Cop Lands Helicopter To Harass Woman.

[Grizzly Willy]

Filming the police and wandering around in a remote area is suspicious.

Finally got the youtube video to load, and lol at people saying it's harassment. They are wandering around near a major road, the cops stopped them and checked their information, were pleasant with them, and went on their way. I don't see anything wrong with this, if they were conducting a search for someone, the resources were well spent since you never know what may turn into useful information.

I'm not saying that this officer is in the wrong. Just saying that collecting rocks isn't a far fetched hobby. If he didn't search her without her consent then there isn't anything wrong here.

[Tinykong]

I'm not saying that this officer is in the wrong. Just saying that collecting rocks isn't a far fetched hobby. If he didn't search her without her consent then there isn't anything wrong here.

I don't think collecting rocks is far fetched, however it's possible she was trespassing, and by filming the helicopter, she is acting suspicious.

[Purlina]

I don't think collecting rocks is far fetched, however it's possible she was trespassing, and by filming the helicopter, she is acting suspicious.

Why is filming a helicopter suspicious? It's a recording device, not a gun or RPG.

[Porcell]

Refusing to provide your name/ID to the police is cause for arrest, which is then cause to be searched for weapons.

This is false. You do NOT have to provide identification UNLESS you are being detained under suspicion of a crime. You do NOT have to carry identification on you, except in certain circumstances (like driving a motor vehicle). [Note that his CAN vary by state, but in California you do not have to carry ID and you do not have to ID to police upon request.]

Filming the police and wandering around in a remote area is suspicious.

Filming the police is legal. Being on public land is legal. There is nothing suspicious about these two things.

I'm well versed in this because I follow the Open Carry movement. Someone walking down the street with a firearm in a holster is NOT cause to stop and identify an open carrier. It's no more correct than stopping someone who is wearing a red shirt, or someone who is holding a camera in public.

Finally got the youtube video to load, and lol at people saying it's harassment. They are wandering around near a major road, the cops stopped them and checked their information, were pleasant with them, and went on their way. I don't see anything wrong with this, if they were conducting a search for someone, the resources were well spent since you never know what may turn into useful information.

Stopped them and checked their information. They can certainly ask, but there is no reason that she should have complied with the request. You have protection from unreasonable searched and seizure (being detained is a seizure of your person).

[Sayl]

Just saying that collecting rocks isn't a far fetched hobby.

I still go rock hunting periodically, always had an interest in geology. That being said though (and like I pointed out earlier in the thread), it's evident from the other videos they've uploaded that these same people engage in questionable behavior out there.

[Raunchy]

any normal person sees this as weird behavior.Instead of the cops just ASSUMING its all fine and dandy and that if it "LOOKS" safe it must always be safe, they went to go check out what she's doing. I see all those people bashing the cops as that liberal arts major meme person, so pompous with the "BUt OUR RIGHT ARE VIOLATED" and no common sense.

[Deleted]

Something wrong with collecting rocks? I had an interest in collecting rocks as a child. Don't see why it would be weird to collect rocks as an adult.

I have a geology masters degree, I pick up rocks because I have an interest, and if a helicopter was flying round low, may very well get out my phone/ipad/whatever recording device and record it.


I also wander round remote places, its nice to get away from people and the noise of modern life, and I'm more likly to record a helicopter buzzing round in teh middle of nowhere aswell.....
That no reason for the police to harass someone.

[Tinykong]

This is false. You do NOT have to provide identification UNLESS you are being detained under suspicion of a crime. You do NOT have to carry identification on you, except in certain circumstances (like driving a motor vehicle). [Note that his CAN vary by state, but in California you do not have to carry ID and you do not have to ID to police upon request.]

Depending on the state, not providing your name and/or license is a crime, obstruction without violence iirc. The Supreme Court upheld those laws, as well.

Even if they aren't "legally" allowed to request the information, they can still arrest you and detain you. Sure, you can get the arrest thrown out and get involved in a protracted legal battle, but is that really worth not giving them your name? Furthermore, if you are within your rights in not giving them your name, and they detain you, and you resist or interfere with procedure, do you want to deal with that possible charge as well? You're not giving them carte blanche to search your persons and property, you are telling them your name, they are confirming you are who you say you are, and that you have a right to be where you are.

Just because the video happened in California doesn't mean people should be advising "don't give the cops your info, F the police!" because someone could read that in another state, and be involved in a similar situation and not be protected. Your best bet is to give them your information, tell them you don't consent to any searches and be on your way, which is exactly what happened during the 5 or so minutes of footage between the lady and the cop in the video. I'll say it again because it needs repeating: trying to prove a point about your rights on the side of the road in the dark is not a smart idea.

[Purlina]

Just because the video happened in California doesn't mean people should be advising "don't give the cops your info, F the police!" because someone could read that in another state, and be involved in a similar situation and not be protected. Your best bet is to give them your information, tell them you don't consent to any searches and be on your way, which is exactly what happened during the 5 or so minutes of footage between the lady and the cop in the video. I'll say it again because it needs repeating: trying to prove a point about your rights on the side of the road in the dark is not a smart idea.

She didn't consent but they searched her belongings anyway. Isn't that a violation?

[smelltheglove]

Filming the police and wandering around in a remote area is suspicious.

implying that she was out there for the sole reason to film the cops? or more likely had it for other purposes, and focused on the helicopter after it made several passes and acted in a weird manner itself?

i dont know where people are getting the idea that wandering around in nature is weird. it's called hiking, seriously, step away from the computer more often, get some fresh air

[Tinykong]

She didn't consent but they searched her belongings anyway. Isn't that a violation?

Maybe I missed it in the video (youtube at my work is PAINFULLY slow to stream) but I thought they checked her background, found out she had some weapons charges or something similar, asked her if she had any on her, and then left. I'm not a lawyer/cop, so maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see how checking someone for concealed weapons who has a previous history is unreasonable.

---------- Post added 2013-02-11 at 07:41 PM ----------

implying that she was out there for the sole reason to film the cops? or more likely had it for other purposes, and focused on the helicopter after it made several passes and acted in a weird manner itself?

i dont know where people are getting the idea that wandering around in nature is weird. it's called hiking, seriously, step away from the computer more often, get some fresh air

Not that it really matters, but they were within a few hundred feet of a major highway. They may have even been trespassing, who knows. If they are searching for someone who is on the run, stopping and talking to people in strange/unusual areas is, you know, police work.

Not to mention, we have no idea what happened before the video started. They could have been driving their SUV around in the field, which is unusual. Who knows. That's why the police investigate and talk to people, to find out information.

[rhorle]

San Bernandino... let's search. Ah, just a bit north of the Mexic border. And there was a woman in the middle of the desert. Just a few km of the Mexic border.
And you're wondering why he stopped to id her and check if she had weapons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...ino_County.svg

I don't think you searched very well. It is more then just a few kilometers.

[Hakto]

Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon.

If filming in the desert is suspicious enough to suggest both "that criminal activity may be afoot" AND that the camera person has a weapon, then anyone can be searched at anytime.

Who are you to surmise what is a reasonable suspicion at any time?

He felt it possible she had a weapon and did a quick check, is perfectly fine.

[rhorle]

Police need to leave citizens alone. Citizens need to stop justifying poor police action and harassment. Police stopping and questioning someone who is breaking no laws just because the cop has a "hunch" or wonders what is going on is NOT RIGHT.

So you can see that everything to Sherrif officer looked at was not in line of sight? That he had to actually open things and search through them? The video shows none of that so you can't say it is illegal just from the video. Also you don't know what went on before the video and what the group of people, yes it was a group, was doing before hand.

At the end of the video you here someone talking on a cell phone saying they can't talk because they have to get out of here now. If they were completely innocent then why would he be in such a hurry or worried?


If citizens need to stop justifying poor police action and harassment then they certainly need to not label everything as poor police action or harassment. You need approach each case objectively and not jump to conclusions. You can't objectively tell this is police harassment from the video provided. It should always be right for police to stop and ask someone questions. What is so wrong with being asked stopped and asked questions? Just use your right not to answer and everyone goes on their marry way.

Just because people refuse to exercise their right not to answer doesn't suddenly make it wrong for people to questioned.

[Statix]

Couldnt he have said that, instead of the bs "we are investigating something right now". Some women in the middle of nowhere is not going to be a threat to shit.

What if she just burried a body?

[xylophone]

Just a little FYI, rock collecting is actually a pretty big thing here in the Southwest. They have big shows all the time. It would make sense as well that she would be collecting them in an underdeveloped area as well. Why was she filming? Perhaps she just thought it was a cool shot to take of a helicopter flying relatively low right by her. I live right underneath a route that military helicopters fly, and every once in a while if one is flying low or there are a bunch of them at once I may snap a quick picture or something.

[Porcell]

It should always be right for police to stop and ask someone questions. What is so wrong with being asked stopped and asked questions? Just use your right not to answer and everyone goes on their marry way.

Just because people refuse to exercise their right not to answer doesn't suddenly make it wrong for people to questioned.

Because what happens when a citizen refuses to ID. "Why are you making it hard on us. It's just making it harder on yourself. Why are you being a dick about this." All things I've seen on videos of citizens refusing to play ball with the police.

[rhorle]

Because what happens when a citizen refuses to ID. "Why are you making it hard on us. It's just making it harder on yourself. Why are you being a dick about this." All things I've seen on videos of citizens refusing to play ball with the police.

So because you've seen video's of it turning out badly it always turns out badly? That still doesn't make it wrong for people to be asked questions. I was out walked my dog one night and an officer stopped and asked me if I saw anyone else hiding or suspicious. I could have been the dick you suggest citizens always be and refuse to answer him. Or I could just simply answer like I did and say nope. Not that it matters but some lady in my subdivision was the victim of domestic violence from her ex and had some things stolen by the ex.

There is nothing wrong with being asked questions. You are also jumping to all of these conclusions based on a video that tells us nothing about the situation. What if they were in a known restricted area? Would you still suggest they always refuse to answer?

[Porcell]

So because you've seen video's of it turning out badly it always turns out badly?

I didn't say that.

That still doesn't make it wrong for people to be asked questions. I was out walked my dog one night and an officer stopped and asked me if I saw anyone else hiding or suspicious. I could have been the dick you suggest citizens always be and refuse to answer him. Or I could just simply answer like I did and say nope. Not that it matters but some lady in my subdivision was the victim of domestic violence from her ex and had some things stolen by the ex.

"Hi, have you seen anything" is fine. "Hi, let me see your papers" is not fine.

There is nothing wrong with being asked questions. You are also jumping to all of these conclusions based on a video that tells us nothing about the situation. What if they were in a known restricted area? Would you still suggest they always refuse to answer?

If they were in a restricted area the would have been arrested, or the conversation would have been different. Yes, I would suggest they refuse to answer.

[Tinykong]

Yes, I would suggest they refuse to answer.

I still don't see why people want to create a hostile situation with the police. Its in your best interest to be pleasant, cooperative and assert that you know your rights. Unless you have a warrant or some sort of paranoia, telling the police your name and what you're doing is not unreasonable. They don't know who you are, you could be a kidnapper with an outstanding warrant, a parole violator, someone helping the fugitive evade arrest, or just simply an ordinary woman picking up rocks. Being cooperative while asserting your rights is just being courteous.