HIllsboro Cop Causes Crash, Harasses Man for Snapping Photos

[tazztt1]

1 - public place... 2 - legal to photograph ANYTHING IN PUBLIC, ANYTIME, INCLUDING POLICE OFFICERS... 3 - the 'evidence; claim is bogus even IF photos are of a crime scene as the 'photo' and 'cell phone' was not used in the commission of 'a crime... 4 - the "Ima take your camera for 'evidence' " line is common from LEO's

The REAL problem is that LEO's are afraid it's going to INCRIMINATE THEM, so hell NO they don't want you to have any pics or vids of them.

Officers: Tell me I'm wrong?!

[Zyworski]

I believe this is Hillsboro Oregon and the police are operating under ORS 165.540 Obtaining contents of communications and ORS 165.543 Interception of communications. For information on the legalistic bullshit behind this just search under Hao Xeng Vang, he was the first victim to fight this in court and won because he was holding up the camera in plain sight and announced frequently that he was getting it on tape, so any accusation of surreptitious audo recording could not stand up.

[Zyworski]

The loophole in the law that the police use to seize cameras are the anti eaves dropping laws, it is the audio content that they are going after theoretically, but in truth what they really want to seize is the video. They will come up to you and ask is that recording audio and as soon as you say yes your video camera is seized. If you ever get asked by a cop about audio recording the correct answer is I respectfully decline to answer prior to seeking counsel.

[samiyam70]

destroy the evidence. Because of this, and the probable cause that the camera contains evidence of a crime, the police officer could seize your camera. The officer could still not search it without a warrant, as evidence seizure is only meant to secure possession, and does not necessarily justify the warrant-less search.

But yeah, cops don't have a legal right to demand you stop filming. Some education is needed here.

[samiyam70]

*Exigent* circumstance, not exigence. Doh! Anyway, for example, let's say you and your underage girlfriend go to a party. You bring your camera and take pictures of the party, including pictures of everyone drinking. If a police officer were to confront the owner of the property regarding providing liquor to a person under 21, your camera could likely contain evidence. Because you may not want to hand your camera over and get your girlfriend in trouble for minor in possession, you might

[samiyam70]

I'm sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly. If you happen to be filming (which doesn't include filming a police officer in public, where there is no expectation of privacy) and capture possible criminal activity, the police can get a warrant for your camera as evidence of a crime. If there are exigence circumstances, and probable cause to believe that the camera contains evidence, the police can seize the camera to prevent the evidence's destruction.

[COPWatchersNetwork]

Hello from Hillsboro, might see you around David.

[samiyam70]

This is crap. If an officer thinks your cell phone might have photo or video evidence, they can get a subpeona for it. They can only seize your camera (or phone) if they have reason to believe that they will be unable to retrieve the photos later under subpeona, such as if they had reason to believe you would flee, erase the photos, etc. This is just a scare tactic police use to avoid being policed themselves.

[COPWatchersNetwork]

@samiyam70 You are mostly currect, however, the police can not seize private property regardless what it is without a warrant including video cameras, audio recorders, etc. provided you obey the tapping law and they clearly have knowledge you are recording. In the state of Oregon they have no legal right to tell you to stop recording provided they know they are being recorded. -Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540(6)(c).