Facebook Friends Turn Out To Be Cops

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Cops are using every trick in the book these days, even using Facebook to bust underage drinkers. This is definitely a first. How anyone can prove what was in the bottles, etc. etc. from a picture is beyond me. The kids probably should have got an attorney or, better yet, not posted the pictures in the first place. Scary none-the-less.

“She was a good-looking girl. I usually don’t accept friends I don’t know, but I randomly accepted this one for some reason,” the 19-year-old said. He thinks that led to his invitation to come down to the La Crosse police station, where an officer laid out photos from Facebook of Bauer holding a beer — and then ticketed him for underage drinking.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
While I understand the problem, this is an oh so wrong way to go about it.

I can't help but think they are hoping no one will actually hire a lawyer and fight it. I can't possibly see this passing constitutional mustard.
 
Almost sounds like they went to training at the RIAA.
 
This goes to prove that if 1984's Telescreens existed there would be people willing to use them. A Henchmen is always a Hecnhmen.
 
Rule Number 1) Don't break the law.
Rule Number 2) If you must break the law, don't take incriminating pictures.
Rule Number 3) If you must take picutres, don't post incriminating pictures on the internet.
Rule Number 4) You're to stupid to live.
 
Wouldn't this fall under some kind of entrapment law, or at least a 5th amendment-type plea?
 
vengence said:
Rule Number 1) Don't break the law.
Rule Number 2) If you must break the law, don't take incriminating pictures.
Rule Number 3) If you must take picutres, don't post incriminating pictures on the internet.
Rule Number 4) You're to stupid to live.
Click to expand...

I Lawled. :D
 
vengence said:
Rule Number 1) Don't break the law.
Rule Number 2) If you must break the law, don't take incriminating pictures.
Rule Number 3) If you must take picutres, don't post incriminating pictures on the internet.
Rule Number 4) You're to stupid to live.
Click to expand...

Ah, the [H] neocon. :p I think the point is that it's too much of a breach of hte government into your personal life. At least that's my libertarian take on it...
 
ordovician said:
Ah, the [H] neocon. :p I think the point is that it's too much of a breach of hte government into your personal life. At least that's my libertarian take on it...
Click to expand...

Dont post it on a public website. Why not dance on the hood of the cop car with a 40 oz. if you are going to post it on facebook. Stupidity is not a legal defense.
 
ordovician said:
Ah, the [H] neocon. :p I think the point is that it's too much of a breach of hte government into your personal life. At least that's my libertarian take on it...
Click to expand...

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the cops should have better things to do than surfing face book trying to hand out tickets for under age drinking. Even more so, I wished some of the kids would have lawyered up and stuck it to them. However, at the same time the kids are really dumb for drinking, taking, and posting these pictures.

Where are these kids parrents any ways?
 
A picture of a person holding a beer is not incriminating. It is not illegal to hold a beer.
 
vengence said:
Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the cops should have better things to do than surfing face book trying to hand out tickets for under age drinking. Even more so, I wished some of the kids would have lawyered up and stuck it to them. However, at the same time the kids are really dumb for drinking, taking, and posting these pictures.

Where are these kids parrents any ways?
Click to expand...

Parents what are those? Probably popping meds and hitting the strip bar like the lady from the other story:D
 
Kil4Thril said:
Wouldn't this fall under some kind of entrapment law, or at least a 5th amendment-type plea?
Click to expand...

Depends on the judge I think. It might also fall under "in plain sight". Facebook is a public site and it doesn't sound like the cop forced the moron to drink and post the pictures on his profile. Entrapment generally only applies to forcing someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't have. The 5th Amendment is an interesting argument, but I don't think it can be classified as self incrimination either as they weren't asked by the police or court to post those pictures on their profile. The main issue is the question of how far the cops are allowed to go when it comes to trickery.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
A picture of a person holding a beer is not incriminating. It is not illegal to hold a beer.
Click to expand...

Its as incriminating as having an open/empty can or bottle of beer in your car when you are pulled over. Or as deciding to sleep in your car when you are drunk, even if you had no intention of driving.
 
Derangel said:
Depends on the judge I think. It might also fall under "in plain sight". Facebook is a public site and it doesn't sound like the cop forced the moron to drink and post the pictures on his profile. Entrapment generally only applies to forcing someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't have. The 5th Amendment is an interesting argument, but I don't think it can be classified as self incrimination either as they weren't asked by the police or court to post those pictures on their profile. The main issue is the question of how far the cops are allowed to go when it comes to trickery.
Click to expand...

They would probably throw out all of the privatly viewed photo's and dismiss the case. The cops lied to view the evidence so it would probably not stand up in court. The ones that could be viewed publicly would probably hold up. Honestly though I find it hilarious. If any of those parents ignored there kids I doupt they are doing so now.
 
Seriously though, he posted an illegal activity on a public forum and tagged his buddies. Then they didn't fight it, prob would have still lost though. It is a bit shady though to pretend to be someone else to breach his close nit circle of 400 facebook friends. But then again, that's pretty casual in comparison to what they can and actively do to other persons involved in some form of crime.

I'd truly feel sympathy for the guy if he was duped into allowing the police access to his privately stored information (ie. pictures on his personal computer) rather than to information he uploaded to the net where 400 other people could view it.

Also in regards to another user, this is far from entrapment. The concept of entrapment is loosely flowing around the forums a lot lately, but it is where the police essentially coerce you into committing a crime you normally would not have done; such as provoking a recovering drug addict until he finally breaks and buys some crack off of you.
 
The most difficult part of this to wrap my head around is that drinking alcohol is the crime... I don't care what age you are, that's sad.
 
mstersmith said:
The cops lied to view the evidence so it would probably not stand up in court.
Click to expand...

Since when is that relevant? :confused: That would only be the case if the cops had admitted they were cops and lied to the students about, for example, that they had to accept them as facebook friends.
 
TechLarry said:
While I understand the problem, this is an oh so wrong way to go about it.

I can't help but think they are hoping no one will actually hire a lawyer and fight it. I can't possibly see this passing constitutional mustard.
Click to expand...
This would totally past constitutional litmus. There is no right to privacy in this instance because there is defacto no privacy.

Scary in the sense of youth that can't think ahead about their actions:

1: Drinking under age
2: Posting in on a social network site with 400 'friends'

Stupidity is not often rewarded.
 
ordovician said:
Ah, the [H] neocon. :p I think the point is that it's too much of a breach of hte government into your personal life. At least that's my libertarian take on it...
Click to expand...
It's not personal when you disseminate your life for 400 other individuals.
 
Derangel said:
Depends on the judge I think. It might also fall under "in plain sight". Facebook is a public site and it doesn't sound like the cop forced the moron to drink and post the pictures on his profile. Entrapment generally only applies to forcing someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't have. The 5th Amendment is an interesting argument, but I don't think it can be classified as self incrimination either as they weren't asked by the police or court to post those pictures on their profile. The main issue is the question of how far the cops are allowed to go when it comes to trickery.
Click to expand...
You could never fly a "in plain sight" argument as these were clearly private profiles. I wonder if this would have required a warrant under some wiretapping laws.
 
vengence said:
Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the cops should have better things to do than surfing face book trying to hand out tickets for under age drinking. Even more so, I wished some of the kids would have lawyered up and stuck it to them. However, at the same time the kids are really dumb for drinking, taking, and posting these pictures.

Where are these kids parrents any ways?
Click to expand...
I think this is a very efficient use of the taxpayer $$. Go for the low hanging fruit. I mean these idiots are handing you stuff all wrapped up:

1. Under age and drinking, Yep
2. Documenting with incontrovertible pictures
3. Posting them for public consumption

There are literally no $$ being spent investigating this. They aren't even having to use gas and patrol cars.
 
If you are going to post something to the Internet, ask yourself 3 things:

1) Am I ok with my mom knowing about this?
2) Am I ok with my boss knowing about this?
3) Am I ok with a creepy pervert knowing about this?

If the answer to any of those is "no" then don't post it. Why? Because all three of those people can get on the net. Don't assume that some half-assed "friends only" protection keeps them out. The Internet is public, treat it as such.
 
velusip said:
The most difficult part of this to wrap my head around is that drinking alcohol is the crime... I don't care what age you are, that's sad.
Click to expand...

Legal drinking age is 21. Its stupid, but just because a law is stupid doesn't mean you should act like a dumbass and break it and then post pictures of you being a dumbass on a public site. Its as stupid as people saying on MySpace, Youtube, or whatever that they robbed a place.
 
Derangel said:
Its as incriminating as having an open/empty can or bottle of beer in your car when you are pulled over. Or as deciding to sleep in your car when you are drunk, even if you had no intention of driving.
Click to expand...

That is not true. Both of the things you mention are incriminating enough to hold up in a court of law, holding a beer is not. Now, if the students were DRINKING the beers in the picture, yes, but the article only mentions that they were holding them.
 
vengence said:
You could never fly a "in plain sight" argument as these were clearly private profiles. I wonder if this would have required a warrant under some wiretapping laws.
Click to expand...

It depends on how a judge would look at Facebook. Its hard to say if they would call anything put on the site as private.
 
TechLarry said:
While I understand the problem, this is an oh so wrong way to go about it.

I can't help but think they are hoping no one will actually hire a lawyer and fight it. I can't possibly see this passing constitutional mustard.
Click to expand...

I agree . . . but I think the word you're looking for is "muster".

:D
 
I would have fallen for this. I only except friends that I know as well, unless they're cute girls :D
 
mstersmith said:
They would probably throw out all of the privatly viewed photo's and dismiss the case. The cops lied to view the evidence so it would probably not stand up in court. The ones that could be viewed publicly would probably hold up. Honestly though I find it hilarious. If any of those parents ignored there kids I doupt they are doing so now.
Click to expand...
Cops are under no ethical mandate to not lie. They can't entrap, they can't manufacture evidence, they can't present false testimony. But they are 100% allow to impersonate someone during an investigation.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
That is not true. Both of the things you mention are incriminating enough to hold up in a court of law, holding a beer is not. Now, if the students were DRINKING the beers in the picture, yes, but the article only mentions that they were holding them.
Click to expand...

Holding a beer in a picture you purposely put on the internet to share with your friends says enough. Its pretty reasonable to assume that they were drinking it. I have no sympathy for idiots.
 
How do the police confirm that these are unedited pics? Maybe he PSed the beer bottle into his hand. The other thing is, what is the statute of limitations? Maybe the pics are from several months/ years ago. Also, what if the kid lied about his age and is really 21.
 
jinjuku said:
This would totally past constitutional litmus. There is no right to privacy in this instance because there is defacto no privacy.

Scary in the sense of youth that can't think ahead about their actions:

1: Drinking under age
2: Posting in on a social network site with 400 'friends'

Stupidity is not often rewarded.
Click to expand...

But a photo of someone with a bottle after the fact is not evidence of a crime. Unless the officer actually witnessed the minor consuming the alcohol, there is no crime.

That would be like having a photo of someone holding a gun and prosecuting them for armed robber with no other evidence.

It would never hold up in any court if challenged.
 
J-Will said:
How do the police confirm that these are unedited pics? Maybe he PSed the beer bottle into his hand. The other thing is, what is the statute of limitations? Maybe the pics are from several months/ years ago. Also, what if the kid lied about his age and is really 21.
Click to expand...

Maybe he was cleaning up after a party his parents threw and was photographed holding an empty bottle.

Like I said, unless they actually personally witnessed him consuming the alcohol, they wouldn't have a case in court.
 
J-Will said:
How do the police confirm that these are unedited pics? Maybe he PSed the beer bottle into his hand. The other thing is, what is the statute of limitations? Maybe the pics are from several months/ years ago. Also, what if the kid lied about his age and is really 21.
Click to expand...
You are entirely welcome to then take it to court and let the wisdom of Solomon previal... Hey if it is as you say then a jury of your peers will see it that way also.

Or the short answer:

Yeah, right. Don't hold your breath:rolleyes:
 
ekierce said:
But a photo of someone with a bottle after the fact is not evidence of a crime. Unless the officer actually witnessed the minor consuming the alcohol, there is no crime.

That would be like having a photo of someone holding a gun and prosecuting them for armed robber with no other evidence.

It would never hold up in any court if challenged.
Click to expand...
Then they are welcome to challenge it in court. What don't you get about that?
 
Don't these cops have anything better do than bust young adults for underage drinking? Of course those people are dumb to post such on a public site and should not be drinking either. 21 for drinking is a dumb law as well. If a man can die at 18 fighting for his country, he should be able to have a drink.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top