New Policy - Police in San Francisco confiscates DJ's laptops

[Guest]

Um, No.

In this article, the dj was cd-based, and only DUG OUT her laptop when asked if she had one...

so she volunteered to give it to the police? In other words, there was no search, which means the police acted within the complete legal confines of the Constitution.

Sorry, everything is totally and completely above board and those complaining are simply diverting from the fact that they are breaking the law by trespassing.

 

[Sounds To Go]

We arent there, so we dont know, because all we have to go on is this article - and if it played out that way, she did not volunteer the laptop for seizure or confiscation as if they had asked her nicely to confiscate it or explained that they had to, she simply got it out and showed it to them when asked if she had one, at which point it was "grabbed."

Sounds real voluntary to me!

 

[Guest]

We arent there, so we dont know, because all we have to go on is this article - and if it played out that way, she did not volunteer the laptop for seizure or confiscation as if they had asked her nicely to confiscate it or explained that they had to, she simply got it out and showed it to them when asked if she had one, at which point it was "grabbed."

Sounds real voluntary to me!

This is like saying "yeah I have a pound of crack, but I am not telling you this so you can seize it" to a cop.

If she did not want the laptop taken, she did not have to tell the cops about it at all, and then the police WOULD have had to get a warrant to take it because the plain view exception would not have been valid. But bu taking it out of the bag, no matter why she did, the police can lawfully invoke the in plain view exception and seize the property that is being used in the commission of a crime.

The plain and simple fact here is that if you do not want to have to worry about having your property seized by the police DON'T BE SOMEWHERE YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE! It is not that hard of a concept to grasp.

 

[jokerswild]

Um, no.

In this article, the dj was cd-based, and only DUG OUT her laptop when asked if she had one... It wasn't being used for anything at the time, let alone the commission of a crime.

While that's all true the laptop was on the scene of an illegal party and therefore subject to search and seizure irregardless of the state in which it was found or presented.... it's evidence by the very fact that it was on site.

 

[Sounds To Go]

Well we'll see which side our "Google-lawyering" puts us on as the case develops, but at least at a hearing in a SF Superior Court on Dec. 1, the laptops were given back, and the EFF intends to pursue their claim for the illegality of the seizures at a later date by a different judge.

And we're only assuming this case involved trespassing, which it may not have - the article doesn't say anything on that point. All that is mentioned, even in direct quotes of police officials themselves, is the violation of noise-ordinances that are not covered by the proper permits.