San Diego Photojournalist Handcuffed after Mother Falsely Accuses him of Perversion

San Diego beach


San Diego photojournalist J.C. Playford, who has been arrested, handcuffed, detained and harassed numerous times over the years for video recording in public, was once again handcuffed and detained.

This time, on suspicion of being a pedophile after a presumptuous mother accused him of video recording her son on a public beach Sunday afternoon.

Not that there is a law against that, but Playford was actually video recording her dog who had become unleashed, attacked one dog, then attempted to attack a second dog on Cardiff Beach where only leashed dogs are allowed.

“I told her, ‘one would think that after that, somebody would take their dog off the beach,'” he explained in a telephone interview with Photography is Not a Crime .

“She turned to me and said, “how do I know you’re not a pervert?'”

The woman alerted authorities, who then proceeded to harass him, demanding he provide his identification.

When he only provided his name and pointed to his press badge, refusing to provide his date of birth, they ended up handcuffing him for an hour in which they searched through his video camera, realizing that he had not recorded anything perverted regarding the child.

Nevertheless, he was cited for obstructing and ordered off the beach for the remainder of the day.

Meanwhile, the woman with the aggressive dog who falsely accused him was allowed to remain.

At one point in the second video, one of the cops tells him it is illegal to video record children on a public beach without the consent of their parents, referring to California Penal Code 647, which states nothing about recording children on public beaches but about secretly recording people who have an expectation of privacy.

“They humiliated me,” Playford said. “They mocked me and called me a pedophile while I was in handcuffs surrounded by people.”



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

torture photos ACLU

Pentagon Releases Torture Prisoner Photos of Iraq/Afghan Wars, Withholding Thousands More

It took more than a decade, but the federal government finally released nearly 200 photos …

  • Guest

    “I will uphold and support the Constitution of the United States.”


    • Difdi

      If you have to swear an oath to get a job, breaking that oath should result in termination of employment.

      • Frodo

        In law enforcement, it gets you a promotion.

        • Rockinghorseguy AnRockinghorse

          In politics, it can get you to the top.

        • Fotaugrafee

          Promotion…heh. That action isn’t exclusively to the cops, it seems to be most jobs when you present the fact that you’re a failure for what it is you’re responsible.

  • Bridgett Cash

    The a**holes here are the cops.

    • $58984987

      That is why they deserve to be…extinguished.
      There is my ID.

  • Hamlet

    Dumbshit cop admits on camera he illegally searched the camera. Arrogant and stupid.

    • Difdi

      It’s so handy when someone wearing a name tag and numbered badge confesses to a crime on video, eh?

      • Ian Battles

        It’ll come in extra handy in the civil suit.

        Bankrupt this town, and maybe they’ll hire smarter cops.

  • Tijuana Joe

    Since when is it against the law to photograph a child?
    Or a cop. Or a rent a cop. Or train tracks. Or a building. This whole thing is
    out of control. Let’s go back to the time when cops went after criminals.
    BTW Anyone who has not seen the Murfreesboro DUI roadblock video
    should take a look. Best so far this year.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      link please

    • Fotaugrafee

      Two words: Easy targets.

      It marginally justifies their job / existence, and for some reason, this is acceptable because we value personal security before liberty in this country anymore.

  • janxy

    All they wanted was his fucking birth date. None of that probably would have happened if he wasn’t being an obnoxious asshole. The first cop seemed more than reasonable but this asshat just wanted to feel like a rebel. Fuck this guy. He’s just going around starting shit with people.

    • Scott Parker

      What’s your birthdate? SSN? Address? You don’t have anything to hide, do you?

      • Mason Pelt

        No in the instance he was being
        detained on reasonable suspicion due to a complaint. If you are detained
        in California you are required to provide you full name and date of
        birth according to the California Penial Code. He was not required to
        provide ID, but his name and date of birth were required under the law.

        • Voice-Of-Concern

          Due to a complaint that he was doing something “totally legal”? (ie, filming the public, in public)

          We must mean something different, when we say “lawful” detention.

          • Difdi

            Due to a complaint that he was a pedophile. The police don’t know what he did or didn’t do until they investigate. During the course of that investigation, the photographer broke the law and suffered the natural consequences of criminal behavior in the presence of a cop.

            By your standards, in order to make an arrest or even investigate anything, police must first be psychic, able to know what happened in places they can’t see before they arrive on the scene. By this standard of evidence, no one could ever be arrested for anything unless a cop directly witnessed it.

            Suppose you saw someone break into your house, walk out with your computer, get into a car, and drive off. You call the police and report what happened, including license plate. By the standards you are applying to the photographer’s arrest, the police should ignore your report because there is no evidence a crime was committed.

          • Jim

            Photographing children doesn’t make one a pedophile. Being a pedophile isn’t even illegal. Acting on it is. No one ever saw him commit an act of of sexual assault on a child.

          • Difdi

            No it’s not. But we don’t know what that woman said to the 911 dispatcher, nor do we know what the dispatcher said to the officers.

            Reporting that a man is taking pictures of children might result in an investigation just in case. But reporting that there is a pedophile stalking children on the beach would definitely result in a police response.

          • Kaemaril

            “We got a complaint that you’re filming children on the beach.”

          • steveo

            These guys can access the computer like any other dumbass leo. They don’t need a date of birth and how many JC Playfords are going to come up in whatever county they are in and he’s been arrested so many times that they have plethora’s of mug shots. These leos just wanted to harass him.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            You do understand that “pedophile” is a diagnosis, right? And you do understand that the police are not qualified to make that sort of diagnosis.

            And none of this makes it illegal to take pictures of the public, in public.

          • Difdi

            You’re absolutely right, if someone tells a 911 dispatcher that there’s a creepy man molesting children on the beach and taking obscene photographs of them, the police ought to refer it to the mental health community, and stay at the police station.

            What WAS I thinking…?

          • Kellen Lawler

            No they don’t stay at the station… but when they arrive at beach and find nothing of the sort… then what ? Ask the 1st person they see with a camera for their papers/

          • Difdi

            Whether the first person they see that matches the 911 call description has a camera or not is irrelevant.

            California doesn’t have a stop & identify statute, but they have case law precedents that extend obstruction charges to failure to identify when detained. Until someone appeals it higher than California state courts and gets it overturned, failure to identify while detained is obstruction.

            Identification does not have to be an ID card. But if you commit an act that matches the legal definition of a crime right in front of a police officer, you tend to get arrested.

            While obstruction is a popular contempt of cop charge, this one seems to be legit, though the reason for detaining the photographer in the first place was possibly unjustified — it would depend on what the woman told the dispatcher and what the dispatcher told police.

          • Kaemaril

            “Until someone appeals it higher than California state courts and gets it overturned, failure to identify while detained is obstruction.”

            Could you cite the case where that was decided, please? I’d be really interested to look it up and read it, and it certainly sounds like it could clear a few things up on this thread.

          • Doug


            You keep saying we don’t know what was said to the dispatcher, but early in this thread you claimed to know: “Someone reported that a felony had been committed by the photographer.”

            You are also misusing the ad hominem fallacy. Insulting someone is not an ad hom, pointing out an aspect of someone irrelevant to the debate is an ad hom. So when someone makes a point and also insults you, it’s not an ad hominem attack. Only if someone insults you AS their argument is it an ad hominem attack. “It’s not illegal to video tape people in public you idiot” is not an ad hominem attack, for example.

            If the “crime” the police were investigating was someone videotaping children in public, that is not a crime and the stop and ID demand was not valid. We don’t know what they were told, but we know what they told the photographer, and it sure sounds like they thought they were investigating someone videotaping a child in public.

          • Difdi

            I suggested several possibilities that would explain their approach to the matter, other than a simple ‘they are evil’. If suggesting a possibility as a possibility makes it a claim of objective fact in your worldview, you must get into a lot of absurd arguments.

            An ad hominem attack attacks the speaker directly rather than addressing the argument at hand. If you make several “arguments” in a post, and one of them attacks the speaker while the other addresses the argument, the post still contains an ad hominem attack.

            Hamlet: Jesus you are an idiot.
            Hamlet: Not even a good troll at that. just a stupid one.
            Hamlet: There is no argument dumbf*ck. The only digging? Your finger, your ass.

            So, you’re saying that those statements are not in any way ad hominem attacks?

            Granted, he went on in some posts to make straw man arguments to “address” my points, but that doesn’t negate the ad hominem attacks he made too.

            Making up lies about what someone said, refuting the lies and insulting the intelligence and character of the opponent isn’t a problematic argument in your worldview? I pity you.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            “Molesting children” 100% fiction. Did I miss part the very video where that was stated? What is the time stamp for that?

            Or, in the alternative, don’t LIBEL Mr Playford, to back up your craptastic theory.

            Let me be clear.. Generally, I think Difdi is right on target with what he says. I have liked many of his(?) Past comments. But I think he iOS barking up the wrong tree, in this case.

          • Difdi

            Straw man after straw man after straw man. You’re arguing to the bitter end, have you ever considered the possibility that you simply misunderstood? Or are you simply intellectually dishonest? That is, after all, the other possibility here.

            If you can’t refute what I said, you won’t get any more success by lying about what I said. If you have to make things up, you’ve already lost the argument.

            Fact: We do not have a copy of the 911 audio.

            Fact: What the cops said to the photographer has no bearing on that 911 recording.

            Fact: I never said the photographer was molesting children, I threw that out as an example of how the same actions could produce different reactions depending on what the dispatcher and cops were told.

            Fact: You are the one who called Mr Playford a child molester, when you created your straw man argument to “refute” something I never said.

            Let me be clear: When you attack the person not the message, and make up lies about the message, you’re conceding defeat in the argument. After all, if you could answer the argument itself, you wouldn’t need to make personal attacks or tell lies.

          • Bill Larson

            We don’t need any of this. If the officer did a proper investigation then the investigation would have ended with the woman who made the complaint.

            They would have never interfered with the photographers perfectly legal right to stand in plain sight with a plainly visible video camera and take video of the beach.

          • Difdi

            If that’s what the police were told by the dispatcher, then of course the police were in the wrong.

            But what if the dispatcher sent them out to protect children from someone molesting them with a camera? That would produce a much more gung ho reaction.

            We don’t know what the police were told.

          • Bill Larson

            We don’t need to know what they were told. The issue is the officer should have asked the woman what specifically she saw the man doing. Then the officer should have then ended the investigation as there was no way he had reasonable belief that a crime had been committed.

          • Fotaugrafee

            Sounds to me like someone has an “all-out” case of bias not against pedophiles (understable), but anyone alleged to be a pedophile as well.

          • Difdi

            It sounds to me like someone has an “all-out” case of bias against reason and common sense. Go back and read what I actually wrote, not just the lies people told about my posts while making straw man arguments to “refute” points I never made.

            I hope you’re capable of suspending your misplaced outrage long enough to discover the truth. But I won’t hold my breath.

          • Hamlet

            Jesus you are an idiot. How many times do you have to be told that taking pictures of children in public is not a crime.

            Give it up already you worthless troll.

          • Difdi

            Ad hominem attack == argument failure. If you could refute my argument, you’d have done so. The fact that the counter-argument you chose to make is to attack my character simply proves it.

            Oh, and while I’m good, I’m not that good. My handle is Difdi, not Jesus. Get it right please. =P

          • Hamlet

            Not even a good troll at that. just a stupid one.

          • Difdi

            When you’re as deep into a hole as you are, you really ought to stop digging.

            If the most damning thing you can say about my argument is to call me stupid for knowing more than you do, you’ve failed utterly.

            Give up on the digging while you can still see daylight.

          • Hamlet

            There is no argument dumbf*ck. The only digging? Your finger, your ass.

            It is not illegal to photograph children in public and it does not make you a pedo.

            Kindly STFU now loser. Nothing out your pathetic blowhole will ever change that.


          • Difdi

            Your third ad hominem attack in as many posts? You’ve graduated from shovels to drilling equipment.

            Seriously, stop digging now. The hole you’re in is deep enough as it is.

            Attacking your opponent instead of their argument is the surest sign that you’ve lost an argument, since if you could win it, you’d have done so by proving your opponent wrong.

            Bye bye, loser.

          • Bill Larson

            Again the investigation should have began and ended with the woman who made the complaint. If there was no facts to support a criminal complaint the investigation should have ended at this point.

            This is what should have happened.

            Officer: Ma’am did you call to report someone taking video of your children?

            Woman: Yes, that man has been standing up there on that rise and taking video of people on the beach. I told him to stop, but he continued!

            Officer: That’s totally legal unless he took pictures of your child getting dressed while in a dressing room, or in a state that a reasonable person would find embarrassing (Tennessee law); if not then he has not broken any laws. You or your children have no expectation of privacy in public.

            Woman: But but

            Officer: Do not bother that gentleman again unless you see him doing the following.. (The officer then lays out what would be considered a violation of the law to the woman.) If so feel free to call us back.

            The officer then continues on his duties.

          • Difdi

            Agreed. Assuming of course that she told the 911 dispatcher the truth of what was going on. But if she didn’t, then the results would be very different from what you describe. Perhaps they’d resemble what actually did happen.

            Spin can be used to make an innocuous action look highly suspicious. Lying to the dispatcher about what is going on can make it worse.

            “There’s a man here taking pictures of people on the public beach” will produce vastly different results than “There’s a child molester here stalking little children and taking child pornography pictures of them.”

            We don’t know what the woman said to the dispatcher. If she told the truth then the police screwed up. If she lied, then the police reaction might be justified. But we don’t know.

          • Bill Larson

            When the officer arrives on scene, the first thing he would do is contact the complainant. What she told 911 is totally irrelevant, what matters is what she told the officer. If she made any claims to the officer other than what actually happened then the officer should have been arresting her not evicting the photographer from the beach. If she told the officer what happened based on what we could clearly see on the video then the officer had no reasonable basis to conduct an investigation.

          • Fotaugrafee

            ^^^ THIS. End of story. ^^^

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Well, it is not actually illegal to be a pedophile. Anyone can be sexually attracted to anything, and that is perfectly legal. A person can be sexually attracted to turnips & having that attraction is perfectly legal. People can be sexually attracted to you.. Even people you find sexually repulsive are perfectly free to be sexually attracted to you & they commit no crime by doing so.

            Even of the police had the proper training to determine if the photographer was a pedophile (although nothing in their words or actions suggests they are so qualified), and even if they were somehow magically able to determine that he was in fact a pedophile, that fact does not constitute an actual. crime. In fact, unless there was a court order or condition of parole or probation, there is no legal basis to tell a pedophile to leave a beach. Not unless that pedophile actually committed an offense.

            However, we all know that it is not legal for adults to engage in sexual activity with children. It not legal to create or possess child pornography. But taking pictures in public, of the public, it is simply not a crime.

            After that, you pretty much made up a straw man fallacy in an effort to prove your poorly thought out point.

          • Difdi

            I never said it was. Child molestation, on the other hand, IS a crime. Better a little investigation now than a lifetime of counseling later on. Not every police investigation on very little evidence is a violation of rights, after all.

            Investigating to see whether an arrest needs to be made after a 911 call is made is part of the job.

            And if anyone is erecting straw men, it’s you. You keep “refuting” my point by pointing out that being attracted to children is not in itself illegal. But I never said it was, which makes your arguments purely straw men.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            The fallacy you are now engaging in, is called “Moving the Goalposts”. You did not say “child molestation”, which are actions. You repeatedly said “pedophile”, which is a state of mind. Perhaps you meant “child molestation”, but it most certainly not what you said.

            It is not a straw man to point out your error.

            And I am afraid I find your attempted sophistry rediculous. What you said repeatedly, was that being pedophile was a crime. I pointed out that merely being a pedophile no more of a crime than it is to be sexually attracted to turnips.

            Perhaps the difficulty here is one of word meanings. When I use or see others use the term “pedophile”, I understand it to mean a person who is sexually attracted to children. If you intended some other meaning, perhaps you can share that, so that we might better understand what you meant to say.

          • Difdi

            You either misunderstood what I said or are creating straw man arguments. I’m not sure which. The end result is the same.

            Pointing out that your claims are either a gross misunderstanding or a straw man argument does not move any goal posts.

            Go back and read what I actually wrote, not what the scarecrow posse has claimed I wrote, and not what your fevered imagination has generated out of whole cloth.

          • Fotaugrafee

            Uhhh, no. I’d say he’s pointing out the same fallacies in your argument that you accuse of him. Neither argument is fucking perfect, yours sure as hell is NOT. Whether or not you can put your big boy pants on & accept that is another story.

          • Difdi

            Apparently you’re not content to build a straw man, and went for the big lie strategy instead. Fail.

        • Chris McKenna


        • Scott Parker

          I’ll pile on. California isn’t a stop and ID state. Unless you are cited or arrested, you don’t have to identify yourself. Period.

        • Bill Larson

          The police had spoken to the woman who made the complaint, at this point they should have asked questions that established the situation, and what the man specifically was accused of doing.

          At this point the police would have known there was no crime and therefore should have done like many other police officers have done in the past, and told the complainant that the man has not committed a crime, and to leave the man alone.

          It should have never reached the point of contacting the man in question as there was no reasonable suspicion that a crime had actually been committed.

      • steveo

        Look I’m just going to stick my finger up your vagina/anus with the same gloves I used on the other girl, you don’t have a problem with that, do you? You don’t have anything to hide.?

    • Mason Pelt

      That was a completely lawful request under the California Penial Code.

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        While it is lawful to request the info, it os also lawful to decline the request. That’s the whole “voluntary” part of it.

        • Mason Pelt

          No in the instance he was being detained on reasonable suspicion due to a complaint. If you are detained in California you are required to provide you full name and date of birth according to the California Penial Code. He was not required to provide ID, but his name and date of birth were required under the law.

          Voice of Concern, If you don’t know the California Penial Code as well as me don’t explain it to me

          • Kaemaril

            So, he was being detained on a “reasonable suspicion” of … doing something completely legal?

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Buh buth but.. that sounds like an unlawful detention??

          • Kaemaril

            “This lady here says you were taking pictures of her kid.”
            “No, I was taking pictures of her breaking the law by letting her dog run off the leash, But even if I was – which I wasn’t – that’s not actually illegal. Now, apart from this lady’s self-serving and biased accusation against me, do you have any other reasonable and articulable suspicion that would justify you detaining me?”

            Could have been interesting.

          • Difdi

            Someone reported that a felony had been committed by the photographer. Police investigated the alleged crime, and had reasonable suspicion that he was the one described in the crime report.

            At that point he has a legal obligation to properly identify himself, and he refused to do so. The arrest and the charge are both proper under the laws of the state.

            He was detained on suspicion of being a pedophile. He was arrested for breaking the law that says he must identify under certain circumstances, such as the precise circumstances he was in.

            If the woman who reported him lied, then that’s on her not the cops who responded in good faith. Making a false police report is a crime, after all. Libel or slander justify a lawsuit.

            Once the cops realized she had made a false report, they should have arrested her for it. Once the cops realized she had broken other laws, they should have cited or arrested her for those. But the fact remains that the photographer DID break the law himself.

          • LibertyEbbs

            No, someone reported a legal activity while mistakenly believing they were reporting a crime. There is a very big difference.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Difdi, you wrote:
            “Police investigated the alleged crime, and had reasonable suspicion that he was the one described in the crime report.
            “At that point he has a legal obligation to properly identify himself, and he refused to do so.”
            So to clarify, if one is being investigated by LEOs for a crime, not just a meet-and-greet fishing expedition for information, then one is obligated to provide id and answer questions. Is that what you are saying?
            If that is true, then the arrest is not for child molestation etc. but for failure to identify oneself. That makes sense and it would seem to justify the arrest.
            I remain skeptical, but you could be correct. Anyone know the law in CA? I could have missed that which changes everything.

          • Difdi

            Perhaps not an ID card. That varies by state. But quite a few states do require at least full name and date of birth.

            The Supreme Court has ruled that simply identifying yourself that way does not violate the fifth amendment, but the court did not rule on whether it would if such a statement could be incriminating (someone who has escaped from prison, for example, could incriminate themselves that way — the court did not consider such a possibility).

            The arrest was for obstruction, which is what failure to identify in a minimally required way would be.

            California does not have a statute on it that I can find, but what case law on obstruction cases I can find seems to put the matter into a gray area. I realize courts are not supposed to create new laws, but in some cases, case law seems to.

          • Kaemaril

            “The Supreme Court has ruled that simply identifying yourself that way does not violate the fifth amendment”

            That would presumably be “Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada” where the US Supreme Court ruled that so-called “Stop and identify” laws were not, in and of themselves, necessarily unconstitutional, and that you could be compelled to provide your name? Or were you thinking of a more recent case?

            IF California has such a “stop and identify” law, nobody has so far cited it beyond Mason’s assertions that it’s definitely in the California Penal Code. Meanwhile, California is not listed in the states who have such a thing on Wikipedia (hardly concrete proof, I know) and at least one poster has stated that they’ve looked and couldn’t find it.

            Can somebody provide a cite for California’s “stop and identify” law, or similar act forcing a person to provide their name *and date of birth*?

          • Difdi

            There is no such statute. But case law surrounding obstruction charges seems to be filling in for the lack of a statute, as CA courts uphold failure to identify as a justification for an obstruction charge.

            Courts are not supposed to create laws, but nobody seems to have informed the CA court system of this.

            Oh, and the Wikipedia article is out of date. It doesn’t show all the case law on the matter. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to a legal library, so I can’t cite specifics.

          • Kaemaril

            Can you give me a cite for the controlling case law in California? A few of the articles I’ve seen on the subject stated the opposite – that ‘failure to identify’ was not a valid basis for an obstruction charge given there was no law requiring anyone to identify during a Terry Stop in California.

          • Difdi

            As I’ve already mentioned in other posts, I’m not sitting in a legal library, so I can’t find the specific citations. All I’ve been able to find are news articles, and they don’t cite a court decision either.

          • Kaemaril

            So your basis for asserting this is fact is … news stories? News stories that, themselves, don’t bother to cite any named case law but just say it is so? Interesting.

          • Difdi

            You’re absolutely right, solipsism IS the wave of the future. You can’t believe anything you read, hear, see, smell, taste or touch these days, and everybody lies 100% of the time.

            A dozen articles on unrelated cases from different sources all agreeing, without any dissent can’t possibly indicate a pattern.

          • Kaemaril

            I’ve seen quite a few articles, from wikipedia to law blogs to mailing lists, saying that :

            a) There is NO LAW requiring you to provide more than your name (which this guy did) when being detained in a terry stop.

            b) That the Californian law requiring you to identify yourself, and therefore face possible criminal penalties if you didn’t, was struck down quite some time ago as unconstitutional.

            c) If you have no legal duty to provide anything beyond your name, it would be ludicrous to criminalise something you have no legal requirement to do by claiming that this was obstruction. If you are not required to give more than your name then you have a right to not give more than your name. Arguing this is ‘obstruction’ would be like arguing that asking to see a warrant before consenting to a search could also be construed as obstruction. You cannot obstruct by asserting your rights.

            Now, these articles may be wrong.

            It may well be that there is controlling law on the subject, and you are correct.

            I haven’t listed my articles.
            You haven’t listed your articles, but you’re still stating them as fact without even citing the articles themselves, let alone what the law is.

            Why should I accept your “dozens” of articles are more correct than the also quite numerous articles I’ve seen which states the opposite?

            If that’s the standard for argument around here, at this point since I’ve stated that I also have read ‘dozens of articles’ you should be assuming the articles I’ve read are true too, presumably?

            My. What a quandary.

          • Difdi

            Nice straw man.

            The only “facts” I’ve stated in this is that the articles exist, that I can’t find anything official and recent that says yea or nay, and there don’t seem to be articles saying nay anywhere that I can find them.

            In fact, I’ve taken pains to note the shaky nature of what little evidence I’ve been able to find. You don’t need to make a straw man argument here, you’re the only one who is stating things as objective facts.

          • Difdi

            So the basis of your post is making accusations of things I freely admitted to all along, as if your ‘discovery’ proves I’m up to no good?


          • Kaemaril

            I’m not suggesting that my ‘discovery’ proves anything. After you’ve been asserting that there is case law stating that California prosecutes as obstruction refusing to identify beyond a person’s name I asked you for the controlling law.

            You said you didn’t have access to a law library, but you’d seen plenty of articles.

            I think it’s interesting that you can state as fact that California does this based on ‘articles’ that you haven’t cited, and that – according to you – the articles themselves didn’t state what cases this was based on (otherwise, one assumes, even without access to a law library you’d have been able to give me the name of the case(s) ). That’s all.

            Meanwhile, when I pointed out that just because it’s out there as an article it doesn’t make it so you mockingly replied mentioning solipsism and how the “dozens” of articles you’d seen (but not cited) must have been wrong …

            And now, when I point out that I, too, have seen dozens of articles that I’ve not cited either, you’ve claimed that I’m indulging in a straw man and that I’ve claimed ‘facts’ too …

            Dude, I’ve explicitly said several times as I’ve asked you to substantiate what you’ve said that I might be wrong. You, on the other hand, have claimed I’m somehow the one indulging in ‘strawman’ attacks and claiming facts.

            I might be right. I might be wrong. You might be right. You might be wrong. At this point, I think we both have produced zero verifiable citations and sources for our argument.

            But whatever. I think we’re done here. Shame there’s no kind of ‘ignore’ facility – I think we both could benefit from it.

          • Difdi

            I pointed out that certain people were using straw man arguments, which didn’t include you, until now. I hadn’t said you had used a straw man argument, but you just did in your last post, accusing me of something I never said.

            I don’t know why you’re freaking out so hard about factually accurate things I said to people who are not you, but I think you need to take a break and calm down.

          • Kaemaril

            Dude, I’m not “freaking out”. I’m just wondering why you’re asserting “factually accurate things” but – as far as I’ve been able to make out in this thread – haven’t really given any hard and fast evidence for these “factually accurate things”.

            As for “(H)adn’t said you had used a straw man argument, but you just did in your last post, accusing me of something I never said.”

            HOURS ago in direct response to one of MY posts:

            “Nice straw man.

            The only “facts” I’ve stated in this is that the articles exist, that I can’t find anything official and recent that says yea or nay, and there don’t seem to be articles saying nay anywhere that I can find them.

            In fact, I’ve taken pains to note the shaky nature of what little evidence I’ve been able to find. YOU DON’T NEED TO MAKE A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT HERE, you’re the only one who is stating things as objective facts.”

            (My emphasis)

            That’s you stating that I’m making a straw man argument, only to hours later claim that you had never said I’d made a straw man argument.

            In addition, that whole last paragraph?

            “I don’t know why you’re FREAKING OUT out so hard about factually accurate things I said to people who are not you, BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO TAKE A BREAK AND CALM DOWN”

            (Again, my emphasis)

            Very mature.

            Whatever. We really are done here.

          • Difdi

            I apologize for reading my email before I had my morning tea and confusing you with someone reasonable. Don’t worry, it won’t happen again.

            The fact remains though, that you’re making a huge deal over nothing much. You are indeed freaking out, what else would you call it when someone starts overreacting to someone saying they don’t have proof, but found some unreliable information that seems to indicate something?

            I never claimed what I was saying was gospel truth. Every time you asked me to cite something concrete, I explained why I didn’t. You apparently missed that repeatedly. If you decided with no basis in reality to take what I was saying as statements of fact that’s your issue, not mine. I made the necessary disclaimers on the matter.

          • n4zhg

            According to Wiki, CA does not have a stop and identify law. Caveat Lector.

          • Elliott Whitlow

            You might want to re-read the Hiibel decision, while the did take the position that they could not think of a way that giving your name would necessarily be violation of your 5A rights, they also didn’t take the position that it couldn’t. I think there will be cases to flesh that out.
            In addition to that they also took the position that the police DID have a reasonable suspicion based on the fact that they KNEW a crime actually had been committed and Hiibel matched the description. So since the law was not inherently unconstitutional and the police could rationally argue reasonable suspicion his conviction was valid.
            CA has been a state that has gotten whacked around a LOT in court on stop and ID, and they have generally lost.
            Do they have ANY evidence of a crime? They had a woman making a claim, however at the simplest level taking pictures of her kids on the beach can’t be illegal, they simply have no expectation of privacy. So they “crime” actually can’t be. Can you tell me how they could have a reasonable suspicion? She made a claim and that’s enough to overcome our rights? BS
            I’m sorry, but we haven’t hit a point where ID can be compelled.
            We haven’t even covered the camera, there are NO exigent circumstances and no possible threat of evidence loss, so how do you overcome the 4A?

          • Difdi

            Perhaps you should read what I wrote BEFORE you post. If nothing else, it tends to prevent the words “straw man” from being slung about.

          • Kaemaril

            a) What felony would that be, then?
            The cop said “We’ve got a complaint that you’re filming children on the beach.”

            Not a felony. If the reference to section 647 is to be believed, that’s good old fashioned “disorderly conduct” – I assume they’d want to try a prosecution under section j(2):

            “(2)Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person under or through the clothing being worn by that other person, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person and invade the privacy of that other person, under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

            And frankly, that’d be probably be quite a stretch, given the guy’s recording out in the open wearing press credentials and claims to have video evidence proving her a liar. I note that the officer said *A* complaint – were other beach users complaining, or was it just her?

            b) “Being a pedophile” isn’t a crime, so I doubt they were holding him on that at all, and if they were it’s not going to look good on the arrest report.

            c) He did identify himself. He gave his name, and showed his press badge. I assume, like Mason, you can offer up some section of the Californian penal code which states that a date of birth is mandatory? In fact, if you can point to a section of the Californian penal code that says a suspect is required to identify by law to go beyond giving their name whilst being detained and prior to arrest that would be instructive. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just that it would be informative to get a citation to get everyone up to speed.

            I think the jury is still out on whether this guy broke the law. If they’re trying to prosecute under 148(a) they could have problems.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Wait.. What felony are you talking about. It is no more of a felony to merely be a pedophile, than it is a felony to be an atheist.

            “Look at that guy over there! Who the hell does he think he is, coming to my beach and walking around noit believing in Gawd? Throw his ass in jail!”. What is the functional difference in the two thought crimes?

          • Frodo

            Taking pictures of children is not crime therefore reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing does not exist, therefore he is not required to provide his name or DOB.

            This is no different than reporting someone as a terrorist simply because he’s wearing a turbin. There’s no simply correlation.

          • Difdi

            Congratulations on your vast psychic powers.

            Unfortunately, the rest of humanity can’t do that.

            We dom’t know what the woman said to the dispatcher, we don’t know what the dispatcher said to police.

            But dependng on how things were phrased, the police might well have had enough reasonable suspicion to detain the photographer.

            Police, like military personnel, are judged on what they knew at the time, good or bad. An illegal search that turns up contraband remains illegal, and an arrest that later turns out to be false is not turned into a crime after the fact.

          • Frodo

            Actually we know everything. All the park rangers or whatever the hell they are reiterated exactly why they were responding. They all referenced a complaint about taking pictures of children, which is NOT illegal. I don’t need physic powers to understand english.

          • Difdi

            Everybody has ‘physic’ powers. Physic powers are how you get up and walk across a room.

          • Fotaugrafee

            Bullshit, they did NOT investigate the crime. They wen to the first able-bodied person they could find & started harassing him. Not A, B, C, D…but A right to D.

          • Fotaugrafee

            “He was detained on suspicion of being a pedophile.”

            Again, where is the illegal activity here? I don’t see “sexual assault of a minor”, I see “suspicion of being a pedophile”. The latter is NOT against the law, fortunately, for enforcers of non-existent laws like you’ve once again shown here.

          • Fotaugrafee

            Yes, back to square #1. How else do you establish that what he was doing was anything but legal? A proper investigation would have solved this. If they went right to him, b/c “there’s the guy with the camera”, they failed to do their job investigating the complaint properly. Anything less is reckless.

          • Luc

            Mason Pelt, what is the code section you keep referring to? If you are an expert in CPC please enlighten us.

          • $58984987

            At 8:42 in the first video the cop asks the journalist “Once again, you are not going to leave?”

            So the journalist could not have been detained prior to this for suspicion of anything, otherwise the cop would not be suggesting he leave.
            He would be detained for suspicion of a crime.
            And now you have suspicion of a crime with a guy who won’t give his ID.
            So then why would the cop later suggest the possibility the journalist could leave? Because he wasn’t being detained up to that point…that’s why.

            Also, as an aside, the first cop asks “Once again…”, but had never asked or suggested previously anything about the journalist leaving. But made it sound, falsely, that this request had already been made. It was actually the first time it had ever been mentioned, but the cop says “Once again…”, yet there was no…”once again” to even speak of or refer to,

            The journalist was not officially detained until the cuffs were on him and he was told he was being detained.

            Why turn off the camera?
            Why no arrest?

          • Mike

            ITs not reasonable suspicion of a complaint. Its reasonable suspicion of a crime. His photography wasn’t a crime even if he was guilty of it. Therefore no reasonable suspicion and no basis of either a detention or demand for ID. This matter has been litigated in pretty much every state in the country and the state has never won it. Every prosecutor knows this which is why they always dismiss the charges.

          • steveo

            This is what I call the “Magic Call”. Leos say, “We got a call” They believe that that allows them to infringe every constitutional right of a citizen even if the call is anonymous. They even smash down doors, call it “exigent circumstances” and explain to the chief and press, “We got a call.”.

            The funniest one I ever read was when they arrested Bob Dylan for walking around a neighborhood when a “hard rains gonna fall”. He didn’t have an ID because, well, 68 year old men with 500 million in the bank usually have someone to drive them or fly them somewhere.

            I was also reading today about “how do you know if you are being detained”. The courts in FL actually have a sort of formula to gage the “totality of the circumstances” when the defendant said that they were detained and the leo says it was “consensual”. One of the primary factors the court determines is if the leo calls for backup. If the leo calls for backup, then the court says that the citizen is now being detained, then the court has to determine whether the detention was lawfull or not.

          • Frodo

            Ah, but a complaint about you doing something completely legal is not articulable suspicion of a crime and grounds for detainment is it? That makes the detainment illegal and the requirement to provide your name and DOB void.

          • sfmc98

            There is NOTHING in the California Penal Code which requires one to provide full name and date of birth during an investigative detention. The only time it is required is during the booking process/citing in the field.

            But since you know so much about it, go ahead and cite the section.

            I dare you.

    • Fotaugrafee

      You are a sheep. Protect your rights or accept having NONE.

  • Mason Pelt

    This guy was a dumbass. I think in this case he was lawfully detained. I rarely side with the cops, but these guys were not acting outside of the law.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      But in California, there is no requirement to provide ID to cops, upon request. Contempt of Cop is not a lawful detention.

      • Mason Pelt

        In California you are required to provide you full name and date of
        birth if you are being detained. According to the California Penial Code. He was not required to provide ID, but his name and date of birth were required under the law.

        • Chris McKenna

          Save me some time, please. Cite the section of the CPC that requires you to provide your name and DOB.

          • Kellen Lawler

            We are all still waiting Mason

          • Chris McKenna

            Never gonna happen. It isn’t in the Penal Code. Of course, unlike Mason, I am not an expert in the “Penial” code. Maybe that’s different!

          • $58984987

            …perhaps it is in the penile code.

          • IceTrey

            Would that be “Bros before ho’s”?

          • steveo

            Wikipedia, doesn’t list CA as a state with stop and identify. Not saying that’s accurate but it is until somebody corrects it or tells me different. All 50 states the leo needs a RAS. not sure filming children is a RAS, since it’s not against the law.

        • Silly

          Not true. California does not have a stop and identify law – it was voided years ago.

        • Hamlet

          Another one. Give it a rest. You might actually learn something. Mason.

  • Herbert Napp

    At the end of every article Carlos, the non-emergency phone number for the dept responsbile should be bolded and posted. Please do this. NOTHING will change unless you do or get lucky and picked up by drudge a few more times.

  • pete

    This is my hometown. I grew up on this beach. The Rangers there have always been cool. Locals typically treat the rangers as non-LEO’s for the most part. Saying that, they obviously don’t know the law as taking pictures of children would render 1/2 of the beach as criminals. What I want to know is, after looking at his camera, why didn’t they arrest the woman for making a false complaint? He was detained based on that false charge. It seems she spun up the Rangers. Where is her accountability?

    • $58984987

      Because the dipshit in the brown shirt knew who this journalist was from other incidences from other counties as it wasn’t about what was right or the law.

  • name

    And once again, a dog owner gets away with dangerous actions and the person obeying the law gets punished.

    • Difdi

      If you see something, say something…but then it’s your word against theirs and nothing happens.

      So you record evidence of wrongdoing…and then get arrested for being a pedophile.

      • Proud GrandPa

        I believe the safest way to record under present state of law is to bring a team to video and audio record not only the event but to record YOU. The woman’s false or misleading accusations can easily be discredited.


        If anyone bears false testimony, multiple recording will not only prevent the prosecutor from going after you, but will empower the police and prosecutor to address the false report.


        Work as a team. It will be successful and law enforcement will protect your rights.

        • Difdi

          Agreed. It sucks that you need to do it, but it really is the wisest way.

          Of course, that doesn’t help the guy who just whips out his smartphone to record something unexpected that is happening in front of him.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Yes, and the threat is not only from angry LEOs who misunderstand or ignore the law, but the threat is even worse from gangs and labor union thugs. Imagine videotaping a drug buy! Bullets fly. End of story.
            In other places union thugs beat up people for videotaping illegal damage to property and illegal physical violence to enforce union mob privileges. The union executives live rich while the rank and file suffer.
            Same thing at certain political events… If a person pulls out the cell phone and video records, the results could be a beating for video or audio recording.
            What we need are button hole, concealed cameras with remote switches.
            I don’t mean to come down hard on unions, by the way, but they seem to be the only thugs that are not condemned in the mainstream media for beating up video/recording reporters.

  • Texas Killdozer

    Props to the guy for not filming vertically.

    • IceTrey

      I think that’s a regular camera not a phone.

    • Kellen Lawler

      Jack I’ve always wanted to ask phone video up loaders, would you go watch a movie in that vertical format? lol! Good post

      • Texas Killdozer

        Exactly. And they usually fall back on the “it’s easier to film that way” excuse, to which I reply: “It’s easier for me to play the guitar without tuning it. Want to hear some songs I wrote?”

        • Kellen Lawler

          Thats a good come back Jack. Ha.

  • Bill Larson

    He needs to file a civil suit for a violation of his first amendment rights. The suit should name the women who made the false accusation, the department the officers worked for, and the officers themselves in their individual capacities.

    Also after searching the entire California code, there is no stated requirement to provide a “Birthday” or “Date of Birth” in the entire code related to a investigation.

    • $58984987

      …the dog…don’t forget to sue the dog. Worth getting a couple of milk bones out of him too.

      • Bill Larson

        He told them that 1. He didn’t take any pictures of children, and 2. That he was on assignment for a journalistic publication and 3. showed them his media credentials. 4. He also told them that by their actions that they were violating his first amendment rights. 5. Then they continued their harassment until they ejected him from the beach. 6. Lawsuit.

    • Frodo

      It is also important that he contact the FBI, as this falls under their Color of Law provision or statute. It is a federal crime to deny someone their basic civil rights.

      • Bill Larson

        Sadly color of law only applies to voting.

      • Silly

        Not the FBI. The Department of Justice Civil Rights dept. (FBI is a division of the DOJ)

  • Proud GrandPa

    What was his goal? Was it not to get video for a story about unlawful dog unleashing on the public beach and the resulting dog fight? And would his reward be a nice payday?
    He invoked his rights. He won the argument and lost the payday. I respect and admire the guy’s bravery and willingness to forego selling a good video to the media in exchange for a day in stir.


    Wait a sec! What is wrong with him? He could have and should have (a) given the park ranger full information and (b) enlisted the aid of the ranger as his ally in getting a dog investigation story. What a scoop (no pun). He could have not only obtained the bad dog fight video, but he could have had a video of the ranger investigating the woman.


    I still have to admire the photog’s courage, just not his judgment. Next time he should get the story FIRST, then the paycheck. That’s a whole lot better than what happened.


    • $58984987

      How do you know he didn’t already have enough footage compiled for his story?
      You don’t.

      And if a cop comes up on me talking about how he is investigating me for child pornography, perversion or lewd behavior concerning minors then he isn’t getting a word out of me.
      Best you just put me in cuffs and then let my lawyer sort it out.

      And this cop should be stopping everyone on the beach with a camera that may have a photo of a child in it to check their identity and search their pictures…according to your logic.

      • Proud GrandPa

        If he had enough video, he’d be gone! If not, he wasted his chance.


        Look at the video again. The ranger was not talking about the pervert issue first. He was talking about the photog’s id. Here is where the photog should have taken the initiative, provided the information, and then directed the conversation to the story.


        This cop should not stop anyone and the arrest is bogus too. Do not blame me for the arrest. I don’t defend it.


        I do say that the photog blew a chance to get a ranger on his side investigating his assignment. Even a freelancer has to eat. I prefer home cooking to jail house slop. The photog chose to follow this advice instead:
        “Best you just put me in cuffs and then let my lawyer sort it out.”
        Bad advice… bad result.

        • $58984987

          He provided his name, his purpose and his press credentials. Way more than he was required by law to provide.
          Give it a break dude.
          He never needed to get a ranger on his side. The ranger should have been acting on the side of right…but he wasn’t.

          • Proud GrandPa

            He provided this too late to save his hide. He provided these to the sheriff but not to the ranger.
            He needed the ranger on his side to get a better story and to stay out of jail. I think he was in the right here and the LEOs were wrong… unless what Difdi wrote earlier is true… that failure to id properly is obstruction.
            Even if the ranger and deputy are wrong, the photog still missed a paycheck. At best he goes back and gets more video to put together a story. But the damage to his rep may have a dampening effect on parents’ willingness to talk with him.

          • $58984987

            You are clearly delusional…old man.

            The journalist clearly volunteered and provided his name at :58 before the cop even asked him for his name.
            And you claim he offered it too late?

            The journalist clearly volunteered and provided that he was media and who he was working for at 1:00 in the video without even having been asked by the officer.
            And you claim he offered it too late?

            The ranger was early on mis-stating the law by stating the journalist had to give him his date of birth.
            The journalist knew damn well this was not accurate and was not required to supply a DOB.
            Again, no good reason to cooperate with a cop who is actively violating your rights while mis-stating the law in an attempt to violate your rights.
            At that point he is not on your side and never will be.
            And as a result of lawfully not supplying the DOB and not leaving when the officer suggested it, the officer called…backup.
            The journalist stated it accurately when he said he has done nothing wrong.

            The conversation and encounter was officially over at 1:14, at 1:45, at 2:16, at 2:45, at 6:14 in video one when the cop should have just honored the law and walked away.

            The journalist stated that he had footage of the dog running loose and attacking other dogs. That will cover his story. He was hanging around to get more incidences of it to note the severity of occurrence, but had the essentials to make his news story stick
            So no payday was missed…fool.
            Notice the journalist was not taken to jail for anything…important fact to consider seeing how he was guilty of nothing.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Yes, I stand corrected on some issues. Thanks for the post and your research. Get the lawyers, quick! We have a lawsuit in the mix.

          • $58984987

            Peace brother.

  • Difdi

    If the police actually called him a pedophile within earshot of bystanders, he can sue them for defamation.

    He can absolutely sue the woman who made the false report, since she lied to police to cause him trouble.

    • $58984987

      The cop in the brown shirt was hissing…” photographing children”…as if the guy was a condemned pedophile.

      • ccbarrpics

        No only that, but the same guy said they have a right to look at his camera footage just because they got a report that he was filming “small children”. Maybe filming large children would have been OK (sarcasm), LOL.

    • Frodo

      Unfortunately, I think he would need to prove it.

  • steveo

    No stop and ID law in CA. Giving his name is the only requirement even if the leo had a RAS. More inch and mile stuff.

    JC is good at his work, but I still think the Daniel Saulmon approach works better. ” You want my date of birth, ok, get ready to write, I’m going to fart the month day and year to you, here goes” Now, Fxxk U and your mother and get the Fxxk out of my face.” “Don’t talk to me, don’t talk to me. Now I’m sticking my fingers in my ears and yelling NANANA…….”

  • steveo

    I love it when they get the gloves on. Here comes the anal cavity search. We’ll teach this guy a lesson. Maybe next time, you’ll listen.

  • Kaemaril

    Out of interest, the officer who admitted that he did search the camera without a warrant … he seemed unconcerned, so what might his basis be for justifying that search? There could be no ‘exigent circumstances’ as the cameraman was under their control so not likely to destroy the evidence, and the “terry stop” rules I thought only allowed a police officer to pat the suspect down for weapons for their own safety? So what’s the legal authority this guy could be relying on to justify what appears to be a warrantless search? Is he going to try that the photos are somehow in “plain view”?

    (IANAL, obviously :) But I do find this stuff fascinating, and always love to find out more … )

    • $58984987

      Just the sensational false claim that the safety of children was at stake…surely a reason worthy of operating outside the law.

      • LibertyEbbs


      • Bill Larson

        We should not ever allow law enforcement to operate outside the law. That’s a dangerous thing to do; and leads to people being taken in the night by police death squads, shot in the head and buried in secret like happened in Latin America, South America, and Iraq.

        • LibertyEbbs

          Yeah, but it is for the safety of the children!!!

    • Doug

      What does he have to fear? There are no damages, so he won’t be hit with a civil suit (not that he’d be personally liable anyway). So what if he gets a complaint on his record, no one’s going to take a complaint from a pedophile about searching the camera he was recording little boys with seriously. /s

  • anon RP

    I get both sides of this but once there is no victim willing to prosecute / do a citizen’s arrest, they should have told him to have a nice day and let him go. What of waste of time to the taxpayer from officer’s time for paperwork and all the courts. The officer needs to explain that there is no law broken to the reporting person. I am thinking the officers are thinking of 647.6 PC (Child Annoying) Personally, to me, this law is ambiguous and does not define “annoys.”

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      As a someone who grew up in California, I was pretty annoyed with some of my teachers…. But I didn’t know I could have them arrested…

      • Kaemaril

        Clearly, you couldn’t. If the law did make it illegal to merely ‘annoy’ in the traditional everyday sense of the word it would be ridiculous, every adult would be criminalised. That would, surely, render it constitutionally unsafe by reason of vagueness.

        I’d imagine it’s more likely to be a legal term defining molestation of some kind. And, indeed, a quick dictionary search gives ‘to molest or harm’

        Edited to add: ah, here you go:

        “Annoy” and “molest” are synonymous and generally refer to conduct designed to disturb, irritate, offend, injure, or at least tend to injure, another person.

        “Annoy means to disturb or irritate, especially by continued or repeated acts

        ‘[M]olest’ [means] . . . ‘to interfere with or meddle with unwarrantably so as to injure or disturb.

        Ah, here we go:
        A photographer can “annoy” a minor by taking the minor’s photograph in a public place in an offensive and irritating manner. (See Ecker v. Raging Waters Group, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1320, 1325 [105 Cal.Rptr.2d 320].) A lewd act is not required. (People v. Thompson (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 459, 465-466 [253 Cal.Rptr. 564].)

        To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:
        1. The defendant engaged in conduct directed at a child;
        2. A normal person, without hesitation, would have been disturbed, irritated, offended, or injured by the defendant’s conduct;
        3. The defendant’s conduct was motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in the child;
        4. The child was under the age of 18 years at the time of the conduct.

        I suspect 3) would be very hard to prove. 2) would be interesting, also, perhaps.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      Although this page says there has to be a provable sexual intention.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Ha! Good one, anon RP. Child annoying law?


      Obviously that lawl’s author(s) never raised teenagers. :-)

    • Frodo

      I’d be willing to bet anything that no cop has even heard of that law.

  • Guest


  • Kellen Lawler

    The story says Playford has been arrested and harassed on numerous times. It says nothing about being convicted. I will assume he has not been convicted in any of the previous arrests. Would I be cooperative with the cops …. hell no. I would be going out of my way to complicate the encounter in any legal way possible. Even if resulting being arrested falsely…….AGAIN. EDIT: My bad, Mr Playford was NOT arrested this time. My apologies for a mistaken comment.

  • harry balzanya

    Carlos reported on a story about two years ago, a cop was taking pictures of children at a carnival, he was arrested,he was taking pictures of childrens privates,practicality EVERYONE in these forums wanted him dead. the police do have the authority to search a camera when they believe that evidence will be destroyed in this case a report of upskirt child porn pics, they absoutly had no authority to kick him out of a park after it wasdetermined he was not breaking the law.they had a duty to investigate the false report. The guy did not assert his rights properly. “Officer I do not do requests until you give a lawful order and phrase it as such I am not obligated to obey it. Stating what you need is not a order. Stating what you want is not a order. Asking a question starting with would you or could you are not orders. I do not consent to this conversation. I absolutly want to leave this instant right now you are holding me against my will. Im not a lawyer but jesus fucking Christ if you stand there and let them use verbal judo on you your going to get fucked.

    • Bill Larson

      There’s quite a difference between taking naked or upskirt images and taking pictures of people in an open area with no expectation of privacy. When the ranger did the initial investigation the that that this was not what was being claimed in this instance but was instead perfectly legal actions would have been quite clear and should have ended the investigation.

      • harry Balzanya

        there are levels of constitutional privacy, Just as you would not be allowed under the current interpretation given by the current interpreters of the constitution the supreme court, to picket a persons home in a residential neighborhood because the court ruled that a residential street is not the same as a traditional open forum, and preserved the privacy of peoples homes. A beach is not the same as the street. Bathers bathing in a bathing area could expect that there was a reasonable expectation not to be seen beyond the bathing area. I could see any court considering the supreme courts decision on privacy in a residential area, to apply that logic to a beach and a bathing area where people dress differently then they would anywhere else. I think Most reasonable people would agree with that. Camel Toe is a issue while bathing. Having my little Irish sausage bulge seen by 12 people on a beach is a great deal different then some chub chaser jacking off to my image on the internet. There ARE levels,,and reasonable people in a reasonable nation,with reasonable balances between the public’s interests and a individuals rights understand that concept. Your argument that a beach is the same as a street is just not reasonable. A beach has a different level of expectation of privacy and not so obtrusive search of a cameras images, when justified by witnesses, with a photographer who might flee when children are the issue. that’s what the COURTS who interpret the Constitution have said, NOT ME and according to the Constitution they are the ones who decide these things.

        • Bill Larson

          This is a PUBLIC beach, You are in sight of everyone who is on the beach, there is no expectation of privacy.

        • $58984987

          In Florida, many people dress casually with as little clothes on as possible just about everywhere you go just to beat the heat. Beach life is public life. There is no expectation of privacy on a beach and particularly no expectation of privacy in those rarer incidences where media may be filming. Mainstream media never asks for permission or goes through any process in order to film on a public beach because they don’t have to.

          The officers in the video never mentioned at all that the journalist could not film because of the privacy of those using the beach.

    • RaymondbyEllis

      And Harry, they have to get a warrant. It can be done by a phone call. They can hold the container until the warrant is given, under that EC, but they can’t search.
      EC does not mean “not in cops hands” but that they have a reason that can be articulated and will hold up.

  • Fotaugrafee

    I would think that if the “labeling of a pedophile” were recorded & documented, he could probably drill these dipshits in court.

  • MericaFukYea

    The fat cop cant even pick his feet up

  • Bernard Dunning

    These videos don’t really amount to anything if you don’t take legal action afterwards. Oh wow, a cop acted like a dick, did whatever he wanted then absolutely nothing happened to him afterwards. Exciting.

  • Kellen Lawler

    I know there are many who are much more versed in law than I here. I do have this question…If the following is US law….. why then are ALL cops who break this law not being charged?



    Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting
    under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right
    or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United

    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law”
    include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials
    within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the
    bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done
    while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the
    performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under
    color of law within the meaning of this statute include police
    officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as
    well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and
    others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary
    that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color,
    religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of
    the victim.

    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a
    life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances
    of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.