| Comment | The police didn't, as far as I can gather, actually seize OP's phone (from reading all of the OP's comments - OP, can you confirm? /u/Interesting_Trust_47 because it sounds like the police deleted the video and left, but didn't realise it was backed up). Because I would wager that they knew fine well that there was no criminality nor evidence on the phone. It seems like it was a bully tactic.
> the phone can and will be seized
Can be seized? Sure. WILL be seized? Given that there's four officers present and close enough to the arrested person to hear anything they may have said, I see no reason why the police would seize the phone of an uninvolved party in this situation to act as evidence about the arrest at the time of the arrest. If there were an accusation, say, about police conduct, they wouldn't necessarily need to seize the phone unless the owner of the phone wasn't willing to provide the evidence. Which, if the police approached OP and said that they had received a complaint about police conduct during this arrest, I feel like OP would provide the video.
Do the police routinely hear a reply to the caution/charge and start looking around for someone who might have caught that on camera to evidence it? |
|---|