Store Owner Sues Baton Rouge Police For Seizing His CCTV Recording Of Alton Sterling Shooting
from the store-entirely-self-service-apparently dept
I don't get to use the phrase "with alacrity" that often, but Baton Rouge store owner Abdullah Muflahi's filing of a lawsuit against the Baton Rouge police can only be described as that.
Following the shooting of Alton Sterling by Baton Rouge police officers, Muflahi's store was raided by law enforcement officers who took the hard drive containing the store's surveillance camera footage of the altercation. So far, everyone involved has refused to discuss the illegal seizure of Muflahi's recording equipment, deferring to the FBI and its investigation of the shooting -- which would be something if the FBI would answer questions about the seizure and current location of the hard drive.. but it won't talk about it either.
Hence the speedily-filed lawsuit by Muflahi, as reported by Mike Hayes of Buzzfeed:
The owner of the Triple S Food Mart in Baton Rouge where Alton Sterling was fatally shot on July 5 says police detained him for hours while seizing his security footage of the incident without a warrant, according to a lawsuit [PDF] filed Monday.
28-year-old Abdullah Muflahi says that police at the scene placed him in a locked police car for four hours and denied him access to his cell phone, preventing him from contacting his family or an attorney.
According to the lawsuit, police wouldn't even allow Muflahi to go back into his store to use the restroom during his detention, forcing him to urinate outside of his store in full view of the public. And his detention didn't end there. Muflahi was taken back to the Louisiana State Police headquarters and held for another two hours while officers questioned him.
This all sounds very suspicious, illegal, and retaliatory. Muflahi not only had CCTV footage of the shooting, but also filmed it with his own cell phone, providing one of the two "unofficial" accounts of the arrest. While it's fantastic that a recent Supreme Court decision may have resulted in officers' reluctance to seize/search Muflahi's cell phone, the Fourth Amendment itself seemed to have little effect on their decision to enter his store and seize his recording equipment without a warrant. While the recording could correctly be described as "evidence," that doesn't excuse a warrantless entry or seizure.
The lawsuit, unfortunately, is a little thin when it comes to establishing anything that might overcome the immunity that shields individual officers from the consequences of their actions. While it does suggest the Baton Rouge Police Department's training is inadequate, it really doesn't go into detail as to why the court should be expected to believe this assertion. However, it does make an allegation that could be interesting if the court decides to explore it.
[Baton Rouge Police Chief Carl Dabadie] has negotiated a contract with a union representing police officers that provides a blanket indemnification for police officers who are sued by the public from all claims no matter what the circumstances under which the claim arise and further provides that meritorious complaints about police officers are purged from employment files after only 18 months. Both contract provisions encourage aggressive conduct by police officers by minimizing consequences.
It's common knowledge that police union contracts are generally constructed to shield officers from not only public scrutiny, but internal misconduct investigations as well. Most of these are complemented by a "Law Enforcement Bill of Rights" that gives officers up to three days to ignore questions about alleged misconduct or excessive force. These "extra rights" are often granted in the face of police union pressure, and the unions themselves are heavily-involved in the drafting of department discipline policies. Unions also help fired officers regain their positions, making it even harder for law enforcement agencies to rid themselves of the "bad apples" continually spoiling the rest of the "bunch."
While there's zero chance any decision would result in an alteration of the union's relationship with the Baton Rouge police department or the policies it helped draft, any discussion would at least shine a little more light on how these unions tend to make bad policing/policies even worse.
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: 4th amendment, abdullah muflahi, alton sterling, baton rouge, evidence, video
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Public Unination
So here's a new approach:
1. Detain someone for hours, without access to restroom
2. When they urinate, arrest them
3. Search and Seize everything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Unination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Unination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Unination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"legal" crime wave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "legal" crime wave
not only do piggies NOT have to have a valid law in mind when arresting you, they can make shit up, and the judges give them a free pass...
this was widespread when they were illegally cracking down on occupy protesters, one piggy would order them off the sidewalks, then the next piggy would arrest them for obstructing the streets...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "legal" crime wave
If ignorance of the law but a good faith belief you are following it turns false arrests legitimate, then it would necessarily do so for citizen's arrests too, under the equal protection clause of the constitution.
See a cop do something you believe is against the law? Arrest them! It doesn't matter whether it actually is illegal or not in those jurisdictions where judges give cops carte blanch if they have good faith.
In those places where a mere arrest for certain things carries pre-trial, extra-judicial penalties, you can REALLY mess someone up this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "legal" crime wave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "legal" crime wave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "legal" crime wave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "legal" crime wave
A lawyer at the site with you, with a live recording streaming to an off-site service/site that cannot be deleted via the device streaming.
And/or
An updated will for when the cop claims you were 'presenting a real and present danger' and acts 'accordingly'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "legal" crime wave
How’s that idea looking now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recording police
Because, if he gets that drive back, it's going to be erased "accidentally"...all the way down to the aluminum substrate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recording police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Recording police
More policemen will get shot in self-defense, police will get still more trigger-happy and paranoid, and the killings will increase.
Until the police and their unions understand that dancing around their bad apples is what makes their jobs more dangerous in the first place, there is no hope for improvement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Recording police
Police are trained and conditioned by their fellow officers to believe they are under existential threat every instant they are doing their jobs, whether they actually are or not. But there is a growing awareness of this, that police will shoot you and claim self defense no matter how meek and submissive you are -- which is an existential threat to everyone who is not a cop (and even to fellow cops, given how often they shoot eachother due to accident or misidentification).
We are rapidly approaching a point where police will pose such an enormous, immediate, existential threat to everyone around them that opening fire on them on sight will meet all of the legal tests for whether an act of force is legitimately self defense.
Courts being as corrupt as they are, they'll probably reject such arguments, even as the letter of the law makes such a conclusion inescapable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe it's time to go into the streaming business...
Preferably, such an collection would be regularly archived offshore.
Such a service may have an international following. The US isn't unique in its epidemic of law-enforcement officers attempting to seize documentation of their on-duty behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe it's time to go into the streaming business...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're much worse because nobody expects criminals to obey the law. That's why they're criminals. Cops are not only supposed to know the law, but also uphold it, even when no one is watching or recording them.
A cop breaking the law is like a social worker molesting a child or a soldier shooting the citizens of his own country. It's the deepest betrayal possible and should be prosecuted and punished more fiercely than most other crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If a criminal without a badge pulls a knife, or a gun, or just starts beating you with their fists you're allowed to fight back, and so long as you don't go too overboard the law will almost always side with you if you claim self-defense. If a cop does any of that though fighting back will get you slammed with aggravated assault of an officer charges along with whatever else the prosecutor feels like tacking on, assuming you don't end up in a morgue from the police 'defending themselves' from your actions.
Both the police and members of the public know this, so while a 'regular' criminal will always have to worry about their victim fighting back, which will likely act as a check on their actions at least to a degree the same can not be said of a cop, making them far more dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't kill me I'm going to
Kill you all with this nuclear bomb strapped to my thigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'police immunity' restriction associated with lawsuits, simply because his rights were not being violated. Police officers have the right to detain you if you have evidence related to an investigation and to prevent you from either destroying that evidence or releasing it to social media or the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They committed an illegal arrest.
False imprisonment.
The use of actual or implied force to cause him to commit a crime.
Theft of a security system.
Raid of premises without a warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Police officers have the right to detain you if you have evidence related to an investigation and to prevent you from either destroying that evidence or releasing it to social media or the news."
Absolutely 100% incorrect. What they have a duty to do is secure the perimeter and make sure the crime scene does not get compromised further and wait for the WARRANT to proceed. Then they take inventory of what was taken and from where. They do not have any right to detain you for 4 hours with no charges. You go to the store owner, which would prolly have been more than happy to cooperate with the police, and say we have restricted access to this area while we wait for the warrant. Period.
Unless... you know the footage showed something other than what LEO's have said happened. At the very least the way it went down makes it look like they have something to hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
police detention
I very much hope I'm wrong about detention, but I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: police detention
They have to inform you why you are being arrested, if you are not being arrested they cannot legally force you to stay with them. you have the right to get up and leave unless you are under arrest.
If you are under arrest you do have the right to an attorney. it greatly scares me that there are such uneducated people like yourself out there when it comes to your basic rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: police detention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: police detention
In some states you can be arrested and held on a policeman's say so for 24 or 72 hours without charges being filed. But the rights of the accused vary between detention and arrest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they did not ask politely first, and have their requerst refused, they have no right to treat someone possessing evidence as a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Police officers also have the DUTY to go FETCH a fucking warrant before taking your property.
I'm so sick of people like you continuing to make excuses for piss poor cops that are funded with taxpayer dollars.
What you meant to say was the cops need to step up and start doing their fucking jobs right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Title 18, Section 241 & 242 define the crime of violating constitutional rights under color of law, such as the fourth amendment one their warrantless, non-exigent seizure of the video represents.
Section 241 is the conspiracy statute, 242 is for individual violations. Since few police act alone, Section 241 seems to apply here better than 242. At the level of violation of rights the seizure of the video represents, every officer involved is criminally liable under federal law for a crime that has a maximum sentence of ten years in prison or a $10,000 fine or both.
While it's rare for a federal prosecutor to press those charges, it's good to remember than anything you can win a federal civil rights lawsuit over IS an actual for-real crime under Title 18 of the US Code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't believe that right is nearly as broad as you think it is, but can you explain how being detained, handcuffed, in a car for hours was required in order for the police to remove a hard drive? You can't possibly believe that's not grossly overstepping what the law allows and what was even necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the evidence wasn't publicly released chances are the cops would have much more easily gotten away with their crimes. It very much sounds like this is what you want. Do you know what kinda scumbag this makes you look like?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unions
they protect fascists,
but if you need to make a living...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watched a corrupt Union get better.
Shows make millions. And to pay a guy 10 bucks an hour is deplorable. The union, when it works right, makes sure Theatrical Stage Employees get a decent wage and can afford to feed their families for the countless 19 hour days associated with live performances.
Won't someone think of the poor defenseless Stage Hands??? LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell, they don't even have to have a warrant to arrest you, that's for the prosecutors and the judges to decide, the police are there to uphold the laws and are not expected to interpret the laws.
Stop acting like every police officer has to have a college degree in jurisprudence in order to detain someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stop making it sound like fetching a warrant is too much to ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Arrested for what... exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They should goddam well have a degree in criminal justice. Unfortunately, not all jurisdictions have more than a GED requirement because they also pay shit and get what they pay for - corrupt or apathetic cops. But a cop needs at least an associate degree in criminal justice to have a chance of respecting citizen rights because they're not going to get that training from the police academy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And you thought Heller's "Catch 22" was satire. Arresting people for resisting arrest is really the pinnacle of stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ever wonder why a lot of people think of the police as thugs? Ever consider that it might be because asstards like you will go to the ends of the earth to justify their actions to the death?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to SCOTUS, after being detained for 90 minutes, the detention becomes an arrest. There was no basis for this arrest, nor questioning him without the presence of a lawyer. The store owner had no obligation to talk to the police whatsoever. His arrest was therefore quite illegal.
Again, according to SCOTUS, it is only under the rarest of circumstances that police have the right to remand an involved person's property, in particular a picture or video. And we know that any video that the police don't like is probably going to disapear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next week's story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not disagreeing that the police may have went somewhat overboard in his detainment but they were correct in seizing the video of the shooting, no matter what their intent was. If what they did was illegal, then that's up to a grand jury and the prosecutors' office to determine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, of course.
They shot and killed the man.
Then they seized all the video because it's evidence (without a warrant - you conveniently keep skipping over that part).
Then they're going to investigate themselves.
(Let's all pause and take a guess how that's going to turn out.)
Then at some point in the future, the video will be released, but there's going to be some footage conveniently missing.
Hmmmm...where have we heard this before?
http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/laquan-mcdonald-investigation-305105631.html
http://a rstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/journalist-recovers-video-of-his-arrest-after-police-deleted-it/
h ttp://www.cnet.com/news/police-accused-of-erasing-cell-phone-footage-of-fatal-beating/
I could go on and on and on....or "whining" as you put it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why in ******** couldn't they be arsed start the process of getting the video by simply asking politely if they might have the tape or have a copy made?
If even a part of everything the suit asserts is true - and I am NOT saying any of it is - then quite simply, the cops screwed up by the numbers, full stop.
As it is, the fact they simply took the video and delivered it to the feds (so they say) should (in an ideal world, which this is not) make a court very, very skeptical about their testimony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Muflahi filmed one of two videos of the shooting that has gone viral, showing officers struggling with Sterling before he was shot multiple times. After the shooting, one of the officers can be seen pulling a gun from Sterling’s pocket."
Lemme guess.... the LEO's said he pointed it at them? Kinda hard to do when it's in your pocket. Gotta make sure nothing contradicts your lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A couple years ago (in Canada) someone moving out of my apartment block left a mattress behind outside. That night some kids set it on fire. The new caretaker had been told that I knew how to work the cameras.
It's amazing how when the police knock on your door, you KNOW it's the police even when you have no reason to expect them.
Apparently if I hadn't been able to save the video to a flash drive for them, they would have taken the entire camera recording system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's up to the district attorney and the prosecutors to determine whether to press forward with charges. If they don't think there is a case, they will refuse to prosecute or dismiss the charges before a judge.
Police officers are not lawyers, that's why lawyers are also not police officers. You really should do your own research. It would make you sound less stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is there any other job anywhere where you can be totally ignorant of what you're supposed to be doing and it's a valid excuse?
Seriously, you really think it's appropriate to pay them for this "work?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know what SCOTUS said about the cops not being held to the legal standard that the citizenry is. But why bother to train cops if they can't be held to a standard? Just give them an M2, and have them vacuum up the streets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So let me see if I got this right...
Maybe one might be better going after the rooks and royalty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First of all if the cops want to retain evidence they should ask for copies of the footage without confiscating it
Secondly as soon as someone potentially died on the scene at the hands of police it becomes a conflict of interest for the police to confiscate footage or for them to continue on an investigation where the police themselves are possible criminals. They shouldn't even be allowed on the scene. Police should not be allowed to investigate their own potential misconduct or to be allowed to remain on the scene where they can attempt to destroy and alter evidence. An independent third party should investigate the scene and if they want footage they should only ask for copies of the footage and not be allowed to confiscate the footage.
Thirdly the police had little reason to confiscate the footage in the first place. The alleged reason for confiscating the footage is that it's supposedly evidence to a crime. What crime? Their own crime? See above, that's a conflict of interest, they shouldn't be allowed to investigate their own crimes. You mean the alleged crime of the victim? What crime did he commit, selling CDs? He supposedly may have resisted arrest? Not a strong reason to confiscate footage and his alleged crime is far outweighed by the importance of making sure his death wasn't the result of police misconduct. Plus the victim is dead so you can't use that evidence to prosecute him. So why do the police need to confiscate it?
For the above reasons the confiscation should be illegal. Even if the police requested a warrant, for the above reasons, the warrant should be denied to the police.
The entire procedure and set of laws regarding when evidence can be confiscated and by whom and how needs to change.
Hopefully the spambot won't flag it as spam since it's being repeated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The guy should start soliciting bidders now in order to establish the present value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F*iiiiiiiep*
They guy was down, 2 officers on him. How the piiep is there any reason to kill him?
OT:
No warrant, no ability to get anything. If they did it is illegal and if anything was changed on the original item then it is illegal and the PD might even be viable on the harshest charges off all: copyright infringement! The store owner created the video therefor it is his copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not as bad as
Walking, headphones on, not hearing the officer, get killed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not as bad as
Officer killed the guy but he was within his rights.
Note: drop on ground as soon as you heard "get your hands out" also keep an eye on everything that happens around you at all times. Otherwise you might die!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not as bad as
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not as bad as
https://youtu.be/IS-kd2iWQRQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]