Slashdot Log In
Is Videotaping the Police a Felony?
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jun 12, 2007 06:42 PM
from the turnabout-is-fair-play dept.
from the turnabout-is-fair-play dept.
AtomicSnarl writes "When Carlisle, PA, police noticed their traffic stop was being videotaped, they arrested the fellow with the camera for felony wiretapping. From the story: 'Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent... An exception to the wiretapping law allows police to film people during traffic stops.. [An assistant DA] said case law is in flux as to whether police can expect not to be recorded while performing their duties.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Citizens Given Video Cameras To Monitor Police 434 comments
atommota writes "After years of complaints of police misconduct, the ACLU is giving free video cameras to some residents of high-crime neighborhoods in St. Louis, MO to help them monitor officers. The ACLU of Eastern Missouri launched the project Wednesday after television crews last year broadcast video of officers punching and kicking a suspect who led police on a car chase. 'The idea here is to level the playing field, so it's not just your word against the police's word,' said Brenda Jones, executive director of the ACLU chapter. The ACLU has worked closely with the police to make sure they are aware of this program. This is in stark contrast to the recent Pennsylvania arrest for felony wiretapping of a guy who was videotaping a police stop."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Charges Dropped In PA Video Taping Arrest 177 comments
Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed has reversed himself completely over the charges against Brian Kelly, arrested for wiretapping after videotaping a police stop. Now let's see if they are good enough to compensate Kelly for the 26 hours he spent in jail and the anguish of the cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest. From the article: "... [DA] Freed said his decision will affect not only Brian Kelly, 18, but also will establish a policy for police departments countywide. 'When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges,' Freed said yesterday. 'The law itself might need to be revised.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I guess if you want to videotape the police, you'd better declare yourself an independent journalist and hope the judge values our freedom of the press?
This is both shocking & amazing on so many levels. I can think of several ways to look at this that make it hilariously backwards. The cops are on duty, their income is supplied by individuals like this man. As far as I'm aware, employers are allowed to videotape their employers.
I've met good policemen and I've met pigs. These instances sound like a pig on a power trip. Illegal wiretapping, yeah right! It has a sound function so he's wiretapping? Everything just sounds so ridiculous. If it happens in public, it's public domain. This is just obvious abuse of those they are supposed to protect.
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Informative)
Video of my friend being coerced here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DMDW4Fszj2U [youtube.com]
Also, a follow up here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QWmLufB6Bsw [youtube.com]
Parent
We need more people filming the police (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that police brutality is getting so common now that they are willing to beat members of the media on camera [youtube.com]. (The clip begins with the narrator suggesting that the protestors were "asking for it" by throwing rocks at the police, but they can't spin the footage of their own camerapeople getting beaten up.)
What's worse, is that police now tend to focus on people with cameras , as you can also see in the above video. [mediachannel.org]
The tapes are very helpful in prosecuting police misconduct [cnn.com] , so we neeed more people taping.
Otherwise, the police tend to lie about the incidents [bbc.co.uk], even going so far to claim in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in Britain that 5 different cameras watching the action were all somehow not functioning [wikipedia.org].
In a Missouri case, a teenager was being harassed by the police at a DUI checkpoint for not telling them where he was going -- when he asked why he was being detained, he was told "If you don't stop running your mouth, we're going to find a reason to lock you up tonight" [thenewspaper.com].
Cameras are getting tinier and tinier all the time, and now we have Wi-Fi enabled storage cards. When cameras get so small the cops can't see them, and people can record the content wirelessly to hidden devices, it will be a lot harder for the bad cops to stop the filming of the brutality.
Parent
Re:We need more people filming the police (Score:5, Interesting)
Couldn't agree more. In a more perfect world, competent and conscientious (read, honest) peace officers should not fear being filmed.
Sadly, I can relate to a police office's fear of being filmed. While I think it smacks of dishonesty or abuse of power at best (police officers objecting to being filmed/photographed)... Can anyone refute the contention that most law is so nebulous (open to a huge range of judicial interpretation and/or special interest manipulation) it's not impossible (or even unlikely) police officers could be sued (and be found guilty of misconduct) for entirely legitimate police conduct. If a burglar can effectively sue a home owner for bodily injury suffered why burglarizing said home, couldn't a police officer loose a civil suit for enforcing the law in a manner most of us would consider appropriate.
All that aside, I still believe there should be a federal statute 100% sanctioning a civilian legal right to film police conduct (excepting situations where filming poses an obvious and immediate risk to officers or others).
Parent
Re:We need more people filming the police (Score:5, Interesting)
These are people who pretend to be part of [rawstory.com] the targeted group [reason.com] and commit acts of violence [indybay.org] and incite others [israelinsider.com] to commit acts of violence in order to justify the violent police responce to follow.
Even if all that fails, the police can still lie and say that they were defending themselves, as the National Guard did at Kent State. [wikipedia.org] They shot and killed four students, claiming that someone fired on them, when the order "Right here! Get Set! Point! Fire!" was recorded on an audiotape. [guardian.co.uk]
All of this makes it that much more important that the events be recorded so everyone can see the truth of the matter.
Parent
Re:We need more people filming the police (Score:5, Informative)
In this country (the USA), the people have a right to peacefully assemble and petition for redress of grievances. If the police attack such a peaceful assembly, does that make it a "riot"? I was a student at Berkeley from 66-70, and I was in quite a few such "assemblies" that didn't remain peaceful. Granted, sometimes it was the demonstrators' fault, but more often than not the police simply decided that we had no right to be there, and started tossing tear gas and beating up people. Did being there with my camera make me guilty of something? I don't think so.
I oppose your assertion that being in a "riot zone" is itself some sort of crime, and that anyone who is there deserves getting the crap kicked out of him. For one thing, it's not always easy to distinguish between a riot and a bunch of people who've been attacked by the police--the two look pretty much the same on TV. Second, some people get caught in genuine riots by mistake--they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Third, journalists have an obligation to cover riots--to make sure that the cops stay within reasonable bounds, and use only the amount of force that's necessary. If you don't think it's necessary for the public to watch the police, then you're pretty naive. If you'd seen some of the things I've seen, your attitude might be different.
Oddly enough, the only time I got beat up by the police was after a riot had taken place and been dispersed. I was walking home from campus, and happened on a bunch of cops and a few people just standing around an intersection. I stopped to chat with someone I recognized to find out what had happened. Big mistake...there were no reporters present. I heard one of the cops say, "OK, let's get 'em!"--and the next thing I knew people were running around screaming, being surrounded by cops and methodically clubbed. I remember lying on the ground with some cop poking at my nuts thinking, "Oh my god, they're going to arrest me and my parents will freak!". They didn't break anything, but I was one massive bruise the next day, and my left knee wasn't the same for about a year. Now if we'd only had cellphone cameras in the 60s...
Parent
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll second that
Parent
Re: Sorry, but you make no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, videotaping or photography has nothing to do with this case. The issue is audio recording.
Third, you are the officer's employer in a very indirect sense at best. You have no actual power over him or her. You have handed that over to your government, and you can only effect a change through your government. Fourth, employers do not have an unqualified right to videotape their employees. Fifth, you bring up public domain? This is not a copyright case. I do know what you mean though, and while it is true that you have no expectation of privacy in public with regard to the way you are viewed (since you can be seen from far away), the same cannot be said about what you say. Sound only carries so far, and it is not unreasonable to expect privacy with regard to what you say.
To be clear, I do not believe the officer had an expectation of privacy with regard to what he said, but the PA legislature has deemed the wiretapping law to be a good one, so they are the ones to blame.
Parent
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Interesting)
I asked the security department at the US Embassy in Manila for permission to take photos across the street on a public sidewalk -- on Philippine soil -- just so they would know who I was and could clear me in advance. The Philippine constitution also has freedom of speech and the press, and the embassy security officer told me there was no law he knew of (US or Philippine) against me taking photos. The embassy had no procedure to for me to get authorization or clearance from them.
However, he made it very clear that if I did so, he would have the Philippine National Police to detain, hold, and interrogate me, after which they would detain, hold, and interrogate me. Again, this detention would be for conduct they don't consider unlawful, and I openly disclosed to them. I'm also a U.S. citizen, for what that's worth, and I'm a professional photographer. Like the incident in the article, this is presumably a civil rights violation.
The problem is that even if you prevail, the experience chills freedom of the press. It makes exercising one's rights unnecessarily costly and burdensome. People will reasonably have to weigh exercising their rights against harassment, legal or not, by those who neither understand nor respect the rights of others to make recordings in public places.
There have been protests outside the U.S. embassy in Manila, newsworthy events. It is lawful to photograph them, but military, police, private security guards, shop owners, or just the general public might harass or detain you based on ignorance of the legal right and logical entitlement to take photos in public places.
When it was google street views, many people on slashdot labeled it invasion of privacy. Now that the police are saying they, too, don't want to be recorded in public, it's perhaps more relatable that anyone can record anything in public, as once you start making exceptions, freedom of the press is no longer a right. I always assumed this is why freedom of the press applies equally to all citizens, not just those the government decides are entitled to that right.
Parent
Re:Where have I seen laws like this before? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have never ever, ever met a good policeperson. Not even mediocre. 90% of America also shares this sentiment. (the other 10% being the most wealthy)
That sounds silly and made up. Most of our experience with policemen come when we're pulled over for speeding or some other traffic infraction. It's happened to me probably ten times in my life. Never once have I had a problem in any of the four states I was pulled over. In each case, the policeman was professional and polite. These incidents happened from the year I got my driver's license at 16 years old and was driving a beat up, 13+ year old Mustang, in another case driving a kind of old Honda Accord with a friend, another time when I was along with two other friends driving an early model Hyundai, and another time driving a Geo Storm. And yet another time when a friend and I decided to sleep in that same Hyundai in a shopping center parking lot in the L.A. area rather than spending money on a hotel; in retrospect, that probably looked very suspicious. And with the possible exception of the Geo Storm (which was new and pretty at the time), none of the cars gave an impression of me/us being anywhere near wealthy. And when we were in other states, there was definitely no way the policeman knew by the address on my driver's license that it was a upper middle-class neighborhood. But I've always been treated well.
I think how a policeman behaves has a lot more to do with the demeanor of the person that he is dealing with. If you're an ass, don't expect stellar treatment. Granted, being an ass isn't an excuse for them to treat you poorly, but there's no reason to be an ass to start with. Just be a polite human being and I bet you find that the police do the same. That's been my experience, anyway.
On the other hand, maybe you're right. Maybe 90% of the population does agree with you because 90% of the population do tend to be asses and then wonder why they "don't get no respect."
Parent
I find this offensive. I work with PD frequently. (Score:5, Interesting)
I know many officers. Some are good, some are not good. Most are somewhere in the middle. The youngest, smallest ones have in my experience been the ones closer to the stereotype. I refer to these as "25 year olds with their first mirrored shades and a gun" and are dangerous to themselves as much as the public they insult. Most though, grow up and become good natured and humble just like we all try to.
Cops are people, and suffer the same foibles as the rest of us. For them, like all others, power is a drug to be taken in small doses.
When you give a little man a little power, you create a big problem.
Parent
Police are NEVER to be trusted (Score:5, Interesting)
I was quite cooperative, told them any meds I was taking (none of which would have caused impairment -- had been taking them for long time). On the side of the road, on rough gravel and on a hill side, they had me trying to walk the straight line in the mid-heeled sandals that, at best, might be comfortable to walk in, but not pirouette on an incline and rough gravel. So they decided to arrest me. Then they refused to allow me to get a jacket, sweater, or any warmer clothes. Even lied to me, saying they'd get my bag (they didn't) so I could put on a jacket. They then took me downtown and my car was towed. The breathalyser on the scene was negative, but that wouldn't have showed effects of other drugs. Downtown they took a pee test AND a blood test (both, a week or two later came back negative). But meanwhile, they locked me up for 8 hours to "sober up" (since they couldn't get the blood and urine tests back for a few to several days). Locked up, down in basement, where it was 65 degrees -- and I was dressed for 80's and sunny.
It cost me $40 for a taxi ride at midnight to the lot where they had towed my car where I had to pay over $200 for an after-hours "release". I put the spare on the car in 10 minutes and was on way home. Then I had to deal with a DUI charge that I wasn't guilty of. I had to hire a lawyer to deal with the court issues, since otherwise, they'd want me to be in court 45 miles away at 8am to enter my plea. The lawyer was able to talk to the DA's office the morning of the trial. They found nothing in my blood other than the 'scripts I'd told them about and they decided to drop the charges. They refused to return my prescriptions -- and ran me around in circles trying to get them from the police -- who eventually refused because, they claimed, they were not doctors and it would be illegal for them to return my prescriptions as they were not doctors -- I'd need a court order.
At this point I was out $250 for the night I had to get home from jail and another $1200 down to the lawyer. The court order to return my meds would have cost, minimum, another $800-1000, so gave up that idea and just went into the pharmacy for refills a bit early.
So I'm out $1500 due to some cop thinking my "flat tire" causing steering problems was me being "DUI" -- no recourse to get the money. I found out 3-4 years later (!!!) when I went to get insurance on a new car, that the cop at the scene had reported it to the DMV as an accident. The asshole cop didn't even check to see if my car had any scratches on it -- and the tire had no side-wall damage (as would be the case if I brushed against the center divide). Nevertheless the idiot recorded it as an accident which caused me to have to do some explaining to my insurance company to supposedly tell them about my "accident". I didn't know anything about an acc
Parent
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're slightly mistaken there. In my transportation engineering class, we were recently taught that the posted speed limit is about 85% of the design speed of the highway (rounded to the nearest 5mph). The design speed is presumably the maximum "safe" speed, although I'm not sure how it's determined. I imagine it's based on some kind of lowest-common-denominator, like a half-blind old lady driving a huge Buick with drum brakes, or a semi, or something. One thing I can tell you it's not though, is that it's not based on a survey of existing traffic speeds -- you have to design the road before the traffic exists! And also it's not so much that "15% percent of people" should be speeding, it's that it should be safe for [100% of] people to go 15% faster than the posted limit.
Parent
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
I love laws like this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I love laws like this... (Score:4, Funny)
We citizens of the Homeland are in constant danger. Terrorists brazenly roam the countryside, nuking preschools when we least expect it.
How do you expect the police to do their job when they are constantly hogtied with red tape, unable to perform a little simple extrajudicial torture without spending huge amounts of time and money to ship the detainee overseas?
The answer: they cannot.
We should cheer when a terrorist-sympathizer photographer is arrested. That's one less evildoer threatening our benevolent overseers' iron hand, and one less distraction from our nation's righteous course.
Parent
Kind of like another case (Score:5, Informative)
If they have nothing to hide .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that the only REAL way to watch the watchmen?
Re:If they have nothing to hide .... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:If they have nothing to hide .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:If they have nothing to hide .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Off-duty police officers have the rights as anyone else.
On-duty, those rights are restricted. Police officers and other public servants do not have an expectation of privacy while carrying out their duties. Why do police officers have name tags and numbered badges? To identify them both so that they can carry out their duties and so that they can be identified while carrying out their duties.
The police have a lot more "power" than the average citizen. I can't tell a random person on the street to move along. I can't ask people for their ID's. I can't hit or shoot people because they fail to comply with my instructions.
I'm sorry that you think that restricting the power of public servants is somehow restricting their human rights. It is not and it is a necessary and fundamental principle for a free society.
Parent
Re:If they have nothing to hide .... (Score:5, Insightful)
No its not. They're public agents. Public agents are granted special powers over private citizens to be able to perform their duties. In the interests of preventing abuse of those special powers, public agents should not expect the same level of privacy (esp. in the process of using those powers) as private citizens gets.
Parent
Who Guards The Guardians (Score:5, Informative)
Now take something that is within the public interest, recording a police officer in the performance of his/her duties in a public place. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? If there isn't an exception to the wiretapping laws when a citizen records the police, but there is an exception when the police record citizens, there is something seriously wrong with that law. This case bears watching.
- Greg
P.S.: And to have some stereotypical
In Soviet Russia, the police record *you*.
1: Record Police Officer
2: Get Arrested For Felony
3: ???
4: Profit!!
I, for one, welcome our new wiretapping overlords.
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
-GameMaster
Parent
It certainly shouldn't be... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent."
Okay...what? Why is this illegal? I mean, I can see some potential for abuse, recording someone saying something and using it to incriminate them etc. But seriously, if you say it aloud to someone they can report that you say it in court (presumably without hearsay as, as far as I know, that only applies to stating facts you heard from someone else, not what someone else said. As in I can say "Billy said..." in court but not "I know that because Billy said so")
I mean, I'm sure this law is great for privacy freaks, but it just seems off. If you're going to say something to me why don't I have the right to record it? My brain's already doing that, what's wrong with having a more accurate representation of it? You'd prefer I improperly remember you saying "I'm gonna blow them up!" and not have the recording that actually says "He's gonna blow them up?" I wouldn't mind people recording my conversations, why would you ever say anything you wouldn't want recorded to another human being with a memory?
Just seems like an off law to me. The case itself, not so much. If it's illegal there, no matter how off that law may be, then he should be arrested. However I'd hope he could get off with only a fine due to the extreme obscurity and horrible naming policy (really, they're supposed to know that videotaping someone talking is wiretapping?).
Re:It certainly shouldn't be... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It certainly shouldn't be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Conversations with your wife on the bus or at the park do not. You could have an expectation of privacy, but not a very reasonable one at that.
Parent
The bad argument... (Score:5, Funny)
Who's watching Big Brother??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course we have an executive branch which has put itself above the law in the name of terrorism and freedumb(sic)....
and a legislature which does not have the will to fix our healthcare crisis because they have their own healthcare system which isolates them from the f'd up system the rest of us are dealing with.....
There must be literally HUNDREDS of cases since Rodney King in which cops (especially LA cops) have been caught doing bad, abusive and unconstitutional things to perps -er citizens.
There should be no right of public officials to privacy while they conduct the tasks that they are allegedly performing on our behalf.
Cameras and things like open government sessions are about the accountability which is becoming rarer in this society.
LET THE SUNSHINE IN (ie. 'sunshine' laws)
I'm just sayin'
Pure bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, police officers ought to be required by law to wear pickups that record ALL sound and a snapshot every 10 seconds while they are on duty. Ideally, said recordings would also be instantly transmitted to a secured location which nobody in their headquarters has access to for archival purposes.
Re:Pure bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a key to doing this. you either need to outnumber the cops, be "live" and look like a film crew as a cop will not DARE to even touch a reporter or camera guy that is on the air live, or do it clandestine.
I have resorted to buying and using a cheap Canon HV20 camcorder with a canon shotgun on the top in a modified bag to shoot police footage of an arrest or other activities that the news likes to pay for. Why? because I have been assaulted by police on several occasions. It's better to be "invisible" while recording them (window glass camera mounts work great at long zoom) than to anger the police and have them accidentally break your camera or confiscate it and then it magically never get's put into evidence nor a report filed.
yes I have had that happen. Now I do it invisible, they dont know I am recording and the news stations around here still accept my video (even more so now it's HD, no other freelance guys in town do it in HD)
I have never met a cop that was courteous or honest when I had a camera on them. Every single one of them got hostile and either threatened me or assaulted me. And I was always out of their way (100 feet or more). others might have had better experiences, I hope one day I will, and i live in a smallish town and shoot in that town and the nearby medium town.
Parent
What ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't believe there was criminal intent, why the fuck was he arrested & why should he plead guilty to a lessor charge ?
Sue the fuckers !
No (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
The present case involves civilian wiretapping, which is probably completely legal in PA if all parties consent to the recording, but illegal if one or more parties is unaware or does not consent.
Parent
Nothing to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that the crap the authorities come back with when people complain about CCTV cameras?
I'm guessing the COPS were videotaping the arrest with a car camera, if so, THEY have already CONSENTED
to having their actions recorded while on the job.
They are employees of the public going about public business IN PUBLIC. They damn well better be able to be recorded
or we are in serious trouble.
Sure, videotaping The Police is illegal (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, you meant actual cops? Never mind.
Such a reach (Score:5, Insightful)
The officer probably didn't know of the wiretap law either, and the DA was fortunate to find it, or they'd be even worse off than they are now. Arrested for no reason at all. They clearly wanted to harass and scare the kid, which the obviously succeeded at. Now the city should fork over $100K compensation, along with a sincere apology in the process.
If it ever goes to trial, and I was on the jury, it would be Jury Nullification all the way, baby!
Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
The officer DID consent to have the conservation recorded. In fact, he was recording it with his own audio/video system.
He didn't consent to have it on the defendant's tape... but unless the statute draws that line, the court should not either.
What do the police have to hide? (Score:4, Insightful)
Snoop onto them, as they snoop onto us!!
Potential terrorist? Hardly... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is bullshit. It's clear that this is an abuse of power to stop people from being able to document further abuses of power. It's meant to also have a chilling effect and prevent others from doing the same.
Remember, one of the stated definitions of "terrorist" by the current administration is people who:
are Defenders of the Constitution
reference the constitution and the bill of rights
are property rights advocates
are loners
this is from an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force pamphlet which you can see here:
http://www.welfarestate.com/pamphlet/ [welfarestate.com]
If a cop is doing his or her job, he or she should be proud to be videotaped.
Now if someone was following a cop all day with a videocam for no good reason, I can see where that could maybe be an issue - but it should be fine to videotape a traffic stop on a public street, especially if you are the one being stopped.
The fascism keeps creeping.
Law is messed up (Score:5, Insightful)
By this interpretation of the law anyone with a camcorder at a back yard cookout or public event is committing a felony, unless you have permission from everyone there. Unless they call out every exception, then TV news crews are roving criminal bands. It's ridiculous. The fact they're police officers is irrelevant. There's no expectation of privacy in a public place and the same standards should apply to audio as video.
This is completely insane.
In other news from the same blog... (Score:4, Funny)
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/camp
Just Trust The Police (Score:4, Insightful)
Why, just the other day the neighbors called the cops to come visit me. I have such great neighbors. The officer said it was because someone *heard* a child crying. Think of that, they just wanted to be sure my children were happy. Of course, a crying child is very concerning. Why would a child cry? Well, only two reasons I know of: because you are hitting them with a shovel, or they want to stay up past their bed time. I'm sure my neighbor would know that my kids never cry at bedtime, so they naturally assumed a shovel.
The officer who showed up was such a friendly chap. He came in to my home and woke my kids by shining his flashlight in their faces. The kids thought it was a riot! We all had a good laugh afterwords. See kids! See what fun it is to be woken up by a big police officer with a gun and a flashlight in your face!? Good times. My two year old son especially appreciated it. I think he really grew to appreciate the police that day.
Well, the cop did his job. None of my kids were bleeding, nor had any signs of child abuse at all. He could see they were probably crying because they wanted to stay up and watch that friendly purple dinosaur. See how we trusted the police fully? I can let a complete stranger with a loaded weapon in to my child's bedroom and not have a care in the world. Why? Because he is an officer of the law. Just for good measure, of course, he referred us to the local child abuse center in order to keep our kids safe. What a great police officer. The city's finest I tell you. I wouldn't dream of video taping them because I trust them fully.
My wife sat in tears as the police officer left. She was so thrilled about the visit.
This isn't federal (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:This isn't federal (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This isn't federal (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent