Posted on 04/08/2005 10:32:58 AM PDT by george wythe
An appeals court threw out a man's cocaine conviction because his strip search was filmed by a camera crew for a television program.
The Indiana Court of Appeals said in a ruling issued Thursday that filming Andra Thompson's strip-search was "unprofessional and unreasonable."
During a 2003 sting operation at a motel, officers strip searched Thompson and found cocaine stuffed between his buttocks.
[snip]
At one point, the camera focused for several seconds on Thompson's naked posterior while he was bent over in handcuffs.
"Where should the media line be drawn?" Judge Edward Najam wrote. "We will not sanction such conduct, which demeans the suspect and degrades the entire legal process."
(Excerpt) Read more at fox41.com ...
For the record, when I was first hired, this show was already in production. I had no say in what was produced, but yet my name was on everything. After being called to testify a few times, and traveling 30 cities in 52 weeks, it got old. Real OLD.
You make a very interesting point. I'd be interested in reading the opinion. Can anyone find it? Ruth Bader Ginsburg has written countless opinions where her "test" is simply that something "shocks the conscience." She is a moron and so are her tests but they stand. She typically applies them to Gender discrimination and police conduct cases, I could pull a few of her cases for you but I'd hate to have you lose your lunch. (She truly is awful.)
My guess however is that they used this standard to justify throwing out the conviction (e.g. a violation of one of the crackheads- no pun intended- constitutional rights.)
But, still, I would like to read this judge's opinion.
Sounds like he needs some instruction in proper snorting technique. Sounds like he's doing it way too hard.
You've obviously never heard of the U.S. Ninth Circus Court of Appeals!
LOL!
There is a difference between editorial usage and commercial use of images. If they used the images on "Cops" which is considered a commerical entertainment program, a release is needed. If the image was used on a news program, a release generally will not be needed.
However, if the image is used to defame or degrade the subject, a release is usually needed to protect from libel or defamation lawsuits. In this case, you can assume that this would have defamed and/or degraded the subject as they pulled the cocaine from his buttocks on TV.
The real issue is the way the police department allowed the camera crew to accompany them during the search. Courts have ruled that the Police have no authority to allow camera crews to accompany them into private property without the owner or resident's permission.
---
To answer another post, this does not affect in any way photos taken for court records like mugshots which are considered part of a court record and subject to open records laws. If your mugshot has been taken, it is open season. However, it can't be used with inaccurate information that will defame. i.e. using the mug with "John Smith arrested for disorderly conduct on April,8 2005" is OK if that is accurate. Running the mug with the headline, "John Smith: Drunk, Peeping Pervert," is going to get a newspaper in a boatload of trouble.
Wow! That FX is great!
From the opinion:
The strip search of Thompson differed from the strip searches in Williams and Cofield. Thompson was required to bend over with his bare buttocks exposed and raised in the air, while the officers allowed the camerawoman to observe and film him in that position, for a program to be aired on national television. As we have stated, the camerawoman stood at the threshold of the motel bathroom door and filmed Thompson’s exposed buttocks as Officer Gard stood over him while Officer Lee walked outside to retrieve rubber gloves. During that time, the camerawoman zoomed in on Thompson’s bare buttocks for several seconds.Where should the media line be drawn? We think the line should be drawn here. Otherwise, the next case might well involve a civilian filming or photographing a strip search incident to arrest where the contraband is found and removed from an anal or vaginal cavity. Where, as here, the search occurs in a private place and the police are in complete control of the circumstances surrounding the search, we can find no justification for law enforcement to allow a civilian to film or photograph the strip search of a suspect naked below the waist. We conclude that, under these circumstances, the strip search was not only unprofessional but was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
"Say "cheese"!"
http://www.pechin.com/images/DeliPhoto3copy.jpg
This makes no sense. I agree that the filming was egregious but I do not see the constitutional underpinnings being found in the 4th amendment. The film crew was not acting as government agents. Period. This judge’s “slippery slope” argument is completely irrelevant. The camera crew is not bound by the exclusionary rule.
They should be sued in a civil court and the municipality that allowed this should be equally liable but the judge has the wrong grounds. Not that any higher court will bother to overturn it, the act in itself is so beyond dumb and irresponsible the crack head almost deserves to be cut loose.
What is even more galling is that this is a “woman’s” network and this was a female camera crew. If anyone is still under the delusion that women are morally superior they really have “issues.”
Anne
Seriously?? I would want something this disgusting buried so deep below the earth that it wouldnt resurface, ever. Can you imagine a demographic that gets its rocks off (pardon the expression) over filming a strip search?? We are far sicker as a society than I ever imagined, (and that says a lot).
The news crew is not subject to a "reasonableness" standard, they aren't law enforcement. They are subject to a decency standard but then again this is a cable network isn't it? So, in fact, they are really held to no standards, are they?
His butt cheeks aren't game only b/c this took place in a hotel room where he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now if he was on a public street, his butt cheeks would be fair game. (smirk.)
lol. You got it.
You hit the nail on the head. This explains a lot because the decision absolutely doesn't within a 4th amendment context. (I should have read your post before I wrote my analysis, it would have saved me a lot of time.) This thread is emblematic of what's so good about freerepublic. The amount of posters who "got" the legal problems with this case, and had so many intelligent comments to add, was really high. What a pleasure to deal with a "demographic" that does not have its crack up its... ;)
If his face was not pixilated, then the COPS production team had him sign a release. If he signed the release, then how can he complain? They only show those who sign, otherwise they pixilate their face. Most people are vain and will sign.
Hey, I didn't realize it was San Francisco...
Are you saying that the 'reality' cop shows have some scenes that are staged?
A cop who breaks into a drug dealer's house without a warrant may find drugs, but he may not use those drugs against the drug dealer, unless the cop finds a sympathetic judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.