TexasCHLforum.com

nightmare69 wrote:

EEllis wrote:
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?

Then you haven't been bothering to read. Phones are different because, like the numerous people on here who said they would do so, it is so easy to destroy the evidence. The evidence on the phone wouldn't be admissible without a warrant but police can seize to prevent the destruction of evidence. News cameras aren't going to erase footage like the general public seems to want to do. It was already said that his vehicle was so close to the shooting he couldn't remove it so if he took photos anywhere in the area it could have evidence. The cop did ask about taking photos. It's funny that the willingness and ability to delete info is what makes it legal.

EEllis wrote: Then you haven't been bothering to read. Phones are different because, like the numerous people on here who said they would do so, it is so easy to destroy the evidence. The evidence on the phone wouldn't be admissible without a warrant but police can seize to prevent the destruction of evidence. News cameras aren't going to erase footage like the general public seems to want to do. It was already said that his vehicle was so close to the shooting he couldn't remove it so if he took photos anywhere in the area it could have evidence. The cop did ask about taking photos. It's funny that the willingness and ability to delete info is what makes it legal.

If that's the case then the LEOs should simply explain why they're taking it and that it will be returned upon retrieving the evidence. Doing anything else is a disservice to the public that they serve and it's poor relationship management.

EEllis wrote:Then you haven't been bothering to read. Phones are different because, like the numerous people on here who said they would do so, it is so easy to destroy the evidence. The evidence on the phone wouldn't be admissible without a warrant but police can seize to prevent the destruction of evidence. News cameras aren't going to erase footage like the general public seems to want to do. It was already said that his vehicle was so close to the shooting he couldn't remove it so if he took photos anywhere in the area it could have evidence. The cop did ask about taking photos. It's funny that the willingness and ability to delete info is what makes it legal.

Um, cameras can delete photos and videos as well...

Also, newpaper photogs will just go through 1000's of photos taken, pick a few for the paper, then reformat the memory card without a second thought. Surely the cops need to go through those 1000's of photos to make sure no evidence is destroyed.

A woman is murdered and we post 3 pages about someone's phone.

jmra wrote:A woman is murdered and we post 3 pages about someone's phone.

They caught the guy and he gave a full confession.

So yall are telling me that if I take pics of a crime scene in a public place my phone or camera could be seized? What pics could I take from behind the yellow tape that an officer inside the crime scene with a camera not take? If its legal for them to seize the phone why were they so quick on giving it back after they got a call from a attorney?

He was not taking pics of the crime scene to tweet out to everyone, he did it cause his jeep was there in case there was any damage he could prove where it came from. The pic showed the back of his jeep nothing more.

From the article:

"If [anyone] has any photographs... any evidence... handle those matters in a respectful way as not to bring anymore hardship to the family," Byrd asks.

Apparently they were trying to keep pictures of the woman's body off of the internet.

BStacks wrote:From the article:

"If [anyone] has any photographs... any evidence... handle those matters in a respectful way as not to bring anymore hardship to the family," Byrd asks.

Apparently they were trying to keep pictures of the woman's body off of the internet.

Perfectly understandable and he was not taking pictures of the body but of his jeep. He told the cop that.

nightmare69 wrote:

BStacks wrote:From the article:

"If [anyone] has any photographs... any evidence... handle those matters in a respectful way as not to bring anymore hardship to the family," Byrd asks.

Apparently they were trying to keep pictures of the woman's body off of the internet.

Perfectly understandable and he was not taking pictures of the body but of his jeep. He told the cop that.

Just because somebody tells a leo something that doesn't mean it to be true. Believe it or not LEOs get lied to all the time. The vehicle inside the crime scene would remain there until they were finished processing the crime scene. Remember this discussion when you learn about crime scenes in the academy. If they were concerned about a person in the initial crime scene and that they might have potential evidence via photographs on the phone they might seize it, then write a search warrant to view the phone. That or ask for permission. During a hectic scene they would view it after the fact.

jmra wrote:A woman is murdered

That happens a lot in "gun free zones" in Texas thanks to Straus and Perry. Tragic but predictable.

I understand about the cops not letting him drive his jeep home but taking the phone without a warrant does not compute. They would of had to arrest me cause I would not give up my property willingly. You want to seize my property get a warrant. Grabbing it out of someone hands is not right. They knew it was wrong cause it got it back quick and the Leo who gave the phone back to him apologized and listen to him vent about it.

cb1000rider wrote: If that's the case then the LEOs should simply explain why they're taking it and that it will be returned upon retrieving the evidence. Doing anything else is a disservice to the public that they serve and it's poor relationship management.

Won't get an argument from me except that we are getting one sided second hand version of what happened. I'm just saying it's legal.

nightmare69 wrote:

jmra wrote:A woman is murdered and we post 3 pages about someone's phone.

They caught the guy and he gave a full confession.

So yall are telling me that if I take pics of a crime scene in a public place my phone or camera could be seized? What pics could I take from behind the yellow tape that an officer inside the crime scene with a camera not take? If its legal for them to seize the phone why were they so quick on giving it back after they got a call from a attorney?

He was not taking pics of the crime scene to tweet out to everyone, he did it cause his jeep was there in case there was any damage he could prove where it came from. The pic showed the back of his jeep nothing more.

Yes your camera can be seized. You don't get to make the call on what evidence is needed. And like anything else the squeeky wheel gets the grease altho in this case it just may have took time to finish processing the phone.

Jaguar wrote:

EEllis wrote:Then you haven't been bothering to read. Phones are different because, like the numerous people on here who said they would do so, it is so easy to destroy the evidence. The evidence on the phone wouldn't be admissible without a warrant but police can seize to prevent the destruction of evidence. News cameras aren't going to erase footage like the general public seems to want to do. It was already said that his vehicle was so close to the shooting he couldn't remove it so if he took photos anywhere in the area it could have evidence. The cop did ask about taking photos. It's funny that the willingness and ability to delete info is what makes it legal.

Um, cameras can delete photos and videos as well...

Also, newpaper photogs will just go through 1000's of photos taken, pick a few for the paper, then reformat the memory card without a second thought. Surely the cops need to go through those 1000's of photos to make sure no evidence is destroyed.

Yes but the likelihood of a professional journalist doing so after being told that the cops want the pics is almost non existent. There is a greater danger of material being deleted on phones and personal devices. You can argue right or wrong till the cows come home the courts are pretty darn clear. Right now it's legal.

nightmare69 wrote:I understand about the cops not letting him drive his jeep home but taking the phone without a warrant does not compute. They would of had to arrest me cause I would not give up my property willingly. You want to seize my property get a warrant. Grabbing it out of someone hands is not right. They knew it was wrong cause it got it back quick and the Leo who gave the phone back to him apologized and listen to him vent about it.

yep you would end up in jail.

One of the reasons I use this is to be more secure in my effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... d.cerberus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;