Cop with gun versus Squid with camera.

[Bheckel169]

I've obviously just caught up with all 5 pages of this and it's not too surprising to see as many opinions pro and con about the behavior of the officer/squid as you would imagine. I can't imagine being a judge after hearing all sides and their attorneys.

The squid should get a ticket for speeding and the cop should do some self-evaluation about what just transpired. Hopefully, neither one of them will make the same mistakes (or perceived mistakes depending on your perspective)again.

Bruce

[Selden]

I do not object to the tactic of an unmarked car and a marked car teaming up, as described by bmwsit. I witnessed a high speed pursuit several years ago, while travelling south on GA 400. I saw a small pinpoint of light on road ahead, which rapidly became bigger; pretty soon I realized it was a sport bike, travelling northward on the shoulder of the southbound lane, followed by a police cruiser in hot pursuit. Scared the crap out of me to think what the head-on impact would be with a closing speed of 200 mph.

[AZKomet]

Give the officer a break. Geeeez.

 

I can't speak for others but, while I was surprised to see the gun pulled, the total picture that caused me to call was created by the subsequent search of the house after the officer discovered he was on YouTube. My initial reaction was one of disbelief that all this could be true, so I called to find out. The answer I got was "it's all being investigated" which led me to believe everyone's actions were being investigated.

 

Well PB I can tell you that things like this get attention from people who complain. And it wasn't an in your face 40 Glock scenario. Muzzle was well controlled and he meant business for sure. Off duty stop? Not a good idea...but hey, maybe he saved the A-holes life?

 

If you all are going to get riled up over this incident then there is a problem. And it is true that ID upon stop is an all important issue. However, like I said there were times when $hit went down so fast that one does not have time to do so.

 

And did you know that even if an LEO makes a wrongful arrest YOU CANNOT RESIST? Yep, even of the arrest is unlawful. LEO's have a lot of power. How they use it is always subject to review.

 

If I was under inquiry every time I pulled out my weapon I would still be in IA years after I retired.

 

People are funny. They want LEO's to act on things, and then when they do, people cry foul. I had an AK-47 pointed at me by a Cambodian Border officer who said he would shoot me. Yep...over a photo of the officer who had tried to get me to pay a bribe.

 

I suggest people go to Mexico, Nepal, Laos, Cambodia, etc. and have an encounter with the police. You will rethink complaining about this minor infraction (if you can call it that).

[OoPEZoO]

Question for our law enforcement brethren. After watching the video. If the guy took off, would the officer have justification to use his side arm?

 

If yes, then what would be the repercussions of shooting a suspect in the back for a run of the mill traffic citation?

 

If no, then why was the side arm removed from the holster at all?

[AZKomet]

Question for our law enforcement brethren. After watching the video. If the guy took off, would the officer have justification to use his side arm?

 

If yes, then what would be the repercussions of shooting a suspect in the back for a run of the mill traffic citation?

 

If no, then why was the side arm removed from the holster at all?

 

Of course not. Running from the LEO does not support a shooting. The justification for the firearm display is the unknown situation he may encounter.

 

If the offender was in church praying instead of acting like an A-hole we wouldn't even be talking about it in this thread would we?

[Kathy R]

Give the officer a break. Geeeez.

 

I can't speak for others but, while I was surprised to see the gun pulled, the total picture that caused me to call was created by the subsequent search of the house after the officer discovered he was on YouTube. My initial reaction was one of disbelief that all this could be true, so I called to find out. The answer I got was "it's all being investigated" which led me to believe everyone's actions were being investigated.

 

Well PB I can tell you that things like this get attention from people who complain. And it wasn't an in your face 40 Glock scenario. Muzzle was well controlled and he meant business for sure. Off duty stop? Not a good idea...but hey, maybe he saved the A-holes life?

 

If you all are going to get riled up over this incident then there is a problem. And it is true that ID upon stop is an all important issue. However, like I said there were times when $hit went down so fast that one does not have time to do so.

 

And did you know that even if an LEO makes a wrongful arrest YOU CANNOT RESIST? Yep, even of the arrest is unlawful. LEO's have a lot of power. How they use it is always subject to review.

 

If I was under inquiry every time I pulled out my weapon I would still be in IA years after I retired.

 

People are funny. They want LEO's to act on things, and then when they do, people cry foul. I had an AK-47 pointed at me by a Cambodian Border officer who said he would shoot me. Yep...over a photo of the officer who had tried to get me to pay a bribe.

 

I suggest people go to Mexico, Nepal, Laos, Cambodia, etc. and have an encounter with the police. You will rethink complaining about this minor infraction (if you can call it that).

 

Dave,

 

Journey with me and please get past the officer pulling the gun.

 

That was only step one, and isn't my focus. The part that I'm still eager to learn more about is why the home was searched and what that whole story is about? I'd be happier to know that it was all for a good legal reason. I was curious if the story was unfolding as weird as it sounded. The answer "investigation" tells me that the bulk of the story is what happened after the YouTube video appeared. That is the part that troubles, but we really don't know that whole story yet.

[notacop]

Amazing how the LEO's can say "oh, well, we don't have enough information and all sorts of good bs. The skinny weasel messed up and the system that is our law inforcement is alway too busy covering its' behind from all the duds they hired but can't fire because of the police union.

And the Judges! Didja know they are not responsible for their decisions? We is fookalated here folks. Dummies in charge.

We're just lucky most of us don't do bozo stuff when we ride and get into all sorts of we'd rather not.

[tallman]

Question for our law enforcement brethren. After watching the video. If the guy took off, would the officer have justification to use his side arm?

 

If yes, then what would be the repercussions of shooting a suspect in the back for a run of the mill traffic citation?

 

If no, then why was the side arm removed from the holster at all?

 

Of course not. Running from the LEO does not support a shooting. The justification for the firearm display is the unknown situation he may encounter.

 

If the offender was in church praying instead of acting like an A-hole we wouldn't even be talking about it in this thread would we?

 

Which brings me back to my question.

"Unknown" situation.

Just because a guy mumbles something about "state police" I take that as proof?

No.

If he was UC for traffic then a vest or something distinctive should have been easy to access.

A badge that hung around neck and was highly visible at the least.

To say that this incident was an unknown, that the rider may have just robbed a bank is disingenous IMO.

There is no cite of a radio call about a felony, then or now.

It was what it appeared to be and no more.

The unmarked car could have pulled in front and the driver remained inside.

The bike was blocked.

There was no reason for a weapon to be displayed.

At low ready or any other position.

If there was, why did this officer immediately holster his weapon and walk alongside the "bad guy" while looking to the rear where the other officer was?

At that point the "bad guy" could have resorted to a physical choice involving a weapon and the officer in mufti was toast, IMO.

That officer did not have the situation under control, nor himself.

I wonder if that officer responds to all speeding vehicles in the same manner?

Does he block a minivan with a female driving it when they exit the freeway and exit rapidly with a gun drawn?

I think we might know the answer to that.

 

Now, that said, there are circumstances where I would support actions like this.

But in this case any threat was over, the bike was slowed and then stopped, there wasn't a weapon displayed and there wasn't a dispatch message regarding a fleeing felon on a red motorcycle.

 

I've been stopped by a local PD car and had a gun stuck in my face.

He said I ran a stop light which I hadn't.

He stuck the gun in my face and threatened me.

I denied running the light and even told him that from where he was parked, in a credit union lot, his vision of the intersection and light was blocked.

He admitted that, surprisingly, put his gun in his holster and withdrew.

That officer no longer works for TPD, this was 31 years ago, but I remember it like it was yesterday.

But he was in uniform and driving a marked car.

There wasn't a question about who he was and I complied.

When a traffic stop escalates to the point of drawing a weapon I would hope that there was a legitimate need to do so and the officer is immediately identifiable as a LEO to avoid a tragic outcome.

[scout6]

Wow, I am glad the guy wasn't just back from a tour. Living with folks shooting at you every day changes your tripwires. When I first watched it, I could feel my clutch hand letting go as I prepared to take out the guy with a gun by motorcycle. How many soldiers are back off a tour in public today? Pulling a gun without identifying yourself first (with lights, a badge, whatever) is a sure fire way for someone to get dead fast. Not sure if the gun would have beat the bike, but.....

[Twisties]

Give the officer a break. Geeeez.

 

I can't speak for others but, while I was surprised to see the gun pulled, the total picture that caused me to call was created by the subsequent search of the house after the officer discovered he was on YouTube. My initial reaction was one of disbelief that all this could be true, so I called to find out. The answer I got was "it's all being investigated" which led me to believe everyone's actions were being investigated.

 

Well PB I can tell you that things like this get attention from people who complain. And it wasn't an in your face 40 Glock scenario. Muzzle was well controlled and he meant business for sure. Off duty stop? Not a good idea...but hey, maybe he saved the A-holes life?

 

If you all are going to get riled up over this incident then there is a problem. And it is true that ID upon stop is an all important issue. However, like I said there were times when $hit went down so fast that one does not have time to do so.

 

And did you know that even if an LEO makes a wrongful arrest YOU CANNOT RESIST? Yep, even of the arrest is unlawful. LEO's have a lot of power. How they use it is always subject to review.

 

If I was under inquiry every time I pulled out my weapon I would still be in IA years after I retired.

 

People are funny. They want LEO's to act on things, and then when they do, people cry foul. I had an AK-47 pointed at me by a Cambodian Border officer who said he would shoot me. Yep...over a photo of the officer who had tried to get me to pay a bribe.

 

I suggest people go to Mexico, Nepal, Laos, Cambodia, etc. and have an encounter with the police. You will rethink complaining about this minor infraction (if you can call it that).

 

Dave,

 

Journey with me and please get past the officer pulling the gun.

 

That was only step one, and isn't my focus. The part that I'm still eager to learn more about is why the home was searched and what that whole story is about? I'd be happier to know that it was all for a good legal reason. I was curious if the story was unfolding as weird as it sounded. The answer "investigation" tells me that the bulk of the story is what happened after the YouTube video appeared. That is the part that troubles, but we really don't know that whole story yet.

 

+1

 

I am interested in the LEO and Attorney opinions regarding the unsigned warrant. Do you think that there really was a valid warrant somewhere? How was it obtained and what led to this? Practicalities aside (I know, if you don't want your door broken, open it), is one legally obligated to comply with an unsigned warrant? Anyone ever serve one?

 

And then there is this whole issue of wiretapping charges against people recording in public. Look at the Haverkamp link. That blogger, this is his issue, this whole photographing of police activity. His links document that a number of people have been charged and CONVICTED on these charges. I have followed up on a number of them and they appear to be legitimate. It depends on the State, and whether camera is concealed. But, I submit there are greater issues involved that are very much worth discussion. I see these cases moving to the Supreme Court in the next few years.

 

Some QUESTIONS to consider:

 

Is photographing police action in the public interest?

 

Should this type of recording have protection under any of the Bill Rights?

 

Are some police agencies deliberately targeting recordings and using them to intimidate or otherwise harass?

 

What if your recorder is running when you have a LEO interaction in a public place? What must you do?

 

Could you be charged for recording in a public place without a LEO incident?

 

Moving on: What about the detention of non-suspects in serving the warrant? Standard practice or illegal?

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

Journey with me and please get past the officer pulling the gun.

 

That was only step one, and isn't my focus. The part that I'm still eager to learn more about is why the home was searched and what that whole story is about? I'd be happier to know that it was all for a good legal reason. I was curious if the story was unfolding as weird as it sounded. The answer "investigation" tells me that the bulk of the story is what happened after the YouTube video appeared. That is the part that troubles, but we really don't know that whole story yet

 

Yes. Folks seem to have lost sight of what strikes me as the abuse of power.

 

I don't know Maryland law, but I imagine the officer was within his rights to arrest the motorcyclist. It seems a bit extreme, but maybe the officer did think the motorcyclist would do something crazy.

 

What I find truly offensive isn't any part of the stop, but the questionable attestation of PC to obtain a search warrant for evidence of this (Maryland state) wiretapping charge. From the surface, it seems entirely punitive and vindictive, and that's the sort of behavior -- the naked abuse of authority -- that we should most be concerned about with situations like this.

[Selden]

Journey with me and please get past the officer pulling the gun.

 

That was only step one, and isn't my focus. The part that I'm still eager to learn more about is why the home was searched and what that whole story is about? I'd be happier to know that it was all for a good legal reason. I was curious if the story was unfolding as weird as it sounded. The answer "investigation" tells me that the bulk of the story is what happened after the YouTube video appeared. That is the part that troubles, but we really don't know that whole story yet.

Thank you for returning us to the real question. It's too soon to say what's going on here, since this apparently only happened a few days ago.

[AZKomet]

Journey with me and please get past the officer pulling the gun.

 

That was only step one, and isn't my focus. The part that I'm still eager to learn more about is why the home was searched and what that whole story is about? I'd be happier to know that it was all for a good legal reason. I was curious if the story was unfolding as weird as it sounded. The answer "investigation" tells me that the bulk of the story is what happened after the YouTube video appeared. That is the part that troubles, but we really don't know that whole story yet

 

That's why we have the courts to stop things that are abusive. To me...this whole thing is not warranting this much attention. 1000's of situations like this are encountered by LEO's each day. Abuse? I think not.

 

Yes. Folks seem to have lost sight of what strikes me as the abuse of power.

 

I don't know Maryland law, but I imagine the officer was within his rights to arrest the motorcyclist. It seems a bit extreme, but maybe the officer did think the motorcyclist would do something crazy.

 

What I find truly offensive isn't any part of the stop, but the questionable attestation of PC to obtain a search warrant for evidence of this (Maryland state) wiretapping charge. From the surface, it seems entirely punitive and vindictive, and that's the sort of behavior -- the naked abuse of authority -- that we should most be concerned about with situations like this.

[ghaverkamp]

Yes. Folks seem to have lost sight of what strikes me as the abuse of power.

 

With my limited set of facts, it appears to me that an officer who was upset that his heavy-handed traffic stop was videotaped and shown on YouTube decided to retaliate by trumping up wiretapping charges, which, among other things, require there to have been surreptitious recording of a private conversation.

 

Using that lie (I'm sure the officer would claim it's a "misunderstanding" or that the law about "private conversations" is unsettled, in an attempt to be covered under qualified immunity) to obtain a search warrant to enter the person's home, largely to harass (or fish for more against the guy) seems pretty clearly to me to be an abuse of power.

 

And this is for a little thing. What would he do for a big thing?

[AZKomet]

Yes. Folks seem to have lost sight of what strikes me as the abuse of power.

 

With my limited set of facts, it appears to me that an officer who was upset that his heavy-handed traffic stop was videotaped and shown on YouTube decided to retaliate by trumping up wiretapping charges, which, among other things, require there to have been surreptitious recording of a private conversation.

 

Using that lie (I'm sure the officer would claim it's a "misunderstanding" or that the law about "private conversations" is unsettled, in an attempt to be covered under qualified immunity) to obtain a search warrant to enter the person's home, largely to harass (or fish for more against the guy) seems pretty clearly to me to be an abuse of power.

 

And this is for a little thing. What would he do for a big thing?

 

Greg, you say you are not familiar with Maryland law. There are many cases of men and women wiretapping their spouse (cheating suspicions) in their own homes. There are convictions saying that you cannot wiretap a 3rd party even in your own home. If the law says that video/audio taping is illegal under these circumstances then what is the problem with charging the suspect. And I could give a rat's a$$ about this case. Not so sure I agree with you about the LEO lying to get a charge filed. I do have problem with curbside lawyering when nobody knows all the facts.

[ghaverkamp]

Greg, you say you are not familiar with Maryland law. There are many cases of men and women wiretapping their spouse (cheating suspicions) in their own homes. There are convictions saying that you cannot wiretap a 3rd party even in your own home. If the law says that video/audio taping is illegal under these circumstances then what is the problem with charging the suspect. And I could give a rat's a$$ about this case. Not so sure I agree with you about the LEO lying to get a charge filed. I do have problem with curbside lawyering when nobody knows all the facts.

 

I do know what Maryland's wiretapping statute says is prohibited, and that's interception of oral communications without consent of both parties, where oral communications consist of a private conversation. Now, no officer in the country is generally going to consider two people they're listening to on the side of the road to be having a private conversation requiring a warrant. (Maryland uses a REP test to determine whether a conversation is "private.")

 

So, that means that this officer would have to believe he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his communication with the motorcyclist in order for him to have probable cause that the wiretap statute was violated. Therefore, even with these limited facts, it's more than just "curbside lawyering" to suggest that the cop is lying. If he's not lying, perhaps he just doesn't know the law (he did misstate it in his report), so instead of lying, he's angry and stupid.

 

I'm not sure how people failing to pay attention to these things would prevent them from happening in the future. There's one thing that's very certain: left unchecked, government agents will keep taking ground away from citizens.

[ericfoerster]

I'll agree the after-stop activities are shocking. One kind of wonders if that issue could not have been handled with a phone call...."Hey guy, it's against the law here to post that officer on the net....lets see if we can get that taken down before legal action is needed, thanks"

[Twisties]

Greg, you say you are not familiar with Maryland law. There are many cases of men and women wiretapping their spouse (cheating suspicions) in their own homes. There are convictions saying that you cannot wiretap a 3rd party even in your own home. If the law says that video/audio taping is illegal under these circumstances then what is the problem with charging the suspect. And I could give a rat's a$$ about this case. Not so sure I agree with you about the LEO lying to get a charge filed. I do have problem with curbside lawyering when nobody knows all the facts.

 

I do know what Maryland's wiretapping statute says is prohibited, and that's interception of oral communications without consent of both parties, where oral communications consist of a private conversation. Now, no officer in the country is generally going to consider two people they're listening to on the side of the road to be having a private conversation requiring a warrant. (Maryland uses a REP test to determine whether a conversation is "private.")

 

So, that means that this officer would have to believe he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his communication with the motorcyclist in order for him to have probable cause that the wiretap statute was violated. Therefore, even with these limited facts, it's more than just "curbside lawyering" to suggest that the cop is lying. If he's not lying, perhaps he just doesn't know the law (he did misstate it in his report), so instead of lying, he's angry and stupid.

 

I'm not sure how people failing to pay attention to these things would prevent them from happening in the future. There's one thing that's very certain: left unchecked, government agents will keep taking ground away from citizens.

 

The rider was taping in public, on a public street, with an obvious (non-concealed) camera. He did not set out to tape the incident, but was interrupted in his taping of his ride, and given no opportunity to stop taping.

 

Is it illegal to run a helmet cam when you ride on a public street? What are you supposed to do when pulled over and your camera is running? Does the LEO need to inform you that he is taping you with his dashboard camera? What about stores, and parking lots running cameras?

[AZKomet]

I agree the gov needs to be kept in check. The issue at hand is wiretapping. Public street? Doesn't matter. In AZ only ONE party needs to be aware of the taping. In some states BOTH (all) parties must know.

 

Ever wonder why you get that warning on a phone call to the bank, credit card co. etc. that says: "This call will be recorded?" Well there is a reason for it. Not giving that info can be a state violation of law regarding wiretapping.

[Twisties]

I agree the gov needs to be kept in check. The issue at hand is wiretapping. Public street? Doesn't matter. In AZ only ONE party needs to be aware of the taping. In some states BOTH (all) parties must know.

 

Ever wonder why you get that warning on a phone call to the bank, credit card co. etc. that says: "This call will be recorded?" Well there is a reason for it. Not giving that info can be a state violation of law regarding wiretapping.

 

Hi Dave,

 

I think it does matter. The courts have held there is an expectation of privacy when using a private phone line. There is none in public. Maryland is a two-party State, but the law only applies to private conversation.

 

But meanwhile I still want to know about this unsigned warrant? I've been checking around. Seems like this is a major no no. The idea that the warrant was signed, but that the party to be searched couldn't see the signed version, or know who the judge was seems wholly out of line to me. Have you ever heard of anything like that?

[ghaverkamp]

But meanwhile I still want to know about this unsigned warrant? I've been checking around. Seems like this is a major no no. The idea that the warrant was signed, but that the party to be searched couldn't see the signed version, or know who the judge was seems wholly out of line to me. Have you ever heard of anything like that?

 

It will come down to state laws. There's no Fourth Amendment right to be presented with a warrant prior to the search. See US v. Grubbs:

 

U.S. v. Grubbs[/i]]This argument assumes that the executing officer must present the property owner with a copy of the warrant before conducting his search. See 377 F. 3d, at 1079, n. 9. In fact, however, neither the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure imposes such a requirement. See Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U. S. 551, 562, n. 5 (2004). "The absence of a constitutional requirement that the warrant be exhibited at the outset of the search, or indeed until the search has ended, is ... evidence that the requirement of particular description does not protect an interest in monitoring searches." United States v. Stefonek, 179 F. 3d 1030, 1034 (CA7 1999) (citations omitted). The Constitution protects property owners not by giving them license to engage the police in a debate over the basis for the warrant, but by interposing, ex ante, the "deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer . . . between the citizen and the police." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 481-482 (1963), and by providing, ex post, a right to suppress evidence improperly obtained and a cause of action for damages.

 

 

[Indy Dave]

 

I suggest people go to Mexico, Nepal, Laos, Cambodia, etc. and have an encounter with the police. You will rethink complaining about this minor infraction (if you can call it that).

 

So this cliche is some legal justification for what happened?

 

This is exactly why this is so alarming, Dave. This is none of those places.

[MotorinLA]

I heard him say "state police."

 

Is there a video with sound?

 

What seems to have escaped everyone's attention is that something behind the rider obviously draws the rider's attention prior to the stop. This is evident as the rider turns his head and looks behind him at 3:00. This suggests that the rider knew he was being stopped before the unmarked unit pulled up next to him. The rider also turns his handlebars to the right as the unmarked unit pulls up on his right, again suggesting that he may have been looking to run. This is further supported by the fact that the rider is already backing up, BEFORE the UC officer opens his door.

 

Why does the UC officer unholster his weapon? Because he has a suspect who is giving him the appearance of being non-compliant and intending to flee. The officer’s badge is clearly uncovered as he stands next to the rider, not the best identification, but certainly not as non-existent as some here have claimed.

 

Baring apparently strange, and possibly unconstitutional, laws in MD about recording in public and actions that occurred after the traffic stop, I see very little that was wrong in the video.

 

Could the first words out of the officer’s mouth have been “Police Officer!”? Absolutely. Did he act inappropriately other than that (speaking here about the traffic stop)? Not in my opinion.

 

People love to tell police officers when it is appropriate, or more commonly inappropriate, for an officer to draw their firearm. Until you’ve worked as a LEO, I suggest you refrain from condemning officers based on what you as a private citizen deem necessary, or unnecessary. I don’t tell other professionals how to do their job, but somehow a large number of people think they have a right to tell me how to do mine.

 

/rant

 

[ratfink]

Seems inappropriate to brandish a firearm in this instance.

 

I was always taught by WW2 vets with some experience in shooting people, not to draw on anyone unless I intended to send some hot lead in their direction.

 

Even if this motorcyclist would have atempted to flee I don't think it would have warranted discharge of a firearm.

 

It also seems that when one embarks on a career serving the public that they should expect their actions to be subject to review by....well, the public.

[AZKomet]

 

I suggest people go to Mexico, Nepal, Laos, Cambodia, etc. and have an encounter with the police. You will rethink complaining about this minor infraction (if you can call it that).

 

So this cliche is some legal justification for what happened?

 

This is exactly why this is so alarming, Dave. This is none of those places.

 

Oh boy. I for one know that. What all of you are missing is that the rights of suspects also go to the rights of victims. There is an expectation of privacy even in the street setting and YOU as a victim would not want to be taped secretly would you? Photos and the like are fair game but audio is a different story. My point to that comment about foreign countries is it seems like everyone forgets the CHECKS and BALANCES here in the USA with the CJ system. Other countries DO NOT have the same protections as we do.

 

What you and others may not know is that LEOs are subject to a different civil and criminal standard when it comes to civil and criminal tortuous behaviors. An LEO can be found not guilty (or not be charged at all) and then be prosecuted at the federal level on a host of CIVIL and CRIMINAL charges. The double jeopardy rules do not apply to them in this regard.

 

This also holds true to complaints that do not get investigated by the LEO's department. The DOJ can be brought in via a complaint by the subject who claims harm. I am not totally agreeing with the scenario here. But I also know very well of the reporting tactics of the news media. To say the least it is convluted and distorted many times for sensationalism.

 

I too have been in IA for use of force and "other" charges and was clean. I also have been a defendant in federal court for use of force and civil rights violations so don't go and think that I have no idea as to what can happen even with just an allegation of abuse of power. Been there, done that. What irks me about all of this discussion is everyone's two cents and wasted efforts on the LEO's actions. If the perp thinks that he has been wronged then let the system work (you know the ones that are not in foreign countries) and let us see the outcome based on EVIDENCE and not conjecture. To me this topic is mob mentality to say the least. Sure, we can all debate and that's fine b/c I for one love to do that. To say that the LEO is wrong and not have any supporting evidence is tabboo and should not be a topic of crucifixion of him or anyone else. Let's put our doctors up for review next shall we?

 

I mean, hey if someone who is not a dr. wants to tell me how they were wronged by theirs and you can validate it with evidence then I am game. But if your a plumber trying to chastise your dr. for a botched medical procedure then by all means let's go that route too. Pretty silly if you ask me.

 

There is a case in Phx were a city councilman (black) was arrested by a white officer. The councilman claims racism. The Phx PD asked the DOJ to investigate the claim to see if there is any merit to the claim. So, no we do not live in a 3rd world country, and no we as LEO's do not have the right to kick anyone around to the point that it is unlawful criminally or civilly. But here in the USA we have protective measures for all. Why don't we just f/u on this story later and get the end results?

 

My new career is teaching CJ classes to include criminal law and search and seizure. Not once will you hear me say to the students: "As a LEO you have impunity to operate in a manner inconsistent with the state and federal constitutions. So please, feel free to violate everyone's rights out there b/c nothing will happen to you." I for one know that this is the furthest from the truth. Until you have been charged as a defendant in federal court, wait 5 years for the outcome, then and only then can you tell me that I am off base here.

 

 

[upflying]

 

I was always taught by WW2 vets with some experience in shooting people, not to draw on anyone unless I intended to send some hot lead in their direction.

 

Would you rather have LEO's wait until the suspect draws before the officer is permitted to display the firearm at low ready?

[Chad F.]

Seems inappropriate to brandish a firearm in this instance.

 

I was always taught by WW2 vets with some experience in shooting people, not to draw on anyone unless I intended to send some hot lead in their direction.

 

Even if this motorcyclist would have atempted to flee I don't think it would have warranted discharge of a firearm.

 

Wouldn't it depend if that officer felt his life was put in jeopardy or was in fear of serious bodily harm? Several her on this thread said that they would pop the clutch and be gone. How much control with that bike under stress does that rider have? Does he charge at the officer with the bike which would be a weapon at that time?

 

People love to tell police officers when it is appropriate, or more commonly inappropriate, for an officer to draw their firearm. Until you’ve worked as a LEO, I suggest you refrain from condemning officers based on what you as a private citizen deem necessary, or unnecessary. I don’t tell other professionals how to do their job, but somehow a large number of people think they have a right to tell me how to do mine..

+1

 

Law Enforcement is a career where 95% of the time people hate to see you. The other 5%... you took too long to get here; you didn't find my stuff; can’t you just stop this crazy motorcycle rider before he kills someone?

 

Sort of like this community, 95% of the members support Law Enforcement, the other 5% you can't please. In this thread it really doesn't matter what any LEO says, they're wrong.

 

 

 

[bobbybob]

Seems inappropriate to brandish a firearm in this instance....

Even if this motorcyclist would have atempted to flee I don't think it would have warranted discharge of a firearm.

 

To me, this sums it up. I've been stopped a couple of times and no guns have ever been pulled. Even if the cyclist fled the scene, no gun should be pulled. You can't legally use deadly force against someone for fleeing, unless you are sure they intend to do deadly harm to others.

 

Since that short span before he re-holstered his gun was not long enough to *really* determine if the suspect was a danger, I believe that says he realized he had overreacted a little.

 

 

Edit: I watched the vid one last time in full screen mode, and, I hate to say it but I really think the officer was relishing in his new "undercover mode", from his demeanor and body language. Just my opinion...anyone else get that also?

[tallman]

Dave,

I for one focus on what this officer did in this case.

I'm not extrapolating.

I would wonder whether it is the first time this officer pulled his weapon in a traffic stop.

If not, is there a pattern of when and which type of vehicle stop he pulls a weapon?

 

It is my understanding, correct me if wrong, that an off-duty officer must clearly identify themself as a police officer before any action that they might do if they were on duty.

An off-duty police officer is a private citizen and subject to restraint as such until clearly identifying themself.

 

This officer did not do so until he was in close proximity to the rider.

To me his badge is never clearly visible.

Is he required to wear his badge and gun while off-duty?

Or, was he looking for a reason to use them?

I would like to see facts about other off-duty incidents, if any, involving this officer.

Second guessing, maybe.

But the situation was under the control of the marked cruiser.

All the officer in mufti did was escalate the situation.

I didn't see the officer from the cruiser run up with a weapon pointed at the rider, or did I miss that?

Please don't give me the unless you do the job you don't know hwat it is like speech.

I understand that.

But that being said, I do understand that in this case there weren't exigent circumstances.

Worst case, w/out his involvement, another squid sped away from a traffic stop.

Worst case with his weapon out, many possible scenarios that woudl result in bodily injury.

I predict the officer will be disciplined.

I predict the search and seizure will be thrown out.

I predict the rider will sue and settle for a medium sum of money.

I predict the Maryland State Police will institute new policy for off duty officers and traffic stops.

But what do I know, I voted for Dewey.

 

[RPG]

We've also had several case recently, one a repeat offender, of police impersonators.

 

 

And we recently had a woman raped at Metro Airport near Detroit. She was broken down on the freeway and two men impersonating plain clothes officers took advantage.

 

My initial gut reaction of the 'cop' pulling the gun in the video is a robbery about to happen.

 

 

RPG

[tallman]

 

I was always taught by WW2 vets with some experience in shooting people, not to draw on anyone unless I intended to send some hot lead in their direction.

 

Would you rather have LEO's wait until the suspect draws before the officer is permitted to display the firearm at low ready?

 

From Duval County (Jax, Florida)

"Sheriff's Office policy prohibits officers from firing at a moving vehicle other than as a last resort to prevent death or great bodily harm to the officer or another person; as a last resort to prevent escape of a felon who would pose imminent threat of death or great bodily harm; and when authorized by a watch commander or higher authority."

 

42 shots fired at bank robber who car jacked a vehicle wounding innocent victims.

Link

 

He was a suspect?

In what?

He was a traffic violator, plain and simple.

Was he read his rights?

I didn't think so.

There was a cruiser on scene.

Why did that officer act differently?

Could it be that 2 police officers had totally differnt views of the rider?

No amount of what ifs, in this case, justify what happened.

I think the proof of that is the overt issuance of a warrant and the search and seizure at the house.

[AZKomet]

Please refer to my above post. I do not believe that the defendant will win a dime. Risk Mgt will defer it to a suit if a claim is filed. The claim is required prior to a suit.

 

And it is true if you have never been in these scenarios you have not a right to make a determination of wrong doing. That is not anyone's job on this forum.

 

And to take the LEO's past record on T stops and compare it to this is absurd. Like I said....let's see what happens here. Maybe not as much as you would like to see maybe?

 

And did you know that EVERY Maricopa County Deputy Sheriff is required to carry a weapon and badge even while off duty? Yep, it is a violation of policy not to do so.

 

And I have fired officers for lack of judgement etc. If the officer is fired then there is reason for that. Til then I am going to remain silent and let the crowd here get the noose and have their way with him. Are you first in line?

 

 

One more thing....in the civil world the standard of wrong doing by an LEO is that they (LEO) must show malice and intent of what is called a "black heart". Did you see any of that here? Like I said, I give give a crap about the case here. Many more out there like it. What I do not like is prejudicial and condemming behaviors w/o facts.

[tallman]

Dave,

I have been in these scenarios.

Each time I was on the other end of the gun, and it wasn't at low ready.

You're right, time, facts, and lawyers will resolve this.

 

Carrying a gun and badge isn't the same as identifying yourself as a police officer if the badge isn't in plain sight.

 

I will say that if there is a pattern of these types of off duty stops with this officer he may need guidance before someone is killed as a result of his actions.

[Mike]

I guess I'd consider myself a pro-law enforcement sort of guy. Most LEOs are great people, and I agree with Dave when he says that those who haven't done the job can't fully comprehend the difficulty and danger that occasionally presents itself.

 

There's much we apparently don't know about the events depicted in the video, and I have to assume that the officers involved were aware of the tendency of some to flee and of others to resist violently. Did the cop handle the situation in the optimal fashion? Nope, at least not from the perspective offered by the video. It's almost always preferable to identify yourself as a law enforcement officer before approaching a subject with your gun drawn. My take on it is that the officer goofed in this regard. But, adrenaline was pumping and we don't know everything the officer knew or saw before he appeared emerging from his car. There's an easy enough fix, though--the next day, his supervisor gets to chew him out. Probably should document it, too. But the guy is human and, all things considered, it wasn't the worst he could have done--after all, this all unfolded in a matter of seconds, in a situation where the cop apparently believed something was happening that justified the potential use of deadly force.

 

What I come back to, though, is the whole notion that the posting of the video was followed by an apparent attempt to punish the motorcyclist for exposing the officer's behavior publicly. First, as others have noted, an officer executing an arrest on a public street has no legal expectation of privacy. Second, the subject had a doggone video camera ON HIS FRIGGIN' HELMET, for God's sake. Surely, between that and, perhaps, the likelihood that the marked squad had a dash-mounted camera, there's no way that the plainclothes cop could have had any expectation of privacy. Truthfully . . . and I think most others in law enforcement would concur with this . . . you have to go into any encounter with a subject or suspect with the expectation that you're being being taped. It's happened to me, and it's happened to others. So, please, spare us any expectation of privacy arguments.

 

The officer may have goofed in the high-stress environment of a trafic stop, but that's not what concerns me. People make mistakes in situations like this and we are, after all, Monday morning quarterbacking with the benefit of instant replay and slow motion. That's unrealistic.

 

The subsequent search and detention are the real issues here, not the encounter on the off-ramp. It surely appears to be an effort to punish a citizen for engaging in the entirely legal behavior of criticizing a law enforcement officer and subjecting him to the embarrassment of sharing the proof of his purported misbehavior with the public. If that's in fact what happened, it's outrageous.

[David]

That's a good summary, Mike, and it's what Greg's been pointing out, too.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

My initial gut reaction of the 'cop' pulling the gun in the video is a robbery about to happen.

 

I was thinking more of road rage, which is even scarier. Robbery? His goal is to take your wealth do what he says, and there's a good chance you'll come through unscathed. Road rage? The guy who just pulled in front of you and stepped out with gun drawn is pissed at you and his goal is to hurt you; your odds of bodily harm are, I think, much higher than if it's a robbery. All the more reason to flee the scene or attempt to physically defend yourself.

 

My guilty pleasure is watching "Cops," so I've seen plenty of traffic stops where the cops walk up on the vehicle with guns in that "low-ready" position. I'm not real bothered by the gun being drawn in this particular case, but the delayed self-ID by the officer is troubling; failure to ID self as cop immediately upon drawing his weapon is likely to escalate the situation. Nothing really bad came of it this time, but if you're trying to convince a subject not to flee or resist, presenting yourself to him as nothing more than an anrgy commuter with a gun strikes me as bad policy.

 

And of course the wiretapping charge and related search is really ludicrous.

[Indy Dave]

Other professionals don’t have the ability to lock you up and trump up charges or search your house and remove private property and hold it for months or years. And yes Dave, we have a “system of checks and balances”. As you well know – sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. I can bet you have argued it both ways, which is a indicator that not all comes out in the wash. During the meanwhile, lots of things happen – seldom is any of it positive. And things are never as they were before once the system is finished and when and/or if seized items are returned. Seizing all this guys computers, I don’t know about you, but I run a business from my computers, not to mention monitor my elderly mother’s prescriptions, medication and health care files. I pay her bills on line and there’s a lot of financial information. What, pray tell, gives LEO any right to sift through this info? To say it’ll all come out because of checks and balances is somewhat disingenuous.

 

Yes . . The rider does look over his head. But none of the other vehicles ahead have pulled over, and in fact the rider IS to the side of the road, allowing for the officer to get by. I doubt he thought he was the one being sought, as has been pointed out, he did nothing more then speeding (and at the mostly keeping up with traffic) after having passed the marked unit in the median and the unmarked unit on the road. If I were the guy on the bike and a car did what the unmarked car did, I would have started to back up to! That this rider did that does not a felon make, my friend.

 

The unmarked cop’s facial expressions seem full of pent up aggression. As has been mentioned, hard to see this go down the same way by replacing the bike with a female in a minivan.

 

[bobbybob]

The unmarked cop’s facial expressions seem full of pent up aggression.

 

I saw that also--wondered if anyone else picked up on it. He was just plain pissed!

[Dennis Andress]

I'm thinking that this is a modern interpretation of the pen being mightier than the sword.

[rgraham]

It looked to me that the plainclothes cop saw the approaching squad car, and kind of slyly slid his weapon back into his holster. The way he kind of turned away from their view of the situation. I think he knew what he was doing was not cool in regards to drawing his weapon. I'd have beat it out of there the moment the guy cuts in front of me. Even if the

[marcopolo]

The subsequent search and detention are the real issues here, not the encounter on the off-ramp. It surely appears to be an effort to punish a citizen for engaging in the entirely legal behavior of criticizing a law enforcement officer and subjecting him to the embarrassment of sharing the proof of his purported misbehavior with the public. If that's in fact what happened, it's outrageous.

 

Bingo. That is indeed the issue. The simple fact that they went to all this extra effort to further harass the guy suggests pretty strongly (to me at least) that they felt the officer's actions were open to criticism. Personally, I don't understand why a police officer would even draw a gun in this instance (I'll acknowledge here that I live where it would seem police draw their weapons far less frequently that south of the border). The officer observed a guy speeding, popping wheelies and riding somewhat recklessly. That said, what in the rider's behaviour justifies a drawn gun? Is it simply that the bar for drawing a weapon is much lower for police in the U.S.?

[Twisties]

Picking up on a theme several have mentioned: In so far as I am concerned the civilian control of the police and military is central to concept of a democratic republic which operates under the rule of law. Indeed, I think the central concepts of our idea of Police and Military forces as existing to protect us and to serve us, as opposed to enforce the will of the rulers, is a hallmark of our society and a central tenant of what we call "Freedom."

 

I can understand that civilian authority can sometimes rankle those in our services (see even the word, "services") and that civilian oversight may need to be educated by the professionals we employ, however, I would also encourage those who choose to serve in the forces, and particularly the various domestic law enforcement agencies, to recognize the necessary and valid role of the civilian point of view.

 

There must always exist a balance between authority and freedom, between letting a criminal go (accepting a risk to society) and using extreme measures and authority to effect capture (accepting a different risk to society). This balance is properly expressed by the civilian's will, and it is the lot of the LEO to respect the limits we place on them, and operate within those limits.

 

In the present case the officer uses his vehicle as a weapon in a dangerous manner w/o provocation, and without identifying himself as a LEO, and without attempting a proper stop first. He then, again without even the slightest sign of aggression or non-compliance draws his weapon and advances, still not having identified himself.

 

I think we who have chosen to write here, or write to the proper authorities are saying to the LEOs, who we respect as having a difficult job to do, that this incident crosses a line and reflects a level of authority that is unacceptable to us as the civilians you serve and protect. Primarily because the officer chose techniques that escalated risk rather than minimized them, over a minor infraction that did not pose serious risk to the public.

 

It is very reassuring that nearly everyone here sees the aftermath as unacceptable.

[tallman]

LOWERING PURSUIT INDUCED ADRENALINE OVERLOADS:

 

I found the article to be a refreshing insight into the situation.

Although not technically a high speed pursuit, I think the officer involved showed signs of high adrenaline levels and this may be why he had difficulty, IMO, in articulating the fact that he was a police officer.

[Quinn]

I'm just wondering if there is a dash cam from the police car that would give another perspective. I would think nowadays LEOs would be used to being taped while performing their duties. They certainly can't have any expectation of privicy on Cops.

 

---

 

 

[russell_bynum]

The officer observed a guy speeding, popping wheelies and riding somewhat recklessly.

 

I have seen absolutely zero evidence that either the marked or unmarked LEO saw anything more than very mild speeding.

[Indy Dave]

LOWERING PURSUIT INDUCED ADRENALINE OVERLOADS:

 

I found the article to be a refreshing insight into the situation.

Although not technically a high speed pursuit, I think the officer involved showed signs of high adrenaline levels and this may be why he had difficulty, IMO, in articulating the fact that he was a police officer.

 

Thanks for the link, interesting info for all.

 

 

 

I'm just wondering if there is a dash cam from the police car that would give another perspective. I would think nowadays LEOs would be used to being taped while performing their duties.

 

 

Yes . . . I think a dash cam would provide interesting insight. Perhaps coincidence, but the plain clothes guy holsters as he notices the marked unit (probably with dash cam) arrive. Based on the longer video, I think it would be even tougher to justify the actions, given that things were pretty normal by the time the rider came up on both of the units, so the dash cam would show very little out of the ordinary ~ at least as far as riding goes ~ IMO.

[MotorinLA]

Seems inappropriate to brandish a firearm in this instance.

 

I was always taught by WW2 vets with some experience in shooting people, not to draw on anyone unless I intended to send some hot lead in their direction.

 

Even if this motorcyclist would have atempted to flee I don't think it would have warranted discharge of a firearm.

 

You prove my point that you have no experience in law enforcement with your statements. The reason the officer has his weapon drawn in not for the fleeing possibility, it's for the run-you-down-with-my-motorcycle possibility. The officer is displaying his firearm to show the violator that he is prepared to answer a use of deadly force with his own use of deadly force. He holsters his gun when the motorcycle is turned off and the immediate threat of deadly force is removed. Very appropriate.

 

Comparing military procedure with police tactics is also silly. They are governed by completely different rules of engagement and in general subject to completely different jurisdictions. The Geneva Convention applies to war, not domestic law enforcement.

 

It also seems that when one embarks on a career serving the public that they should expect their actions to be subject to review by....well, the public.

 

Review? Yes. Unreasonable criticism? No. I assume that I'm being video taped whenever I'm in a public place conducting myself as a LEO. I expect people to watch and often not understand what hey are seeing (just like this post, they don't know the surrounding circumstances of what they are viewing). What is frustrating is when those people want to tell me that my actions are inappropriate, without seeking to understand what they saw.

 

In the present case the officer uses his vehicle as a weapon in a dangerous manner w/o provocation, and without identifying himself as a LEO, and without attempting a proper stop first. He then, again without even the slightest sign of aggression or non-compliance draws his weapon and advances, still not having identified himself.

 

PUH-LEASE! Watch the video again. The officer certainly does not use his vehicle as a weapon. He simply pulls next to the violator and jumps out.

 

Seems inappropriate to brandish a firearm in this instance....

Even if this motorcyclist would have atempted to flee I don't think it would have warranted discharge of a firearm.

 

To me, this sums it up. I've been stopped a couple of times and no guns have ever been pulled. Even if the cyclist fled the scene, no gun should be pulled. You can't legally use deadly force against someone for fleeing, unless you are sure they intend to do deadly harm to others.

 

Since that short span before he re-holstered his gun was not long enough to *really* determine if the suspect was a danger, I believe that says he realized he had overreacted a little.

 

Again, read my reply above. The officer is simply at a higher level of readiness. He is not holding his gun because he is concerned about fleeing, he is holding it because he is concerned about fight-or-flight. He has effectively cornered the violator, so flight is unlikely, therefore fight is the other option he is concerned about controlling.

 

Once he controls the most immediate and dangerous weapon the violator has at his disposal, the motorcycle, he holsters his weapon.

 

It is my understanding, correct me if wrong, that an off-duty officer must clearly identify themself as a police officer before any action that they might do if they were on duty.

An off-duty police officer is a private citizen and subject to restraint as such until clearly identifying themself.

 

I don't think he is off-duty, I think he is UC.

 

If I were the guy on the bike and a car did what the unmarked car did, I would have started to back up to! That this rider did that does not a felon make, my friend.

 

And thus, he did not get a gun shoved in his grill and he did not get shot. However, the line between Traffic Violator and Felon is a simple release of the clutch lever away in his case.

 

 

The unmarked cop’s facial expressions seem full of pent up aggression. As has been mentioned, hard to see this go down the same way by replacing the bike with a female in a minivan.

 

The first level of the use of force continuum is Presence. Displaying an "aggresive" facial expression is appropriate in this scenario, as it helps show the violator that the officer is ready to act aggresively and assertively, should the violator choose to be non-compliant. It is simply a show of force. Does the officer grab the violator? Does he yank him off the bike? Does he go into a screaming tirade? No. He gives the appearance of aggression, but displays control.

 

It looked to me that the plainclothes cop saw the approaching squad car, and kind of slyly slid his weapon back into his holster. The way he kind of turned away from their view of the situation. I think he knew what he was doing was not cool in regards to drawing his weapon.

 

And I think the UC was working in cooperation with the uniformed officer. It all depends on how you interpret what you saw.

[Selden]

Guys, you're drifting off topic again. The officer's behavior at the scene of the violation may or not be justifiable, but I see no justification whatsoever, other than payback for posting the video, for the follow-up raid at the squid's house -- that appears to have been a sheer misuse of power, although I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise as more evidence comes to light. As Mike wrote, "If that's in fact what happened, it's outrageous."

 

That said, in light of what happened with the mayor of Berwyn Heights (after 18 months still unresolved, apparently), I'm not as optimistic as Tallman about the outcome leading to discipline of the officer, or changed police behavior.

[Woodie]

Reading the feedback from the officer here, I'm willing to give the non-uniformed officer some benefit of the doubt, given my lack of experience and training on his end of the situation.

 

But, and this is a BIG BUT...why the appearance of a very poor warrant, and a big to-do a few days later? This throws doubt and suspicion on our whole assessment of the initial incident. Was the officer off-duty (not just under cover)? Did he fail to follow departmental policy? Was he perhaps a recruit or auxiliary, or possibly still on probation? All these question come up because of the (perceived) attempt to hide/cover-up some video.

 

 

 

[russell_bynum]

Guys, you're drifting off topic again. The officer's behavior at the scene of the violation may or not be justifiable, but I see no justification whatsoever, other than payback for posting the video, for the follow-up raid at the squid's house -- that appears to have been a sheer misuse of power, although I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise as more evidence comes to light. As Mike wrote, "If that's in fact what happened, it's outrageous."

 

That said, in light of what happened with the mayor of Berwyn Heights (after 18 months still unresolved, apparently), I'm not as optimistic as Tallman about the outcome leading to discipline of the officer, or changed police behavior.

 

FWIW, I think the wiretapping thing is definitely the more important issue, but that doesn't change the fact that there are some big questions about the actual stop itself.