Can Police Sieze a Camera as "Evidence"?

[Waldo P. Emerson-Jones]

If someone takes video of police interacting with another, can the officer lawfully take the first person's camera as "evidence" without his consent? Assume the video arguably records a crime being committed (e.g., resisting arrest, assault, false arrest, etc.), the possessor of the camera is not charged or suspected of committing any crime, there's no warrant for the camera, and this takes place in Texas.

[Karl Hungus]

Warrant should be required. That is your personal property, and the state has no right to take it without your consent or due process.

That being said, there is how things should work and how things do work. Unless someone else has a camera there, the cop will likely do whatever he wants. If you insist on your rights, he is likely going to find a way to charge you for something--at which point he gets to seize the camera incident to an arrest and will likely search the contents (note-this is probably an illegal search under recent Court of Criminal Appeals precedent, but you probably have no remedy).

[ShysterJon]

I don't think there's a bright line rule that governs this situation. The rules regarding warrantless seizures apply. If the cops can show exigent circumstances, for example, then the warrantless seizure of a video camera that recorded images of a crime could be upheld. Exigent circumstances could include a concern that the images could be erased.

[Karl Hungus]

SJ is correct, but given that the subject of the evidence is the cop's behavior itself, it sure seems suspect, especially if the video in any way documents police abuse or exonerates the arrestee. While exigent circumstances may warrant seizure, it is certainly not a routine matter and you should ask why a warrant (or even just an agreement to preserve the evidence and/or send the file) would not be sufficient in lieu of surrendering your expensive piece of hardware containing all your personal stuff on it.

Unfortunately, this pattern is consistent with a bad cop trying to destroy evidence, and if they are dirty enough that they are willing to illegally seize and destroy evidence, you are probably totally fucked if you don't comply.

[Stud Daddy]

Most states allow (LEGALLY) the recording of Public Officials at work and during the performance of their duties. Police INCLUDED! The Courts have Always ruled against them when they have violated the law and taken cameras, etc. from civilians filming/recording them and NOT Posing a danger to the officers or themselves. (This is the Loophole they try and exploit when they Illegally Take the cameras and/or erase the data/pictures/videos contained therein or thereon.) You can Sue and You will Win in almost every instance. But you will still have undergone the acts, possible arrest and costs involved. Usually there is little Monetary Gain to be had from suing the Police Depts. But it makes for great Headlines and you will cause the Chief and Mayor a lot of public embarrassment.

More and more dept.s across America have been sued and lost. Some are getting the message, some are being Court Ordered to Get the Message. Bottom-line do what you feel needs to be done. But DON'T Get In the Cops Face, Don't Interfere with what they are doing, and whenever possible have a couple of credible witnesses on hand to support your version of events.

[ShysterJon]

Well, Stud Daddy, what we're talking about here is different from the case of a citizen filming the cops at work. We're talking about a citizen filming the commission of a crime.

[Mr. GPop]

I think where the line is drawn is if the cops pull you over and see the camera in the seat in plain site they probably can review its photos.. but if it is in a locked case or in the trunk, they have to get your consent and if you say no, then they will need a warrant. Now if you say no, they might hold onto you and your vehicle till they get the warrant if they believe you have something to hide.

The key is not to act like you have something to hide thus making them want to exercise that "exigent circumstances". You would be surprised at how easy it is to not get searched if you do not give them a reason to do so.

[Guest062114-5]

Originally Posted by Mr. GPop

I think where the line is drawn is if the cops pull you over and see the camera in the seat in plain site they probably can review its photos.. but if it is in a locked case or in the trunk, they have to get your consent and if you say no, then they will need a warrant. Now if you say no, they might hold onto you and your vehicle till they get the warrant if they believe you have something to hide.

The key is not to act like you have something to hide thus making them want to exercise that "exigent circumstances". You would be surprised at how easy it is to not get searched if you do not give them a reason to do so.

Huh?

What would be their basis to browse through your camera on a traffic stop? I guess you're right that they can ask to do anything and you can say know, but what would be the probable cause for a warrant?

Additionally, looking like you've got something to hide doesn't constitute "exigency circumstances." A scream from the hooker you have locked in your trunk...that would you be exigency circumstances.

[Karl Hungus]

OP suggested that the crime could have been "false arrest," which would hardly justify the cop who committed the crime from gathering evidence of his own criminal conduct under a warrantless exigent circumstances seizure. If it can be proven that the so-called exigent circumstances were merely a pretext to justify an otherwise illegal seizure, this cop could have a problem.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by LilMynx69

Huh?

I agree. There's no basis for stating that a cop can look through your camera or seize your camera without a warrant because it's on the seat while you're driving. That's just loopy.

I will again remind members: Unless you're a lawyer, or otherwise have some legal training, please don't render legal opinions. Thank you.

[happycamper]

http://www.youtube.com/user/WeddingPromotions/videos


This guy seems to like taunting the police videoing what they are doing.

I think he is a dick in some of them though.

[Guest062114-5]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

I agree. There's no basis for stating that a cop can look through your camera or seize your camera without a warrant because it's on the seat while you're driving. That's just loopy.

I will again remind members: Unless you're a lawyer, or otherwise have some legal training, please don't render legal opinions. Thank you.

Loopy. That is my new favorite legal term of art.

[LNK]

Originally Posted by LilMynx69

Loopy. That is my new favorite legal term of art.

Whack-a-doodle has always been mine, and is a synonym of Loopy.

[Mr. GPop]

Originally Posted by LilMynx69

Huh?

What would be their basis to browse through your camera on a traffic stop? I guess you're right that they can ask to do anything and you can say know, but what would be the probable cause for a warrant?

Additionally, looking like you've got something to hide doesn't constitute "exigency circumstances." A scream from the hooker you have locked in your trunk...that would you be exigency circumstances.

Thats what you get when you buy your duct tape from the dollar store

[Gotyour6]

They can do what ever the hell they want.