Beaverton Police

[coloneltim]

Beaverton is going to pay on this. There has to be a reasonable expectation of privacy involved. The police had no reason to believe that they were in a private setting. They were in apublic place making an arrest, there were other people there, no reason to believe anything they were doing was private.

Beaverton PD is acting like they have something to hide. They intentionally destroyed evidence in this case, making them look guilty.

Side not, I love how all the cops come out of the woodwork to support each other when one of them is accused of wrong doing. The old mantra that they are doing a difficult job and need to be cut a break and how much of a public service they do etc etc. Cops doing bad things need to be held accountable. I'm tired of the excuses.

Tim

 

[biggie24420]

I've had no issues with with BPD. There was one time I was pulled over for no reason no turn signal leabing my driveway which I kinda thought was a BS reason. I felt the real reason was nice car, leave run down house, in run down area= drugs in BPD eyes.

Treated the officer with respect as I always do, all ended well.

What y'all think of the traffic camera vans?

The photo radar vans suck ......... but several years ago i bought a pasport 8500 radar/laser detector and I always know where the vans are...... same for the cops on motorcycles (them bikes sure love to hide).
I must say that one day i was driving on beaverton hillsdale hwy. and i noticed a few guys holding a sign with flashing red bike lights...... i was like huh? well it turned out that those guys had a sign saying PHOTO RADAR VAN AHEAD......lol they were standing before the van and letting people know that there was a photo van ahead lol i was very happy that they were doing that. As we all know, them photo radar vans put out a sign but it is so darn small and unreadable to a driver passing by that the cops shouldn't even bother, but i think by law they have to post a sign or something ............ also as far as i know, they have to have your face when they try to give you your ticket ............. you know......... your pic as your driving fast hahahahahahaha so wear a ski mask hahahaha thats what i do sometimes......... because i am tired and done with getting speeding tickets, and yes i behave but them vans are sometimes sneaky so when i feel like being a little naughty then i will wear a ski mask hahahahaha and if i get pulled over for wearing a mask...... WELL OFFICER, LAST I CHECKED........ IT WAS NOT AGAINST THE LAW TO DO SO........ ALSO I WAS COLD hahahahahahaha

 

[biggie24420]

I've had no issues with with BPD. There was one time I was pulled over for no reason no turn signal leabing my driveway which I kinda thought was a BS reason. I felt the real reason was nice car, leave run down house, in run down area= drugs in BPD eyes.

Treated the officer with respect as I always do, all ended well.

What y'all think of the traffic camera vans?

Beaverton is going to pay on this. There has to be a reasonable expectation of privacy involved. The police had no reason to believe that they were in a private setting. They were in apublic place making an arrest, there were other people there, no reason to believe anything they were doing was private.

Beaverton PD is acting like they have something to hide. They intentionally destroyed evidence in this case, making them look guilty.

Side not, I love how all the cops come out of the woodwork to support each other when one of them is accused of wrong doing. The old mantra that they are doing a difficult job and need to be cut a break and how much of a public service they do etc etc. Cops doing bad things need to be held accountable. I'm tired of the excuses.

Tim

Aymen Tim.....lol thats what I said........ if you can't handle the heat then leave the kitchen...... meaning that, if your job as a cop is too hard...... LEAVE........ stop being a cop and go work at ROSS or DICK'S sporting goods hahahahaha

 

[freak]

The vans are sneaky, and almost got me once. The signs are BS. If they have to have them it should be required to be readable and nocticeable. The one spot they almost got me is west bound Canyon after leaving 26 WB. It's the spot where you go fro 40 mph to 35. 35 MPH sigh is on a hill, right on corner. Van was right around the corner.

For the most part I approve of the vans. It slows people down to a decent speed in front of my house. Theres always people crossing the street, and the traffic gets real busy. Seen a lot of accidents from the porch due to speed. I normaly only do 4 or 5 mph over the limit. But in Beaverton I do the limit nor to be on the safe side. Had to many tickets over the years and a few fender benders and it's not worth it to speed.

Other spot's I've seen the Vans is Western Ave between Hillsdale hwy and Allen and on Allen Blvd WB not to far from 217 in the church parking lot.

 

[The B]

the thing thats irritating about the van is that they snap at 11mph over- 95%+ of cops won't write till you get to 15+ over. so not only do you get a ticket when you otherwise wouldnt have, but you get them 5mph sooner.

 

[Benny503]

Back to the topic.... does any law against citizen video the police during encounter in Oregon? I am not going be bashing LE or anything like that I just want to clarify and learn more about oregon law that's all I have a 5th generation nano ipod with camera, mic and it have 16 hours recording time. I do have it in my pocket daily, I was going to use it whenever I see something happen out of ordinary, but not sure if the law on recording is so I am not using it in public at this moment.

 

[gunnails]

Back to the topic.... does any law against citizen video the police during encounter in Oregon? I am not going be bashing LE or anything like that I just want to clarify and learn more about oregon law that's all I have a 5th generation nano ipod with camera, mic and it have 16 hours recording time. I do have it in my pocket daily, I was going to use it whenever I see something happen out of ordinary, but not sure if the law on recording is so I am not using it in public at this moment.

======================================================

Let me put it this way.

If you are a KATU cameraman and you video the same thing the kid in the original post did(that got him arrested), there is no way the LEO's are going to arrest you and delete your video.

Bad sauce for the Beaverton police to do what they did (deleteing the video).

Making up the law as they go.

 

[Karma]

I don't know what kind of law would prohibit recording in public! I would say if there is any justice at all, which I am not sure that there is anymore, they will get abused in court.

 

[freak]

This is a law about recording conversations in OR. Not sure if it's just with LEO's or everyone.

Finding out the ORS code or whatever that applys.

I know of guys who OC that carry 2 devices so that if a LEO takes one, theres back up proving everything still, and that the LEO took the 1st device.

 

[biggie24420]

Well today I called Washington County Sheriff's office and some guy who I can only assume was a deputy started giving me a shpeal about how it isn't nice to record people. He said " if your wife was slapped, and the police were there.... would you like someone to record that?" ......."what if she knew who hit her but by you recording, she was scared and wouldn't talk to the officer and give him or her information". I can understand that and I have no intention to ever get that close to an on going investigation. I normally don't like it when i get pulled over and people just look like they never seen someone get pulled over, but at the same time if a cop was messing with me and getting rough with me, i would really love it if someone had it on tape so i could seek legal action. Anyways my conversation was pretty much useless with the individual at the county. I just wanted to know if there are any laws written about what you as a citizen can and can NOT do when it comes to video taping police in public without getting up close and butting in into their investigation. The guy had made some since and i did agree on some things with him but i still didn't get my questions answered hahahahahahahahahaha go figure ........... so i will try and contact OSP and see if they can answer my questions or guide me towards something. If any of you can post something where we all can have prof of what we can and can't do about recording cops that would be gr8...... thanks....... Also i ran into this video on youtube and the cop on the video sez........... " it is against the law to record him" hahahahaha

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OehCu_aTnmU

 

[Brandon44647]

I've seen the radar van on Western Ave. quite often, I work in the area. One thing that I wonder about it , can the officer sitting in the van read the sign that he's parked right next to ? The one that says NO PARKING !

 

[cameronhu]

Moderators: I would like to nominate this thread for the "most aggressive use of dancing, shooting and flag-planting smiley faces" Award.

 

[shibbershabber]

I have heard bad things about Beaverton police...

my own personal experiences were different though.

my first traffic stop after my CHL was by BPD. Even though I was obviously nervous, he handled the stop well and I felt good with the outcome.

a friend (has CHL) was heading into a gas station when he was seen transferring his pistol from the glove box & clipping the holster onto his belt... this wacko called the cops on him. BPD showed up like a flash with guns drawn. Once they realized what had happened, they went and told off that no good busy-body beeotch for wasting their time and potentially causing a dangerous situation. so good on them for that.

I generally am not a fan of the cops, and certainly not an apologist for them either. They're and unpredictable bunch, one minute they can treat you with dignity and have common sense... but that same officer my go JBT on someone without provocation.

Some battles you just cant win.

 

[freak]

Here it is for voice, unsure of video. You have to tell the LEO you are recording. They have no say in the matter! If they take your recording device, and you can prove it they are in trouble.

SECTION 1. ORS 165.540 is amended to read:
165.540. (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or
133.726 or subsections (2) to (7) of this section, a person may
not: (a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a
telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is
not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine
or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or
otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant.
(b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits,
lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication
or radio communication company over which messages are
transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of
a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is
not a participant.
(c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a
conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or
apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise,
if not all participants in the conversation are specifically
informed that their conversation is being obtained.

 

[eriknemily]

Here it is for voice, unsure of video. You have to tell the LEO you are recording. They have no say in the matter! If they take your recording device, and you can prove it they are in trouble.

SECTION 1. ORS 165.540 is amended to read:
165.540. (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or
133.726 or subsections (2) to (7) of this section, a person may
not: (a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a
telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is
not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine
or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or
otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant.
(b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits,
lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication
or radio communication company over which messages are
transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of
a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is
not a participant.
(c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a
conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or
apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise,
if not all participants in the conversation are specifically
informed that their conversation is being obtained.

Can this one participant who is giving consent also be the one who is recording the communication?

 

[The B]

Can this one participant who is giving consent also be the one who is recording the communication?

over telecommunications, but not in person.

 

[coloneltim]

(6) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(c) of this section do not apply to persons who intercept or attempt to intercept with an unconcealed recording device the oral communications that are part of any of the following proceedings:

(a) Public or semipublic meetings such as hearings before governmental or quasi-governmental bodies, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies and sporting or other events;


How about this?

Public servants doing their jobs seems to be fair game.

Also, if the statute quoted was the law, then someone would have been prosecuted by now. There has to be a reasonable expectation of privacy, as said before.

TS

 

[freak]

(6) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(c) of this section do not apply to persons who intercept or attempt to intercept with an unconcealed recording device the oral communications that are part of any of the following proceedings:

(a) Public or semipublic meetings such as hearings before governmental or quasi-governmental bodies, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies and sporting or other events;


How about this?

Public servants doing their jobs seems to be fair game.

Also, if the statute quoted was the law, then someone would have been prosecuted by now. There has to be a reasonable expectation of privacy, as said before.

TS

Might not be able to be arrested for it, but you most likely will not be able to use it when you get your day in court.