[Mk23]

I have an in car camera setup that allows me to record out my windshield every time I go anywhere in my 335i. It does not show the speedo but can sometimes show the tach (depending on the angel I mount it). I have the camera mounted to hopefully help me out should I get into an accident and it is my word against the other drivers. I have already recorded a few near misses where people have pulled out right in front of me or pulled into my lane.

My question is this, if I get pulled over for something do the police have any right to view the video should they suspect me of speeding or anything else?

If any attorneys could chime in I would greatly appreciate it.

By the way, this is the camera mount I use: http://www.markertek.com/SearchProdu...nt&pagesize=20

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by Mk335i

I have an in car camera setup that allows me to record out my windshield every time I go anywhere in my 335i. It does not show the speedo but can sometimes show the tach (depending on the angel I mount it). I have the camera mounted to hopefully help me out should I get into an accident and it is my word against the other drivers. I have already recorded a few near misses where people have pulled out right in front of me or pulled into my lane.

My question is this, if I get pulled over for something do the police have any right to view the video should they suspect me of speeding or anything else?

If any attorneys could chime in I would greatly appreciate it.

By the way, this is the camera mount I use: http://www.markertek.com/SearchProdu...nt&pagesize=20

No, they have no "right" to view the tape. Could a judge grant a request on an application for a warrant, yes...I could see that happen.

I think your sanity is more in question for keeping one of those mounted 24/7 and on when you drive. You have insurance. If you get into an accident it's just that. Florida is a No-Fault state. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[ideliver]

yes...and they could take your camera while they wait for the judge...

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by ideliver

yes...and they could take your camera while they wait for the judge...

I don't see how the police can seize a camera for an auto accident. It's not contraband and there's no probable cause. If your sobriety is in question or a hit and run, that's where this can be an issue.

[Mk23]

Originally Posted by yomama69

No, they have no "right" to view the tape. Could a judge grant a request on an application for a warrant, yes...I could see that happen.

I think your sanity is more in question for keeping one of those mounted 24/7 and on when you drive. You have insurance. If you get into an accident it's just that. Florida is a No-Fault state. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

A few months back I got hit by a red light runner (with my mom and sis in the car might I add) and I had no proof that she ran the red light since none of the 20 people that saw it stopped to say they witnessed it, that is one instance where this camera would have come in handy. So currently I have a record with the police for "Careless driving" for going when the light turned green...

Originally Posted by yomama69

I don't see how the police can seize a camera for an auto accident. It's not contraband and there's no probable cause. If your sobriety is in question or a hit and run, that's where this can be an issue.

I'm not concerned with the police seizing it in an auto accident I am concerned if I were to be speeding or "playing with someone" on the interstate and they were to try and use it against me or someone else (i.e. a friend's car).

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by Mk335i

A few months back I got hit by a red light runner (with my mom and sis in the car might I add) and I had no proof that she ran the red light since none of the 20 people that saw it stopped to say they witnessed it, that is one instance where this camera would have come in handy. So currently I have a record with the police for "Careless driving" for going when the light turned green...



I'm not concerned with the police seizing it in an auto accident I am concerned if I were to be speeding or "playing with someone" on the interstate and they were to try and use it against me or someone else (i.e. a friend's car).

Speeding, no. "Playing with someone," I wouldn't suggest you do that with a camera on or at all. Quite often people incriminate themselves with video. Don't be that guy.

[Mk23]

Originally Posted by yomama69

Speeding, no. "Playing with someone," I wouldn't suggest you do that with a camera on or at all. Quite often people incriminate themselves with video. Don't be that guy.

By chance are you an attorney or have studied criminal justice?

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by Mk335i

By chance are you an attorney or have studied criminal justice?

Isn't that what you asked for?

[radix]

Originally Posted by yomama69

I don't see how the police can seize a camera for an auto accident. It's not contraband and there's no probable cause. If your sobriety is in question or a hit and run, that's where this can be an issue.

I'm not a lawyer, but my dad was, and I had this discussion with him several times. He told me the the standard for searching someone (and their vehicle) who's been pulled over was "reasonable suspicion" not "probable cause". He also told me, as have several other lawyers, that reasonable suspicion can almost always be fabricated if the officer really wants to take a look around. As in, "Your honor, he started acting awfully funny when I asked if there were any weapons in the car. I felt my personal safety was threatened." I don't know how this plays in to the OPs question, and I don't know how that affects an officers ability to seize something as innocuous as a videotape. Maybe you could reconcile the two ideas for me?

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by radix

I'm not a lawyer, but my dad was, and I had this discussion with him several times. He told me the the standard for searching someone (and their vehicle) who's been pulled over was "reasonable suspicion" not "probable cause". He also told me, as have several other lawyers, that reasonable suspicion can almost always be fabricated if the officer really wants to take a look around. As in, "Your honor, he started acting awfully funny when I asked if there were any weapons in the car. I felt my personal safety was threatened." I don't know how this plays in to the OPs question, and I don't know how that affects an officers ability to seize something as innocuous as a videotape. Maybe you could reconcile the two ideas for me?

This isn't about being pulled over. It's about seizure of property after an incident has already taken place.

If the prosecutors believe that your videotape is evidence of a crime, they can apply for a warrant with the judge. Some judge's might grant it; some might not.

[Mk23]

Originally Posted by yomama69

Isn't that what you asked for?

Yes it is.

I appreciate the help.

[Maestro]

The accident become a "reasonable suspicion" to allow the officer to collect any evidence which will help them determine who was at fault. This why if you get in an accident or get pulled over and are outside the car, you lock the car, at that point the officer can not enter without asking if it okay to search. If you deny them access they will need to get a warrant because anything thing they find after that point could be consider fruit of the poison tree.

Remember on thing, you the individual is required to exercise your rights, otherwise, if you do not enforce your rights especially if they ask permission you are hosed. This is why police tell you it will go easier on you if you allow them to stomp on your rights.

Never ever allow any police officer to search your car even if you think you're in the clear, especially if someone else is your car, because you can not speak for them and anything they left in your car.

BTW I am not a lawyer

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by Maestro

The accident become a "reasonable suspicion" to allow the officer to collect any evidence which will help them determine who was at fault. This why if you get in an accident or get pulled over and are outside the car, you lock the car, at that point the officer can not enter without asking if it okay to search. If you deny them access they will need to get a warrant because anything thing they find after that point could be consider fruit of the poison tree.

Remember on thing, you the individual is required to exercise your rights, otherwise, if you do not enforce your rights especially if they ask permission you are hosed. This is why police tell you it will go easier on you if you allow them to stomp on your rights.

Never ever allow any police officer to search your car even if you think you're in the clear, especially if someone else is your car, because you can not speak for them and anything they left in your car.

BTW I am not a lawyer

Sounds like you're a law student. You're assuming there is an accident involved. It may just be street racing. The video may become evidence months after the fact. If the OP is pulled over, there has to be reasonable suspicion ,but it DOES NOT give the police officer the right to search or seize anything from the vehicle (Terry v. Ohio).

You're discussion of fruit of the poisonous tree is probably understood only by a select few members on the forum and does not become and issue in the real world because attorneys can get evidence suppressed if it was seized improperly.

BTW, the officer cannot enter the car even if the car is unlocked unless he has probable cause. Locking the door to a car or house has no effect on a lawful search (remember evidence search and seizure exceptions).

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by yomama69

Sounds like you're a law student. You're assuming there is an accident involved. It may just be street racing. The video may become evidence months after the fact. If the OP is pulled over, there has to be reasonable suspicion ,but it DOES NOT give the police officer the right to search or seize anything from the vehicle (Terry v. Ohio).

You're discussion of fruit of the poisonous tree is probably understood only by a select few members on the forum and does not become and issue in the real world because attorneys can get evidence suppressed if it was seized improperly.

BTW, the officer cannot enter the car even if the car is unlocked unless he has probable cause. Locking the door to a car or house has no effect on a lawful search (remember evidence search and seizure exceptions).

Not a law student either, Just know enough not to allow anyone to search my car without permission. I am luck to say I never been in a situation to even come close to this happening.

As someone point out, police can and do fabricate "reasonable suspicion" as simple as they felt their safety was at risk is enough, there has been a number case laws these days that have afford police more and more latitude in this regard above and beyond Terry v. Ohio.

My point about locking the car is simple police can claim they saw something in plain sight and if the car is unlock the can open the door and look around and seize it. If it is locked then they can not enter with out permission or a court order.

You also correct a good lawyer can get most searches tossed and any evidence gathered, but I am about prevention, do not let it get that far since it means it is going to cost you to prove your innocence. Police know this and use it to their advantage. This is why police say it will go easier of you just let them search.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Not a law student either, Just know enough not to allow anyone to search my car without permission. I am luck to say I never been in a situation to even come close to this happening.

As someone point out, police can and do fabricate "reasonable suspicion" as simple as they felt their safety was at risk is enough, there has been a number case laws these days that have afford police more and more latitude in this regard above and beyond Terry v. Ohio.

My point about locking the car is simple police can claim they saw something in plain sight and if the car is unlock the can open the door and look around and seize it. If it is locked then they can not enter with out permission or a court order.

You also correct a good lawyer can get most searches tossed and any evidence gathered, but I am about prevention, do not let it get that far since it means it is going to cost you to prove your innocence. Police know this and use it to their advantage. This is why police say it will go easier of you just let them search.

Judges don't allow items seized by police offers illegally where they claimed they were in fear for their danger and no weapons were even in the vehicle. I don't know what case law you've been reading, but I've read plenty. I understand you're fearful, but your contentions are off base.

If something is in plain sight, it's in plain sight regardless of the lock on the door. The window is transparent after all. If they want it open, they'll get it open. Now, if you got out of the car and locked the doors and the cop noticed a weapon in the vehicle, he's not in danger because you can't readily access the weapon with the doors locked. See where I'm going with this?

[1cleanm6]

i honestly think all of you are wrong, if they want they can take it, if they want they can look at it, and do whatever they want....

And they will get away with it, its there word against yours..

end of story......

and why do you have a camera in your car for the reason you stated? You mentally ok?

[Maestro]

Here is an example where this guy's car mounted video saved him form the police and their tactics

http://world.commongate.com/post/Cop...orist_s_Video/

I do not believe all police are like this, but there is enough of them you have to be worried. I know this kid from another board, he will tell you if it was not for him having his camera and standing up for his rights he would have been in a world of hurt.

In this case it did not cost him any money, and he just settle his case with the town. I suspect he got a nice compensation and as part of the deal the town had to disband its police force or face other civil liberties violation.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Here is an example where this guy's car mounted video saved him form the police and their tactics

http://world.commongate.com/post/Cop...orist_s_Video/

I do not believe all police are like this, but there is enough of them you have to be worried. I know this kid from another board, he will tell you if it was not for him having his camera and standing up for his rights he would have been in a world of hurt.

In this case it did not cost him any money, and he just settle his case with the town. I suspect he got a nice compensation and as part of the deal the town had to disband its police force or face other civil liberties violation.

LMFAO. That little shit was being so uncooperative with the cop. He was insubordinate to begin with. The cop definitely took it too far, but if the kid just left like the cop asked him to, no problems. $100 bucks says that he stopped in there to smoke a joint.

Something like this is the exception to the rule. It's very uncommon. Because of that, you're going to use a camera all the time? Someone can mug you while you're walking. Are you going to videotape yourself walking all the time? Do you have an instance of video where the cop seized something illegally? Maybe something where the driver didn't provoke the officer?

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by yomama69

Judges don't allow items seized by police offers illegally where they claimed they were in fear for their danger and no weapons were even in the vehicle. I don't know what case law you've been reading, but I've read plenty. I understand you're fearful, but your contentions are off base.

If something is in plain sight, it's in plain sight regardless of the lock on the door. The window is transparent after all. If they want it open, they'll get it open. Now, if you got out of the car and locked the doors and the cop noticed a weapon in the vehicle, he's not in danger because you can't readily access the weapon with the doors locked. See where I'm going with this?

I agree with you 100% this is how it works in a perfect world, but you're not dealing with perfect police and courts, in the end if you we 100% in your right you will prevail, however, how much did it cost you in the end to come out on top.

When I was younger I use to hunt lots and carried guns in my truck and car all the time. Got stop a few times by the police and never once did the officer attempt to remove me from my car because he saw a gun in the car. Many time the conversation went along the lines of what kind of gun it was and where did I hunt

Oh, here is couple of those stupid broad reach cases that allow a search

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2513.asp

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2339.asp

This are just a few, and a many more like this at state levels.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by Maestro

I agree with you 100% this is how it works in a perfect world, but you're not dealing with perfect police and courts, in the end if you we 100% in your right you will prevail, however, how much did it cost you in the end to come out on top.

When I was younger I use to hunt lots and carried guns in my truck and car all the time. Got stop a few times by the police and never once did the officer attempt to remove me from my car because he saw a gun in the car. Many time the conversation went along the links of what kind of gun it was and where did I hunt

Oh, here is couple of those stupid broad reach cases that allow a search

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2513.asp

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2339.asp

This are just a few, and a many more like this at state levels.

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.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by yomama69

LMFAO. That little shit was being so uncooperative with the cop. He was insubordinate to begin with. The cop definitely took it too far, but if the kid just left like the cop asked him to, no problems. $100 bucks says that he stopped in there to smoke a joint.

Something like this is the exception to the rule. It's very uncommon. Because of that, you're going to use a camera all the time? Someone can mug you while you're walking. Are you going to videotape yourself walking all the time? Do you have an instance of video where the cop seized something illegally? Maybe something where the driver didn't provoke the officer?

Here is where you are wrong, he had a right to be there the officer has no jurisdiction over the parking lot and therefore had no right to ask him to leave, and there is no requirement for you to cooperated with an unlawful order. This all came out in the end and thus the reason the officer was fired and he won his case. Everyone but the police said the kids was 100% in his right and did nothing wrong.

[yomama69]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Here is where you are wrong, he had a right to be there the officer has no jurisdiction over the parking lot and therefore had no right to ask him to leave, and there is no requirement for you to cooperated with an unlawful order. This all came out in the end and thus the reason the officer was fired and he won his case. Everyone but the police said the kids was 100% in his right and did nothing wrong.

I never said the kid was wrong. You won't see that in my previous posts. I said that he could have avoided that entire ordeal by not being disrespectful. There's no requirement to be respectful, but it gets you a lot further in life with everyone, including police officers. As for the parking lot, whether it was owned by the city or private property, the cop is allowed entry.

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.