haha, was waiting for you to come back. you didn't disappoint, thanks!

what's that all about?

Did you eat paint chips when you were a child?

justification like IT SHOWS VIDEO OF A SHOOTING

I have no problem with police obtaining a copy of any video evidence of a crime. Hell, I don't even have a problem with them taking the original in most cases. It's how they do it that I have a problem with. Usually, you'll see a guy recording an incident, a cop will march right up to him and say "Give me that phone, NOW!!!" and just yank it out of the guys hand.

If the recording was of two gang bangers having a gunfight, then there's not much of a problem, but if the video is of the cops shooting someone or beating the **** out of someone, they shouldn't have the authority to basically yank the video out of your hand at gunpoint 15 seconds after the incident happened.

They should take the phone politely explaining it's just for a little while for safekeeping. Then they call their tech guys out the scene and have digital copies made. Depending on what is necessary to use as evidence, the guy either gets his phone back right there with video intact, or he gets one of the copies of the video (plus a voucher to buy a new phone) so he can run home and put it up on youtube, sell it to the local news, or whatever.

Dude just shot someone and you're like, "I don't mind giving him my phone but I don't appreciate the attitude "

No, it needs to be done in a way that cops get the evidence they need but the cameraman gets to leave the scene with the footage he shot.

Or it doesn't and just cooperate.

What would happen if some1 would pull that off?


Just came across this pic and instantly thought about this thread.
Is there a way to proof he was drunk be4? Or he can be charged only with drinking in public.

asked and answered

cliffs: it wont work

Okay, carry on then .
Good thread

this is correct. Technically I suppose they could figure it out if they knew where the gun was purchased from then they could check "The Book" that all FFLs are required to keep. But AFIK the serial isn't tied to anything but that paper copy of the background check. At least thats what the ATF claims, they could be doing some other big brother stuff unknown to us.


Also correct, but yeah it could get weird if he was an owner if the range or if you did the transaction there. Person to person sales do not require any paperwork or record in most states, im not sure about communist countries like DC, California, or New Jersey/NYC. When people talk about the "gunshow loophole" this is what they are talking about even if they don't know it. Many sellers at gunshows are just private people who rented a booth therefore they dont have to run a Brady check, others are gun dealers (FFLs) and they are required to run the check by law.

Many people do keep some sort of record of a person to person transfer for their own piece of mind or they ask to see a valid carry permit since the permit includes a more extensive background check that a normal ATF/Brady check.

Yeah, for one, if you just down a bottle of vodka, it will take 15 minutes until it actually shows on the breathaliser.

they can also bring you in and with a blood sample determine your alcohol level at any time during the day or w/e.

The issue that people have is that it is clear in certain situations that police are using the "confiscate your phone as evidence" angle as nothing more than deterrence for bystanders filming police. It is the same concept as police trying to use state wiretapping laws as a form of retaliation and deterrence.

The police want you to think twice about pulling out your phone to record an incident because you may have to deal with the inconvenience of having your phone taken away from you. I also suspect that they would harvest everything off your phone in the process (all of your text messages, photos, etc). While they probably couldn't legally (DblBarrelJ could probably comment on this) use unrelated text messages about illegal activities against you in an investigation, it's just a further deterrent against pulling out your phone.

I think very few reasonable people could watch a video like this,



and feel that the attempted phone confiscation and subsequent arrest is anything more than retaliation for engaging in Constitutionally protected activity that the police happen to not like.

didnt watch and obviously they shouldnt just take your phone for no reason, I was simply responding to the specific example given where dbl said if there was a shooting he would want the tape which someone apparently felt was a gross violation

Maybe if cops acted responsibly and didn't try to confiscate every single phone pointed at them out of spite, people wouldn't get so upset when there is a legitimate reason to confiscate evidence. And I don't think a tape of an individual cop's misbehavior should be handed over to that cop, obviously he is going to get rid of it or doctor it in some way. Needs to be copied and given to the media first, and I don't trust the cop whatsoever to hand it to his superior.

If cops acted responsibly and didn't bully citizens constantly, they wouldn't be so worried about being caught on camera.

Yes, if you just filmed a shooting cooperate and give the police your phone. If you just filmed a cop punching a handicapped woman on a bus ignore him.

yeah...range owner is dumb and probably breaking the law. You are good to go no issues.

Obviously you're free to not cooperate. As I said, in my officer involved shooting scenario I'm not going to have any issue obtaining a search warrant nor am I treading on any kind of thin ice by holding both the phone and the owner until a search warrant can be prepared.

Yea, this doesn't sound good at all. At that point in that transaction, based on my understanding of Fed gun laws, that .22 became the property of that FFL dealership and I believe that purchase should've been checked.

My theory is he sold it to you before he logged the transaction in his ATF book.

Isn't it simply prudent for a person to hesitate to hand video over to the very person (or group) that it potentially incriminates?

This is incorrect. From Horton V California:
Basically, the way this is taught is "Right to be, Right to see, Right to seize".

I have a right to be there, and see the contents of that phone,(We're assuming for this hypothetical I've obtained a search warrant) so if evidence of other criminal activity is found, then I can seize that evidence and use it to obtain a search warrant for that evidence, to maintain legality, based on the new criminal activity I've discovered.

All of this is of course assuming the scope of getting that video requires dumping the whole contents of the phone.

Before I catch 1000 personal attacks here, allow me to remind all of you I'm just the messenger, I'm stating facts and citing Supreme Court case law as proof of my claim.

Because it is a pain in the ass and takes time. Because you can get a blip in the system that makes you have to wait a couple of days even though you are a law abiding citizen with no ill intent buying a tiny little hunting gun. Because you know that the only people who abide by gun laws are non criminals who go though normal channels and pay retail prices. Because you are don't think that the ATF has a leg to stand on when they intentionally funnel illegal guns to mexican drug cartels in an effort to make US gun control laws stronger.

without being a jerk as much as I can I will guess that you are ugly and or fat and dress poorly.

right, my theory as well and technically he may be in the clear it is a bad move and a very grey area at best.

Cops seem to think that everyone is stupid (because most criminals are stupid) How often do you come across people that are just too smart? i.e they know the legal limitations to your job, always call your bluffs and feed you very believable misinformation. I know criminals do some of these things all the time but how often do you arrest people and you know they did the crime, but you don't have enough evidence to prosecute and have to admit to yourself that you were outsmarted. Not he got lucky, but this lil bastard is just too smart. I really wish I could know how many people act like complete ******s but are actually leveling you and are insanely smart and don't want to show it.