US Marshal Smashes smart phone to avoid being recorded - the new norm?

[Rx_]

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/u-s-marshal-smashes-womans-smartphone-to-avoid-being-recorded

Occurring recently in an area of Los Angeles County called South Gate, 34-year-old teacher Beatriz Paez was assaulted by an unnamed U.S. Marshal while she was attempting to film a federal law enforcement operation related to a local biker gang.
As Paez is stepping away from the scene, the deputy U.S. Marshal lunges at Paez and wrestles away her smartphone. Paez is heard screaming “Oh! No! Don’t do that!” during the scuffle. He then smashes the smartphone on the sidewalk, stomps on the mobile device and kicks the broken phone towards Paez.

According to Paez’s account of the incident, the law enforcement officers claimed that she was interfering with the investigation.
​

Should citizens be allowed to inteffer with government operations?
Should someone be allowed to film you some activity - then put it on YouTube?
​

Show us your Badges... Badges, we don't need no stinking badges.


​

​

 

[pbaldy]

People shouldn't interfere, but did that constitute interfering? Not in my book, and it's not the first time I've seen this type of thing. He should be held accountable, and replace the phone personally (not our tax dollars).

 

[Frothingslosh]

Federal courts - including, I believe, SCOTUS - have ruled that filming LEOs is perfectly legal as long as the person filming doesn't actually impede them. That's also why the marshall here said the person was interfering - without that claim, he can't even pretend to not have broken the law.

Unfortunately, unless there's other video evidence of him doing this, he's unlikely to even get a slap on the wrist.

 

[Vassago]

ALWAYS film the police, but do so from a safe distance and don't interfere. That being said, know your rights!

Courts have upheld that the police, as public servants, should have no expectation of privacy while on duty.

 

[Galaxiom]

Without the video evidence the cop who shot Walter Scott would never have been charged.

I believe that we need a new law that any cop interfering with video recording is an attempt to pervert the course of justice. If they are doing nothing illegal then they have nothing to fear by being recorded.

 

[Rx_]

I didn't quote the entire article, another person video-ed the cop's action on the smashed smart-phone person. In all fairness, I didn't see that video on you-tube. The article claims it has many hits.

I think government should be open. But, limiting it to just Cops isn't enough.
Those working for the Taxpayers or those activities that affect citizens should be open.

We seem to be picking on just the Police. Why should only they be held to a higher accountability as any other government worker?
Walk into DMV (Driver License) with a video or countless other government functions.

 

[Vassago]

We seem to be picking on just the Police. Why should only they be held to a higher accountability as any other government worker?
Walk into DMV (Driver License) with a video or countless other government functions.

I've had this discussion with many people and agree to this statement. I think the reason why police are easier to place in the spotlight is because they have a much easier way to justify excessive force and the means to kill without prosecution. As Galaxiom pointed out, the police department had his back and insisted that the victim went for his taser before he was forced to fire at him. It wasn't until the evidence surfaced days later that he was arrested and charged. He would have gotten away with it.

I don't see too many DMV workers able to justifiably kill someone as a part of their job. Postal workers on the other hand...

 

[Rx_]

The DMV (State) absolutely has a couple of armed officers at all times. So, if they can't ever justify killing someone, why do admistrators authorized them (require them by policy and job description) to carry firearms?

Evidently, the same standards that should be applied to State and Federal officers is not realistic and not part of the debate.

The article is about a Federal officer. They have different standards over local police. As a voter, I get to vote if I don't like my Chief of Police and it can actually make some difference. Not so for appointed offices.

I don't recall any of the courts stating federal officers are under the same rules for public observation as a local officer. In many cases, from Federal officers (INS, DEA, FBI, Homeland Security up to the President authorizing Drone Strikes) roadblocks or restrictions of transparancy are much different than for local police.

This Federal US Marshal may have been totally within his duty (under the law) to smash the phone. I think that all he will get is a high-five slap by his superiors.

B.T.W. Those being detained were released shortly after she began filming.
It is interesting to observe, the lady who was filming: Her LinkedIn, Facebook and many other aspects of her live are now public.
Not so for the officers.