Godlike Productions - Reply to Thread

Users Online Now: 2,197 (Who's On?)	Visitors Today: 1,286,785
Pageviews Today: 2,137,549	Threads Today: 824	Posts Today: 14,595
09:05 PM

REPLY TO THREAD

Subject VIDEO: Man Tasered For Filming Warrantless Police Search

User Name

Font color: Font:

In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.

[quote:True AMERICAN!:MV80NTIxMTRfNzI2NzI3OV8yN0VDMjE2OA==]
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message471359/pg1

Do you REALLY care what happens in the USA?? Supreme Court considers Lawrence drug arrest case
	Quote

Topeka — Kansas Supreme Court justices on Tuesday vigorously questioned attorneys in a Lawrence case about when police can check on whether an individual has an outstanding warrant for their arrest.

The dispute, now a constitutional question before the Supreme Court, arose from the June 2005 arrest of Paul Martin near Trinity Episcopal Church, 1011 Vt.

Police said they came upon Martin, 37, while they were investigating whether someone was urinating nearby.

Martin wasn’t observed doing anything wrong, but an officer asked him his name and ran a check for an outstanding warrant. He had a probation violation, according to authorities, and was arrested.

When searched, he was found to have a mint tin of marijuana. Martin was later convicted of possession of marijuana and sentenced to six months in jail.

His attorney, Juanita Carlson, said the evidence of marijuana shouldn’t have been allowed at trial because the warrant check and subsequent search were illegal. Police must have a reasonable suspicion about a person before checking to see if that person has any outstanding warrants, Carlson argued.

“We are free as citizens to go about our business in this country,” she said.

But several justices questioned what the officer was supposed to do once he found out that there was an arrest warrant.

Justice Lee Johnson said the warrant is a judicial order to make an arrest, and that once police arrest someone they have to search them as a safety precaution.

But the justices also asked numerous questions of Douglas County Assistant District Attorney Brenda Clary.

Justice Carol Beier asked whether it is appropriate for a police officer to ask anyone their name in order to check to see if that person has an outstanding arrest warrant.

“It’s OK,” replied Clary.

Beier said she was at the Old-Fashioned Christmas Parade in Lawrence last week. She asked if an officer could have asked her for her name.

“Sure,” Clary said.

But Clary said that in a “voluntary encounter” with police, nothing prevents a person from walking away from an officer if they don’t want to cooperate.

Johnson, however, said most people wouldn’t feel like they were free to walk away from a uniformed, armed police officer who was asking them questions.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

[link to www2.ljworld.com]

you do realize, in cases such as murder, burglary, abuse, etc...... the courts are going to rule in favor of the authorities........ how can the court say no to a cop that may potentially grab up a wanted murderer or rapist????? they'll say, well as an 'innocent' american, cant you take two minutes of your time to prove your innocence on the spot..... this is not going to end well in any way shape or form....

i wasnt scared before, well kinda, but now im just pissed, weve seen how much eminent domain mattered to the courts......
[/quote]

Original Message A man from Portland Oregon is suing police for unlawful seizure with excessive force after officers fired a Taser and bean bag rounds at him when he refused to stop filming a warrantless search of his neighbour's property last year.

According to a report in The Oregonian, Frank Waterhouse claims that on May 27, 2006 he was brutally assaulted by police when officers followed a sniffer dog onto the property in pursuit of a fleeing suspect.

Waterhouse says that the dog keyed on a car, prompting officers to break out a window which upset residents who maintain that no one ran onto the property. It was at that point that an angry resident grabbed a video camera and started to film the police search.

The Oregonian report states:

When one woman was told to stop recording, she gave the videocamera to Waterhouse. He walked to the edge of the property, climbed up a dirt embankment and continued to record. At one point, he yelled to his friend, "Yes, I got it all on film. They had no right to come on this property."

He says in the suit that police immediately came after him, and yelled at him "put it down." Officers moved towards him, and he said, "Don't come after me." Waterhouse said seconds later he was shot with a bean bag gun and a Taser and fell to the ground.

Here is the video that Waterhouse shot. It ends with a female officer approaching him and firing taser darts into his body.

Despite the video evidence that ends with Waterhouse's painful screams, the police reports stated that Waterhouse had run away and that officers had to give chase, bean-bagging and tasering him in the process. One officer wrote, "He had refused to drop the camera which could be used as a weapon."

So police knew Waterhouse was not a suspect and that he was merely holding a camera. Is a camera an adequate match for tasers and guns?

Police arrested Waterhouse on charges of criminal trespass and disorderly conduct, which were later dismissed in court. Now Mr Waterhouse is suing the Portland Police Department.

Pictures (click to insert)





\| Next Page >>