this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
87 points (96.8% liked)

Tesla

168 readers
31 users here now

The Tesla community of lemmy

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Well, here’s a not-so-fun new twist in the search-and-seizure narrative. Car owners are being deprived of their vehicles just because cops think footage of a crime may have been captured by the car’s on-board cameras.

Legal explanation from a Canadian lawyer: https://youtu.be/jlQ99DIgy_4

all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 35 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This has to be illegal. They can't compel Nest cam footage if you don't want to provide it to them. No way they're allowed to do this.

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm almost certain that the footage from your doorbell is owned by the company and not by you.

[–] MorrisonMotel6@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

Even if it was wholly yours, they could still legally seize it

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago

Legal explanation from a Canadian lawyer: https://youtu.be/jlQ99DIgy_4

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Yeah, this article title is idiotic. The police need a warrant to take your property if you aren't suspected in the crime. This is no different to having on-premise security camera recordings. The cops can't just come in and take your equipment, they need a warrant. If you give up that right, that's your choice, but it's more than likely this Canadian has no idea what happened and made up the details.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 44 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

From the article:

In Oakland and beyond, police called to crime scenes are increasingly looking for more than shell casings and fingerprints. They’re scanning for Teslas parked nearby, hoping their unique outward-facing cameras captured key evidence. And, the Chronicle has found, they’re even resorting to obtaining warrants to tow the cars to ensure they don’t lose the video.

And it sound like it’s happened in Oakland at least three times now. I’d love to see the warrants that the judges signed off on to see how the cops described things…

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

"The car was nearby and might contain footage."

It isn't like getting a warrant is a huge step, but at least it is a slight hurdle.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Getting a warrant to seize an uninvolved person's property, especially a vehicle, actually is a pretty big hurdle.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 10 points 2 weeks ago

Apparently not.

[–] KillerTofu@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So you stopped at the title then.

[–] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Makes me wonder where OP got his doctorate.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world -4 points 2 weeks ago

The part where I talk about the canadian proves otherwise. So you stopped at my first sentence?

[–] BobGnarley@lemm.ee 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"The cops aren't allowed to do that because its IlLeGaL"

Lol

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Careful you don't cut yourself on all that edge

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yeah, this article title is idiotic. The police need a warrant to take your property if you aren't suspected in the crime. This is no different to having on-premise security camera recordings. The cops can't just come in and take your equipment, they need a warrant.

IF they care about the charges sticking and aren't just trying to fuck with you or bankrupt you with the court system because they're cops and have had no consequences for a very long time.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

The canadian aledging the cops were going to impound their vehicle? Why would the cops involve them in any way whatsoever? The alleged perpetrator had nothing to do with the car, so I'm not sure how that does anything to them.