Homeowner arrested for "illegal photography" of a cop who barged into his own house

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Sep 2, 2008
33,178
3,055
48
Courthouse News Service

HOUSTON (CN) - A homeowner says he was arrested for "illegal photography" when a police sergeant followed him into his own home, and he objected and took the cop's photo with his cell phone. "We did not know what he was talking about, and I don't think he does either," the homeowner says in his federal complaint.
In his civil rights complaint, Francisco Olvera says Sealy Police Sgt. Justin Alderete's charge of "illegal photography" baffled him and several witnesses

Olvera says he was acquitted of all charges in a jury trial.
Olvera seeks punitive damages from Alderete, the City of Sealy, and Police Chief John Tollett for trespass, assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

Well, I hope the city is ready to fork over a nice big check to Olvera.

Thoughts USMB?
 
What the hell is "illegal photography"? Was the cop afraid that the guy was stealing his soul if he was photographed? :lol:
 
What the hell is "illegal photography"? Was the cop afraid that the guy was stealing his soul if he was photographed? :lol:

I assume he saw the episode of Goosebumps with the "evil" camera. :eusa_whistle:
 
Well, I hope the city is ready to fork over a nice big check to Olvera.

Thoughts USMB?

Thoughts...lets think about this for a moment.

If Olvera is a white, hardworking small business owner who believes in God and the Constitution, then this is a blatant case of the Government violating the rights of an American citizen.

If Olvera is a Hispanic or black American citizen, who is currently unemployed and who doesn't go to church, then this is a case of a good law enforcement officer who made a mistake.
 
What the hell is "illegal photography"? Was the cop afraid that the guy was stealing his soul if he was photographed? :lol:

In some states it is actually illegal to photograph cops on duty. The concept makes no sense to me, and will probably be struck down eventually, but it apparently violates their privacy to photograph them, even though it is perfectly legal to photograph a civilian in exactly the same place at the same time.
 
What the hell is "illegal photography"? Was the cop afraid that the guy was stealing his soul if he was photographed? :lol:

In some states it is actually illegal to photograph cops on duty. The concept makes no sense to me, and will probably be struck down eventually, but it apparently violates their privacy to photograph them, even though it is perfectly legal to photograph a civilian in exactly the same place at the same time.

You are also not allowed to photograph a vampire.

Actually...you are allowed to, but it would be a waste of film.
 
Courthouse News Service

HOUSTON (CN) - A homeowner says he was arrested for "illegal photography" when a police sergeant followed him into his own home, and he objected and took the cop's photo with his cell phone. "We did not know what he was talking about, and I don't think he does either," the homeowner says in his federal complaint.
In his civil rights complaint, Francisco Olvera says Sealy Police Sgt. Justin Alderete's charge of "illegal photography" baffled him and several witnesses

Olvera says he was acquitted of all charges in a jury trial.
Olvera seeks punitive damages from Alderete, the City of Sealy, and Police Chief John Tollett for trespass, assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

Well, I hope the city is ready to fork over a nice big check to Olvera.

Thoughts USMB?
Maybe the guy is gay and if the TX RNC has their way, he can be prosecuted for pretty much anything.
 
Can I see a link for that Quantum Windbag, please? What a bizarre law.

Are Cameras the New Guns?

Prosecutors are even applying existing laws about wiretapping in an attempt to stop people from taping police.

Instapundit Blog Archive THE WAR AGAINST PHOTOGRAPHY: Radley Balko has more on Maryland. “Graber is due in court next week….

That only applies if you record them talking. and I think I seen on the news last night that its only in 12 states, all the others have one party consent.

Yes, I was exactly right, as usual. here is the list of which states allow what

http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html
 
Last edited:
What the hell is "illegal photography"? Was the cop afraid that the guy was stealing his soul if he was photographed? :lol:

In some states it is actually illegal to photograph cops on duty. The concept makes no sense to me, and will probably be struck down eventually, but it apparently violates their privacy to photograph them, even though it is perfectly legal to photograph a civilian in exactly the same place at the same time.

Not too hard to figure out. Too many cops have gotten into big trouble for thumping on suspects and generally acting like assholes while folks were video taping what went on. Well, sir - we'll have no more of that! The solution? One might think it would be to fire the bad cops and make it clear that police misconduct will not be tolerated.

Oh, no. Not even close, Mojambo. The solution is to pass a law making it illegal to photograph cops while they are "on duty." Pretty slick, huh? Now, the cops are free to continue with their misconduct, unhindered by those pesky video cams that catch the scum on tape for all to see. Just one more step closer to secret police . . .

An interesting argument can be made, however, that cops who are brutalizing a suspect or otherwise engaging in misconduct, are not acting in the performance of their duties and are, therefore, not "on duty" within the meaning of the no-photo laws.
 
You know, the more I think about this, the angrier I get. How on EARTH do they think they are going to be able to justify a law making it illegal to photograph an on duty cop?

You all do understand the basis for a law such as this, right? Remember the Rodney King case? Or any of the dozens of other cases which involve videos taken by citizens of police kicking a suspect's head in or otherwise brutalizing the person(s) they were about to arrest.

Fast forward now to the conservative view of police work. It goes something like this: "If you run afoul of the law, you deserve everything you get and then some. Run from the cops, don't complain if you get the crap kicked out of you once they catch you. You shouldn't have run in the first place. Mouth off to a cop, you deserve everything you get. We are law abiding citizens. We do not tolerate people who aren't. And the LAST thing we are going to do is punish our own, brave officers who are out there, risking their lives every day to protect US, by having to deal with scum like YOU."

I think you get the picture.

If you buy into that view, then passing a law that prevents citizens from making videos of cops kicking the crap out of suspects, makes perfect sense.

"Invasion of privacy" my ASS. As is so often the case, there is a hidden agenda here. I have just set it forth.

Son of a BITCH!!!!

(George does not normally use foul language. When he does, it is an indication that he is REALLY upset. Even now, that vein on his forehead is standing out . . . )
 
Last edited:
You know, the more I think about this, the angrier I get. How on EARTH do they think they are going to be able to justify a law making it illegal to photograph an on duty cop?

You all do understand the basis for a law such as this, right? Remember the Rodney King case? Or any of the dozens of other cases which involve videos taken by citizens of police kicking a suspect's head in or otherwise brutalizing the person(s) they were about to arrest.

Fast forward now to the conservative view of police work. It goes something like this: "If you run afoul of the law, you deserve everything you get and then some. Run from the cops, don't complain if you get the crap kicked out of you once they catch you. You shouldn't have run in the first place. Mouth off to a cop, you deserve everything you get. We are law abiding citizens. We do not tolerate people who aren't. And the LAST thing we are going to do is punish our own, brave officers who are out there, risking their lives every day to protect US, by having to deal with scum like YOU."

I think you get the picture.

If you buy into that view, then passing a law that prevents citizens from making videos of cops kicking the crap out of suspects, makes perfect sense.

"Invasion of privacy" my ASS. As is so often the case, there is a hidden agenda here. I have just set it forth.

Son of a BITCH!!!!

(George does not normally use foul language. When he does, it is an indication that he is REALLY upset. Even now, that vein on his forehead is standing out . . . )

My thoughts exactly!

Could you argue that you were photographing the "victim" and not the cop? :)
 
It is obvious the US SC has never been presented with the Q on 1st Amendment grounds.

The media have a 1st AM right to record police, audio and visual, to deprive a citizen of such fundamental right is legally idiotic.

Some state SC's permit it, some don't.

There was a state SC decision a few years back that forbade it, I will try to find it to read the exact legal reasoning, state or jurisdictional federal.
 
Courthouse News Service

HOUSTON (CN) - A homeowner says he was arrested for "illegal photography" when a police sergeant followed him into his own home, and he objected and took the cop's photo with his cell phone. "We did not know what he was talking about, and I don't think he does either," the homeowner says in his federal complaint.
In his civil rights complaint, Francisco Olvera says Sealy Police Sgt. Justin Alderete's charge of "illegal photography" baffled him and several witnesses

Olvera says he was acquitted of all charges in a jury trial.
Olvera seeks punitive damages from Alderete, the City of Sealy, and Police Chief John Tollett for trespass, assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

Well, I hope the city is ready to fork over a nice big check to Olvera.

Thoughts USMB?

So you get one side of the story and run with it. How liberal of you.
 
Courthouse News Service

HOUSTON (CN) - A homeowner says he was arrested for "illegal photography" when a police sergeant followed him into his own home, and he objected and took the cop's photo with his cell phone. "We did not know what he was talking about, and I don't think he does either," the homeowner says in his federal complaint.
In his civil rights complaint, Francisco Olvera says Sealy Police Sgt. Justin Alderete's charge of "illegal photography" baffled him and several witnesses

Olvera says he was acquitted of all charges in a jury trial.
Olvera seeks punitive damages from Alderete, the City of Sealy, and Police Chief John Tollett for trespass, assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

Well, I hope the city is ready to fork over a nice big check to Olvera.

Thoughts USMB?
Maybe the guy is gay and if the TX RNC has their way, he can be prosecuted for pretty much anything.

As it should be.
 

Forum List

Back
Top