[–] [deleted] 0 points 258 points (+258|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 1 points 109 points (+110|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
84

[–] localbum 0 points 84 points (+84|-0) ago 

About the same level of privacy as I expected from literally any other job I've ever held. I can't think of a single one that didn't monitor their employees for misconduct.

0
39

[–] VivaFrei 0 points 39 points (+39|-0) ago 

A public servant on someone else's property no less...

0
5

[–] 654456 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

None. Absolutely none. This is exactly fucking why. They clearly cant folllow the law that they are enforcing here.

0
1

[–] eldorann 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

None.

I want to see everything you do while on Public Tax time. Body cameras worn every minute of every day.

Yes, I'll occasionally see people shitting and wiping it on bathroom walls. They will roll it into little balls.

Johnson! What was that about wanking for 15 minutes? Do it in 5 or deliver a report on your method for improvement.

1
18

[–] voat-simulator 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago 

But what if they're punching someone else out?

0
1

[–] rothx 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

in that case, 2 wrongs make a "right" by law

[–] [deleted] 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

1
6

[–] purr 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Yeah. I mean, I don't care if these guys do weed at home, but on the job? Absolutely not!

0
5

[–] heili 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

That is exactly why the PA State Supreme Court said that video and audio recording police on duty with or without their knowledge does not fall under the all-party consent required for wiretapping.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 111 points (+111|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
51

[–] Derpington 0 points 51 points (+51|-0) ago 

Sadly, it probably will. These officers need to be fired. Their conduct and lack of respect for the people in the shop during the raid is atrocious. The video shows how these officers believe themselves to be above the law and know that their conduct right or wrong won't get them fired without evidence like this.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] ddd 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

yeah, why are they still "suspended" shouldn't they be fired immediately?

0
0

[–] merton 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

There are so many felonies there that firing is not nearly enough.

0
0

[–] Ancient_Unknown 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Good thing it's just a few bad apples!

0
7

[–] My_Knitter 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

After the tape surfaced they were sitting together enjoying some edibles when cop one jumped up and yelled " I have a plan! "

0
89

[–] sniper98g 0 points 89 points (+89|-0) ago 

their lawsuit argues that the officers thought they had disabled all of the security cameras at Sky High Holistic and therefore had a reasonable expectation of privacy

Without the illegal recordings, there would have been no internal investigation of any officer

This is on par with "I thought I disabled the security alarm, so I shouldn't be charged with B&E" or "I thought I killed that guy, so I his testimony should be invalidated". It's a complete crock of shit.

0
46

[–] i_am_not_crazy 0 points 46 points (+46|-0) ago 

They admitted they tried to cover up what they did, by trying to cover their cover up.

0
21

[–] HoneyNutStallmans 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Obstruction of justice...

can only be committed by the peasants.

0
10

[–] Acerebral 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Both of those are excellent parallels. If these guys get away with this, then failure to successfully cover up a crime should become grounds for invalidating any evidence showing that a person committed a crime.

0
1

[–] Easybee 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

And the US suddenly vears of course from becoming an oligarchic police state to become a lawless kleptocracy.

1
0

[–] Poco 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Not a crock though. Blame it on the two party consent law in California, not the people using that law.

They should be fired, but you would hope that they are not prosecuted as you also wouldn't want to be prosecuted for something you did in private. For example, of you ate an orange in a California hotel room and didn't know there were cameras recording you, and there was no warrant for those cameras, then you would also ask not to be prosecuted.

0
1

[–] sniper98g 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Two things:

  1. It's illegal to eat an orange in California????

  2. I guarantee there was a sign on the door to that place that said entry constitutes consent to being recorded.

0
0

[–] Sorahzahd 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The difference is that they're cops, so they'll get away with this by default.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 65 points (+65|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

2
38

[–] insert_name 2 points 38 points (+40|-2) ago 

but also face some criminal charges.

Corrupt cops facing charges eh?

BAHA U W0T?!1!11

1
10

[–] Unlucky13 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

but also face some criminal charges.

Awwwww you're ADORABLE! Keep saying things, your optimism is absolutely precious.

0
0

[–] Rellik88 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

well cops cant be drug uses so I bet they will be.

3
59

[–] PaperEngines 3 points 59 points (+62|-3) ago 

Is this real life? Who could possibly be that stupid?

Oh yeah, pigs.

0
14

[–] TheBlackerMath 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago  (edited ago)

HEY!!! Pigs are Smart creatures! They need a little more respect. Even though they are delicious.

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/pigheaded-smart-swine/

0
5

[–] PaperEngines 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

10/10 had bacon this morning with waffles, have an upvoat!

Will be saving those links for later..

0
37

[–] traeler 0 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago 

Just imagine using this legal excuse as a non-cop, non-millionaire, everyday average person. You would be held in contempt of court for making a mockery of the system.

2
6

[–] jtt8355 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

actually, most 'reasonable expectation of privacy' defense court cases that have shaped american law were decided based on the everyday average person (or at least, the everyday average criminal). what makes this claim outrageous is what everyone else is saying: these guys were on the job, in public.

0
3

[–] traeler 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Are you saying that there's a strong and established precedent of people being acquitted for crimes they committed where the only evidence was from surveillance equipment they thought they had disabled? With a defense that the evidence was obtained illegally because they had a reasonable expectation of privacy?

0
31

[–] goodluvin 0 points 31 points (+31|-0) ago 

Wow, ballsy claim.
Public servant expectation of privacy while documenting/collecting evidence on a crime scene.

Its the one time, documentation is absolutely required. More the better for the case.

0
20

[–] 1010011010 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago  (edited ago)

They want privacy for when they're generating evidence.

0
14

[–] goodluvin 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

Generating? Given civil forfeiture, no need for crimes to be proven.

Clearly more interested in stealing.

0
27

[–] voat-simulator 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I don't often laugh when I read a headline about abuse of police power, but this one got a hearty guffaw out of me. That's classic.

Edit: In case you never saw the original footage, here you go!

0
3

[–] PaperEngines 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Damn, is destruction of property like that even legal?

Looks like they broke a couple of cameras there.

0
5

[–] voat-simulator 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I don't think that anything the police did in that video should be considered legal, but it should help that it's become a rather high-profile case. I mean, when your defense is, "We didn't know you were watching!" you're probably going down.

load more comments ▼ (64 remaining)