You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of!    

Firearm & Gun Forum - > General Discussion Forums > The Club House >

Cell Picture Of Undercover Officer Sparks Arrest

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-18-2008, 05:56 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
sculker's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 247
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default Cell Picture Of Undercover Officer Sparks Arrest

Cell Picture Of Undercover Officer Sparks Arrest
By Michael A. Scarcella of Sarasota Herald Tribune

Published: March 16, 2008

Randy Dean Sievert drew ire from Manatee County sheriff's deputies as he aimed his cell phone camera at undercover investigators executing a search warrant in his neighborhood.

A deputy confronted Sievert, demanding that he destroy any photos of investigators and their vehicles.

Sievert was not a welcome observer of the drug raid. Authorities called him a "known drug dealer" based on a couple of past arrests. Taking photos of undercover officers jeopardized their lives, deputies said.

Randy Sievert

Sievert refused to remove his hands from his pockets and step away from his car after he was confronted about the pictures. Deputies forced him to the ground. The 20-year-old unemployed Bradenton man was arrested on a misdemeanor obstruction charge.

Investigators could not access the images on the phone. Sievert "finally" gave up a code that allowed deputies to find and destroy a photo that showed two undercover vehicles, according to reports. The phone is in evidence but not the photograph.

Sievert's obstruction case is attracting criticism in the legal community. Some defense attorneys say Sievert was unlawfully arrested and forced to destroy a photograph authorities had no grounds to erase.

"While they may not have liked what he was doing, it was not against the law," said Sievert's attorney, Charles M. Britt III.

If the police do not want undercover vehicles identified, they should not bring the cars and trucks when they execute search warrants, Britt said.

The vehicles are nondescript, blending in to allow officers to secretly monitor suspected criminal activity. Undercover officers routinely wear masks in public when participating in searches.

Britt filed court papers challenging the arrest, and a hearing is scheduled for next month. Ultimately, the state could decide Sievert did not commit a crime and abandon the case.

But an assistant state attorney, addressing the merits of the charge at a hearing Thursday, called Sievert's photograph "egregious."

Prosecutor Angel Colonneso argued to keep Sievert locked up on a probation violation charge. Sievert was on probation in a drug case when he was arrested on the obstruction charge in late February in the 6000 block of Seventh Street Court West.

Sievert refused a lawful command to erase the photographs, Colonneso said. That "reasonable request" was to protect undercover officers.

Assistant public defender Jennifer Joynt-Sanchez called the arrest "beyond belief." Joynt-Sanchez, representing Sievert in court, said Sievert had a right to resist unlawful police detention.

Joynt-Sanchez wanted Sievert released from jail on his own recognizance. But Circuit Judge Debra Johnes Riva ordered Sievert held.

Obstructing the execution of a search warrant is a rare charge. In most cases the charge is applied to a person who is at a house -- and connected to the criminal investigation -- during the raid.

Britt said he is not aware of any law that makes it a crime to snap a photo of an undercover officer in the performance of his or duty.

State laws allow law enforcement agencies to black out the names of undercover officers in police reports, protecting their identity. But their names are often included on witness lists for trial. The officers cannot hide their faces in court.

At a recent trial in Bradenton featuring two undercover detectives, the prosecution sought and received a court order blocking the media from taking pictures of the officers in court. But, during breaks, the detectives congregated outside the courthouse -- where anyone could have snapped a photo.

Sievert's mother said her son was foolish to take a photo, but the picture taking did not justify a confrontation with police.

"It was something stupid, but they had no reason to do what they did," Leasa M. Pauli, 50, said. "They just ran up on him and slammed him for no reason. I think it is unfair."

During the raid, deputies seized a box of ammunition and a checkbook but did not find any drugs. Sievert was the only person arrested that afternoon.

What Sievert planned to do with the photos - if anything - remains unknown.

Three groups spend other people's money: children, thieves, and politicians. All three need supervision. —DICK ARMEY
sculker is offline  
Reply With Quote

Join Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join Today! - Click Here

Old 03-19-2008, 04:00 AM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
hillbilly68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,000
Liked 4 Times on 3 Posts


OK gents, don't break out the rotten fruit on me... but I think the arrest was BS.

Personally I agree that he should be thumped for trying to take the pictures (based on his past record he had less than honorable intentions). But in the big picture (no pun intended) when did it become illegal to take or posess a photograph? Again, I don't care for some jack leg with a questionable past trying to ID our undercover officers, but this is bad. Based off the article (which is only part of the story) he did not interfere. And how lawful is a command to destroy a photo? Who is next? The news cameras that catch the very few LEOs on tape that do bad things? I can see it now, "hey give me that tape now". I dunno gents, what do you think?

"I'm your brother, just make it count."
hillbilly68 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 02:08 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 109

may not like the guy but right then and there he wasn't committing a crime and his rights as a US citizen were taken from him. police state?

movie zombie
moviezombie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 03:45 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 441

Hammer to crack a walnut............
Boris is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 07:51 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 100

ill have to agree with what the cops were trying to do but i am positive they could have gone about it in a different, legal way.
Chance_P is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2008, 08:20 PM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1307 Times on 665 Posts
Likes Given: 151


It seems bogus to me. We have cameras all along the highways and at many city intersections. LEOs argue that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't worry about being on camera" and "if you're out in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy".

The cops were outside executing a warrant and Sievert took pictures. If police departments can take pictures of everyday people in public, isn't it reasonable that everyday people can take pictures of police in public?

Granted, Sievert may have been up to no good, but the cops were way out of line, IMO.

bkt is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Soldiers Arrest Honduran President! Bigcountry02 Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 06-29-2009 03:55 PM
Milwaukee cops to arrest open carriers Gojubrian Politics, Religion and Controversy 20 04-27-2009 09:13 AM
Arrest v. Conviction swrriverrat Politics, Religion and Controversy 15 08-20-2008 09:16 PM
undercover southpaw hemidan Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 1 05-01-2008 05:31 AM