Yes, so the relevant statute is bullshit. In this case and I quote
"Olvera claims that Alderete saw a can of beer on a kitchen counter,
next to Olvera's wallet, and immediately handcuffed him." The
implication is that the officer decided to go with public drunkenness,
then added the photography charge, well actually a miss application of
an anti wiretapping law.
On 1/18/2011 6:44 PM, eckinator wrote:
2011/1/18 P. J. Alling<webstertwenty...@gmail.com>:
Well, yes and no. Most of those charges, in the US at least stem from
different statutes. What they probably actually arrest you for is
"resisting", then they tack the reliant statute onto that. Which in a
constitutional democracy what else should you do but resist illegal orders?
'fraid not, here's one link for your reference
http://www.dailytech.com/Man+Arrested+for+Photographing+Police+Officer+Who+Came+Into+His+House/article18838.htm
quote: "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of
the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to
consent to being taped"
Cheers
Ecke
--
Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom!
--Marvin the Martian.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
