Photography is Suspicious Activity

Kaye Beach

Jan 20, 2012

The police tell a photographer;

“You know, I’ll just submit your name to TLO (the Terrorism Liaison Officer program). Every time your driver’s license gets scanned, every time you take a plane, any time you go on any type of public transit system where they look at your identification, you’re going to be stopped. You will be detained. You’ll be searched. You will be on the FBI’s hit list.”

If we allow the national security state to continue to grow, this threat, spoken or unspoken, will come to determine many of our actions in life.

A snapshot of our times

By George F. Will, Published: January 18

LOS ANGELESShawn Nee, 35, works in television but hopes to publish a book of photographs. Shane Quentin, 31, repairs bicycles but enjoys photographing industrial scenes at night. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department probably wishes that both would find other hobbies. Herewith a story of today’s inevitable friction between people exercising, and others protecting, freedom.

When the Los Angeles Police Department developed a Suspicious Activity Report program, the federal government encouraged local law enforcement agencies to adopt its guidelines for gathering information “that could indicate activity or intentions related to” terrorism. From the fact that terrorists might take pictures of potential infrastructure targets (“pre-operational surveillance”), it is a short slide down a slippery slope to the judgment that photography is a potential indicator of terrorism and hence photographers are suspect when taking pictures “with no apparent aesthetic value” (words from the suspicious-activity guidelines).

One reason law enforcement is such a demanding, and admirable, profession is that it requires constant exercises of good judgment in the application of general rules to ambiguous situations. Such judgment is not evenly distributed among America’s 800,000 law enforcement officials and was lacking among the sheriff’s deputies who saw Nee photographing controversial new subway turnstiles. (Subway officials, sadder but wiser about our fallen world, installed turnstiles after operating largely on an honor system regarding ticket purchases.) Deputies detained and searched Nee, asking if he was planning to sell the photos to al-Qaeda. Nee was wearing, in plain view, a device police sometimes use to make video and audio records of interactions with people, and when he told a deputy he was going to exercise his right to remain silent, the deputy said:

“You know, I’ll just submit your name to TLO (the Terrorism Liaison Officer program). Every time your driver’s license gets scanned, every time you take a plane, any time you go on any type of public transit system where they look at your identification, you’re going to be stopped. You will be detained. You’ll be searched. You will be on the FBI’s hit list.”

Read more

 

NYC to Use Scanners to Find People Carrying Guns

Kaye Beach

Jan 18, 2012

Disturbing news about the NYPD wanting to use technology to peek under your clothes as you walk down the street.

 

Submitted by Mark Berman Opposing Views on Jan 17, 2012

New York City is looking towards high-tech scanners to find people who are carrying guns on the city streets.

The New York Daily News reports that in his State of the NYPD speech on Tuesday, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the department wants to use technology similar to infrared imaging that detects radiation coming from a person’s body.

Read more

From Gizmodo;

The NYPD Wants Mobile Weapon Scanners for Drive-By Patdowns

The NYPD is in hot water with civil rights groups over its controversial Stop-and-Frisk policy. But, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly has a solution—handheld weapons scanners that see guns under clothing! Fourth Amendment? What’s that?

As Kelly told a State of the NYPD breakfast Tuesday, the department is developing a mobile, infrared scanner mechanism that would allow officers to detect concealed weapons similar to the way that full-body scanners at airports work. The Department of Defense is also working with the NYPD to develop the technology

Cop hauled off to psych ward after alleging fake crime stats

NYPD officer Adrian Schoolcraft’s description of being taken in handcuffs to a psychiatric ward suggests the nation’s largest police force could have a vindictive underbelly. He claims that cops risk retribution when they try, as he did, to blow the whistle on supervisors’ faking of crime statistics to make the stats look better.

To back up his allegations, Schoolcraft made hundreds of hours of secret tapes while on duty — everything from roll calls to locker room chatter to bosses yelling at him. The tapes, along with medical records and other documents, were supplied to The Associated Press

Read More

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/cop-nypd-psych-ward-whistleblowing/

Cop Talk-How to Deal with DUI

And the messages that follow are a heartwarming example of the high regard that some law enforcement officers have for the presumption of innocence

Ax

NYPD investigating handling of blood test

in officer’s fatal DWI case

By John Annese
Staten Island Advance

NEW YORK — All too often, cops follow an unwritten rule if they’re arrested for driving while drunk – don’t take the blood alcohol test, no way, no how.

As the circumstances surrounding the vehicular manslaughter arrest of NYPD Officer Andrew Kelly starkly illustrated this weekend, police officers often are unwilling to take a Breathalyzer test, or submit to a blood test, after they’ve been pulled over for drunken driving or gotten into a car crash.

Several law enforcement sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, say they’d never blow into a Breathalyzer – the risk of producing scientific evidence of inebriation is too great, and a drunken-driving conviction means they’ll have to give up their badge.

“If you think you’d going to fail, you don’t take the test,” said one source.

Kelly, a seven-year veteran of the NYPD assigned to the 68th Precinct, struck and killed Vionique Valnord, the 33-year-old daughter of a Brooklyn pastor, as she crossed the street in the borough’s Flatlands neighborhood.

Kelly refused to take a Breathalyzer test, and, the Daily News reported, it took authorities more than seven hours to administer a blood test, which showed no trace of alcohol.

Kelly’s four passengers in his SUV left the scene of the crash. One of them, Michael Downs, a fellow police officer living in Eltingville, later turned himself in. Downs hasn’t been charged criminally, but he has been suspended, and one police source said it’s likely he’ll lose his job.

Kelly’s decision to refuse a Breathalyzer is hardly unique among police officers. “I would recommend to anybody, don’t take the test. It’s never going to help you, and it’s just going to strengthen the case against you,” said one veteran officer. “How do you know you’re going to pass? They give false readings. It’s not infallible.”

Defense lawyer Mario Gallucci, who handles about70 drunken-driving cases a year, concurs.

A refusal means an automatic year-long license revocation, but Gallucci said it leaves a defendant with options.

“If you don’t take the test, there’s no machine that’s going to be able to testify at a trial,” he said.

In respect of the revocation, which is a state Department of Motor Vehicles rule, he said, “You’re entitled to a hearing, and we win those hearings often.”

Still, the decision to refuse a test doesn’t always get a police officer out of hot water, as two Staten Island cases show.

Read More;

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1917210-NYPD-investigating-handling-of-blood-test-in-officers-fatal-DWI-case/

11 Member Comments The comments below are member-generated and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of PoliceOne or its staff. Be the first to comment on this article.

Page 1

Posted by Hot_Pursuit on Saturday, October 03, 2009 01:43 PM Pacific Report Abuse The one thing that always gets me is a person with tunnel vision and worse then that is a cop with tunnel vision. One must look at the whole picture and every angle, until then, you have not done a good job. Things don’t always seem as they first appear, so who here has scene the whole picture? I thought so. Posted by irenegade on Saturday, October 03, 2009 12:35 AM Pacific Report Abuse For one, the press will always print what sells and will distort/omit facts that will not bolster it’s slant. I understand the woman stepped out and jaywalked in the middle of the block. I can’t state that as a fact however, and may she rest in peace. In addition, I think there would be some residue of alcohol even 7 hours later, unless of course the lab sabotaged/botched the test. As for the smell of alcohol, it is possible that the odor in the car emanated from one or more of the passengers. To condemn anyone from a high pedestal w/o knowing all the facts is appalling. I am not advocating a blue wall, but at the very least the benefit of due process. I see we are not exempt from finger pointing, self-righteous, holier-than-thou “brothers” among us. Posted by crowcop on Saturday, October 03, 2009 10:21 AM Pacific Report Abuse It is as simple as this, take accountablity for your actions. A young woman was killed! If you can’t live by the same laws and rules you took an oath to uphold, what are you doing wearing a badge! Posted by shab on Saturday, October 03, 2009 07:00 AM Pacific Report Abuse I agree that we shouldn’t convict this cop in the media; on the video, some high-ranking guy said they’ll use a formula to figure out the level of intoxication at the time of the offence. I don’t think there are any formulae out there that work when you plug in a zero! I sure like the law in Canada where refusing to provide a sample of your breath is an offence in itself and carries the same penalty as providing a failing sample. I LOVE refusals since I can get out of the station in less than half the time it takes to process someone who’s compliant. Posted by mcanny on Saturday, October 03, 2009 05:07 AM Pacific Report Abuse It’s very simple–don’t get loaded and drive, whether it is on alcohol or anything else, like prescription drugs. We’ve all seen what happens when others do this, we have NO excuse for doing so ourselves. The discussion shouldn’t even reach this point of whether or not to take the test. For the sake of everyone–including yourself–DON’T RISK IT. Posted by craigaj678 on Friday, October 02, 2009 11:40 AM Pacific Report Abuse Just because a refusal can be used in court, doesn’t make you guilty. What laws did the officer violate? He chose to refuse to submit to a chemical test. That is not a violation of the law. Yes, we all sign the implied consent statement when we obtain our driver license, but all that means is that we give our consent if we are unconscious and if we choose to refuse we will have our driving priviledges suspended for a pre-determined period of time. How can you say he set a poor example when all he did was envoke his rights, the same rights that non-Police Officers envoke everyday with little discussion. It was and is a personal choice. You are absolutely correct, the officers on scene did state that they smelled intoxicants. That means very little. If you deal with DWI arrests on a regular basis you would know that everyone who has a smell of alcoholic beverages emanating from their breath does not blow over the legal limit. In New York City, a refusal means very little. For the most part it prevents the District Attorney from offer a plea to a lesser charge. If he had blown, it may have helped him, but again, that is his choice. Posted by tlp on Friday, October 02, 2009 10:05 AM Pacific Report Abuse Here is a big part of the problem. He refused to submit to a chemical test. I have had refussals go to trial, and the refussal was the one element that came into play leading to a conviction and jail time. He did create the problem for himself with that moment. We all sign the implied consent statement when we obtain our driver licenses, there was a poor example set when it shows an officer violating multiple laws. The officers at the scene stated smelling intoxicants. Refusing just indicated that he felt that he was under the influence then, and just didn’t want anything to show it. When somebody is read the implied consent on the Alcohol Influence Report, it mentions that evidence of their refusal may be used against them in a court of law. If he would have sumitted the sample, and it showed him below the state limit for excessive BAC, he may of had a chance, but some of the courts I have been in, the refusal is almost worse than a guilty plea with the sample. Posted by craigaj678 on Friday, October 02, 2009 09:19 AM Pacific Report Abuse WOW! So quick to convict another Police Officer with few facts of the case. Just because he wears a gun and badge doesn’t mean he loses the same rights afforded to everyone else. I am in no way advocating drinking and driving. On the contrary, I am a strong oponent of driving while intoxicated and make many DWI arrests. With that being said, let’s remember that not everyone drinks to the level of intoxication. Not everyone who has had a drink is intoxicated. Many people drink responsibly and without evidence, I feel it’s extremely innapropriate to convict someone in the court of public opinion. Maybe he was intoxicated. Maybe he wasn’t. We don’t know and we shouldn’t bash another officer, especially without the facts. Posted by ma1_eatley on Friday, October 02, 2009 08:56 AM Pacific Report Abuse Attitudes like this is why some people refer to the police as just another gang. These cops are working the system just like any other thug on the street. AS far as compulsory blood tests, I’m not so sure. With a warrant, yes by all means, if the warrant can be obtained quickly. But everyone has an inherent right against self incrimination that they should be able to exercise in the absence of a warrant. Posted by Arod77th on Friday, October 02, 2009 07:40 AM Pacific Report Abuse Ditto mppd. Hearing stories such as this one disgust me. After all our efforts, after all the death we see on the roadways, it never fails; there’s always an officer out there who thinks he can get away with DWI. It is very simple to avoid a DWI arrest. Don’t drive if you have been drinking. Officer Kelly, I hope you never wear a badge again. I hope you get your day in court. Posted by mppdtraining on Friday, October 02, 2009 04:35 AM Pacific Report Abuse It is sad that some officers who are sworn to uphold the law put more time into thinking about what to due after a drunk driving wreck then thinking about not drinking and driving. Call a friend, call a taxi, walk, anything to not drive drunk and kill people. It angers me everytime I see a story about an officer doing this. DUI is a preventable decision, not a simple mistake. They should lose the badge and police powers whether they take the test or not. And then to blame the tests and give defense attorneys ammunition, ridiculous. I handle too many drunk driving wrecks to ever risk myself, my family, or others like this. Stay safe and don’t drive drunk.

NY officer acquitted for body slam that broke woman’s jaw

Look at the video.  There was no call for this amount of force that I can fathom.

Is this a valid law enforcement maneuver?    To my untrained eye it looks a lot like a pissed off man taking his anger

 out on a woman.

From RAWSTORY.com

Another day, another [what would appear to the naked eye as vicious and brutal] videotaped police [overre-] action condoned or excused.

“A New York policeman who was caught on video apparently body slamming a woman to a tile floor has been acquitted of civil rights violations,” the Associated Press reports. “Jurors in federal court in White Plains found 39-year-old Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes (SIM’-oze) not guilty Wednesday afternoon.”

The AP adds, “The video, from a restaurant surveillance camera, seemed to show the officer lifting 44-year-old Irma Marquez by her waist and throwing her face-first to the floor. She was knocked unconscious and her jaw was broken.”

The forewoman of the jury, Jhonna Van Dunk, told an upstate New York newspaper, “We watched the video and we watched the frame-by-frame and we could not determine that he intended to hurt her.”

In June of 2008, Simoes’ lawyer told the press that the video doesn’t tell the full story.

“What the video doesn’t show is the operation of Wayne Simoes’ mind at the time of the incident,” Andrew Quinn said. “That’s what’s going to be a critical issue in this case is whether or not his intent when he was subduing Ms. Marquez was to violate her Constitutional rights or cause any type of injury.”

LoHud.com reported last week,

A Yonkers police officer said yesterday that his colleague Wayne Simoes used excessive force when he threw Irma Marquez to the floor of La Fonda Restaurant on March 3, 2007, breaking her jaw and bruising her face.

Officer John Liberatore was the first witness called to the stand yesterday as Simoes’ federal criminal trial began in U.S. District Court in White Plains.

Liberatore said he saw Simoes grab Marquez around the waist, lift her into the air and throw her to the ground. Afterward, Liberatore said he went to his partner Officer Todd Mendelson and asked him, “What the … just happened?”

Since, as LoHud.com reported, “the jury of eight men and four women deliberated for a little more than five hours yesterday in U.S. District Court in White Plains,” it’s assumed that Ms. Van Dunk and her fellow jurors were able to beat the rush hour traffic home Wednesday night.

 

Video available at Raw Story;

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/ny-officer-acquitted-after-body-slam-which-broke-womans-jaw/