly turned and said the following,“I swear… take one more photo and I’ll take that camera and smash it in your face.”

Lieutenant Micheal Clark arrived and removed the arresting/detaining officer from the scene. He took her around the corner of the building where they had a lengthy conversation.

My father arrived to check on me and told the two backup officers that in almost 50 years I had never ever been in trouble with the law… not once. My father was as confused and worried as I was about the way things were going.

Bottom line: The officer returned to the scene and with a tear in her eyes asked me if I was “happy.” I took that to mean she didn’t get the news she wanted. She was hoping she could charge me with felony wiretapping or something else.

 

About Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller is founder and publisher of Photography is Not a Crime, which began as a one-man blog in 2007 to document his trial after he was arrested for photographing police during a journalistic assignment. He is also the author of The Citizen Journalist's Photography Handbook, which can be purchased through Amazon.
  • The Limpet

    Damn, meant to vote down the foolish comment below, from ‘Real Dill’. Good to see Justice prevail once in a while. Keep up the good work PINAC – check out the campaign against tasers: RESIST CARDIAC ARREST. Solidarity and Thanks.

    • Difdi

      If you’re logged in, you can change your vote.

  • LBrothers

    Another badge heavy cop. None of them would say a peep without that tin.

    • Sunshine1011

      Seems to me this guy was harassing her. Guys like this always edit out the stuff that started the situation, have to wonder what he did.

  • Haeshu

    It’s almost like this officer has no law enforcement training at all.

    • stan gore

      They don’t need to know the law. They just make it up as they go.

  • Sean

    Awww, power-tripping cop didn’t get to illegally arrest or smash a law-abiding citizen’s face in… poor thing!

  • Difdi

    Assault, battery, coercion/extortion (I don’t know what MA calls it) and armed robbery are all crimes under various state statutes (and the MA constitution).

    It’s difficult to make an arrest without committing assault in most situations and you can’t apply handcuffs to someone without committing battery. Both are excused in the course of a lawful arrest, but a false/unlawful arrest makes them crimes again.

    Larceny by force is robbery in MA and a police officer being armed while doing it makes it armed robbery. The law is quite clear on when an arrest may be made and when it may not be made, and a false arrest to cover for robbery makes the crime worse, it doesn’t negate it — The required mens rea for robbery is intent to unlawfully deprive a citizen of lawful property, and trumping up a false arrest to justify the larcenous act satisfies the mens rea requirement.

    Coercion/extortion occurs when you threaten an unlawful act to coerce someone to engage in behavior they are lawfully permitted to refuse to engage in, or to stop engaging in behavior they are lawfully permitted to. An order to stop exercising a constitutional right or be falsely arrested absolutely qualifies.

    Violation of rights under color of law is also federal crime. A felony if the violation includes the threat of a dangerous weapon or a conspiracy to violate rights.

    Police are not exempted from having to obey laws when they put on the uniform, and it’s possible to make an arrest (police or citizen’s) while under arrest (though it rarely happens, a common police response to being the target of a citizen’s arrest is to arrest the citizen in turn). Police called to the site of a citizen’s arrest often discover that the suspect and the victim have arrested eachother (“I’m putting you under citizen’s arrest, I’m calling the police, please don’t resist.” — “Oh yeah? Well I’m arresting you too!”, heh).

    I’d love to see a video (and more than one) of a police officer being arrested for violating rights, coercion/extortion, assault/battery, etc. Ideally an arrest carried out by a fellow officer, but a citizen’s arrest would do. :D

    • Vincenzo Luciano

      There is also something called obstructing a police officer from doing his job, there is also something called stalking for which this guy could clearly have been charged, there is also something called harassment which this guy clearly stands guilty of, there is also something called your rights come with certain responsibilities which he like many of you guys obviously doesn’t care about. Your rights do not give you the right to infringe upon other people’s rights. She said do not video record me, did he stop? If he was a journalist he could have asked her for on the spot interview, why didn’t he do that? She is no celebrity, why he chased her? Just because she was a cop doesn’t mean you would treat her like a criminal, doesn’t mean she ceases to be a woman, doesn’t mean she ceases to be a human being, doesn’t mean she ceases to have any right to privacy what so ever. She was doing her job, why did he go there to disturb her? I tell you why, this attention seeking self proclaimed journalistic nut job was looking for a scoop, a scoop to instant fame, but after it turned out to be nothing he started chasing her, harassing her, video recording her with an obvious attention to pass himself as a victim, to get attention. He knew public sentiments these days viz a viz cops, so was trying to bank upon it. And by the way, who are you in relation this guy propagating hatred against this cop based on one sided version of the story? Did you care to find out her version of the story? What kind of journalism by both of you guys is being practised? If you know your constitution, you should also know that under the same constitution every accused is given a fair chance to defend himself, where is side of the story then? You guys are trying to conduct a kangaroo court here, conducting a media trial of her and for what? Being a victim of stalking and harassment?

      • Difdi

        A police officer’s job does not and can not include things they are forbidden by law and their oath to ever do. If obstructing an illegal act were itself illegal, every police officer currently alive would need to turn themselves in.

        A statute in conflict with the constitution is nullified by the constitution. While there are certainly situations where stalking laws are necessary and good, you risk their destruction (accompanied by great harm to those who actually need their protection) when you stretch them to cover things their authors never intended, that the constitution prohibits.

        You’re absolutely correct that having rights doesn’t give you the right to violate the rights of someone else, but…can you even see the irony in your cognitive dissonance here? She attempted to exercise rights she does not have in order to deny the photographer his rights. She did so in violation of her oath as a police officer and the law as well.

      • jtaylor2306

        Huh? Stalking?? Are You Serious? They Work For US. Your Way Of Thinking Is Why We Are In This Mess.

      • Ed

        Vincenzo Luciano or Adolf Eichmann? You decide.

  • Vincenzo Luciano

    Utter piece of one sided crap! He was harassing her, period!

  • Bevin Chu

    Proponents of the National Security State/Police State keep telling us “If you’re not doing anything wrong, what do you have to be afraid of?”

    So I’m guessing that principle doesn’t apply to the Armed Thugs of the National Security State/Police State itself?

  • jcalex

    Does that sick pig bitch have a family? Does anyone know this scum? Did anyone got to school with that Honey Bucket licker?

  • James Morgan

    I take that tearful “Happy Now” confrontation to men the Lt just “Ripped Her A New One”. Officer Allen needs an Attitude Adjustment.. Lt. Clark needs a ‘pat on the back’ for handling it nearly perfectly. He deserves his command in my opinion.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Excellent point, James Morgan. The local police department backs photog rights. Here is another example of things going right when an officer errs.
      .
      The problem is not systemic in all police, but localized to just one in this video. That is good for law enforcement. I should have picked up on that first. Thanks, James.

  • psychokillers911

    The cop threatened the photographer with destruction of property and assault and all of the bootlickers on here thought he was too harsh on her?

  • Sunshine1011

    Gee, you chase and harass a cop and wonder why she has a problem.

    • psychokillers911

      I doubt the man would have “chased and harassed” her if she hadn’t threatened to use violence against him for a lawful activity. I applaud his actions for defending his rights from this out of control cop. If he had not defended his rights this cop would still think her behavior appropriate in dealing with the public.

  • Kevin Clark

    Whether the guy is being a prick or not is immaterial. She is a paid, trained LEO and the burden to handle the situation properly is on her. I have read over his site and it does not appear that he is in the business of becoming part of the story. It looked to me like she was either in “I am god-cop mode and thought everyone had to do what the said or else. Or she had done something she was questioning or knew was wrong and nerves over ran common sense. As for the guy being a prick we really have no solod evidence of what happened prior but if she was anything like she was in the video and it was me I would be standing up to her to the full extent of my constitutional rights and many people assume if there is a confrontation between a LEO and a citizen the citizen is usually wrong. Live here for a bit and I guarantee that will change. When NYC and LAPD retirees say wow these cops are real pricks thats pretty bad.

  • justathought22

    I seem to be seeing more and more of these stories where cops are just out of controll and acting like they are the gestapo. I used to respect cops and think they deserved extra support for the difficult job they had to do but unfortunately so many of them are raging out of controll that they have lost much respedt but have fear now.

  • Combaticron

    Evidently officers don’t learn that it’s OK to disengage. She might not want to back down, but it was in her best interest to do so. Say, “Have a nice day, sir” and move on.

  • Andy

    Obviously all of you who are siding with the cops and insisting that the photographer did something wrong are wrong yourselves. If he did do something wrong then why did her superior that arrived on the scene not arrest the photographer? Why did the officer return and make the snide remark of “happy”?

  • Xploit

    Heck yeah! Keep filming brother! We’ll get rid of one crooked cop at a time.

  • bc_motoguy

    This photog is credible and worthy of trust and respect. The psycho baby LEO is not. Official gang Discipline is required. /bangmeGavel!

  • Kellen Lawler

    Must have been that time of the month.

  • Kellen Lawler

    One big step in the right direction would be mandatory body cams be worn by every leo nation wide. With no ability to turn off. Good cops would have no problem… the rest would scream bloody murder.

  • Bob Holland

    What is this? A commie provocateur site to expose the lifes of a decent cop? She might be married, have hubbie and kids! Would you eager to go viral on the web, jeopardizing all of of this? What about using photo’s or video footagage by police departments or prosecutors as evidence against villains robbing, killing, mutulating, raping your parents, children, grandchildren end so on!? Wankers! This person deserves respect for the lethal work she’s carrying out! Where’s is the photograph of the piece of manure complaining about this?

    Hiding behind a lense with a god-complex wont save this turd! And it’s exactly these kind of breed who are a disgrace for a country once known as the US of A, presently known as the USSR, now think about THAT!

    • hesacop

      Thank you for your insight OFFICER HOLLAND.

      • iknow

        Yeah, Now go TASER somebody in a wheel chair pig.

  • suprabrew

    I contacted the Barnstable PD. Their internet “contact” link is disabled. I called the BPD and got a useless auto directory. Nevertheless did leave an exceptionally worded voice-mail message with an administrative assistant (by typing ALLEN into the directory system).

    I am a former year-round resident of Nantucket. This is complete BS for Hyannis PD / MA police to behave this way. This is not acceptable in any way, shape or form in any American city, particularly the Cape Cod area. That is a geographical area of particularly positive energy and it WON”T be spoiled by rouge, criminal, corrupt cops. PERIOD!

  • CUCHULAIN

    Cameras are kreptonite to cops.

  • a tax payer

    well lets see here. the (POLICE) record people with sound when pulling them over in there car. now remember the police never say to the person that they are being recorded when pulling people over. interesting. its called getting facts! its in public. this is America not iran!

  • camerasmasher

    this guy is an idiot, if i was walking by and saw him harassing this lady i wouldve just taken the camera and smashed it. i dont care if shes a cop, you dont follow someone around from 5 feet away and video record them hoping for a reaction.

    and i hate most cops, i’m an ex-convict. but this guy is a jerk-off.

    • $22798478

      Relax Francis!

  • SonyA57

    This guy is a royal ass hole, you give photogs a bad name and, this is just the kind of behavior that will get laws passed restricting all of us from our current freedoms of public photography. She did nothing to you to deserve that.

  • $22798478

    HAHA….THAT’S FUNNY! I was hoping that a random crazy person who wasn’t taking their medicine came up to her and slit her carotid artery.

  • Voice-Of-Concern

    Well yeah, that would be an utterly rational proportionate response. (eye roll)

  • Pigsty

    The only asshole I can see in this situation is the Chief of Police for not firing her.

  • Difdi

    He has a right to be an asshole (nobody ever needed a constitutional right to say and do exactly what people like). But since when is it being an asshole to expect someone who swore an oath to the law and the constitution to not break their oath?

    Even if he was being an asshole, he hasn’t committed a crime. Even if he had committed a crime, it would not justify second degree murder.

  • Strapon

    Shes hot! For a lesbian that is.

  • Sadly

    So if it wasnt for her daddy getting her a job as a cop ,she would be one of the slower waitresses at DENNYS.

  • TskTsk

    The only one who is unsuited in this case is the moron that hired her.

  • Voice-Of-Concern

    “women’s emotional issues” <– really? Women are not inherently more or less stable than men. Sheesh, grow up!

  • burt

    Look in the mirror

  • trub

    Pompous ass? Look in the mirror.

  • ConcernedPatriot

    That “ass” was protecting your rights you numb skull. Ill bet if they told you to shoot yourself for the greater good you would do it like a nice little slave. I Hate ignorant people!!!

  • Difdi

    I truly wish bad citizens like you would emigrate somewhere where the laws and the rights of the people match your views on what rights should be. North Korea sounds about right.

    Nobody ever needed a heavily-protected constitutional right to say exactly what everyone wants to hear. The first amendment protects assholes.

    But since when is expecting someone who put their hand on a Bible and swore to uphold the law and the constitution to not break that oath being an asshole?

  • ConcernedPatriot

    Why don’t prove him wrong grandpa? Oh yea, you can’t!

  • Kellen Lawler

    Enough of the god shit

  • ConcernedPatriot

    The man defending your right to videotape “Public Servants” for your own protection was out of line? What happened to us? How did we turn into a bunch of spineless cowards. A Badge does NOT give anyone the right to violate ANYONE’S right. There is no debate. There is no argument. Quit standing up for cops who don’t know the constitution. Quit standing up for people who don’t care about your rights. Wake up!!!

  • Difdi

    Depends. Did the catch & release stop him from exercising a constitutional right? If so, then he’d probably have a case. If the officer made it clear that the intent of the arrest was to stop the exercise of rights, then he’d absolutely have a case.

    Confessing to a federal felony (18 USC 241 or 242) on camera is probably a bad idea for anyone.

  • willieboy50

    I’d say he at least has a case for threatening to smash him in the face- if you or I said that to a private citizen, we’d probably be arrested for assault/battery.

  • Kevin Clark

    I am not a lawyer but if I go and detain someone at large without justification I can be arrested. I am not a trained law enforcement officer, she is so her threshhold for being culpable should be proportionately lower. Just as I being a medical professional am held to a higher standard in a medical situation.

  • Difdi

    You can’t betray someone unless they trust you. With a little less trust, we’d have video of the entire encounter, not just the end of it. There’s a lesson in there.

  • Difdi

    Well, since the topic seems to be irrational violence, why not go all the way and wish Al Qaeda had dropped a biological weapon on her head?

  • Difdi

    If you applied the standard tests for what makes a private citizen an accomplice or conspirator to a crime to individual police officers, the typical locker room or after-shift bar chatter between cops would send most of them to prison.

    If you applied the standards found in the RICO Act to most police departments, fewer than 1% would survive intact.

    Good apples don’t look the other way when a fellow officer brags about committing crimes. Good apples don’t stay cops for long because if they choose to stay good they get slow or nonexistent backup if they’re not fired on the spot or involuntarily committed.

  • Difdi

    If drumming up business invalidated the results, all police sting operations would be thrown out of court as entrapment.

    Letting someone choose whether or not to break the law then applying lawful consequences if they make the wrong choice is just how the system works.

  • Difdi

    And then you will go to prison where your anal rape fantasies will be fulfilled, though not in a manner you’ll enjoy. Hope your family can afford to buy food without your paycheck, sucks to be them if they can’t.

    Committing assault and battery on someone who is not violating any laws makes YOU the bad person, not them.

  • Chirpy

    Derpy tough guy. DEEERRRRPPPPPP….

  • Difdi

    That’s real irony, considering your posts make it quite clear that you are lower class than she is.

  • Difdi

    It’s quite common for criminals to deny that they committed a crime — does that mean police and the general public should take their word for it?

    Threatening an unlawful act in an attempt to discourage someone from engaging in lawful behavior is extortion/coercion whether they actually follow through on the threat or not. The only difference is the length of the prison sentence, not whether they get one.

    Additionally, making threats to use your authority under color of law to violate rights is a federal crime. Anyone can commit this one, but it’s easier for public officials like cops to trip over. Doing so with threat of dangerous weapon or with backup is a felony.

    If a citizen makes a citizen’s arrest in error, they are typically charged with a crime. If ignorance of the law does not excuse breaking it, why is it that police (who have MORE training in the law than the average private citizen) are excused for ignorance?

    She may have learned from her mistake, but if she had been properly trained (even to the standard a non-police officer is expected to meet) she wouldn’t have made the mistake at all. I’m not a cop, but I read news that impacts my profession. Usually, if I make a mistake in my profession I am not facing prison the way cops easily can be.

    Supposedly the photographer didn’t think there’d be a problem with his behavior, since there has never been one before. He wasn’t recording until after she threatened him because he didn’t think he’d need to. You can’t betray a trust (public or private) if you’re not trusted, after all.

  • Ron Smith

    I agree about being spineless cowards. Whats this about not being able to follow a cop? Should we also cross the street when we see one coming the other way? If we cant cross the street should we humbly bow and scrape as they go past (avoiding eye contact of course)?

  • Voice-Of-Concern

    Gutter language? Oh yeah, you sure are classing up the place. If you don’t feel safe, you should leave. If all you have to add is “adult language hurts my ears”, then you are wasting your time & our time.

  • Difdi

    We can only hope. But I doubt it, given current trends.

  • Urbud

    Butt
    Ugly
    Rectal
    Turd
    Whats it spell?

  • Proud GrandPa

    I understand your mistaken assumption now. I followed the websites you offered. I never followed them on Facebook.
    .
    Perhaps there were ensuing discussions on Facebook which are more illuminating that those on the websites, but based upon the content of the websites I find no need to read rants and complaining on Facebook too.
    .
    The websites you listed and expanded (three in total) collect a variety of examples of how police are (1) corrupt in some locations but not all, (2) arming themselves with surplus military weapons in response to better arms used by terrorists and gangs, and (3) part of plot to takeover the USA and the whole world.
    .
    As a devout believer in the Christian faith, I can tell you we also have our believers in less conventional theories. Let us love them all. God does.
    .
    I have replied and commented about these websites elsewhere on PINAC. My failure to comment on this thread was no disrespect to you. One can tell you sincerely believe something and want others to share your beliefs. Perhaps Carlos would allow you a blog on PINAC if your concerns about law enforcement also explains the anti-media or pro-mainline media bias in some police departments. Give it a try.

  • Proud GrandPa

    Obviously you’ve never known any females over age 12.
    .
    Beware of stereotyping both genders as equal in any ways except spiritually and legally.

  • Kellen Lawler

    If he was interfering…. is there any qieustion she would not have arrested him? I think not. So evidently he was NOT interfering.

  • Kellen Lawler

    >>> Clearly she was guilty. Non admittance is just as good.

    Ray, where did you get your law degree? Are you perchance from the
    UK where the refusal to answer questions is admissible as evidence
    against the accused? Gramps you might want to brush up on a recent SCOTUS ruling. http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-if-you-want-to-claim-the-fifth/

    A police officer is
    asking you questions about a crime, and because the questions are off
    the record you answer willingly. Then, the questions take an accusatory
    tone and you stop answering. The Fifth Amendment, which allows a person
    not to present criminal evidence against themselves, surely protects you
    in this moment right?

    Wrong.

    Amid the slew of decision being churned out by the Supreme Court right
    now was a ruling in last week’s Salinas v. Texas. Genovevo Salinas had
    not been arrested, so he felt comfortable answering the police’s
    questions voluntarily. However, once a question made him uncomfortable
    he stopped responding. The police used Salinas’ silence in court to
    signify a confession of guilt.

    Salinas then brought suit against the state of Texas based on the fact
    that a person could not be incriminated for silence, nor could the use
    of the Fifth Amendment be used as evidence against a person. The
    question posed in the petition to the Supreme Court reads:

    Whether or under what circumstances the Fifth Amendment’s
    Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant’s refusal to answer law
    enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read his Miranda
    rights.

    The Supreme Court ruled against Salinas in a 5-4 vote because they
    claimed that Salinas did not make clear during questioning that he was
    utilizing the Fifth Amendment. In the words of scotusblog:

    The prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question
    as evidence of his guilt at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment
    because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to
    incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question.

    Read more at: http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/06/supreme-court-salinas-silence-fifth-amendment/
    A police officer is
    asking you questions about a crime, and because the questions are off
    the record you answer willingly. Then, the questions take an accusatory
    tone and you stop answering. The Fifth Amendment, which allows a person
    not to present criminal evidence against themselves, surely protects you
    in this moment right?

    Wrong.

    Amid the slew of decision being churned out by the Supreme Court right
    now was a ruling in last week’s Salinas v. Texas. Genovevo Salinas had
    not been arrested, so he felt comfortable answering the police’s
    questions voluntarily. However, once a question made him uncomfortable
    he stopped responding. The police used Salinas’ silence in court to
    signify a confession of guilt.

    Salinas then brought suit against the state of Texas based on the fact
    that a person could not be incriminated for silence, nor could the use
    of the Fifth Amendment be used as evidence against a person. The
    question posed in the petition to the Supreme Court reads:

    Whether or under what circumstances the Fifth Amendment’s
    Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant’s refusal to answer law
    enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read his Miranda
    rights.

    The Supreme Court ruled against Salinas in a 5-4 vote because they
    claimed that Salinas did not make clear during questioning that he was
    utilizing the Fifth Amendment. In the words of scotusblog:

    The prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question
    as evidence of his guilt at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment
    because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to
    incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question.

    Read more at: http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/06/supreme-court-salinas-silence-fifth-amendment/

  • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

    — I also respect atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews.—

    Liar

  • Proud GrandPa

    Thanks for the information. It seems the conclusion offered in the blog does not follow from the facts of the case. The 5th Amendment still applies WHEN INVOKED. Pardon my use of caps for emphasis.

    .

    Read this again…

    The Supreme Court ruled against Salinas in a 5-4 vote because they
    claimed that Salinas did not make clear during questioning that he was
    utilizing the Fifth Amendment. In the words of scotusblog:

    You see, had Salinas clearly invoked then he would have prevailed. The rule is one must clearly invoke one’s rights. I don’t see that as setting aside the 5th Amendment.
    .
    Thanks for good information and thoughtful reply.

  • Lorentz Factor

    I love having the right to be a belligerent asshole if I please. Welcome to America. Being an asshole, whether socially right or wrong, is well within our rights and we have EVERY right to complain if it results in a cop overstepping their bounds.

PINAC

PINAC Logo cutout copy
Be the Media