Slashdot Mirror
Recording Police Misconduct is Illegal
mypalmike writes: "The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has upheld a lower court's decision that it is illegal to record what happens to you when get pulled over by the police. It seems they are citing a rule which essentially prohibits all recording in which the recording is made secretly. Maybe I can sue the local quickiemart for secretly recording me as I purchase a slushie. (Reported in the Boston Globe)." I'm not sure I understand this. Aren't almost all police cars these days equipped with video cameras that record everything occuring in front of the car?
Most of the US is like that, too. Canada tends to pass national laws, but the US Constitutionally leaves most questions to the states.
So what you should have said is "Massachusetts is weird."
And, you'd be right; we have a certain bunch of states that tend to have weird-ass laws that don't reflect the rest of the country. Massachusetts is among them. More power to 'em; they can have whatever laws they want, without affecting me.
-
Do it openly and your gear will be confiscated, and if you're not lucky, other stuff you own too. The cop will probably start looking really hard for stuff to arrest you for too. At any rate, you won't get your recording. SECRETLY is the only way to get your recording and force a certain level of accountability.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
As that unbiquitous popup ad asks.
Unless you are blind, all quickiemarts (aka 7-Eleven, Kum and Go, etc) have some form of sticker when you enter the shop that says the place is under the camera's eye. So, in that respect, it is different. Sorry, but no legal action for you.
Bryan R.
Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
Especially the 'wiretapping' bs where tape recording your OWN phone call is considered 'wiretapping'.
Canada, lots of other places, you can record any conversation so long as at least one party involved knows about it. I believe the same goes for video. (You can't video tape people in a private place without their permission, but if you are one of the people involved...)
> What's the purpose behind laws like that?
Most surveilance-type tapes are made without audio. Most consumer video devices have builtin microphones that are often difficult to disconnect (i.e. requiring [warranty-voiding] disassembly).
In other words it allows professional surveillance videos of public places, while making it hard for the public to do the same on an ad-hock basis.
Ain't public protection nice?
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
As an example, most RCMP are fine people, but I had a run-in with a Sgt. Bruce Waite. Mr. Waite has a history of beating up prisoners -- especially natives. The RCMP has settled a number of times out of court after he was sued for beating up prisoners. (One, for example, had to be medivaced to hospital after the beating he recieved).
After one such lawsuit, they then gave him a Promotion and put him in charge of a detatchment... near yet another native reserve.
And you wonder why minorities sometimes hate police?
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
David Yas, publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, said the wiretapping law was established to protect citizens against government oppression.
"The preamble to the law said electronic devices are a danger to the privacy of all citizens. This case turns that notion on its head because here we had an individual trying to protect himself from a misdeed on the part of public officials and he's the one who ends up being arrested for it and prosecuted," Yas said.
--
The part of the article that concerns me is where the Judge said the Rodney King video would have been prohibited in that state. Didn't that take place on a public road? You couldn't record the actions of police in a PUBLIC place?
Be interesting to see if police want to set up video cameras with face matching software in Boston in a few months....
OK this is a out there...
m inalProcedure312_388/7police_interrogation_recordi ng_e.htm
But your honor I was helping the police officer
with HIS DUTY to record any interviews with suspects.
FROM: http://www.commonwealthpolice.com/Free_Stuff/Crim
In Commonwealth v. Diaz, 422 Mass. 269 (1996), the SJC stated that "[w]e decline at this time to adopt or prescribe a rule of general superintendence or of common law suppressing statements taken from a defendant in custody in a police station unless those statements have been electronically recorded. However, defense counsel is entitled to pursue the failure of the police to record a defendant's statements. Counsel may, for example, inquire of a testifying police officer, as happened here, whether he or she was aware of the availability of recorders to use during the questioning of suspects. Counsel may argue to a jury and to a judge as factfinder that the failure of the police to record electronically statements made in a place of custody should be considered in deciding the voluntariness of any statement, whether the defendant was properly advised of his rights, and whether any statement attributed to the defendant was made."
Thinge that make you go hmmm....
AdFuel
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I thought you said "Police Misconduct is Illegal".
Whew...
No need to speak. Just shrinkwrap your driver's licenst in an EULA that states that you are recording this encounter for quality control purposes and that the police officer recognizes this fact by removing the license from the shrinkwrap.
Next time a cop pulls you over, whip out a tape recorder and politely tell them that you are making a record of everything.
I'm kinda curious if they would ask you to stop or not. In any event, it seems like a great idea because if there is one thing I have learned is that cops love to twist your words around. I once told a cop my license plate was in my trunk because my front mounting bracket was broken and when the cop recounted my statement it had somehow become that i refused to mount a front license plate to avoid photorader. Jerk.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Seriously.. I've been pulled over a few times, I don't know if they were taping or not, but if they were, I did NOT know about it.. And if you watch these police videos on TV, the drunk people that get pulled over also don't know they're being taped, so how could that be evidence?
--
Free Mac Mini
The lights flash, and a siren wails. "Damn cops, they are on to me." As I pull over I flip the face plate down so they can't see I have cajun in the car and quickly hit the hidden record button
"Do you know why I pulled you over boy?"
"No SIR!"
"You have a picture of a penguin on your car, you know the Linux operating system is illegal don't you??"
"Yes Sir I only run Microsoft product as per the constitutional amendment of 2015, Sir"
"You wouldn't be an illegal coder would you? I see the case of Jolt cola there, and I think I see an O'Reilly book on your back seat, thats damn near probable cause to search your car!"
"But sir, I'm just a lowly cleaner, see all the cleaning supplies. I found this stuff in an storage unit I was cleaning out".
I showed him my pay stub for the idiots I work for. I knew going through those old storage lockers would net me someting eventually. The cop bought it. Berated me for the penguin sign, said even though it wasn't illegal he'd take it off the car. I promised I would. Cop said owning a O'reilley book was illegal even though I knew it wasn't. I tried to argue but got a quick slap in the face. Ended up giving him the book, don't want him opening the trunk. We parted amicably, my cheek still stinging. Wow what a bitch slap that was. He probably dresses in drag on the weekends.
I'll use my new face recgonition software and cross my video with the video feed we have at dumbkin dognuts. Have to keep an eye on this one, he must of spotted that penguin sticker from 200 meters or more.
Over the top can't happen? Well at one time I would have thought that you could always record what a public official does in public. MA is interesting. I guess those laws allowed a senator from the state to get away with murder (or at least negligenct homicide), but prevent a common citizen from protecting himself from a authority figure abusing his/her power.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth"
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Yet another example of a typical Slashdot You-Deserve-It response.
The extent of your stupidity is frightening.
Firstly, I can hide in the bushes on a sidewalk and secretly record passers-by. If someone is standing on their balcony having sex, I can videotape that as well (so long as it's in plain view).
In the United States, you have the right to privacy where you might reasonably expect it. This includes your home, the trunk of your car, etc. It does not, however, describe a bubble that travels around with you protecting you wherever you go.
The fact that the person being recorded in this instance was a public official only furthers the point. Courts have held time and time again that those who have by their own will become famous have less rights to privacy than normal citizens do. This is because there reasonable expectation of privacy goes down as their fame increases. The premise is basically the same in this case: The police officer cannot, while being paid by taxpayers, expect any form of privacy.
I'd like to find the hookups the Mass. Supreme Court has, because they're smoking some good fucking crack. I hope very much this is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it will no doubt be overturned.
signature smigmature
- James
That said, IMO, This guy was pretty foolish, taking the tape to the police. On TV, "IA" (Internal Affairs) may look like they're out to get the beat cops for any little thing, but in reality the Blue Wall still thrives, and unless you have a good lawyer they will F**K you. Next time, take it to the PRESS! It may not be "just" but the spotlight of public attention might be the only way to force the police to respond appropriately.
Freedom: "I won't!"
The police are here to server us. They are agents of the people. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has made them agents of power and eliminated the one check-and-balance we had available to us for protection from abuse of power.
the cop's aren't recording you secretly. That's the difference.
Not exactly. The problem is that not everybody knows of this police surveillance. Therefore, the (relatively few) people that don't know about it ARE being recorded secretly. It's like the Miranda case -- most people knew what their rights were when they were arrested, so it was assumed that everybody knew. But in this case, he didn't, and so he took it to court. Guess what? He won.
---
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
You do not have any RIGHTS to privacy under the law, only a reasonable expectation of it.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Being a nerd, remember getting mistreated by bullies back in school? Remember telling the teacher and being told you'll need some solid proof before any actions would be taken or being told to not be a "tattle-tale"? And remember that bitter taste when nothing was done to them? Well some bullies grow up to wear uniforms, and this decision basically takes away one of your ways of having proof should you be mistreated, thus opening the path for you again taste the bitterness of injustice.
In fact, the article states that your point is exactly the defense Hyde tried to use. The 'people should have no expectation of privacy in public' defense, and he lost with it.
Look for a showing of this case in your nearest US Supreme Court.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
http://www.rcfp.org/taping
Also has links to the relevant state codes concerning this.
Tell the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts what you think.
US residents that don't work in law enforcement are now 2nd class citizens. Whether FBI, IRS, local police, or other, the 'commoners' are prohibited from criticizing you, identifying you to the public, or recording your actions in the same public areas that you record theirs.
Oh yes the ARE recording secretly. He was taping you from the minute the guy pulled over, and his first words to the suspect were NOT "To ensure your satisfaction, this traffic-stop will be monitored". Patrol cars never seem to have prominent signs warning of video cameras inside.
The legal reason for that is that the wiretapping statute only applies to audio recordings, not video, so the police and the department stores can take all the pictures of you they want.
The issue isn't whether you or I put the cops in a different category. The big problem is that many cops see fit to place themselves in a different category. In the real world full of like-minded cops, they have little to fear.
How many times has a cop car without its lights on blow by you doing 90MPH on the freeway? Have you ever seen one of these guys pulled over for speeding?
It's true that in Minnesota a sticker on your WINDSHIELD or Driverside front-most window is illegal (visual obstruction), it's also illegal in Minnesota to have any object hanging from your rear view mirror, or mounted to your dashboard (I saw a State trooper confiscate a radar detector yesterday because of the "obstruction" law); but, on any of the rear windows, or passenger side front window, such a sticker can be posted LEGALLY. Also, Minnesota is a single-party consent state (meaning only one party needs to be aware of a recording device, hence there's no need for the obnoxious sticker). I monitor (with audio equipment) everything that is said inside my car, and -with video and audio- everything that occcurs inside my apartment. These tapes have come in handy; most recently dealing with a case between myself, a state inspector, and the property management.
Don't fool around and try to handle things on your own, or the cops will hang you out to dry.