Police also have the right to take photos
I'm curious on 2 things here. LEO opinion on the actual story, as well as what your take is on cops photographing situations, etc.
I am not a LEO, but if it were a case of the police taking a photo for evidence, then I have no problem for it. Just like the patrol car cams that record stops, I support those and think every police vehicle should have one.
The Tape protects both the officer and the citizen from wrong doing on either side. Of course I know it does not stop bullets from flying, but it is there to make sure everyone know that the citizen swung first or fell out of the car when asked to exit and the officer did nto touch them.
A police officer who is on duty and representing public authority should not be photographing people he is dealing with for media distribution. It MAY not be against the law per se, but he would (and should) be subject to departmental discipline.
Is this true of all departments, or just yours?
And what if the discipline was determined to be nothing, as the officer did not PROFIT from the act?
But an attorney passed out in a trash can could be considered too hard to resist....
This is like walking into a hungry lion or tiger cage with food(steak) straped to your body. It could be a case of insighting a riot. The DA Drunk in the street in a garbage can is funny.
If anything, the officer should apologize for breaching protocol and policies, if he did so. He should not apologize to this lawyer for the LAWYER'S behavior. IMO.
If the local department had such a regulation then yes an apology for breaking the regulation would be the minimum discipline I would expect and I would expect the officer to offer it first before a discipline meeting occurred.
Taking the photo and distibuting it to the press was unprofessional, at best.
I agree it may have been unprofessional even if there was no regulation.
I also think a case for favortism could be made, such that if the normal citizen was found in the street, would the average officer take them him from the call or whould they walk them home?
They are in the street and a danger to themselves or others, they should end up in the back of the car with the lights on and then get lots of pictures and prints taken downtown.
To me that would be the professional way to have handled this situation.
Truthfully, there're a few attorneys that I'd be tempted to do the same to, given the opportunity. But it wouldn't be worth the ramifications... I don't need a defense attorney (or many of them) with an ax to grind making every case a pain in the ***...
You mean it is OK for a DA to hold a grudge against an officer or a Defense Attorney to also hold a grudge, but I thought they were their to represent their client and not to be judgemental of those who brought in the case.
I guess they are human then.
Well since they are human and make mistake, and are public figures, then that in my opinion makes them open to having their picture taken and made fun of.
Taking photos made in the course of an investigation and making them public is generally inappropriate. What if I call them to my house due to a robbery and they take photos of us undressed? Even the drunk is innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, I think pictures should have been taken. I then also think they should have cuffed him and brought in more cars and maybe an amulance to get more attention (* I have seen officers do this to people they pull over in their neighborhoods who are sober *) and this way he could be taken downtown and processsed officially.
Can a DA hold the job if processed for such a crime? I mean the pictures would tell the story and be used as evidence.
Now if his wife came out of the house, I would not expect pictures of her to be taken, unless she did something to make herself part of the crime such as attacking an officer.
They should be held as evidence, and not be used for monetary gain.
Photographs aren't really punishment.........they tell a story......this is a story of a drunken lawyer.
I can guarantee if an off duty police officer was passed out drunk in a trash can, a LAWYER wouldn't miss a chance to snap a picture.
I also wonder if that smae lawyer would not hold it over on the officer. Human nature and all.
Blah, blah, blah...
He should take responsibility for the fact that he freely made the choice to get trashed and then nap in it.
I agree he should admit he was drunk and in public and made a mistake. It would go a long way for his appearance and I bet also for any officer stepping forwarding who might be afraid of being the target of an investigation for their picture.
I'm so very sick of poeple not taking responsibility for their actions. So what if the picture got leaked?
They should take responsibility. I agree. For the act and for the picture being sent to the media.
On the other hand, I also don't know why the community would be in such an uproar over it either. The guys human after all. At best it should only be an ammusing story to tell. Raise your hand if you've never done anything embarrassing...
I wonder as stated above if he had been convicted of his crime of public intoxication and or listed as being a danger to himself, if he could still hold his job or if he would have been kicked out.
I've tied one on more than once and woke up in some pretty strange places (though never a trash can). Who cares? Some people need to have surgery to remove the large stick they have lodged in their anus.
Well, for local news, I would laugh and be gald it was not another article about more unemployment and lost jobs and poor economy and dull future and ... , well you get my point. A simple story that brought a smile to my face.
Its not against the law to take pictures. Of course, what you're taking pics. of and what you're doing with them could very well be against the law. I have to laugh, because the article is painting the cops in a bad light. I was glad to read that it was said in the article that the lawyer is a public figure as well, because its the truth. IMO, if you're representing the city, town, etc, whether you're on duty or not, you should be professional. Of course, we all know that doesn't always happen.
Yes the cops were painted in a bad light. And I think they were in a bad light as they did not drag his *** downtown and process him to the fullest extent of the law. That was their mistake in my opinion.
Sounds like the mayor of the town is trying to go into operation cover up for the lawyer. Fact is, the guy got drunk...so drunk in fact that he passed out. No excuse for any of the actions in this case from all parties involved.
I agree that DA should loose his job as I think he should have been processed.
The Officers did a nice thing and get heat for it, they should have arrested him.
The Mayor is making it worse and should be looked at for what else he may have swept under the rug.
Short version:
You and your wife goto the local burger joint for dinner. You as private citizens expect to eat in peace.
The Obama's go to the same place. They will be photographed 100 times. As public citizens, there is less of an expectation of privacy.
This -may- fall into such a gray area.
The attorney here isn't just a rank n file 1 in 10,000 lawyer, he's the city's top lawyer. As such, he's a public person. So a picture of him, passed out drunk in a garbage can, could classify as news.
link
Also, a long excellent read with several case law examples is here
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/chapter5.html
I agree that just the average person can expect some privacy, but a public figure is another issue. If I go to a seminar and just work out I have no expectation of being photographed, but if I am an instructor then I fullyexpect that people will ask to have their photo taken with me.
Also if I do something stupid, I recognize that it is much more likely that people will take a picture of being doing said stupid act.
I think it was news, and as such the people should be made aware of it.
True, however.......perhaps the intent was to expose misconduct on the part of public officials......in which case punitive action against the whistle blower could be considered a violation in itself........at least that's what my lawyer would argue.
Good point.
