Boston.com’s On Liberty blog reports that the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of citizens to video police officers, ruling in part that
changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.
So great was this victory for First Amendment rights and the New Media, that an Albuquerque police officer celebrated by getting caught in flagrante delicto while in uniform. You know, in case there was any question as to why the courts really ruled this way. And if this whole story smacks of Jalopnik-style only-barely-related-to-cars desperation, we’ve got a “Stump the Best And Brightest” challenge to keep things car-centric: what model of vehicle is the officer “laying down the law” on?
41 Comments on “Courts Uphold Right To Video Police, New Mexico Officer Makes Us Wonder If We Should...”
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- DenverMike: In unrelated news, GM is busy denying warranty claims on 8-speed transmissions, common to millions of...
- DenverMike: What else don’t they like? Older buyers are just so used to the [email protected] [email protected], they don’t see it for what it...
- bullnuke: As you have gone off topic, would a massacre with a machete have been preferable? No silly 2nd Amendment to...
- ToolGuy: “What more could I have asked for?” I once had a new vehicle delivered to me at my office and we...
- ttacgreg: Just personal experience here. Last year I had the good fortune of buying two new cars. In both cases I...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
Pre-beak Acura TL (or possibly TSX), I think.
Definitely has the look of some sort of Honda. I’ll second the TSX nomination.
I’m pretty sure those are OEM Honda/Acura rims and that hood and signal light look more TSX than Accord.
I hope that car was running and had bad motor mounts for her pleasure.
Pontiac G6
Obviously, it’s a Penetration.
can’t figure out if that rim is original or aftermarket and just there to throw me. (not throwing them, ba dump bump)
If it were just the right odd angle, maybe even a Pontiac G6? Maybe?
2004 Honda Accord EX Coupe
http://media.motortopia.com/files/14849/vehicle/48cd9f7f462e8/honda_0011.jpg
The 7 spoke wheel was definitely OEM for the 2004 Honda Accord, but not sure it was only used on the coupe or what trim level. Thought that the EX got 5 spoke machined wheels and the LX got 7 spoke silver painted cast aluminum. My guess is 2004 Honda Accord LX Coupe 4 cylinder automatic transmission.
Wonder how the bulging pedestrian impact friendly hoods compare to low wedge hoods for this car related recreational activity.
The Accord Coupe of that generation won “Most Washable”. Make of that what you will.
The place where I found the photo had it labeled as an EX V6, which it certainly is not. I don’t know if it is an EX 4 cylinder or an LX though.
Turns out it was a 2004 Accord EX sedan.
Definitely, was going to post that. That falbulous bodyshape is unmistakeable.
From the news story:
“I expect them to be the mark. State Police should be the standard to which other police departments hold themselves to,” said a man identifying himself as Jeremy.
No, not “mark”, “john”.
This should eliminate any questions as to the actual vehicle in question:
http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/images/12/2011/08/cop_trooper_sex_boob.jpg
Some people will do almost anything to get out of a speeding ticket!
Looks like she is enjoying it…so is the furry little critter on the ground.
She’s just as guilty so why protect her identity? Do women want equality or not?
There could be a rather heavy abuse-of-power issue here. If the dynamic is not immediately obvious to you, ask a female friend to explain.
Thank you. Women ‘abuse’ their ‘power’ all the time. This is not the 1st man to throw it all away because of it. She should pay a bigger fine as this will cost him his career. I’m not defending his actions although she needs to be brought to justice just as fast. This is what women fought for… Let’s not push the ‘movement’ backwards!
she needs to be brought to justice just as fast.
Funny, I hadn’t realized that having sex with a cop was now illegal.
Except for some sort of minor public indecency charge, exactly what charges would you bring against her? (Hint: I’m pretty sure that being female is not considered to be a felony under New Mexico state law.)
@Pch101
When did anyone say anything about a felony? No, you’re confusing something as minor as public nudity with performing lude acts as natural as they may be behind closed doors. I still think what they did was relatively benign but both should be held just as accountable whether it means a fine, community service or both. Of course one of them should definitely lose his or her job. Other than that, it’s just a couple coupling in public.
I still think what they did was relatively benign but both should be held just as accountable
Again, accountable for what exactly?
Previously, you made the claim that “She should pay a bigger fine as this will cost him his career.” Not the same, but more. So just a few minutes ago, you didn’t want them to be held equally accountable; you wanted her to be held more accountable, as if she was some sort of evil siren trying to dash him against the rocks.
In any case, you don’t really have the facts of the story. Whether or not it was consensual for her is not clear. If you are that interested in justice, then I’d think that you want to know about that prior to casting judgment.
@Pch101
Accountable for her actions, that’s what! Unless I’m mistaken, she seemed like a willing participant… Are you saying she didn’t play a big roll in this? No roll at all? As if she had no control or way of controlling herself? You’re really setting the ‘movement’ back now! Yes they should have both controlled themselves and yeah I’m saying she had a bigger roll by not simply saying ‘no’. Guys will be guys, uniform or not. OK, women have the right to be just as bold/assertive/aggressive and are also equal under the law… as they should be. You can’t have it both ways. Should women be protected from themselves? Viewed differently under the law? Which is it?
Accountable for her actions, that’s what!
That response means nothing, frankly.
You want to punish her, I get it. But for what?
Are you saying she didn’t play a big roll in this?
A role (not "roll") in what?
Rather than go round and round with this, let's suffice it to say that it sounds as if you are lugging around some serious baggage about women, and that you've decided to leap to conclusions about something about which you know very little.
The fact is that those of us reading this don't really know what happened here. We have this fantastic thing called a "court system" that relies upon juries and evidence that is supposed to determine such things, and it is my preference to let them do their work, instead of conducting trials by media.
You're ready to burn the witch, but you can't even articulate why or what she did. For all we know, the whole thing was staged, the guy wasn't even a cop, and there may have not even been a sexual act. But regardless of what happened, the shot of the small animal acting as observer was a nice touch.
@Pch101
Not roll? OK, what ‘role’ would you say she played in this act? None? Innocent bystander? Coach? Backstop? Catcher?
“The fact is those of us reading this don’t really know what happped here”
I don’t know what pictures you saw but the ones I saw left little doubt. Look at them again and concentrate… Call it what you want but if he’s guilty of a lude act, she guilty of the same. It takes two. If she’s innocent, so is he. You can’t separate the genders and hold one to a lesser standard under the law. That would be illegal. The uniform/job thing is a separate issue. I don’t know why you’d say I’m “lugging around some serious baggage about women”… Are you lugging around some serious baggage about men? I’m actually a feminist… Equal rights all the way Baby!!!
I don’t know what pictures you saw but the ones I saw left little doubt.
Yes, let’s prosecute Sylvester Stallone for murder. After, all I’ve seen him kill people, on video, with my very own eyes!! And you probably have, too!!! Like, ohmigawd!!!
OK, what ‘role’ would you say she played in this act?
What “act”?
The courts don’t hand out jail sentences for acting (although, God knows, they probably should have if it would stopped Stallone from committing his crimes against artistic humanity.)
Again, what is it that you want to prosecute? And if there is a prosecution, what makes you think that anyone plans on excluding her if she did whatever it is that is supposedly worthy of prosecution?
@Pch101
Alright, we don’t know what really happened. They could have been acting out the favorite scene. Why then is this cop under any kind of scrutiny? We should leave him alone I guess. I’d actually be OK with that. Everybody leans against Hondas & women’s crotches differently when they’re laying back on the hood topless and their pants laying in the dirt. Wait, she’s definitely naked while he’s completely clothed. Thing is you don’t want him to be left alone, do you??? But then you still want to remove her from the equation. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Now I know you hate men!
Why then is this cop under any kind of scrutiny?
Because the television station is scrutinizing him. Presumably, they are doing so because (a) the story has a sex angle to it, (b) it has a public-official-caught-in-bad-act angle to it, and (c) the station thinks that it will get or keep viewers if it pursues such a story.
But then you still want to remove her from the equation.
You have a bad habit of reading what you want to read, instead of reading what was actually written.
Again, I keep asking you — what crime did you believe that she committed? Name the statute that you think that was violated.
I don’t know if she’s guilty of anything. If you weren’t so busy misreading what others write, you might be honest and admit the same.
Among other things, it may be consensual sex, it may be a viral video stunt, or for all you know, you’re witnessing a sexual assault on video. But you’re too busy complaining about evil women who “abuse their power” to even consider the possibilities.
@Pch101
Read the comments again. John R. said it was an “abuse of power” and all I did was agree. I’m just trying to bring balance to the thread. Something that you’re lacking. What you do to one side you do to the other because it takes two last I heard. Solo is a different crime. Calling it a possible assault/rape is really reaching. Now who’s over analyzing? I guess he could have been raped after all.
“What charge would you bring against her? (Hint: I’m pretty sure being female is not considered a felony…)”
That’s not ‘trying to remove her from the equation’? Are you saying females can’t be held responsible for their own actions? At least the “public indencency” you’ve mentioned or possibly a lude act. Yes, I don’t know the exact statute, do you? Ad Hominem much?
John R. said it was an “abuse of power” and all I did was agree.
To quote you verbatim, “Women ‘abuse’ their ‘power’ all the time.” My comment (“But you’re too busy complaining about evil women who ‘abuse their power’ to even consider the possibilities.”) quoted you accurately and placed your words into an appropriate context.
“What charge would you bring against her? (Hint: I’m pretty sure being female is not considered a felony…)”…That’s not ‘trying to remove her from the equation’?
This has nothing to do with her, and everything to do with you and your ability to analyze a news story.
I get it — you want to bust her. You’ve got a chip on your shoulder about women and you looking for this as an opportunity to advance that.
The point that you’re missing is that the controversy here, to the extent that there is one, centers around the allegation that this involved a public servant who was acting inappropriately, and in uniform.
The woman isn’t being given the same scrutiny presumably because she isn’t a uniformed cop. Until you showed up, the focus of the story wasn’t on gender, but on who was getting his paycheck from the taxpayer (and being that this is TTAC, the type of car that was serving as a mattress.)
@Pch101
I realize he’s in a uniform and on the clock but there wouldn’t even be a story if it wasn’t for the sex in public. I mean a crime involving two, make that TWO potential co-defendants. I didn’t make it a gender issue, the people that chose to protect the female’s identity did. You can argue that the story is all about and only about the uniformed/on duty officer doing the opposite of his job and not about his partner in crime but without her involvement, he’s can only be a solo artist… but a crime’s still a crime. Like why even post the face of a bank robber if you obscure the face of the getaway driver? Yes the news is only there to tell a story and gain viewers and not necessarily solve crimes but find and arrest her and you find the cop. I mean isn’t that the point of all this? I guess not.
Geez! Please don’t ever let LaHood lecture us that sexting while driving is bad.
For reasons that I can’t quite put my finger on, something seems wrong about this story. Looking at the larger version of the image in the link provided by 1000songs above, the whole thing seems somehow staged or set up, altho I can’t figure out by who and for what purpose. Maybe it’s the way that the woman is laying back on the hood, or the officer’s stance, or the camera angle, or the small dog looking on, or even the car door left open, but something is twitching in my brain that says this image is not all that it seems. Who wears ballet slippers with faded, torn jeans?
Who wears ballet slippers with faded, torn jeans?
Ballet slippers, or at least shoes that resemble them, are quite popular amongst the youngsters. So are denim cut-offs.
Looks like a Probe to me.
It might be his wife, or girlfriend. Eventually.
I’m surprised that the “crime” wasn’t witnessed by half the kids in the neighborhood – attracted by all that jingling and jangling, expecting to see Santa and his sleigh.
I’m sure he didn’t last all that long for the kids to hear the jingling. Probably just the sound of zipping up and lack of fulfillment on her part.
Police officers have been known to solicit sexual favors in exchange for not writing a ticket. I’m curious about the back story.
Imagine you are out, it is late, no one is around and you are in an industrial area …and you really really have to urinate. You look around, find a bush off the street next a building. You say “ahhh..”, finish, zip up and an police officer is standing behind you. “What do you think you are doing?” ” uh, I had to pee.” Result: you get arrested – charge: exposing yourself in public – a sex crime if I understand that charge. (Even if you are blocking any possible view with your CAR door – ha! I fit it in the topic!)
Query: What are the chances that the officer will be so charged?
Answer: Damn near zero.
We can go through the ticket books of all the cops out there – and nearly ever one will have tickets that were written on the discretion of the cop – so why should this idiot get ONLY fired? The financial benefit of not being subjected to the law like we civilians should be factored into the pensions offered the police. *(Result- a downgrade in their direct financial compensation).