No not been whipped, my pointed was, I was thinking of a hand gun with a larger handle or barrel.

 

"I thought it would be bigger." -She

The store owner where the shooting occurred has filed suit against the BRPD. He claims he was detained in the back of a hot police car for 4-5 hours and that his cell phone and the surveillance footage from his store were taken without a warrant.

 

Owner of store where Alton Sterling was shot files lawsuit against BRPD | wwltv.com

 

Gotta be a "YIKES!" situation for BRPD.

The store owner where the shooting occurred has filed suit against the BRPD. He claims he was detained in the back of a hot police car for 4-5 hours and that his cell phone and the surveillance footage from his store were taken without a warrant.

 

Owner of store where Alton Sterling was shot files lawsuit against BRPD | wwltv.com

 

Guess you should not yell at the cops after they have just been involved with a shooting. I'm sure he will get his payout for not trusting the cops.

Guess you should not yell at the cops after they have just been involved with a shooting. I'm sure he will get his payout for not trusting the cops.

 

I didn't see where he was charged with anything, I'm missing what law he broke to be detained for 4+hours. And what is the justification for searching and taking property from the store without a warrant?

I didn't see where he was charged with anything, I'm missing what law he broke to be detained for 4+hours. And what is the justification for searching and taking property from the store without a warrant?

 

They had a search warrant for the convenience store video based on an article I read today.

 

They immediately confiscated the video which to my knowledge is legal because it is evidence. They can seize something they know contains evidence, like a cell phone recording an incident. They then applied and got the search warrant to view it. Once they view it and recover what they need, they can return it to the owner.

I didn't see where he was charged with anything, I'm missing what law he broke to be detained for 4+hours. And what is the justification for searching and taking property from the store without a warrant?

We don't know what went on. Don't think he was charged but I'm guessing if an eye witness is not cooperating with the police they may want to extend the investigation a little longer to help jar his memory? Same guy who possibly let the criminal, who was shot, sell illegal CD's in front of his store while holding an illegal weapon and pistol whipping another fellow (if those things did happen) . He also wouldn't turn over his evidence of the shooting to the cops. He also had the cell phone video that he gave to FBI. I'm guessing he is a great guy and I'm sure either he was distraught with the police force or he soon will be with the lack of help he gets on his next shoplifting call.

I'm sure the 4 + hours of his time that he sues for will be equal to the 20 Mountain Dew and packs of cigarettes he would have sold while detained.

We don't know what went on. Don't think he was charged but I'm guessing if an eye witness is not cooperating with the police they may want to extend the investigation a little longer to help jar his memory? Same guy who possibly let the criminal, who was shot, sell illegal CD's in front of his store while holding an illegal weapon and pistol whipping another fellow (if those things did happen) . He also wouldn't turn over his evidence of the shooting to the cops. He also had the cell phone video that he gave to FBI. I'm guessing he is a great guy and I'm sure either he was distraught with the police force or he soon will be with the lack of help he gets on his next shoplifting call.

I'm sure the 4 + hours of his time that he sues for will be equal to the 20 Mountain Dew and packs of cigarettes he would have sold while detained.

 

How is it legal to detain him and force him to give a statement? I don't think anyone is ever obligated to give any information to the police when questioned other than their name or similar obligation. Or has that right been suspended?

How is it legal to detain him and force him to give a statement? I don't think anyone is ever obligated to give any information to the police when questioned other than their name or similar obligation. Or has that right been suspended?

 

This attitude needs to be adjusted. Be a part of the the solution, not a part of the problem.

Seems wrong to me that police can take evidence that may show their own wrong doing.

They had a search warrant for the convenience store video based on an article I read today.

 

They immediately confiscated the video which to my knowledge is legal because it is evidence. They can seize something they know contains evidence, like a cell phone recording an incident. They then applied and got the search warrant to view it. Once they view it and recover what they need, they can return it to the owner.

 

The owner was never shown a search warrant when they initially entered the store according to his attorney and after contacting the court clerk it was still not produced. They later obtained a warrant after searching the store. I guess the police are using the "fear that the evidence would be destroyed" excuse to go in and search what there wanted before getting a warrant.

This attitude needs to be adjusted. Be a part of the the solution, not a part of the problem.

 

If the shopkeeper thinks that it was an unjustified shooting want he trying to be part of the solution by making the footage public?

The owner was never shown a search warrant when they initially entered the store according to his attorney and after contacting the court clerk it was still not produced. They later obtained a warrant after searching the store. I guess the police are using the "fear that the evidence would be destroyed" excuse to go in and search what there wanted before getting a warrant.

 

Ok. The media was able to get a copy apparently.

According to the article that I read that was the warrant when they returned to the store AFTER they had seized the security system.

According to the article that I read that was the warrant when they returned to the store AFTER they had seized the security system.

 

My guess is they feared the evidence would be tampered with. I'd trust the evidence in the hands of law enforcement in a secure evidence room more than sitting in the back of a run down corner market.

If the shopkeeper thinks that it was an unjustified shooting want he trying to be part of the solution by making the footage public?

 

And if it shows the officers had a proper response, don't you think they would make sure to secure the evidence before the store owner either destroyed it or recorded over it?