Officers arrest men for videotaping them
ALBUQUERQUE — Undercover officers with the New Mexico Department of Public Safety that were out Saturday night trying to bust drunks leaving bars arrested three men for videotaping them.
The three men showed up in court Sunday morning with an attorney to fight the felony charges they are facing. Jacob Traub owns the Downtown Distillery, David Garcia and Lance Gomez both work for him.
One criminal complaint says an officer asked one of the men to stop videotaping for security reasons since he was working undercover. The complaint also says the man told the officer they were harassing the customers in the bar.
The men’s attorney Paul Kennedy told KRQE News 13 that they were videotaping on a public street and there is nothing illegal with what they did.
“Every citizen has a first amendment right to videotape public officers in the performance of their duties on public property and that’s all that was going on here,” said Kennedy.
Deputy Director of the Special Investigation Division Jim Plagens spoke with KRQE News 13 regarding the arrest.
“These three individuals were arrested for obstruction of the administration of the liquor control act. To comment any farther at this point, I think would be inappropriate,” said Plagens
Kennedy plans on filing an injunction in state court and a civil rights lawsuit.
All the men are charged with obstruction of the administration of the liquor control act. They are out on bond and allowed to go back to work.
I’ll be posting an update of the Michael Gannon case today.
Too bad so many cops have forgotten that they are public servants, not occupying forces.
Cops just trying to do their jobs. The agenda of the men videotapping was clear.
No sympathy for the cops here. This is why they need to be kept on a short leash in the first place.
Cops just trying to do their jobs. The agenda of the men videotapping was clear.
What was their agenda? I missed that part, I guess.
I also missed the announcement that having an agenda was illegal.
You can get arrested video-taping and photographing lots of stuff since 9-11.
However, I can understand undercover police officers not wanting to be exposed on video tape. Unfortunately, there isn’t a law against it like there is for CIA agents.
As much as the police are public servents, I think that it’s the public’s responsibilty to support the police as long as they don’t act abusively. It is irresponsible to record the actions of undercover police unless you have witnessed such abuse. Irresponsiblity isn’t a crimimal offense though.
Yes, heaven forbid that public servants on public property are videotaped. Agenda or not, doesn’t matter. Public property, public servants on the tax payers dime. They could have done their job AND not have been a bunch of thugs in the process. What if a photojournalist was there videotaping or photographing everything…would they also have arrested him? How do you tell the photojournalists apart from just someone with a camera? Speaking AS a PJ, you don’t always have a press-pass when you’re freelance…but that doesn’t mean anything as we have this thing called the first amendment with it’s “freedom of speech, or of the press” in there. Damn that piece of paper!
Again, something tells me that the charges will be dropped or thrown out of court.
As I said before, the person that videotaped Rodney King getting the snot beat out of him would probably be arrested today.
And I have nothing against cops. They are here to protect and to serve, but they should hold themselves up to MUCH higher standards than just normal civilians. They should hold themselves up to be role models….instead of just street-thugs who think they’re above the law, which is what many departments around the country are turning into.
It doesn’t do much good for the cops to be “undercover” and proclaim, “Don’t videotape us, we’re undercover.”
I think once a cop asks you to stop recording, then you should honor that request. Sure it might be legal, but you don’t know what implications that recording getting out into the public might have for the undercover officer. Remember these guys put their lives on the line every day to protect YOU.
If the officers were “undercover,” how did the men doing the video-taping know they were police officers until the one officer identified himself? Are the police officers so inept in Albequerque that they blow their cover so easily and there was an expectation that the three individuals should have known?
To commit a crime, don’t you need to have intent, either by malice aforethought or depraved indifference? Neither applies here until after the one officer identified himself. That the video-taping continued may have a sticking point, but there already was a precedent set with the video-taping that was done previous to the identification. Besides, the attorney may be correct in that there exists a right to record the actions of police officers in a public venue.
These three individuals should get an apology and the officers involved should go back to the academy for more training on how not to look like a police officer. And Plagens needs to be reassigned and a better PR “spinner” hired. His “interview” statement obviously means they know they’re going to lose this one and they are in a scramble.
Isn’t this the same police department that once landed a heliocoptor outside a Krispy Kreme on a doughnut run?
This is not new it happend in Mass. before.
Why do they need to be undercover to bust drunks?
#10. This is not new it happend in Mass. before.
Comment by Michael P. O\\\’Connor — 7/11/2006 @ 5:09 am
It doesn’t matter, something like this should be reported everywhere and everytime….
It seems to me that you have a property owner that supplies alcohol in some manner, and then a police force alledgedly harassing people who consumed alcohol.
If this is the context you have a citizen suffering potential harassment and action that can cause harm to his business, attempting to document this action and being silenced. I agree with the person above, police need to be reminded they arent an occuping force here to rule over poor dumb children.
Again, it’s back to the public service concept.
Were the police there to help the community, or to harrass the occupants of the bar?
For example, if the cops sat in front of the bar in their car with a sign saying “free breathalyzer test”, not only would they be watching for drunk drivers (the idea should be deterrence, not capture, anyway), they would also be providing a valuable service to the patrons of the bar (and any neighboring establishments), which may even increase their opinion of the local police.
“Were the police there to help the community, or to harrass the occupants of the bar?”
Both, drunk drivers kill hundreds. Locking a few of them up seems like a plus to the community to me. You must be the type then when stopped for a traffic violation, tells the cop that he should be out catching criminals instead of writting tickets.
Lets keep in mind a few things. Not all cops think the way these do. The cops here are forgetting who they work for and what their job truly is.
also if it was a true undercover operation then why would they admit it? I know some cops that work undercover dont want to be spotted or videotaped but i also know they dont go around telling people ether.
I think the cops here were to happy to bust on drunks.
I wonder what the DWI rate there is?
You must be the type then when stopped for a traffic violation, tells the cop that he should be out catching criminals instead of writting tickets.
That is insulting, not to mention stupid. I wrote exactly what I’d rather see done. Instead of addressing that, you create a bullshit scenario and put me in it. Too bad, I won’t play that game.
You are so typical of those who can’t intelligently argue the position, so you insult the person. Jerk.
These cops aren’t out here putting “their lives on the line” to protect ME (or YOU or anyone else). Most of them are there because they are bullies and they like the power trip that they get with their badge and their gun. If not for the career of law enforcement, most of them would probably be thugs and criminals themselves.
A long time ago just about all police forces forgot who they work for and who pays their salaries.
Stand by and let them do their jobs? Nonsense — get them on film all the time and let the world see what they really are.
I have no sympathy when a cop get shot in the line of duty — most of the time, it’s probably self defense on the part of the alleged crook.
Mike T
Undercover cops who arrest people can be considered to have already blown their own cover in the process. Videotaping them, especially at night, seems to present little further risk to the secrecy of their undercover operation.
By far the biggest risk would seem to be catching an instance of abusive treatment on the record. The camera records not only what was done by the police, but it can also record the fact that a victim offered no resistance, and this can be critical. Any time a defendant makes claims that contradict the officer, the officer is always believed unless there is extremely credible evidence to the contrary.
Were it not for the video, Rodney King would have been automatically deemed by most people to have deserved the beating he received.
These officers were out of line. Sometimes they have to wave thier clubs around I guess. I’ve found that there are professions in this world that are way too idolized, idealized and over-romanticized by the general public.
Mike T is right on. There are two kinds of cops: those who were bullies as kids, and those who were bullied and subconciously feel the need for revenge. The people that became cops to help people quit a long time ago when they saw how corrupt their departments were and that they had no power to change things.
Under cover cops???
Waiting for drunks??
I DONT think so.
Chris — the DWI rate out here is top of the charts. As is the number of judges who participate in what we call the DWI catch-and-release program.
“I have no sympathy when a cop get shot in the line of duty — most of the time, it’s probably self defense on the part of the alleged crook.”
Mike T lost all credibility with this statement. You are just showing that you hate law enforcement in all forms. Probably you had some run ins yourself for whatever reason. Maybe someday you will need them and they won’t be there and I won’t have any sympathy for you either…
>drunk drivers kill hundreds.
So arrest drunk drivers then. I’ve never seen anyone drive into or out of a bar. Plus they should actually observe drunk driving before stopping someone. Having a checkpoint and arresting based on blood alcohol level is ridiculous.
“Having a checkpoint and arresting based on blood alcohol level is ridiculous.”
Why is this so? If your blood alcohol is .08% or greater, then you are drunk, I don’t care how good a driver you are. Check points are also good PR to educate the public on drunk driving.
#24 – I have never had a run in with a cop in my life — never needed to call one, either. I have had zero contact with any law enforcement. However, I do watch the news, I do read the paper, I do keep up with current events. Never see them in a positive light — just negative.. Yeah Yeah .. I’m sure it’s the liberal media, right?
Mike T
“I do watch the news, I do read the paper, I do keep up with current events. Never see them in a positive light — just negative..”
When does the media ever show anything positive? Negative sells, people want to hear about bad cops. A story about a cop doing something positive, which is about 99%, would be boring. If your entire view of law enforcement is based on what you see on the news, then you really are an idiot. Then you have the balls to say its good when cops get killed by criminals, you are truly a piece of shit.
I see a lot of comments about these cops being abusive, but I don’t read that in the article. I’m not referring to asking the guys to stop taping.
Most cities have Public Intoxication laws, and all states require bartenders to NOT serve anyone who appears to be intoxicated. A lot of bars ignore that law and people are served as long as they can reach the bar with the cash to pay. In many states you can be charged with Drunk driving if you are about to get behind the wheel and you are intoxicated. In fact, in many states you can be pulled over off the road and if a cop stops and talks to you and your drunk, you can be arrested for drunk driving then as well. Though most cops will thank you for getting off the road and move on.
So, until I see the *abusive* behavior of these officers, I think I’ll just withhold my opinion of right or wrong. If there was something in the link provided I couldn’t get it to work.
So, until I see the *abusive* behavior of these officers, I think I’ll just withhold my opinion of right or wrong.
How about violating someone’s first amendment rights. In public, no one has a right to expect privacy. That applies to the Police as well as any citizen. The Police have taken that issue to the Supreme Court to prove the point so they can’t now decide it doesn’t work that way.
If the Police were working undercover, then they should have worn disguises if they didn’t want to be identified. There isn’t any report that any of the men told anyone else that the Police were cops or drew unnecessary attention to them (which might be considered obstruction).
Now, the City will be forced to pay damages with money better spent on other things, including DUI stops.
EDITOR, the link didn’t work.