She feared the impact a theft charge, though small, would have on her financial career.
Why is this info public, what happened to innocent til proven guilty?
innocent til proven guilty
That only works, inside the court.
Outside, if you come in the view of an officer, you are guilty.I have had to do something similar recently, because some chap with “senior citizen” status randomly blamed me for something.
Everyone freaking out has forgotten: Do not talk to the police. Guilt is determined in court and anything you say, drumroll please, can be used against you. You will not talk your way out of getting arrested, shut the fuck up, and sort it out in court. The only person that is there to help you is your lawyer, the police are not there to help you.
Damn I use to love these guys videos. Taught me a lot over the years. Shut the fuck up when cops ask questions!
And america used to make fun of china for its surveillance, but I guess if you can’t beat them, join them
I didn’t make fun of China for being a surveillance state. I was terrified for the citizens for China being a surveillance state. Same with the UK.
The republicans took every shitty thing they said they hated about other countries like Russia, China and even North Korea and made those things goals.
Colorado is famously liberal
Deeply wrong
If you lived there you’d know it’s optics. They’re libertarian (corporate tax haven) in Denver and Boulder and the rest of the state is red. There’s even sundown towns. You can smoke pot and marry your bro but you better both have beards and like fishing or else you’re getting fitted for the barbwire fence.
Sounds like Ohio with mountains and better PR
Wow. That is an amazing description. Yeah kind of. I never thought of that before. And Ohio DID just import a shit ton of tech companies too so it’s almost exactly like the Silicon exodus to Colorado ten years ago.
All those tech companies downsized or all together pulled out for some reason in the last year…
Did they? That’s strange considering how prez has let them off the leash with Ai regulation. In that case I’m curious if the data centers that are being built now will be the only ones.
Issue is, critique of those regimes started to be worded “tactically”, to make it seem those problems are unique to those systems, or even silenced completely, and at worst just inventing nonexistent problems of theirs. In Hungary, we no longer hear about arrest quotas of the secret police since 2014, the issue of the Hungarian youth under the communist regime of not being able to wear Levi jeans and Adidas shoes are exaggerated to comical degrees, but now we also have urban legends that the Rákosi and Kádár regimes wanting to implement stuff that are out of current day culture war bullshit.
AI is built on a reward system. Its sole reason for existence is to complete its task and get the reward points. It will create false information to do this. One AI that a lawyer “accidentally” used in court actually created its own 4-5 page court cases to use as citations to justify the case it was working on.
AI is a novelty and should NOT be in charge of any decision making or be admissible as evidence in any way.
AI also recently decided a bag of chips that a black kid had was a gun, and summoned a horde of cops on him.
an accident I doubt AI would make with a white kid, because AI gets all sorts of inherit biases from the data its fed… and whats more biased in law inforcement than how black people are treated vs white people.
*inherent
This is the same reason police dogs shouldn’t be used.
Oh, they should, but similarly to “AI” as a tool, with the whole responsibility for the tool being on the person using it.
Similar to screwdrivers, pencils and guns.
Yep. Dogs have been used to manufacture probably cause for decades.
Only once have they ever been scientifically tested, and they failed… and shockingly, cops refused to participate in any future testings.
As the owner of a German shepherd who just REALLY wants to make friends and play with everyone she meets…it’s depressing how many people see a big cop dog and immediately walk away when she barks.
She wants to chase birds and lick your face to show affection, chasing and hurting people is taught just like racism in humans.
Dog owner here. I don’t know if I buy the whole “don’t judge by breed” thing. Sure, training can become the dominant force, but dogs are literally wolves that were selectively bred based on temperament. And how would genes decide so much about a dog but not its temperament?
Anyway still sucks. I’d want to hang out with your dog. But I respect where people are coming from.
Also cool username. Although makes me think of some weird HGTTG marital arrangements.
I don’t like being licked.
Why is she barking? Correct that behaviour and I bet 80% of people would stop treating you and your dog like a threat. If a dog barks at me, I leave. It tells me the owner hasn’t spent the time training them and that the dog doesn’t want me there.
I’ve been bit, my friends have been bit, and I’ve seen children get bit by dogs that fit the exact same description. I don’t trust any fucking dog. Keep it on leash and keep it away from me and my family. Thank you. - cat gang
She feared the impact a theft charge, though small, would have on her financial career.
Wild that a false accusation, after being proven as false at the court of law, can still impact one’s career.
because when they run a background check on you they see you were charged. and that’s all that matters. you are untouchable to most employers.
Yeah, that’s something that absolutely has to change. I don’t care if “career criminals get out of charges all the time”. A false charge should not follow you for the rest of your life.
Then again, I also believe that if you serve your time in prison and are released, you should not have a publicly searchable record that can be used to deny you opportunities. So take my opinion as you will
Agreed, and prison should be for rehabilitation.
Perhaps prisoners could be released in one of two states: completed time or rehabilitated. The latter carries a much lower chance of recidivism. Maybe the first iffense could be hidden regardless, and expunged entirely after some period of time (10 years?), whereas on the second offense, both are searchable.
IDK, but I do believe in forgiveness.
I think a lot about the Scandinavian prison where the guards forgot to lock the cells and the inmates used the night to do some baking.
Right! Which of you fuckers made … mmm nom … these … nom nom … really tasty fairy cakes?
I do agree on principle but somewhere in the back of my brain it’s going “what about repeat violent offenders.” But I feel like any solution I can come up with could be pretty easily used by the state as a force of marginalization anyway. So back at square one.
“what about repeat violent offenders.”
This is conservative paranoia propaganda at work. People who are violent offenders become repeat violent offenders because of the system that we have in place not in spite of it. And the percentage of violent offenders in our prison system is severely out of proportion to those of the nonviolent variety who make up the bulk of our inmate population.
Even when it’s repeat violent offenders - why would you want to prevent them from getting jobs? What do you think will happen if you release them from prison, once they finish serving their sentence, and they can’t get jobs?
That’s good. These ideas of focusing on the potential career criminals are deeply ingrained in our culture, but when we challenge the potential outcomes we can resist giving the government and businesses more power to hurt innocent people
Wow. In ex-USSR past convictions are a problem, but when you were cleared of charges - that really is wild. I mean, OK, the rate of convictions is not exactly normal in ex-USSR too.
I mean by this comparison that people here usually think we have it worse with the conviction record.
Why can’t they see the outcome?
I don’t think that’s true, do you have evidence of that?
In my country, employers have low trust and expectations on their new hires (and therefore low wages and high turnover) so they ask anyone applying for work to show up with what’s called a “police clearance” and a “NBI clearance” (NBI = National Bureau of Investigation, a less-sophisticated developing country equivalent of the FBI) documents to make sure they’re not felons.
No different to cancel culture
What are you on about
deleted by creator
So because she is better off financially and is not worried about google tracking, she had all the cameras, GPS tracking, and everything set up to prove her innocence.
I decline all of that stuff and i would have a MUCH tougher time proving my innocence when wrongly accused like she was.
This is just another step towards fascism where police are charging people for crimes they never committed, based on AI and computers screwing up.
That’s intentional. Someone just makes shit up, using a magic machine, so that their responsibility were in doubt for other similar irresponsible people with ability to fuck up others’ lives.
There should be a responsible policeman for every such decision, going to jail for at least as much time as she would were she convicted, when the decision is wrong.
I strongly encourage everyone interested in this topic (and you should be!) to read the article because this shit runs deep and they see absolutely no problem approaching the law in this fashion. Absolutely disgusting erosion of liberty and privacy, though it’s not the least bit surprising. Here’s an excerpt i found particularly chilling–this cop is fully convinced (or acting as if he were) about the validity of this minimal-effort investigation they apparently were ready to arrest someone over. Note that weeks later it was fully disproven and ended with a terse email acknowledging that she provided enough proof to absolve herself as the suspect. No accountability for their mistake, just: “you can go now”
“You know we have cameras in that town. You can’t get a breath of fresh air in or out of that place without us knowing,” Milliman said to Elser, according to Ring doorbell footage of the Sept. 27 encounter viewed by The Colorado Sun.
“Just as an example, you’ve driven there about 20 times in the last month,” he added.
Along with the Flock footage, the sergeant told Elser he also had a video from the theft victim that allegedly showed Elser ringing the doorbell before grabbing a package and running away.
My favorite part
“I guess this is a shock to you, but I am telling you, this is a lock. One hundred percent. No doubt,” Milliman said.
😳
But Elser, a financial advisor, told the sergeant she had no idea what he was talking about. She asked several times to watch the video that Milliman insisted proved her guilt, but he refused to show her. And when Elser offered up footage from her Rivian’s onboard cameras to prove her innocence, Milliman said she could bring it to court.
“It doesn’t matter. I’ll be giving this all to you. If you are going to deny it to me, I am not going to help you with any courtesy,” Milliman said.
“It’s kind of funny because we have cameras on our truck, so we could show you exactly where we were,” Elser said.
We are really fucked here. No accountability on their end, while foisting 200% accountability on ours.
Yeah, been like this for quite a while. They can drag you for a while, lose their case, shrug it off, and continue as normal.
Meanwhile, you lost your job after your arrest, maybe even were denied bail and had to stay ~2 years in jail waiting for trial, and spent $100k on legal expenses. Winning at trial gives you no restitution for those massive losses. You’re expected to also shrug it off and continue life.
whatever happened to the right to a speedy trial? too many ppl give that up or is it not even asked anymore and you just have to know?
Sometimes lawyers do preliminary motions like to suppress unconstitutional search warrants or change of venue and stuff. If it’s complex, it can take a while, and defense cannot request speedy trial if they’re filing things, but you also don’t necessarily want to forgo filing useful things.
Also, if they violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial, you can file a habeas corpus or something and, even if you win, there’s still no consequence except them shrugging and saying oops.
They just redefined “speedy” to be several years.
This reminds me of how police abuse any new tool they’re given.
Like how while trained dogs can actually sniff out drugs, when they’re given to police, they get retrained to simply alert whenever the police want them to, and essentially become a flimsy reason to let police violate your rights and search anybody they want to.
And the police suffer zero repercussions for their actions. If they don’t find drugs, there’s nobody who’s going to take them to court and force them to retrain their dogs or to disallow drug dogs from being used as reasonable suspicion.
We are really fucked here. No accountability on their end, while foisting 200% accountability on ours.
Is there some reason victims can’t just sue flock into oblivion?
Qualified immunity, Hasan Minhaj did a whole Patriot Act episode on it
Good question! Frankly, i don’t know. I have a feeling there would be some way they’re protected in this arrangement since they’re ‘helping’ law enforcement but that’s far from even approaching legal precedent. I imagine questions like yours are going to be challenged in the courts as we move forward… 🫠
If “video of someone roughly looking like you” is enough to completely reverse the burden of proof, then you can throw the whole justice system out of the window.
Absolutely disgusting erosion of liberty and privacy, though it’s not the least bit surprising.
Legally, it’s not an erosion. Public spaces aren’t private, and it was a charge that hadn’t yet reached (probably costly) trial. It’s the same level of erosion as before when they lacked this level of public surveillance.
this cop is fully convinced (or acting as if he were) about the validity of this minimal-effort investigation they apparently were ready to arrest someone over.
That’s standard procedure for police in the US: overconfidence & pressure of any kind (eg, lies) to extract a confession no matter if false or the evidence doesn’t support it. Their approach seeks conviction (no matter what) rather than truth. They’re twats.
No accountability on their end
Their unaccountability is standard. Welcome to US law enforcement. They were just as bad before.
Apparently, policing can be better.
UK policing was similar to the US until legal reforms (due to high profile cases of coerced confessions) led them to develop investigative interviewing, which seeks to gather evidence (free from biases & contamination) rather than confessions.
Much of the scientific base of investigative interviewing stems from social psychology and cognitive psychology, including studies of human memory. The method aims at mitigating the effects of inherent human fallacies and cognitive biases such as suggestibility, confirmation bias, priming and false memories. In order to conduct a successful interview the interviewer needs to be able to (1) create good rapport with the interviewee, (2) describe the purpose of the interview, (3) ask open-ended questions, and (4) be willing to explore alternative hypotheses. Before any probing questions are asked, the interviewees are encouraged to give their free, uninterrupted account.
When mandatory recordings revealed officers were unskilled interviewers (eg, assumed guilt of interviewee) missing & ignoring evidence due to their biases, and therefore needing training
they devised a program called PEACE with the help of psychologists. The week-long course, which also covered interviewing witnesses, was undertaken by every operational officer in the country. In the UK, unlike the USA, there is a high degree of cooperation and standardization between all forces. The training was a massive commitment, but it has helped avoid miscarriages, and it delivers better justice. Research studies and practical evaluations have also consistently shown higher skill levels and more objective approaches by officers. It is now accepted that not all officers will make good interviewers. PEACE has developed into several tiers of training linked to an officer’s field of work and identified potential.
Moreover, they refrain from lying.
The law does not allow lying to suspects, under any circumstances. Officers are trained to concentrate on probing a suspect’s account, seeking to confirm or negate by comparison with other known information. When the suspect knows that I can’t lie—my job is on the line if I do—I get more information.
Fuck I’m jealous that other countries get that
I thought it was interesting that she was ok with all the neighbourhood surveillance until it was used against her.
WTF? Do I have to allow shit in my car and phone to start tracking me to provide evidence in my favor when some ai decides it has “tracked” me? The only reason this lady got out of it without getting a lawyer and going to court is she allowed all the bullshit in her phone and car that I block. And if she didn’t have it, what would have happened in court?
Yes, that’s the point. Their glass ball and Tarot layout say you’re guilty, so now you have to prove your innocence. And to prove your innocence you have to collect all the data on yourself.
BTW, this is far more subtle than it seems, collecting and giving to someone all the info on yourself all the time is nonsense, but collecting it and having just in case for such situations might seem normal for many honest people. Except in fact these are the same, you don’t have tools to collect it all without giving it to someone predictable. So this whole big tech and surveillance con abuses good faith participation in the society. And encourages everyone becoming a cheater.
The police and other such people know that these are bullshit machines, but use them to cheat with impunity. Sometimes to charge a clearly innocent person, because they have an excuse - the computer did it. And the rest of us are incentivized to cheat to get better ratings for loans and worse ratings for scammers, and better danger rating so that police wouldn’t just use as a scapegoat to close a case like this, instead choosing someone less dangerous.
Wait till witchcraft becomes a crime again. Nobody would believe in it, of course, but it’d be an easy win for everyone except the convict.
I don’t care if Soviet caricatures (“Neznaika on the Moon” specifically) were wrong back then, they are correct now. I mean, yeah, they are correct everywhere now, but still.
that’s exactly what I got out of this whole situation.
guilty until proven innocent.
That’s how they’re running it, and there are a whole lot of people who would prefer it to run that way in the future.
What should be happening is: when falsely accused and exonerated in court, you get a judgement against the LEA for treble damages for your costs to rebut their false claims.
False claims are going to happen, but if they’re costing the police thousands of dollars per instance, that should slow them down. I’m more than happy to pay increased taxes to put that deterrent on the agencies.
Important for those who don’t know: police can legally lie to you. Happens all the time when they’re trying to get a confession. In a discussion, they’ll be like “we have your fingerprints matched and we have video of you, so it’s better if you’re just honest with us.” But they often don’t have anything which is why they’re desperate for a confession.
Weird to me that people are taking issue with the cameras more than the police work.
The problem here is charges being made with weak evidence and officers legally allowed to lie. I had a similar experience, but she was smarter than me. I was 22 and naive, thinking I didn’t need to prove my innocence because they have to prove my guilt in court (logically seemed impossible when I wasn’t guilty). The presumption of innocence is a lie. And juries and judges don’t operate with pure logic and reason. I had to learn the hard way, losing many years of my life.
And that’s why you DON’T TALK TO THE POLICE.
If you are detained, do not talk at all, even if you’re nervous, even if you think you’re being helpful. Do not volunteer anything. If you are arrested, you say exactly this and nothing else: “I invoke my right to remain silent, and I invoke my right to an attorney.” Repeat that exact phrase AND NOTHING ELSE until you have your attorney present.
they came to my door to arrest me on false pretenses. they ask me to leave my house because my children died. they kept making shit up until they left.
This is exactly the tactic the officer was employing here (for a sub $25 theft), not showing the accused the evidence so they don’t know what the police might or might not know.
At some point in the process, there is “discovery” where both sides share their evidence before trial to avoid going to trial for stupid stuff (like this.) But you usually have to engage thousands of dollars of legal services before discovery is available, again over a sub $25 theft allegation.
The officer sweating her for driving through his town on the day somebody porch pirated somebody else is really ridiculous.
I got pulled over the other day. The reason given was a lane change violation (which was bullshit pretense, it was right outside a very rural, but very busy, bar so this was likely actually entrapment, tho I was for sure under the legal limit - I was there to check out line dancing because I’ve never seen it before, and only had one beer in the hour I was there).
I also had a very expired registration (haven’t driven much, and didn’t realize I forgot to renew it).
But I got let off everything with a warning…? I spent days trying to figure it out because it should have been a ticket… he didn’t even seem interested in waiting for me to dig out my insurance info (which I had, just had to get it out of my wallet).
But I have a dash cam… and it records sound. It would have proven I didn’t violate anything, and he was recorded saying why I was pulled over so no way to flub it and say it was actually the registration all along, and thus the pretense for pulling me over in the first place was void. I’m pretty sure that’s the only reason I got off with a list of warnings rather than tickets.
Honestly, he probably was looking for drunks, and when you clearly weren’t he just played it off (poorly).
Yeah. But that’s not entrapment. He didn’t coerce anyone into doing anything.
Well I never said it was, I said that was probably why “warnings.”
Back in the days before dash cams I got let off with warnings a few times. Once in a while they actually are human beings, but that’s rare when they’re on a month end quota filling mission.
“You know we have cameras in that town. You can’t get a breath of fresh air in or out of that place without us knowing,” Milliman said to Elser, according to Ring doorbell footage of the Sept. 27 encounter viewed by The Colorado Sun.
And he saw nothing wrong with that.
Are you kidding? They’re proud of it. They honestly think it’s a good thing. Along with the recent article about ICE stopping brown people and using a phone app to ID them from a photograph , we’ve rocketed right past the Papers-Please phase of fascism into a high tech dystopian end game.
Additionally, the citizens who support this kind of government surveillance are fine with a few innocents getting charged.
So long as they aren’t the ones getting turned into the new fountain on the campus, they couldn’t care less.
Particularly if those innocents are the “right” color.
And yet still, somewhere out there, there is a fake or brain dead leftist spouting on about how democrats support genocide.
“Chemo makes me sick, so Ill stick with Cancer”
I mean some of them legit do (cough Fetterman), and a lot just don’t particularly care about stopping it, but that’s beside the point, I know the kind of people you’re actually talking about. There is still value in electing the lesser evil, and pushing to get better and more progressive Dems in office (that are usually better at pushing back against fascism anyways)
Lesser evil politics gets you fascism.
The timeline for when you feel a fascist nation’s boot comes down to what your skin color is and where you’re from.
The irony of saying this when we literally have a fascist dictator trashing the Whitehouse because we checks notes didn’t vote for the “lesser evil” last year.
know the kind of people you’re actually talking about. There is still value in electing the lesser evil, and pushing to get better and more progressive Dems in office (that are usually better at pushing back against fascism anyways)
This is exactly my point. The democrats have huge AIPAC backing and support some awful things, but they are fucking saints compared to the only other options in this political system.
They are the only potential vehicles for long term change and stability exactly the way you described.
Progressive candidates have to be winning primaries despite swimming upstream, and democrats have to continue winning federally despite the bad taste (chemo) they put in your mouth.
In case you haven’t noticed, the system in place now in the US became what it is today under both Republican and Democrat Administrations.
One has to be a tribalist useful idiot to deny that “their side” has done as much to create a Surveillance State as the “other” side - amongst those few things which have bipartisan support in the US are strengthening of police powers and erosion of privacy.
The comparison with most of Europe (with notable exceptions such as Britain and Russia) is very telling: it absolutely is possible to have low crime without reckless invasion of privacy, widespread civil society surveillance, draconian police powers and a pay-to-play Judicial System.
This bothsiderism is pretty thoughtless.
It is true that both contribute to a surveillance state but to equate both is to just ignore all policy differences, actions and more to pretend to be nuanced while painting everything as the same shade of grey, which is a downgrade to even black and white thinking.
This is Politics, it’s not 1D or 2D, it’s N-Dimensional (with a very, very large N): it’s not just possible but pretty much a Mathematical certainty than in a country were there are only 2 parties they will match perfectly on some dimensions, even whilst not at all matching in others.
Trying to dismiss away that aspect of Reality (which is incoveninent for tribalists) with sloganeering like “bothsiderism” is just parroting propaganda meant for simpletons who see reality as having just one dimension where there is nothing more than 2 sides.
It’s pretty evident by their actual policies that strengthenning of police powers and the surveillance state are things in which both sides of the power duopoly in the US agree in the most, and it the face of both of those parties being shit on that domain your “yeah, but <tiny difference>” discourse is really just trying to distract away from the most nasty aspects of both of those taking big fat dumps on the face of every American, by talking about subtle details in the shape and consistency of each one’s shit.
Now, if you favorite party did start to diverge in that, you would have reason to celebrate, but it ain’t hapenning and discourse such as yours makes it even harder that it will ever happen - why would the tribe’s leadership change their ways when there’s a veritable army of tribalist peons going “yeah, but, bothsiderism” at any criticism of what they do, even those parts which are undeniably shit.
This is Politics, it’s not 1D or 2D, it’s N-Dimensional
This is the point I made and that your comment ignored.
it’s not just possible but pretty much a Mathematical certainty than in a country were there are only 2 parties they will match perfectly on some dimensions, even whilst not at all matching in others.
This is a strawman. No person is claiming they don’t have any aligning opinions.
Trying to dismiss away that aspect of Reality (which is incoveninent for tribalists) with sloganeering like “bothsiderism” is just parroting propaganda meant for simpletons who see reality as having just one dimension where there is nothing more than 2 sides.
This is you continuing to argue against the strawman.
The rest is also that.
You own post:
This bothsiderism is pretty thoughtless.
Your post starts with a sloganeering, hyper-reductive take of what I wrote.
As I wrote in response, “This is Politics, it’s not 1D or 2D”!
It is true that both contribute to a surveillance state but to equate both is to just ignore all policy differences, actions and more to pretend to be nuanced while painting everything as the same shade of grey, which is a downgrade to even black and white thinking.
In case you’re unware of it, two forests can be the same kind of forest even when the trees in each are different: demanding for others to focus on the details of the trees in each (otherwise they’re “painting everything as the same shade of grey”) is just a way to try to avoid that people look at the forest as a whole.
That said, you’re right. The details are different and I didn’t address that in my original post were I only talked about the main policy direction on these domains.
The broad policy direction on this subject is the same and the outcomes have been very similar and over time progressed in the same direction during the time in power of both parties, but things worsened in different domains at different speeds with different parties in power.
This is not even what many Americans call “the ratchet effect”, it’s actually worse because in this case it’s not one pushing in a certain direction and the other refusing to revert it, it’s actually both pushing in the same direction, with just some difference in details here and there which didn’t add up to much difference in outcomes.
So yeah, my point stands that in this domain both US parties are shit and my second point also stands that you’re trying to move the conversation away from criticizing parties for doing this shit by claiming that subtle differences in each party’s shit are more important that the overall shitty nature of their actions in this.
Worth noting that Ring has announced a partnership with Flock.
So if you’re in the Ring ecosystem, maybe time to re-consider.
Problem isn’t your own use, it’s everyone using them, as a network of real time surveillance cameras at the beck and call of corpo terrorists
Definitely. You’re giving the surveilance state placement though.
lol it’s literally an Amazon business. Should have been time to reconsider when Bezos loudly said that Ring footage can be used for anything they want.
So many reasons to re-consider.
I am stuck in a residence where the owner doesn’t consider surveillance to be a threat model. It sucks.
Unless you’re self hosting your own cameras, just don’t. If you don’t control the data then it’s somebody else’s camera.
What are the laws about search warrants around home cameras and the 5th amendment?
I’ve thought about setting up old smart phone based IP cameras around my house facing out windows. But decided that if it comes down to arresting people for anti regime speech, that having cameras with background audio of private conversations wasn’t a good idea.
They can only get it with a search warrant. If everything is encrypted with a sufficiently strong password, I think the court precedent is that they can’t compel you to reveal the password.
To get a warrant, they need to convince a judge that it’s necessary to prove guilt in a specific crime, which means they need at least reasonable suspicion before even asking for the footage.
Yeah, really my question should have been about encrypted footage and my 5th amendment to protecting the password to the footage.
Hopefully no one needs to test this to find out.
The question for smartphones has been tried in court IIRC. Basically, police can compel you to unlock your phone with biometrics, but cannot compel you to unlock it if it’s a password, and the difference is your fingerprint is something you have, whereas a password is something you know. Your fingerprint is subject to the fourth amendment and your password is subject to the fifth.
So when it comes to video footage, the password is protected, so they’d need to break the encryption or the password, they couldn’t compel you to reveal it.
I’m not sure it matters if it’s legal or not anymore these days.
Still, they can legally demand any recordings from you if they reasonably can know that such recordings exist. Generally they will need a warrant or they may subpoena you for the evidence that they know you have. You can even be arrested for erasing your own footage as destruction of evidence.
Obligatory statement that I am not a lawyer and this isn’t legal advice.
The root of the issue is allowing officer to lie in order to deprive people of thier rights.
He knew he had nothing, he was just trying to get a confession by saying it was a 100% lock. The cameras wouldn’t matter as much if lieing like that was illegal.
The fact that police officers can lie but people can’t shows you the terrible power imbalance in our law enforcement.
Also there’s no legal obligation to answer your door.
Go Colorado Sun! Proud sponsor for many years!
Reading the article, I am very confused. It appears that they simply decided a random person was the culprit because she was recorded as driving through town during the time period of the package theft, and that’s all they had?
“Pick up the can citizen.”
Pigs are really bad at investigating
That’s what I gathered as well. They mentioned there was doorbell footage but refused to show it to her. I’m guessing they saw she was in town, saw a person that maybe partially could have resembled her maybe if you squinted on the doorbell footage, and said that was all the evidence they needed.
There is the weirdly pushy way the police officer tried to get her to confess that seems to imply that, too. They had a hunch, and hoped the person would be dumb enough to incriminate herself. It’s a real shame she only exonerated herself, I am sure they would have loved it if she had tracked down the real thief.
I think it’s a similar car to hers. She wasn’t in the area at all, and had proof of that.
Should disabling these cameras be considered community defense? Discuss.
Casually asking just for general knowledge, but what would be the penalty if someone, say, accidentally destroyed one of these? What about 10?
Yes, next question.
No.
😎
It should be considered a moral imperative.
🫳
🎤
