San Diego Cop Thinks You Might Have Turned Your Cell Phone Into A Gun And That 'Officer Safety' Trumps Constitutional Rights
from the convert-your-DSLR-to-an-RPG-in-3-easy-steps!!! dept
We've seen several times before the reticence (a fancy $20 word for "antipathy") many law enforcement officers have towards being recorded while on the job. They don't seem to mind cameras they control (even though those too have proven problematic -- but fixable), but if the average citizen starts "taping" an encounter, much ado is made about the impropriety (or illegal-ness) of the citizen's actions.
We've seen all of this before. But this one tops those stories. This is one of those has-to-be-seen-to-be-believed events. Fortunately, it involves a functioning camera installed in a surprisingly dangerous cell phone.
San Diegan Adam Pringle was minding his own business illegally smoking a cigarette in a public area (I know -- this falls under the "California Is Ridiculous" heading) when he was approached by Officer Reinhold, who then proceeded to cite him for outdoor smoking.
Pringle decided to whip out his Samsung and record the encounter. At that point, things went from bad to worse to surreal.
It all seemed pretty civil until the cop writing the citation told him to stop recording, which Pringle refused to do.
"Phones can be converted into weapons …. look it up online," the cop told him.
When Pringle tried to talk sense into the cop, the cop slapped the phone out of his hand where it fell onto the boardwalk and broke apart.
The other cop then pounced on him, slamming him down on the boardwalk where he ended up with a laceration on his chin.
Read that again. (Or watch the video.) Officer Reinhold wants Pringle to shut off the camera in his phone because, no shit, a cell phone can be turned into a gun. Apparently, the internet says so. Yes, this would be the same internet that declared the unusual popping noise in your knees to be "AIDS." And, yes, it is possible to turn a camera/cell phone into a gun. It's just very unlikely this is happening with any frequency.
Despite this very "real" danger, Reinhold allows a gun camera to be trained on him for the next few minutes as Pringle's friends continue to record the arrest. Not only that, but he continues to write the ticket for smoking outdoors, oblivious to multiple passersby that are carrying their phoneguns out in the open or concealed in pockets/purses.
Let's hope this little bit of misinformation doesn't become the next "Stop resisting." Officer Reinhold seems remarkably calm for a man with a gun pointed directly at his face. If I was in his position, I'd, at the very least, have my taser aimed directly back at the gunman cameraman threatening my life.
It gets even better/worse. Reinhold, while being filmed by the non-arrestees, makes a statement even bolder/more ridiculous than his "Don't literally shoot me with your phone!" claim. (Second recording over at Photography Is Not A Crime.)
He also said that "officer safety" trumps the Constitution, meaning they can claim they are fear for their lives while they throw you in jail for any lame excuse.So, we're to believe that if an officer is in danger, the entire rulebook can just be tossed out the proverbial window? I mean, if you're already going to negate the Constitution when staring down the barrel of a Samsung, what's stopping you from scrapping the local codes and policies governing police work when in danger? Hours and hours of training in order to prep officers for dealing with the potentially dangerous public but when it all comes down to it, law enforcement is "authorized" to succumb to "fight or flight?" That makes no sense.
Pringle, double-threat that he is (smoker and
Fortunately for all of us, Pringle didn't. This is why we should record police activity. Without record of statements like these, it's nearly impossible to convince anyone that some members of law enforcement carry around an imaginary rulebook, one that can be rewritten on the fly to suit the situation at hand, or thrown out completely if the officers feel threatened. Reinhold is now infamous and will likely be confronted with many more dangerous would-be guns provided to the populace by notorious weapons dealers like T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: filming police, mobile phones, police, san diego
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A phone that can be used as a gun?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A phone that can be used as a gun?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A phone that can be used as a gun?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCKuZn8cd0w
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A phone that can be used as a gun?
its a iPhone 7.62mm full metal jacket
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's actually correct, in a manner of speaking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's actually correct, in a manner of speaking
If the phone was a threat, it should have been dealt with immediately. There were two officers present (maybe more) and neither made any mention of the threat until a good 30 seconds after the guy had been recording. Even so, if they believed it was a gun, why did they leave it, untouched, on the ground when they knocked it out of the guy's hand. Possessing a deadly weapon is a felony in California, and that is evidence of a crime. From the second video, they didn't even check the camera.
Samsung smartphones are very thin, and I don't think you could get a 22 barrel into them, and if you did, how could you trigger it with no buttons. The video of the cellphone gun was an old "brick" phone with buttons. Even if the phone had a gun in it, there isn't a barrel or bullet that would fit and fire when the phone is held vertically. Maybe it is one of those new fangled sci-fi laser pistols he's thinking about.
I suspect the folks in San Diego will be paying this gentleman a handsome amount of money in the near future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He's actually correct, in a manner of speaking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He's actually correct, in a manner of speaking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He's actually correct, in a manner of speaking
Guess I'd better read the manual to see how to make a weapon out of it. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's actually correct, in a manner of speaking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell Guns
> the camera in his phone because, no shit, a
> cell phone can be turned into a gun. Apparently,
> the internet says so.
There's so much about this incident that's wrong, but one thing that isn't wrong is that cell phones can indeed be turned into guns and tasers. Just one example of many:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.switched.com/media/2008/11/cellphonegun.jpg
> And, yes, it is possible to turn a camera/cell
> phone into a gun. It's just very unlikely this
> is happening with any frequency.
More frequently than you're apparently aware. I've personally recovered what looked like an iPhone in an Otterbox-type case from a suspect only to find out it was really a small 3-shot .22-caliber firearm.
Is every cell phone out there a gun? No. But it only takes one to give you a very bad day.
There are also after-market iPhone and Android cases that double as tasers which can easily incapacitate a grown man.
None of that excuses this incident, however, where it's obvious that the officer knew it was a working phone and not a gun because it was the recording he was concerned with. The whole 'it could be a weapon' thing only came in later as a (lame) excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell Guns
He was the guy that beat up a teenage skateboarder somewhere in Baltimore. He also became angry when he realized he had been filmed.
He was eventually fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell Guns
You are right a cellphone can be made into many things including a weapon which currently can be spotted by a simple check.
That I would understand, a cop asking to verify the equipment that will be pointing at him, which may or may not be over the top depending on the circumstances.
But in this case that cop clearly told that citizen, "hey I am the authority here and you will do as I say or else, I know this is not a weapon and I will kick your ass for making me uncomfortable and in fear of my career as a law enforcement agent", of course not in many words that is what his body language told everybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell Guns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cell Guns
> the only place you could put the barrel
> would be aimed straight up
The fact that the barrel is pointing up now doesn't mean it couldn't be pointed down in the space of heartbeat.
Again, not justifying this cop's behavior, but the idea that a loaded gun in a subject's hands is of no concern because it's not pointing at you right now is idiotic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cell Guns
violent hysteria is trending up, Up, UP...
you ascairt bro ? ? ?
2. kops are killed on the job LESS THAN retail clerks...
look it up at the CDC, don't take my word for it...
(firemen -TRUE heroes of society- are killed at about twice the rate as donut-eaters; cabbies are killed about 4-6 times the rate of the thin blue line of liars...)
3. the militarization of officer friendly is total bullshit: it is NOT because we are waging war against pigs, it is because the pigs -as proxies for the 1%- are waging war against us 99%...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
California is ridiculous
California is ridiculous for a lot of reasons, but this really isn't one of them. What exactly is wrong with cutting back on a known public health hazard, in public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: California is ridiculous
He was endangering his own _private_ health, not anybody else's. That's why it's ridiculous.
(Next, I suppose you'll be wanting to ban fatty foods, mountain climbing, and poor posture at the keyboard.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: California is ridiculous
Your argument is silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
Actually, the CDC says on their website:
There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
The Mayo Clinic says on their website:
The dangerous particles in secondhand smoke can linger in the air for hours or even longer. It isn't just the smoke that's a concern, though. The residue that clings to a smoker's hair and clothing, as well as cushions, carpeting and other goods — sometimes referred to as thirdhand smoke — also can pose risks, especially for children.
I support your right to smoke just so long as you don't do it where the smoke can be breathed by others, the particles from the smoke won't affect anyone for several hours and the particles from the smoke won't land on anything that someone with any susceptibility to those particles especially children might EVER come in contact with them.
That way your rights and everyone else's are covered. That's fair? Right?
I don't condone police misconduct under any circumstances but I also don't condone inconsiderate douche-bags who flaunt the laws meant to protect the innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
inside smoking bad/outside smoking good. Simple rule easy to follow and makes sense.
To make the issue as complex as you want we're going to have to look at that third hand smoke risk and mandate that all smokers change their clothes and shower before they come into contact with anyone.
If you honestly believe that "second hand" smoke is equally bad for you if you're in a room with the smoker or outside then you need your head examining.
There is also no risk free anything in life. Just by sitting there at your computer you're running the risk of cancer. you might be better of living in a cave (as long as there's no radon gas or rock falls or spiders...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
What the CDC really said: "We don't really know, but you shouldn't take the chance if you can help it"
If people care about others and their freedoms, everybody should be wearing air filter masks inside hockey masks.
That way you control your air quality, and don't have to worry about what others are putting out into any environment space.
I see it this way, everything I can do by myself that would increase my health I should do it before trying to force others to do what I consider "the right thing".
Noise is the same thing, I see people fighting because of noise, I think to myself how inconsiderate these people are, you know the ones doing the complaining, ear plugs cost $2 dollars, you can even build some fancy ones that will not allow any sounds through, so why don't we use those things?
People will force children to use helmets when on a bicycle, but not other stuff that can increase their quality of life why?
Fashion statement?
Wearing an air filter prevents not only foul odor from offending your senses but dangerous gases from reaching your lungs. Formaldehyde is cancerous and naturally occurring, until very recently it was everywhere, it was used in strong glues and it is probably far more dangerous than nicotine, leaded gas is a problem, people knew it was toxic from at least the 50's and it only got banned in the middle of the 80's for economic reasons, I won't go into if it was right or wrong, but I will say that maybe the reason that the US is so defendant on others for raw materials is because Americans lost the ability to cope with the bad, we don't compromise, we don't want to make sacrifices, the right ones at least, we give up freedom for protections that can never be achieved but we can't were masks or ear plugs to improve our own environment for ourselves why?,
Here is an oldy.
http://www.impactlab.net/2008/05/20/frog-design-digital-escape-the-virtual-reality-mask-with- smells/
The frog mask design concept, it is an environment filter, it controls air quality, sound and images, is not that far away from possibility, yet the first reaction I got when I posted this I believe some years ago in here was, "If I see you wearing one of those I shoot you", WTF is wrong with people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
http://youtu.be/9H4Z1n_GG8I
and do a little research, the studies used/sited as proof that 2nd smoke kills are bullshit, I dont smoke, infact cig smoke makes me physically ill(allergies, funny enough quality cigars and pipe tobacco are fine....) BUT, Im all about accuracy and fact, and the fact is, that those studies you people believe are bullshit, just as the study that said vaccinations=autism was bullshit(the guy who did it infact admitted he lied to get paid and ended up in some serious trouble)
funny enough, the stuff that many studies show is making tobacco so bad is the crap they add to it, the tar, extra nicotine, pesticides(in the plant and those they dont clean off due to them helping cause greater addiction), seems natural isnt that harmful, just the human modified crap most people are addicted to....
true story, a buddy of mine got off a 5 pack a day addiction to cigs by smoking high end pipe tobacco then slowly quitting that(other then a rare occasion when he has a smoke when fishing or the like)
i just hope this dosnt happen to weed as it becomes legal in more and more places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
No, it's not. Not even close. Second hand smoke can be an issue if you're exposed to lots of it in an enclosed space over a long time. Or if you're allergic to smoke.
Otherwise, whatever harm it presents is low enough to be called "insignificant". It's a lot less of a health threat than second-hand automobile exhaust.
(I'm a nonsmoker, by the way, just to head off a possible ad-hom).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
Are you insane? You're actually suggesting that the slight whiff of cigarette smoke that you catch as you walk past someone smoking is *worse* than sucking it directly into your lungs from the cigarette itself?
It's moonbats like you that get these idiotic laws passed in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
Believe that or not (It is true), it has always amused the hell out of me that people could actually claim "Second hand smoking is just as bad, if not worse."
Secondhand smoke has been filtered by the smokers lungs, it will always be better than "firsthand".
If you want to compare it to something try car's exhaust. The car is worse in just about every possible way, if you don't believe this than about this: if you were trapped in a car with a chain-smoker for ten minites, you'd be pissed (understandably), if you were trapped in a car with the exhaust fumes from the runing car for the same time you'd be dead.
The law is silly (unless you ban all non-electric cars)... that said it is still the law.
(To be fair I smoke, but not much, not around children - if I can avoid it - and never inside)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: California is ridiculous
Unfortunately, cigarette smoke has this unfortunate habit of being breathable by people other than the individual choosing to smoke. This would make it a public problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
In short, Fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
It seems as though ANYTHING can be construed as posing a health risk, vindicating the state or town to play regulator over our lives. You stepping outside poses various risks, albeit extremely low probability but risks nevertheless. For example, you may step outside, get stung by a bee, have an allergic reaction and die.
Let's all live in fear of our 5 o'clock shadow and let big brother state hold our hand whenever we do something in public, because we're all irresponsible, untrustworthy and can't handle our own lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
If you want to argue that it's a public nuisance, then you'd have a reasonable argument. But that has nothing to do with public health.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: California is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: California is ridiculous
> reasons, but this really isn't one of them.
> What exactly is wrong with cutting back on
> a known public health hazard
Because it's really not a health hazard to anyone but the smoker. No one is going to get cancer from the two second exposure to his second-hand smoke as they walk past him, especially at the beach, which always has a strong wind blowing that would quickly dissipate cigarette smoke.
If you're that cancer-sensitive, then you'd already be riddled with tumors from all the car, bus, truck, and industrial emissions that permeate the air in any average city in the U.S.
I don't believe anyone really believes second-hand smoke in such environments like the beach is actually a health hazard. It just annoys people. These laws are cloaked in reasons of health and safety, but all they really are is outlawing people's annoyances, which isn't the proper function of government, certainly not to the point of criminalization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has the run on cellphones started yet? Soon the shelves will be empty and the NCA (National Cellphone Association) will be threatening congress critters with pictures of nooses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Don't use a cell unless you want to end up in a cell!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
United States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: United States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: United States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a San Diegan, all i can say is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pringle and Reinhold!
Yes Pringle and Reinhold!
One's a chain smoker!
The other's completely lame!
They're ordinary joes!
Who step on other people's toes!
Yes Pringle! Pringle and Rein, Rein, Rein, Rein, Rein, Rein, Rein, Rein, Rein, Reinhold!
*BANG!*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why stop at phones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube Comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone else will pay for his abuse of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone else will pay for his abuse of power.
In most of those cases the police would be glad to have everyone stand back. Would you have civilians intentionally putting themselves into the middle of a lethal situation where the police are already present? And if the use of force is justified, wouldn't the police appreciate having proof of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone else will pay for his abuse of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone else will pay for his abuse of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A phone is a weapon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Partially true. He can *claim* he was in fear for his life, and use that to justify going as far as killing someone. But the catch is, he has to make a jury believe him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The cop made the mistake of using a bad justification (phone can be a weapon) and should have just said "Stop that or you'll get more than a ticket, and I don't have to explain why right now, your lawyer can explain it to you when you are in jail" which is in fact what happened. So, basically the only mistake the cop made was bothering to justify to a moron the fact that he needs to control the situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A simple statement from the officer would go a long way to unsettle the recorder.
Something along the lines of 'you are permitted to record me if you so choose, but i still have to give you this ticket. If you chose to dispute this ticket, your recording may be requisitioned by the court as evidince'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First off, the guy had absolutely ever right to record the cops whether you believe he should be able to or not is irrelevant.
Cops do NOT have the power you seem to attribute to them they can't just force people to obey them without legal justification for doing so and because it annoys them or makes their job harder is not justification enough in most cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Remember that the police are not in a position to grant nor deny rights to people. Also remember that the Constitution's primary function is not to grant people rights but rather to place restrictions upon government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless there exists an ongoing life-threatening or serious public safety threat then we don't have to bow, scrape, instantly jump when ordered and otherwise show absolutely obedience to every whim or random utterance made by a cop.
These types of incidents often seem to boil down to the citizen failing to properly bow down and kiss the ass of the officer which leads the officer to assert his brute power by escalating a minor peaceful violation into a violent encounter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
San Diego Police - CellPhone FEAR?
Admittedly the gentleman filming was a little inviting of added surliness - yet, an officer sworn "to protect and to serve" the public reacting in such a manner is ridiculous.
Next we'll hear of the civil suits each brings against the other and the stupidly huge sum the city decides to settle for to "calm the citizenry".
laughable...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, and if you run a cell gun and you haven't purchased a plan they'll add it on for you at no extra charge for the administrative effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously they let Barney Fife out without Andy Griffith.
Guess I am showing my age, but that is exactly the way Barney Fife would have acted if that show were made today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Above the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The supreme court gave them the power to stop anyone on the street and feel them up. If you refuse lick their boots they will beat you until and maybe kill you.
Police abuse is one of the many reasons that public sector unions need to be disbanded, as the union always fights against even the smallest measure of accountability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plenty of cops..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never said "gun"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Never said "gun"
But sure, let people like some folks here keep throwing hissy fits when anyone dares question them. You are going to get the law enforcement you deserve - in other words, none or maybe just the bottom of the barrel. You will not get any decent people to be cops because it's not worth the grief. Crappy attitude for crappy pay? Not for much longer. And then when you really want a cop for something, good luck with who shows up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Never said "gun"
http://tuckermax.me/how-to-deal-with-cops-2/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Never said "gun"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]