$1 Million Claim Filed Against Long Beach California Police After Brutally Assaulting Employee During Medical Marijuana Dispensary Raid – Police Smashed Surveillance Cameras And Caused 10′s Of Thousands Of Dollars In Damage

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA – Lawyers for a medical marijuana dispensary worker wounded in a police raid at a Long Beach shop filed a claim on Thursday seeking $1 million in damages from the city of Long Beach.

The claim, a precursor to a lawsuit, alleges that a police raid of a pot shop June 19 was illegal and that the officers involved used excessive force.

“In terms of the excessive force claim, we will investigate that aspect of it,” said Long Beach City Attorney Robert E. Shannon.

Shannon said that the Long Beach Police Department is also mulling whether to open a criminal investigation into the activities of the medical marijuana dispensary and police are considering an internal investigation into the officers’ conduct during the raid, Shannon said.

The claim, filed Thursday with the Long Beach City Clerk’s office, alleges officers injured a volunteer employee, violated his civil rights, and violated the state’s disabled persons act.

It also alleges officers “engaged in conduct that violated various provisions of the state and federal constitutions,” the claim alleges.

The claim stems from a YouTube video that shows officers smashing surveillance cameras and stepping on a suspect at THC Downtown Collective in the 300 block of Atlantic Boulevard. The video was posted by user “Long Beach Raids” on July 1. Officials said they learned about the video on July 3.

An advocate for medical marijuana dispensary owners and workers criticized the officers’ conduct.

“That behavior is so blatant it cannot be the first time,” said Steven Downing, a retired Los Angeles Police Department deputy chief and current board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.”It was arrogant. It was unnecessary and it was brutal.”

The claim seeks damages in excess $1 million for medical treatment and mental counseling.

Appeared Here

Dumbass New Haven Connecticut Police Officer Sgt. Chris Rubino Arrested Woman Who Videotaped An Arrest, Took Her Phone

NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT — New Haven police have launched an internal affairs investigation into the arrest of a woman who had been videotaping an officer take a Bridgeport man into custody outside a bar.

Jennifer Gondola’s arrest, first reported by the New Haven Independent newspaper, occurred early Saturday morning outside the Pulse bar.

Gondola told the newspaper she was charged with interfering with police after stuffing the cell phone she used to tape the arrest inside her bra. The phone was confiscated.

Lt. Anthony Duff says the department is investigating whether police Sgt. Chris Rubino violated the department’s rule that allows bystanders to film arrests.

Officer Arpad Tolnay, president of the police union, told the New Haven Register the sergeant concluded the video was evidence and properly seized the phone.

Appeared Here

Savage Black Beast Taking Picture Stabbed Man Who Walked In Front Of Camera

MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA – A 29-year-old North Carolina man remains jailed in Myrtle Beach after police charged him in connection with a stabbing that occurred early Sunday where the victim allegedly walked in front of him taking a photo, according to authorities.

Brian Terrell Strayhorne, 29, of Rocky Mount, N.C., is being held pending a bond hearing on a charge of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, police said.

The charge stemmed from 3:15 a.m. Sunday when police were called to 901 S. Ocean Blvd., for a stabbing at the Captain Quarters.

Officers learned the 26-year-old victim had been walking along Ocean Boulevard with his brother when he unknowingly walked in front of Strayhorne, who was taking a photograph, according to the report. The men argued and fought.

During the fight, the victim was stabbed with an unknown object, according to the report. Strayhorne was found at The Palms motel at 703 S. Ocean Blvd., and the victim was taken to Grand Strand Regional Medical Center for treatment.

Detectives are investigating the incident. The report did not list any additional details.

Appeared Here

New Mexico State Police Officer Bert Lopez Fired After Sex On Hood Of Car Was Caught On Camera

NEW MEXICO – The New Mexico State Police officer who was photographed having sex on the hood of a Honda is no longer a cop.

Bert Lopez was informed late this week that the Department of Public Safety has fired him, The New Mexican has learned.

It is unclear when that decision was made as agency spokesman Sgt. Tim Johnson has declined to comment until all appeals have been exhausted.

“It is an embarrassing situation for the department, but we have to remember the rights of the employee afford him due process we must follow so we won’t be commenting further,” Johnson said.

But when asked Friday evening if Lopez was still employed with the New Mexico State Police, Johnson said, “No.”

As of Wednesday when the security surveillance photos of Lopez had gone viral, state police said Lopez was still with the department and had been on paid administrative pending an investigation.

Lopez, who could not be reached for comment, has 30 days to appeal the firing. That appeal goes to a special commission within the New Mexico State Police Department and then state District Court.

Johnson would also not comment on whether the change in Lopez’s employment status was an indication whether the officer was in fact on duty at the time of the incident in question. Police have said they are assured the sexual encounter was not in exchange for anything related to Lopez’s position as a law enforcement officer and was not criminal.

Lopez was named the 2009 District 1 Officer of the Year for state police and was awarded a “Challenge Coin” in July, an honor given to officers who have gone above and beyond the call of duty.

Earlier this month, an employee with Santa Fe County came across surveillance photos taken from a motion-triggered security camera positioned at the front gate of the county-owned La Bajada Ranch south of Santa Fe. Two of those photos showing a uniformed officer having sex on the hood of a Honda were forwarded to Santa Fe Sheriff Robert Garcia, who identified the officer as being with New Mexico State Police. He forwarded the images to Robert Shilling, state police chief.

An internal affairs investigation was launched immediately, police have said, and Lopez was on paid leave for about three weeks. It is unclear when the photos were taken, but Garcia said he believed it was either late July or early August.

Appeared Here

Crazed Illinois Prosecutors Want To Jail Man For LIFE For Filming Police – Faces Totally Bogus “Wiretap” Charges

ILLINOIS – 41-year old Illinois mechanic Michael Allison faces life in jail for recording police officers after authorities hit him with eavesdropping charges based on the hoax that it is illegal to film cops, a misnomer that has been disproved by every other case against people filming police officers being thrown out of court.

The state of Illinois is trying to charge Allison with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison.

Allison refused a plea deal which would have seen him serve no jail time but would reinforce the hoax that it is illegal to film police officers, as well as acting as a chilling effect to prevent other Americans from filming cases of police brutality.

Allison has chosen to reject the plea bargain and fight to clear his name via a jury trial, arguing, “If we don’t fight for our freedoms here at home we’re all going to lose them.”

A judge is expected to rule on when the case will go to trial over the next two weeks.

As another report concerning the Allison case documents, in every other example where people have been arrested for recording police officers, the charges have been dropped and the case thrown out of court. Despite this fact, the state is so desperate to make an example out of Allison that an assistant from the Attorney General’s Office was recently sent to speak against him during a hearing.

The notion that it is illegal to film police officers is a mass hoax that is being promulgated by authorities, the media, and police officers themselves.

In the latest example, charges were dismissed against a woman who filmed cops in her own back yard in Rochester, New York.

In Illinois itself, eavesdropping charges against Tiawanda Moore for recording patrol officers were dropped, after a “Criminal Court jury quickly repudiated the prosecution’s case, taking less than an hour to acquit Moore on both eavesdropping counts.”

Despite the fact that recording police officers (public servants) is perfectly legal, Americans are still being arrested for doing so, and the establishment media is enthusiastically perpetuating the hoax that such conduct is unlawful, even though in doing so they are completely eroding protections that guarantee press freedom.

There is no expectation of privacy in public, the police are fully aware of this, which is why they have dash cams on their cars to record incidents, wear microphones and utilize other recording equipment as part of their job.

Cases like Allison’s have been thrown out all over the country and yet police continue to arrest people for filming them as a form of intimidation.

The fact that the state is knowingly ignoring its own laws in order to engage in acts of official repression highlights the rampant criminality that has infested every level of American government. This behavior is reflective of a predatory system that seeks to criminalize all first amendment activities.

It also highlights how petrified the system is about the public being able to document and record acts of police brutality.

Prosecutors in Allison’s case are deliberately attempting jail an innocent man for life for an activity that they know full well is not illegal. If anything, they should be the ones being charged with illegal conduct and official oppression.

Appeared Here

Surveillance Photos Catch New Mexico State Police Officer Having Sex On Hood Of Car In Uniform And In Broad Daylight

NEW MEXICO – KOB Eyewitness News 4 has obtained surveillance pictures of a State Police officer having sex with a woman on the hood of a car in broad daylight.

State Police aren’t saying anything about the photos, but KOB Eyewitness News 4 is pressing for answers.

Two weeks ago KOB reported a story about an officer caught on camera having sex while in full uniform, an act shown on security camera at the Santa Fe Canyon Ranch.

KOB has blurred out the woman’s image, but you can see it’s during daylight hours and the officer is still wearing his utility belt.

The Santa Fe Sheriff’s office released the pictures to KOB after we filed a public records request. They say they also gave them to State Police over a week ago.

We got reaction from people who saw the photos.

“It’s an inappropriate use of time,” said Cate Campbell of Albuquerque.

“Inappropriate use of our tax money, I mean we pay these guys,” added Jacob Powers.

Albert Loma said if charged and found guilty, the officer should be fired.

“With that kind of judgment you don’t want him carrying a weapon,” said Loma. “I think it’s an embarrassment to the state patrol, they should be ashamed.”

Others say it hurts the reputation built by good officers.

“I expect them to be the mark. State Police should be the standard to which other police departments hold themselves to,” said a man identifying himself as Jeremy.

KOB knows the name of the officer – however, since he has not been charged with any crime, we have chosen not to release his name.

State Police will not comment about the pictures or any internal investigation against the officer, saying it is an ongoing personnel matter.

On Monday, they turned down an on camera interview, saying they need more time to gather the information we’re asking for.

So far no officer faces any charges.

Appeared Here

Bogus Charges Dropped Against Woman Who Dared To Videotape Rochester New York Police From Her Front Yard

ROCHESTER, NEW YORK – The case against a Rochester woman arrested while videotaping police has been dismissed.

Early Monday afternoon, demonstrators rallied outside the Hall of Justice in support of Emily Good, the city woman who was arrested while videotaping police officers during a traffic stop on May 12 in front of her 19th Ward home.

Good kept recording police officers while standing in her front yard even though an officer ordered her several times go inside. She was charged with obstructing of governmental administration. Since then, the video from that night has made it onto news shows across the country.

Good’s attorney, Stephanie Stare, had asked for the charges to be dismissed. In court today, the District Attorney’s office says based on a review of the evidence, there was no legal basis to go forward. The charge was withdrawn and the judge dismissed the case.

Several of Good’s supporters who filled the small courtroom quietly cheered as the case was dismissed. They hugged her outside the courtroom and Good said “I think there are weaknesses in the brotherhood of the police, and they are not above the law.”

Good was asked if she would do it over again. “Yes, I would do it again. And I would encourage other people to do the same thing. Carry a camera. Stand your ground. Go to the seen of flashing lights and observe what’s going on. Keep a safe distance.”

News 10 NBC’s Ray Levato asked “Do you think there is racial profiling going on?” Good answered, “Everyday. Everyday. Absolutely.”

KaeLyn Rich, a spokeswoman for the Rochester office of the New York Civil Liberties Union afterwards called city police actions “a disgusting disregard for an individual’s First Amendment rights to videotape in public spaces. I hope we can repair the relationship between the community and the police by holding police accountable, and making sure police officers are getting the training they need to respect people’s constitutional rights.”

Supporter Rev. Willie Harvey of the Peace baptist Church said “the police did the wrong thing.”

City activist Howard Eagle, a spokesman for a Rochester anti-racism movement said “This case really is about racial profiling. That’s the reason why Emily Good grabbed her camera in the first place and began to record the activity of the police. She suspected that a young black man was being racially profiled.”

A joint statement issued by Mayor Tom Richards, City Council President Lovely Warren and Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard says they support the decision of the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the charges against Good.

The statement says whatever the specific circumstances that led to Good’s arrest, they see no purpose in pursuing the criminal charges.

The statement continues, “We believe that the incident that led to Ms. Good’s arrest and the subsequent ticketing for parking violations of vehicles belonging to members of an organization associated with Ms. Good raise issues with respect to the conduct of Rochester Police Officers that require an internal review. A review into both matters has been initiated.”

“Police officers must be able to cope with a high degree of stress while performing oftentimes dangerous duties, relying on their training and experience to guide their behavior. As routine as a traffic stop may appear, it has proven over time to be a potentially dangerous activity for police. Nonetheless, police must conduct themselves with appropriate respect for the rights of those involved or who are observing their actions.”

“There is a mandated legal process that governs our internal response when police officer behavior is called into question. We must respect this process and that may be frustrating to those who may have already made up their mind about the outcome. We have confidence that the review will be fair and impartial and invite Ms. Good and anyone else with firsthand information to participate. We will withhold our judgment until the review is completed.”

“Whatever the outcome of the internal review, we want to make clear that it is not the policy or practice of the Rochester Police Department to prevent citizens from observing its activities – including photographing or videotaping – as long as it does not interfere with the safe conduct of those activities. It is also not the policy or practice of the Department to selectively enforce laws in response to the activities of a group or individual. This has always been the case and it is being reinforced within the Department, so that it will be abundantly clear to everyone.”

Appeared Here

Chicago State’s Attorney Lets Bad Cops Slide, Prosecutes Citizens/Victims Who Record Them

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS – When Chicago police answered a domestic disturbance call at the home of Tiawanda Moore and her boyfriend in July 2010, the officers separated the couple to question them individually. Moore was interviewed privately in her bedroom. According to Moore, the officer who questioned her then came on to her, groped her breast and slipped her his home phone number.

Robert Johnson, Moore’s attorney, says that when Moore and her boyfriend attempted to report the incident to internal affairs officials at the Chicago Police Department, the couple wasn’t greeted warmly. “They discouraged her from filing a report,” Johnson says. “They gave her the runaround, scared her, and tried to intimidate her from reporting this officer — from making sure he couldn’t go on to do this to other women.”

Ten months later, Chicago PD is still investigating the incident. Moore, on the other hand, was arrested the very same afternoon.

Her crime? At some point in her conversations with internal affairs investigators, Moore grew frustrated with their attempts to intimidate her. So she began to surreptitiously record the interactions on her Blackberry. In Illinois, it is illegal to record people without their consent, even (and as it turns out, especially) on-duty police officers.

“This is someone who is already scared from being harassed by an officer in uniform,” said Johnson. “If the police won’t even take her complaint, how else is a victim of police abuse supposed to protect herself?”

Moore’s case has inspired outrage from anti-domestic abuse groups. “We just had two Chicago police officers indicted for sexual assault, there have been several other cases of misconduct against women,” says Melissa Spatz of the Chicago Task Force on Violence Against Girls & Young Women. “And now you have Moore, who was trying to report this guy, and she gets arrested. The message here is that victims of unwanted sexual advances by police officers have no recourse — that the police can act with impunity.”

If the Chicago cops recently indicted for sexual assault are convicted, they’ll face four to 15 years in prison. That’s the same sentence Tiawanda Moore is facing for trying to document her frustrations while reporting her own alleged sexual assault: Recording an on-duty police officer in Illinois is a Class 1 felony, the same class of crimes as rape.

ILLINOIS’ PROBLEM WITH PRIVACY

Last summer the U.S. media took note of several stories about citizens arrested for photographing or recording on-duty police officers. National coverage of these incidents has since died down, but the arrests haven’t stopped.

Some of these arrests have come under decades-old wiretapping laws that never anticipated the use of cellphones equipped with cameras and audio recording applications. Others have come under vaguer catch-all charges like refusing to obey a lawful order, disorderly conduct, or interfering with a police officer. In both cases, the charges rarely stick, and in most cases, it’s the cops themselves who are violating the law.

The media have largely done a poor job reporting on what the law actually is in these states. Technically, so long as a person isn’t physically interfering with an on-duty police officer, it’s legal to record the officer in every state but Massachusetts and Illinois. Arrests still happen in other states, but there’s little legal justification for them, and the charges are usually dropped, or never filed at all.

But Illinois is the one state where the law clearly forbids citizens from recording of on-duty cops. And so it seems likely that if the Supreme Court or a federal appeals court does eventually decide if pointing a camera at a cop is protected by the First Amendment (so far, they haven’t), the case will come from Illinois. (Courts in Massachusetts have generally held that secretly recording police is illegal, but recording them openly isn’t.)

Illinois’ wiretapping law wasn’t always this bad. Originally, the statute included a provision found in most other state wiretapping laws stating that, in order for someone to be prosecuted for recording a conversation, the offended party must have had a reasonable expectation that the conversation was private.

Watch: The Government’s War On Cameras

So far, every court in the country to have considered the issue has found that on-duty cops have no such expectation of privacy. This makes sense. Police not only work for the public, they’re also entrusted with enormous power: They can arrest citizens and detain them or kill them.

In 1986, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out the eavesdropping conviction of a man who had recorded two police officers from the back of a patrol car for just that reason. The court ruled that the officers had no expectation of privacy.

So in 1994 the Illinois state legislature removed the wiretap law’s privacy provision. It was an explicit effort to override the decision eight years earlier. Technically the amended law covers everyone — anyone whose voice is recorded without their permission, for any reason, could file a complaint and ask to press charges — but it’s used almost exclusively to protect police.

So far, HuffPost has yet to find anyone who has actually been convicted under the law. Instead, police arrest and charge someone they catch recording them, but the charges are dropped or reduced to misdemeanors before trial.

In 2004, for example, documentary filmmaker Patrick Johnson was arrested under the law while recording footage for a movie about relations between blacks and police in the Illinois cities of Champaign and Urbana. Johnson fought the charges with help from the state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). But after the district attorney who was prosecuting him lost in the next election, the new prosecutor dismissed the charges.

THE STATE v. CITIZENS

An actual conviction under the eavesdropping law would likely bring a constitutional challenge, which could well lead to the law being overturned in court. It could also lead to the U.S. Supreme Court or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit more broadly affirming a First Amendment right to record police, which of course would have ramifications outside of Illinois.

As long as no one is convicted, the law is unlikely to be challenged. That means police can continue to rely on it to harass and intimidate citizens who try to hold them accountable, or who want an independent record of what they believe to be police harassment.

Moore’s case may prove to be just the opportunity free speech advocates are looking for. But her case was continued again this week, despite the fact that she’s been asking for months to go to trial.

The person pursuing the charges against Moore is Anita Alvarez, the state’s attorney for Cook County, home to Chicago. (Alvarez’s office declined to comment for this report.)

It’s difficult to think of another big city in America where citizens would be more justified in wanting an objective account of an interaction with a police officer. At about the time Moore’s story hit the pages of The New York Times earlier this year, for example, former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison for lying under oath about his role in the routine torture of hundreds of suspects in police interrogation rooms for more than a decade. Nearly everyone else involved in the tortures, including the police commanders and prosecutors who helped cover them up, couldn’t be prosecuted due to statutes of limitations.

Over the last few years, surveillance video has also exposed a number of police abuses in Chicago, including one episode in which an off-duty cop savagely beat a female bartender who had refused to continue serving him. He was sentenced to probation.

In 2008, the city made national headlines with another major scandal in which officers in the department’s Special Operations Unit — alleged to be made up of the most elite and trusted cops in Chicago — were convicted of a variety of crimes, including physical abuse and intimidation, home robberies, theft and planning a murder.

In a study published the same year, University of Chicago Law Professor Craig B. Futterman found 10,000 complaints filed against Chicago police officers between 2002 and 2004, more than any city in the country. When adjusted for population, that’s still about 40 percent above the national average. Even more troubling, of those 10,000 complaints, just 19 resulted in any significant disciplinary action. In 85 percent of complaints, the police department cleared the accused officer without even bothering to interview him.

Yet Alvarez feels it necessary to devote time and resources to prosecuting Chicagoans who, given the figures and anecdotes above, feel compelled to hit the record button when confronted by a city cop.

In addition to Moore’s, there are two other cases that may present an opportunity to challenge the Illinois law. One is that of Michael Allison.

This Robinson, Ill., man is facing four counts of violating the eavesdropping law for the recordings he made of police officers and a judge. Allison was suing the city to challenge a local zoning ordinance that prevented him from enjoying his hobby fixing up old cars: The municipal government was seizing his cars from his property and forcing him to pay to have them returned. Allison believed the local police were harassing him in retaliation for his lawsuit, so he began to record his conversations with them.

When Allison was eventually charged with violating the zoning ordinance, he asked for a court reporter to ensure there would be a record of his trial. He was told that misdemeanor charges didn’t entitle him to a court reporter. So Allison told court officials he’d be recording his trial with a digital recorder.

When Allison walked into the courtroom the day of his trial, the judge had him arrested for allegedly violating her right to privacy. Police then confiscated Allison’s digital recorder, where they also found the recordings he’d made of his conversations with cops.

Allison has no prior criminal record. If convicted, he faces up to 75 years in prison.

In a hearing last week, Allison argued that the Illinois eavesdropping case was a violation of the First Amendment. The judge ordered a continuance so that the office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan can prepare a response. (Madigan’s office did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.)

The other case to challenge the wiretap law is that of Christopher Drew, an artist who was arrested in December 2009 for selling art without a permit on the streets of Chicago. Drew recorded his arrest, and now faces four to 15 years for documenting the incident.

In a hearing last December, Cook County Assistant State Attorney Jeff Allen invoked homeland security, arguing that Drew’s recording could have picked up police discussing anti-terrorism tactics. Drew’s case was suspended after he was diagnosed with lung cancer earlier this year.

Both Allison and Drew say they won’t accept the sort of plea bargain Illinois prosecutors have offered in the past. Both say they’re willing to risk prison time to get the law overturned.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRANSPARENCY

The ACLU of Illinois is also challenging the law. But in January, U.S. District Court Judge Suzanne B. Conlon ruled against the organization. Conlon wrote that the First Amendment does not protect citizens who record the police. The ACLU has appealed and expects to participate in oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit sometime in the fall.

In a report released just this month, the United Nations noted the importance of Internet access and personal technology in facilitating the recent Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East. Technology has given citizens all over the world a remarkable and historic tool to bring transparency to the most brutal and oppressive governments.

But even as Americans have criticized those countries for attempting to prevent protesters from uploading photo, video, blog posts and Twitter accounts of government crackdowns, government officials in the U.S. are still arresting, threatening, intimidating and harassing Americans who attempt to document police abuse in America. (See this example over Memorial Day in Miami.)

No, America isn’t Egypt or Yemen or Iran. But while the scale of the suppression is different, the premise is the same: When a citizen and a police officer have a confrontation, the police officer’s narrative has always given deference by prosecutors, judges and juries — in the same way governments in more oppressive parts of the world have the power to project their own version of events as truth.

Citizens in America and across the globe now have the ability to preserve and present a more objective narrative. This is a positive thing — for democracy, for good government and for a fairer criminal justice system. U.S. courts and legislatures need to make it abundantly, unambiguously clear that not only do citizens have the right to record on-duty police officers, but that cops and prosecutors who violate that right will be held accountable.

Appeared Here

Nutcase Florida State Senator Jim Norman Proposes Bill To Make Photographing A Farm A Felony Criminal Offense

TAMPA, FLORIDA – State Sen. Jim Norman, a Republican from Tampa, is very concerned about a farm’s right to privacy, while showing little regard for the First Amendment. He has filed a bill in the Florida Senate that would make it a first-degree felony to photograph or videotape farms without express written consent of the owner. Better hurry up and take a picture of some farm’s bull’s shit to express your feelings about the bill while you still can.

You might have heard of these laws forbidding people from trespassing. For some reason, the first section of the bill just wants to establish a special farm trespassing law.

But the second half of the bill would prohibit photographing a farm even from off the property. So let’s say you’re cruising along some highway in Central Florida on your way to Disney and spot some cows grazing on farmland. Don’t take out your cell phone camera to snap a pic, because that would make you a felon!

Here’s the specific text of the bill:

A person who photographs, video records, or otherwise produces images or pictorial records, digital or otherwise, at or of a farm or other property where legitimate agriculture operations are being conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner, commits a felony of the first degree.

Salon.com legitimately wonders if this would make Google Earth or Google Maps images of Florida’s vast agriculture land illegal.

Though Norman hasn’t clarified the exact intentions of the bill, many observers think it was filed at the behest of agriculture special interests who want to prohibit animal rights activists from filming possible animal mistreatment.

Photography is protected in most cases under the First Amendment, and Norman’s bill, as it is written now, flies in that basic right’s face.

Appeared Here

West Virginia State Employee Filmed Bridges And Men In A YMCA Bathroom

HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA –A filmmaker for the state Department of Transportation has been charged with attempting to covertly film people in the men’s dressing room at the Huntington YMCA, according to a report in Friday’s Huntington Herald-Dispatch.

David S. Marcum, 45, of Huntington, an employee of the DOT’s communications office, was charged on Thursday with misdemeanor criminal invasion of privacy was.

A warrant affidavit charges that Marcum positioned video cameras “to record male persons while in a men’s dressing room,” according to the Herald-Dispatch. Marcum was arraigned and released on a $10,000 recognizance bond.

A video documentary by Marcum on construction of the new Blennerhassett Island Bridge carrying U.S. 50 across the Ohio River and Blennerhassett Island was selected as the best transportation film of 2009 by the National Transportation Public Affairs Workshop.

Appeared Here

Kamloops Canada RCMP Officers And Others Watched Jail Cell HIV Infected Lesbian Sex On Security Cameras And Did Nothing – Country’s Federal Prisons Make Available Condoms And Lube To Inmates

KAMLOOPS, CANADA – The RCMP has launched a criminal investigation into the conduct of four officers and three civilians working at the force’s Kamloops, B.C., detachment who allegedly looked on as two female inmates — one of whom may be HIV-positive, according to media reports — engaged in sexual activity.

The women were placed in the same holding cell on Aug. 18, during which time they began a sexual encounter that lasted close to an hour, according to an inside source cited by Global News.

The source alleged that the officers and municipal staff on duty that day watched the encounter through cameras mounted inside the cell block for up to seven minutes without intervening.

The RCMP has confirmed that both criminal and internal code of conduct investigations have been launched into the “actions or inactions” of four RCMP members and three City of Kamloops staff.

Staff Sergeant Garry Kerr, acting officer in charge of the Kamloops Detachment, said in a release late on Friday that another criminal investigation is also underway that focuses on the actions of one of the female inmates in the cell. Police are required to investigate allegations involving people with HIV engaging in sexual activity with others without disclosing their condition.

“The only thing I can say right now is they’re all under Criminal Code investigation, obviously for criminal offences, and the RCMP members are also under investigation for what we refer to as code of conduct, which is like an internal system,” he said, noting that guards have an obligation to stop any sort of sexual activity among detainees.

“There are no guidelines just in effect to that, but if a guard sees that there is inappropriate behaviour going on, considering where they are, obviously they would be in obligation to do something,” Sgt. Kerr said.

Kamloops Mayor Peter Milobar has asked residents to remain patient while the investigations are ongoing, and is making assurances that the truth about what happened will eventually be made public. The city employees provide clerical support at the detachment, he said.

“We need to let the details get fully investigated and then steps will fall into place from there,” Mr. Milobar said.

While sexual contact between inmates in both provincial and federal detention centres is discouraged, it is not listed as a disciplinary offence in the federal Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Most federal institutions have house rules prohibiting sex between inmates, but many prison workers operate under a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, says Claudia Medina of the Prisoners’ HIV/AIDS Support Action Network.

“Using substances, needles and having sex, those things are still going to happen when prisoners are not being supervised,” said Ms. Medina, who visits federal prisons to educate inmates on safe-sex practices.

Recognizing that sexual activity will occur among inmates, in 2004 Correctional Services Canada implemented a policy making condoms, dental dams and lubricants easily available in every federal prison.

A CSC study released in March reported that 17% of male federal inmates and 31% of female inmates surveyed said they had engaged in either oral, vaginal or anal sex while in prison within the last six months. Almost all of them reported engaging in at least one instance of unprotected oral, vaginal or anal sex while in prison.

The same study found that the rate of HIV infection in federal prisons is 4.6%, about 15 times greater than that in the general population. In addition, the rate of infection of hepatitis C in federal prisons was found to be 31%, a rate 39 times greater than that in society as a whole.

Appeared Here

Phoenix Arizona Hero Sentenced To 22 Years In Prison After Killing Speed Camera Operator

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – A judge sentenced a man who shot and killed the operator of a speed-camera van on a Phoenix freeway to 22 years in prison on Friday after an emotional hearing during which family members of both victim and assailant wept as they spoke of the consequences of the crime that made national headlines.

Thomas Patrick Destories, 69, received the sentence Friday as part of a plea deal. He had faced a charge of first-degree murder but pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of second-degree murder under the deal. He got credit for 487 days already served.

“Taking innocent life is never justified even for great causes, and this was over photo radar,” Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Kemp said just before sentencing Destories. “I think Mr. Destories was trying to make a political statement.”

Destories was convicted in the April 19, 2009, fatal shooting of 51-year-old Doug Georgianni, who was operating a speed-enforcement van on a Phoenix freeway.

Authorities never said what they believe the motive for the killing was, but Destories and Georgianni had never met. Many concluded at the time that the killing was the most extreme backlash against the state’s speed-enforcement program, which began in September 2008 and ended July 16 after Gov. Jan Brewer said the cameras were intrusive, leading the state Department of Public Safety to end the program.

Destories says he didn’t know anyone was manning the speed-camera van when he fired at it.

Georgianni’s mother, father, siblings and wife spoke in court, all of them weeping and visibly shaking as they talked of a big-grinned, cookie-crazed man who loved baseball, golf, and above all, his family.

“The worst nightmare a parent can have is to lose a child,” said June Dorcheus, Georgianni’s mother, who had a stroke when she heard her son was dead. “There’s a hole in my heart.”

Georgianni’s father, who now has clinical depression, spoke of how he talked to his son every day before he went out to man a speed-camera van and after his shift ended at 9 p.m.

“I was waiting for the usual call at 9 o’clock that night. It never came,” Michael Georgianni said. “Now the phone doesn’t ring anymore at 9.”

Georgianni’s wife of three years, Jean Georgianni, was barely audible as she spoke of her husband and the “deepest love I’ve ever known.”

“He used to say we were like an old pair of shoes — we just fit together,” she said. “Each day ended with I love you.’”

Destories loudly wept at times as Georgianni’s loved ones spoke. Later he stood and faced Georgianni’s family and spoke directly to them.

“I would like to express my deepest sympathy,” he said through tears. “No words can convey such a loss or heal the terrible grief you are suffering … I never intended to harm anyone. Please forgive me.”

His three daughters also addressed the court, apologizing to Georgianni’s family and saying their dad was a good man who made the biggest mistake of his life when he shot at the speed-camera van.

Georgianni had worked for three months for RedFlex Traffic Systems Inc., which operated the photo radar system, and had just a few days left on the job before he was to leave to sell insurance. He was sitting in the van doing paperwork with an interior light turned on when he was shot three times in the chest.

He called his wife, who called 911, and he died soon after at a hospital. That was the last time the couple spoke; they were about to celebrate their wedding anniversary.

The killing highlighted the controversy over the state’s speed-enforcement system. Arizonans used sticky notes, Silly String and even a pickax to sabotage the cameras.

Former Gov. Jan Napolitano had cited traffic safety considerations when she directed the DPS to launch the first-of-its-kind program, but critics said her later inclusion of a $90 million revenue estimate in a budget proposal revealed that money was the real motivation.

But profits from the program fell far below expectations, with many drivers who received tickets in the mail ignoring them because they knew they had a good shot at getting away with it; a ticket became invalid if a violator who ignored it wasn’t served in person within three months.

The cameras remain on freeways throughout the state even though the program was ended, but they should be removed by Labor Day.

Appeared Here

Owned: Bluff City Tennessee Police Chief Lets Department’s Web Site Domain Expire – Victim Of Speed Trap Camera Buys It – Now Displays Information On Speed Traps

BLUFF CITY, TENNESSEE – Brian McCrary found the perfect venue to gripe about a $90 speeding ticket when he went to the Bluff City Police Department’s website, saw that its domain name was about to expire, and bought it right out from under the city’s nose.

Now that McCrary is the proud owner of the site, http://www.bluffcitypd.com, the Gray, Tenn., computer network designer has been using it to post links about speed cameras – like the one on U.S. Highway 11E that caught him – and how people don’t like them.

“It’s kind of surprising that they’d just let it lapse like that,” McCrary said, adding that the new site has logged 1,200 unique visitors since he took it over May 22. “I figured they would be aware [it was about to expire] and renew it on their own.”

Domain names – such as the one for the Bristol Herald Courier’s website, http://www.tricities.com – serve as an easy-to-remember substitute for the numerical Internet Protocol addresses that direct people to specific locations (or websites) on the infinite landscape of cyberspace.

Domain names are bought and sold on a subscription basis through hundreds of website hosting companies, such as Go Daddy, which according to a company spokesperson currently manages more than 41 million domains including “www.bluffcitypd.com.”

When someone buys a domain name they can do whatever they want with it for the year that it’s registered to them. They can sell it, use it to keep someone from making a website, or use it to host a site that makes fun of or attacks a company with that name.

But at the end of that year-long registration period, the web hosting company regains control over the domain name and has the option of cancelling it and effectively taking down the customer’s website or selling the domain to someone else.

Go Daddy Domain Services Director Camille Ede said her company tries to avoid either option by sending its customers an e-mail letting them know about the domain’s status 90 days before its expiration date, 60 days before the expiration, 30 days before, 15 days and again five days before the expiration date.

Once the expiration date arrives, Ede said in an e-mail she sent the Herald Courier on Friday, the company replaces the website’s content with a special warning notice letting the site’s visitors know the domain has expired and will be deleted or sold in 42 days.

McCrary saw this notice when he had some questions about a letter he received in the mail letting him know he had to pay $90 because he was caught driving 56 mph through the 45 mph zone that Bluff City’s speed camera has actively patrolled since Jan. 1.

The camera issued 1,662 citations for speeding during its first six weeks on the job, according to an investigation conducted by Herald Courier staff. It issued another 541 citations from March 19-22 when fans for the Food City 500 were in town.

Each one of the citations comes with a $90 speeding ticket that Bluff City splits with American Traffic Solutions, the Scottsdale, Ariz., company that operates the speed camera and dozens of others like it across the country.

“I was going to give [the police department] a call and noticed their domain was about to expire,” said McCrary, who sat back and waited until the 42-day window was over. “As soon as it expired I went ahead and bought it.”

While McCrary was pondering his purchase – something that cost $80 because he signed up for a few services Go Daddy offers along with its domain registration service – the web hosting company made two final attempts to reach the police department.

In accordance with its policy, Ede said, Go Daddy sends its customers an e-mail five days after a domain name expires and 12 days after a domain name expires, bringing the total number of e-mails a customer receives to seven – five before the expiration and two after.

“With more than 8 million customers worldwide,” Ede said in her e-mail, “Go Daddy must rely on its customers to take an active role in monitoring their account information.”

During a Friday interview, Bluff City Police Chief David Nelson admitted that he did not play the “active role” that Ede recommends her customers take when it comes to monitoring their websites.

“It just slipped my mind,” Nelson said, adding that he knows little about computers and the more technical aspects of running a website. “If you open up a website and let it go down, somebody can buy it – I did not know that.”

Because he’s not that familiar with computers, Nelson said, he let one of his officers manage the site and handle its domain registration. That officer, he said, has been out on medical leave, after he came down with a bad illness a few months ago.

“It’s just one of those things that happen,” Nelson said, adding that he turned the matter over to the town’s manager and attorney to see if there was anything they could do with it.

So far, McCrary said, he hasn’t heard anything from either town official about taking over the website. However, he has heard from a lot of people who have run across his new site and have e-mailed him their thoughts about it or the stories he links to.

“Most of the people think it’s a speed trap,” McCary said of the feed back he’s received from the website, something he admitted took him only 15 minutes to put together on a Saturday afternoon. “In my opinion, it looks like this camera thing will come to an end.”

As for Nelson, the police chief is now at the point, two weeks after losing his website, where he can laugh about the situation. He said he has learned his lesson.

The police department is now working with different company to host its website, Nelson said, adding that this company won’t sell the new domain name to someone else.

“We’ll have more control over [our new website] than we did with Go Daddy,” he said. “And this one will be a lot better,” than the one the police department had before.

Appeared Here

When Cameras Are Outlawed Only The Outlaws Will Have Cameras

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where “no expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, “[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want.” Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, “The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law – requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense.”

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler’s license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state’s electronic surveillance law – aka recording a police encounter – the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, “Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals….” (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)

The selection of “shooters” targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.

Glik captured a police action on his cellphone to document what he considered to be excessive force. He was not only arrested, his phone was also seized.

On his website Drew wrote, “Myself and three other artists who documented my actions tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law. The police hesitated for two months because they knew it would mean a federal court case. With this felony charge they are trying to avoid this test and ruin me financially and stain my credibility.”

Hyde used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the police. After doing so, he was criminally charged.

In short, recordings that are flattering to the police – an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog – will almost certainly not result in prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple dissent.

A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III’s motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents’ house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, “It’s more [about] ‘contempt of cop’ than the violation of the wiretapping law.”

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is “some capricious retribution” and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber’s traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. “Arrest those who record the police” appears to be official policy, and it’s backed by the courts.

Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an explanation: “For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man.”

When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.

Happily, even as the practice of arresting “shooters” expands, there are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested “shooter,” the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.

As journalist Radley Balko declares, “State legislatures should consider passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law enforcement officials.”

Appeared Here

London England Police Continue Using Terror Act To Harass Innocent Photographers

LONDON, UK – Just when you thought it was safe to go snapping… City of London Police prove they still haven’t got the memo.

Yesterday, it was the turn of Grant Smith to feel the heavy hand of the law [1]. Smith is a professional photographer. On Monday he was looking for a location on London Wall appropriate to a portrait of one of the architects responsible for the City’s changing skyline. He went to One Aldermanbury Square, where an altercation with a security guard followed.

The security guard asserted that Smith could not take photos of the building. Smith pointed out that the security guard was wrong. The police were called.

Initially, Smith was relieved: on a previous occasion, the intervention of the local police had led to support for Smith and he had been allowed to carry on with his job.

Not this time. According to Smith, four officers arrived, followed by a police van with flashing lights. He was detained, he claims, under Section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 [2].

This controversial law permits police to stop any individual for the purpose of preventing terrorism. While police officers acting under this section do not require reasonable grounds for a search, they may do so where there are grounds for suspecting the photography is linked to terrorist activity. That said, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has in recent months made it clear that photographers are not fair game for random stop and search.

In a strongly worded statement, Chief Constable Andy Trotter, chairman of ACPO’s media advisory group stated: “Everyone … has a right to take photographs and film in public places. Taking photographs … is not normally cause for suspicion and there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place.”

This message appears not to have been passed on to City of London Police [3], who continue to use s44 in gung ho fashion to hunt down evil photographers, long after other forces have started to adopt a gentler approach to the subject.

Despite Smith explaining to PC374, who took the lead in what followed, that he was taking photos as part of his job, the police were not satisfied. According to Smith, PC374 said: “The very fact you were here at all is the reason we’ve stopped you.”

He says he was then restrained forcibly by another officer, PC29, while the first officer went through his pockets, removing his camera and mobile phone. Smith’s description of events suggest the police action was intrusive and intimidatory, with officers cheered by his discomfiture, both mental and physical.

He claims: “PC [374] went through my pannier, flipping through personal notebooks, gingerly peeking in a plastic bag that contained a towel and swimmers, still wet from my earlier swim. He located my wallet, and pulled out my drivers licence with obvious glee. Each time I attempted to move PC29’s grip on my arms became firmer.”

Smith attempted to obtain further explanation from the police in respect of their actions. He claims: “The answer they gave was because of my obstructive and non-compliant attitude.”

At the end of the search, the police departed, having failed to return Smith’s mobile phone to him. This, in ordinary circumstances, might be considered theft – although s.45(2) of the Terrorism Act does entitle a PC to seize any item which “he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism”.

The difficulty in this case is that if the PC genuinely believed Smith to be carrying the tools of terror on him, it was clearly perverse to leave him free to carry out the rest of his mission, photographing buildings around the City of London.

We asked the City of London Police to comment on this incident – specifically asking them for their views on the removal of the phone and whether it constituted theft. An official spokeswoman told us: “A man was spoken to by officers yesterday after police were called by security personnel. He was later searched under terrorism powers.”

What about the phone? No comment.

What about suggestions that the City of London continues to abuse s44 powers long after other forces have learned their lesson? She added: “We continue to work to make sure the city remains a safe place to work and visit.”

Unless, presumably, your work includes taking photographs, in which case the safety of neither yourself nor your property can be guaranteed.

Appeared Here