July 21st, 2014

Texas Man Handcuffed for Photographing Police Station 152

By Carlos Miller

A Texas man was handcuffed and detained for taking pictures of a police department from a public sidewalk.

The man, who goes by The Battousai on Youtube said he was doing a First Amendment test to see how the Round Rock Police Department would respond to his Constitutionally protected activity of taking pictures from a public sidewalk.

They ended up interpreting it as “suspicious activity.”

But then again, we’re living in an age where practically all Constitutionally protected activity is considered suspicious activity.

In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has even classified “alternative media,” a category that PINAC could easily fall under, as a form of “domestic extremism,” describing alternative media in a report as “a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.”

We know the mainstream media will usually accept whatever information the government spoon feeds them, which is something we don’t do here, so consider us radicals.

Or better yet, take a step back and observe who is truly guilty of domestic extremism.

Is it the man taking photos in broad daylight of a police department who then refused to identify himself because he was not under any legal obligation to do so, considering the cops had no reasonable suspicion that he was committing a crime?

Or is it the cops who handcuffed him and insinuated that he was planning on blowing up the police department simply because he was taking photos of it?

“I need to identify you in case something does happen, the building blows up or whatever  the case may be,” an officer Hernandez informed him before handcuffing him.

Eventually, several more cops came out, including Sergeant Mike Osborn, who accused the man of being disrespectful by invoking his Constitutional rights.

When I walk up to you and start talking to you and start trying to ask you a simple question and create some type of dialogue so we can have some type of friendly conversation.

And you want to have attitude and start talking about Constitutional rights?

But friendly conversations do not consist of walking up to complete strangers and demanding their identifications. Try that in a coffee shop or bar and see how that well that works out for you.

Once the man was forced to identify himself, he asked the cops for their names and badge numbers, which they are usually required to provide under departmental policy.

But Osborn told him they did not have to do identify themselves because he was their supervisor and was providing the man with his business card.

“I said I gave you my identification and they don’t have to do that,” Osborn said.

We don’t know what policies the Round Rock Police Department has in place regarding officers being required to identify themselves when asked, but we do know what laws Texas has in place regarding citizens being required to identify themselves.

PINAC reader ExCop-LawStudent breaks it down for us in a blog post:

OK, it is fairly simple.  If you are under arrest refuse to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address, you commit a Class C misdemeanor unless you have warrants outstanding, when it is a Class B misdemeanor.  If you are either under arrest or lawfully detained, it is an offense to provide a false name, date of birth or address.  The later is a Class B or A misdemeanor, dependent on whether you have outstanding warrants.

What is not an offense is refusing to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address when you are lawfully detained. See Dutton v. Hayes-Pupko, No. 03-06-00438-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6030, 2008 WL 3166324 (Tex. App.–Austin 2008, no pet.).  The court held that Deputy Derrick Dutton had arrested Sheryl Hayes-Pupko without probable cause since the law did not require her to identify herself while she was only being detained..  Dutton’s mistake of law did not provide a defense for the false arrest claim.

Unfortunately, this is not unusual for Texas.  Police officers in this state have an idea that they have the right to identify anyone at anytime for any or no reason.  The courts have repeatedly slapped them down on this.

  • “The application of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.  Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed.”  Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).

The incident is broken down in two videos, the first one above, the second one below.

Call the Round Rock Police Department at 512-218-5500.


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • ENTWAFFNUNGDERGESTAPO!

    i know who the terrorists are: RRPD.

    they need to hang. start with that sack of shit assburn. filthier than a mexican horsethief

    where you at on that DHS?
    shameless thieves, the lot of you

  • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

    Lawsuit.

  • GreenTriumph1

    Police don’t like uppity First Amendment Rights young people.

  • My Name Here

    Fuck the police! The PIG says “I’ll tell you what your rights are!” That is exactly what all of this is about! That is what is wrong with COPS in America!!!! Those caps are what leads to this!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlY9C6pzxKc

  • Stone Duncan

    Let’s do it this way. How about I come and photo your station and all your officers. I will have maybe a few thousand people just around the corner and see if you like to stop me. You are just pig shit.

  • JDS

    One typo: You mention “Red Rock” at one point, although “Round Rock” is used elsewhere.

    Aside from that, it’s disgusting yet common for me to see this in my state.

  • Bully with a badge

    I called Sargent and left a voice mail. I am going to visit and take picture. I hate cops!

    • ENTWAFFNUNGDERGESTAPO!

      them aint cops

      themz nazis disguised as police

    • inquisitor

      I suggest you only do so with Kevlar body armor.

  • Guest

    Traitors

  • ENTWAFFNUNGDERGESTAPO!

    https://www.facebook.com/RoundRockPoliceDepartment

    den of thieves falsebook page starting to see some attention

    • me, myself and I

      Those facist fucks deleted my comment

      • ENTWAFFNUNGDERGESTAPO!

        because they are fascist fucks, as well as being facist fucks.

        brilliant pun, BTW, although it may have been accidental

        • me, myself and I

          Spelling is not my best quality.. Yes Fascist FUCKS!

          • ENTWAFFNUNGDERGESTAPO!

            don’t hide from your brilliance, young skywalker.

            the force is with you.

      • Fotaugrafee

        Just deleted my comment within 30 minutes of posting it AND blocked me from posting on their page further.

    • Fotaugrafee

      Guess we need more people to pass by their station for recording & photographing. I’m only 20 miles from Round Rock. Apparently all of the “attention” got someone’s feathers ruffled.

  • inquisitor

    All of these officers have just proven that after receiving training and working at the tax payer’s expense that they have no concept of civil rights or the law.

    I would suggest removing them from duty and hiring some more intelligent people for the job.

    • Rickq

      They’re more out of touch than you think. Even if the police station was “their own private property and resource,” it STILL wouldn’t be illegal to photograph it from a public space.

    • Fotaugrafee

      You’re not going to people on-board in a city that large when you personality defects like this…

  • GreenTriumph1

    The police ran his plates. Does anyone know if that is legal and appropriate given the circumstances?

    • hazy

      Legal? Probably. Appropriate? Probably not. But, I would rather cops do the sneaky/less escalating option of running plates instead of detaining and cuffing someone.

    • MoBetter2

      It is legal if they are investigating a criminal offense. Each agency head, (chief or sheriff) signs a user agreement regarding the use of the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) system which has safeguards against police abuse. The FBI can revoke an agency’s access to NCIC, which would seriously impact the department’s ability to function, however, my experience has been that enforcement of the user agreement is relatively lax. As usual, justification to use NCIC information is dependent on the articulation of the officer(s) – you can imagine how that works!

      • GreenTriumph1

        The reason I ask is that HONORYOUROATH has had him information run multiple times and I thought that it was illegal.

    • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

      There was a story about the Florida Highway Patrol Trooper who arrested a Miami police officer for speeding. Random cops all over Florida were running her info. She found out afater filing a FOIA request and sued them.

  • hazy

    Police have the right to tell people to leave a police department parking lot in this situation, they should not immediately escalate the situation by detaining and demanding ID. “Casing” is a weak argument for someone photographing a government institute such as a PD or Federal building. Perhaps a case can be made for a high value target like a bank or something like Fort Knox, but this isn’t it.

    • inquisitor

      What “right” are you referring to that police can tell people to leave the parking lot in this situation?

      • hazy

        The right to refuse service if someone does not follow the rules of patronage exists for businesses and government agencies as well. They are well within their rights to tell you to leave if you don’t abide by certain rules.

        For example: When you enter a court house, they may require you to pass through a metal detector before entering. If you refuse to pass through the detector but still desire access, you are not abiding by the court house’s rules of patronage and they can demand you to leave. Same concept applies here.

        • inquisitor

          “Same concept applies here.”

          No, it doesn’t.

          And here is how you fail to make your case…

          Because, and most obviously, the officer never asked or told the photog to leave in this instance. That was never done…because…the officer never had the right to do so.

          The photog was not asking for, nor was he using police services.
          He was not a patron.

          He was not trespassing because it was public property…even though the officer falsely claimed it was private property.

          The photog stated his purpose when asked.

          So all you have to do is tell me which rules you think the photog broke that would now give the officer the alleged right to tell him or ask him to leave?

          Because the officer never mentioned any rules that the photog broke, the officer, in his own words, said photography was…suspicious and that it qualified as reasonable suspicion to detain the photog and demand his ID.

          • hazy

            I’m glad that the age old retort of “I’m right, you’re not” is alive and well on the web today.

            Of course the officer has a right to instruct someone to leave if they aren’t there on official business. A police station is not considered public property in the same way a side walk or a road is. You have to have some sort of business and even then you must abide by the rules of the institute to remain there or they are well within their rights to tell you to leave.

            It all stems from property rights. Property rights don’t just exist for citizens, they exist for businesses and government agencies.

          • inquisitor

            Which rules did the photog break that would allow the officer to rightfully tell him to leave?

            Because you said the officer would have that right if someone broke or did not abide by rules. You did not originally state that someone can be told to leave because the police department property has a special status and one could be told to leave even if they followed the rules…as per your second response.
            I am addressing the assertion of your first post and not the alterations or additions made in your second.

            And, ultimately, there was no officer asking or telling him to leave, no trespassing charge and no trespassing warnings given.

          • hazy

            Loitering, unwanted photography on premises. They don’t really need to provide one to someone who isn’t on official business though.

          • Falutin-Free

            And he was willing to LEAVE. They kept him there so they could ID him in the hopes he had some warrants or something to arrest him on.

          • hazy

            Yes he was willing to leave. They should have told him to do so. The police broke the law.

          • inquisitor

            And none of those were ever mentioned as rules or laws broken by the officers, nor was any citation or arrest made concerning those.

            They just come from the voices and delusions within your own head.

          • Jim Dean

            “Of course the officer has a right to instruct someone to leave if they
            aren’t there on official business. A police station is not considered
            public property in the same way a side walk or a road is”

            There’s likely some truth to this, provided you’re in an area normally reserved for “official business”. But it would be very, very difficult to prevail in court that he couldn’t be in a wide open parking lot/sidewalk unless he was on “official business”. I also see your post below about “unwanted photography”. He wasn’t loitering, he was there for a very specific purpose. Unwanted photography is meaningless-it really doesn’t matter one bit whether or not they “want” him to take photos-refusing to allow him to do so is simply not an option for them.

          • hazy

            It does not matter if the parking lot is wide and open. It is still owned by the police department. By your logic, any trespasser could remain in an area so long as it’s not fenced in.

            I’ll take your logic one step further. What if I wanted to run a lemonade stand on the police department’s parking lot? It’s open and wide and paid for by tax dollars, that means it’s ok right? Go ahead and try doing this and see what happens Mr. Dean.

          • MoBetter2

            The ‘police department’ doesn’t own anything. Every property it occupies and every piece of equipment it utilizes is paid for by taxpayer dollars, and ownership of same is not conveyed to the police department. It is incapable of owning any property as it is typically nothing more than a subordinate entity in a particular form of government – city, county, state, for example. The more appropriate description is that the taxpayers allow the various branches of government, in this case the police department, to act as stewards of the publicly owned property – buildings, vehicles, and equipment. No ownership is conveyed, period. Have you ever heard of citizens deciding they no longer desired to have a police department and simply ceased its operation? Did the police officers take the office machines, desks, weapons and vehicles with them when they left?

          • steveo

            Activities protected on public sidewalks include political campaigning, newsgathering (here the gentleman is news gathering), religious preaching and trying to convince someone not to have an abortion. Lemonade stands aren’t protected activity.

          • steveo

            Also, read Mccullen vs. Coakley if you want to know the SCOTUS’s opinion concerning public sidewalks and the 1st Amendment. Police cannot set up “buffer zones” on public sidewalks.

            http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            You misread McCullen. The restriction was unconstitutional because it was directed at the content of the speech, that it only applied to abortion-related speech.

        • Falutin-Free

          Did you miss the part where he asked if he was fee to leave near the beginning of the police contact. He was willing to go at 1:09 in the first video.

        • JWE

          Before someone can be arrested for trespassing:

          They must be warned by signage not to enter, or ask to leave the premises.

          They then need to be given the opportunity to leave.

          By being handcuffed he was not not given the opportunity to leave.

          • hazy

            I agree. They should have told him to leave, then afforded him an opportunity to leave. If he remained, then they could arrest/detain him. Doing so before hand is illegal.

          • Jim Dean

            Add to that the fact that a sign prohibiting a protected activity isn’t worth the tin it’s printed on.

          • JWE

            I was addressing in general, the issue of trespassing, as in a “posted no trespassing” warning sign.

            I was not addressing the issue of photography, nor whether or not if the Police Dept’s parking lot is public or private property.

            In general you can not be arrested trespassing simply for violation of a “No Photography” sign. Unless the property owner or their repetitive ask, you to stop or leave, and you refuse to do so.

          • JWE

            I was addressing in general, the issue of trespassing, as in a “posted no trespassing” warning sign.

            I was not addressing the issue of photography, nor whether or not if the Police Dept’s parking lot is public or private property.

            In general you can not be arrested trespassing simply for violation of a “No Photography” sign. Unless the property owner or their repetitive ask, you to stop or leave, and you refuse to do so.

        • A Default

          What are the “rules of patronage” for the publicly accessible external police grounds?

          Is photographing the building grounds for trespassing someone?

          It would seem that access to a police station is a reasonable public right and trespassing someone denies them that access, particularly when the trespassing is only for the purpose of prohibiting photography from police grounds. Would the trespassing order say you can come in to conduct police business (report a crime, …) but you can’t come on the grounds to take photographs?

  • me, myself, and I

    Those facist nazi pigs deltede my facebook post…

    • inquisitor

      Destruction of a public record and destruction of a complaint made by the public.
      They don’t serve you.
      They are a corporation concerned about their own gain.

    • Flashing Scotsman

      Mine, with a link back to this page, has been up for ten minutes now.

  • Rob

    Just to clarify ExCopLawStudent’s statement – “What is not an offense is refusing to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address when you are lawfully detained.”, should read “What is not an offense is refusing to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address when you AREN’T lawfully detained.”, or “when you are UNlawfully detained”.

    • hazy

      What happens usually is that when the DA wishes to press charges on someone who is arrested for “failure to ID” they look at the original cause of incident and if there was nor PC or RAS for the original detainment then the demand to ID is also considered unlawful and then it’s up to them to pursue a case that is on faulty legs or not.

      • Rob

        Did it look like I was asking a question? I’m curious. I was making a correction to the article, just in case you didn’t realize it.

        • Falutin-Free

          He was assuming you wanted some of his “amazing” law knowledge. Be glad he didn’t charge you for it. What is the going hourly rate for internet lawyer-ing anyway?

          • inquisitor

            I am glad to see the age old retort of “I thought you were talking little old self-important expert me.” is still alive on the internet.

          • hazy

            When you two are done being trolls maybe you’ll realize that I was saying the police are in the wrong here.

        • hazy

          Just clarifying your clarification.

        • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

          Your “clarification” was wrong.

          • Rob

            You’re right, it was. I misread the top paragraph from ECLS’s post, and confused it with his 2nd paragraph. It’s not unlawful to refuse to identify under a lawful detainment, only to provide a false identity under lawful detainment. Thanks for pointing that out Pragmatic Liberaltarian.

    • Rickforfree

      I thought the law in Texas was must be arrested to be obligated to ID?

      • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

        This is correct. Also if you’re operating a motor vehicle, you have to show DL upon demand.

      • Rob

        It is, I misread it. I stand corrected.

    • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

      No, the statement is correct as written. Just because you are lawfully detained, you are under no obligation to identify yourself in Texas. Different states have different rules, so one should not assume this is a correct legal statement everywhere.

      • Rob

        Yes, I see that now. I misread it. Thanks for the correction.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      Try reading it again. It is not a crime in Texas to decline to ID even when lawfully detained.

      • Rob

        Yep, I did, and I misread it the first time. Thanks.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          NP, YW

      • hazy

        So ECLS. How do you feel about the PD’s right to demand someone to leave if they are photographing from the parking lot? A lot of people here have been arguing with me that the police have no right to invoke a trespass order to such an individual. I’m not one of them of course but let’s hear your take!

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          They can do that. There’s case law on a very similar case involving a sheriff and a jail.

          • hazy

            Thanks for the response.

          • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

            Really? I’d be mildly surprised if police basically have complete discretion to order citizens off police grounds. You have a case cite?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966) (Nothing in United States Constitution prevented Florida from an even-handed enforcement of its general trespass statute against those refusing to obey sheriff’s order to remove themselves from what amounted to the curtilage of the jail
            house, as state no less than a private property owner had power to
            preserve property under its control for the use to which it was lawfully
            dedicated.)

          • steveo

            Adderley doesn’t apply here because in Adderley there were 200 students protesting in a non-public area of the jail driveway and refused to leave. They were purposely blocking the entry and exiting of police vehicles getting in the way of normal business.

            This gentleman is on a public sidewalk and not near any non-public areas of the jail or station and he didn’t refuse to leave, he asked if he was free to go.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Adderley does apply here. The state, no less than a private property owner has the power to preserve property under its control. See Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965); Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976); and Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980).

            This is black letter law.

  • Michael Runnells

    They turned off the comments on their FB page and removed most comments about their actions bullies cant take it but sure as heck like to dish it out

    • inquisitor

      Is that facebook page for public or private use?
      Is the department a public or private entity?
      Does the facebook page bear the name and images of the public police department?
      Was it created on a department computer with a department internet connection by a public employee getting paid on the public dime?
      Did it ever have the capability of taking in public comments and reports prior to their censorship of it in light of police misconduct?

      Sounds like unlawful destruction of public documents and complaints on an official department public forum.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        Exactly where is the statute about “unlawful destruction of public documents and complaints?”

        • hazy

          Didn’t you hear the news ECLS? This guy is a super smart guy who knows the law.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Yeah, he’s also a whackjob who wants to lure officers out on false calls and murder them. Or so he has said in the past. For the most part I ignore him.

    • Rob

      Comments are still on for their fb page.

  • Michael Runnells

    The city page is just waiting for some attention

    https://www.facebook.com/roundrock

    • Michael Runnells

      The city page has taken them down now as well lol

      • Falutin-Free

        Apparently they consider comments on the way their police deny constitutional rights to be “off-topic”

        • Flashing Scotsman

          Looks like comments are staying up on both the city and the PD sites now.

          • A Default

            as well they should, maybe someone mentioned something about freedom of speech and that the government best be careful before censoring it

  • johnw

    I sent an email to this address. Good job by the photographer!

    Troy D. Evans
    Assistant Chief of Police
    City of Round Rock
    tevans@roundrocktexas.gov

  • Jim Holmes

    Maybe when someone does blow up the cop crib they will be happy to buy photos this citizen made?
    It is my understanding that Photography, the process and Photography, the word, are not in the Patriot act. Is this correct?

  • Rickforfree

    Here is the link for Hernandez’s email. I am sure the rest of them are on the same site.

    http://www.roundrocktexas.gov/home/index.asp?page=832

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    I posted a list of applicable phone numbers and email addresses at my blog.

    • Falutin-Free

      Thanks for the info on CALEA 22.2.7. Seems like a clear violation to me.

      All employees, sworn or civilian, shall furnish their name, any applicable badge or identification number, and their assignment to any person requesting such information regarding matters in which the employee was acting in an official capacity. Names of
      employees will be given in sufficient form to fully identify the employee.

    • James M Morriss

      I have lost the bookmark for your blog would you mind posting it.

      Never mind ixquick found it. (finally) Sometime I wish I knew just where the wires for my phone actually ran. Somewhere in BFE there is a pizza shop printing out some real jibberish on there order webpage.

  • thetruthhurts

    Which is a good reson to have asecond person recording from a distance

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent
  • frank-kintz

    Come on boys, don’t be so hard on this little posse out of Round Rock. They kinda messed up a couple of law but damn they were under a lot of pressure. First off they kinda messed up the old ‘disorderly conduct’ law. They were thinking it said ” Disorderly conduct is when a person intentionally or knowingly brandishes a camera or other deadly weapons in a manner calculated to alarm”

    Next was when the ranger said ” it private property” and the cowboy said ” it’s public property”. Ranger said ” yep”. Now in my neck of the woods that means your right.

    Then he really stepped in it when he went on about how he could make the cowboy give him some sorta ID, cause he was a mite concerned bout him not doin stuff like everybody else. ” We don’t get many folks a whopping out cameras round here”. From what I been able to gather that just ain’t no such law bout that.

    The feller tried to explain the law to him but not being no big city lawyer and all he just couldn’t get his story quite right.

    So’s not being able to get the ranger to comprehend what he was talkin about, that ranger put handcuffs on him and told him he was not under arrest, just being detained and to sit here on the ground wile we try to figure this shit out.

    Now alls well that ends well cause after a goodly spell they let him go ahead on.

    Now em there rangers seem like some pretty good old boys, wernt meaning no harm, just a bit confused. Well cept that last one, he was kinda a horses ass.

    Best thing that that cowboy could do is wait a few days till all the bull butter dries up and get a couple of his ranch hand together and catch that one loud mouth boy a taken a leak in some alley and work up a # 6 on him. You know like in Blazzin Saddles.

    Ats the reason I don’t come to the big city much anymore. To many rules and stuff. I am a fixin to get me one of em there cellphones though. Mite take a run down to Dallas and take some pictures of, O hell I don’t know, that big airport down there. You think i’d get in trouble if I was to wander around in that place and take pictures?

  • Falutin-Free

    He put up a video of him filing a complaint.

  • me, myself and I

    another video uploaded

  • Jbroyles

    Did anyone else notice that until the end of January of this year, Round Rock Police Chief Banks was the interim Chief of the Albequerque New Mexico police department since last July. He is receiving an $80,000 a year pension from his 21 years in one of the most corrupt law enforcement agencies in the United States. He clearly has brought Albequerque’s money and policing style to Round Rock. Clearly The Battousai is lucky he wasn’t shot. What a joke. What do you think ECLS, no QI?

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      It’s hard to say. Last time I looked, there were no Fifth Circuit opinions on it. While Glik, Smith, and others do address it, those cases are not from the Fifth Circuit.

      As to the Albuquerque style? Round Rock was already known for being hard asses well before Banks showed up.

  • Brian Folks

    I need to start filming police stations. We all need to start doing it.

  • SamSpade

    The Round Rock Police Officers Association also needs some attention:

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Round-Rock-Police-Officers-Association/280067765795

  • Ecolon

    There is only one thing that will make them come to heel on this issue. Its taking them to court again and again. Look at Florida. Another class action lawsuit to the DOJ on this issue might be warranted for not enforcing agreements on previous lawsuits. Talking, explaining, educating are all moot point. The officers of this country need to respect and not look for ways to circumvent all the established precedents.

  • OhWell

    I wonder what this guy would do if someone sat outside his house taking pics of the entrances and his kids and wife. I hope he doesn’t call the police. Because f*ck him.

    • A Default

      Yeah, because a private house is exactly the same as a public police station.

      Your donuts and coffee are getting cold.

  • OhWell

    I wonder what any of you would think of someone standing outside your residence taking pics of you or your wife and kids. I hope you don’t try to call the police. Photography isn’t a crime.

    • Necron 99

      Feel free, but Google beat you to it. Really, I may come out and video you, but probably not. And no, I wouldn’t call the cops, they would likely just shoot people.

    • Jbroyles

      I’m not sure why you posted the same thing twice but since you’re clearly looking for a debate, I’ll bit. My response to somebody photographic my wife and kids from outside my residence would depend on the exact circumstances. If my wife and kids were outside the house in the yard in public where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, I would approach the person and ask what their purpose was. I would then ask if they would not film my wife and kids because they didn’t want to be filmed. The person could voluntarily comply at that point or they could continue taking photos at which point I would remove my wife and kids from the situation as since they were outdoors, they would have no reasonable expectation of privacy and thus the photographer wouldn’t be breaking any laws. I certainly would think the photographer absent any special newsworthiness was an asshole but last time I checked that isn’t illegal by itself. If the person were specifically training the camera lens inside my house trying to take voyeuristic peeping tom type photographs, I would report them to the local police as their are laws regarding that in the community which I live. Now that I indulged your straw man argument, your comparison of a private citizen photographing a police station building vs a private citizen photographing another private citizen doesn’t even make sense. The police station is public property and the police who work in it are government employees accountable to the public. They have no reasonable expectation of privacy while performing their duties in public. I could obtain better pictures of the front of that police station in seconds from google earth than the photographer took onsite. Additionally, because the photographer clearly violated no laws by taking the pictures or refusing to show his id. Yes they may have had suspicion but certainly no reasonable articulable suspicion to justify a detainment as evidenced by their inability to articulate what crime they thought he was committing other than the failure to id in which they were flat wrong about the law. That leaves the door open to the fact that their interaction was a clear violation of his 4th amendment right against unlawful seizures and his first amendment right of freedom of expression were clearly infringed upon. The first amendment allows for reasonable time manner and place restrictions but not allowing him to remain unmolested to photograph a public space doesn’t exactly qualify as reasonable. Your argument fails on all prongs. The guy photographing my family in public without my consent may not be popular with me but constitutional rights are most important in unpopular situations. Of course that doesn’t matter in the context of this story because there is not a reason in this world those police needed to behave that way, they just don’t like it when citizens don’t comply with unlawful orders and want to make sure they keep the sheep in place. The whole reason we have a constitution and bill of rights is specifically to keep the government in check.

      • Rail Car Fan

        @Jbroyles…

        Paragraphs are your friend!

        Rail Car Fan

        • Jbroyles

          Sorry for the ipad rant ;-)

          My 11th grade English teacher is rolling over in his grave.

      • Fotaugrafee

        Your community laws do not supersede those of the First Amendment.

    • Carlos_Miller

      Are you serious? I wouldn’t call the cops if my life depended on it. If someone was standing outside my residence taking photos, I would do the same to them.

      Calling the cops would only escalate the situation. You would have to be an idiot to call the cops for anything.

      • James M Morriss

        But suppose you wanted to know where the best coffee and doughnuts are served at any particular time during the day? Why not call the experts?

      • PINAC Troll

        “If someone was standing outside my residence taking photos, I would do the same to them.”

        I thought you said photography is not a big deal?

    • Carlos_Miller

      This guy is obviously one of those cops because only cops resort to the old, “you must let us abuse our power because one day, you may need us for help” excuse.

      I’ve heard this from so many cops over the years that it becomes very predictable in their debates. They’ve been brainwashed for so long to think they are gods that they literally believe they can do whatever they want and that we will fall to our knees and suck their cocks.

      And when we don’t, then we are labeled “cop haters.”

      But the real haters are them. They are the ones who created this “us vs them” division that we are seeing in this country.

      They are haters of the Constitution. Haters of the community they serve. And haters of anybody who dare stands up for their rights.

      • Fotaugrafee

        They’re haters of rights, Carlos, just like employers as it concerns “worker’s rights” and the right to organize.

        • dickgosinya48

          OH Jesus, don’t start with that union bullshit. The fuckin’ cops are unionized too, for the most part, and you can see where that has gotten us.

    • Fotaugrafee

      The problem is, most people feel they have some kind of invisible “privacy barrier” around their yard, even when it’s in plain sight & they believe they you are indeed “violating their rights”.

    • A Default

      I’d freak out.

      No, wait, I’d close the curtains and continue on with my life.

      Unless I was a cop then I’d run outside, threaten the photographer with arrest, if he had a dog I’d shoot it. If he didn’t leave I’d grab him, start yelling “Stop resisting” and charge him with disorderly conduct and assaulting an officer. If some of my fellow cops showed up in time I’d see if we couldn’t put him in a choke hold until he passed out/died and maybe beat him with a baton and kick him a few times for good luck.

  • TooFunnyandIronic

    Y’all are here whining about freedom of speech but my first comment got deleted because I don’t agree with you. How ironic is that?

    • Carlos_Miller

      Nobody deleted your comment. So fuck off. And say it again.

  • Michael Q.

    Caros’ entry provides the phone number for the police department. But I think that it may be more effective to contact the City Attorney for Round Rock. He is Stephan L. Sheets and his e-mail address is: steve@scrrlaw.com. His firm’s telephone number is 512-255-8877. Give him the link to the youtube videos and let him know that his city’s police officers are unfamiliar with the law. Their ignorance creates potential liability for the city and that is something he should be interested in.

    • Carlos_Miller

      If he’s like city attorneys in other cities, he will side with the cops before he sides with the law.

      • Michael Q.

        He represents the city, so he won’t be able to publicly admit that the cops did wrong, but he make take action behind the scenes to let the cops know that they were dumbasses. As an attorney one step removed from the department, he’s likely to view the actions of the officers a bit more critically than anyone within the department.

        Though contacting the city attorney won’t do much, it has a better chance of effecting change than contacting the police department, which we all know has a near-zero chance of working. Carlos, I’d recommend that in future posts when you post the PD info, you also post the city attorney info. Just my two cents.

        Keep up the good work!

        • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

          Good suggestion.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        He’s paid to be a zealous advocate for his client, so he’ll defend what they do in public.

  • dickgosinya48

    More stupid hillbilly cops that would make better compost than human beings.

    • Fotaugrafee

      Round Rock is a city of over 100,000 and a suburb of Austin (greater population 1.8M), not quite “hillbilly”. Check your information before thinking ALL of this state is “hillbilly”.

      • dickgosinya48

        It’s a state of mind, not a state in the union.

  • http://www.policemisconduct.net Film The Police Always

    You gave them your name? DUMBASS

    • Carlos_Miller

      I’m sure they pulled it out of his wallet after he was handcuffed

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        Actually he provided it, but only after about 20 minutes in handcuffs and they told him he would stay in handcuffs until he provided ID.

        • hazy

          In your opinion, are other cops less likely to violate civil rights if photojournalists succinctly and calmly ask the cop to articulate their probable cause?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Impossible to say. Cops vary, just like photographers and other people.

  • Charlie

    Sorry to be off topic…I recorded my first encounter with a police officer today. As a semi-regular here, I just thought I’d share it. Seems we have the same problems here in Australia.

    • http://www.policemisconduct.net Film The Police Always

      Great Job!

      • Charlie

        Thanks. I never told him who I was.

        • hazy

          Good job dude.

          • Charlie

            Thanks

    • Falutin-Free

      Fantastic video. Australia is lovely country. I hope I get the chance to visit again soon.

      • Charlie

        Yeah it’s beautiful alright. Come see Annandale in you visit Sydney! The people are very friendly

    • James M Morriss

      Wow not only facing the wrong way, he is double parked! Way to stay calm and firm in your voice. You should have told him you were filming some jag-off’s car that was double parked facing the wrong way on the street,

      I just realized it is cold because its winter there, duh. Sometimes you forget about the global scale of it all. Change the Tags on the cars and it could be any southeastern town in the US.

      You could have posted this in the forums.

      • Charlie

        Yeah it’s cold but it never gets that cold in Sydney :)
        Appreciate the kind comments.
        Will post in forum next time.

  • Hector

    Remember the big stupid kid in school that only graduated because he out grew his chair? Well, he’s a cop now. We gave him a gun and badge and act surprised when he abuses everyone.

  • http://www.policemisconduct.net Film The Police Always

    You will still win a civil rights lawsuit even though you gave them your name. Get a lawyer and file. They will wait you out for a year or two, but they will settle for some cash. $$$$$$$$$$$$

  • JdL

    In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has even classified “alternative media,” a category that PINAC could easily fall under, as a form of “domestic extremism,” describing alternative media in a report as “a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.”

    In other words, anyone who does not parrot the lies the mass media do, is a radical extremist, according to the criminal thugs in government. George Orwell had it down: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Keep those revolutionary acts coming, Carlos!

  • stk33

    Note that brief detention for investigative purposes is one thing, i.e. you are being detained while they investigate; but detaining indefinitely as the means to coerce cooperation, which is what was going on (“you will be in cuffs until you tell us what we want”) is completely different. I wonder what would follow if the photog continued to refuse to identify.

    That said, I want to present the opposite view.

    RAS is when the cop has reasons to suspect that a crime is about to be committed, among other things.
    Police departments receive various instructions and advisories from DHS to the effect that any activity out of order is suspicious. They have no reason not to believe those or even question those. We can call them traitors as much as we want, but if your employer tells you that you should treat every photographer as potential terrorist until proven otherwise, you probably won’t question him. Remember, it’s not some overt instruction to violate the law, it’s just the advisory and training about what to suspect.

    Finally, all cops are trained to look for what’s unusual and out of order.

    So, in this case, the cop observes that someone is filming where usually nobody does – which is out of order. According to training etc., this is already reasonable suspicion (of what? of a terrorist act being planned. You disagree? too bad, here’s ton of materials published by US government, based on academic research funded by DHS grants, that says just that). So you are detained, and the cops have to investigate the intent. Again, remember that as much ridiculous as this sounds to the readers of the human-rights-related website, so much natural and logical it is to the readers of government instructions. When the cop mentions Oklahoma building etc., most likely he is not bluffing, he is serious, and this exact thinking is part of the job he is paid for and expectations he has to meet in order to make his career.

    Now that you are detained, how to investigate? If I was a cop, I would simply ask him a single question “Who is Carlos Miller?” (or Adam Kokesh, or Larken Rose, or Michael Rivero, or…), and if he knows, that’s the ticket out of cuffs. But without that, the cops have not much to ask for except the ID – as if Timothy McVeigh did not have one.

    • me, myself and I

      Fuck you you fascist nazi pig

  • me, myself and I

    Just made an online public record request for all posts that were deleted from the RRPD Facebook page. http://www.roundrocktexas.gov/openrecords/