Cop’s bluster should cost city

[madinmaryland]

This is from a local paper in Ohio:

Should cops be able to confiscate the film of someone who caught the cop doing something stupid (but not illegal)?

..snip

I’m wondering, had Hudson police officer David Devore used force against motorist John Bell III rather than merely suggest it, would the city’s brass think Devore had crossed the line? Had he hauled Bell into jail, would that have violated the motorist’s rights?
What would it have taken exactly, maybe the officer taking a swing or two with his nightstick before this eastern Ohio city decided Devore had violated Bell’s civil rights?
Common sense says Devore violated the motorist’s rights. What else do you call police harassment and seizure of private property without cause?
In case you missed it, Bell took pictures back in February of Devore’s police cruiser stuck in mud and being towed out of a ditch after an errant U-turn. Devore threatened Bell in order to get the digital camera from him, The Associated Press reported over the weekend. When Bell picked up his camera later, the images had been erased.
We, of course, live in an age in which authorities are quick to prevent picture taking in many a setting. We don’t want the terrorists to know our soft spots, after all. So, what matter of national security did one of Hudson’s finest cite to get a camera from an amused passer-by? Defamation of character.
Defamation of character? For taking a picture of something that actually happened?
A driver who had made a U-turn into a ditch likely would have gotten himself a ticket and perhaps a lecture about making U-turns. Had said driver been caught on the patrol car’s dashboard camera, then the police would have had evidence.
Devore decided he deserved better. After all, he is the law. He directed fellow officer Tyson Dinda to pull Bell’s vehicle over, the AP reported. When Bell asked why Devore needed his camera, Devore answered: “Because.”
Devore went on, “Defamation of character. Camera. And film. Now. I’m not going to ask you again. I’ll give you the count of three. Or I can make your life a living hell. You make the decision. I’ll give you that choice.”
Bell asked for $500,000 and new police procedures. The city offered $1,000, and gave Devore a one-day suspension without pay and counseling while telling him future stops would be monitored.
Now, Bell is suing the city for more than $25,000 in punitive damages, saying his civil rights were violated because he was stopped without probable cause, wrongfully detained, verbally abused and deprived of property, The Associated Press reported.
Neither the city nor the officer denied any of this, at least not in the wire story that came across over the weekend. The city administration and even Devore agree he didn’t handle the situation properly. Still, Hudson communications manager Jody Roberts told AP that Bell’s civil rights were not violated.
You do the math. You’re pulled over for taking a picture of a cop car in a ditch. The guy whose car it is pulls you over, threatens to “make your life a living hell,” and seizes and destroys your property. Do you call it a misunderstanding or do you think the cop has stomped on your rights?
You hate to see a city get stuck with the bill for one boneheaded employee’s arrogance. You hate to see the taxpayers of yet another city foot yet another bill for yet another police officer taking things too far. There are a lot of cops out there who suffer defamation of character when one of their own does something like this. So you almost wish a Bell would forgive and forget.
But sometimes, the city administration says the officer was wrong but does little more. There’s no telling in this case, but sometimes the officer is back on the street the same as ever, bullying the next guy all because the cop has a gun and a badge.
And you’re glad it happened somewhere else — because you want someone to stick it to the taxpayers and the city for not taking this seriously enough, soon enough.

[sasquatch]

1. Didn't they jail someone in Maryland for busting the cops on camera?

:shrug:
I think that cop should be stripped of his badge and made homeless for the rest of his life.

[johnnie]

2. I know this will be unpopular

I think that guy was just being a pain in the ass. I have had enough run-ins with the cops in my life, but I feel they get too much shit for what they get paid. They get bitched at if they make an arrest any other way but asking the suspect "please put your hands behind your back".
I think this guy should be arrested for harassing the cop. If some stranger was taking pictures of me without asking me, I would be a little pissed off at the idiot also. Now he is trying to get the taxpayers to pay him 25 grand? This guy is an asshole.

[Nevernose]

3. I'd be pissed, too,

but that wouldn't make it allright for me to take his camera, nor to use my authority to take his camera away. Also, a police officer is a public official, and we HAVE to have the right to monitor what they do -- in person, with a camera, however -- in order to see what our public officials are doing. In this case, the guy wasn't even harrassing the sop, he was taking a picture that the cop might find embarrassing. There's a difference.

If the public doesn't want to pay 25 grand, maybe the public should demand that the police don't illegally seize people's cameras when they take a picture of a cop.

[johnnie]

4. I understand what you are saying

But why did this guy want to embarrass the cop?

[Nevernose]

5. Does it matter?

And I wonder: is it an issue of the guy wanting to embarrass a cop, or an issue of a cop not wanting to be embarrassed? Regardless of the reason, I believe that any citizen should have the right to take a picture of any on-duty cop -- it's not like he was posting the guy's SSN or home address on the Internet(s).

As far as the lawsuit is concerned: as someone who has worked for a couple of different government bureaucracies, I can tell you that in many of them, the only way they EVER change a policy is after they've been sued. To me, it's not the guy suing who cost me $25,000, it's the government employee that screwed up.

I'm usually pretty sympathetic to the police, since I used to work for them, but I've also had my rights violated before. It ain't fun.

[MadHound]

6. Gee, I can think of a few reasons, and they all have to do with money

There are many shows and publications that would pay good money for an embarrassed cop picture. The police officer illegally deprived this man of money, potentially in the thousands of dollars.

But even if the guy was taking the picture for his own personal laughs, the cop had no right to take his camera and erase the picture. Completely over the top.

[johnnie]

7. I agree that the cop had no right to take his camera

I just think the guy was being an ass.