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

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.


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.

Check Also

The man has put his phone down and is showing his hands but the cop is still fearing for his life.

Maryland Cop Orders Pizza Delivery Man Out at Gunpoint for Not Pulling Over Quick Enough (Updated)

A video surfaced Monday showing a high-strung, agitated and paranoid police officer threatening a pizza …

  • 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.

    • Carlos_Miller

      You must be the wife.

      • Christina

        Why? Because her opinion is different than yours?

        • 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.

          • 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.

    • West end

      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


    • West end

      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.

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

          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?

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

            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.

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

            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.

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

            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).

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

            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.

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

            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…

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

            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.

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

        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.”

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

      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.

  • 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.

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

        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!

    • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

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

          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.

    • Guest

      He’s a treasonous, traitorous piece of shit.

      • Christina

        And you are a judgemental assuming potty mouth.

        • Guest

          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.

        • RaymondbyEllis

          Ah, a moment of tangential agreement. Yeah, the treasonous and traitorous bit is not only extreme but humpty-dumpty words. To which enemy did he give aid and comfort?

          Your response though was sophomoric. Judgemental (sic)? Horrors, because no good person ever judges anyone and thus is never judgmental. My best friends are liars, thieves, and pedophiles because I never judge.

          (Judgmental means making “involving the use or exercise of judgment. or tending to make moral judgments”. I do understand the connotation but when you abuse the denotation for only the connotation it requires a call. We judge everyday of everyweek; you’ve been doing it over and over.)

          • Barking Dog

            He gave aid and comfort to Haliburton and the likes while raping and pillaging for corporate interests in Iraq

            Now he thinks he’s going to come home and be applauded for such illegalities upon the American people and by the looks of gthinmgs, there are morons who support this

          • RaymondbyEllis

            Barking Dog and Gregg Jones,

            WTF are you writing about? Seriously, WTF are you two writing about? Halliburton, Iraq, corporate interests? Are you going to bring in JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, etc.? This is about an Oregon cop. Gregg Jones called the cop a treasonous, traitorous, etc., which was really off the rails, but then I get from BD Haliburton? Are you two in sync in some other plane of existence?

            I now know one of you need to go back on your meds, but I don’t know which. Seriously. Or you two have done a cross-post where Meds may still apply because I can’t find any reasoned argument hinted in either post no matter how much I go stream-of-consciousness. Is this some multidimensional, other world thing? I do like science fiction but it’s still fiction.

          • Barking Dog

            Or maybe you haven’t researched this turd as I have and don’t know he was asked to stand up at a basketball game after coming home from Iraq for an accocolade.

            Sorry, thought I was talking to informed persons.

            BTW, may I ask if you are a donkey fellator? .

          • RaymondbyEllis

            “BTW, may I ask if you are a donkey fellator?” I’m not, but for your servicing needs you need a jackass fellator who will reciprocate.

          • Difdi

            To himself — a domestic enemy of the constitution.

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

            Maybe Christina’s from England, they spell judgmental with the “e” — but if so, she ain’t from here, and doesn’t understand constitutional government (since Parliament can change theirs whenever they want to.

    • RaymondbyEllis

      “At the end of the day he is just a dude trying to do his job.” The argument here is rather obvious and you’ve willfully missed it: his job is to enforce the law. When he isn’t enforcing the law, while claiming he is, he not only isn’t doing his job but possibly committing a criminal act.

      One of the problems I have with both cop-haters and cop-lovers is that both view them symbolically. They aren’t symbols, whatsoever. Cops are people and they can do both great good and great evil, each and everyone of them. We reward them for the former and punish for the latter. No different than all the rest of us, except that their power to damage lives is much greater, especially by whim or ego; because of people like you who are so willing to make excuses, they aren’t punished like the rest of us. They are held to a lower standard.

      As for injury, I know how to twist your arm behind your back to cause you substantial injury. I practiced at the Hawaii-Kai Dojo. Police are taught the same techniques.

    • Difdi

      If his job requires that he break the oath he swore in order to get that job, then that right there is a pretty strong warning that he’s doing it wrong.

      Most criminals haven’t sworn an oath to obey the law. Yet they are vilified. So why do you want us to respect someone who committed a crime AND broke a sworn oath?

    • FTP

      Christine please,…….stop ! Stop supporting your cheating husband. Your husband comes home to say how damn important he is, and how screwed up everybody else is and you think you have a great guy. Bullshit ! Instead, your husbands screwing around on you every chance he get’s, and then feeds you bullshit about working a case when he’s out late banging away. So stop with the BS.

    • MassCentral420

      If I had pull I would,,,

  • Christina

    Hmmm….. Where did my comment go?

    • Carlos_Miller

      Your comments have not been deleted.

  • Jim2324

    How come for every small incident there has to be 3 or 4 cops showing up?

    • Gordon Freeman

      Mob logic. Behavior of the cops immediately is at the level of the most violent in the group.

  • Tijuana Joe

    I often go up to cops in cruisers and demand their dashcam video “evidence.”
    After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • steveo

    It is really worthless talking to these guys. When they come up to me now, I just say, “I don’t want to talk to you.” Whatever the leo’s going to do, he’s going to do, so copwatchers should try to learn that talking street law with a leo is worthless.
    First off, she’s legally present on a public sidewalk. 2nd, she is newsgathering. It might be appropriate for the leo to request her name and address, so that he could apply for a supeona or a warrant, but he can’t take her phone. Another violation of the constitutional principle of prior restraint.

    One of our somewhat famous copwatchers in FL got a check for $25,000 from the City of Tarpon Springs for the exact same scenario. Leo came up, give me your camera for evidence, he wouldn’t so the leo arrested him for the Carlos Miller Law 843.02. Prosecutor dropped charges and city gave him a ck for $25K.

  • RIch

    the police report for the teen arrested needs to be looked up. IF the teens alleged crime happened blocks away, then the officer had no logical reason to believe that this womens video recorder had any evidence of a crime, Then the only logical reason for him to use the color of his authority to commit battery and attempt to commit prior restraint was to cover the crimes of the arresting officers. His willful intent to violate the law and attempt to destroy evidence would be obvious.

  • STOP

    You put police officers in danger by posting their personal pictures and by filming them just for the heck of it. In my state and several others, it is a crime to photograph or film a police officer. You don’t do it just for the heck of it. They did not commit a crime from what I saw from your video. You don’t just do that.

    • Barking Dog

      I think you’re lying or wrong. What state is that?

      • Carlos_Miller

        The state of confusion.

        • Barking Dog

          seems like. is there a fog in here?

          • Gordon Freeman

            Sorry, that was me, I had beans for lunch.

        • RaymondbyEllis

          More the state of ignorance.

          • Difdi

            Within spitting distance of a certain Egyptian river perhaps.

    • rick
    • TxCwbyTrue@hotmail.com

      Ihave never heard more ignorant and baseless rhetoric in years. What an uniformed sheeple you are.

    • JdL

      You put police officers in danger by posting their personal pictures and by filming them just for the heck of it.

      The danger cops experience from all sources pales in comparison to the danger citizens endure every day from the cops themselves. Police have become rogue criminals, as this incident (one of tens of thousands nationwide) illustrates.

      You don’t just do that.

      Nobody should insist that his rights as a free adult have any meaning, is that your assertion? There are countries where that philosophy is followed (North Korea comes to mind); perhaps you should live in one of them. I choose to honor the founders of this nation by asserting my rights, including filming cops, and posting photos and videos, whenever I please.

      • RaymondbyEllis

        JDl, the argument of “you place police in danger by posting their photographs” is just ahistorical BS. A beat cop in the neighborhood he patrolled was known by all by his face. He didn’t wear a mask.

    • discarted

      Would love to know your state and the other states you’re talking about because in the United States it’s legal to photograph/record police in every state. It’s Constitutionally protected activity. The strictest states are IL, MD, and MA, but they’ve all been shot down by the DOJ or the courts

      • Difdi

        Don’t forget Mexico has states too. He could easily be talking about a Mexican state when he claims that photographing police is illegal in his state.

    • RaymondbyEllis

      “In my state and several others, it is a crime to photograph or film a police officer.” Bullshit, total complete bullshit, may I repeat, bullshit. Our police aren’t the Stazi, they are citizens who have taken a difficult job that a number fail at if only by temperament.

      The issue in Maryland and Illinois has been audio in public, through some real convoluted interpretation of wiretapping. Elsewhere in the audio two-party states, that’s all been when on a private phone not in public. It has nothing to do with video, nothing. In public is in public, especially when you are a government official. Do you support “secret police”, because that’s what you are arguing for except your using their safety rather than state safety. Ultimately, it’s actually the same.

      You may be mistaking “undercover police” with the patrolmen that are supposed to give their face, their name, and their badge: the latter two, even though required by law (since you like by law) will often get a you curt “no” if not a threat ( a violation of most state laws, thus a “criminal” act).

      Orwell wrote about about “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. If only for their safety, but I don’t think that was Orwell’s point.

    • Barking Dog

      Not even posting, but linking to a pic THEY posted

      And he did commit a crime by assaulting and robbing her. She has no obligation other than her name and DOB.

      My guess is it was another guy they beat up and he didn’t want a repeat of when he beat up the old man. You’ll be seeing a lot of these loser types who went into the military because they got nowhere else to go, when they return and rampage in your town as your local PD.

      Funny, after Vietnam, the better cops with discipline were the mil guys. When stupid struck it was never an ex mil guy. Nowadays, ex mil is a lit fuse from the get go.

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

      Actually, if it is a crime, it is unconstitutional. I seriously doubt that it is a crime though. Do you have a statute number?

    • ndmike12

      Holding police officers accountable for their public actions endangers them? Please. It isn’t as if police officers keep their identities or occupations secret. And while the officer may not have violated a criminal law, he clearly violated the law.

  • steveo

    this is also, I suppose if you take a big reach, more of that “material witness” crap. He might be able to detain her as a material witness, but he would have to follow all the rules and procedures around that. Material witnesses usually only come up in Federal law, not state law and no judge in his right mind is going to let this leo detain the videographer for this as soon as the judge hears the totality of the circumstances. Plus he would have to file for the warrants for the search of the phone and all that. Most of the lamebrain leos don’t know how to do that anyway.

    • Barking Dog

      detain the rest of the bus she pulled up in after the cops grabbed the bad guys

  • Guest

    Treasonous, traitorous piece of shit.

  • renosteve

    The cop was right, there could have been evidence of the suspect engaged in a crime. As a good citizen with the interest in stopping crime, she should have showed the officer the video, instead of all this “violation of my rights” bullshit. Clearly she is an ignorant, self-centered person who is interested in getting someone in trouble rather than helping police catch bad guys who are constantly victimizing people. I find the comments here ignorant as well. Seeing this kind of paranoid, high-school crap makes me hate mankind.

    • freedomlover

      Im sorry you think those exercising their first amendment rights are trying to get someone in trouble. The better question would be why arent the police upholding her 1st Amendent rights?

    • JdL

      Clearly she is an ignorant, self-centered person who is interested in getting someone in trouble rather than helping police catch bad guys who are constantly victimizing people.

      You might not have noticed, but the “bad guys who are constantly victimizing people” are increasingly the cops themselves. They are rapidly becoming the most dangerous criminals on the street today, while sanctimonious people like you slaver over them.

      I find the comments here ignorant as well.

      The comments correctly cite the law of the land, and therefore by definition are not ignorant. If you want to see actual ignorance, try looking in the mirror.

    • Barking Dog

      The police have no obligation to protect you and you have no need to do their job for them. Besides he had done the same thing before and this Iraq mental case thought he was abusing a little girl in the Helmund Provence

    • RaymondbyEllis

      “instead of all this “violation of my rights” bullshit.” Yep, this “violation of my rights” is just bullshit. You might read about the “anti-Federalists” versus the “Federalists” regarding how these rights are important. “Clearly she is an ignorant, self-centered person who is interested in
      getting someone in trouble rather than helping police catch bad guys who
      are constantly victimizing people.” This is so stupid on so many levels, I’ll questions just one assumption: how the ever loving f*ck do you get someone (the police in this circumstance) in trouble by recording their actions? Unless their actions deserve getting “in trouble”, and again this was the police who, by professionalism and by upholding the law, shouldn’t be getting in “trouble” by a recording.

      I coined a a phrase, which never caught on, of “transferable citizen”. I could place you in any country at anytime and your words would be the same. It wouldn’t matter East Germany, the Eastern Bloc, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Miltaristic Japan, or any other authoritarian country or time. You care little about rights, overwhelmingly about security, the latter the height of paranoia and cowardice. You are the citizen behind every abomination that humanity has seen generation after generation. You uphold no ideals other than the ideal of your safety and security. Sad.

      Seeing this kind of childish, kindergarten crap makes me fear for mankind. I hate your kind of humanity, because you’d sell me and my children for a moment of security in your fear-ridden life. Your kind has done it so many times before and generation after generation has had to pay for your sick, self-centered, and short-sighted sense of security.

      You don’t care about rights, you care about order in your fetal fear. Look up the history; you would have been a Tory, a Crown Loyalist, in the American Revolution.

      • Another Libertarian Communist

        “I coined a a phrase, which never caught on, of “transferable citizen”.”

        It used to be common to hear such people referred to as “good Germans.” The term came from the immediate aftermath of WWII and originally meant those who stand idly by while atrocities are committed in their names. It eventually came to also refer to those who act as apologists for evil, without directly perpetrating it.

        The page for the phrase has been deleted from Wikipedia, but here’s a link to what it used to say:

        • RaymondbyEllis

          I purposely avoid the “Good German” because it’s one country one time and doesn’t really describe. A transferable citizen can live anywhere. They have no real ideals. They adjust to the country they live in without adopting the underlying ideals; that’s all they do or believe they should do. A junta, an Allende, a Pinochet, a Stalin; it doesn’t matter, they’ll fit in and parrot.

          They are the people that represent the worst of us. They lynch by popular demand or by government program (like killing those damn Kulaks or those uppity blacks or those Juden). They have no right or wrong except what those next to them say is right or wrong. They are the majority of us.

          • Another Libertarian Communist

            I just wasn’t sure if you were familiar with the term. It seems to be fading from use and I didn’t know if you were old enough to have heard it enough to remember it.

            I got what you meant and I think I know the type you are talking about. I spent nearly two decades in the Army and met a lot of them, in many places around the world.

            Have you read “The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer? I think the authoritarian follower type he describes might have a great deal of overlap with your concept. If you haven’t read it yet, you can get it for free here:

          • RaymondbyEllis

            I avoid the authoritarian label only because I’ve known people that are authoritarian but still have ideals and principles that put them at odds with statists. There is definitely overlap.

    • Difdi

      The cop committed a felony when he grabbed her camera to stop her from recording. Don’t believe me? Would you believe the FBI instead? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes/#section242

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

        For what? They didn’t tell her she couldn’t film, they were seizing the video as evidence. It was not proper, but not a crime. They violated a civil statute, for which the remedy is a lawsuit and damages.

        • Difdi

          They also violated the fourth amendment, which is what I was referring to. 18USC242 applies to more than just violations of the first amendment.

  • steveo

    This is important stuff: Who would have thought that some porn cases 30 years ago would impact the rights of videographers today?

    Because “indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted under the authority of `general warrants’ were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment,” Payton v. New York,445 U.S. 573, 583, that Amendment requires that the scope of every authorized search be particularly described.

    In other words, leos can’t just grab someones smartphone and go on a fishing expedition without the approval of the court.

  • LetsisSucks

    Without the badge, uniform, and gun Letsis looks like your typical pussy.

  • Dan Sayers

    Major props. While talking to the cop you were knowledgeable, resolute, and best of all, not the slightest bit nervous. Very impressive.

  • Barking Dog


    On Youtube he beat up an old man who wasn’t resisting in Nov 2012

  • Gordon Freeman

    Media follow up:


    She’d like an apology, but she said she really wants police to know the law.

    A spokesperson for the Gresham Police Department told KATU News officers
    are not supposed to seize phones used on public property but declined
    further comment Wednesday night.

  • Jeffrey Marcus Gray

    On my Iphone and Ipod I always record from the lock screen,so even if my Iphone/Ipod is illegally stolen they won’t be able to get access to the video without my lock screen pass code.They may take my phone, but I will tell you this, they will not get me to tell them my pass code! I always have at least three cameras going while filming LEO’s.

    • rick

      Even from lock screen any video can be deleted if taken from your hand while still recording. It becomes a game of turning your device off before cops take it from you. This is my major complaint against all upstreaming apps. I wish these apps had a code lock that must be entered before stopping recording, otherwise upload continues.

  • Kathy Sherwood

    What an asshole.

  • Ian Battles

    Bambuser is a great app, it works with my Droid Razr and it’s live and online the moment i press record; I can even have it place a link to the video on Facebook.

    It records even if you lock the screen and the videos cannot even be accessed from the phone itself.

    • rick

      Bambuser live streams what it can and saves the rest on the phone. If the phone’s off button is pushed the app “should” still live record both fragmented audio and video sections. The “dropped” data is kept on the phone. Not perfect, but if your phone is removed from your possession and the off button is pushed prior, a partial record would be uploaded to the cloud with the bulk remaing on the cell. The amount uploaded depends on resolution selected.
      So far I have tested using WIFI. Not perfect, but a start in maintaining a record of interactions.
      I might pursue writing up various free streaming apps…

    • rick

      Addendum: I operate under the assumption that it is possible for the memory or recording device to be deleted or destroyed outside of my possession (e.g. the police take it from me). My interest is retaining as much evidence as possible in this worse case scenario.

  • Peaceman

    Carrie Medina has nothing else to do, this is what she does for living, she likes to sparks fire where there is none, and she lives a mess after her for somebody else to clean it. People like her likes to spark fires and put other people in danger, just to get fer 5 min of fame. Shame on her, she should start thinking of helping people not ruin them. If you were raised wright you know that you need to have respect for authority. We need to have integrity and we need to teach our children respect, they are what we teach them. We need to help each other more not to bully each other, we need to come together and stay united not to turn against each other. AND REMEMBER MEDIA POSTS ONLY WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO SEE NOT THE WHOLE THING, THEY COVER UP THE REST JUST TO MAKE IT MORE INTERESTING. THERE ARE ALWAYS 2 SIDES OF THE STORY. PEACE

    • $196759

      What in the hell are you talking about?

  • John.A.Kanas

    where is Christophe Dorner when you need him to teach these pigs a lesson, can someone from Anonymous post this cops home address online asap, so that some concerned citizenz could drop his home address give him and his kids some good advice asap!

  • -0z-

    You either support the constitution, or you do not. If you support the constitution, then there is no argument. The cop violated the first and fourth amendments. He can’t arbitrarily seize a camera because he feels like it. He has to get a subpoena. Period. His job description does not overrule the constitution, he has to work within it.

    • Difdi

      There are many times in my life when being able to ignore the law would have been very convenient. But I am expected by both law and custom to obey the inconvenient laws anyway, despite the fact that I am not sworn to obey and uphold the law.

      Yet time and time again, we hear about people who are so sworn ignoring every inconvenient law they encounter, and they usually get away with it. Is it any wonder vast numbers of people are losing respect for the police? No one trusts an oathbreaker, after all.

  • John.A.Kanas

    I wonder if Taylor Letsis will be smiling after his wife and kids and on welfare in the near future !

  • I’m a dipshit.

    Oh my god! We need to ban police! They are a menace to society. The only crimes that are ever committed are by them. Society would be much safer without them!

    • Difdi

      Yes, you are. =P

      If you go by number of arrests per 100,000 individuals, police are within a percentage point or two of regular citizens when it comes to being arrested for almost any offense, from reckless driving to murder. The exception is sexual assault, where police are arrested at three times the rate regular citizens are!

      Granted, an arrest is not a conviction, but if you take the viewpoint that most arrests are for good cause, this is highly alarming. It becomes terrifying if you add in the reluctance many police feel for arresting fellow officers.

      You are more than five times more likely to be shot in error or by accident by a police officer than by a citizen with a concealed weapons permit. So yes, we might well be safer with fewer police.

  • John.A.Kanas

    where is Christophe Dorner when you need him to teach these pigs a lesson, can someone from Anonymous post this cops home address online asap, so that some concerned citizen could drop his home address give him and his his kids some good advice asap!

  • B.

    The young woman needs to follow this all the way!!! Fill out a complaint find an attorney and seek a monetary gain. I don’t believe in suing for every little thing, however if this will curtail other law enforcement from making the same mistake of believing they are above the law because they have a badge then I say SUE!!!

  • joe anybody

    This same type of police / take camera happened to me in Portland in 2008 – http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/12/383132.shtml

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/1136460199/ Brett Schnaper

    Officer Letsis knowingly and willfully violated her civil rights when he lied to that citizen regarding her rights; criminally assaulted her; threatened her with false arrest; stole from her; and searched her possessions without a warrant or probable cause. It’s likely that more than one lawyer will determined that the officer has something the assaulted woman needs. Unlike the officer, the lawyer will use legal means to take it from him. After that maybe Officer Specialness will remember it when he decides he “needs” someone’s personal property.

    “Edward Kroll, a Portland criminal defense attorney, says that based on the tape, the officer went too far. “If the owner said ‘no,’ they have the absolute right to go in and get a subpoena. But I know of no authority that allows them to simply commandeer a citizen’s private camera and try and take it from them directly as we saw in that video.” ”

    Beth Creighton, a Portland civil rights attorney, said the officer went too far. “Police officers want to say imminent threat is with us all the time,” she said. “It gives them an excuse to seize evidence without going through the proper channels. There was no reason to do what he did.”

    Given his lack of professionalism and disregard for the law, it’s more than a little possible that he was concerned that the recording clearly showed excessive force being used by three officers against a teen who wasn’t resisting. That makes the question of dashcam recording important. Any gaps or complete lack of police video could be very damning in this situation.

    I know that name, Taylor Letsis… OH yeah! He’s one of the Oregon cops who beat up a 68 year old man for peacefully protesting. There’s video of that.


  • http://www.facebook.com/kathleen.connollykitchen Kathleen Kitchen

    WTH! Do the police think they can make up their own laws? I would take this all the way to the Supreme Court, if needed!

    • MassCentral420

      Only if you can afford it!

  • http://www.freethinkerssociety.com Chipster

    the game cops play– is they will tag you for anything- if you are wise to their BS – they will arrest you without fear. fact is– obstruction is the most commonly used law that they use against you. then when court comes up– you find they have drooped the charge— so you’ve been assaulted– locked up- and falsely charged– only to find out in the end they have swept it under the rug- banking on the idea – you will be overwhelmed about the whole process. and go away. what a game.

  • MKC

    Government agents and officials acting in their official capacity don’t have rights. They have powers. And those powers are limited.

    Individuals have rights. The same officials have rights *as individuals*–absolutely. But not as officials.

  • GeoffDepew

    just to note, Tapin is in the process of shutting down, so another service may be needed.