Police Arrest Woman For Filming Them, Take Phone Out Of Her Bra, Claim That It Must Be Kept As 'Evidence'
from the that-won't-go-over-well dept
In the comments to our story last week about false arrests for filming police, someone pointed to yet another such story of a woman who was arrested for filming the police. Even worst, the police confiscated her phone — which she had shoved into her bra — and then have refused to return it, claiming that it’s now “evidence” of a crime.
If there’s any “good” news in this story, it’s that the police chief immediately ordered an investigation into the officer who did this, and noted that it’s legal to film police. Still, the details of what happened seem pretty crazy. As reported by the New Haven Independent (linked above):
“Stop filming right now!” Rubino ordered her.
“No this is my civil right,” she recalled saying. Gondola said she’s “always on all these news sites” reading about recent cases in which cops got in trouble for snatching cameras from citizens.
“Well, I have to right to review it,” Rubino allegedly told her.
Gondola claimed she remained “very quiet and calm” and “pressed play” to show him the video. “But I didn’t let him touch my phone.”
Rubino’s response, according to Gondola: “It’s evidence of a crime. You need to give it to me right now.”
Her response to his response: “I’m not giving you the phone.”
His next response: “If you don’t give me the phone, you’re getting arrested.”
So Gondola slipped the phone into her bra. Rubino “twisted my hand hard behind me and put the cuffs on me. Really tight. My wrists are black and blue,” she said.
Rubino next ordered a female officer to pat her down and commanded, “I want that phone out of her bra.” The woman removed the phone. Rubino “put it in his pocket,” Gondola said.
The article, written a few days later, notes that later on she demanded the phone back, and was once again told that it was “evidence” and that the only way she can get her phone back is to wait until she goes to court, and asks the judge to return the phone. At the very least, it sounds like she will be without her phone for well over a week. In these days, when phones are pretty central to a lot of people’s lives, that can be a pretty big hardship… all for doing something perfectly legal: filming the police on duty.
Comments on “Police Arrest Woman For Filming Them, Take Phone Out Of Her Bra, Claim That It Must Be Kept As 'Evidence'”
Is it possible that she not only filmed police, but also filmed the crime as it occurred?
And they wonder why people don’t like the police.. Go figure.
Re:
That’s exactly what I was thinking… the phone probably IS evidence. However…
“‘Stop filming right now!’ Rubino ordered her.”
That kind of indicates that he was more interested in not being filmed than in any evidence the phone might provide.
Re:
No, he may also have been concerned that the evidence could be destroyed or harmed – limited memory and all.
He may have had no interest in being filmed, but I think there is just a little more to this story than anyone is letting on.
Good reason for something like dropbox
This is a good reason to have a dropbox account and have the app installed on your smart phone. It can be set to automatically upload your video and photos to your DropBox account. That way if your phone is stolen by a LEO you still have the video.
so this must be where the cops from liberty city go.
Re:
It is evidence of a crime. That he ordered her to stop filming. THAT is the crime here.
And taking the phone, presumably without a charger, also means said ‘evidence’ may be erased when the phone loses it’s charge. Not likely, but do we know it’s stored on flash memory or just in the running memory of the phone?
Re:
“a sergeant who allegedly had a woman arrested and a cell phone camera snatched from her bra after she recorded him beating a handcuffed suspect.”
“The allegations against Sgt. Chris Rubino came from two women who observed a tussle between cops and an unruly man”
Coupled with the “Stop filming right now” command, it seems like the crime the Sgt. wanted the evidence of was possibly his own.
Re:
Umm, what? Clearly you aint’ a techie, as everything on modern phones is stored in memory that is not lost during power off situations, unless you leave the power off for a VERY, VERY long time (like years).
Re:
“Stop filming” makes you think that he was concerned the evidence might be destroyed or harmed? Don’t you think that “be careful and make sure you get all of this” would have made his point a little better, in that case?
They could be in trouble on this one.
Police Arrest Woman For Filming Them, Take Phone Out Of Her Bra, Claim That It Must Be Kept As ‘Evidence’
Keeping a woman’s bra as evidence certainly seems to be stretching the bounds of credibility.
Re:
Also most phones now adays wont store it in the phone but in a memory card where it can be there until the card gets destroyed or it gets erased, but even after being erased it can possibly be saved. Solid state drives FTW
They could be in trouble on this one.
The bra was the camera.
Re:
I’m pretty sure that gathering evidence is not “give it to me right now.” and “If you don?t give me the phone, you?re getting arrested.”. Shouldn’t a warrant be involved?
Re:
at the authoritarian AC:
yeah! that’s the ticket!
he was just -um- like *totally* concerned for her safety in case she had incriminating stuff on the phone, and an entitled donut eater wanted to abuse their position of authority and bully her into giving it up, yeah, that’s it, he was just trying to ensure the evidence wasn’t, like, um, you know, accidently lost in the evidence room, um, you know, or sumpin’ like that…
*snicker*
try getting up off your knees supplicating to your masters, Citizen…
WE’RE the bosses, not THEM; something BOTH of us have forgotten…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
That’s definitely assault and possibly sexual assault. She should try to press charges and definitely pursue a civil case
What are the police going to do when Googles AR glasses are cheap enough for the masses to buy and fall in love with?
Are they going to go around demanding peoples glasses because they might be recording everything the person is looking at?
Re:
“Stop hitting yourself, why are you hitting yourself, hitting yourself is resisting arrest, why are you hitting yourself.”
They could be in trouble on this one.
One or two lenses?
Re:
Rubino next ordered a female officer to pat her down …
As has been discussed before filming policemen is legal. Don’t know if this policeman will get in trouble but he should.
Looking at the pic from the article there had to be some crime committed just for making the other officer dig around in that slag’s bra…
gotta be like a bathroom door handle down in there…
Re:
By the time those glasses go mainstream the video will be streaming TO YouTube and not stored on the device itself.
Re:
uh… hate to inform you of this but the cops saying “STOP THAT!!” in and of itself does not illegal make it when you refuse to stop actions that are held to be legal to begin with.
Constitutional rights violations are not, nor should they ever be, held to be valid simply because its a law enforcement officer that did it.
also, learn2phn
They could be in trouble on this one.
Clearly a case of falsie arrest. OK, I’ll stop now.
Re:
If it is evidence of a crime being committed, then the officer should have subpoenaed the phone or a copy of the recording rather than arrest her and take it.
Good reason for something like dropbox
This is a good reason to have a dropbox account and have the app installed on your smart phone. It can be set to automatically upload your video and photos to your DropBox account. That way if your phone is stolen by a LEO you still have the video.
As much as some people hate Google+, it sure does an awesome job of uploading pictures and video to your account automatically without your consent (yes, there is a checkbox you can click to turn off this behavior.) I leave it on, because I am always losing the data on my phone (wipe and upgrade CM7,) so I don’t have to worry about it. Of course, I am sure like Megaupload, Google+ will probably be on the list of sites the AC trolls want shut down, and they may have the support of the crooked cops once they discover this feature, so I probably will have to back them up to facebook and twitter too.
“You’re under arrest.”
“What for?”
“For asking why I’m arresting you.”
They could be in trouble on this one.
3D of course… (I intentionally decided not to take it a step further. Just for those it gives a smile to when they do it themselves.)
Re:
Oh so I guess lesbian rape is just a fantasy and anyway if it really happened the victim would enjoy it, right?
You make me sick.
Windows Phones will automatically upload to Skydrive
I just wish that the uploaded photos were full resolution. Will iPhones automatically upload to iCloud?
A future TSA agent in the making.
Once they get fired from their job, you’ll see them perform the same action at the local airport.
Re:
So if she shows up in court and her phone no longer has the video she’s taken, will this cop be charged with destruction of evidence both for his case as well as for hers? That’s two counts of destruction of evidence isn’t it?
Balls No!
That would be nice, but no.
He’ll get a pat on the head and one month’s paid “administrative leave” while the “investigate” his actions.
Re:
I would advise the lady to look for ways to retrieve the video and maintain it as evidence. It happened before.
if i was her, i would be very concerned at what the police, maybe this 1 particular officer in particular, was doing with the phone, eg, checking any and all other content on it, making a backup of her contacts etc. the really worrying thing is though, if he wasn’t doing something he probably shouldn’t, he wouldn’t have anything to hide or get so upset about, would he?
Re:
Thank you for using AC Trope #4: There must be more to this story
5$ have been deposited into your account.
Sincerely,
TAM-Masters
Involuntary participation in the justice system
The police officer identified there was proof that he needed. If she had been more on the ball, she could have offered a copy be emailed to the police officer, or allow the officer to make a copy.
When she refused to hand the phone over, she became guilty of obstruction.
People need to stop thinking that all cops are bad. They have a job to do , and if you want to get involved, then do so… just don’t complain when your involvement gets you in a situation you’d rather not be in.
Re: Involuntary participation in the justice system
Cops are bad if they break a law and corrupt, people have the right to capture the scene if something is really odd, yes i rather not be in the situation either too.
Re: Involuntary participation in the justice system
Cops are bad if they break a law and corrupt, people have the right to capture the scene if something is really odd, yes i rather not be in the situation either too.
Windows Phones will automatically upload to Skydrive
Currently, only photos…
Video is probably to large for iCloud to handle at this point…
Some day probably.
Involuntary participation in the justice system
Still not the legal way to collect evidence.
Involuntary participation in the justice system
I think you are reading more in to what is printed here.
Lets all face it and admit it, the police in this great nation are obviously that to ask forgiveness is far better than to ask permission. i.e. I firmly believe that given all of the press this type of incident has received in just the last year demonstrates that the police chain of command is silently encouraging this behavior.
So while an officer may get reprimanded after fact, this type of illegal behavior by police officers, nation wide, continues and will be so for the foreseeable future.
Having a phone that uploads your pictures and videos, if you wish to engage in this type of risky behavior, is the only legal recourse that will allow you to retain your video. Otherwise, it’s a safe bet it is already erased.
Involuntary participation in the justice system
Not all cops are bad, but the cops that do illegal stuff overwhelmingly fall into that category.
Involuntary participation in the justice system
Yeah, at some point you’ve got to have some calm, non-violent fun w/these d-bags. I personally like to bluff them into paranoia:
Office: You! In the Vader costume! Stop filming with your phone right now!”
Me: It’s not a Vader costume.
O: What?
Me: It’s not a Vader costume. Haven’t you seen Space Balls?
O: Sir, are you not aware that part of police training is the stripping of all sense of humor?
Me: Ah, sorry Officer.
O: Anyway, stop filming me with your phone!
Me: Sure, no problem. *puts phone in pocket*
O: Now give me the damn phone! It’s evidence!
Me: Hmm, well, you can take it from me if you want. But how condident are you that you can find ALL the cameras?
O: Wh…what do you mean?
Me: Officer, I don’t leave the house without having at least 33 different covert cameras on me, placed in various and often lewd places, some of them on, some of them off, some of them are just decoys. So, you can either take a deep breath and let me keep my phone video of you smacking around yet another terrifying brown-skinned fella, or we can play what will likely amount to at least 3 hours worth of hug and tickle while you try to figure out which crevace the next phone is in. How do you want to do this?
O: …….have a good day, Vader.
Me: It’s NOT A VADER COSTUME, DAMN IT!
Involuntary participation in the justice system
When she refused to hand the phone over, she became guilty of obstruction.
Using this logic, when the officer told her to “Stop filming right now!” he was also obstructing justice.
Involuntary participation in the justice system
If that had been the cop’s intent, he could’ve asked for a copy to be sent to him on his own, without prompting. Also, telling her to stop filming doesn’t fit very nicely into that chain of events.
I don’t think all cops are bad. One of my best friends is a cop. However, this one seems to pretty clearly be in the wrong.
Re:
Then get a warrant.
Re:
IF she filmed the crime, as a witness she would be required to provide a copy of the video to the police. Not the device that took the video. The police don’t want to be filmed, but they know it is legal. Therefore they are going to harass people so much that people won’t do it any more, because it is so much trouble.
Watching the Watchmen
Gondola is on record in the article stating that this cop was roughing up a suspect who was already in hand and ankle cuffs, so I think it’s pretty damned obvious why he wanted the camera. Somebody got his badge-muscles on, then realized that he wasn’t in a “my word against his” scenario.
Also, there’s this gem in the article:
“Police Union President Arpad Tolnay Monday defended Rubino in the Temple Plaza camera incident.”
Gosh, a union wonk defending someone who was overreaching? Never would have expected that.
The chief of police in this town sounds like a good apple, though, he’s taken these cases to the mat already with his officers, causing the resignation of one.
Man… Madonna just can’t catch a break!!
Fascism in USA is being/will be accepted.
Re:
Actually the phone is not evidence. The data on the phone is evidence.
The phone is not evidence in the same way that a witness is not evidence. The witness’ testimony is evidence, but witnesses aren’t locked up and held in isolation that often. Why should a phone be? An eye-witness is a source that can’t be trusted at best, and totally deluded or completely manufactured at worst (see Crashing memories and reality monitoring: Distinguishing between perceptions, imaginations
and ‘false memories.’ PDF Warning).
Data on the other hand is the exact same for everyone involved, no matter how it’s interpreted later, as long as it’s unmodified and a chain of custody is kept.
It makes 100% sense to get a copy of the phone’s data and leave the original device with the witness, it makes no sense to deprive a witness of their property just to hold onto the data in the device when it’s so easily decoupled from the recorder that created the original manifestation of the data.
Unless, of course, you want to peruse data that is irrelevant and unrelated to the originally recorded crime in order to charge/inconvenience/badger/incarcerate the owner, so you can make them seem like an unreliable and incredible witness to the crimes the officer committed him/herself…..Which would be obstruction of justice and an ad hominem attack in any case.
Evidence
That’s the drawback to filming cops. If you end up capturing evidence of a criminal act, your phone *can* be legally seized as evidence.
Most famous case was Abraham Zapruder, whose film of the Kennedy assassination was seized and it was 20 years before he got it back.
Re:
The “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” argument is a straw-man, and the weakest argument I’ve ever seen in favor of destroying privacy.
On the other hand, the argument that goes “I hired you to do a job, and you’ve haven’t been doing it, so now I will monitor your performance” argument is much stronger, since it’s enforced by a social contract with the whole country.
While I support private sector unions, which help to guarantee that the workers have their concerns addressed and their rights upheld, the unofficial “Blue Wall of Silence” is incredibly disturbing since EVERYONE pays to have police officers, and everyone is affected by what they do, in addition to the police being granted the use of high levels of violence and control of individuals by the state.
If we can’t monitor the police and keep indisputable evidence, then the citizenry can’t defend itself from despotic officers and policies.
Involuntary participation in the justice system
“Otherwise, it’s a safe bet it is already erased.”
Depending on the judge, “accidental” erasure of data or destruction of the phone could make for an interesting hearing.
“Yes, your honor, this officer forcibly took my phone and falsely arrested me based on the pretext that the video on the phone was evidence and that he could therefore confiscate it on his own authority.”
“Now, besides wrongfully depriving me of both property and liberty, he testifies that the “evidence” was “accidentally” erased. I’m confident that if the phone had remained in my possession that the video would be in existence today. It is my belief that destruction of that video was the intent all along and that it was for the purpose of covering up his own misconduct.”
“May I respectfully request you take this officer at his word when he claims the video was evidence. Are there any penalties for the willful destruction of evidence and possible misconduct by law enforcement officers? By penalties, I mean something more serious than paid vacation time.”
Involuntary participation in the justice system
And the F**king judge replies:
Officers are sworn to hold themselves at a higher level of conduct. What evidence besides your testimony is there that the officer would have deleted this evidence on purpose?
The problem here is proving what is an accident and what is not while the only evidence is “my word against yours”
Re:
The officer said: “Stop filming right now!”
That tells me he was not concerned about collecting evidence of a crime.
Ima Grammar Nazi
Umm… Shouldn’t that be: “Even worse“…
Perfect example
… of the government movement, how easy they get scared and how their power growth into insanity.
Evidence
Nowadays it’s pretty damn easy to get someone’s recording of an event without taking any part of the mechanism they used to record it. It is literally as easy as putting a video on YouTube. Confiscation of a digital camera is therefore never a reasonable way to collect evidence, especially when that camera is part of something as important to a person’s daily life as a phone.
Re:
see this is when a remote kill switch is nice. You text your phone and wipe your sim/memory/and all data right off it restoring it to factory default. if there was a crime in the video other than the one the cop committed he’d be screwed no evidence whatsoever on the phone…
Re:
I’m sorry, but if she was in fact filming a crime as it happened, why would he want her to stop?
Actual, recorded evidence of a crime would be a slam dunk for any resulting court case, so if that was the case you’d think that at most, he’d ask for a copy after.
Re:
I’m going to have to agree with the ACs here, gender makes no difference for something like that. Whether it was a male or female cop she still had someone reaching into her bra to get the camera, which is very much unacceptable.
Involuntary participation in the justice system
Still waiting for the ‘sad but true’ button for stuff like this…
When it comes down to a cop’s word, vs. a citizen’s word, with no ‘inconvenient’ evidence to cloud the issue… take a wild guess which a judge will be more likely to believe
Re:
The phone is not evidence, the data is evidence, which can easily be transferred from one device to another almost instantaneously. Another turd doing his job.
Evidence
“whose film of the Kennedy assassination was seized”
Film, not camera. As in, it’s what the camera recorded, i.e. the data, that’s seized, not the phone.
CCTV cameras aren’t seized by the cops if they observe a crime.
Interesting bit in the New Haven Indie article...
“The question of whether cameras can be seized on the grounds of containing evidence has arisen in previous discussions of the order and of incidents in other cities. …snip…
Gondola said Rubino made that argument to her.
Her response?
?This is not the guy committing the crime,? she said. ?This is the police doing the crime.?”
So she says right there that the video was of the police committing the crime — evidently the previously mentioned roughhousing of a fully shackled offender. We’ve even got a nice pic of Rubino in that article with his foot on the perp’s head to lend a little credibility to the accounts of the two women. Or, is stepping on the head of a subdued perp normal?
Looks pretty bad for the cop.
Re:
Re-read what you are replying to. He said the cop telling her to stop filming was the crime not her disobeying or what she was doing that he told her to stop doing.
Re:
Exactly, you hear these claims a lot and a lot of times you only hear what happened at that moment from the “victim’s” side. You don’t ever hear what was happening with the cops at all which makes things that much worse. A lot of times people will have other’s film their crimes especially if it’s for gang initiation so they have proof. They also do it in order to have a “wall of fame” if you will. People don’t understand everything and always side against the cops. If the cops were in the wrong then so be it, they will be caught, but people need to stop going after them WAITING for them to screw up.
Involuntary participation in the justice system
“The police officer identified there was proof that he needed. If she had been more on the ball, she could have offered a copy be emailed to the police officer, or allow the officer to make a copy.”
Surely you just had a massive brain fart, and meant to say “If the police officer had been more on the ball, he could have asked politely for a copy to be emailed to him, or asked politely to make a copy.”
“People need to stop thinking that all cops are bad.”
Cops need to stop doing things that make people think all cops are bad. They could start by not defending or protecting other officers that do these things.
“They have a job to do…”
Lamest excuse ever. Their job requires them to follow the law, and society holds them to a higher standard of following laws than non-police. Respect is earned slowly by good actions, but lost rapidly by bad ones.
Re:
“but people need to stop going after them WAITING for them to screw up.”
People should go after cops ‘waiting’ for them to ‘screw up’. If cops screw up that’s their own faults and any cop that confiscates evidence potentially against them should automatically be assumed guilty.
Involuntary participation in the justice system
“When she refused to hand the phone over, she became guilty of obstruction.”
[citation needed]
The law does not require her to hand over her phone without a prior subpoena.
Involuntary participation in the justice system
“When she refused to hand the phone over, she became guilty of obstruction.”
The cops are likely the ones trying to obstruct justice. For instance
“In one case then-Assistant Chief ordered a citizen arrested and his videos erased; Limon released a separate internal affairs report Thursday concluding the Melendez violated department rules.”
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/citizen_video_policy_unveiled/
I suppose it’s not obstruction when a cop does it to conceal his misbehavior.
Interesting bit in the New Haven Indie article...
Indeed, why, he might even end up punished with two weeks of paid leave!
Re:
“It makes 100% sense to get a copy of the phone’s data and leave the original device with the witness, it makes no sense to deprive a witness of their property just to hold onto the data in the device when it’s so easily decoupled from the recorder that created the original manifestation of the data.”
yes, and you expect the police patrol officer to be able to do that instantly, without error, while entirely respecting the chain of evidence?
What planet are you from?
Re:
“Do you have a YouTube account? Great. Upload that video now. Yes, while I’m watching.”
That would take, like, five minutes. There would be no error, and the chain of evidence would be respected. It most certainly would not take until the trial starts.
Uhhhh
*Even worse
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Worse-and-Worst
growth industry for litegators
Once the internet uploading phone app appears, which would stream directly to the cloud, confiscating the phone will be the least of the police’s problems. A court order to take down the video (as “evidence”) would soon follow.
What I think is needed here is skilled observers. This would make a great 1st year associate’s job. Go around filming police, staying out of their way, getting arrested, phone impounded, ‘resisting arrest’ and ‘inciting’ while being arrested to compound the arresting officer’s offenses, and ultimately fighting the entire thing in court, filing damages against the city, police chief, and officers involved. Cities would settle. Marginal cops would be off the streets guarding the malls of America, and these law firms would make a ton of money.
Involuntary participation in the justice system
They have a job to do , and if you want to get involved, then do so… just don’t complain when your involvement gets you in a situation you’d rather not be in.
Yeah, if you want to try to do something about police violating civil rights, don’t complain if the police violate your civil rights. Makes perfect sense.
Re:
This is exactly what I expect, because the situations where bystanders film public interactions, especially ones involving police officers’ performance in the field, are increasingly common, and the trend is going in reverse. So I expect police to be trained to know:
(a) their performance can, is, and will continue to be filmed whether they like it or not; and
(b) how to handle these situations professionally and with deference to US citizens’ civil rights.
I HOPE an officer knows that ignoring (a) & (b) can result in him looking like a thuggish, incompetent asshole in a very public forum.
Quite the idealistic pipe dream, I know.
Re:
And then the phone gets sent to people like myself (Digital Forensics) who recover that evidence (if it was there) and not only do the prosecution then have evidence of the crime but also have evidence of wilful(?) destruction of evidence.
The prosecution get a double win all over what was in fact a wrongful seizure UNLESS there was exigent reason to obtain the phone because destruction was imminent or reasonably expected by owner.
If no exigent reason the LEO has to get a warrant.
Re:
…and the trend isn’t going in reverse.
/fixed
Re:
The cop prolly thought the woman is ugly as hell and decided a female officer should do the dirty work so he doesn’t have to. Otherwise he would be groping a hottie in no time, prolly rape her too.
Recording police vs seizure of phones/cameras as evidence
The Pixiq site had an article about whether police have the right to confiscate cameras. Among the two attorneys who contributed, Marc Randazza said that police might be able to subpoena a copy of a video recording but that confiscating a camera on the spot would not be justified. Bert Krages II said that a camera generally cannot be seized by police without a court order unless the camera has been used in the commission of a crime (i.e. counterfeiting.) At the same time, Randazza said that it may not be easy to disregard an officer who unlawfully demands to seize a camera and that “No camera is worth losing your life over.” (In a case such as the 2009 Oakland BART shooting, where a person has been seriously hurt or killed at the hands of a police officer, this may be particularly important.) Even so, calling up an attorney on the spot might be useful. An issue that the Pixiq article may not have anticipated is if a video recording includes evidence of a crime that can possibly be seized by police (i.e. for the purpose of preservation.) The comments for the article talk about this issue, although not all of the claims have sources and it may not be easy reading.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has given advice about using cell phones at protests. Among other things there is the recommendation to use an alternate “throwaway” phone if there is a high chance of arrest and/or the phone being seized. In addition, it is claimed that police can seize a phone (or presumably a camera) that they believe to hold evidence of a crime. On the issue of recording police activity, the Flex Your Rights site has a guide about avoiding trouble when recording police. Among other things, it is recommended that videographers try to avoid sharing video footage with police in a manner that ties the video to them. The guide does not mention the situation of being ordered to hand over a camera, but it does touch upon such situations as a videographer being told that recording is unlawful or being ordered to stop recording.
Evidence
> Film, not camera. As in, it’s what the camera recorded, i.e. the
> data, that’s seized, not the phone.
And once the video has been forensically removed from a phone in accordance with chain of custody and the rules of evidence promulgated by federal and state courts, then the owner is entitled to have his/her device returned.
> CCTV cameras aren’t seized by the cops if they observe a crime.
CCTV cameras don’t come with passwords, encryption, and/or software designed to alter/delete evidence. Nor is the evidence stored within the camera itself.
Evidence
> Film, not camera.
Oh, and both Zapruder’s camera *and* film were seized at the scene of Kennedy’s assassination. A seizure Zapruder challenged and which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Re:
… …
hyperbolic extrapolation much?
Involuntary participation in the justice system
whoever’s contributing the most to his post judicial employment plan, i suspect.
Good reason for something like dropbox
Are you using CM7 nightlies? If so, you don’t have to wipe everything on your phone to upgrade. Simply wipe the dalvik cache then install the ROM and it’ll do an in place update on the current nightly. That’s what I’ve been doing lately with the CM9 nightlies.
But, however, regarding the Google+ ability to upload stuff (as well as Google Drive), I fear you may be right. We all know Google is an evil piracy genius. I have a ton of legitimate stuff stored on my Google Drive. Documents, pictures, ROMs, etc. Nothing illegal. But I could if I wanted to. And I could easily share it with anyone thanks to the “Share” feature. And we all know that any place where someone may potentially store a copyrighted work is very much a piracy haven and to hell with all the legitimate use. (A problem I feel regarding Megaupload, due to all the ROMs and apps lost over at the XDA forums that were hosted there.) Luckily I make multiple backups on my local hard drive, external hard drive, various usb drives, as well as other cloud services and cyberlockers (like Dropbox).
Film police and film often! It is your RIGHT!
All the BULLSHIT
Then we all die anyway.. What BULLSHIT
Re:
I’m from the planet where cops have a device that can pull all data from a smartphone simply by plugging that device into the phone and pressing a button. You’re from the same planet, because that device exists and the cops have them.
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/michigan-police-can-scan-all-of-your-phones-data-in-less-than-2-minutes-20110421/
Good enough for you? Seem like a better solution than reaching into a woman’s bra for her phone while her hands are cuffed behind her?
Lets see..
1) Violation of rights
2) False arrest
3) Illegal way retrieve evidence.
Yep, I smell a lawsuit. Minimum 10 million.
Good reason for something like dropbox
Are you using CM7 nightlies? If so, you don’t have to wipe everything on your phone to upgrade. Simply wipe the dalvik cache then install the ROM and it’ll do an in place update on the current nightly.
Yes, though I am still quite a way behind current. I’ll have to try this out. Been listening to the developers tell me I should wipe everything so often, but really it is just an excuse for me to blow everything away and start over. I’m at CM9 for my Nook, and want to take the leap on the phone…just haven’t gotten around to it yet.
e all know Google is an evil piracy genius. I have a ton of legitimate stuff stored on my Google Drive. Documents, pictures, ROMs, etc. Nothing illegal.
Me as well. All sorts of crap, including stuff for various MMORPGs I play, including a bunch of noob-training stuff for a particular game of the internet spaceship variety (pew pew.) I learned what sharepoint should be like playing with Google Docs this way. If Google ever gets raided like MegaUpload, I will be in real trouble (even though everything is backed up,) just because that is such a damn easy way to get stuff shared with the people I need to share it with (all legal to distribute since it came from my own sweat and I’ve released as public domain.) All I have to do is post the tiny url or goog.le link and everyone on the team has access.
Good reason for something like dropbox
How do u get a dropbox acct? Can u use it on a smartphone?
Re:
The PHONE is not evidence, the VIDEO is. It can be emailed, uploaded, etc. etc. Remember this!!! There’s NO REASON for the PHONE to be confiscated.