TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.kltv.com/story/23544389/one- ... tball-game" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gilmer Police have confirmed that 29-year-old Cheyenne Green, of Gilmer, was killed Thursday night at the 8th Grade football game between Gilmer and Gladewater.

Gilmer police investigating death at ETX football game
The incident happened in the Gilmer High School Parking lot. Police say at 9:15 p.m. several witnesses reported a white female lying on the ground near a vehicle.

Also my boss was there and the police would not let him take his jeep home, even this morning they won't release it. He took a picture with his phone of the back of his jeep to make sure there will be no damage when he gets it back and the police seized his phone. Is that even legal? The body was not in the pic just his jeep.

nightmare69 wrote:Also my boss was there and the police would not let him take his jeep home, even this morning they won't release it. He took a picture with his phone of the back of his jeep to make sure there will be no damage when he gets it back and the police seized his phone. Is that even legal? The body was not in the pic just his jeep.

Whoa... I would sure raise hell about that. There is no justification for that being legal. Even if he did photograph the body. There's no law against that.

Scott in Houston wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Also my boss was there and the police would not let him take his jeep home, even this morning they won't release it. He took a picture with his phone of the back of his jeep to make sure there will be no damage when he gets it back and the police seized his phone. Is that even legal? The body was not in the pic just his jeep.

Whoa... I would sure raise heck about that. There is no justification for that being legal. Even if he did photograph the body. There's no law against that.

He said that they will let him come get his jeep but not the phone.

nightmare69 wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Also my boss was there and the police would not let him take his jeep home, even this morning they won't release it. He took a picture with his phone of the back of his jeep to make sure there will be no damage when he gets it back and the police seized his phone. Is that even legal? The body was not in the pic just his jeep.

Whoa... I would sure raise heck about that. There is no justification for that being legal. Even if he did photograph the body. There's no law against that.

He said that they will let him come get his jeep but not the phone.

It's hard to describe how mad I would be. There is no legal reason they can hold onto it. It's not evidence and wasn't part of the crime.

nightmare69 wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Also my boss was there and the police would not let him take his jeep home, even this morning they won't release it. He took a picture with his phone of the back of his jeep to make sure there will be no damage when he gets it back and the police seized his phone. Is that even legal? The body was not in the pic just his jeep.

Whoa... I would sure raise heck about that. There is no justification for that being legal. Even if he did photograph the body. There's no law against that.

He said that they will let him come get his jeep but not the phone.

Under what authority? Sounds like theft to me.

Idk why they have the phone. It's legal to take pics of a crime scene as well as video. I told him to call the police chief and demand his property back. I feel like his 4A was violated.

This girl that is my age was messing around with a black guy who was married and they had a child together. This guy shot her with the child in her arms. What a piece of scum.

AS SURFS YOU WILL SURRENDER ANYTHING THE ELITES SAY YOU WILL SURRENDER!

Surfs?

Or Serfs?

Couldn't resist...

Jaguar wrote: 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.

EEllis wrote:

Jaguar wrote: 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

Stealing a man's cell phone is something common thugs do. That's all I can say on this forum.

Jaguar wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Jaguar wrote: 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;

None of this makes sense. If police were present at the time the photos were taken then they should have control over the crime scene. They have officers trained to take photos, and in a manner that provides evidence of scale, size, distance, etc.

I see no reason to confiscate his phone unless there was some belief that he.might have evidence they didn't and couldn't possess otherwise.

I think I would engage ACLU, local news, legislators, etc.