[MineralMan]

"Why was the cop wrong to take the pictures after hours? I see no problem here, I can see myself doing something while the building is closed....why not?
"

Because there was no crime committed, and the cop was on duty. As for yourself, had you done this, you'd be arrested. Even though the school is a public building, you have no right to be there without permission. Don't get me wrong, I think the teacher is a slimeball, but as far as I know he didn't break any laws. The cops are for enforcing laws.

[fml]

I don't htink I would be arrested, it's a public building and he was let in (or I would be) by a custodian therfore no trespassing. He was on break, it was not an official visit, he could have been turned away.

[moneyrunner]

Could you explain the crime that the cop comitted? Taking pictures inside a public school room at night?

[hirn_man]

The policeman broke NO law. He knocked, he asked permission, he gained permission and then he entered. You are acting like he picked the lock and stole the milk out of the cafeteria.

[CMAC51]

"Because there was no crime committed, and the cop was on duty. As for yourself, had you done this, you'd be arrested. Even though the school is a public building, you have no right to be there without permission. Don't get me wrong, I think the teacher is a slimeball, but as far as I know he didn't break any laws. The cops are for enforcing laws."



Here and in previous comments you assume that the individual entered the building illegally and then used his position as a police officer to gain access to the room. The article does not support that supposition. According to the officers account he entered the building through available access and sought out the person responsible for control of the facility at that time. He convinced the person to provide access to the classroom.

It is quite legal to enter a public building, even after hours, through available open access with the intent of seeking out the person repsonsible for control of the faciltiy. The officer may not have used his official position to coerce the custodian. The article does not describe what form of convincing took place. They may already have been acquatances. After all he once worked there. The custodian may have been sympathetic. The custodian may be guilty of violating rules or policy, but the officer is only out of line if he used his law enforcement position to leverage the custodian. The article does not indicate this one way or another. You are forced to infer it to support your position.