911 Caller Busts NYPD Safehouse in NJ

[Kamakazie Sith]

Sounds in part like the same logic that's getting various police departments(or is it just NYPD so far?) smacked down for trying to keep people from videoing them on public property.

No, that's pretty much precedence at this point. Citizens can video tape police in the performance of their duties as long as they're in a place they're legally allowed to be AND (important) their actions and proximity do not interfer with the investigation or officer safety. I don't believe there has been a ruling on what is considered a reasonable safe distance. Until there is such a ruling that says otherwise I tell third parties to stay back 25ft.

As far as I'm concerned the only police that don't want to be video taped are the ones that know they are doing something illegal or aren't sure if what they are doing is legal.

[Gaidin]

Sounds in part like the same logic that's getting various police departments(or is it just NYPD so far?) smacked down for trying to keep people from videoing them on public property.

No, that's pretty much precedence at this point. Citizens can video tape police in the performance of their duties as long as they're in a place they're legally allowed to be AND (important) their actions and proximity do not interfer with the investigation or officer safety. I don't believe there has been a ruling on what is considered a reasonable safe distance. Until there is such a ruling that says otherwise I tell third parties to stay back 25ft.

As far as I'm concerned the only police that don't want to be video taped are the ones that know they are doing something illegal or aren't sure if what they are doing is legal.

That's where the 'place where they're legally allowed to be' comes in as far as *similar* logic goes. Police on public street or sidewalk. Hears or sees something unaided from said public place. The police seem more restricted in that instead of 'where they're legally allowed to be', its more 'permission or warrant'.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's where the 'place where they're legally allowed to be' comes in as far as *similar* logic goes. Police on public street or sidewalk. Hears or sees something unaided from said public place. The police seem more restricted in that instead of 'where they're legally allowed to be', its more 'permission or warrant'.

Yes, it is similar. Though I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you meean when you say it's more "permission or warrant" in regards to evidence taken from a place where they're legally allowed to be. Police do not need a warrant to gather evidence, or obtain surveillance from a place that they are legally allowed to be as long as that evidence could be see by the naked eye.

[Gaidin]

Yes, it is similar. Though I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you meean when you say it's more "permission or warrant" in regards to evidence taken from a place where they're legally allowed to be. Police do not need a warrant to gather evidence, or obtain surveillance from a place that they are legally allowed to be as long as that evidence could be see by the naked eye.

The case notes that if they're seeing or hearing something from a place they have permission to be it's permissible. I presume this would extend to a place they had a warrant to be and ended up seeing or hearing something that wouldn't qualify as an exigent circumstance.

Probably a stretch for it to come up in a situation, that part does seem to be more thought exercise.

[Simon_Jester]

I think there really is a problem when the police are using that 'I heard it passing by' basis to stake out places they don't like, for periods of weeks or months, without a warrant.

It's like... If John walks down the sidewalk one night, passes Helen's house, looks in her window and sees her changing clothes, he hasn't broken any laws. He has a legal right to be on the sidewalk, there's no law that says he can't look at an open window, and if Helen didn't want anyone to see her she should probably have closed the curtains.

But if John stands on the sidewalk for hours in the hopes of seeing Helen changing clothes in the window, that's not the same thing. That's not just an accidental glimpse, that's stalking.

The intent and duration of the observation matters.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think there really is a problem when the police are using that 'I heard it passing by' basis to stake out places they don't like, for periods of weeks or months, without a warrant.

It's like... If John walks down the sidewalk one night, passes Helen's house, looks in her window and sees her changing clothes, he hasn't broken any laws. He has a legal right to be on the sidewalk, there's no law that says he can't look at an open window, and if Helen didn't want anyone to see her she should probably have closed the curtains.

But if John stands on the sidewalk for hours in the hopes of seeing Helen changing clothes in the window, that's not the same thing. That's not just an accidental glimpse, that's stalking.

The intent and duration of the observation matters.

I agree, but I haven't found any case law regarding duration.

I'd also like to point out that it is unlikely that police will waste time and resources observing a random house. Unfortunately with the NYPD situation they're engaged in racial profiling that is being sanctioned because of terrorism fear mongering. Besides, at this time in time I think domestic terrorism poses the greatest threat to US security so they should probably be watching christian religious zealots instead of random muslims with no connection to extremists. (making an assumption here...if they have intel that extremists are attending these locations then the surveillance could be reasonable)

[Thanas]

Legally allowed to be = Public area or private property with consent of owner

Not allowed to look at what I am doing in the privacy of my house, though.

Yup. Are you claiming that New York state law has radically different rulings regarding civil rights?

Nope, but it was you that claimed the Supreme court had ruled on this.

Yes, it does. You failed to comprehend critical pieces. I will point them out. (Your emphasis removed. My emphasis added)

I guess what happened here is that I failed to say what I meant properly. The police can look at what is open to the public for all I care, but as soon as I close the window and pull the blinds they can pretty much forget about it.

You couldn't be more wrong. Using binoculars is wrong when it is used to spy into the interior of an area where you have an expectation of privacy.

Which is what I said and highlighted.

[Simon_Jester]

I agree, but I haven't found any case law regarding duration.

I'd also like to point out that it is unlikely that police will waste time and resources observing a random house.

They won't choose houses purely at random. But if there's no law against 'police stalking' by way of stakeouts done from places the police are legally allowed to be, it's still a bad thing. It makes legalized police harassment easier (as we see here, with the mosque being singled out for constant police attention). And it's one of those police tactics that lend themselves to the creation of a proto-police-state.

Do something strange enough, and the police CAN decide to follow you around on all public property,...

This isn't likely to happen in the immediate term, and I doubt even the NYPD really wants to follow this that far for everyone.* I just don't like the legal precedent.

Although the people responsible for the stakeout of the mosque no doubt think MUSLIMS ARE DIFFERENT when it comes to this.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Not allowed to look at what I am doing in the privacy of my house, though.

Assuming your expectation of privacy was reasonable. You can't reasonably expect to have privacy if you have your curtains open and someone from the street can see inside your house.

Nope, but it was you that claimed the Supreme court had ruled on this.

No, I did not.

I guess what happened here is that I failed to say what I meant properly. The police can look at what is open to the public for all I care, but as soon as I close the window and pull the blinds they can pretty much forget about it.

Yup. Did I say something that made you think otherwise?

Which is what I said and highlighted.

Your commentary made your stance unclear.

[SVPD]

I agree, but I haven't found any case law regarding duration.

I'd also like to point out that it is unlikely that police will waste time and resources observing a random house.

They won't choose houses purely at random. But if there's no law against 'police stalking' by way of stakeouts done from places the police are legally allowed to be, it's still a bad thing. It makes legalized police harassment easier (as we see here, with the mosque being singled out for constant police attention). And it's one of those police tactics that lend themselves to the creation of a proto-police-state.

Any police business could, theoretically, be considered "legalized police harassment" and "lend itself to the creation of a proto-police state". That's a very vague criticism.

Do something strange enough, and the police CAN decide to follow you around on all public property,...

This isn't likely to happen in the immediate term, and I doubt even the NYPD really wants to follow this that far for everyone.* I just don't like the legal precedent.

Although the people responsible for the stakeout of the mosque no doubt think MUSLIMS ARE DIFFERENT when it comes to this.

The problem here is simply that it never occurred to you it might be legal for the police to do this sort of thing. The fact is, however, that the police have a right to be on the public streets and watch any house they want, just like a private citizen. As for stalking laws, they take more than just "I'm being watched" to make a valid complaint. The mere fact that the person watching you is a police officer is almost always enough to make it not stalking, unless you are going to assert that somehow a police officer observing your house is exactly the same as any random nutjob doing so. A police officer doing so almost always is doing so in the course of regular business, even if he might, theoretically mean you harm, whereas some random asshole almost always has nefarious purposes in mind.

While I don't think it's a good idea for the NYPD to be spending resources trying to play counter-terrorist agency, and there are definitely racial profiling issues, the fact that the police can observe you, even at length, or decide to "investigate" you by watching you from places they are legally allowed to be, is not the problem.

In fact, it highlights a basic problem with attitudes towards law enforcement. "If you are doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't have a problem with it" is the attitude of a police state when talking about intruding upon your private affairs; it is not the attitude of a police state when referring to what you do in public. In point of fact, if you are doing nothing wrong and the police are observing you in your public affairs, they will almost always move on in short order because they have better things to do than watch a person go about lawful business. If they continue to do so, it's almost always because they have other information indicating you are engaged in unlawful activity.
\
Yes, it's possible that police officers might abuse their power and in some cases they do. You could end up in court for no reason. However, it does not make sense to criticize this on the basis that you, in your personal assessment, have done nothing wrong and you fear observation of your public activities because you've imagined that its possible they might be construed wrongly as illegal activity. In reality, we cannot stipulate in advance that it's an innocent person being observed and then wrongly accused. That might or might not be the case, which is why we have a a criminal justice process; the police are not required to prove guilt before investigating. Even if we're talking about you personally, and your fear of someone observing you and construing your activity as illegal, why should we take your word for it. I beg your pardon for making the point personal, but you're an internet personality. If a police officer says he's conducting surveillance of you, why should I take your word that he has no good reason?

[noncredible]

So did this take place in New Brunswick or New Jersey?

[ArmorPierce]

So did this take place in New Brunswick or New Jersey?

New Brunswick is a town in New Jersey.