Framingham Police: 4th amendment? What 4th amendment?

And some us would be stuck until the banks opened if we had bail set at $1772.

There is probably an inverse relationship to the cash you have at your residence and how much you have in the brokerage account.

Cash on hand is simply one more tool for solving problems that range from mundane to critical. My wife got a serious discount on the whole house water filtering system by paying in cash, the sales rep had to call his boss when she walked back into the room with an envelope full of cash.

On the less mundane side, we get hurricanes which shut down communications and the electrical grid at times. We have at least a month's worth of food and water, a generator, a chainsaw, gasoline, camping gear, and cash. When the stores open back up, but the infrastructure isn't running - cash still works.
 
This. Very much this.


That said, every city and town is going to have domestics and drugs so those alone don't make for a bad neighborhood. When I lived in Brighton a guy got killed on my street in an apparent drug deal gone bad - I never felt unsafe there. When I lived in Waltham a guy killed his MIL in a domestic, just a few doors down from me - also a perfectly safe neighborhood. It's the rape, robbery, and burglary you gotta worry about and when it comes to this, as mentioned before, North and South sides of Framingham couldn't be more different.

Edit: every city and large town will have good and bad neighborhoods. I grew up in Worcester - some areas I'd avoid like the plague, some areas are very, very nice.

I had occasion to visit downtown Worcester last summer, getting a copy of a birth cert at the clerk's office. Parked at the library, walked over. I CCW a 1911 (yes, I'm a grumpy old man) and still felt unsafe. I'm nearly certain one young man was "following" us until I turned, faced him and looked at him. Then suddenly he had another direction that looked more interesting.

As a kid, my folks would drop us off at the Galleria and have us meet up at 2pm at the fountain just inside. What a difference 40 years made.
 
Fair enough. It sucks cause my neighborhood is wicked nice. Hard to believe all that is the same city.

I move that we improve the fence along the median strip of Route 9, and have the SouthSide pay for it.

Sorry, pipes, but I'm sure you understand...after all that where Town, I mean City hall is, and we need to isolate the infection. [laugh]
 
This is what happens when police, police themselves
It’s not gonna work. EVER !
All civilian review board should be the standard
Otherwise there is NO justice
@ least no justice for the civilian population
 
"I'm not aware of any requirement to report complaints to anyone." Framingham Chief of Police in a Public Safety Committee meeting, when asked if complaints against an officer or the department were reported to the Town Selectmen or Town Manager.

Same Chief who opposed body cams and cameras in the cruisers. Neither of which Framingham has. A City of 70K with 125 patrol officers and no cameras. I recently worked with a small PD of 6 officers including the Chief, they had body and cruiser cams.
 
Did that include unnoticed security cameras? I thought it was for holding up the cell phone recording. I'm concerned the cops would claim they never saw any cameras, therefore it was a secret audio recording, therefore guilty.
USSC has held open recording was legal for a few years now. Don’t have the cite handy, but if memory serves, it was a MA SJC decision that came down December-ish 2018 that secret recording of the popo inclusive of sound was kosher. Besides, they have no expectation of privacy in the home of someone that they’ve invaded.
 
"I'm not aware of any requirement to report complaints to anyone." Framingham Chief of Police in a Public Safety Committee meeting, when asked if complaints against an officer or the department were reported to the Town Selectmen or Town Manager.

Same Chief who opposed body cams and cameras in the cruisers. Neither of which Framingham has. A City of 70K with 125 patrol officers and no cameras. I recently worked with a small PD of 6 officers including the Chief, they had body and cruiser cams.

Well how do you expect them to slip with their fingers on the triggers of their M4s if they have body cam evidence?
 
USSC has held open recording was legal for a few years now. Don’t have the cite handy, but if memory serves, it was a MA SJC decision that came down December-ish 2018 that secret recording of the popo inclusive of sound was kosher. Besides, they have no expectation of privacy in the home of someone that they’ve invaded.
You have the concept right, but erred in a few details.

The MA SJC held that secret audio recording of the police was a felony and included in its logic the need to prevent criminals from attempting to document police misconduct. See Commonwealth v. Hyde.

Glick v. Cunniffe established that the open recording of the police is legal (First circuit, US court of appeals, 2011)

And finally, in Dec 2018 US Federal Judge Patti Saris ruled that the secret audio recording of police and other public officials is constitutionally protected.
 
Rather than starting I new thread, just adding here that earlier in the week the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the original Saris decision that police discharging their duties can be secretly recorded. I don't have time to review the full decision, but there does seem to be at least some wiggle room for police since the attempt at broader relief sought by Project Veritas did not prevail.

Summary from one of the attorney's website:
The Court wrote that “a citizen’s audio recording of on-duty police officers’ treatment of civilians in public spaces while carrying out their official duties, even when conducted without an officer’s knowledge, can constitute newsgathering every bit as much as a credentialed reporter’s after-the-fact efforts to ascertain what had transpired.” The Court concluded that the wiretap statute was unconstitutional as applied to the secret recording of police performing their duties in public because it was “not narrowly tailored to further the government’s important interest in preventing interference with police doing their jobs and thereby protecting the public.” The Court specifically noted that “despite a record that does little to show how secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers doing their jobs in public interferes with their mission, [the wiretap statute] broadly prohibits such recording, notwithstanding the myriad circumstances in which it may play a critical role in informing the public about how the police are conducting themselves, whether by documenting their heroism, dispelling claims of their misconduct, or facilitating the public’s ability to hold them to account for their wrongdoing.”
 
Rather than starting I new thread, just adding here that earlier in the week the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the original Saris decision that police discharging their duties can be secretly recorded

And here I thought there was a supreme court precedent on this matter two years ago.
 
Back
Top Bottom