I was arrested for filming police tonight

[TechnoWeenie]

Some phones won't support QIK. I had an old LG Alley that did, when I upgraded to a Droid Bionic the app won't show up in the Play Store. My daughters LG lucid does show it as available. So it's not the age of the phone, but the brand and model that is or isn't supported.

download the .apk

 

[509rifas]

Though I'm pretty much done tooting my own horn on this one, here's a couple more articles from this week.

http://www.yakimaherald.com/opinion...56-8/saturday-soapbox-better-know-your-rights

My favorite so far.

http://www.yakimaherald.com/opinion/editorials/1450983-8/police-must-know-law-and-how-to-interact

""The case in question involves Thomas Warren, a 28-year-old Sunnyside resident who is not shy about instigating filmable moments with the authorities. Warren, a librarian... seems to know the law in this area and to relish the confrontation, but most people would defer to a police officer who cites the law..."
Not entirely accurate, but whatever. I don't instigate, I just back down slower than most people.

http://www.yakimaherald.com/opinion/letterstotheeditor/1426139-8/misuse-of-power

And in that one the issue of why SWAT was there to begin with is finally addressed.

 

[cirrusly]

Though I'm pretty much done tooting my own horn on this one

It sounds like you've had an okay outcome, and you have an advocate in the PD now. However, I would consider a civil suit for several reasons:

1. For employment screenings you're now forever $$@!ed. You have to check that little box that says "Have been arrested"

If you're applying for a security clearance you'll also have issues. The FBI background checks are deemed "gold star" however they are not always accurate and sometimes have been known to return charges and arrests thy have been dropped, repealed, and sometimes even expunged.

Even if it doesn't effect your current position or career, they [the arresting department] have now limited your eligibility or certain civil positions and added potential major headache should you ever require a clearance. They have made the career limiting decision for you.

How do I know this? I have an active clearance with the federal government. I speak with others who also fill out the SF-86s and apply for clearances.

Don't you think they should pay for this future potential difficulty they've caused you?

2. Also, they know they are legally "in the wrong." The court dropped your case because the district attorney knows they had no grounds to arrest you. The department [police chief?] is giving you his ear because they are empowering you not to sue. They know they screwed up.

Time is of the essence. Are you familiar with the statute of limitations for your case?

Again, I have no horse in this race. I just want to see a fellow OCer treated fairly. And I can tell you with full certainty, if it were me, I'd make a case for my loss of salary over my career due to "security clearance ineligibilities" caused by a false arrest.

 

[Citizen]

It sounds like you've had an okay outcome, and you have an advocate in the PD now. However, I would consider a civil suit for several reasons:

1. For employment screenings you're now forever $$@!ed. You have to check that little box that says "Have been arrested"

If you're applying for a security clearance you'll also have issues. The FBI background checks are deemed "gold star" however they are not always accurate and sometimes have been known to return charges and arrests thy have been dropped, repealed, and sometimes even expunged.

Even if it doesn't effect your current position or career, they [the arresting department] have now limited your eligibility or certain civil positions and added potential major headache should you ever require a clearance. They have made the career limiting decision for you.

How do I know this? I have an active clearance with the federal government. I speak with others who also fill out the SF-86s and apply for clearances.

Don't you think they should pay for this future potential difficulty they've caused you?

2. Also, they know they are legally "in the wrong." The court dropped your case because the district attorney knows they had no grounds to arrest you. The department [police chief?] is giving you his ear because they are empowering you not to sue. They know they screwed up.

Time is of the essence. Are you familiar with the statute of limitations for your case?

Again, I have no horse in this race. I just want to see a fellow OCer treated fairly. And I can tell you with full certainty, if it were me, I'd make a case for my loss of salary over my career due to "security clearance ineligibilities" caused by a false arrest.

+1

Local governments cannot compel the FBI to expunge their copy of the arrest record. See Arrest-proof Yourself by Dale Carson.

The OPer will forever have to write on job applications that he was arrested because if he omits it and a future prospective employer finds out about it, they will surely file the job application in the trash. And, if an employer has two applicants roughly equally qualified, they won't bother to verify that the arrest was expunged or the case dropped. Too much trouble when there is other job applicant who does not have an arrest on his application. Why take the time to verify the expungement or dropped case?

This has a good chance of affecting the OPer economically for the rest of his earning career.

Definitely sue. A false arrest is a very big deal.

 

[cirrusly]

+1

Local governments cannot compel the FBI to expunge their copy of the arrest record. See Arrest-proof Yourself by Dale Carson.

Which is why I'm weary of OCing sometimes even when I know I'm legally (and morally) correct. For example, I called the Washington Area Metropolitan Transit (WMATA) Police to verify their "interpretation" of the legality of OC west of the Potomac.

The first officer: "yeah- you can have a gun, just make sure you have your papers."

Me: "No papers are needed to Open carry in Virginia. You know what Open Carry means, correct?

First Officer: "You want to carry your gun on the metro in a case?"

Me: "No, I'm referring to carrying my gun on my hip."

First Officer "Oh! I don't know about that, let me transfer you to a higher-up Sargent"

---

Second Officer [after I re-ask the question]: "I have no idea if that's legal, I think there's a law that says 'no weapons on the metro' Let me call you back.

Me: "Ok thanks."

Second Officer [when called back]: "Yea, I can't find a law that says 'no weapons', be careful though, the other officers may not know if you can do that."

End of call.

That correspondence has prompted me to CC rather than OC on the metro. Sure, if arrested I am certain charges would never make it to court, but again the point is, I'm still arrested.

 

[PALO]

It sounds like you've had an okay outcome, and you have an advocate in the PD now. However, I would consider a civil suit for several reasons:

1. For employment screenings you're now forever $$@!ed. You have to check that little box that says "Have been arrested"
case?

Again, I have no horse in this race. I just want to see a fellow OCer treated fairly. And I can tell you with full certainty, if it were me, I'd make a case for my loss of salary over my career due to "security clearance ineligibilities" caused by a false arrest.

This is not true. You can answer NO. It's not a lie. Expunged means it never happened. However, depending on how thorough the check is, they may be able to find the supposedly expunged arrest.

That aside, you SHOULD sue. Assuming your account is truthful and you are not leaving details out that might have warranted your arrest, and I have no reason to assume you have done this, the case sounds pretty slam dunk to me. A civil suit is entirely warranted.

 

[cirrusly]

This is not true. You can answer NO. It's not a lie. Expunged means it never happened. However, depending on how thorough the check is, they may be able to find the supposedly expunged arrest.

I disagree on this point from two perspectives:

1. In the context of the OP his arrest was not "expunged," instead charges were dropped. Thus, the OP has been arrested.

2. Try checking the box saying "No" to "Have you ever been arrested?" on a SF-85 / 86 under those circumstances and a majority of the time the "expunged" record still returns on the check. Now you have to explain not only the arrest, but why you "lied" on a federal security clearance. Good Luck.

So "expunged" in literary terms may mean "removed" but it's at best a half-truth when in reference to an arrest record.

 

[PALO]

I disagree on this point from two perspectives:

1. In the context of the OP his arrest was not "expunged," instead charges were dropped. Thus, the OP has been arrested.

2. Try checking the box saying "No" to "Have you ever been arrested?" on a SF-85 / 86 under those circumstances and a majority of the time the "expunged" record still returns on the check. Now you have to explain not only the arrest, but why you "lied" on a federal security clearance. Good Luck.

So "expunged" in literary terms may mean "removed" but it's at best a half-truth when in reference to an arrest record.

My apologies. I was reading a previous post ABOUT expungement and it screwed with my brain and I thought he said he was going to get it expunged.

Oops. Bad reading comprehension on my part. I was wrong in my belief about him getting an expungement.

That being said, he SHOULD get it expunged.

And I wasn't referring to Federal Security Clearance. I was just referring to your average joe job application. I agree with you about a high speed federal background check. That will almost certainly locate the expunged record.

I've run NCIC/III a trillion times and expunged records will show up there. But the average background check a private employer will run, they will probably NOT see the expunged record in their searches.

However, that's LESS true in the era of the intertoobs I gotta admit because there will be lipstick traces of the arrest in various websites. In that past, expungement was much stronger, in that regards

He could also get a Certificate of Actual Innocence in addition to the expungement

So, in brief.. my last post sucked. Let's get it expunged and then it never happened, k?

 

[countryclubjoe]

Which is why I'm weary of OCing sometimes even when I know I'm legally (and morally) correct. For example, I called the Washington Area Metropolitan Transit (WMATA) Police to verify their "interpretation" of the legality of OC west of the Potomac.

The first officer: "yeah- you can have a gun, just make sure you have your papers."

Me: "No papers are needed to Open carry in Virginia. You know what Open Carry means, correct?

First Officer: "You want to carry your gun on the metro in a case?"

Me: "No, I'm referring to carrying my gun on my hip."

First Officer "Oh! I don't know about that, let me transfer you to a higher-up Sargent"

---

Second Officer [after I re-ask the question]: "I have no idea if that's legal, I think there's a law that says 'no weapons on the metro' Let me call you back.

Me: "Ok thanks."

Second Officer [when called back]: "Yea, I can't find a law that says 'no weapons', be careful though, the other officers may not know if you can do that."

End of call.

That correspondence has prompted me to CC rather than OC on the metro. Sure, if arrested I am certain charges would never make it to court, but again the point is, I'm still arrested.

Why would you ask a local PD about any laws? Read and do your own due diligence. LEO are institutionalized and have no clue about rights, they are slaves to statutes and departmental procedures, ordinances, etc.

Best regards.

My .02

CCJ

 

[cirrusly]

Why would you ask a local PD about any laws? Read and do your own due diligence. LEO are institutionalized and have no clue about rights, they are slaves to statutes and departmental procedures, ordinances, etc.

Best regards.

My .02

CCJ

I wasn't calling to ask for clarification of the law to foster my own understanding. I already knew the correct answer as to the legality of OC on the metro (west of Potomac).

I wanted to see if they also knew the legality of it to gauge if they'd arrest me if for when I do OC. And from the conversation, I'd infer there's a chance they would arrest, given their lack of knowledge around OC.

But yes, I agree to learn the actual laws, a LEO is not a preferred resource.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I wasn't calling to ask for clarification of the law to foster my own understanding. I already knew the correct answer as to the legality of OC on the metro (west of Potomac).

I wanted to see if they also knew the legality of it to gauge if they'd arrest me if for when I do OC. And from the conversation, I'd infer there's a chance they would arrest, given their lack of knowledge around OC.

But yes, I agree to learn the actual laws, a LEO is not a preferred resource.

You do realize that this is the State, not D.C. correct?

 

[cirrusly]

Yes. This tread had wandered off-top. I realize the location of this thread is not Washington DC.

I can summarize the stories of legal OC marches in DC though:

[None].

 

[PALO]

Why would you ask a local PD about any laws? Read and do your own due diligence. LEO are institutionalized and have no clue about rights, they are slaves to statutes and departmental procedures, ordinances, etc.

Best regards.

My .02

CCJ

TOtally disagree. With some exceptions (obviously), the cops I have known overwhelmingly so for the vast majority, care deeply about rights and protecting same. Especially when it comes to RKBA in my experience they are very concerned about any encroachment on same. As for 4th amendment rights, I see large disparity. Some cops are strict constructionists, some are rather liberal in their interpretation etc. But as public servants who are often called to protect people's rights (to picket and strike, to use free speech, etc.) I have to disagree.

And again, there are OBVIOUSLY exceptions. Several of my coworker cops are also attorneys. One of them told me he learned far more about rights as they apply to the real world in his 5 yrs as a beat cop, than he ever did in law school. Which is understandable.

He's not very libertarian (supports gun laws), but he is very pro 4th amendment and thinks (even in WA which has a state constitution that is MUCH more protective of rights than the 4th) we have way too many search and seizure powers, even ex-post Ladson etc.

 

[Citizen]

TOtally disagree. With some exceptions (obviously), the cops I have known overwhelmingly so for the vast majority, care deeply about rights and protecting same. Especially when it comes to RKBA in my experience they are very concerned about any encroachment on same. As for 4th amendment rights, I see large disparity. Some cops are strict constructionists, some are rather liberal in their interpretation etc. But as public servants who are often called to protect people's rights (to picket and strike, to use free speech, etc.) I have to disagree.

And again, there are OBVIOUSLY exceptions. Several of my coworker cops are also attorneys. One of them told me he learned far more about rights as they apply to the real world in his 5 yrs as a beat cop, than he ever did in law school. Which is understandable.

He's not very libertarian (supports gun laws), but he is very pro 4th amendment and thinks (even in WA which has a state constitution that is MUCH more protective of rights than the 4th) we have way too many search and seizure powers, even ex-post Ladson etc.

Don't get around the internet alternative media much do you?

Weekly, almost daily, there are stories coming from near and far of police abuses.

If you really don't know (which I still doubt), then you need to get your head out of the sand.

For interested readers, here is a very recent article by Will Grigg about cops abusing pregnant women, jeopardizing the baby. http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

 

[PALO]

Cutting off the wrong body part happens.

Somethings doctors have ZERO control over while a person is opened up. He/She could have done everything text book perfect and still fail.
Doctors and police officers are like apples and zucchini.

Rubbish. Both often act in situations where stuff is unclear, and they have to synthesize a bunch of disparate pieces of data/info and come to a quick conclusion - I am speaking of ER docs. Diagnosing a condition from signs and symptoms, asking the right questions, fitting it into the doctor's own knowledge base and experience, etc. is quite similar to how a cop works an investigation in the field in terms of having to make quick decisions, often with incomplete info, conflicting data (different witnesses give differnt acount, etc.). In both cases, it's an art as much as a science, and law enforcement, emergency medicine are both like poker - they are games of incomplete information and of probability. And of course with both cops and doctors, bedside manner, knowing how to talk to people and how to get them to confide is hugely important

That aside, doctors #($#( up just like cops and one could argue their "institution" is set up to protect them when they screw up. I am talking about chopping off the wrong limb out of carelessness or operating on the wrong side (they are supposed to check and double check, mark with a magic marker before the person goes under and confirming with them which side, etc. A lot of protocol on this. When I had my surgery on my right shoulder, they did this checking, nurse checking it and asked, doctor did the same, they marked it with pen, etc. Sometimes they get careless though), leaving surgical instruments INSIDE the body after they suture up (sponges and gauze are especially common items to leave in patients. Often patients are given wrong dose of meds through sloppy handwriting or careless error and people die.

And JUST like in many cases how the cops do it, no outside agency investigates. The hospital/personnel that wrongly killed the guy are the ones who write the reports etc. in the vast majority of iatrogenic deaths, the cops don't come in and investigate. It's handled largely internally. Hospitals are actually damn dangerous places and the amount of injury and death caused from doctor/nurse error is substantial and that's recognizing that, just as with cops, a lot of stuff goes unreported and is covered up.

Doctors are on the whole great people doing a difficult job very well. Ditto for nurse. But with them, just like with cops, sometimes they screw up big time, oftentimes when they do a similar setup to the thin blue line of omerta is in place where they protect their own from exposure to liability, cover stuff up, etc etc

It's not as sexy as when a cop screws up and shoots the wrong person or shoots somebody without due cause etc etc but it's a field, just like with cops, where tons of people die or are severely injured/crippled needlessly because of carelessness, arrogance, failure to question each other, etc. Doctors get lazy and sloppy, not to mention the ridiculous hours some of them pull (see: fatigue causing errors) and mistakes are made, sometimes deadly and ime far more often than I think most people realize.

estimated 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors

People here wank, and understandably so, about people cops kill , sometimes questionable circs

But lets compare the #'s


SEVEN THOUSAND PEOPLE DIE PER YEAR DO TO MEDICATION ERRORS in hospital

Iatrogenic deaths in total are the third leading cause of death in the US after heart disease and cancer

and yet people overwhelmingly watch cops like a hawk and wank over every nuance. Where's the outrage over doctors misprescribing after working 15 hrs in a row and on 2 or 3 hrs sleep?

Another 20,000 deaths are attributable to "other errors in hospital'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis

Doctors, just like cops, have immense power and over people with often very littl eor no choice (unconscious etc. patients) and they do screw up and people die and medical staff in hospitals through error (and again, the #'s are almost certainly under the real # because of coverups etc.) kill WAY WAY WAY more people through MISCONDUCT than cops kill in total, including "good shoots" and bad shoots

27,000 people die either through medication error or "other errors in hospital"

Chew on that for a little while.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

a majority of the time the "expunged" record still returns on the check. Now you have to explain not only the arrest, but why you "lied" on a federal security clearance. Good Luck.

So "expunged" in literary terms may mean "removed" but it's at best a half-truth.

Expunged is defined by a state law not Webster's. It can literally mean the conviction (and events surrounding it) never occurred. That may or may not include the arrest.

The Feds can take their erroneous 'opinions' and their tax sucking 'welfare' jobs and shove it

 

[cirrusly]

Expunged is defined by a state law not Webster's. It can literally mean the conviction (and events surrounding it) never occurred. That may or may not include the arrest.

The Feds can take their erroneous 'opinions' and their tax sucking 'welfare' jobs and shove it



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

I don't disagree with you but your point is not very objective driven.

Regardless of how "expunged" is defined, bottom line is the OP will have difficulty passing a federal security clearance. Telling them to "shove it" will not change the fact that the record will return (more times than not) on a clearance and the applicant will have explaining to do.

Thus- in the context discussed the record is not truly "expunged."

 

[amlevin]

Regardless of how "expunged" is defined, bottom line is the OP will have difficulty passing a federal security clearance. Telling them to "shove it" will not change the fact that the record will return (more times than not) on a clearance and the applicant will have explaining to do.

I guess I'm in the perfect spot. First, never been arrested. Second, I'm comfortably retired and don't have to fill out those stinking forms anymore.

 

[birdus]

Thanks for your intelligent and well-written posts, PALO. I enjoyed reading them. I'm not sure if quite so many people as you said think well of police (one poll doesn't necessarily prove it), but I hope that the vast majority are good cops and that those who aren't get railroaded out.

Thanks for your service and for being one of the good ones.

Jay

 

[marshaul]

I know they are just that, a minority and I know that when push comes to shove, the average joe respects us and they've got our back!

Speaking of the peanut gallery… :lol: