April 9th, 2013

San Diego Police Attack and Arrest Man Video Recording Them, Claiming Phone Could be a Weapon (Updated) 333

By Carlos Miller

 

San Diego police slapped a cell phone camera out of a man’s hands Saturday, claiming it could be a weapon, before pouncing on him and handcuffing him, lacerating his chin in the process.

Adam Pringle ended up jailed overnight on charges of obstruction because he refused to hand the phone over when the cop ordered him to do so.

But it’s already been established by numerous court cases as well as the U.S. Department of Justice that police do not have the right to take your camera unless it is being used in a commission of a crime.

In this case, Pringle’s only crime was smoking a cigarette on a Mission Beach boardwalk, a violation for which he was already getting cited.

“It is against the law to smoke cigarettes on the boardwalk, so I admit I was breaking the law,” Pringle said in a telephone interview with Photography is Not a Crime Tuesday.

The incident took place at 7 p.m. Saturday evening as Pringle and two buddies were walking on the boardwalk and came across two cops on bicycles who stopped them and started writing Pringle a citation.

Pringle pulled out his Samsung Galaxy smartphone and began recording, which as you can see below, can easily be confused for a weapon – if you find yourself starring in a futuristic science fiction drama.

It all seemed pretty civil until the cop writing the citation told him to stop recording, which Pringle refused to do.

“Phones can be converted into weapons …. look it up online,” the cop told him.

Last month, a South Florida cop confiscated a man’s phone citing the same reason, so maybe this is a new trend.

When Pringle tried to talk sense into the cop, the cop slapped the phone out of his hand where it fell onto the boardwalk and broke apart.

The other cop then pounced on him, slamming him down on the boardwalk where he ended up with a laceration on his chin.

“Blood was everywhere,” Pringle said. “I was laying on my stomach and he had one knee on my back and the other knee on the side of my face.

“They kept telling me ‘to calm down,’ that ‘you’re making this worse for yourself,’ that ‘you have no right to record us.’”

They hauled him up and marched him to the patrol car, telling his two friends that they would be arrested if they chose to follow.

His friends picked up his phone, which was damaged but not to the point where it was unsable, which is why the video survived.

Once out of sight, the officer who tackled him elbowed him to the face.

Because he had several wounds on his body, including his knees, hands and face, an ambulance was called.

An internal affairs officer, Lt. Misty Cedrun, was also called, who spoke to him in the back of the ambulance, but who didn’t seem to think the officers did anything wrong because she allowed the two officers to transport him to jail, even though he told her he fear them.

Unfortunately, Pringle was not provided with their names and it’s difficult to make out the cop’s nametag in the video.

He wasn’t released from jail until 4 a.m. His first hearing will be on May 23 where he hopes to have obtained an attorney. He said he has reached out to the ACLU but hasn’t heard back.

However, this incident is still very fresh and this is a case that is ripe for them.

Pringle said he is an Eagle Scout who is actively involved in his community. He doesn’t mean to be a troublemaker but he is just not afraid to stand up for his rights.

And that obviously makes him a criminal in the eyes of the law.

But because the video survived the assault, we are able to see whom the real criminals are in this matter.

UPDATE: Pringle’s friend continued video recording after he was led away and the cop, whose name is M. Reinhold, didn’t have a problem with that.

In the video below, Reinhold tells his friend that they are trained by the police department to suspect that cell phones can be converted into guns.

He also said that “officer safety” trumps the Constitution, meaning they can claim they are fear for their lives while they throw you in jail for any lame excuse.

Such bullshit but that’s the arrogance of these police officers.

Send San Diego Mayor Bob Filner an email by clicking here to let him know how much respect his officers have for the Constitution.

 


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • Jon Quimbly

    When is a cellphone not a cellphone? Has there ever been a documemted example??

    Ordering you to let the officer confiscate your phone, and them arresting you for failing to do sp, is so obviously wrong.

    I’m not normally one to carp about corruption as much, but this so obviously is a case of it.

    • Difdi

      Yes, but it doesn’t look anything remotely like a Galaxy.

      http://www.hoax-slayer.com/cell-phone-guns.shtml

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        There has also never been one recovered in the United States. It is a European issue, and has been for over a decade.

        • Difdi

          Probably because in most places in the U.S., there’s no need to hide your gun.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            It is just BS on the part of the officer. There have been no cellphone guns ever found in the U.S., but there have been plenty of fountain pen guns, wallet guns, and cane guns. You never see the officers react like that when they ask for a driver’s license and the subject pulls out his wallet, or when a subject pulls out a pen to sign a ticket. I wrote more about it on my new blog, at excoplawstudent.wordpress.com.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

            Good luck on the new blog!

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Thanks Carlos.

          • Difdi

            I can just see the headline “Cops tackle senior citizens citing risk of cane guns, 34 elderly people hospitalized, cops to receive medals for heroism”

            Oh, and I bookmarked your blog.

          • Lefim

            I’ve seen cattleprods disguised as cellphones sold at gunshows. They’re not Tasers. I differentiate between the two, though some Tasers can have cattleprod features in them as well.for CQB.

    • Kyle

      There was a video on Youtube taken years ago of a then-new cellphone that fired bullets… However, it had an antenna… which was the barrel. It’s pretty much been debunked by modern cellphones that are thinner and have no appearance of an older cell.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chris.parks.355 Chris Parks

      There are such things, but the ones I have seen look like 90′s phones. Also alot of manipulation is needed to cock and fire. The cop knew it wasn’t a firearm. Why would he demand to not be videoed if it was?

  • Ruby Kuby

    Sue the fuck out of that turd. Weapon, my ass. What a total dick head.

    • Rusty Gunn

      Ruby, Ruby, Ruby! TSK! TSK! TSK!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1511740582 Tony Loro

    Just another way to stop recording. No person or cop has been shot in the USA with a gun resembling a cel.
    http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/cellgun.asp

  • http://twitter.com/Stoutlagger Rob

    This looks like another open and shut case of blatant prior restraint. I hope this guy gets a really good attorney to slap the city, department, and the officer personally with a hefty lawsuit. I would also file a federal criminal complaint against the officer.

    • Noah Rosenthal

      I don’t understand how this is “prior restraint.” But it is outrageous, illegal and wrong.

      • http://twitter.com/Stoutlagger Rob

        Even though the video survived and was published, the officer was clearly trying to censor the man by forcibly making him turn off his camera, preventing the lawful recording of any possibly legal or illegal actions taken by the officer. The officer knew he was doing nothing more than filming, despite his claim that he thought the phone might be a weapon. Is my understanding of prior restraint incorrect? Would it only be considered prior restraint if the officer had tried to delete the video?

        • steveo

          absolutely correct, they restrained him from gathering the “news” prior to it’s publication.

          As an example, say, the US secret service went up to Abraham Zapruder and told him in 1963 that he couldn’t film the motorcade from the area next to the grassy knoll. Think that would have been outrageous act of censorship? The most famous 27 seconds in film making history.

          This videographer here had a lot of courage, more people have to be willing to keep the cameras rolling even in the face of arrest.

          There is also a great piece written by some legal scholars explaining how a detained person has the right to record because of due process and the 5th Amendment. Here’s a link. http://flliberty.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/due-process-right-to-record.pdf

          • http://www.facebook.com/adam.pringle.3 Adam Pringle

            hey steveo, carlos said to look out for posts from you, he said you were very knowlegable in the law and this sort of thing i am the victim in the video.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            He is very knowledgeable on the law.

          • steveo

            See if Carlos can give you Mickey O’s email and send him a message about your plight. He has had dealings in San Diego in the past with various agencies and could steer you in the direction of some good legal counsel in the area.

            Read about the case on this blog about Mr Baier: “They impounded his camera, threw him in jail and did not return his camera until the following Monday. And only because Mickey Osterreicher started giving them hell on Saturday (I was with Mickey that day in Fort Lauderdale so I witnessed his telephone conversation with one of the assistant chiefs).”
            Mickey probably still remembers who he talked to. Maybe he can get you in touch with Mr. Baier who is probably an expert with the SDPD by now.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

            Mickey informed me tonight that he has sent an email to his contact at SDPD and is waiting to hear back.

            I’m curious about this particular training where they teaching cops that cell phones could be guns.

          • steveo

            I know this is the Sheriff which is different from the SDPD, but this is a bit from something Mickey wrote before:

            San Diego Sheriff’s Department Media Guide, specifically:

            Do not prevent the taking of pictures or interviews of person(s) in
            public places.

          • mvpel

            Hopefully that quote from the SDSD Media Guide means that they can kiss their sovereign immunity goodbye.

          • Pacosf

            And in particular, training about converted cell phone weapons being left at the scene, in public areas. How does this mesh with the whole “public safety” gig? We keep hearing how these law enforcement agencies need more equipment & budgets in the name of “public safety”.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

            Mickey was on this as soon as I posted it. This one is a wild one.

      • steveo

        Anytime a government agent stops someone from newsgathering who is lawfully present, it is an act of prior restraint. Prior restraint is actually quite simple, 1) Govt doesn’t want a person or group to collect information about govt 2) Govt acts to suppress or restrain the person from collecting the “news” and publishing the news.

        Legal historians will tell us that prior restraint was probably the main reason for the 1st Amendment and over the years, prior restraint has been elevated to a constitutional principle because the SCOTUS has never upheld an act of prior restraint in the history of the US, even in the case when govt said that the publication of the information would be a clear and present danger to the security of the US and even when the “news” was gathered illegally.

        I always use Larry Flynt as an example because he was constantly in court over being told by various govt agents that he couldn’t publish his material. Well, Hustler magazine is still standing and Larry is still alive and earning 200 million a year. Larry won his case before the Scotus 9-0 after calling them “eight assholes and a token cxxt”.

        • Noah Rosenthal

          Point taken. I guess a better point is that, not only is it a prior restraint, but it is also a direct infringement on First Amendment rights, which also include the collection of information (e.g., the “right to hear” speech). Even if there were no prior restraint doctrine, this conduct would still violate the constitution. that’s more what I was getting at. I appreciate the explanation of how prior restraint also applies here.

  • Shawn

    “His friends picked up his phone, which was damaged but not to the point where it was usable, which is why the video survived.”

    Carlos, I think that you mean UNusable.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

      Yes, of course. Will fix it now. Thanks.

  • http://IAmDanMarshall.com/ Dan Marshall

    Those cops deserve to be fired and barred from law enforcement for the rest of their lives.

    • Bob

      Both of them, I agree. Don’t forget about the douchbag that did nothing but help perpetrate the crime.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

        The second cop is the one who attacked him. Fuck that guy. He’s a thug in uniform

        • Bob

          I didn’t realize the other guy was the one that attacked him. Yeah, they both need to go down hard.

  • http://www.facebook.com/fcarlson21 Frank Carlson

    no wounder their is no respect for cops they do it to them selves bet his mom is really proud of him what a jewel.the cop is the criminal.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501865801 Greg Lacy

      The no respect comes from higher ups covering their own ass in the light of the “mob” coming for heads. Every government official should back their officers 100%. With that being said, they also need to look into something before saying it wasn’t legal. This kid was not attacked for the hell of it, or because they could get away with it. He was attacked because he was not complying with the officer. He did not show respect for the people that do what they can to keep the streets safe for others. You step on their toes, the will step on your face. The cop can never have the lower hand, or his life could come to a very quick end.

      • Titletown99030507d

        Stupid comment. What planet are you from?

      • arglebargle2

        It was an unlawful order, he had no obligation to comply. Photography of public servants while performing their public duties in public is a protected right.
        The way these things draw out, two years from now, he will get a small settlement paid for by the taxpayers, and the cop will get a mark on his record. It won’t make news and no one will care.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        That is about the dumbest thing I’ve heard so far, and I was a cop for 20 years. First, the People deserve public officials who are accountable for misconduct. When I screwed up as an officer, I took my punishment, and officials should investigate alleged wrong doing. If the officer is wrong, he should be held to account either administratively, civilly, or, if appropriate, criminally.

        Second, there is no law that requires people to “comply” with an officer. The kid may not have shown respect, but that is not a criminal (or civil) violation. Besides, respect has to be earned.

        Finally, there is no excuse, ever, for an officer to state that officer safety trumps the Constitution.

      • OldUncleDave

        Greg is an example of the “passive authoritarian” personality. At another time and place they were called “good Germans.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Trance/608441362 Mark Trance

        Wow , you are definitely a member of the “part of the problem” camp. Hopefully you will wake up soon or be rendered powerless, so the rest of us can clean up the incredible mess your kind have left of the world.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jay.lensch Jay Lensch

    This officer needs to be fired. What a piece of shit.

    • Billythrowtheballatmyhead

      No…he needs to be fired AND CHARGED WITH A CRIME.

      Dirty cops should have 2X the penalty applied to them when they break the law.

      • rick
        • Billythrowtheballatmyhead

          Why is the truth always so ugly……

        • http://www.facebook.com/mark.k.janes Mark Janes

          I don’t like what this says, but am glad it’s posted. Law enforcement should NEVER be above the law.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501865801 Greg Lacy

            How was his action “above the law”? The situation was getting out of hand, and he controlled it. This kid is a piece of shit. Police feel that their life is always in danger. Leave them alone.

          • http://www.facebook.com/cbandrosky Chris Bandrosky

            A cell phone put his life in danger. You’re an idiot! I’ve seen the cell phone / gun conversion. Problem is that with todays phones being so thin there would be no way for this mod to be possible. The situation got out of control when the officer assaulted him and broke his phone end of story. Cop should be fired. If he was so scared why let the next person film without looking @ his phone as the pig states
            ?

          • Hamlet

            hahahahahahahahah!

            LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE you big meanies!!!!

            Fucking idiot trolls.

          • http://twitter.com/terryrayc Terry Carter

            really, so where is the phone, if they thought it was a weapon then they would have taken it…guess what without the phone/weapon they have no proof of a crime and they just lost the case…if nothing else they should be fired for being clueless about how to do their job.

          • Benton Quest

            Greg Lacy is a troll.
            Don’t feed the trolls.

          • Benton Quest

            Greg Lacy is a troll.
            Don’t feed the trolls.

          • OldUncleDave

            The law says it is not illegal to film the pigs. You are a piece of shit.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lis-Carey/1011208207 Lis Carey

            His action was “above the law” because the law, indeed the Constitution, protects that young man’s right to do exactly what he was doing.

            Police feeling that their lives are always in danger is not a justification for claiming they feel “threatened” by a cell phone as an excuse to confiscate cameras, cell phones, or other legal recording devices.

            The piece of shit here is the cop.

        • Lynchenstein

          The lower chart could mean that in general, cops and other law enforcement types could be committing crimes that earn less jail time. It could also mean that cops are punished less harshly than everyone else. I’m not a sympathizer, but this chart has no context.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ron.allen.73345 Ron Allen

        Yep… assault,unlawful detention, false arrest, willful destruction of private property…

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501865801 Greg Lacy

          Wrong. The kid failed to comply with the police officers orders.

          • gordon_wagner

            His orders were and are illegal. Can you not grasp that?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lis-Carey/1011208207 Lis Carey

            No one, not even you, is legally required to follow illegal orders, and this particular order was glaringly illegal and a violation of the young man’s Constitutional rights.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.jesus.921 Jim Jesus

    Overzealous assholes. If you are going to enforce the law shouldn’t you be required to know the law? Silly question I’m sure.

    • God

      The law in the State of California is that you need the consent of all parties before filming a conversation. Sorry but this guy has no real cause of action for the cop preventing him from filming. Now maybe he has a police brutality claim, but that is not on the video so I cant really say one way or another.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

        That law does not apply in public where one does not have an expectation of privacy

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeffrey-Loop/1231631426 Jeffrey Loop

        You’re not very bright are you? Every court to examine the issue has held that the First Amendment right to record public officials in public trumps state recording laws. See the DOJ letter to the Baltimore PD for an excellent overview.

      • discarted

        Dear God,

        Apparently you’re not all knowing. I suggest you read up on CA wiretapping law before trying out the internet again. Particularly it’s expectation of privacy clause.

        • http://twitter.com/cshotton Chuck Shotton

          Oops.

      • BernardKingIII

        Sorry god, but you’re wrong. California statutes only require the consent of all parties when recording if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Clearly, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public beach (if there was then Mayor Filner’s seal cam at the Children’s Pool would be unconstitutional).

        More importantly, however, is that the First Amendment right to record public officials in public trumps any statute or local law which would attempt to prohibit it.

        On duty law enforcement just needs to get used to being recorded and should conduct themselves at all times as if they are being recorded.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501865801 Greg Lacy

          Mayor Filner’s seal cam at the Children’s Pool has signs posted letting you know they are there. By entering, you are allowing them to record you. Every business that has outdoor cams have signs posted letting you know you are on cam

          • Mole1

            No, every business that has outdoor cams does not have such signs posted. Those that do have them because they think it increases their security.

      • steveo

        Crap, just when I thought everyone has read the voluminous information on wiretapping/eavesdropping on this blog, God writes in and says he missed it.

        • Lefim

          You mean that “God” is not omnipotent and omnipresent? Now we’re in trouble!

          • Jozie

            No, but he is omnisexual….

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

        Are you there, God? it’s me, Carlos.

        To tell you that you’re dead wrong.

      • http://www.facebook.com/bridget.cash Bridgett Cash

        Um that only applies to phone conversations and places one would expect to be private. If you are out in public you have no expectation of privacy.

      • hp

        Obviously you’re dyslectic. You spelled your name backwards.

    • rick

      Ignorance of the law is unacceptable ONLY in citizens. For police to be found in violation of the law you need a victim who is the daughter or the mayor, governor, or president, 3 HD cameras at different angles recording the incident in totality (running since the beginning of time so we know the context), THX quality surround sound, 10 citizen witnesses per cop, and a signed affidavit from God the Almighty.

      Getting a conviction is much tougher.

  • Guest

    this is what my cell phone looks like.

  • http://www.facebook.com/adam.pringle.3 Adam Pringle

    this is the phone that was called a weapon

    • Chris Olin

      I think I can see the magic button to make the trigger pop out… wait — right there.. err, nope. I don’t see anything.

      This is what is going to happen until we require that officers have more than a high school/GED education.

    • Difdi

      Given where the camera lens is on a smartphone, if it were a camera gun it would be very, very obvious. Mostly because the bullets would be about three to four times longer than the phone is thick…

  • JdL

    “Phones can be converted into weapons …. look it up online,” the cop told him.

    Yet another cop shits his pants over something that would frighten no one else on earth. Amazing!

    • Difdi

      Yes, phones can. But far more commonly, police are converted into assholes.

    • drksilenc

      the only weapon it is is a weapon against idiot police like him.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mark.k.janes Mark Janes

      Pretty much anything can be made into a weapon, but my belief is on this issue, that cops have much more fear of what the information a video on the phone might contain than they are about some device in the phone being used to harm them physically. That DOES NOT mean they have, or should have, the right of arbitrary censorship but rather that we need better ways of getting that information out to the public- hopefully soon it’ll be possible to stream HD video of incidents such as this directly to the Internet in real time so even if the camera’s destroyed the footage is safely in the public domain.

    • JdL

      Yes, phones can.

      Pretty much anything can be made into a weapon,

      Very true. Pretty much anything could be dangerous in some unusual way. A backpack might contain a bomb. A suitcase could hold a nuke. The guy next to you might have a syringe of nerve gas. But as far as I know, only a cop would look at a cell phone and (in preparation for adrenalin-fueled violent behavior under color of law), think, “OMG, a deadly weapon!”.

      Cops really are special in some significant way.

      • Proud GrandPa

        Pretty much anything could be a weapon…
        Could this be used to silence Jews with phylacteries and furry hats? Or Christians and Mormons with Bibles? Or party-goers with wrapped presence? Where does this madness end? One can make a strong argument that the claims of the officers were (a) legally without merit, and (b) motivated by personal resentment at the victim.
        If one wishes to video these same cops, one must come with plenty of friends to video you also. We may have a mass arrest or else establish the right to photograph. Let the local cops decide. My guess is they would not attempt this mistake again.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1511740582 Tony Loro

    It is interesting an IA person (Lt. Misty Cedrun) was at the scene. But SDPD IA when called 1 hr ago said she was transfered from the IA dept. The other officer had been watching for minutes yet he did not perceive the cel as a weapon. This will end badly for them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=16703026 facebook-16703026

    So, he didn’t mind him filming the whole thing, pointing the camera at him the entire time, despite it’s potential to be a weapon? The other cop didn’t say anything about it either, it wasn’t until the very end they had a problem with it…

    Carlos, please keep us updated on this one. I know you do your best to keep track of all your stories, moreso than any other journalist I’ve seen cover this topic, but there’s been so many lately that I want to see justice served! (I know you get updates as they happen and it’s not your fault that the system moves slowly. But still! :) )

  • Scott Parker

    So if the phone could be used as a weapon, why didn’t the cops pick it up? If they feared it so much, they should have confiscated it.

    • Difdi

      Some guns will discharge if dropped on a hard surface. If the officer truly feared it was a disguised gun, then he would not have thrown it to the ground.

      • Bob

        Good thing that Samsung didn’t have a hair trigger!

      • Craig Allen

        Name a modern firearm that will discharge if dropped? On any surface.

        • http://www.facebook.com/rick.robinson.7543 Rick Robinson

          Any ginned up conversion POS could discharge. Half assed designs wont include any kind of safety as modern firearms have.

        • Difdi

          No modern, professionally manufactured, well-maintained firearm has that flaw, but some older guns can have it whether by poor design or, as can happen with even the most modern firearm, internal wear or damage.

          But a cellphone gun isn’t necessarily more than a zip gun, which often CAN go off if dropped on a hard surface.

        • http://www.facebook.com/cbandrosky Chris Bandrosky

          Remington 700 youtube it buddy

        • http://www.facebook.com/jessica.williams.9678067 Jessica Williams

          A man recently shot himself in the a$$ at a movie theater when is Bersa .380 felt out of his waist band and hit the floor. He was actually charged with being irresponsible with his concealed weapon…even after getting shot in the butt.

        • V.

          Name a modern firearm that fits inside a smartphone.

    • http://www.facebook.com/adam.pringle.3 Adam Pringle

      yet they never did, my friends picked it up

      • Mike Bacon

        Did you find an attorney, Adam? Good luck with you case. My dad was a cop may years ago, but he did not consider himself above the law.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501865801 Greg Lacy

        You, my not so friend, are an idiot! Respect the police, and they will respect you. Shit on them, and you will be put in the shitter.

        • http://www.facebook.com/cbandrosky Chris Bandrosky

          We don’t owe the Police anything! They choose the job, it wasn’t forced on them. The Police are hired by the people for the people. The police are the ones that need to show respect ! We the people are the boss. I could understand if the guy was trying to assault the officer, but he wasn’t. We the people do have the right to film them. Except in in Illinois and any smart person out there can probably figure out why! Put “protect and serve ” back on your patrol cars know your place this isn’t Iraq.

          • Titletown99030507d

            Well Said.

          • LeeCMH

            I took a friend on a trip to Washington DC a couple years ago. If taking photos is “shit[ing] on them” then shitted on the capitol, Lincoln Memorial, Tomb of the Unknowns and several Smithsonian museums.

          • jamber

            on time !!!

        • http://twitter.com/JackVoss1 Jack Voss

          I respect the police, not officers like this, who fail to uphold the laws they swore to follow. Police officers are not above the law.

        • gordon_wagner

          Fuck off, Greg. You’re clueless.

        • YouAreStupiddd

          You’re an idiot if you think that’s how things should be.

        • Matt Purvis

          By respect, do you mean obey their every word? I think you misunderstand the authority granted to police by the people.

        • gjohnson5

          This guy is not a police officer. He is a criminal and should be charged like one

        • Tyson Stone

          There have been cases where cops have raped under claims of upholding state laws. For example there was a case (not sure of the state) where someone was pulled over for a speeding ticket. She complied with the officer all the way to getting into his car and driving to holding. There she was stripped, beaten and sodomized by several male cops ‘enforcing the law’, making sure she didn’t have weapons stuffed in her body. All of this for a speeding ticket with a clean record. She respected police orders right up until the point they were sticking their hands and objects into her body. She even politely requested a female officer to do the search when they began stripping her and they laughed in her face. They showed absolutely no respect for her. Police are there to uphold the law and protect citizens, not to be dicks who believe they are above the law.

          Mr. Pringle was courteous and took the ticket knowing he broke the law. He has admitted he broke the law and has no problem being cited for it. Even when the officer was being a complete idiot and violating his rights Pringle was patient and tried to explain his thinking. He was respectful. He was not respected.

          • waynec

            Tyson, sounds like what happens in Hawaii. I lived there for 10 years and heard of more than one incident of cops raping women in the sugar cane fields.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steve-Pallister/1389811844 Steve Pallister

          Go eat a bag of dicks you grovelling prawn.

        • Randy Wallace

          You Sir, are an ASS. Come to KY, I will show you what respect is. This so called “POLICE OFFICER” was out of line. I hate trolls

        • T TYlis

          Yes, he was wrong to exercise his rights guaranteed by the constitution. The police will define, weapons, rights and anything else they see fit. He did have a lapse in judgement thinking that his rights matter.

        • http://twitter.com/MartianEmpress Rezeya Montecore

          Tell that to my friend who was jailed and beated for being transgender. Go to hell.

        • V.

          Idiot. The officer assaulted him and destroyed his property, for doing something completely legal and completely harmless!

        • http://www.facebook.com/dave.laws.31 Dave Laws

          Cops need to earn respect before they are given any. And be damn sure I don’t respect ANY OF THEM. 99% of them are uneducated dirt bags.

        • http://www.facebook.com/rolando.sanchez.5245 Rolando Sanchez

          you greg are a freakin idiot cop azz kisser

      • Bob

        How come your friends phone wasn’t a weapon?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=511955073 Trevor Hall

        find the asshole cop’s addresses. we’ll pay them a visit

        • http://twitter.com/FilthyPazuzu Ƒɩƪţħƴ Ƿɑɀųɀų

          Sinking to a level lower than theirs is definitely the answer. No doubt about it. Why don’t you take some kids as hostages while you’re at it, you fucking moron?

          • http://twitter.com/MartianEmpress Rezeya Montecore

            There’s really no moral equivalence in the example you gave. You don’t think it’s perfectly fair to show up and let them know we’ve got them surveilled as well as they have us? Well, you just roll over and wag your little tail, then.

          • Ƒɩƪţħƴ Ƿɑɀųɀų is f@$kin stupid

            Or he could not go and not take some kids as hostages. Then Instead go remove a piece of shit from society. The only way peaceful protest work is if you have people on the inside that agree with you. Occupy wall street didn’t take action and nothing got done. Hippies peacefully protest the war while althoughs people where dieing. Sooner or later people will realize the the only way to stop this kind of shit is to jump in while it was happening. I dream of the day when that cop slapped the phone out of his hand everyone one in that cafe and on the street would of jumped in and reminded Mr. Reinhold that he polices by consent of the people around him. Mr Ƒɩƪţħƴ Ƿɑɀųɀų your a sheep.

    • http://www.facebook.com/grammaton76 Sean Newton

      Moreover, if it WAS a concealed firearm, possession of a loaded firearm would be a 12031 charge (felony I think), plus zip gun charges (separate felony). If there really HAD been a gun in the phone, they’d have been tripping over themselves to confiscate it and get a “big bust”. This was clearly just about getting the camera turned off.

      • Pacololo

        Good point! And Another excellent reason to dismiss these Einsteins! They are NOT doing their job properly by issuing a health&safety code citation while ignoring several felonies in the form of weapons charges. Perhaps they’d be better off managing a Pizza Hut?

        • JdL

          Perhaps they’d be better off managing a Pizza Hut?

          Would YOU visit a Pizza Hut run by these bozos? ;-)

          • Lynchenstein

            You have the right not to order extra cheese, but not doing so could constitute assault on my bottom line so I’m gonna kick your ass!

      • bullcop34

        What is even more perplexing, according to office reinhold, any phone can be converted to a weapon. If someone is within two feet of me, I have to check that weapon, is that unreasonable?, says reinhold. So why didn’t officer rienhold check EVERYONE that he passes, as according to his logic, all cell phones can be weapons? Does he have proof that he checks every person that comes within 2 feet of him for a weapon if they are on a cellphone? Surely this cop, while working on the boardwalk, passses by folks talking on phones that are closer than two feet. And does this dolt seriously think that a .22 is only dangerous out to two feet, even when fired from a one to two inch barrel? As a former, thank God, police officer, it is increasingly embarrassing to see what is being churned out as police.

        • bullcop34

          Also, if the officer was so concerned, why did it take him so long to decide that the phone could be a weapon? Hell, if it was, the non tactical thinking of this cop would have already gotten him killed.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501865801 Greg Lacy

          He isn’t stating that it is a “gun”. Not all weapons kill. It might come across better if he said “tool to do harm”. Words are considered a weapon.

          • Quincy Bones

            He probably perceived it as a “tool to do harm” to his reputation.

            Looks like it worked and his attempt to shield himself backfired much more than if he’d just ignored it.

          • Tyson Stone

            Called freedom of speech. If words harm the officer he has the right to sue, not violate Mr. Pringle’s rights as a free citizen of the United States of America.

        • http://www.facebook.com/cbandrosky Chris Bandrosky

          Thank you for your honesty Sir . But in your days you were probably peace officers. ” To protect and serve ” Was the motto. Now po-lice are just mostly parasites , revenue generators. Not all but I would be fair to say most.

      • MustBeSaid

        It’s not even physically possible to put a gun into a phone in a way that it would fire being held in the way this phone was being held. Even a .22 round is considerably longer than that phone is wide.

        It’s a complete BS excuse and the cop knew it. He’s a pathetic little man with tiny penis who messed up in life and had to become a worthless beat cop who writes tickets for smoking on the boardwalk. Garbage men make more money and get more respect than cops like him.

        • Justice2013

          how long does it take to change the orientation of a phone to be pointing it in a way that the phone could conceal a 22 round?

    • http://www.facebook.com/ian.battles Ian Battles

      I’m amazed they didn’t “confiscate the phone as evidence”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brianjosephconnelly Brian Connelly

    Please find out and give us the names of those police officers.

    • http://www.facebook.com/adam.pringle.3 Adam Pringle

      All i know so far is M. Reinhold badge number 6223. unfortunately i dont have the others yet

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

        His first name is possibly Martin, which I gathered from a quick Google search.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.m.gray Jeffrey Marcus Gray

    I have done Google search after Google search and I can’t find one incident where a cop has been shot with a camera phone! I’m going to tell you LEO’s who think this new lie about “cameras as guns” is going to stop us from filming you….LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL!

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      That’s because there are no camera phone guns that have ever (as in never, none, zilch, nada) been discovered in the United States. They have been in Europe for about 10 years (and very rare there), but they have never made it here.

    • Tijuana Joe

      This has the potential to become the perfect pretextual mechanism to suppress photography, like the spurious “odor of marijuana” or “canine alert” have become vis-a-vis the 4th Amendment.
      Except for one thing, it’s too stupid.

  • Chris

    There is a good article out today on Huffington Post about how modern cops tend to claim “fear for my life” as a defense against using excessive force, even though statistically, cops haven’t been this safe on the job for 50 years:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/police-shootings_n_3038938.html

    • Difdi

      A police officer has no more right to self-defense than any citizen. The main difference when it comes to self-defense between a private citizen and a police officer is that the officer has a duty to advance on the danger. Depending on the state, a citizen might have a duty to retreat from it or might be able to lawfully stand his ground, but that citizen can negate his own self-defense plea by advancing on the source of trouble.

      But once they’re in danger, a citizen has exactly the same right to self-defense that a police officer does. If an officer can claim self-defense and get away with it, then a citizen in the same circumstances could as well. Or at least that’s what the law says.

      • feefoe

        Nope. Officers actually have neither a duty to advance upon danger, nor the duty to protect you, This is a common misnomer, and has been ruled upon, so it’s the reality of the relationship between you and police. Some people argue that the ruling was to protect officers from claims that they did not intervene in a situation when the officer may not have had any idea that his assistance was needed, others are less generous, but the bottom line is that police have no duty to come to your aid. That’s not to say that there aren’t many good and brave police officers out there who will indeed come to your aid, as many do every day, simply that they have lo legal responsibility to do so.

        • Difdi

          I never said they have the duty to protect anyone but themselves — which is the same duty all citizens share. You seem to have grossly misunderstood what I said, then ran for the endzone with it.

          As for the duty to advance, it’s implicit in how the differences in self-defense law function for police versus how it functions for private citizens. A private citizen who goes looking for trouble usually is not allowed to claim self-defense. Police who go looking for trouble on the other hand are almost always allowed to claim self-defense, even if the officer is the aggressor.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tim.harris.ny Tim Harris

    Adam Pringle, lawyers will sue for you for false arrest and battery and you’ll get $20K in 2 years. For no fee in till you get the money.

    Entrap the police. Have multiple cameras. One very clean person to get arrested and 3 more with hidden cameras to video it.

    • Difdi

      That’s not entrapment. If it were, no police undercover operation would ever be admissible in court.

  • steveo

    Also, if the leo believed that the detained individual was pointing a gun at him, the leo should have charged him with aggravated battery on a police officer, not obstruction. And if the leo believed that the act of recording was obstruction, why didn’t he take the camera as evidence to prove to the judge that the arrestee was filming. Over and over and over, we’ve said here and the courts back this up, that recording is speech. If I stood there and said ” I hate cops, cops suck, why don’t you guys get a real job, F… you” Most cops wouldn’t like it, but they know that it’s just words. Speech is protected as long as speech doesn’t get into “fighting words”.

    Judge: Officer, why did you arrest this gentleman?
    Leo: Because he said that he hates cops. So, I arrested him for obstruction.
    Judge: Now I hate cops, too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nancy-Robinson-Jackson/1403602801 Nancy Robinson-Jackson

    with the kind of logic anything could be a weapon even a ice cream cone

  • Matt

    If that cop still has his job, that is another sign that America is no longer the land of the free AT ALL. That cop is a disgrace to every real American that has fought for our RIGHTS!

  • Difdi

    If officer safety trumps oath and law, then so would citizen safety. And yet, I suspect that if a citizen met a cop at gun-point, proned him out on the pavement with a gun to the back of his head and called in the dispatch to verify whether the armed, uniformed man was a real cop or an impersonator, the cops would not feel that safety trumps law.

  • discarted

    This second video just proved the obvious…this cop is arrogant joke and is now just trying to justify his illegal behavior.

    And “Officer safety trumps the Constitution”?

    Sure, pal. Keep on believing that until the day you’re sued out of your job.

  • http://twitter.com/Stoutlagger Rob

    Sorry Officer Reinhold, but officer safety does NOT trump the 4th Amendment. If that were true, any asshole with a badge could claim your cellphone was a gun and take it…. oh wait

    Seriously though, you’re wrong M. Reinhold 6223

  • Erica

    Wow never knew a cell phone can be a weapon. I think this cop is off is rocker and needs to look up what weapons look like. Sorry to say this but cell phones is not a weapon. It does help people record cops behaving badly like this one just did for this man.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      There have been .22 cal. cellphone guns found. Just none in the U.S., they’ve all been in Europe.

      • Difdi

        They also all look like a cellphone from the early 1990s. Monochrome LCD screen, big & clunky, protruding antenna (the barrel is hidden inside the antenna).

        Even if you could hide a gun inside a modern smartphone, the smallest and weakest cartridge around is more than twice as long as the phone is thick. If you’re aiming the camera lens of such a hypothetical phone gun at someone, then the barrel is by necessity pointing straight up or straight down.

  • http://www.facebook.com/adam.pringle.3 Adam Pringle

    My bail was $5000
    meaning i had to pay $500. that money had to betaken out of my saving to move into my own place

  • Whoady Foshoady

    His 2 friends should have stood their ground and helped defend their friend knowing full well he was in the right. We need to stand together and fight for what we know is just. This is exactly why our government is shitting all over us. They know we wont stand together.

  • http://twitter.com/jenfoolery Jenny Reiswig

    Yay, this means we can finally ban cell phones in public!

  • FTP

    ADAM,……YOU MUST SUE ! TRUST ME,…they will settle out of court, but make sure you don’t accept a few grand. You also want your lawyer fees to be paid separately. Once you sue the town and the police (settlement), you then sue that ASSHOLE COP, and the other dick for going along with it personally with a Title 42 1983 claim. THEY will have to fund their own lawyer, and when the judgement is reached, THEY will owe YOU money from THEIR pocket.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      Adam, talk to a lawyer instead of listening to people here. If you settle with the city, legally you are precluded from filing a suit against the officer. See Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1988); Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 51 P.3d 297 (Cal. 2002).

      It is a principle known as res judicata. The officers have privity with the city, and a settlement against one is a settlement against all.

      • steveo

        I agree with this advice. Mickey O. should be able to steer the proper counsel your way.

        Anyway to keep your spirits up, here is clip from a copwatcher in our area who was arrested pretty much the same as you for obstruction. He got $25K from the city without much paperwork going back and forth. He had a good attorney who got a 1/3 of the settlement.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      Adam, as I mentioned before, talk to a lawyer and don’t follow this advice about how to file the suit. You can’t do two separate lawsuits. Once the first case is concluded, the second case is precluded by res judicata. If you don’t include all of the parties in the first case, you cannot go after them in a second case.

      Second, assuming for the sake of argument that you could bring a second lawsuit, under California law, the city is required to indemnify the officers. That means the city pays for the officers’s lawyers and damages, if any. They won’t have to pay out of their own pocket.

      Finally, don’t accept any legal advice over the internet. It’s normally not worth what you paid for it. Talk to a lawyer.

    • Rusty Gunn

      FTP, you’re my kinda guy! (In a platonic way, you understand!).

  • FTP

    This is the kind of cop that makes everybody hate cops. What a little fucking pussy !

  • steveo

    This Reinhold guys a liar. In the first video, he said “Put that away.” In the second video, he says that all he wanted to do was to inspect the phone to see if it was a gun or taser. He never said, “let me inspect your phone, I’ll give it right back.” If someone was pointing a gun or a taser at him would he say, put it away?

  • http://www.facebook.com/dustin.hedberg Dustin Hedberg

    ive seen fake cellphone guns before actually… that fire .22 rounds…. but in this day and age they should know about the movement of filming cops

  • Bob

    Email sent to Mayor Filner. The other officer needs to go down just as hard for not stepping in and protecting your rights. The Blue Line needs to be severed. Good luck!

  • Tijuana Joe

    “In the video below, Reinhold tells his friend that they are trained by
    the police department to suspect that cell phones can be converted into
    guns.”

    Trained? If this is “by the book,” there’s something wrong with the book.

    Robert Trivers wrote about this, the evolutionary advantage of self-deception.
    If you deceive yourself, and are in a position of authority, you can get away with anything.

  • Joe

    I find the comment “they are trained by the police department to suspect that cell phones can be converted into guns” just plane stupid. If that is the case, the officer would have drawn his weapon as soon as the phone became visible. So, was the officer following training by ignoring the potential weapon? Or was he only following training at the end where he knocked the phone out of the hands?

  • Howard Littell

    Here is the letter I sent the Mayor…

    After seeing the video how your police treat citizens, my wife and I are cancelling
    our planned trip to your city. It is simply too dangerous to be near your thugs.
    Perhaps if you fired them for giving unlawful orders about filming and for
    assaulting Mr. Pringle we would reconsider, but we all know that won’t
    happen.

  • Howard Littell

    My letter to the mayor…
    After
    seeing the video how your police treat citizens, my wife and I are cancelling
    our planned trip to your city. It is simply too dangerous to be near your thugs.
    Perhaps if you fired them for giving unlawful orders about filming and for
    assaulting Mr. Pringle we would reconsider, but we all know that won’t
    happen.

  • chipster

    if one cop can get away with it as an excuse then they all jump on the band wagon– I bet if they were no longer paid overtime for court you would see a clear docket on the court records..

  • LBrothers

    Just listen to this fucking idiot. He doesn’t believe this bullshit any more than anyone else – he just needs an excuse for escalating a nothing situation into a circus. Until these cops lose their qualified immunity and have to actually follow the law, this shit will not only continue but grow exponentially.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ndteegarden Nathan David Teegarden

    Make sure to plead not guilty to the BS obstruction charge.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matt.nastasi Matt Nastasi

    Cops lie all the time. They violate citizens’ rights with impunity. Many are little more than paid thugs. This “phone as a weapon” bullshit is ridiculous.

  • rick

    In that area are there any external security cameras you could see? It might be worthwhile to revisit the scene of the crime and take a look around. You might also want to post some fliers just in case someone has a camera pointing out a window.
    Don’t settle and Good luck!

  • VS

    Assault, Battery, abuse of power, impersonating a police officer. Fire him now!

  • http://www.facebook.com/staci.peters.3 Staci Peters

    How many of you live in San Diego? Law enforcement is fairly reasonable here. I will be happy to hear all sides before making some knee-jerk reactionary statement. Both parties need to be responsible for their actions. Period.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

      The video pretty much speaks for itself.

    • Craig Allen

      What the hell else do you have to see? The cop didn’t want to be filmed and LIED so he could take action. Very simple. How was the citizen not being responsible Staci?

      • http://www.facebook.com/staci.peters.3 Staci Peters

        Action was already being taken, as this person admitted. There was a citation in progress, yes?

        I really don’t want to be on the side of the police, but come on! Have a friend (that’s not being cited for anything) filming and you may have an argument.

        • JdL

          I really don’t want to be on the side of the police,

          I haven’t seen anything BUT unqualified support for the police from you so far. Or have I missed something?

          • http://www.facebook.com/staci.peters.3 Staci Peters

            See above.

        • Difdi

          Being cited for a civil infraction does not strip you of your constitutional rights.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1470078343 Marian L. Fisher

    Like the woman in the insurance commercial says, they can’t put anything on the internet that is untrue; so telephones CAN be made into a weapon…NOT!!!

  • Doug Bethea

    Sounds like Carlos Miller has a bone to pick with law enforcement!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

      Because I insist they abide by the law?

    • Craig Allen

      Sounds like you will defend bad cops no matter what.

    • JdL

      Sounds like Carlos Miller has a bone to pick with law enforcement!

      He sure does! Don’t you? Will you try to justify the behavior of these two “officers”, for example?

    • Difdi

      No, Carlos has a bone to pick with violent criminals.

  • Craig Allen

    One must remember, cops can claim obstruction or interference with official acts ANYTIME you fail to follow their orders… they know this and abuse the fuck out of it….. knowing nothing will usually come of their actions. Given our legal system, it is cost prohibitive for most people to follow thru with legal action to bring cops like this to a jury trial.

    • Difdi

      True only in that they can CLAIM anything. You could jaywalk in front of an officer and be charged with treason, but that doesn’t mean you committed treason.

      Not all orders an officer gives are lawful orders and only lawful orders must be obeyed. Examples of unlawful orders include ordering someone to not exercise their rights (federal crime) and ordering someone to violate the law.

  • matt

    That dumb cop really don’t know what is Samsung Galaxy at all?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=647684635 Carlos Miller

      Cops tend to be Blackberry users from what I’ve seen.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        Must be a Florida thing – most that I know either use an iPhone or a ‘Droid. I can’t remember any that use a Blackberry.

  • Dennis B

    Both Officers need to be bought up on charges and prosecuted! The problem at hand is the officers just didn’t want to be recorded! With the cell phone weapons their talking about, the cell phone has to be pointed at the target(antenna) the gun barrel would be the antenna! Enough is enough!

  • http://www.facebook.com/mike.moulder.5 Mike Moulder

    I found instructions on how to make a stun gun from an old phone, but nothing on making a firearm. Good luck on your proceedings Adam.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003526419876 KC Ted

    Just out of curiosity, I tried to google a cell phone converted into a weapon. I found only 1 instance, a phone was converted into a “stun gun”. Other warnings that a razor blade can be hidden in a battery compartment (hmm, dubious info). The only references I could find, even remotely bringing this to light, is police training documents and warnings.
    It seems that any reality of this, that can be “looked up online” is from the police themselves. I think it’s just contrived data to give LEO’s an out, when taking someone’s cell phone to avoid being video recorded.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bob.nau.3 Breanda Mc Cabe

    libertard douche bag

    • http://www.facebook.com/staci.peters.3 Staci Peters

      Poetic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/staci.peters.3 Staci Peters

    Law enforcement in this city is quite reasonable. As much as I want to be on the side of this ‘Pringle’ dude, if you’re being cited for anything…you need to try to be cooperative. If you’ve ever worked with the general public, you know they’re capable of anything. And yeah, maybe even a cell phone COULD be a weapon. Most likely it isn’t, but, people want to go home at night so there are boundaries. We can’t bring more than a few ounces of hair gel on a plane (for the past SEVERAL years) because it can explode. Quit your whining.

    • http://twitter.com/kenpoboot Ellen Moberly

      Um if he is referring to this…
      http://www.iacsp.com/deadly-decoys.html
      then he’s stupid. I’m very sure this mans ‘modern’ phone looks nothing like what has been converted. Give me a break.

    • JdL

      if you’re being cited for anything…you need to try to be cooperative.

      And, in your book, being “cooperative” means, giving up your right to record the encounter? Keep in mind, this is a very public exchange, and very relevant to any future defense, or to bringing charges against rogue officers.

      And yeah, maybe even a cell phone COULD be a weapon.

      And maybe a suitcase COULD contain a nuclear weapon.

      but, people want to go home at night so there are boundaries.

      There are boundaries for Mundanes, but not for cops, according to your apparent view of the world. Cops can use any excuse they please, no matter how implausible, to launch an attack on any citizen they please. Will that citizen go home at night? That’s an open question, after an interaction with a cop.

      We can’t bring more than a few ounces of hair gel on a plane (for the past SEVERAL years) because it can explode.

      Actually, hair gel can’t explode. And if you’re going to defend the predations of the TSA, you won’t find a sympathetic audience here. They’ve caught exactly how many terrorists? And done how well when testers successfully smuggle in obvious bomb parts? What a pathetic, expensive joke!

      • http://www.facebook.com/staci.peters.3 Staci Peters

        1. NO.

        2. No. Again.

        3. You are correct. It can’t. It was sarcasm. Good job!

        • JdL

          1. NO.

          2. No. Again.

          Are monosyllabic responses pointing at who knows where supposed to have some comprehensible meaning?

      • http://www.facebook.com/staci.peters.3 Staci Peters

        Had to re-read one last time before I made a final comment. I hope people get the hair gel comment as an indication of how complacent we have become. NOW we worry about our rights? Use some damn common sense in the first place, and a lot of things might go away. I’m going to do something productive, besides sitting behind a keyboard. Cheers!

    • steveo

      Actually this is a monumental event because this leo is saying that the SDPD is training leos to believe that cell phones could be guns or tasers. That would mean that a leo could create their own exigent circumstances to seize anyones smartphone and search it without a warrant. That shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone.

      For instance, a leo could stop you for a traffic stop, tell you to get out of the car, pat you down, take your cellphone out of your pocket and start going through it because he wants to maintain that he has exigent circumstance to seize and search the phone because it might be a weapon. So could a ham sandwich.

      That being said,make sure you password protect your phone and load all your recordings to Bambuser, Dropbox or some other service.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      Staci, I was a cop for over 20 years. The officer’s reason is BS. More concerning is the statement he made in the second video, that officer safety trumps the Constitution.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ryancfrench Ryan French

      (1) Law enforcement being reasonable in your city has nothing to do with this particular incident. That’s like me saying “officer I’m a pretty good person in general therefore I feel like I should get a free pass on this one.”

      (2) I will agree with you that the citizen was being uncooperative when refusing to put the camera away. If an officer told me to do a hand stand, I’d probably refuse and that would also make me “uncooperative.” Both of those are related because you don’t have to do them just because “the officer said so.” The camera did not inhibit the officer from writing the ticket, which he was already doing while his partner stood there for over a minute while his unsuspecting comrade was held at “phone point.”

      (3) The phone being a weapon is a really pathetic excuse. What next? Checking a tube of chap stick? That could fit a larger caliber. Bottom line, the officer didn’t really think it was a gun. If he did, he wouldn’t have casually asked him to put it away. He only pulled the weapon bullshit when he realized the citizen was aware of his right to record in public. If this were a fantasy world and the phone was indeed a weapon: Why wasn’t the other citizen recording after the arrest asked to surrender their phone as well?

      (4) Just because the police want “go home at night” doesn’t mean they have power to make up the law as they go along. I hold two dangerous jobs; a freelance news videographer and a real estate investor. Both sends me to the ghetto on a regular basis, sometimes by myself. I feel fairly safe because I carry a weapon and I train on it. There are times I feel uncomfortable but I don’t violate the rights of others because of my paranoia. The police have the same right to life as average citizens. Therefore, if an average citizen feels uncomfortable with you holding your phone, do you think they should be able to confiscate it from you? Or are you saying the police can decide the 4th Amendment does not apply to them?

      (5) Your comparison to hair gel on a plane is really comical. Flying on a commercial airliner is not a right and when you pay the ticket you agree to follow the established guidelines. If you don’t like it you can find another mode of transportation. Walking down the public sidewalk is a really, really different situation. It’s pretty sad I have to point that out to an adult. Let hope walking in public doesn’t require the same security procedures as a TSA checkpoint. Sounds like you’d be all for that. Not sure why.

      For the record.. I was police dispatcher, my grandfather is a cop and I am currently taking care of a deputy’s cat after he suffered a coma in a traffic accident. I am pro-police, but I am also pro-Constitution. It was written for a reason…

    • Difdi

      Cooperation yes. But cooperation does not include waiving constitutional rights or obeying unlawful orders.

  • steveo

    This leo also took the man’s property without a warrant and searched it. The Supreme Court has held that Fourth Amendment limitations on law enforcement officers’ authority to seize individuals’ property must be “scrupulously observed” when the item seized contains information protected by the First Amendment and “the basis for the seizure is disapproval of the message contained therein.” Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 655 (1980).

  • http://www.facebook.com/genibird2 Kathleen Pfeifle

    Great use of public funds, come on!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000147870548 Gary Muich

    Where do they get these pieces of shit cops? Bunch of cocky renegades! And nothing will be done to them!

  • steveo

    This is really a pretty important case because the leo is maintaining that the SDPD is training it’s officers that cell phones might be guns. Therefore, I guess, they are taking it upon themselves to create an exigent circumstance to seize anyones cell phone for that reason. More from the DOJ:

    “It is well established that individuals have a property interest in their cell phones that is protected by the Fourth Amendment. A government official’s intrusion into a private citizen’s personal effects constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure if the individual has a “possessory interest” in the property and the official engages in “some meaningful interference” with that interest. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).”

  • http://www.facebook.com/ron.allen.73345 Ron Allen

    I sincerely hope you take this to trial, and then make them pay in a civil suit as well.

  • yhw

    for what it’s worth– here is an email I just sent to the Mayor of SD. Thanks to Carlos and all the folks standing up for o