OFF THE WIRE
Should police be able to seize whatever they want and claim it is 'evidence'?
LIMA, OH — A man calmly stood on a street and exercised his right to record police as they performed a traffic stop. Even though he was simply a bystander and not involved in any wrongdoing, he became the subject of police scrutiny when officers wanted to confiscate his phone as “evidence.” When he politely refused, he was arrested on a charge of obstructing law enforcement — put not before being tased and hospitalized by police.
The incident occurred on April 26th, as Michael S. Davis noticed a traffic stop outside the home he was visiting. He went outside to witness what was going on. Davis, 35, pulled out his cell phone to record a video of the encounter, as he often does in the name of keeping police officers accountable. This activism work had apparently made Mr. Davis known to some of the Lima Police officers from past recordings.
On that particular occurrence, the Lima News reported, Davis recorded officers as they searched a vehicle for drugs. When the search was complete, officers approached Mr. Davis and demanded his cell phone. They claimed that it contained evidence that could help them imprison a citizen for possessing substances without government permission.
Davis declined. The phone, and its contents, were his rightful property. Officers presented no warrant, and Davis had no intention of voluntarily helping them fill another cage with another non-violent offender.
Davis attempted to walk away, and police reacted by accosting him by grabbing his arm. Officers would not take ‘no’ for an answer, and did not intend to let him walk away with his property rights intact.
Police claimed that Davis resisted them and claimed that they believed he was reaching for a gun, so they fired a taser into his body.
Mr. Davis says that he never resisted and that he loudly repeated that he was not resisting so that other bystanders could hear him. He alleged that when he warned officers that he had a heart condition, and that being tased could threaten his life, police tased him anyway and brutalized him. The confrontation ended with Mr. Davis being hospitalized and arrested on multiple charges.
The department claims that they can seize whatever they deem as ‘evidence’ without the owner’s consent — even something like a a miniature computer with a trove of personal information stored inside of it — and arrest anyone who gets in their way. Police intended to eventually seek a warrant to examine the contents, but that process can easily take weeks — weeks of invaded privacy and inconvenience.
Davis was charged with obstructing official business and resisting arrest; both misdemeanors. He pleaded not guilty and awaits pretrial hearings in June.
Davis argued that it’s not his job to do the work of police, and the video is his property. The case raises interesting legal aspects regarding the contentious issue of filming police; the ability to film unmolested; the ability to protect footage from malicious police officers; the right to maintain control over one’s own property outside of due process. If officers can unscrupulously steal cameras from journalists and watchdogs, that doesn’t leave us with a very robust sense of privacy, free speech, or property rights.
SEE ALSO: How to record police encounters without losing your video
Accountability Check
Lima Police Department (Ohio)
Phone: (419) 221-5264
Facebook: Link
