Woman says cop robbed her of her rights after taking phone
PORTLAND, Ore. – A police officer confiscated a woman's phone after she recorded them making an arrest in Southwest Portland.
Carrie Medina said she's recorded more than 10 arrests in the past to keep police accountable, including during Occupy Portland and anti-NATO protests in Chicago. But she's never experienced what happened Tuesday afternoon at Southwest 6th and Broadway.
Minutes after she began recording, a Gresham transit officer can be seen in the video walking over and demanding to see her phone so he can check for evidence.
On the video, Medina questions the officer's request, but he tells her he doesn't need a subpoena to search her phone for evidence of a crime.
"Ma'am, do you want to hand me the phone or would you like to show it to me?" the officer asks.
"I don't want to show you ...," Medina begins to respond. At that point the officer snatches the phone from her while it is still recording.
"I was not there to interfere, I was not there to intervene, I was not there to yell at them. I was just there to quietly watch," Medina said later during an interview. "He assaulted me. It was an illegal seizure of my property. It was a violation of my First Amendment right to be able to film. It was a violation of my Fourth Amendment right – the seizure and illegal search of my property."
Medina said off camera the officer grabbed and twisted her arm and threatened to arrest her if she didn't show him how to view her video.
She'd like an apology, but she said she really wants police to know the law.
A spokesperson for the Gresham Police Department told KATU News officers are not supposed to seize phones used on public property but declined further comment Wednesday night.
Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly referred to the woman who had her phone confiscated as Cassie Medina. Her name is Carrie Medina.
Make an IA complaint and sue them for deprivation of rights.
where is Christophe Dorner when you need him to teach these pigs a lesson, can someone from Anonymous post this cops home address online asap, so that some concerned citizen could drop his home address give him and his his kids some good advice asap!
Why do so many people hate their civil liberties, is it because they don't think people they disagree with should have them? We have them to prevent tyranny. Please wake up.
Carrie Medina has nothing else to do, this is what she does for living, she likes to sparks fire where there is none, and she lives a mess after her for somebody else to clean it. People like her likes to spark fires and put other people in danger, just to get fer 5 min of fame. Shame on her, she should start thinking of helping people not ruin them. If you were raised wright you know that you need to have respect for authority. We need to have integrity and we need to teach our children respect, they are what we teach them. We need to help each other more not to bully each other, we need to come together and stay united not to turn against each other. Peace
We live in a world where all the "Oz's" are being revealed for what they are. The military, the police, the priests, renderers of professional services...all the secrets are coming out. The special aren't so special any more!
This comment has been deleted
@joe couture You need to go to the circuit court in Hillsboro and request a restoration of property hearing before a judge.
@Scotty9Â @joe coutureÂ
It's called a "Motion for return or restoration of things seized." (ORS 133.633) You can get a lawyer to file it for you or you can wing it pro se. But they'll likely deny it without even a hearing--depending on the quality of your judges.
@CopWatcher @Scotty9 @joe couture Â
 They're getting better, but they, as well as the DA's office still need educating.
It appears as if this lady has nothing better to do. Perhaps if she gets a sign and a real camera. She sounds as if she is just looking for trouble.
She got her 15 minutes, now time to move one
The Revolution was about unchecked police powers. The Bill of Rights was written expressly to keep a check on police powers. It was opposed by Federalists who believed in unchecked governmental power. The last thing we should want is the police state into which we're quickly evolving. Â
My thanks and best wishes to her! I wish we had more gutsy people interested in holding police & other public officials to account.Â
Say someone you care about was attacked, robbed, or possibly beaten, and someone had filmed a video that might contain evidence of the event, wouldn't you want the authorities to have it, I know I would. This event could be thought of by some as tempting or baiting the officer to ask to see such evidence (doing their job), and I have to ask,  what does Ms. Medina have to hide by not cooperating with law enforcement?
It's like the guys that walked through the neighborhood with AR 15's strictly for the open carry law and to cause a problem in the neighborhood, some people are just confrontational and try to buck the system.
@Roy Johnson "Because cops are a part of the system, man," she slurred in a slow monotone voice, as she took another hit from the joint in her hand.
@Roy Johnson Â
 Indeed, if she actually filmed a criminal event then by all means the police have every right to have that evidence. Often times what happens is that police get caught saying something they shouldn't or using inappropriate force and they are afraid of getting burned.Â
Just cops trying to bully the public to stop them from video taping the police officer's wrong doing! The cop would have no reason to believe that a crime was recorded unless he committed the crime! Her rights were violated!
Bigfoot does not like being recorded either
"A spokesperson for the Gresham Police Department told KATU News officers are not supposed to seize phones used on public property", they have no right on "private property" either.
Excuse me, Gresham PD, even less literate.
Her rights were violated. Â Anyone has the right to record anything happening in public. Â Would the officer have done that if KATU was there filming, probably not. Â He probably felt he could bully her. Â Thats inline with the Portland PD's policy. Â Take advantage where you can.
Under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, police may engage in "reasonable" searches and seizures.
Note: In deciding whether there was a "legitimate expectation of privacy," a court will consider two things:
She could have emailed or text the video to him right then and their and still had her phone.
My phone has bank info on it so no way a cop will take my phone i will have my wife video them taking my phone by force then they will want her phone then her brother will video them trying to take it from her oh and ive got 2 friends in their car across the street they will not see and they will be recording them so i guess they lose!Â
She could have showed him, and if asked to take phone he should get a warrant. Or hay i will e-mail you the video.
I seems like the bootlickers, as well as Taylor Letsis' friends and family have come out in droves to support this power-tripping bully. Â I guess nobody cares about the law or constitutional rights until they have a guy like Letsis standing in front of them violating their rights.
What part of the following does the Letsis fan club not understand?
"A spokesperson for the Gresham Police Department told KATU News officers are not supposed to seize phones used on public property but declined further comment Wednesday night."
@Shane Vendrell Are you trying to disrespect the cops family and friends? She's probably unemployed and getting bootilicks from u
The whole sting of comments validates something I learned a long time ago - you can't argue with stupid so I am not even going to make an attempt.The mentality of some of the people writing anti-police comments just validates why the world is messed up. Here's a thought-instead of wasting your time filiming a cop doing his/her job-why don't you volunteer for a charity and actually do something worthwhile and constructive. Again-just sayin'
@Just sayin' I am a strong supporter of law-enforcement officers (in fact, I have had one in my family) but to blindly support law-enforcement no matter what they do is simply foolish and suggests a profound lack of understanding for this nation's cherished civil liberties tradition.
@Just sayin' @Just sayin'The reason is because too many cops aren't just doing their job. There are a minority that are power tripping criminals who think they are above the law, and can do whatever they want, including assault and theft, just because they have a badge. Do a Youtube search for Steve Darden of the Vallejo PD, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
@Just sayin'Â Volunteering for Cop Watch sounds like a great idea. Â Thanks for the tip.
@Shane Vendrell @Just sayin' people like you have gun and dont know how to use it, talk big but can't back it up. call u GEORGE ZIMMERMAN. u must've been bullied in school
@Just sayin'Or schedule a ride along with your local police department and see what they have to deal with all day long. 99%% of police officers are decent people and are unjustly lumped in with the bad ones by people generalizing the whole profession.
Back in 1996 there was a timber protest, in which citizens--not treehuggers--were being arrested on public, non-closed land for PHOTOGRAPHING the way the Forest Service handled people (including non-treehuggers) on the road.
A reporter from the Eugene newspaper was standing on non-closed land when she was arrested and her camera was taken. The arrest was thrown out, the charges against over 1000 people that summer were considered unconstitutional, and they gave her her camera back... ...but only after ripping it open and exposing the film, thus destroying any evidence she might have obtained as to their conduct.
That was pretty eye-opening. The court lit 'em up for it but of course with the kind of union protection the police have in Oregon, there's no way anything would ever come of it.
Carrie Medina is a menace. She was deliberate in attracting the officers attention and was confrontational with the officer. The officer gave her a direct order and she failed to comply. She broke the law.
@katufanman Why are you so stupid?
@katufanman
She has a privacy interest in her phone so if he did take the phone HE broke the law and if there was bank info he had  accessed with out a warrent he could face termination
@katufanmanÂ
1. What did she do that was deliberate in attracting the officers attention?
2. You do not have to follow an officers order if they are illegal....not sure if you knew that!
3. Her first and fourth amendment rights were violated, the officer broke the law not her!
@katufanman Thank you for your insight Deputy.
@katufanman Seriously? A direct order? There is no such thing. If a cop gave you a "direct order" to jump off of a bridge would you?
You sir, should do some legal research.
She violated State of Oregon ordinance 166.025. It's called disorderly conduct. Do a little research on your end before your blab off like that. Dude.
@ShallowEnder@katufanman I guess I need to break it down to more understandable terms... "intent annoyance"Â
Situation A... Officer: Give me the phone to see if there is any evidence on it.  Person: Yes sir here it is......Person is good to go.
Situation B...Officer: Give me the phone to see if there is any evidence on it.  Person: No....That is "intent and annoyance"
Does that help you under Oregon Statute any better? Â
@katufanman I'll explain how this works....
"with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm" must be followed by (a)-(g). "with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm" is not a violation in and of itself. It's a prerequisite to one of the following examples. So, for example, a person would violate ORS 166.025 if he/she (now read carefully) "Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof." Or another example would be, "Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof."
The other thing you should know about this statute is that it very specifically uses the word "Intent". A person only commits the crime if the act was made with intent.
So, she did not violate ORS 166.025 as you say because she did not commit any of the offenses listed in subsections (a) through (g). And even if she had, it would have to be proven that she did it with intent in order for her to be convicted of a crime.
Case closed.
P.S. This comment is in no way legal advise.
@katufanman and which of the required actions was she engaged in: a-g?Â
Since the answer is none, you have just proved she did not commit the crime.
"with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm" fits just nicely in my humble opinion.
@katufanman LOL. Blab off?
Per ORS 166.025 (which you clearly have not read), A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
      (a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior;
      (b) Makes unreasonable noise;
      (c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority;
      (d) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way;
      (e) Congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse;
      (f) Initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false, concerning an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or other emergency; or
      (g) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.
Hopefully this will assist you in your pursuit of the truth.
Thank you, sir. I am not ingorant of the law. She could have handed him the phone. I would. I side with the police in this matter. Trolling, hardly. Expressing my opinion....based on the facts I just seen.... she broke the law. She should had been arrested.
@katufanman
Itâs Your First Amendment Right to Record Cops [Supreme Court]
"http://www.webpronews.com/its-your-first-amendment-right-to-record-cops-supreme-court-2012-11"
@katufanman Not even close to disorderly conduct! If you really believe she broke the law and aren't just trolling, you are ignorant of the law.
@katufanman LOL
If the officer believed the video she was taking had evidence on it, he had every right to seize it for safe keeping to preserve that evidence. But he probably shouldn't look at it until he obtained a search warrant (since her obvious agenda was to be difficult), unless there was exigent circumstances. In that case if she refused she could be arrested for hindering an investigation and disobeying a lawful order. With that said, the officer could have probably been a little nicer about it, because we all know how sensitive Portlanders are about their feelings.
@Beergod False. A bystander who videotaped something is not required to give it up to law enforcement. He/she *as an bystander who isn't involved* could videotape a murder, and police would have no basis to seize their cameras. However, if a person used the camera during the commission of his/her own crime, then the officer may seize it as evidence.
@Broadway97209 @Beergod Sorry you're wrong. She involved herself by actively recording the event specifically, which makes the video evidence. it's not as if she was recording something else and mistakenly captured what was happening.
@B Smizzle @Beergod Read today's article. I told you I was right!Â
@B Smizzle @Beergod I'm not disputing the fact that people have the right to take video of an officer. I merely said if the officer reasonably believed the video contained evidence of a crime the officer has the right to seize. Besides how do you know she was standing way out of the way and not making a sound? Where you there? It would be wise to know both sides of the story before rushing to conclusions.
@Beergod She involved herself by standing way out of the way, not making a sound and just recording what happened?  When I get done laughing I will get back to you, in the meantime here is some educational material you MIGHT want to look at!
Itâs Your First Amendment Right to Record Cops [Supreme Court]
http://www.webpronews.com/its-your-first-amendment-right-to-record-cops-supreme-court-2012-11
@Beergod @Broadway97209 Site your source, please.