Store Owner Sues Baton Rouge Police For Seizing His CCTV Recording Of Alton Sterling Shooting

from the store-entirely-self-service-apparently dept

I don’t get to use the phrase “with alacrity” that often, but Baton Rouge store owner Abdullah Muflahi’s filing of a lawsuit against the Baton Rouge police can only be described as that.

Following the shooting of Alton Sterling by Baton Rouge police officers, Muflahi’s store was raided by law enforcement officers who took the hard drive containing the store’s surveillance camera footage of the altercation. So far, everyone involved has refused to discuss the illegal seizure of Muflahi’s recording equipment, deferring to the FBI and its investigation of the shooting — which would be something if the FBI would answer questions about the seizure and current location of the hard drive.. but it won’t talk about it either.

Hence the speedily-filed lawsuit by Muflahi, as reported by Mike Hayes of Buzzfeed:

The owner of the Triple S Food Mart in Baton Rouge where Alton Sterling was fatally shot on July 5 says police detained him for hours while seizing his security footage of the incident without a warrant, according to a lawsuit [PDF] filed Monday.

28-year-old Abdullah Muflahi says that police at the scene placed him in a locked police car for four hours and denied him access to his cell phone, preventing him from contacting his family or an attorney.

According to the lawsuit, police wouldn’t even allow Muflahi to go back into his store to use the restroom during his detention, forcing him to urinate outside of his store in full view of the public. And his detention didn’t end there. Muflahi was taken back to the Louisiana State Police headquarters and held for another two hours while officers questioned him.

This all sounds very suspicious, illegal, and retaliatory. Muflahi not only had CCTV footage of the shooting, but also filmed it with his own cell phone, providing one of the two “unofficial” accounts of the arrest. While it’s fantastic that a recent Supreme Court decision may have resulted in officers’ reluctance to seize/search Muflahi’s cell phone, the Fourth Amendment itself seemed to have little effect on their decision to enter his store and seize his recording equipment without a warrant. While the recording could correctly be described as “evidence,” that doesn’t excuse a warrantless entry or seizure.

The lawsuit, unfortunately, is a little thin when it comes to establishing anything that might overcome the immunity that shields individual officers from the consequences of their actions. While it does suggest the Baton Rouge Police Department’s training is inadequate, it really doesn’t go into detail as to why the court should be expected to believe this assertion. However, it does make an allegation that could be interesting if the court decides to explore it.

[Baton Rouge Police Chief Carl Dabadie] has negotiated a contract with a union representing police officers that provides a blanket indemnification for police officers who are sued by the public from all claims no matter what the circumstances under which the claim arise and further provides that meritorious complaints about police officers are purged from employment files after only 18 months. Both contract provisions encourage aggressive conduct by police officers by minimizing consequences.

It’s common knowledge that police union contracts are generally constructed to shield officers from not only public scrutiny, but internal misconduct investigations as well. Most of these are complemented by a “Law Enforcement Bill of Rights” that gives officers up to three days to ignore questions about alleged misconduct or excessive force. These “extra rights” are often granted in the face of police union pressure, and the unions themselves are heavily-involved in the drafting of department discipline policies. Unions also help fired officers regain their positions, making it even harder for law enforcement agencies to rid themselves of the “bad apples” continually spoiling the rest of the “bunch.”

While there’s zero chance any decision would result in an alteration of the union’s relationship with the Baton Rouge police department or the policies it helped draft, any discussion would at least shine a little more light on how these unions tend to make bad policing/policies even worse.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Store Owner Sues Baton Rouge Police For Seizing His CCTV Recording Of Alton Sterling Shooting”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Public Unination

Cops are used to this and they find ways to make you pay for pissing them off (pun intended). This is the problem – the cops have all the power in the dynamic because they can, and sometimes do, choose to ignore your rights and you can only protest after the fact at your own effort and expense.

Groaker (profile) says:

"legal" crime wave

There are more ways for LEOs to invent new crimes, or simply commit old ones, than there are ways for the citizenry to take a decade long trip to SCOTUS to attempt to obtain relief. Especially when there is little chance of any LEOs being held responsible for even the most egregious of acts of violence, sexual attack, murder. theft, kidnapping and more.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: "legal" crime wave

oh, it has gone far, far beyond that, kamper…
not only do piggies NOT have to have a valid law in mind when arresting you, they can make shit up, and the judges give them a free pass…
this was widespread when they were illegally cracking down on occupy protesters, one piggy would order them off the sidewalks, then the next piggy would arrest them for obstructing the streets…

Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Re: "legal" crime wave

Citizens have power of arrest too in many states — 49 out of 50 states have some form of citizen’s arrest, often encoded into statutes. Only North Carolina entirely lacks citizen’s arrest.

If ignorance of the law but a good faith belief you are following it turns false arrests legitimate, then it would necessarily do so for citizen’s arrests too, under the equal protection clause of the constitution.

See a cop do something you believe is against the law? Arrest them! It doesn’t matter whether it actually is illegal or not in those jurisdictions where judges give cops carte blanch if they have good faith.

In those places where a mere arrest for certain things carries pre-trial, extra-judicial penalties, you can REALLY mess someone up this way.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 "legal" crime wave

And that is the shame of this situation. Cop pulls you over for some bogus traffic violation. Cop gets abusive or in some other way violates the law or your rights. Cop arrests you for some made up law. You arrest the cop for his/her breach of the law. No one will ever hear about your arrest of the cop, and the abuse the cop applies to you in the interim…well your pocket book will certainly feel it, if not your body.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: "legal" crime wave

Yeah, make sure to have one or two things(both would be better) before you do that:

A lawyer at the site with you, with a live recording streaming to an off-site service/site that cannot be deleted via the device streaming.


An updated will for when the cop claims you were ‘presenting a real and present danger’ and acts ‘accordingly’.

David says:

Re: Re: Recording police

The prosecutor will show selected inconclusive snippets, the grand jury will not indict, the policemen will get two months of paid vacation and a promotion.

More policemen will get shot in self-defense, police will get still more trigger-happy and paranoid, and the killings will increase.

Until the police and their unions understand that dancing around their bad apples is what makes their jobs more dangerous in the first place, there is no hope for improvement.

Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Recording police

Humans are generally very good at killing what they consider to be an existential threat. North Americans are better at it than most.

Police are trained and conditioned by their fellow officers to believe they are under existential threat every instant they are doing their jobs, whether they actually are or not. But there is a growing awareness of this, that police will shoot you and claim self defense no matter how meek and submissive you are — which is an existential threat to everyone who is not a cop (and even to fellow cops, given how often they shoot eachother due to accident or misidentification).

We are rapidly approaching a point where police will pose such an enormous, immediate, existential threat to everyone around them that opening fire on them on sight will meet all of the legal tests for whether an act of force is legitimately self defense.

Courts being as corrupt as they are, they’ll probably reject such arguments, even as the letter of the law makes such a conclusion inescapable.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Maybe it's time to go into the streaming business...

If the video is streamed live to a cloud service, then the drive getting seized (legally or otherwise) will be moot, especially if there’s some kind of safeguard to prevent the streamed video from being deleted or altered (say a two-week window during which only commands to publish are regarded).

Preferably, such an collection would be regularly archived offshore.

Such a service may have an international following. The US isn’t unique in its epidemic of law-enforcement officers attempting to seize documentation of their on-duty behavior.

I.T. Guy says:

With actions like this it’s no wonder some have taken to shooting at cops. Inexcusable yes. Understandable? Absolutely. The frustration of the community CONSTANTLY watching crooked cops(read as murders) get wrist-slapped, and let go is infuriating. There is no respect given by LEO’s to the public but yet they DEMAND the utmost respect. It does not work that way. A certain amount needs to be given to the position, but the rest needs to be EARNED. They don’t give 2 flying fuks about getting respect the honorable way. Cops that break the law are no better than the criminals they chase. I’d venture to say they are worse. At least with a criminal you know where they stand.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Cops that break the law are no better than the criminals they chase. I’d venture to say they are worse. At least with a criminal you know where they stand.”

They’re much worse because nobody expects criminals to obey the law. That’s why they’re criminals. Cops are not only supposed to know the law, but also uphold it, even when no one is watching or recording them.

A cop breaking the law is like a social worker molesting a child or a soldier shooting the citizens of his own country. It’s the deepest betrayal possible and should be prosecuted and punished more fiercely than most other crimes.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

They’re much worse, and more dangerous for an additional reason as well: Unlike criminals without badges the law doesn’t recognize ‘self-defense’ when it comes to a cop, since a cop would never assault or otherwise inflict harm on someone without a valid reason.

If a criminal without a badge pulls a knife, or a gun, or just starts beating you with their fists you’re allowed to fight back, and so long as you don’t go too overboard the law will almost always side with you if you claim self-defense. If a cop does any of that though fighting back will get you slammed with aggravated assault of an officer charges along with whatever else the prosecutor feels like tacking on, assuming you don’t end up in a morgue from the police ‘defending themselves’ from your actions.

Both the police and members of the public know this, so while a ‘regular’ criminal will always have to worry about their victim fighting back, which will likely act as a check on their actions at least to a degree the same can not be said of a cop, making them far more dangerous.

Anonymous Coward says:

Exactly what does this store owner expect to get out of this lawsuit? While the police overstepped their boundaries, they won’t get anything more than a reprimand, time serving behind a desk and possibly a suspension from the force for a limited time. If anything, it was a legally unethical move by the police, nothing more. The store owner simply does not have anything to justify getting around the
‘police immunity’ restriction associated with lawsuits, simply because his rights were not being violated. Police officers have the right to detain you if you have evidence related to an investigation and to prevent you from either destroying that evidence or releasing it to social media or the news.

I.T. Guy says:

Re: Re:

So the alternative is to just roll over and accept it?

“Police officers have the right to detain you if you have evidence related to an investigation and to prevent you from either destroying that evidence or releasing it to social media or the news.”
Absolutely 100% incorrect. What they have a duty to do is secure the perimeter and make sure the crime scene does not get compromised further and wait for the WARRANT to proceed. Then they take inventory of what was taken and from where. They do not have any right to detain you for 4 hours with no charges. You go to the store owner, which would prolly have been more than happy to cooperate with the police, and say we have restricted access to this area while we wait for the warrant. Period.
Unless… you know the footage showed something other than what LEO’s have said happened. At the very least the way it went down makes it look like they have something to hide.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: police detention

As far as I am aware, the police can detain you for up to 24 hours without charge, or even allowing you to communicate with an attorney. They do have to stop asking you questions if you say you don’t want to answer any, but it doesn’t sound like they were asking him any questions.

I very much hope I’m wrong about detention, but I don’t think so.

Padpaw (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: police detention

then you need to educate yourself about what the police can and cannot legally do.

They have to inform you why you are being arrested, if you are not being arrested they cannot legally force you to stay with them. you have the right to get up and leave unless you are under arrest.

If you are under arrest you do have the right to an attorney. it greatly scares me that there are such uneducated people like yourself out there when it comes to your basic rights.

Lance (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: police detention

They may only detain you for a very short period of time (during which you may end the encounter when you wish) unless they can articulate a specific, reasonable belief that you may have committed a prosecutable offense. They can’t accost you on the street and decide to talk to you (or make you sit in a car) for hours. They can’t extend a traffic stop by more than a few minutes, because traffic violations are not crimes. Having access (we assume) to the video that was recorded in the store is clearly not a crime. Even refusing to hand it over would not be actionable. The only way they could legally detain him is if they caught him trying to alter or delete the video after they identified it as potential evidence. There is no way they had reason to believe he had committed a crime. What they did is at least false imprisonment. If they were concerned about destruction of evidence, they can hang around and make sure he doesn’t delete anything while they get a warrant. They can’t interfere with him otherwise. it is a clear violation of his civil rights, which is a crime by the police. We all know charges won’t be filed, but that doesn’t change the facts.

Groaker (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: police detention

It varies from state to state. There is a difference between detention and arrest. Detention is only for a short period, and the individual can not be significantly moved. Once the police move an individual to say a police station, a short period has passed – probably 90 minutes in most cases, then the detention turns into an arrest.

In some states you can be arrested and held on a policeman’s say so for 24 or 72 hours without charges being filed. But the rights of the accused vary between detention and arrest.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Police officers have the right to detain you if you have evidence related to an investigation and to prevent you from either destroying that evidence or releasing it to social media or the news.

If they did not ask politely first, and have their requerst refused, they have no right to treat someone possessing evidence as a criminal.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Police officers have the right to detain you if you have evidence related to an investigation and to prevent you from either destroying that evidence or releasing it to social media or the news.

Police officers also have the DUTY to go FETCH a fucking warrant before taking your property.

I’m so sick of people like you continuing to make excuses for piss poor cops that are funded with taxpayer dollars.

What you meant to say was the cops need to step up and start doing their fucking jobs right.

Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Legally unethical? I suppose that’s one way to describe it. OF course, by that standard, most crimes are merely ‘legally unethical’ as well, from armed robbery to murder.

Title 18, Section 241 & 242 define the crime of violating constitutional rights under color of law, such as the fourth amendment one their warrantless, non-exigent seizure of the video represents.

Section 241 is the conspiracy statute, 242 is for individual violations. Since few police act alone, Section 241 seems to apply here better than 242. At the level of violation of rights the seizure of the video represents, every officer involved is criminally liable under federal law for a crime that has a maximum sentence of ten years in prison or a $10,000 fine or both.

While it’s rare for a federal prosecutor to press those charges, it’s good to remember than anything you can win a federal civil rights lawsuit over IS an actual for-real crime under Title 18 of the US Code.

JMT says:

Re: Re:

“Police officers have the right to detain you if you have evidence related to an investigation and to prevent you from either destroying that evidence or releasing it to social media or the news.”

I don’t believe that right is nearly as broad as you think it is, but can you explain how being detained, handcuffed, in a car for hours was required in order for the police to remove a hard drive? You can’t possibly believe that’s not grossly overstepping what the law allows and what was even necessary.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

It is possible that the police in this instance were aware of the publicity relating to (maybe even Techdirts) those police officers who raided that pot shop and failed to find all the cameras and then had such a hard time being believable. This leaves one to possibly believe that they were just doing a thorough search, for four hours. Of course, we have yet to hear if the store was torn to shreds searching for hidden video cameras. Rather than detail the destruction, the plaintiffs just assumed that whatever remuneration achieved would cover the repairs to the shop. Maybe /s or maybe not /s.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“or releasing it to social media or the news.”

If the evidence wasn’t publicly released chances are the cops would have much more easily gotten away with their crimes. It very much sounds like this is what you want. Do you know what kinda scumbag this makes you look like?

I.T. Guy says:

Re: Watched a corrupt Union get better.

That is not a fair assumption. Take the IATSE. Once very crony-corrupt is now investing in their members and becoming very corporate, very professional and very fair. Took most of my adult life to happen but it finally did. Now when you come to Philly and request a lighting tech for example, you are getting a qualified technician, not just Vinnie’s cousin that needed work.

Shows make millions. And to pay a guy 10 bucks an hour is deplorable. The union, when it works right, makes sure Theatrical Stage Employees get a decent wage and can afford to feed their families for the countless 19 hour days associated with live performances.

Won’t someone think of the poor defenseless Stage Hands??? LOL.

Anonymous Coward says:

Please. If a police officer knows for a fact that you have evidence related to an incident that the police are investigating, then they actually do have the right to detain you from doing anything with that evidence.

Hell, they don’t even have to have a warrant to arrest you, that’s for the prosecutors and the judges to decide, the police are there to uphold the laws and are not expected to interpret the laws.

Stop acting like every police officer has to have a college degree in jurisprudence in order to detain someone.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Stop acting like every police officer has to have a college degree in jurisprudence in order to detain someone.”

They should goddam well have a degree in criminal justice. Unfortunately, not all jurisdictions have more than a GED requirement because they also pay shit and get what they pay for – corrupt or apathetic cops. But a cop needs at least an associate degree in criminal justice to have a chance of respecting citizen rights because they’re not going to get that training from the police academy.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:

“I don’t think it’s a joke, sir,” Clevinger replied.

“Don’t interrupt.”

“Yes, sir.”

“And say ‘sir’ when you do,” ordered Major Metcalf.

“Yes, sir.”

“Weren’t you just ordered not to interrupt?” Major Metcalf inquired coldly.

“But I didn’t interrupt, sir,” Clevinger protested.

“No. And you didn’t say ‘sir,’ either. Add that to the charges against him,” Major Metcalf directed the corporal who could take shorthand. “Failure to say ‘sir’ to superior officers when not interrupting them.”

And you thought Heller’s “Catch 22” was satire. Arresting people for resisting arrest is really the pinnacle of stupidity.

JMT says:

Re: Re:

Let’s not forget that the police who detained this man for hours, despite the fact that he was under no suspicion of wrongdoing, did so in order to confiscate evidence of their own wrongdoing. Every possible reading of this story absolutely screams police cover-up. Are you sure this is the hill you want to defend?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

And what the fuck happened to “ignorance of the law is no excuse”? So the police can harass me and waste my time based on imaginary laws they think might not exist? Hell, why not go the whole hog with suspicion? “We arrested this guy because he looked like he wasn’t suspicious so he was obviously hiding something!” And after all that hullabaloo you can go on, business as usual, because “good faith, trololololol”?

Ever wonder why a lot of people think of the police as thugs? Ever consider that it might be because asstards like you will go to the ends of the earth to justify their actions to the death?

Groaker (profile) says:

The so called evidence was not at the crime scene, but at least 20′ away. Do the police have the right to detain anyone at any distance from a crime?

According to SCOTUS, after being detained for 90 minutes, the detention becomes an arrest. There was no basis for this arrest, nor questioning him without the presence of a lawyer. The store owner had no obligation to talk to the police whatsoever. His arrest was therefore quite illegal.

Again, according to SCOTUS, it is only under the rarest of circumstances that police have the right to remand an involved person’s property, in particular a picture or video. And we know that any video that the police don’t like is probably going to disapear.

Anonymous Coward says:

Whine about it all you want but where it concerns evidence, closed circuit video is also evidence. The problem here is whether the police had exigent circumstances to enter the premise or whether they had the right to detain the store owner.

I’m not disagreeing that the police may have went somewhat overboard in his detainment but they were correct in seizing the video of the shooting, no matter what their intent was. If what they did was illegal, then that’s up to a grand jury and the prosecutors’ office to determine.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

‘m not disagreeing that the police may have went somewhat overboard in his detainment but they were correct in seizing the video of the shooting, no matter what their intent was.

Yes, of course.

They shot and killed the man.
Then they seized all the video because it’s evidence (without a warrant – you conveniently keep skipping over that part).
Then they’re going to investigate themselves.
(Let’s all pause and take a guess how that’s going to turn out.)

Then at some point in the future, the video will be released, but there’s going to be some footage conveniently missing.
Hmmmm…where have we heard this before?

I could go on and on and on….or “whining” as you put it.

Quiet Lurcker says:

Re: Re:

Somewhat overboard??????

Why in ******** couldn’t they be arsed start the process of getting the video by simply asking politely if they might have the tape or have a copy made?

If even a part of everything the suit asserts is true – and I am NOT saying any of it is – then quite simply, the cops screwed up by the numbers, full stop.

As it is, the fact they simply took the video and delivered it to the feds (so they say) should (in an ideal world, which this is not) make a court very, very skeptical about their testimony.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

So as long as they think there’s evidence they can seize, it doesn’t matter how they go about doing it. I mean, it’s clearly not up to the layman’s common sense to decide even if half a neighborhood gets blown up as long as they think there’s something worth seizing… not like there’s such a thing as tainted or illegal evidence, right?

I.T. Guy says:

Here’s the crux of why:
“Muflahi filmed one of two videos of the shooting that has gone viral, showing officers struggling with Sterling before he was shot multiple times. After the shooting, one of the officers can be seen pulling a gun from Sterling’s pocket.”

Lemme guess…. the LEO’s said he pointed it at them? Kinda hard to do when it’s in your pocket. Gotta make sure nothing contradicts your lies.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

So far, everyone involved has refused to discuss the illegal seizure of Muflahi’s recording equipment,

Is it illegal?

A couple years ago (in Canada) someone moving out of my apartment block left a mattress behind outside. That night some kids set it on fire. The new caretaker had been told that I knew how to work the cameras.

It’s amazing how when the police knock on your door, you KNOW it’s the police even when you have no reason to expect them.

Apparently if I hadn’t been able to save the video to a flash drive for them, they would have taken the entire camera recording system.

Anonymous Coward says:

AC Piggie, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that cops don’t have to understand the law to arrest or detain you. Police officers have a codebook they go by to determine whether they have reason to arrest you, these police codes are what they go by.

It’s up to the district attorney and the prosecutors to determine whether to press forward with charges. If they don’t think there is a case, they will refuse to prosecute or dismiss the charges before a judge.

Police officers are not lawyers, that’s why lawyers are also not police officers. You really should do your own research. It would make you sound less stupid.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

AC Piggie, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that cops don’t have to understand the law to arrest or detain you.

Is there any other job anywhere where you can be totally ignorant of what you’re supposed to be doing and it’s a valid excuse?

Seriously, you really think it’s appropriate to pay them for this “work?”

Groaker (profile) says:

Then there was also the false arrest of the guy who posted the storekeepers personal video to the net, without which this would have gone down just like the cops wanted it to. So the retaliated in order to keep their honor, and the fear of the community intact.

I know what SCOTUS said about the cops not being held to the legal standard that the citizenry is. But why bother to train cops if they can’t be held to a standard? Just give them an M2, and have them vacuum up the streets.

Anonymous Coward says:

I just posted this on the other thread but I figure it’s worth repeating here as well

First of all if the cops want to retain evidence they should ask for copies of the footage without confiscating it

Secondly as soon as someone potentially died on the scene at the hands of police it becomes a conflict of interest for the police to confiscate footage or for them to continue on an investigation where the police themselves are possible criminals. They shouldn’t even be allowed on the scene. Police should not be allowed to investigate their own potential misconduct or to be allowed to remain on the scene where they can attempt to destroy and alter evidence. An independent third party should investigate the scene and if they want footage they should only ask for copies of the footage and not be allowed to confiscate the footage.

Thirdly the police had little reason to confiscate the footage in the first place. The alleged reason for confiscating the footage is that it’s supposedly evidence to a crime. What crime? Their own crime? See above, that’s a conflict of interest, they shouldn’t be allowed to investigate their own crimes. You mean the alleged crime of the victim? What crime did he commit, selling CDs? He supposedly may have resisted arrest? Not a strong reason to confiscate footage and his alleged crime is far outweighed by the importance of making sure his death wasn’t the result of police misconduct. Plus the victim is dead so you can’t use that evidence to prosecute him. So why do the police need to confiscate it?

For the above reasons the confiscation should be illegal. Even if the police requested a warrant, for the above reasons, the warrant should be denied to the police.

The entire procedure and set of laws regarding when evidence can be confiscated and by whom and how needs to change.

Hopefully the spambot won’t flag it as spam since it’s being repeated.

TRX (profile) says:

The value of the stolen hardware – and “stolen” is the correct word – is probably well down in ‘misdemeanor’ territory. However, the value of the recording might well be in the six figure range, which is felony-level theft. And it’s time-sensitive property; if the police give it back after a year, they’ve stolen the present value of that property.

The guy should start soliciting bidders now in order to establish the present value.

Anonymous Coward says:


Hadn’t heard of the case, watched the vid at the linked thesource com link, have to say: I’m never going to visit my relatives in the US even if one is prof at a highly decorated university and the other works directly for/with the president. Sh…stuff is scary!!!

They guy was down, 2 officers on him. How the piiep is there any reason to kill him?

No warrant, no ability to get anything. If they did it is illegal and if anything was changed on the original item then it is illegal and the PD might even be viable on the harshest charges off all: copyright infringement! The store owner created the video therefor it is his copyright.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...