does video count as "committed in presense" of police/citizen?

[Big Chudungus]

I'm first thinking it must but no video is gonna be perfect and lots perps will look amazing similar with same clothes etc.

How does it work and anything else able to count as "in presence of" besides actual IRL presense?

Time limits on video for making an arrest?

Any "specs" a video must meet to make an arrest based on video? Clear face pic?

Is it 98% showing the perp the video and getting him to confess?

[SB1942]

Ask your security buddies, Brett..

[canman]

Generally, as long as the person watching the video is on the same premises as where the video camera is located (for the video being watched) and watching contemporaneously to the event it would count as in their presence.

If watching a video camera live from some other location, or on location but watching video well after the incident occurred, would not be in their presence.

And in their/your presence is just a CA thing. 4th Amendment makes no mention of level of crime (infraction, misdemeanor, etc), or within presence or not. SO, an arrest based on probable cause, but not in one's presence, would not be unconstitutional.

I'm not a lawyer, but I read about this one time.......

As far as time limits, face ID, specifics needed, etc. What you need is probable cause to make an arrest, no exceptions, based on the totality of the evidence.

[GizmoSD]

[SVT-40]

No. Being present and actually seeing the crime is required.

Many people say they have "seen" things when in actuality all they did was watch an event on video or film.

Watching an event on a movie screen, TV, phone or other device doesn't mean you saw the event or were present when it happened.

You could be in a house, when something happens outside. You were "present" at the location, but since you didn't actually see the incident in-person you couldn't claim to be "in the presence of the incident".

[canman]

No. Being present and actually seeing the crime is required.

Many people say they have "seen" things when in actuality all they did was watch an event on video or film.

Watching an event on a movie screen, TV, phone or other device does mean you saw the event or were present when it happened.

You could be in a house, when something happens outside. You were "present" at the location, but since you didn't actually see the incident in-person you couldn't claim to be "in the presence of the incident".

As always....I'm not a lawyer so any advice is purely my opinion based on my experiences.

[SVT-40]

As always....I'm not a lawyer so any advice is purely my opinion based on my experiences.

You were also not a LEO who deals with just these type of situations.

In the example you mentioned the LEO was present and saw the suspect while in the commission of the crime.

End of story.

Your opinion based on zero training, education or experience is worthless.

[RickD427]

Generally, as long as the person watching the video is on the same premises as where the video camera is located (for the video being watched) and watching contemporaneously to the event it would count as in their presence.

Citation to statute, or published case law please...........

[canman]

You were also not a LEO who deals with just these type of situations.

In the example you mentioned the LEO was present and saw the suspect while in the commission of the crime.

End of story.

Your opinion based on zero training, education or experience is worthless.

Hmmmmmmm.......you think you know me......

[canman]

Citation to statute, or published case law please...........

You were also not a LEO who deals with just these type of situations.

In the example you mentioned the LEO was present and saw the suspect while in the commission of the crime.

End of story.

Your opinion based on zero training, education or experience is worthless.

Sooo, you NEED proof that you’re wrong? An easy internet search would have shown you are misinformed, or lazy, in addition to being rude, small-minded and thin-skinned.
1. Let’s start with the BIG picture here. For it to be Constitutionally valid arrest, it really doesn’t matter if the offense is committed in your presence or not. It really doesn’t matter if the arrest is for an infraction, misdemeanor or felony. The 4th Amendment, the standard for ALL seizures (which includes an arrest) is probable cause, or a warrant based on…..probable cause.
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) / Virginia v. Moore (2008) / People v. Macabeo (2016) / and more…

https://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/W2017_Macabeo.pdf

2. Does an officer have to physically SEE an offense occur for it to be in his/her presence? No. Can the officer, or a person making a private party arrest, use a device to aid him/her with seeing the offense and still count as being in his/her presence. Yes.
Roynon v. Battin (1942) / People v. Cahill (1958) / In re Alonzo C. (1978) / Rife v D.T. Corner Inc. (2002) / Carranza v. State (1996) / State v. Harker (2010) / and there are more…..
3. Can an officer use a witness’s statement that a misdemeanor occurred in that witness’s presence as a basis for his or her warrantless, misdemeanor arrest? Generally speaking, No. However, that’s when the private person would make a private person’s arrest and transfer custody to the officer. Can an officer use another officer’s observations as the basis for making a warrantless misdemeanor arrest? Generally speaking, Yes.
Brown v. State (1982)
4. Lastly, an excerpt from this document….which maybe you two should read in its entirety.

https://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/ARRESTS.pdf

“The question arises: Is a crime committed in the officers’ presence if they watched a video of the suspect committing it at an earlier time? It appears the answer is no. What if officers watched it live on a television or computer monitor? While there is no direct authority, it would appear that the crime would be occurring in their presence because there does not seem to be a significant difference between watching a crime-in-progress on a computer screen and watching it through a telescope.”
I would hope the combined legal knowledge of the Alameda DA’s office is good enough, or will you ignore their opinion because they are “also not a LEO who deals with just these type (sic) of situations.”
5. AND…..since we are really taking the deep dive into warrantless, misdemeanor arrests, not in the presence of the officer in California….let’s not forget that CA law has a few specific situations where the law expressly states such an arrest is allowed.
A. Assault on School Grounds 243.5 PC
B. Carrying a concealed firearm in an airport 836 (e) PC
C. Possession of a loaded firearm in public 25850 PC
D. Domestic Battery 243(e) PC / 836 (d) PC
E. Domestic Violence Restraining Order violation 273.6 PC / 836 (c) PC
F. Assault on public safety personnel 243 (c) PC / 836.1 PC
G. DUI with special circumstance 40300.5 VC
H. Any misdemeanor arrest committed by a juvenile 625 WI


What more PROOF do you need?
(You can send me a PM to apologize,…..to save face here publicly)

[SVT-40]

Sooo, you NEED proof that you’re wrong? An easy internet search would have shown you are misinformed, or lazy, in addition to being rude, small-minded and thin-skinned.
1. Let’s start with the BIG picture here. For it to be Constitutionally valid arrest, it really doesn’t matter if the offense is committed in your presence or not. It really doesn’t matter if the arrest is for an infraction, misdemeanor or felony. The 4th Amendment, the standard for ALL seizures (which includes an arrest) is probable cause, or a warrant based on…..probable cause.
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) / Virginia v. Moore (2008) / People v. Macabeo (2016) / and more…

https://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/W2017_Macabeo.pdf

2. Does an officer have to physically SEE an offense occur for it to be in his/her presence? No. Can the officer, or a person making a private party arrest, use a device to aid him/her with seeing the offense and still count as being in his/her presence. Yes.
Roynon v. Battin (1942) / People v. Cahill (1958) / In re Alonzo C. (1978) / Rife v D.T. Corner Inc. (2002) / Carranza v. State (1996) / State v. Harker (2010) / and there are more…..
3. Can an officer use a witness’s statement that a misdemeanor occurred in that witness’s presence as a basis for his or her warrantless, misdemeanor arrest? Generally speaking, No. However, that’s when the private person would make a private person’s arrest and transfer custody to the officer. Can an officer use another officer’s observations as the basis for making a warrantless misdemeanor arrest? Generally speaking, Yes.
Brown v. State (1982)
4. Lastly, an excerpt from this document….which maybe you two should read in its entirety.

https://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/ARRESTS.pdf

“The question arises: Is a crime committed in the officers’ presence if they watched a video of the suspect committing it at an earlier time? It appears the answer is no.40 What if officers watched it live on a television or computer monitor? While there is no direct authority, it would appear that the crime would be occurring in their presence because there does not seem to be a significant difference between watching a crime-in-progress on a computer screen and watching it through a telescope.”
I would hope the combined legal knowledge of the Alameda DA’s office is good enough, or will you ignore their opinion because they are “also not a LEO who deals with just these type (sic) of situations.”
5. AND…..since we are really taking the deep dive into warrantless, misdemeanor arrests, not in the presence of the officer in California….let’s not forget that CA law has a few specific situations where the law expressly states such an arrest is allowed.
A. Assault on School Grounds 243.5 PC
B. Carrying a concealed firearm in an airport 836 (e) PC
C. Possession of a loaded firearm in public 25850 PC
D. Domestic Battery 243(e) PC / 836 (d) PC
E. Domestic Violence Restraining Order violation 273.6 PC / 836 (c) PC
F. Assault on public safety personnel 243 (c) PC / 836.1 PC
G. DUI with special circumstance 40300.5 VC
H. Any misdemeanor arrest committed by a juvenile 625 WI


What more PROOF do you need?
(You can send me a PM to apologize,…..to save face here publicly)

LOL...


The facts remain the same.... Seeing something on video does not mean you were present.

There have always been exceptions as to when a Officer can make a misdemeanor arrest for crimes which did not occur in his presence. That's not part of this question.

The OP didn't ask about what legal authorities a OFFICER had to use enhanced viewing devices to help view a crime in progress, or when a Officer may or may not make an arrest or accept a private persons arrest.

Your attempt to "move the goal posts" proves your lack of education, training or experience.

Oh, and I'll ignore your snarky and insulting PM...

Very low class...


Go away troll...

[RickD427]

https://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/W2017_Macabeo.pdf

https://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/ARRESTS.pdf

All you've done here is "cut and paste" from the Alameda County D.A.s website.

Most of what you've posted above is irrelevant to the question.

Perhaps you should read what you've posted. Here is the key excerpt:


This part of the D.A.'s website is very relevant. It's exactly the question that we're discussing, and the D.A. author has given their assessment that the answer is "No.", which is exactly what SVT-40 has previously stated to you.

[GizmoSD]

I miss Retired.