Police taking photos of "future suspects"

[jellybean40]

http://www.nbc10.com/news/1632427/detail.html

Any other departments you know of trying this? What do you think of it?

I have been watching the reports on the news, different stations, for a couple days. Seems like most Wilmington citizens agree with it...the ones who dont are the ones hanging out on the corners that are known to be crime areas (the areas that are targeted with the photo-taking).. and their laywer...of course.

(He has filed 100 law suits on their behalf.)

[ 08-26-2002, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: jellybean40 ]

[shorty]

I think it is a good idea. If my department started this, I would drive down there now and let them take my picture (although they already have it for my ID), my point is...I have nothing to hide so why do I care if my picture is on file. The people that are filing these lawsuits are the ones that should be watched the closest because they are obviously worried that they might be ID'ed by someone.

[Branden Whitney]

I agree with Shorty. If it is that big of a deal to someone, than they must have one of two problems : A, They are wanted in connection to another crime, B, They intend to pursue a life a crime.

[Watchman]

I have a MAJOR problem with this.

Wilmington police are taking pictures of people who have not been arrested for any crimes, raising questions among attorneys and civil liberty groups.

Pictures of a growing number of people, along with their names and addresses, will compose a database to help police investigate potential suspects for future crimes, said Police Chief Michael Szczerba.

Potential suspects ? Thse people are guilt of something they MIGHT do ?

Whats next? Are we gonna start building internment camps for "potential suspects ?" One day we 'll wake up and these potential suspects will be arrested for some bullshi* crime that some crooked politician got passed.

Mayor James Baker said the practice was perfectly legal and criticism was "asinine and intellectually bankrupt."

"I don't care what anyone but a court of law thinks," he said. "Until a court says otherwise, if I say it's constitutional, it's constitutional."

These kind of idiots are the kind that get good people killed for stupid reasons and waste lots of public money defending their assinine ideas.

Shorty...you remind me somewhat of the good soldiers in the stalags that were told to execute civilans. Right before they were hung they said they were just doing their "jobs".

Branden Whitney..you assume way too much.
What if you happen to be walking in front of a group that is "loitering" and the cops pull up. How would you feel about being branded a "potential suspect " and getting your picture took?

You people need to read up on your history books.

Its the little things like this that otherwise good people lets slide in the name of "saftey" that starts us all on the slipper road to tryanny.

The people that are filing these lawsuits are the ones that should be watched the closest because they are obviously worried that they might be ID'ed by someone.

More BS. What about the people that are simply concerned for their privacy? Are they all guilty of being "potential suspects" ? According to your logic they are.

I'm worried about you people.You need to think about the potential abuses of situations like this before you declare your unanimous support.

But hey...I too must be a "potential suspect". You'd better spend all your time and resources "watching" me. I could be dangerous...I might even own guns or something...

[ 08-26-2002, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

[retired]

Watchman,

I agree with you, I have a major problem with it! If someone hasn't done anything wrong they don't need to be photographed by the local cops.

Sounds like another big brother act to me.

retired

[ferret]

haveing just been a victim(thats probly a but to strong of a word) of profileing last night(story after my opinoin) some times people can go too far, you can assume becuase of the way someone looks, acts, who they hang around with, should determine the likelyness of them commiting crimes. yes i know that people who fit "profiles" are statistically more likely to commit crimes but statisics have to be wrong sometimes.
i would also think that a database of this kind would tend to lead investigators to take the easy road and find someone who looks like they could fit the profile of the suspect for the crime and may accuse the wrong person. i would assume that most investagations are very difficult to run and complete (i only have in class expirence for investigations) and that any thing that would make thier job easier would be a welcome site, but i just think something like this is a little to far to go.

i was jogging last night, i was wearing dark grey clothes, it was about 1130 pm, i was in a decent part of town, at least i live there and its not bad at all, i was jogging along and a city officer stoped his car a little in front of me, i stoped and looked him, gave him a can i help you type look. after about ten seconds of stareing, i started to move agian(i should have asked him but i had no idea if why he would want to stop me) he asked me to come over to his car, he asked me what i was doing running this late at night, i didn't know if he realizes it was 115 in the sun a about 2 pm, i told him jogging, and he gave me the funnist look, he then took my name, punched a couple buttons on his in cab PC, and told me "ok, just don't do anything wrong." i replied "ok, have a nice night sir" and he drove off, i am trying to figure out why he stoped me, people jog all the time at nighter in my nighborhood. oh well gave me a little rest, i was getting tired. finshed my job with no other problems, never saw him drive by agian, but i am 95% sure he never called in my name, being as my brother hounds his scanner when he is home and would have heard my name. oh well didn't bother me all to much, as long it doesn't start happening everytime i go out.

[Jim Burnes]

No. There is a right of people to assemble, the city wants to be pro-active and that's good, but this measure is violating basic rights.

Jim Burnes

[Frank Booth]

People don't have an expectation of privacy with regard to their physical features while they're out in public. As long as they're not detained illegally, the government can take as many pictures as they want. The constitutional question has to do with the stop, not the picture.

[ 08-26-2002, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Frank Booth ]

[Mike Tx]

This makes me feel better about the new hats I had made today.

They are black ball caps with white capital letters that say:

"POLICE"
"STATE"

I wear it most everywhere I go. It's my opinion on the state of the union.

[danceswithfools]

While complaints of invasion of privacy may seem reasonable on the surface, there is nothing that I am aware of that puts an umbrella of privacy from someone looking at you or taking a snapshot of you while your standing on a street corner or anywhere else in public. If you're that concerned, perhaps you could wear a black hood.

This is a tool we use and with great effectiveness, not as a data base builder, but as an identification tool. We more than once have found some other cities problem had moved to our neck of the woods and were able to id them from a polaroid shot. Just had a guy screaming at one of the Officers about one week ago after taking his picture. Care to guess who had an outstanding warrant?

Your mug out in public is no more protected than your license plate. Should I infer from the protest posts that routine vehicle registration checks should also be eliminated as an invasion of privacy?

[Mike Tx]

quote:

---

While complaints of invasion of privacy may seem reasonable on the surface, there is nothing that I am aware of that puts an umbrella of privacy from someone looking at you or taking a snapshot of you while your standing on a street corner or anywhere else in public.

---

That's right, but the question is, what's next, and what do they do with it.

quote:

---

If you're that concerned, perhaps you could wear a black hood

---

No thanks, that's what the government does when it goes after a 200 dollar tax dispute. I'll reserve that for later.

[jellybean40]

I was thinking back to the thread about people taking pictures of women going into abortion/women's health clinics, and posting them on-line on an anti-abortion website. everyone agreed that that was legal.

The police arent posting the pictures anywhere, they're making a database for themselves. They know where the "drug corners" are. if you're hanging out there and not buying or using drugs, and they take your picture, you dont have to worry, you wont be arrested if you dont break the law. they dont make an arrest just from a picture.

It was also stated on the news that all areas that are being photographed are areas where the neighbors have made complaints about drug activity. they're not picking places at random.

[Mike Tx]

quote:

---

you dont have to worry

---

you're right. Governments never abuse the citizens do they? Those 6 million Jews WANTED to be bar b que.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

[Watchman]

Look at the words here people...read the article...

Potential Suspects

Now somebody tell me... who AINT a "potential suspect"?

I have no problem with taking a snapshot of an OFFENDER. But doing it for what people might to is pushing it to the limit. If you cant see that, then maybe we are farther gone than I originally thought.

It makes one wonder how we even fought crime or did anything right without a camera. Expectation of privacy wasnt dead until a few years ago. What I wanna know is when people woke up and started accepting this BS as the norm rather than the exception.

If this aint the frog sitting in the pot I dont know what is...

[Niteshift]

Argue about semantics all you want (potential suspects, whatever). Bottom line is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy protecting your appearence when you are standing on a public street corner. Get over it.

"but the question is, what's next, and what do they do with it."

Now who is trying to predict the future? It's ok for you to do, but not the government?

"Governments never abuse the citizens do they? Those 6 million Jews WANTED to be bar b que.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

I hope you didn't pull a muscle or strain anything when you made that HUGE leap in reasoning.

That remark was beneath you Mike.

"If someone hasn't done anything wrong they don't need to be photographed by the local cops."

Again, not illegal.