Possibly the most misleading headline of the day,

I don't even understand the headline, it seems to be missing some important punctuation somewhere.

"Baltimore" has ruled that Subby? I was unaware that cities could issue rulings. Secondly I don't see anywhere in this article where that new POLICE Directive, precludes people from suing for past misconduct. In fact this is a GOOD thing because now the cops are officially on notice that they can't do this, making any future lawsuit much easier to win

Didn't SCOTUS already rule on this?

Commas are really helpful, subby.

Now that Baltimore has ruled you can video police officers, you can no longer sue them for anytime they might have hassled you, confiscated your camera, or unlawfully deleted video in the past

Commas often indicate important pauses in speech and can signal the borders of clauses, an important type of information for the parsing of discourse.

I think some of the confusion comes from the article being poorly written. I suspect that the claim contained two separate sections. First, that the police must return the video and any pictures that were deleted. The AG is arguing that since those items were permanently deleted, it's impossible to comply with that demand. Secondly, the claim wants the policy changed and all cops trained in the new policy. Since that's already been done, that part of the claim is moot.

They'll pay the claimant off and make this go away. Next time though, since the policy has been changed and cops have been trained, somebody's gonna collect big time.

I think the best advice I can give to anyone is just to never go to Baltimore.

They deleted all of the photos and videos on his phone...is there nothing written or interpreted within the law that would allow this guy to sue for the retrieval (or at the very least, compensation for the loss) of those precious photos and videos? They had no right to delete the evidence that could (potentially) be used against them and even less of a right to delete this guy's personal photos and videos. What if he had pictures of his baby's first steps on there that had not yet been backed up or stored anywhere else? Or pictures of his wedding day? Or better yet, a sexy-time video he had saved on there for his own viewing pleasure? (*Something that could have possibly been forwarded to or saved by or e-mailed to someone, anyone else that has no involvement in this police investigation? Or to the officers involved themselves? How would this man even know if that had happened? Should there not be a recording of the police going through his phone? Or at the very least a report or corroborating police testimony that could confirm or deny such an egregious abuse of power? It seems to me that any time the police have to search or retrieve files from someone's phone or laptop or any other file storage device, there should be more than 1 officer and at least 1 technical expert present keeping an accurate and detailed record of what is being done with or to the files being searched or reviewed. The law is so far behind the technology and unfortunately, it is on the side of those wishing to abuse or misuse the technology for their own personal gain or advantages.)

And wouldn't that be considered obstruction of justice (or police misconduct/dereliction of duty) being that they just straight up deleted evidence? It is not at their discretion to unlawfully seize, search, and consequentially destroy this man's (or anyone else's, for that matter) personal and private property. Would this not set a very dangerous precedent wherein the police could hypothetically decide to just start seizing citizens' recording devices and delete any and all evidence against them, in addition to whatever else they feel like deleting (or are too stupid to figure out how to delete these items one by one)? Since when are they not PUBLIC servants who answer to us, the taxpayers who fund their paychecks? They are required to abide by the same laws that we as citizens are to abide by. In fact, should they not be expected to uphold and follow those laws even more so than we lowly civilians are? If they are to be granted certain leniency, and if their word is to be taken as more honest and truthful in a court of law than say, a defendant's, then they should also be held to a higher standard (and found to be held more accountable for their actions/inactions) than those they are supposedly "protecting".

It was always my understanding that this was the case (* my ex father in-law was a police officer in Wilkinsburg township here in Pittsburgh for 10+ years and subsequently became Sr. Deputy Attorney General (new window) of the state while Mike Fischer was in office, so my understanding of how the police operate all comes from him)...if I am incorrect in any of my assumptions, then please correct me so that I can understand this issue more accurately. The questions I have are genuine and I am very interested to see the outcome of this case and what repercussions it may have nationally.

^Which is why the Baltimore PD is about to get a legal smackdown, if they don't settle (buy the guy off, which I'm sure he'll be happy with).

thelordofcheese: HAHA no. That's not going to stand. Their argument is weak and quite obviously without merit.

Stop shotting cops with cameras; start shooting pigs with guns.

Dear thelordofcheese,

DHS has recently been monitoring the World Wide Web (invented by Al Gore in the early 90's - failure to agree constitutes a felony under pub. l. 107-94 punishable by 15 years in prison or a $2.5 million fine, whichever reduces the likelyhood of BIE more) and determined your recent comments to constitute a threat to national security and the sensitive egos of several bureaucrats.

Please report to the nearest FBI office for detention and transport to your nearest friendly Federal Family^tm "questioning" center for humane enhanced interrogation.

Sincerely,

Janet Napolitano
Secretary of Homeland Security
Guiness Book of World Records holder for most "OMG BURN IT WITH FIRE" face.

thelordofcheese: Damnaged: thelordofcheese: HAHA no. That's not going to stand. Their argument is weak and quite obviously without merit.

Stop shotting cops with cameras; start shooting pigs with guns.

Dear thelordofcheese,

DHS has recently been monitoring the World Wide Web (invented by Al Gore in the early 90's - failure to agree constitutes a felony under pub. l. 107-94 punishable by 15 years in prison or a $2.5 million fine, whichever reduces the likelyhood of BIE more) and determined your recent comments to constitute a threat to national security and the sensitive egos of several bureaucrats.

Please report to the nearest FBI office for detention and transport to your nearest friendly Federal Familytm "questioning" center for humane enhanced interrogation.

Sincerely,

Janet Napolitano
Secretary of Homeland Security
Guiness Book of World Records holder for most "OMG BURN IT WITH FIRE" face.

I haven't had my name connected to a utility, cellphone, payroll, government-issued identification... ANYTHING for over 3 years now. My family doesn't even know where I am.

You are my hero. Please, show me your ways.