As part of their experiment to see just how blatant they can lie in court and get away with it, Portland PD, not wishing to have their search of a car taped, tasered the guy who was taping it and explained that he might have used it as a weapon.

Surprisingly: the woman cop shouting hysterically on the film was not, however, charged with prostitution because, having a vagina, she might have decided to rent it out.

Thanks Joel, DOG GONE I SURE LOVE A GOOD BELLY LAUGH

Better arrest the men too, they might be Johns.

And for their shoe laces, you can use those as a belt of a machine gun, or even to turn some semi-auto rifles into assault weapons!

The Portland, OR police department works full time on improving it's BAD image.

Wow. Incredible. At first I thought this might be evidence of blowback from the Brett Darrow incident in St. George, MO, but then I looked at the date and realized it happened almost a year earlier.

One of the things I wonder about this (and other) incidents is, if I was to have security cameras plainly posted at various strategic areas around my house and the police pulled something along these lines, how far could/would they go to "secure" their "crime scene"? If a camcorder being held by had is equivalent to a club, is a remotely monitored and controlled camera equivalent to a claymore?

I do remember the one incident where the police charged a homeowner/landlord in a New Jersey incident for his closed circuit setup; they claimed he broke the privacy laws by recording the auido side without their consent.

The other thing is, could one "get around" the one party consent rule by posting a clearly visible sign stating "Closed circuit cameras and Audio Recording Devices in use on this property; by proceeding, you give consent to being recorded.", or something to that effect?