Reminds me of a story of a UNIFORMED officer ringing the doorbell of a known drug house, and asking to buy drugs.

They sold it to him...


Anyhow to answer the same question, I crossed a border on I-10 no where's near the Mexican border. I was in a hurry and didn't want to risk detention so I asked their questions.

The officer assaulted the car driver. Pure and simple. He should have been fired and jailed for his actions.

Also, the guy opened his window quite far. And once again, your agency didn't actually start this by asking any questions. The agent started the seizure by demanding that the camera not be pointed at him and then attacking the man in the car.

Turn about is fair play.
Some Americans are getting fed up the way their government and their "actors" are treating them.

How many times have we heard "If you have nothing to hide, where is the harm in: 1.) being questioned, 2.) being filmed, 3.) being searched, etc?

So if it is good enough for the subjects of the state, then just maybe it is good enough for the actors of the state.

Cops do not like to be filmed. Why is that? If they are not doing anything wrong, where is the harm?

You will notice how fast the film is released when it exonerates a cop, but when it may show the cop acting recklessly it almost takes a court order to have it released.

The government is supposed to work for us, to make our lives easier. It has almost become that our government is our adversary, and it is them against us attitude. Now who's fault could that possibly be?

A couple of points I will make that you won't agree with. At this point in my career I don't really care if you video me or not. However, when I started my career when decisions hadn't been made in what direction I was going to go I would not been as happy. Many times LEO's are sensitive to being on video taped because they may at some point be assigned undercover operations. Having been video taped can compromise the assignment and can be a safety issue. The more you are video taped the bigger the issue.

There are few occupations that include the fact that some people would like to do you or your family harm just because of the uniform you wear. Some don't like the idea of the video or even still pictures being used to identify them when they aren't wearing that oh so identifying uniform.

I don't see the government realizing film of travelers doing some truly ridicules and crazy things on to the internet for everyone to pick apart. I am curious how some of you folks would react if I came to your place of business with a video camera, filmed you trying to do you job while one of my buddies disrupt you and generally do anything in their power to goad you. I then tell you I am going to post it on the internet so we can all who don't know how to do you job can pick it apart. I suspect that many have not even thought about it that way. I keep looking for videos of Doctors, Pilots, Lawyers, Accountants (talk about some boring video), Interior Designers, Cooks, Taxi Drivers, Truck Drivers, Pipe fitters, Carpenters all doing there non staged day to day jobs so I could post them on a website and then post that they aren't doing there jobs right. I have been having a very rough time finding any.

Anyway, for me video is a fact of life. I have no problem with you videoing me. However, don't expect me to change how I am doing my job because you are videoing me. Also, If you are videoing me and you are acting in a manner that is rude, or are trying to goad me to get a reaction don't expect me to use discretion if there is an issue found. The way I see it there are two types of video. There is the passive video guy the military member video to me is a example of a passive video guy. There is also the aggressive video guy. The example of that is the two young men in the car. They are not videoing to document. They are purposely goading the officers for a reaction to me that is not OK but anymore it is condoned and encouraged.

Unless you are talking about people in the above categories employed by the government, those people aren't employed by the government and engaged in conduct that can lead to a citizen being deprived of his or her Constitutional rights. Sorry about the extra scrutiny, but if you can't stand the heat associated with being a public servant, you should seek employment elsewhere.

Possibly and possibly not all depends circumstances. There are some places that I work that you will not be able to videotape. I will ask you to turn it off. If you don't I will tell you to turn it off. If you don't I will turn it off. In the case of the BP checkpoints most are on the highway so they don't have that option. If you are in a Federal Facility it can be very different. There are also other uses for that video and audio recordings that are not so above board and commendable. Though I am sure that might not have occurred to you because you are so well versed on a LEO's job. I wonder are you as well versed in the Bad Guys job.

Again, my personal opinion is film away. However, I do question the advisability of going about it the way those two young men did. I am not quite sure about pointing a camera at a LEO's when the LEO is trained to check and watch the hands of the occupants in the first second of the encounter as if someone wants to hurt or kill the officer the threat is coming from the subjects hands.

FB

See my other posts, I have no problem with the scrutiny. We have more than our fair share from our IA Departments, the Courts, and the Media. My point is that most of the people associated with the above organizations have a clue concerning the applicable laws and if they don't they tend to at least attempt to do the appropriate research from a reputable source(not the internet.)

The above occupations all if the subject does the job horribly there are negative consciences some very severe. My point is for the most part the public does not go around purposely trying to make their jobs difficult and then film them. My problem is the individuals that are not just filming the outcomes of things. They are purposely doings things to make the job harder so that they get the outcome that they want which is just a juicy film they can put on you tube. To me that is not right. Just because I am employed by the government doesn't mean that other people have an unrestricted right to make it more difficult for me to do my job.

You as a lawyer have professional oversight. You have just as much ability and authority so to speak to really screw up someones life. Yet, no forum to pick apart your career. When do you open up your office and court room to video. How far do you think I would get if in your court room I started telling you have no right to question a witness that way or enter that piece of evidence by the way I am not the opposing lawyer. I am Joe Shmoo with no legal training. Of course that would never happen so you don't have to worry about it. I am sure you wouldn't stand for it.

FB

You don't get it. It is because you, as a government law enforcement officer, are armed with the ability to wield the significant power of the government against a citizen, have far more power than the individual citizen. Thus, you are subjected to more scrutiny. And the courts recognize this, as evidenced by those instances where because of accusations of abuse, patrol cars have been outfitted with video cameras to record traffic stops.

Wrong. When I stand up in court on behalf of the United States, everything I say is recorded. If I screw up, it's recorded for posterity, and if I screw up real bad, I'll be getting a letter from the Office of Professional Responsibility notifying me that my license may be in jeopardy.

Part of the job being an employee of the government is being held to a higher standard of conduct. Defense lawyers lie in court all the time, and they get away with it. We don't, and we don't whine about it.

I believe the differences in those cases is that if you walk into a private business and doing that, you're acting as a private citizen on private property. They can ask you to stop. If you don't stop, they can ask you to leave. If you don't, the cops show up. Furthermore, a private citizen cannot infringe on a person's rights like government actors can.

With LEOs in general, they are acting as agents of the government and have been given certain powers, including arrest and use of deadly of force if the situation warrants it. With that power comes responsibililty. A lot of local jurisdictions and even state jurisdictions record the event on video and audio in case it is needed. In some cases, the dashboard cam will be used as evidence against the defendant. In others, it may be used to corroborate allegations against the officer.

I don't know if CBP films in its cars or anything like that. I'm pretty sure they would at a border crossing at least. So my first question here is why, if an LEO agency films the incident, what's wrong with the person stopped filming it? I don't think officers' career aspirations are a valid reason to deny that. And secondly, if an officer crosses a line, what is the harm in documenting that? If it came to a he said/she said in court, the court's likely to side with the LEO barring any other evidence.

Thirdly, those entrusted with LEO powers should be professional enough to be baited and escalate the situation. Yes, I understand we're all human. However, if they're that easy to bait and to cross the line, perhaps they should consider other lines of work.

Actually, in this instance you are wrong I do get it. I don't have a problem with being held to a higher standard. I don't have a problem with being taped and that tape being reviewed, especially a dash cam or in a lot of my cases tape from the facility camera. However, that review should be being done by a component authority. Just like your Officer of Professional Responsibility is the one who would review your actions not the general public on the Flyertalk forum. When you stand up in court there is a judge sitting right there to make sure everyone plays by the rules. If a witness starts to treat you rudely, starts asking you questions, are you an illegal alien, are you really a lawyer etc. That judge is going to step in an put a stop to it. No one is going to be heckling you and trying to provoke you just for the sake of making your job difficult. It wouldn't be allowed and you know it. I am all for video even the citizens video as long as that citizen didn't set out with the intention of I am going to make this officers job ridiculously difficult just because it is fun and I am going to have a real popular you tube video. People now believe that it is appropriate to purposely antagonize an officer to get a reaction most of the time not for the lofty principles you folks talk about on here. It is to get the paycheck at the end and that is what I have a problem with.

FB

Part of the reason people think it is acceptable to antagonize a law enforcement officer is that for a very long time, law enforcement officers were able to abuse the public without fear of being held accountable. I realize it is distasteful, but what you now experience is, in a large part, payback for those times that the "blue wall of silence" frustrated a citizen's right to seek justice for police misconduct.

Not saying it is right, just explaining it.

First of all it is not about the officer's career aspirations it is about his safety. How do you send a guy undercover to interact with the the bad guys if he has been all over you tube. You don't just effect his career you jeopardize his life.

The government is not out there releasing their tapes on the internet. I don't have a problem with being taped. I am betting that is at least the tenth time I have said it. It is not about being taped. It is not about the officer crossing the line. If the officer does he deserves what he gets. I have a problem with who gets to decide if the officer crossed the line. It should be someone with knowledge and training who gets to decide that. The public without the benefit of training and knowledge should not get to decide that. Law Enforcement is one of the only occupations that the public seems to think that they can judge officers actions without any training whatsoever. Society at this point mainly for the entertainment value and not only condoned it society has encouraged it. Sometimes to the detriment of the officers safety and the publics safety. As has been repeatedly pointed out to the TSO's in the forum, there is such thing as too much of a good thing and going overboard.

FB

I agree and I realize that is part of it. I also think it is because people have begun to see it as a way to a paycheck at the end via lawsuit. Abuse is bad and shouldn't happen but people should not set out to purposely set up the circumstances and attempt to make it happen. You won't agree but I believe that is because of the less reputable members of your chosen profession. I will leave it at that cause I am still trying to be polite.:p

FB

How long does it take a BP agent to verify only a passport?

Like what in this case? So far, they have RS that the person they are dealing with is a jerk and that he is a member of the armed forces who doesn't want to talk about his service. Is that alone RS of a crime?

So if I produce my DL, the officer can ask me anything about my driving like tickets I've gotten in the past or what I got on my driver's test? Or is there a different standard for a military ID?

Also, you haven't answered this: once the passports were in the officer's hand, what was the purpose of contacting the CO (bearing in mind that that extended the detention)? What RS could there have been for the extended detention for that purpose? Even if the BP officer thought it was misuse of the military ID, is that RS of a crime?

I understand that before the passports were produced, there is an argument that the CO needed to be reached to verify the military ID; I buy that. But after the passports came out, was there still an LE purpose to cerify the military ID or contact the CO?

After he told them it was all on tape, they did continue.

It didn't make the officers go away, however.

The guys in the car were jerks. There is no reason not to pull the window down a reasonable amount other than to be an asshat. Still, the officer lost his composure. The jerks in the car proved the very point they set out to prove; that BP officers at these internal checkpoints can be goaded into illegal acts.

Pretend it were an undercover narcotics operation: An undercover cop poses as a drug buyer and gets a drug dealer to sell him drugs. The undercover cop has proved that the drug dealer is in fact a drug dealer. Now pretend that this is an operation to prove that BP officers can exceed their authority: Two people pose as jerks and videotape their encounter at the checkpoint. They act like jerks and the officer grabs their camera. They have proved their point-- that BP officers can exceed their authority.

The drug dealer did not have to sell the drugs and the BP officer did not need to grab the camera, but each engaged in the act provoked. Is a "sting" operation by citizens to catch LEO's doing the wrong thing when prompted really that nefarious? Maybe in poor taste, but in both operations neither of the target actors had to engage in the illegal act and did so anyway.

It is easy for LE to be nice to the citizen who treats them with respect and dignity; it is much more difficult to be nice to the citizen who antagonizes you; that's where being a professional LEO comes into play. As far as I'm concerned officers who allow themselves to be bated into being a jerk by citizens who act like jerks are not professional-- they are unprofessional.

If I were a construction worker on a public street and you video taped me and told me I was laying concrete wrong, would I be allowed to call an LEO and have you removed or arrested? Grab your camera?

The Rodney King cops hated that, too. :D

The vast majority of all LEO's are good, and they shouldn't mind being on video; any LEO who needs to be working undercover should not be out in public in a uniform.

What's that supposed to mean? :confused: