« Naked man goes on bizarre rampage at hotel and store | Main | Man sues after getting smacked with a shoe during lap dance »
"Known drug dealer" arrested for cell-phone photos of cops
Randy Dean Sievert got in trouble when he aimed his cell phone camera at undercover investigators executing a search warrant in his neighborhood. A public defender calls the arrest "beyond belief." (Tampa Tribune)
March 17, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
He sounds like a common criminal and he may have jeapordized the under cover cops lives by circulating the pictures he had. Let him rot.
Posted by: Cherie | Mar 17, 2008 11:20:55 AM
this is true Cherie, but what really put their lives at risks were precautions that are so inadequate that a cell phone camera puts them in jeopardy.
you can't change the rules and arrest people on a whim. This time its a deadbeat punk. Next time its you because you were filming cops roughing someone up.
Posted by: boynamedsue | Mar 17, 2008 11:24:30 AM
PERSONAL PLEASURES DISAPPEAR MORE AND MORE ALL THE TIME. YOU CAN ONLY TAKE PICTURES OF WHAT IS ALLOWED. WHERE HAS FREEDOM GONE?
Posted by: ULTRA | Mar 17, 2008 11:36:14 AM
Wow, the Tampa Tribune comments section on this article is AWESOME. They have everything from people associating Liberals with Pedophiles and Murderers to someone Claiming that "God put our Leaders in Power and as long as they don't try and get us to do something against God we need to obey their rules." C'mon people, stir the pot! Personally, someone with a neck tattoo needs to go a little further to prove themselves trustworthy (kind of like someone with a tie, lol) and while it may be a scuzzball thing to do by a known scuzzball, but BNS is right. I know people who got their sh!t fucked with during the 2000 Republikan convention in Philly for doing nothing other than filming cops wailing on some protesters. No harassing, no backtalking, just filming. When will people learn that anyone can and does become a cop, including some very bad people. You don't magically turn into some superhero simply by donning a uniform. It's b/c of this fact that public servants are fair game for the camera. Not saying that this guy isn't someone who deserves an ass kicking on principle alone (I mean, look at his mugshot) but you can't have your cake and eat it to just b/c you have a badge.
There, that ought to do it.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Mar 17, 2008 11:51:51 AM
"Assistant public defender Jennifer Joynt-Sanchez"
Joynt-Sanchez specializes in representing eelleegall drog deelerrzz.
From that internet ettiquette site,
"People who insist upon posting in all caps have tiny penises which cannot become stiff even when rubbed against those who obsess about identifying with potatos."
Posted by: A.V. | Mar 17, 2008 12:00:09 PM
APPARENTLY FREEDOM HAS GONE THE WAY OF LOWER-CASE LETTERS ON SOME PEOPLE'S KEYBOARDS.
Yep, this is a touchy one. We've heard a good bit in recent years about cops roughing up/arresting people who are photographing or otherwise recording questionable actions on the part of the cops; but by and large this is in order to document the actions because otherwise it might be difficult to prove allegations that might be made later. In this case however, it seems that the perp is recording the data for one reason only: to identify the likenesses of the officers and their vehicles in order to show fellow law-breakers in an effort to undermine the actions of the police.
If cops simply don't like the idea of having their actions recorded for posterity, then yes, arresting or confiscating equipment is wrong, and has proven a bad idea in case after case. But in order to maintain cover or identities that are important for the health and safety of the officers, or if the recording is a deliberate effort to interfere with police business (e.i., taking drugs or anything else dangerous off the streets), they have a right to do what is necessary.
Otherwise, we're going to get to a point where people are going to sue law enforcement every time a cop touches someone, talks to someone, or points a gun at someone.
Posted by: msgelter | Mar 17, 2008 12:00:33 PM
BNS...I get your point. Where does one draw the line?
Posted by: Cherie | Mar 17, 2008 12:05:10 PM
It's not illegal to take a photograph that the police do not want you to take. Except in China. If the police didn't want photographs taken of their secret undercover vehicles, then they shouldn't have brought them, should they?
msgelter, this case isn't about a cop touching someone, talking to someone, or pointing a gun at someone. It is about a cop forcing a civilian to destroy a piece of his property (the photo), which, by law, the cops have no right to do. If we let them do this, then next time there's an excessive-force abuse, with cops beating the crap out of some poor kid, the cops will run after photographers, confiscate their cameras, and delete the photos. Do you want to live in a country where that's OK?
Posted by: Trantor | Mar 17, 2008 12:07:19 PM
taking a picture is not illegal and the cops shouldnt be so scared to show their faces. why dont we start to hire cops that arent wussies? they need to stop acting like the gestapo. most cops dont have enough training to do their job. how can someone enforce laws if they dont even know what the laws are?
Posted by: buddy | Mar 17, 2008 12:13:33 PM
I wonder if the cops would have made such a big deal if the photographer was a reporter, not a drug lord.
Posted by: twerp | Mar 17, 2008 12:20:19 PM
Cherie- legally, you have to draw the line at all or nothing. Sucks-in this one particular instance- but that's life in a Democracy. Also, it said the cops made him give up the code or something ominous like that. Kind of gotta wonder what they did to that guy. Personally I think the war on drugs is unwinnable, wasteful, and incredibly destructive. The cops have that to thanks as much as the kid. Also, he didn't photograph them, he took pictures of their cars. If they were smart- and obviously, they-re not- they could have ran with that. Let him photograph their "nondescript" cars and while all the dumb petty drug thugs are on the lookout for those undercover cars, how about, I dunno, switch it up and catch them stupid? But of course, the logical cop approach is bust some heads.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Mar 17, 2008 12:28:30 PM
What a crock o' sh!t....
To all those who are OK with this...move to freakin china...WE have a thing here called the Bill of Rights.
What an idiot cop...they're in public, doin what they do, and they're whining cause they're on a camera???
If it's that bad, were a ski mask.
Line em up, pull the trigger, be done with it already.
Posted by: GeorgieBoy | Mar 17, 2008 12:52:05 PM
This is ridiculous, I can't even believe there is discussion about this. There is NOTHING that happens on a public street that you can not take a picture of.
The article specifically mentioned that undercover cops routinely wear masks to hide their identities when serving warrants. The article did not say whether or not these cops were but the assumption is that they were following their routine. As stated earlier, if they don't want their undercover cars to be known than they shouldn't drive them to serve a search warrant.
It comes down to someone (whose past is completely IRRELEVANT) was taking a photograph of cops who didn't want their photograph taken so they arrested him.
Once again, its the cops are the ones who should be arrested.
Posted by: Lou Sussler | Mar 17, 2008 12:56:07 PM
sometimesilie - i understand. I also agree that the "War on Drugs" isn't getting anywhere. The WAR on Cancer the WAR on teen pregnancy etc etc...whenever you go to WAR against something like that...it never seems to work out well. Maybe if we focused on the positive more? Instead of WAR(ing) against everything we hate.
Buddy...your lack of intelligence amazes me. The cops aren't wussies.. People work under-cover all over the world to get necessary information to weed out the nasty folks. Cops can't all run around exclaiming that they're cops or they'd never have any luck catching the really bad guys. So protecting their identity is also protecting their lives and their families lives. That doesn't make them wussies.
Posted by: Cherie | Mar 17, 2008 1:09:29 PM
Cherie, move to Russia, China or Cuba, they and only they agree with you. In the US we don't.
Posted by: DCer | Mar 17, 2008 1:13:59 PM
My animal, a known dog, is suspected of upending the trashcan in a frantic search for used chicken parts late last Sunday night. He was walloped and sent to his room where he was heard to complain about "that goddam alpha and master thinks all the chicken should be his..." As of this printing, it is unknown whether he's been returned to his "Good Boy" status...
Posted by: sometimesilie | Mar 17, 2008 1:17:25 PM
cherie, i think the answer in this case is to foolproof their identities. Have the vehicles be plateless, Don't use the same vehicles twice. Work out some kind of a loaning program with a local dealership where the dealership lets them borrow nondescript vehicles in exchange for a tax write off.
like i said, the real weak link here is that something with as shitty resolution as a camera phone is endangering their lives.
If thats the case the option is to look at why, not to break the law and violate someones (even a shitheads) rights.
Posted by: boynamedsue | Mar 17, 2008 1:18:11 PM
To hell with 'drug cops', those scumbags chose to take special training to enforce immoral laws about what substances can be used. They deserve what they get at the hands of an outraged and abused populace.
Don't the cops tell us that when THEY surveil US that we have no expectation of privacy, because we are in public? As usual, the rules are different for different players.
Just because you suck at the game of life and live next to scumbags doesn't mean that I want my rights drained away to be given a false sense of security.
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Mar 17, 2008 1:37:59 PM
yes, and as sean pointed out, prohibition doesn't work, it's an experiment that failed before, and is failing now.
Posted by: boynamedsue | Mar 17, 2008 1:40:56 PM
These cops will learn in court, that it's perfectly legal to take pictures of things in public. Hell, you can even take pictures of girls in bikinis at the beach... you can't sell them later (if the main subject is the girl and they don't sign a release), but you can take them. If the boyfriend has a problem with it, he can beat the shit out of you, and you can press charges for assault.
Posted by: anonymouse | Mar 17, 2008 1:44:32 PM
Too much ado about bullshit that will never change.
Posted by: Rock Marine | Mar 17, 2008 2:01:37 PM
I just hope Americans don't start taking cues from Iraqis on how to handle 'law enforcement' that enforces unpopular laws.
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Mar 17, 2008 2:05:49 PM
this is kind of a funny story to me.. my fried had pictures of some local UC's here in California and when he got raided for selling pot to people without medical recommendations the cops found their pictures on his computer. he ended up pleading no contest to the sales and possession of said substances, but he was also initially charged with stalking the 2 police officers and was actually issued a restraining order for the duration of the court proceedings. even better when he got his computer back the pictures were still saved on there.
Posted by: chris n cali | Mar 17, 2008 2:20:46 PM
If you are an undercover cop, then WHY O' WHY are you executing a search warrant. And IF you HAVE TO be there (which I doubt), then, why don't you wear a mask to cover your identity. Really, doesn't executing a search warrant kinda 'out' you as a cop? How undercover are you when you are handing out a warrant?
Problem solved. Just use uniformed cops to execute warrants.
Posted by: Sigh | Mar 17, 2008 3:13:22 PM
The Cops should have rented their cars from Enterprise.
Accordign to their commercials the cars are wrapped in brown paper.
Posted by: Bill | Mar 17, 2008 5:44:41 PM
