There is an interesting case out of Santa Ana this month where police officers were allegedly caught on camera wolfing down pot products in a raid on a medical marijuana dispensary. The officer reportedly disabled all but one of the security cameras. They are now arguing that there rights were violated by being videotaped without their consent.
The video below shows a sizable number of police raiding the dispensary with guns drawn and forcing everyone to the floor. It then shows officers methodically shutting off cameras. The remaining camera however then shows the officers eating presumably marijuana laced products at the Sky High Collective. The video also shows the officers making derogatory comments about a disabled woman.
Three Santa Ana police officers have sued to quash a surveillance video
in a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court to prevent Santa Ana Police Department internal affairs investigators from using the video. They have been allowed to conceal their identities. Of course, police routinely used such videotapes against others for alleging crimes. It is also unclear why a public servant should have his or her name protected in such a case. While some officers may be undercover and have a good claim, most of these officers are in uniform.
Attorney Corey W. Glave representing the Santa Ana Police Officers Association and the three officers insists that the video was taken without the officers’ knowledge and that the videotape was handled by various people before being turned over to the police. He has suggested that the videotape may have been altered. Glave has gone as far as to accuse his opposing counsel of misconduct: “The attorney representing the drug dispensary intentionally has misrepresented what happened.”
Matthew Pappas is the lawyer for Sky High identified in articles. Pappas has said that he gave the Santa Ana police two versions of the raid footage, a highlight reel with subtitles and unedited video clips.
One question that we have previously discussed is why police routinely dismantled such cameras to prevent a videotape record of arrests or searches. One argument may be that undercover officers were involved and should not be videotaped for their own protection.
What the remaining camera did catch as a male officer asking a female colleague about a woman with an amputated left leg: “Did you punch that one-legged old Benita?” he asks. The female officer responds “I was about to kick her in her (expletive) nub.”
The lawsuit says that the officers are the victims: “All police personnel present had a reasonable expectation that their conversations were no longer being recorded and the undercover officers, feeling that they were safe to do so, removed their masks.”
The lawsuit further notes that “Without the illegal recordings, there would have been no internal investigation of any officer.”
No officers have been terminated in connection with the ongoing internal affairs investigation
Neo, Interesting point. In Washington or Colorado I think you would be correct. Those cannabis outlets are open to the public. However, in California, you must be a member of the cannabis co-op. You are going there w/ a doctor’s RX and obtaining medical cannabis. It is not open to the public. You must be a member. I have done surveillance in private health clubs. A judge admitted the video because although it was a members only club, anyone could be a member or simply get a guest pass, which is what I did. And, you are in public. You realize the people there can see you. You wouldn’t pick your nose or scratch your balls w/ freedom like you would in a bathroom stall. Finally, I would agree w/ you there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. But, if I represented the cops I would present the aforementioned medical defense. I think it will not fly, but I would give it a shot. The reality is these cannabis dispensaries have incredible surveillance because the Obama Administration will not allow them to use credit or debit cards, cash only.
and the police wonder why their image is going into the toilet – the officers should be fired along with the Chief of Police for having these goons on the force
Nick
You can tie everything that is amiss to Obama or you can step back a tad and realize that this is a police-centric issue and is no different than any other police-centric issue, past, present, or future. Sometimes it involves shooting people. Sometimes it involves extortion. Regardless, it stems from the outside and above the law position some cops take and their demand to be protected from the same laws that they enforce.
Or, you can blame Obama for the female cop with an IQ of 12 who made fun of the woman in the wheel chair. You can blame the hypocrisy of the cops munching on supposedly illegal drugs on Obama. You are capable of blaming anything and next to everything on Obama. You have informed me of your capacity for blaming Obama, that shows.
Cops are human and make mistakes. That is accounted when when there is discipline. There are some bad players. The system chokes up on dealing with that. There is no excuse for cover ups. The public is developing an intolerance of cover ups.
Hey cops:
Keep it up. The tide is turning and every abuse like this just adds to the backlash.
It seems incredible, but cops couldn’t do more to hurt themselves if they were deliberately trying to blacken their image. Are cops really that dumb?
By turning off the store cameras the cops interfered with evidence which is usually called Obstruction of Justice. No one has the expectation of privacy when interacting with the public. Any cops undercover just lost their anonymity when they committed a crime. The store should also put their video on the internet. I would have done that immediately.
Isaac, Operation Choke Point is your cult leaders baby. Read up and report back!! It is a major reason you see these jack boots conducting these raids. You really are not very informed, and it shows.
I cannot believe the arrogance of the police association, the officers involved, and their lawyer! They are engaged in a public act — enforcement of the law and therefore have NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Period. And that includes the “undercover” officers. And there is no expectation of privacy that can be accorded to a law breaker outside his/her own home. Once these officers pass from “enforcement” to criminality they are just like any other burglar. I am a retired Texas trial judge and this is preposterous!!
A shocking video
The science geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
Where’s the beef? Our administrative state has set the bar extremely ‘high’ on what should be consider an abuse of power. It’s not as though these public servants killed an ambassador, smuggled weapons to terrorists, played loose with classified material, put weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, traded Taliban militants for deserters, fueled a race war, used the IRS to target conservative groups, targeted whistleblowers, and on and on.
Nothing to see here; move along.
And then there’s Nick with the first to bring in Obama award.
Is it any wonder that the public doesn’t trust police in the big picture? All police officers should not only uphold the law but act according to a higher standard of being above the appearance of impropriety.
Unfortunately this sort of absolute nonsense comes with the laws designed to protect rights. There comes a point when it doesn’t even make for good theatre; the lawyer, the cops, the courtroom, the belief of the audience that this is only the movies and wouldn’t happen in real life.
There should be an added punishment that escalates along with the outrageousness of the defense. The cops should be fired. The lawyer should be disbarred. A civil action should be taken against the police department. ‘You’re not allowed to film me committing a crime.’, simply can’t be a working defense. Or perhaps it can.
Pretty darn disgusting. The mere fact that they turned off the cameras should be suspicious. Wouldn’t police records indicate if there were undercover officers assigned to the scene? Eating drug laced products while on duty, theft of said product, abuse of the clients of the clinic, wow. These cops are dirty.
there
My understanding is that the store was covered in signs saying their were cameras. It was a ‘nanny-cam’ that caught them. They never had any expectation of privacy. The unedited tape shows one of them spinning a top for 15 minutes (probably a result of the brownies kicking in). This will not hold up in the civil suit either.
The macro issue is how the Obama Administration weasel their banning legal cannabis w/ Operation Choke Point. These bozo cops are just the foot soldiers. This WH does not allow banks to do business w/ legal cannabis operations so it is an all cash business, putting employees @ risk.
Regarding the consuming of the edibles. That is how stupid people overdose. I hope these guys ended up tripping and freaking out.
The officers probably want damages and then retire on disability from the trauma.
Ha! ‘Without the video, there’d be no evidence of wrongdoing.’ The hubris of these officers is alpine.
Reblogged this on My Journey and commented:
Talk about double standards…
There is an interesting case out of Santa Ana this month where police officers were allegedly caught on camera wolfing down pot products in a raid on a medical marijuana dispensary. The officer reportedly disabled all but one of the security cameras. They are now arguing that there rights were violated by being videotaped without their consent.