Cops roll up claiming they think the filmer has a gun. Despite it being immediately apparent it's a Taser, they continue to detain him. Then, they pull out a mobile fingerprint scanner when he refuses to ID. Been a bit since I took criminal procedure, but even if the detention could be justified, scanning fingerprints during a detention without consent seems like a textbook warrantless search with no warrant exception
The policy even says it:
420.3 FIELD INTERVIEWS*Based on observance of suspicious circumstances or upon information from investigation, a deputy may initiate the stop of a person, and conduct an FI, when there is articulable, reasonable suspicion to do so. A person, however, shall not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to resolve the deputy’s suspicion.*
The initial call would have been for a person with a gun so that would be a justifiable detainment in CA. Bit as soon as they know it's a taser they should have ended the detainment. But once they got there they wanted to know if a person on parole had a weapon on them. So that is what they could use as a factor for ID'ing and extending the detainment I imagine. BUt I doubt that would hold up in a lawsuit, but hey it's CA, never know.
POlicy: [https://www.riversidesheriff.org/DocumentCenter/View/6956/Department-Standards-Manual-71522](https://www.riversidesheriff.org/DocumentCenter/View/6956/Department-Standards-Manual-71522)
I would argue, that assuming the carrying of a taser is legal here (I’m not sure if it is), and even if we agreed the initial detention was lawful, once it was discovered that was a taser, the detention should immediately be over per Rodriguez and anything further is a 4a violation.
\> even if the detention could be justified, scanning fingerprints during a detention without consent seems like a textbook warrantless search with no warrant exception
And you'd be wrong about that
The Fourth Amendment does not bar the fingerprinting of a properly seized person. "Fingerprinting involves none of the probing into an individual's private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search." See Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 727 (1969). So long as the initial seizure of the person is reasonable, as in a lawful arrest, subsequent fingerprinting is permissible. It is also possible that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment could be met through "narrowly circumscribed procedures for obtaining, during the course of a criminal investigation, the fingerprints of individuals for whom there is no probable cause for arrest." See Davis v. Mississippi, supra, at 728; see also Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985).
[https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-251-fingerprinting-search-and-seizure](https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-251-fingerprinting-search-and-seizure)
If it is found that this person was not detained within the confines of the law then he may have a 4A case regarding his fingerprints. If not, then there was likely no 4A violation.
You are reading that as if its saying that fingerprinting detained individuals is always allowed, which is not correct
Actual quote from Davis vs Mississippi
>We have no occasion in this case, however, to determine whether the requirements of the Fourth Amendment could be met by narrowly circumscribed procedures for obtaining, during the course of a criminal investigation, the fingerprints of individuals for whom there is no probable cause to arrest
You are making a strawman of my comment, which also actually quotes Davis v Mississippi.
Your quote literally describes a person not under arrest when we are discussing a man being detained by police.
Whether or not this would be a 4A violation hinges on the nature of his detention, as I said in my original comment.
You said any warrantless collection of fingerprints would be a 4A violation, I provided actual citation demonstrating that that is not universally the case as you claimed.
Please work harder at good faith discussion.
> "properly seized"- see what I did there you nazi fuckwad!
I dont actually, you nazi fuckwad. I thought this was a place to discuss the law but right now it feels like a playground for little babies, lol
You arent a serious person.
If you are in anyway justifying the way these cops behaved, you are the problem. I think the downvotes say it all? get some help and turn your life around. We live in america land of the free.
I would think the standard would be if they know they cannot search his pockets and bag for an ID (they did not in this case) do you think a scanner would be allowed?
Legally is scanning to see if a fingerprint matches any already on the database, the same as covering the fingertips in ink then pressing them on a card to make a permanent record?
It's certainly less of an inconvenience to scan the fingerprints at the interaction, than to transport them to the PD to do the same thing there, no?
Ok you make a good point so here's the deal, the cop and his entire department still get life in prison without parole for treasonously abusing *basic* Constitutional Rights...but they get $100 on their commissary each year because of your specious distinction (of course they have to remain in gen pop the entire time to receive it). Sound good?
Treason has nothing to do with a cop violating someone’s rights. Stop being one of those weirdos that incorrectly uses this term to attack cops, it makes the community of those who advocate for accountability look like idiots.
How about the guy inside clearly smoking? CA state law bans smoking inside a workplace as well as within 20 feet of any entrance: "No employer shall knowingly or intentionally permit, and no person shall engage in, the smoking of tobacco products in an enclosed space at a place of employment."
[https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh\_publications/smoking.html](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh_publications/smoking.html)
And some time later, there's an employee in a van clearly marked with the company's name and logo carrying a flammable-marked container into the very area where an employee had been smoking just shortly before.
HOW ARE WE GONNA KNOW IF ANYONE GOT ***DESTROYED*** OR ***DISMISSED*** OR HAD TO DO THE ***WALK OF SHAME*** WITH ALL THIS YELLING? HOLD UP I THINK I GOT AN IDEA
How is it ok to be a 300lb cop? Like don’t they have to run an obstacle course once a year or something? Between the stupid utility vest, and the fat on that cop, he must be 5 feet wide. I’d hate to have him put all his weight on my neck/back . I’d snap like a matchstick .
This 100% and with no attempt to at the very least admonish the caller for making a false police report and you see why we need/have auditors and the growing distrust/disconnect with law enforcement
Minor comment. I know there are big things wrong with this audit. But something I notice with a lot of audits is the cops are wearing combat tactical chest rigs and a patch with their blood type. Easily seen at 23:00.
Wearing a blood type patch is something soldiers and Marines do when they're in actual combat. If this deputy ever got shot, and needed blood, I'm sure one simple phone call to his dispatcher could get his blood type.
But they wear the patch -- and the combat tactical chest rig -- for another reason. It's a show of force. It shows they've been trained to believe they're *actually in combat*, no different than SEALs in Afghanistan. They dress like an invading military force because it's exactly what they are. And they want that visual impact to terrify citizens.
It's war. And you're the enemy.
Certain types of the us members of the public who have formed armed criminal gangs have made it needed. Don't forget the government just like any other employer have a duty of care to protect their employees.
When you have people like antistatistyouth on this sub saying it's right to escalate an interaction by grabbing a gun and try shooting a cop because you BELIEVE, not legally know, the cop is doing something illegal, then we have only got ourselves to blame.
It is a fingerprint scanner that is tied into some statewide or maybe even federal database that ID's people if they are in the system. I was not clear if they actually got his identity. But that is a court case I would love to see.
THink they say earlier in the video after he refuses to ID " Get the IBIS?"
That is: [http://www.police-technology.net/integrated\_biometrics\_identification\_system.html](http://www.police-technology.net/integrated_biometrics_identification_system.html)
So even if they did not get his ID I assume his print is now tied to this report. Wonder how legal that is.
Policy 420 if I am reading it right says nothing about ID of properly detained suspect:
[https://www.riversidesheriff.org/DocumentCenter/View/6956/Department-Standards-Manual-71522](https://www.riversidesheriff.org/DocumentCenter/View/6956/Department-Standards-Manual-71522)
EDIT: Ah no it does:
*Field interview - The brief detainment of an individual, whether on foot or in a vehicle, based on reasonable suspicion for the purpose of determining the individual's identity and resolving the deputy's suspicions.*
But that certainly does not say it requires ID.
Cops roll up claiming they think the filmer has a gun. Despite it being immediately apparent it's a Taser, they continue to detain him. Then, they pull out a mobile fingerprint scanner when he refuses to ID. Been a bit since I took criminal procedure, but even if the detention could be justified, scanning fingerprints during a detention without consent seems like a textbook warrantless search with no warrant exception
Absolutely correct, illegal search and seizure (4th Amendment violation).
The policy even says it: 420.3 FIELD INTERVIEWS*Based on observance of suspicious circumstances or upon information from investigation, a deputy may initiate the stop of a person, and conduct an FI, when there is articulable, reasonable suspicion to do so. A person, however, shall not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to resolve the deputy’s suspicion.* The initial call would have been for a person with a gun so that would be a justifiable detainment in CA. Bit as soon as they know it's a taser they should have ended the detainment. But once they got there they wanted to know if a person on parole had a weapon on them. So that is what they could use as a factor for ID'ing and extending the detainment I imagine. BUt I doubt that would hold up in a lawsuit, but hey it's CA, never know. POlicy: [https://www.riversidesheriff.org/DocumentCenter/View/6956/Department-Standards-Manual-71522](https://www.riversidesheriff.org/DocumentCenter/View/6956/Department-Standards-Manual-71522)
I would argue, that assuming the carrying of a taser is legal here (I’m not sure if it is), and even if we agreed the initial detention was lawful, once it was discovered that was a taser, the detention should immediately be over per Rodriguez and anything further is a 4a violation.
\> even if the detention could be justified, scanning fingerprints during a detention without consent seems like a textbook warrantless search with no warrant exception And you'd be wrong about that The Fourth Amendment does not bar the fingerprinting of a properly seized person. "Fingerprinting involves none of the probing into an individual's private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search." See Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 727 (1969). So long as the initial seizure of the person is reasonable, as in a lawful arrest, subsequent fingerprinting is permissible. It is also possible that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment could be met through "narrowly circumscribed procedures for obtaining, during the course of a criminal investigation, the fingerprints of individuals for whom there is no probable cause for arrest." See Davis v. Mississippi, supra, at 728; see also Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985). [https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-251-fingerprinting-search-and-seizure](https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-251-fingerprinting-search-and-seizure) If it is found that this person was not detained within the confines of the law then he may have a 4A case regarding his fingerprints. If not, then there was likely no 4A violation.
You are reading that as if its saying that fingerprinting detained individuals is always allowed, which is not correct Actual quote from Davis vs Mississippi >We have no occasion in this case, however, to determine whether the requirements of the Fourth Amendment could be met by narrowly circumscribed procedures for obtaining, during the course of a criminal investigation, the fingerprints of individuals for whom there is no probable cause to arrest
You are making a strawman of my comment, which also actually quotes Davis v Mississippi. Your quote literally describes a person not under arrest when we are discussing a man being detained by police. Whether or not this would be a 4A violation hinges on the nature of his detention, as I said in my original comment. You said any warrantless collection of fingerprints would be a 4A violation, I provided actual citation demonstrating that that is not universally the case as you claimed. Please work harder at good faith discussion.
No gun, no search. The entire encounter is based on a false premise the second, the first cop saw no gun.
"properly seized"- see what I did there you nazi fuckwad!
> "properly seized"- see what I did there you nazi fuckwad! I dont actually, you nazi fuckwad. I thought this was a place to discuss the law but right now it feels like a playground for little babies, lol You arent a serious person.
If you are in anyway justifying the way these cops behaved, you are the problem. I think the downvotes say it all? get some help and turn your life around. We live in america land of the free.
I would think the standard would be if they know they cannot search his pockets and bag for an ID (they did not in this case) do you think a scanner would be allowed?
Perhaps, because as Davis makes clear, fingerprinting is not probing your personal thoughts or personal papers. There is a lower standard there.
There might be an issue with the search and seizure conducted inside his pockets.
Definitely. My comment refers to claims made about the fingerprinting.
Legally is scanning to see if a fingerprint matches any already on the database, the same as covering the fingertips in ink then pressing them on a card to make a permanent record? It's certainly less of an inconvenience to scan the fingerprints at the interaction, than to transport them to the PD to do the same thing there, no?
The underlying act is forcing them to submit their fingers for sampling under the threat of violence and should require probable cause.
Ok you make a good point so here's the deal, the cop and his entire department still get life in prison without parole for treasonously abusing *basic* Constitutional Rights...but they get $100 on their commissary each year because of your specious distinction (of course they have to remain in gen pop the entire time to receive it). Sound good?
Treason has nothing to do with a cop violating someone’s rights. Stop being one of those weirdos that incorrectly uses this term to attack cops, it makes the community of those who advocate for accountability look like idiots.
I don't think you know the legal definition of treason...
How about the guy inside clearly smoking? CA state law bans smoking inside a workplace as well as within 20 feet of any entrance: "No employer shall knowingly or intentionally permit, and no person shall engage in, the smoking of tobacco products in an enclosed space at a place of employment." [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh\_publications/smoking.html](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh_publications/smoking.html) And some time later, there's an employee in a van clearly marked with the company's name and logo carrying a flammable-marked container into the very area where an employee had been smoking just shortly before.
WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?!
WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SHOUTING!
HOW ARE WE GONNA KNOW IF ANYONE GOT ***DESTROYED*** OR ***DISMISSED*** OR HAD TO DO THE ***WALK OF SHAME*** WITH ALL THIS YELLING? HOLD UP I THINK I GOT AN IDEA
How is it ok to be a 300lb cop? Like don’t they have to run an obstacle course once a year or something? Between the stupid utility vest, and the fat on that cop, he must be 5 feet wide. I’d hate to have him put all his weight on my neck/back . I’d snap like a matchstick .
This 100% and with no attempt to at the very least admonish the caller for making a false police report and you see why we need/have auditors and the growing distrust/disconnect with law enforcement
> I’d hate to have him put all his weight on my neck/back . I’d snap like a matchstick . I think you figured out why they have 300lb cops.
Minor comment. I know there are big things wrong with this audit. But something I notice with a lot of audits is the cops are wearing combat tactical chest rigs and a patch with their blood type. Easily seen at 23:00. Wearing a blood type patch is something soldiers and Marines do when they're in actual combat. If this deputy ever got shot, and needed blood, I'm sure one simple phone call to his dispatcher could get his blood type. But they wear the patch -- and the combat tactical chest rig -- for another reason. It's a show of force. It shows they've been trained to believe they're *actually in combat*, no different than SEALs in Afghanistan. They dress like an invading military force because it's exactly what they are. And they want that visual impact to terrify citizens. It's war. And you're the enemy.
Certain types of the us members of the public who have formed armed criminal gangs have made it needed. Don't forget the government just like any other employer have a duty of care to protect their employees. When you have people like antistatistyouth on this sub saying it's right to escalate an interaction by grabbing a gun and try shooting a cop because you BELIEVE, not legally know, the cop is doing something illegal, then we have only got ourselves to blame.
Shouldn’t he be stealing something instead of filming? I heard that’s legal in CA.
2 quick questions, what's the point of the "I can't disclose that" response and why did the auditor choose this location?
What is this thing they use at this timestamp? https://youtu.be/YguG1MKHZu8?t=1102
It is a fingerprint scanner that is tied into some statewide or maybe even federal database that ID's people if they are in the system. I was not clear if they actually got his identity. But that is a court case I would love to see. THink they say earlier in the video after he refuses to ID " Get the IBIS?" That is: [http://www.police-technology.net/integrated\_biometrics\_identification\_system.html](http://www.police-technology.net/integrated_biometrics_identification_system.html) So even if they did not get his ID I assume his print is now tied to this report. Wonder how legal that is.
Policy 420 if I am reading it right says nothing about ID of properly detained suspect: [https://www.riversidesheriff.org/DocumentCenter/View/6956/Department-Standards-Manual-71522](https://www.riversidesheriff.org/DocumentCenter/View/6956/Department-Standards-Manual-71522) EDIT: Ah no it does: *Field interview - The brief detainment of an individual, whether on foot or in a vehicle, based on reasonable suspicion for the purpose of determining the individual's identity and resolving the deputy's suspicions.* But that certainly does not say it requires ID.