[radix]

IMO, this link is interesting and relevant:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30328976/

Apparently SCOTUS recently did an about face on the issue.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by yomama69

First one is ridiculous. I would be very interested to see what judges will follow that. Second one was Jusitce Scalia. That should be self-explanatory.

Don't you think having a camera like the OP would be more cause for suspicion than anything else? Mounted right there between the seats.

Again we agree, but it is case law and you know and DA worth his salt will use these types of case laws to justify less then ethical activities of the police. It more about the ends justifies the means. I assume you're also okay with the government reading you email and listening your phone calls as long as they are catching terrorist.

I also agree that having a camera mounted in your car such that any police officer can see it will raise lots of suspicion. and probably lots of unwanted attention. Just like the air freshener probably cause you can see the police claiming it well know that mostly street racer have camera's mounted in their car.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by radix

IMO, this link is interesting and relevant:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30328976/

Apparently SCOTUS recently did an about face on the issue.

Holy shit. No more automobile searches incident to a lawful arrest. I should have been checking my ABA report rather than posting in this topic. Thank Radix. I owe you one.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by radix

IMO, this link is interesting and relevant:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30328976/

Apparently SCOTUS recently did an about face on the issue.

Now that is very relevant and recent...

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by yomama69

I still bet the kid stopped to do something illegal. People only stop in empty parking lots in the middle of the night to do something they don't want anyone else to know about.

Like I said, I know the kid form another board, and real story as it came out he was meeting someone there since it was the halfway point between his home and the other persons which he has left a college assignment at the person house which he needed for the next day so they agree to meet at the commuter parking lot off the highway.

Also, the officer had a long history of doing similar things, and the town bushing under the table, this time it was out in the open and could not be hidden.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Like I said, I know the kid form another board, and real story as it came out he was meeting someone there since it was the halfway point between his home and the other persons which he has left a college assignment at the person house which he needed for the next day so they agree to meet at the commuter parking lot off the highway.

Also, the officer had a long history of doing similar things, and the town bushing under the table, this time it was out in the open and could not be hidden.

Don't believe everything someone writes on a forum. Stopping in an empty parking lot in the middle of the night to meet someone? That's so unsafe. Come on, only drug dealers and dumbasses do that. You think he was going to write on a public forum what he was really intending on doing?

[kabalm18]

Originally Posted by yomama69

Don't believe everything someone writes on a forum. Stopping in an empty parking lot in the middle of the night to meet someone? That's so unsafe. Come on, only drug dealers and dumbasses do that. You think he was going to write on a public forum what he was really intending on doing?

Maybe he was meeting integra girl. Would you meet her in broad daylight with witnesses?

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by yomama69

Don't believe everything someone writes on a forum. Stopping in an empty parking lot in the middle of the night to meet someone? That's so unsafe. Come on, only drug dealers and dumbasses do that. You think he was going to write on a public forum what he was really intending on doing?

It was not what he wrote but what the news uncovered and report and the Town admitted to in court papers.

Trust me we all called him a lair too until we heard independent verification of the story.

[Maestro]

here is the original case from the above recent story

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1882.asp

I thought this sounded familiar.

[Tortfeasor 335xi]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...ipopinion.html
Arizona v. Grant. The slip opinion is now available. How this affects police guidelines for automobile searches will be interesting as the case leaves a lot to be determined. The sylabus (the summary on the first 2 pages) gives a good overview for the non-law trained reader unwilling to slog through the whole opinion.

[spectrumphoto]

The officer would have no right to view the camera footage unless either:

A) He/she asked you permission and you granted it
B) Legally detained you while applying for and receiving approval of a search warrant
C) Arresting you on charges then search and seizure can be applicable...

So if you are pulled over for an infraction and have no warrants then really ha can not view/obtain footage, but if you are doing something really stupid (like DUI or evading) or have warrants and he decides to physically arrest you then he can seize/view the footage

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by spectrumphoto

The officer would have no right to view the camera footage unless either:

A) He/she asked you permission and you granted it
B) Legally detained you while applying for and receiving approval of a search warrant
C) Arresting you on charges then search and seizure can be applicable...

So if you are pulled over for an infraction and have no warrants then really ha can not view/obtain footage, but if you are doing something really stupid (like DUI or evading) or have warrants and he decides to physically arrest you then he can seize/view the footage

Supreme Court just released an opinion practically eliminating automobile searches incident to a lawful arrest.

[jlaw]

Read the opinion guys. It does not completely eliminate vehicle searches incident to a lawful arrest, it merely narrows the circumstances under which such searches may occur. The last paragraph in the majority opinion pretty much sums it up:

Originally Posted by Westlaw

Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by jlaw

Read the opinion guys. It does not completely eliminate vehicle searches incident to a lawful arrest, it merely narrows the circumstances under which such searches may occur. The last paragraph in the majority opinion pretty much sums it up:

Yeah, but jlaw, in real life, cops don't arrest people while in their cars. They have them step out of the car first. Some departments want their officers to take the suspect back to the patrol car before making the arrest.

I agree with you on paper.

[jlaw]

I understand how things work. Just don't misinterpret what the Court said. They phrase things how they do for a reason, you know that.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by jlaw

I understand how things work. Just don't misinterpret what the Court said. They phrase things how they do for a reason, you know that.

Indeed. What I still don't get is why Scalia voted to expand the search of automobiles in April 08 and now he's narrowing the searches. The composition in the majority of this newest opinion is just dumbfounding.

[jlaw]

An atypical division to be sure. If you read his concurring opinion he sort of explains himself. He wasn't happy about his choices.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by jlaw

An atypical division to be sure. If you read his concurring opinion he sort of explains himself. He wasn't happy about his choices.

I don't agree with Scalia's interpretation of Chimel. I think Stevens is correctly interpreting Chimel.
The arrestee must be within reaching distance of the passenger compartment. The safety concern is minimalized if the passenger compartment is available to the arrestee, but he's not within reaching limits.

[spectrumphoto]

Problem being is that at the time of a stop the potential arrestee is within reach of the passenger compartment while also being within visual range of the arresting officer. So the officer can claim that the arrestee was within sight at all times from the time of the stop and the officer can testify as to the whereabouts and actions of the suspect and motor vehicle after the arrest has been made. If they have any inkling of safety concerns or potential evidence for the arrest then they will search and it will be legal and any findings could be used against you in court. Officer on duty, under oath, in court against a civilian will almost always win out by plain testimony every time.

Ultimately the camera in the car recording falls under photography statutes. Under those statutes, as long as you are on public property and not going out of your way to photograph places that could be perceived as having an implied privacy (viewing) from the public (like inside a home through the closed windows) then you are allowed to photograph, even if it is a government structure. (this is of course if it is specifically not designated a sensitive area by Homeland Security and posted as such) Officers, security staff and anyone for that matter by law can not stop you from photographing, nor can they ask to view or seize your recording devices. Many people do not realize this.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by spectrumphoto

Problem being is that at the time of a stop the potential arrestee is within reach of the passenger compartment while also being within visual range of the arresting officer. So the officer can claim that the arrestee was within sight at all times from the time of the stop and the officer can testify as to the whereabouts and actions of the suspect and motor vehicle after the arrest has been made. If they have any inkling of safety concerns or potential evidence for the arrest then they will search and it will be legal and any findings could be used against you in court. Officer on duty, under oath, in court against a civilian will almost always win out by plain testimony every time.

Ultimately the camera in the car recording falls under photography statutes. Under those statutes, as long as you are on public property and not going out of your way to photograph places that could be perceived as having an implied privacy (viewing) from the public (like inside a home through the closed windows) then you are allowed to photograph, even if it is a government structure. (this is of course if it is specifically not designated a sensitive area by Homeland Security and posted as such) Officers, security staff and anyone for that matter by law can not stop you from photographing, nor can they ask to view or seize your recording devices. Many people do not realize this.

If the OP is street racing and ends up killing someone and is arrested and the car is impounded, the video camera is going to be found in an inventory search (lawful search and seizure). The video is clear evidence of the crime and might actually be the best evidence available (might be no witnesses). I can't see any rule of evidence keeping the video inadmissible.