Woman shot in parking lot during football game

[Blindref757]

Under what authority? Sounds like theft to me.

I think because it would be so easy to erase, police can seize cameras and video devices from people if they believe there is evidence on the devices and they believe there is a risk that the evidence would be erased if not seized. They can't, well shouldn't in my mind but there is an ongoing argument in the courts and law enforcement mainly due to the ability to remote wipe cell phones, view the recordings until they get a warrant and they would have to give back the device afterwards so I'm not sure how that really applies here tho.

I can erase my iPhone remotely from my house and report it stolen to ATT...they can remotely disable the number programmed into the phone and render it useless. Some lab rat at the PD may eventually be able to extract the pic off the phone's drive, but since the drive is solid state (not a writeable disk), it is less likely that the remnants of that photo would hold together through the erasure.

[K.Mooneyham]

Did the man whose cell phone was taken get a receipt for his property? Something to show that it was in the custody of law enforcement? Otherwise, how does he know that is where the phone physically is located?

[Keith B]

I can erase my iPhone remotely from my house and report it stolen to ATT...they can remotely disable the number programmed into the phone and render it useless. Some lab rat at the PD may eventually be able to extract the pic off the phone's drive, but since the drive is solid state (not a writeable disk), it is less likely that the remnants of that photo would hold together through the erasure.

That can easily be overridden by just placing it in airplane mode. You would them not be able to access the device remotely. If all they are after is the images and maybe GPS/Location data for evidence, then they could easily download all content and save it, giving back the phone to the owner.

[EEllis]

Under what authority? Sounds like theft to me.

I think because it would be so easy to erase, police can seize cameras and video devices from people if they believe there is evidence on the devices and they believe there is a risk that the evidence would be erased if not seized. They can't, well shouldn't in my mind but there is an ongoing argument in the courts and law enforcement mainly due to the ability to remote wipe cell phones, view the recordings until they get a warrant and they would have to give back the device afterwards so I'm not sure how that really applies here tho.

I can erase my iPhone remotely from my house and report it stolen to ATT...they can remotely disable the number programmed into the phone and render it useless. Some lab rat at the PD may eventually be able to extract the pic off the phone's drive, but since the drive is solid state (not a writeable disk), it is less likely that the remnants of that photo would hold together through the erasure.

That is one of the arguments being used to justify police accessing phones without warrants. Right now there are faraday bags being used by police that would prevent this from happening and in theory just wrapping a phone in fiol would prevent it from being accessed remotely.

[EEllis]

I can erase my iPhone remotely from my house and report it stolen to ATT...they can remotely disable the number programmed into the phone and render it useless. Some lab rat at the PD may eventually be able to extract the pic off the phone's drive, but since the drive is solid state (not a writeable disk), it is less likely that the remnants of that photo would hold together through the erasure.

That can easily be overridden by just placing it in airplane mode. You would them not be able to access the device remotely. If all they are after is the images and maybe GPS/Location data for evidence, then they could easily download all content and save it, giving back the phone to the owner.

Even doing that is accessing the device and an issue without a warrant. There are faraday bags but ones that work well enough tend to cost more than many phones.

[gringo pistolero]

Those local yokels sound even worse than Obama's PRISM snoops.

[Jaguar]

Under what authority? Sounds like theft to me.

I think because it would be so easy to erase, police can seize cameras and video devices from people if they believe there is evidence on the devices and they believe there is a risk that the evidence would be erased if not seized. They can't, well shouldn't in my mind but there is an ongoing argument in the courts and law enforcement mainly due to the ability to remote wipe cell phones, view the recordings until they get a warrant and they would have to give back the device afterwards so I'm not sure how that really applies here tho.

According to the ACLU (dirty word here, I know), when in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view.

Police officers may not generally confiscate or demand to view your photographs or video without a warrant. If you are arrested, the contents of your phone may be scrutinized by the police, although their constitutional power to do so remains unsettled. In addition, it is possible that courts may approve the seizure of a camera in some circumstances if police have a reasonable, good-faith belief that it contains evidence of a crime by someone other than the police themselves (it is unsettled whether they still need a warrant to view them).

This case seems to involve someone who was lawfully present and not a suspect of a crime. If they really wanted the photo of the back of his Jeep, they could have asked or gotten a warrant from the court. Had it been me, I would have allowed them to view the photo and if they wanted a copy, I would have been happy to give them my contact information and emailed a copy to them at a later date. However, it is not their property and they do not get to decide if it gets deleted or uploaded or saved for a later date. A warrant would change some of these facts, but I doubt a court would issue a warrant for photo of a back end of a Jeep close to a crime scene. Now they will allow him to get his Jeep, but not the photograph he took of it?

Ridiculous

Nothing you said contradicts what I said. The cops can seize your phone as evidence just not look at it. You want to bring in the ACLU, well they just got done negotiating DC's policy and it allows them to take your phone. It also sets up other procedures, like emailing it while a cop watches, but if you tell the cops you won't give then the video then they can seize the phone. Sure they have to be able to justify it later but they can do so. Now I am not sure that why the phone was seized or that it was legal in this case.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/i ... -file-them" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I didn't say anything to attempt to contradict you, I am on your side - odd for you I'm sure.

I am only speaking to this case, I am sure if someone photographed a man running out of a bank with bags of cash and a bloody knife it would be different. The back of his own Jeep near a crime scene just doesn't reach any level of suspicion or reasonable cause in my mind. Even if he captured part of the crime scene it is still not justified in my mind, the police have their own photographers that can take better photos than any phone.

Even if the guy had important evidence captured, the phone and data on it still belongs to him, it would be reasonable to expect the police to obtain a copy and allow the man to keep all of his property, photos and videos included. If he refused to give it up, I would expect them to confiscate it and return it intact in short order. But again, this case - not so much.

[EEllis]

I didn't say anything to attempt to contradict you, I am on your side - odd for you I'm sure.

I am only speaking to this case, I am sure if someone photographed a man running out of a bank with bags of cash and a bloody knife it would be different. The back of his own Jeep near a crime scene just doesn't reach any level of suspicion or reasonable cause in my mind. Even if he captured part of the crime scene it is still not justified in my mind, the police have their own photographers that can take better photos than any phone.

Even if the guy had important evidence captured, the phone and data on it still belongs to him, it would be reasonable to expect the police to obtain a copy and allow the man to keep all of his property, photos and videos included. If he refused to give it up, I would expect them to confiscate it and return it intact in short order. But again, this case - not so much.

Well we are hearing it second hand at best so I take everything with a grain of salt but who knows. The phone gets shuffled off to some tech who has baskets of work and so on and so on. They may pick up every piece of trash at a crime scene but that doesn't mean everything gets processed thru the lab. I'm assuming the guy was not cooperative so who would be in a hurry to get it back to him. Police often take a "just in case" view towards evidence collection. Like what if the man had pics from before the officer saw him? He won't let you check, or you don't know how to, seize the phone and if it looks like it might go to court then you start looking thru the collected evidence.

[K.Mooneyham]

I didn't say anything to attempt to contradict you, I am on your side - odd for you I'm sure.

I am only speaking to this case, I am sure if someone photographed a man running out of a bank with bags of cash and a bloody knife it would be different. The back of his own Jeep near a crime scene just doesn't reach any level of suspicion or reasonable cause in my mind. Even if he captured part of the crime scene it is still not justified in my mind, the police have their own photographers that can take better photos than any phone.

Even if the guy had important evidence captured, the phone and data on it still belongs to him, it would be reasonable to expect the police to obtain a copy and allow the man to keep all of his property, photos and videos included. If he refused to give it up, I would expect them to confiscate it and return it intact in short order. But again, this case - not so much.

Well we are hearing it second hand at best so I take everything with a grain of salt but who knows. The phone gets shuffled off to some tech who has baskets of work and so on and so on. They may pick up every piece of trash at a crime scene but that doesn't mean everything gets processed thru the lab. I'm assuming the guy was not cooperative so who would be in a hurry to get it back to him. Police often take a "just in case" view towards evidence collection. Like what if the man had pics from before the officer saw him? He won't let you check, or you don't know how to, seize the phone and if it looks like it might go to court then you start looking thru the collected evidence.

I'm still curious if they have to give the man a receipt for his property. Otherwise, how can he ever get it back? Or recoup the cost if it is damaged?

[tbrown]

Dropbox Camera Upload + Android Device Manager = I get my pictures and thieves won't.

[nightmare69]

He got his phone back after having an attorney call the PD. He said he had taken pics then was talking on his phone and a Upshur county sheriff deputy came up and asked while he was on the phone if he had taken pics. He said yes and the officer took his phone out of his hands, took down his info and turned the phone over to Gilmer PD.

This small department has not had a murder case in years and there was hundreds of people there. They were freaking out and acting irrationally.

He went down to get his phone and vented to the department but decided not to file a complaint. I told him he should call the sheriff and talk to him about it.

[Jaguar]

He got his phone back after having an attorney call the PD. He said he had taken pics then was talking on his phone and a Upshur county sheriff deputy came up and asked while he was on the phone if he had taken pics. He said yes and the officer took his phone out of his hands, took down his info and turned the phone over to Gilmer PD.

This small department has not had a murder case in years and there was hundreds of people there. They were freaking out and acting irrationally.

He went down to get his phone and vented to the department but decided not to file a complaint. I told him he should call the sheriff and talk to him about it.

Good job having an attorney call the department - seems to restore common sense most of the time.

I agree, talk to the sheriff and maybe they can prevent it in the future. By not filing a complaint he can say he doesn't want to cause waves and just wants to have the problem fixed. Hopfully that will go over well.

I can imagine a small town department dealing with this, I too live near a small town. But that doesn't mean they can ignore the laws when dealing with a situation like this, they are supposed to be trained properly even if they have little experiance.

[EEllis]

I'm still curious if they have to give the man a receipt for his property. Otherwise, how can he ever get it back? Or recoup the cost if it is damaged?

Well they would have to do a report on it at least and all reports are pubic info with a request so even if they don't give an actual recipt it shouldn't be an issue tracking a legitimately seized item. Now that may or maynot be the case here of course.

[EEllis]

He got his phone back after having an attorney call the PD. He said he had taken pics then was talking on his phone and a Upshur county sheriff deputy came up and asked while he was on the phone if he had taken pics. He said yes and the officer took his phone out of his hands, took down his info and turned the phone over to Gilmer PD.

This small department has not had a murder case in years and there was hundreds of people there. They were freaking out and acting irrationally.

He went down to get his phone and vented to the department but decided not to file a complaint. I told him he should call the sheriff and talk to him about it.

So it sounds like the officer at least thought there may have been evidence on there and gave a receipt before turning it over to a separate department who would be investigating the incident. While there are ways to handle the situation with less disturbance to the individual if circumstances rarely occur that require such methods it's not surprising they are a bit behind the curve. Did he try and get the phone back himself or was the lawyer his initial approach?

[nightmare69]

So it sounds like the officer at least thought there may have been evidence on there and gave a receipt before turning it over to a separate department who would be investigating the incident. While there are ways to handle the situation with less disturbance to the individual if circumstances rarely occur that require such methods it's not surprising they are a bit behind the curve. Did he try and get the phone back himself or was the lawyer his initial approach?

He tried to get it back himself the next day put they kept giving him the runaround so he called a lawyer and within 10mins the PD called and said come get your phone. Taken a picture of the back of his personal property in a public area is not illegal and I don't see how they can take a phone cause LEO suspects there is evidence on it. If that is true why didn't the PD seize all the new stations cameras who were standing at the fence filming the crime scene?