They are violent criminal thugs. Get the FBI and file a RICO on them.
charge them with tampering with evidence?
interestingly, the oc weekly is indicating the raid could be part of a shakedown starting in the mayorâs office to solicit money to influence the dispensary lottery system.
What is the officersâ reasoning for turning off the security cameras in the first place?
If criminals were able to record and later view law enforcement tactics and techniques of evidence gathering then they might gain an advantage in evading justice.
is the kind of bullshit a cop spokesperson would say when asked that question.
âThus, we propose the cancellation of COPS, and the banning of all recordings of episodesâ
So the argument is, âevidence showing what bad behavior these cops exhibit when they think theyâre not being watched should not be used to imply that they exhibit bad behavior when theyâre not being watched.â
Let me get this straight if someone enters my house,attempts to disable security cameras, and then steals from my house, but later finds that they did not disable all the cameras. They could say they had an expectation of privacy. I wonder how a judge would view that.
It is my guess they will say they disabled the cameras because under cover officers are seen on the video talking and kidding with marked police officers.This would blow their cover That is a valid point, IF NO CRIMES WERE COMMITTED. If the cops had a reasonable reason to be there, and acted in a respectful manner while there, they may have a right to ask that the video not be made public. This is clearly not the case.
Also in todayâs world everyone should assume they are on camera at all times.
F*cking ridiculous! When you are a police officer on the job you donât have the right to privacy and in fact are publicly accountable. Fine and charge them and award damages to the business that they vandalized and stole from.
Iâd ensure that all of the available counter-top candies were specially formulated for cops. At 1000x the regular dose, just in case of a raid. Enjoy!
Only thing I can say about this whole thing is that the law of the land clearly has been interpreted to say that recording a police officer in the carrying out of their duties as an officer is 100% legal as long as you donât interfere with the officer doing their job. They were on duty, doing their job. The cameras being there didnât interfere with the officers doing their job. No need to inform them of anythingâŚ
They would still not have a right to have the full video not made public. They WOULD have the right to ask that the undercover officerâs faces be blurred. Also, how can you not know youâre being recorded if you took down other cameras? I would assume there was AT LEAST one camera I missed⌠That should just be common sense, IMHO.
Isnât that where we keep the ultra-potent laxatives? This is a medical dispensery after all! 
This is just standard, âvigorous defense,â and theyâre going to try to get all evidence that makes them look bad thrown out. This isnât the defense lawyerâs first rodeo.
I would suggest âFornicate the Gendarmesâ
Good! They should have their covers blown. Police being accountable to the public does not mean that they can hide and sneak around to do their job.
I had a confrontation with undercovers outside a restaurant in Queens once. They had a table together, and were doing a poor job of concealing their police-ness. When I left I started recording their car on my phone, along with the license plate, and finally each of the guys as they came out of the restaurant. They got right up in my face, asking me what I was doing, asking for my phone, etc. The problem was, they couldnât tell me why I shouldnât, because they would then need to admit that they were undercover police. I couldnât hinder their duties, because since they were denying being public servants, they hadnât any.
Thatâs pretty incredible to claim an expectation of privacy ON SOMEONE ELSEâS PROPERTY.
Aside from the obvious bullshit of the âBut we thought that we tampered with the evidence successfully! Any that we missed must be thrown out!â line of argument; isnât it pretty hard to construe an expectation that youâve successfully fully disabled a system designed to be robust enough for security purposes as âreasonableâ?
Obviously only some retail sites actually bother, since more defense costs more; but it has been the case for decades that criminals are known to destroy, block, or avoid surveillance cameras; and thus a robust system should include interlocking fields of view, redundancy, concealment and/or armoring of cameras, and similar mechanisms.
Even if the notion of âreasonable expectation of privacyâ in someone elseâs place of business in front of multiple witnesses somehow holds; it seems risible that believing that you snuffed all the cameras counts as âreasonableâ. Sure, maybe in the '70s or 80s when video cameras that only needed a shoulder mount and a single operator were pretty cool; but today?
