Photographing police officers in public

There has been a continued practice of police officers claiming that private individuals photographing or videoing them during the course of their duties is a violation of a law. This most recently occurred when a Border Patrol Agent accosted a group of Boy Scouts in Alaska.

Boy Scout Troop 111 Leader Jim Fox spelled out what happened to him and the Mid-Iowa Boy Scout Troop 111 as four van-loads of Scouts and adult volunteers tried to drive from Canada into Alaska.

Fox said one of the Scouts took a picture of a border official, which spurred agents to detain everyone in that van and search them and their belongings.

“The agent immediately confiscated his camera, informed him he would be arrested, fined possibly $10,000 and 10 years in prison,” Fox said.

Fox said he was told it is a federal offense to take a picture of a federal agent.

Not wanting things to escalate, Fox said he did not complain.

Another of the Scouts was taking luggage from the top of a van to be searched when something startling happened.

“He hears a snap of a holster, turns around, and here’s this agent, both hands on a loaded pistol, pointing at the young man’s head,” Fox explained. [emphasis added].

http://www.kcci.com/news/officer-points-gun-at-boy-scout-at-canadian-border/27078396#!bjWo9y

Of course, there is no such federal or state law in Alaska, despite the Border Patrol Agent's claim. There have been many such abuses all across the nation. Fortunately, the legal system is catching up, and officers have been reprimanded, sued civilly and in some case prosecuted for these actions.

The ACLU recently clarified the right to photograph in public.

Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

Police and Law Enforcement are constantly encroaching on the privacy rights of citizens by installing ever more surveillance cameras and utilizing other forms of invasive technology. Fortunately, police abuses of power can be photographed by every person with a smart phone to ensure they are on their best behaviour.

Property Tax Assessment Appeal

When purchasing a property it is always important to check that the assessed value of the property matches the actual market value. If the property is assessed higher than the actual market value the property-owner may be paying significantly higher taxes than justified.

This is especially important in a down economy when property values have dropped. NEPA has been hit hard by such a drop. Evaluating whether an assessment appeal is needed is an important consideration every homeowner and new purchaser should consider. This is doubly essential for properties purchased at foreclosure or tax sales.

The process for the appeal begins at the local level, and it is often crucial to have an appraisal done by an independent party to present. Representation by an experienced attorney is also a key part of the appeal.

Fees vary depending on the likelihood of success and the amount that can be saved by the assessment appeal. Some attorneys will perform this work on a contingency basis, meaning that they recover no fees if the appeal is unsuccessful. Potential appellants should be careful about such an arrangement as it may wind up costing him or her a significant portion of any savings generated by the appeal.

Cell Phone searches require a warrant when seized incident to arrest.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently issued a decision in the matter of Commonwealth v. Stem, affirming the United States Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California, that a search incident to arrest does not cover the content of cell phones absent a warrant issued on probable cause.

In this case, the Defendant was apprehended and taken into custody for a domestic violence violation. While being processed for arrest his cell phone was taken and the Officer reviewed the photographs contained on the phone. The Officer did not have a warrant and was not able to articulate probable cause as to why the cell phone should be searched. The phone contained roughly 17 photos that appeared to be child pornography. Stem was later charged with child porn violations. Prior to trial he moved to suppress the photos as his phone was searched without a warrant, in contravention of the Supreme Court's decision in Riley. 

The trial court and then on appeal the Superior Court both held that the warrantless search of the cell phone was not a legal search and suppressed all evidence of the photos. 

Child pornography is a terrible crime, but requiring a warrant before police can search someone's cell phone protects everyone's privacy interests. As the Supreme Court explained in Riley, cell phones contain far more than just phone numbers or pictures. Cell phones linked to the internet can contain a person's entire banking history. Personal email or text messages. Confidential medical information, and much more. Being secure in the privacy of this material absent a warrant is in everyone's interests.  

A recent news story concerning malfeasance by an area Police Chief has been getting attention for the way the matter has been handled by the municipal oversight committee.

An investigation into the theft of Pocono Mountain Regional Police Chief Harry Lewis' service handgun cost taxpayers about $50,000, but officials who oversee the department now lack access to the report, a Coolbaugh Township representative said.

In a long statement at a commission meeting Tuesday night, Coolbaugh representative Bill Weimer requested a roughly 60-page report produced by Philadelphia attorney Neil A. Morris, who investigated the gun theft.

Lewis later confirmed the vehicle was unlocked at the time of the theft. Lewis, who is set to retire next month, has said he was not disciplined as a result of the incident, though Coolbaugh police representative Juan Adams has said Lewis was disciplined without specifying how.Two teens were accused of stealing Lewis' service handgun and wallet from his department-issued vehicle while it was parked at his Allentown area home in May 2013.

From - http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140710/NEWS/407100325

 At issue is the clearly irresponsible behaviour of the Police Chief in failing to properly secure his weapon. Would a regular civilian have gotten off as easily? Unlikely, in my experience. And now to withhold the investigative report from the public, which was financed by $50k in public funds, is an egregious exercise of official power.

Hopefully this matter is cleared up, shortly.

Warrant no longer required to search vehicle at roadside stop.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently decided a case which obviated the need for the Police to obtain a warrant during a roadside stop. Police are still required to possess probable cause, but they need not present that cause to a Judge before searching the vehicle.

From Pennlive.com -

The Supreme Court's ruling stems from a legal battle over a January 2010 traffic stop in Philadelphia.

Two police officers pulled over a sport-utility vehicle driven by Shiem Gary because they believed its window tinting was too dark. The officers then claimed they smelled marijuana coming from the SUV and that Gary told them there was "weed" in the vehicle.

Police said a drug-sniffing dog hit on the SUV and a subsequent warrantless search discovered about 2 pounds of marijuana hidden under the hood.

 Gary challenged whether the police had legally obtained the drug evidence. The case came to the Supreme Court on appeal after the state Superior Court backed Gary. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/04/divided_pa_supreme_court_oks_w.html

This is indeed a setback for personal privacy rights in Pennsylvania, as the requirement of a warrant issued by a neutral Judge was at least some check on the power of the Police.

It is likely that Police will still ask drivers for consent to search their vehicles, even when they believe they possess probable cause. This will be done so that if it is later determined the Officer acted on less than probable cause it is irrelevant if the search is consensual. A driver who refuses the search will likely have his or her car searched anyway. But by refusing the driver still retains the ability to challenge the evidence at a later Court hearing.

.

Child Custody 101

There are two different types of custody in Pennsylvania. Legal custody and physical custody.

Legal custody is the right to make decisions for one's child. Where he or she will go to school, whether the child will have a surgery, which church to go to. Those are all legal custody decisions. Most custody arrangements maintain a 50/50 legal custody situation so that both parents must agree before major life changes in the child's life can take place.

Physical custody is where the child actually resides on a daily basis. This can be structured differently depending on the needs of the parents.

House arrest as an alternative to incarceration.

In some cases, the defendant in a criminal matter may qualify for house arrest instead of being incarcerated. This is an especially important consideration in cases where there are mandatory minimum sentences, such as second offense DUIs and many drug cases. House arrest is an alternative sentence which allows the court to sentence the defendant to a term of home confinement (usually with an ankle bracelet of some form) instead of being sent off to prison.

House arrest allows the defendant to continue to work, to make scheduled appointments, and otherwise live their lives. The defendant is not restricted only to his/her home, as there will be scheduled times he or she can leave to go to work, run errands, etc. There is a requirement of a curfew, and many ankle bracelets now test for the presence of drugs or alcohol in a person's perspiration. But as long as the defendant is able to adhere to the requirements of the program, he or she stands a good chance of being admitted to it.

In my experience, any sentence longer than 3 months is unlikely (but not impossible) to qualify for house arrest. Of course, the defendant will be required to pay the costs of the program, which can be significant, but if the alternative is incarceration it is well worth the cost.