It wasn’t a drug raid

metalman

metalman

Active Member
Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
10,232
Reaction score
3,006
To permit a no-knock entry on facts this paltry would be to regularize the practice. Our cases allow officers the latitude to effect dynamic entries when their safety is at stake, but the Fourth Amendment does not regard as reasonable an entry with echoes, however faint, of the totalitarian state. The officers who burst into the Bellotte home point to no signpost of danger, nor to any criminal history, nor indeed to any factor that "distinguishes this particular search from many others that police conduct on a daily basis."

It should go without saying that carrying a concealed weapon pursuant to a valid concealed carry permit is a lawful act. The officers admitted at oral argument, moreover, that "most people in West Virginia have guns." Most importantly, we have earlier rejected this contention: "If the officers are correct, then the knock and announcement requirement would never apply in the search of anyone's home who legally owned a firearm."
Click to expand...


Qualified immunity is meant to protect against liability for "bad guesses in gray areas." Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 1992). This was not a bad guess. Not a single one of the officers' proffered rationales provides a reasonable, particularized basis to justify their conduct.2 The officers contended at oral argument that a no-knock entry under these circumstances is "so infrequent, so uncommon that it's a gray area." The absence of "a prior case directly on all fours" here speaks not to the unsettledness of the law, but to the brashness of the conduct. Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1169, 1173 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Because "a man of reasonable intelligence would not have believed that exigent circumstances existed in this situation,"
Click to expand...
 
The first thing wrong with that story is the clerk at Wal-Mart insisting on inspecting a persons photographs.
 
Those photo printing kiosks are also fully in public view, at least, the ones around here are. I can see why they wouldn't want any form of nudity on them simply because anyone could see them. I don't think anyone should have any expectation of privacy at a place like that.

Also, print shops always inspect photos when printed due to quality reasons. My local Blacks Photo didn't charge me for some photos I accidentally printed that were so blurry you couldn't make out anything - but they gave me the prints anyway. Someone obviously took a look at them and made a judgment call. Some print shops will also correct over/under exposure for you as well.

If you want privacy you buy a printer and print them at home.
 
The officers also assert that the entry did "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

geez... when its the plebeians on the wrong side of the law; the battle cry is "ignorance of the law is no excuse"... apparently you are only responsible for knowing the law if you aren't responsible for enforcing them... :confused:
 
Glaucus said:
Those photo printing kiosks are also fully in public view, at least, the ones around here are. I can see why they wouldn't want any form of nudity on them simply because anyone could see them. I don't think anyone should have any expectation of privacy at a place like that.
Click to expand...
I think you should have to hand the stick to the clerk for the clerk to do the printing and have them announce before hand that the prints will be inspected. That is the decent thing to do - but I know why they don't do that. Clerks cost money. You may be printing some legal but racy pics and some sort of discretion should be expected.
But then, having a well trained clerk might be a good idea too and trying to figure out what legal training they should take. The photo was surrendered and the guy went home. He went to Walmart, he surrendered the photo (instead of hiding it or just walking out) - surely if there is a case doesn't security keep the guy in the store while the police are called?
So what was really in the pictures - what's the context. Was there really something improper or was a prudish clerk. Why do pictures of nudity have to be confiscated? Why was it not the clerk who raised the issue but an employee charged with disposing of the photographs? The whole thing is just a mess of wrong.
Also, print shops always inspect photos when printed due to quality reasons.
Click to expand...
And they keep albums of the really good pictures but at least you get to take your piccies home at the end of the day (unless they are clearly illegal)[/quote]
I think the police behaviour on top of that is fully out of line but so is all the rest of the stuff leading up to it. It's a police state all around - invasive and brutal in the name of good intentions.
 
and don't let the judge or the prosecutor off the hook either... they can/could've exercised "judicial discretion" and handled this whole thing differently, but as a society we've become accustomed to knee jerk, over zealous, reactionary brutality at the hands of our government based upon the whims of our neighbors... yay us!! :confused:
 
I think you should have to hand the stick to the clerk for the clerk to do the printing and have them announce before hand that the prints will be inspected. That is the decent thing to do - but I know why they don't do that. Clerks cost money. You may be printing some legal but racy pics and some sort of discretion should be expected.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I remember in the good old days when you dropped off a role of 35mm to be converted into print, some places had restrictions on things like that too. In fact, I remember a place at the mall that had a machine printing the photos in full display of anyone passing by. They probably thought it was cool, but everyone could see every single photo you took. At least today you can buy a $100 color printer to print all the photos yourself. I see that as a step forward.

As for dropping off a stick, well, I don't think that's better for anyone. My SD card contains hundreds of photos, I don't want to print them all. And what if I want to make some edits before they print? Cropping, red-eye correction, etc. Talking to a clerk doesn't really make it easier and in the case where some photos are racy, I'd be more embarrassed perhaps than dealing with a machine. Of course that doesn't apply to me as I submit print jobs over the net, but that's beside the point. And ya, a clerk would cost more. My $0.15 4x6 print would likely cost $1.00 or more. I'll take the machine, thanks.
 
Glaucus said:
Talking to a clerk doesn't really make it easier and in the case where some photos are racy, I'd be more embarrassed perhaps than dealing with a machine.
Click to expand...
Which is the point. The machine allows "a sense of discretion" which isn't really there. You should know that and feel that the clerk will be looking at your photos BEFORE you start printing. If you don't want the clerk to see your racy photos then you will already know you won't be printing them. That's fair. Letting you feel "less embarrassed" by letting you self serve on the machine and THEN demanding to see the pics is not sporting nor civil.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
So what was really in the pictures - what's the context. Was there really something improper or was a prudish clerk. Why do pictures of nudity have to be confiscated? Why was it not the clerk who raised the issue but an employee charged with disposing of the photographs? The whole thing is just a mess of wrong.
Click to expand...

Mr. Bellotte printed and attempted to purchase pornographic pictures at a Wal-Mart on the morning of May 31, 2007. When asked by the cashier to inspect the photographs according to store policy, Mr. Bellotte resisted and admitted that some of the photographs contained nudity. After some escalation, Mr. Bellotte surrendered the photographs, adamant that they should be destroyed without inspection. While shredding the photographs, a Wal-Mart employee was alarmed by what appeared to be an adult's penis beside a young girl's face. Three other Wal-Mart employees, including two managers, also believed they saw a child in the photograph, so they decided to call police.
At least two Virginia police officers also believed a child was depicted in the photograph. According to the Virginia officers' police report, the photograph depicted "an approximately five to six year old white female being forced towards what appeared to be a male adult penis." Using Wal-Mart's camera surveillance and credit card records, the Virginia officers determined that the man who attempted to purchase the photographs was Mr. Bellotte.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top