The first sentence of the article states:
“Seconds after BART police officer Johannes Mehserle shot and killed Oscar Grant, police immediately began confiscating cell phones containing videos that have yet to see the light of day.”
Kind of makes a shambles of your entire argument doesn't it? We don't know if any of the confiscated phones have been returned to their owners, but it seems unlikely. I mean if you give your phone to the police, how do you prove it? They can toss them in the trash and claim to have never heard of you. Still think police confiscating your phone is a good idea?
What if you lost all your contact information along with your phone, or you missed a really important phone call because the police stole your phone?
Face it, they were not collecting evidence of a crime for trial, they were collecting evidence of a crime to cover up that crime. The evidence they collected in the form of those cell phone images has been destroyed.
I read the article, what I posted is what I believe would pass a constitutional analysis. I did not say that is what happened.
The article makes no mention of whether the owners have requested the phones back. (although if I was running the Police Department the investigators would have been required to return the phones that night)
Your bias against the police is showing...you couldn’t even digest what I posted and contrast it to the news article and note the differences.