Slashdot Mirror
Is Videotaping the Police a Felony?
AtomicSnarl writes "When Carlisle, PA, police noticed their traffic stop was being videotaped, they arrested the fellow with the camera for felony wiretapping. From the story: 'Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent... An exception to the wiretapping law allows police to film people during traffic stops.. [An assistant DA] said case law is in flux as to whether police can expect not to be recorded while performing their duties.'"
I'm guessing that if it's illegal to take a picture of police than it's also illegal to film them.
So, I guess if you want to videotape the police, you'd better declare yourself an independent journalist and hope the judge values our freedom of the press?
This is both shocking & amazing on so many levels. I can think of several ways to look at this that make it hilariously backwards. The cops are on duty, their income is supplied by individuals like this man. As far as I'm aware, employers are allowed to videotape their employers.
I've met good policemen and I've met pigs. These instances sound like a pig on a power trip. Illegal wiretapping, yeah right! It has a sound function so he's wiretapping? Everything just sounds so ridiculous. If it happens in public, it's public domain. This is just obvious abuse of those they are supposed to protect.
My work here is dung.
Nothing better than a law which let's a public entity have legal protection from public oversight.
... please leave your rights and any expectation of privacy on the table to your right and pickup your federal ID on the left. Then continue down the hall for mandatory finger print and DNA recording for your protection.
Its almost the same situation with guy who got permission from a land owner to sit on the property and video tape police. The judge considered it unlawful seizer, and he won the case. Mainly because video taping is a legitimate way of gathering evidence. The full case is at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05 D0847P.pdf
That case was federal, I have no idea about state laws but in theory it could be appealed and possibly get the federal court involved.
What's wrong with filming the cops?
Isn't that the only REAL way to watch the watchmen?
It's an old saw of photography that in a place where a celebrity does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, you can take their photo without permission. You can even publish it. When I was handling photos for a major movie site, I had to remind agents and managers of this when they'd try to bluster about how neither they nor their client authorized us to run a photo they didn't like from a premiere or party. We didn't need their authorization.
/. post elements:
Now take something that is within the public interest, recording a police officer in the performance of his/her duties in a public place. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? If there isn't an exception to the wiretapping laws when a citizen records the police, but there is an exception when the police record citizens, there is something seriously wrong with that law. This case bears watching.
- Greg
P.S.: And to have some stereotypical
In Soviet Russia, the police record *you*.
1: Record Police Officer
2: Get Arrested For Felony
3: ???
4: Profit!!
I, for one, welcome our new wiretapping overlords.
Start a happiness pandemic
I guess my question is "Why SHOULDN'T you be able to videotape police officers doing their job?". Seriously.
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Feb 19, '07 04:13 PM
from the turnabout-isn't-fair-play dept.
a_nonamiss writes "A Georgia couple, apparently tired of people speeding past their house, installed a camera and radar gun on their property. After it was installed, they caught a police office going 17MPH over the posted limit. They brought this to the attention of the local police department, and are now being forced to appear in front of a judge to answer to charges of stalking."
I could see if this was like in a private building or someones personal area, but if your out in the open then anyone can hear you anyway. If the police have an exemption then the public should have it as well.
for red light cameras? SInce I drive for a living, it is recording me
during my duties without a wiretap warrant.
I expect any cases based upon surveillance camera footage to be dismissed on the technicality that no warrant was obtained.
If a cop has to give permission to be filmed then a member of the public should have to give specific, written consent to be filmed by any method of surveillance before that footage can be used as evidence against him in a court of law or elsewhere.
It's only fair, right?
Note it doesn't say "without notification," it says "without consent." Important difference.
Do not read this sig.
But in PA audio recording probably is. PA is a two party state. What that means is that all parties involved in a conversation must be aware it is being recorded for that to be legal. There are a number of states like this, and that's why there's the "this call may be monitored or recorded" crap on 800 numbers and such. They don't really care if you know, except that they are required to say so in some states.
Other states, like AZ, are one party states. This means that only a single person in a conversation needs to be aware it is being recorded for it to be legal. So while you can't, say, tap your girlfriend's phone (because you aren't a party in those conversations) you can tap your own phone, or walk around with a recorder in your pocket and it is legal.
So, if shit like this pisses you off, and it should, check and see if you are a two party state. If so, you should be getting on your state legislature about changing that.
How can it be wiretapping when the event happens in public place ? Wiretapping means listening into private conversations and some secret stuff. Not recording the cops abusing it's power in a public place.
American laws are scary. I say that as a foreigner and a person how lives outside the U.S.
If they were here to "serve and protect" they wouldn't be harassing citizens in petty traffic stops to begin with.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
This is more likely to get the law thrown out then get this guy put in prison. It is unreasonably broad for this officer to be applying this law in this way.
And what's with this wiretapping nonsense? That doesn't even make sense, how do you wiretap the air? Last I checked it wasn't a series of wires...
"Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent."
Okay...what? Why is this illegal? I mean, I can see some potential for abuse, recording someone saying something and using it to incriminate them etc. But seriously, if you say it aloud to someone they can report that you say it in court (presumably without hearsay as, as far as I know, that only applies to stating facts you heard from someone else, not what someone else said. As in I can say "Billy said..." in court but not "I know that because Billy said so")
I mean, I'm sure this law is great for privacy freaks, but it just seems off. If you're going to say something to me why don't I have the right to record it? My brain's already doing that, what's wrong with having a more accurate representation of it? You'd prefer I improperly remember you saying "I'm gonna blow them up!" and not have the recording that actually says "He's gonna blow them up?" I wouldn't mind people recording my conversations, why would you ever say anything you wouldn't want recorded to another human being with a memory?
Just seems like an off law to me. The case itself, not so much. If it's illegal there, no matter how off that law may be, then he should be arrested. However I'd hope he could get off with only a fine due to the extreme obscurity and horrible naming policy (really, they're supposed to know that videotaping someone talking is wiretapping?).
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
If this is taking place on a public street, then the wiretapping laws don't apply, just like the people's rights don't apply to "illegal search and seizure" when you're growing marijuana in your front yard in plain sight.
Right?
Pigs on taaaaaaape...
"Hey, if the police have nothing to hide, why do they object to being videotaped?"
When those who enforce the law are above it we are on the road to becoming a fascist oligarchy -if we aren't already.
Of course we have an executive branch which has put itself above the law in the name of terrorism and freedumb(sic)....
and a legislature which does not have the will to fix our healthcare crisis because they have their own healthcare system which isolates them from the f'd up system the rest of us are dealing with.....
There must be literally HUNDREDS of cases since Rodney King in which cops (especially LA cops) have been caught doing bad, abusive and unconstitutional things to perps -er citizens.
There should be no right of public officials to privacy while they conduct the tasks that they are allegedly performing on our behalf.
Cameras and things like open government sessions are about the accountability which is becoming rarer in this society.
LET THE SUNSHINE IN (ie. 'sunshine' laws)
I'm just sayin'
I'm sorry, but this is pure bullshit, through-and-through. Police officers in America are authorized and equipped to use *lethal* force, and in most courts their word is taken as gospel over a civilian. Due to departmental 'solidarity' successfully prosecuting even the worst cases is incredibly difficult.
If anything, police officers ought to be required by law to wear pickups that record ALL sound and a snapshot every 10 seconds while they are on duty. Ideally, said recordings would also be instantly transmitted to a secured location which nobody in their headquarters has access to for archival purposes.
This is ludicrous. It's a public location, there is no expectation of privacy.
And that's on top of the assumption of these ... "pigs" is fair, here ... that they should be immune to citizen oversight. There's no way that *SEVEN* *EXTRA* *COPS* were needed to arrest him.
This is state. Recording laws vary state to state and in PA, it's a state where all participants in a conversation must be informed they are being recorded (for audio at least). There are plenty of states this is not the case for. This all predates 9/11, Bush, and whatever other big brother federal things you are thinking of by quite some time.
While their wording of the law for felony wiretapping of voice communications probably has flexible spots, I doubt it'll bend that far unless the guy has a really crummy lawyer.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
It's pretty clearly noted in the article that only the audio portion of the recording was considered to fall afoul of the law. But, a videotape of a person speaking could be taken to a person who lip-reads to obtain a later transcript of a conversation. (And how admissible might such a transcript be if needed later?)
I'm also curious to know whether the subject, as a passenger in the vehicle, would be considered a party to the conversation (something that some wiretapping statutes take into account).
If you don't believe there was criminal intent, why the fuck was he arrested & why should he plead guilty to a lessor charge ?
Sue the fuckers !
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Next time, they'll have solid law to prosecute any SOB who films them at work and the recordings (being illegally obtained) won't be usable in court.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I forget which case it was, I had to do a research project on it about 4 years ago, but it involved wiretapping in public areas. The incident involved wiretapping a payphone booth that was used regularly by the defendent for placing bets on sports events over the phone (both betting on sports and gambling over phone lines were illegal at the time.) The FBI claimed that because the pay phone was in a public area that they were free to tap it because it wasn't considered a private area. The court ruled in favor of the defendent, stating that conversations in this type of pay phone booth, which had a door that closed so nobody outside could hear, was reasonably expected by the publicto be a place where one could hold a conversation in private. The general ruling is that if there is a commonly accepted expectation of privacy, a warrant is required. The incidence for the case here is that the police were out in public on the streets. Nobody can reasonably believe that a conversation in the street is a private event. Therefore, this case should be closed and in favour of Mr. Kelly. Update: The case I referenced in the beginning of this post is Katz v. United States. I found an audio recording of the case 4 years ago that was in mp3 format. It can be found at http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/198/argumen t.mp3, along with the transcript at http://www.oyez.org/oyez/audio/198/argument-ra.smi l
After all, if they're not doing anything wrong then they've got nothing to hide!
Isn't that how the argument goes?
Sauce for the goose...
You're using her as bait, Master!
I live here in Carlisle PA, and was pulled over for speeding a few weeks ago. AFTER the stop was over, and the officer was about to leave, he informed me that our encounter was recorded on a device on his shirt, as well as from the car.
I was indeed speeding and paid my fine. It just seems like a shady thing to be able to record me and tell me after the fact when this guy is facing charges.
Yeah, you can't actually monitor police activies ESPECIALLY if they are doing something wrong. ..and if you TELL someone about it your obstructing justice and harming the nation.
This is an afront to everything a free country is about! They are suposta serve us!
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Does the law require consent or awareness? There is a big difference between the two. If the law requires consent and you call a toll free number from or in Pennsylvania, does that mean you can tell the operator then that you don't consent to the call being recorded? If the law stipulates that parties must simply be made aware of the recording, then Kelly's mistake was surreptitiously recording the officer.
Another consideration is that a roadside does not constitute a public place, and by my interpretation of the law that is an essential element to the wiretapping offense. Namely, that an offense only occurs when there is an expectation of privacy. A roadside police stop doesn't conform to those requirements, in my opinion.
It boils down to if the person being arrested had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Just because you are 'out in public' doesnt mean you cant expect some level of personal privacy.
Now, the fact that there is a 'state offical' involved too, it makes things much more complex. There is no black and white 'covers all situations' answer here.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What happened to all that claptrap about if you've got nothing to hide you should'nt mind being taped?
Isn't that the crap the authorities come back with when people complain about CCTV cameras?
I'm guessing the COPS were videotaping the arrest with a car camera, if so, THEY have already CONSENTED
to having their actions recorded while on the job.
They are employees of the public going about public business IN PUBLIC. They damn well better be able to be recorded
or we are in serious trouble.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Many LOLz
I bet that ACLU will take this on. It seems like a pretty easy case. Police on the job are NOT private, they are in the public domain. As such, we have the right to video and tape them. Likewise, we have the right to record a politician who is busy making a speech or operating in the public.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality
But we all like to forget that for the sake a of stupid and insulting headline like Is Videotaping the Police a Felony?, right?
What if I videotape my day at Hershey park? Have I just committed a felony in PA because I have recorded what people around me are saying?
Just ask MPAA and RIAA.
Oh, you meant actual cops? Never mind.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
What is wrong with taping the police, when the police are in public? How could this possibly hurt anybody?
There was a case where a student secretly taped a teacher teaching extremist left-wing propaganda. The school said teachers could not be taped because it might be distracting to the other students. WTF?
...it's the same in China.
Max.
I wonder what the PA police would make of Gordon Bell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Bell/ and the MyLifeBits project http://research.microsoft.com/barc/mediapresence/M yLifeBits.aspx/?
The charge is invalid because it flouts privacy laws. Under the fourth amendment the expectation of privacy is not reasonable at such public places as automobile thoroughfares.
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
What was that about warrantless wiretaps?
There's a bit of a difference between a citizen NOT empowered to drag anyone off to jail for 24 hours and a cop. It's about the potential for abuse of authority.
The result was that it was O.K. to tape record the police during a traffic stop.
The rational was that since the traffic stop happened in public, there was no expectation of privacy.
Basically, you can record anything that happens in public.
Now PA law might be a bit different.
TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
Oh, yeah, in dictatorships & communist countries that squash common freedoms in the name of..... (Fill in blank)
I've met good policemen and I've met pigs.
I have never ever, ever met a good policeperson. Not even mediocre. 90% of America also shares this sentiment. (the other 10% being the most wealthy)
FTFA:
"Police said the officer saw Kelly had a camera in his lap..."
Doesn't that mean the officer knew he was being recorded and therefore the recording wasn't illegal? It seems like it would only be illegal if the officer *didn't* see the camera and somehow found out later that he was being recorded. The law in PA says that all parties of a conversation need to be informed if it is being recorded. The very fact that the officer saw the camera implies that he was aware of the recording.
Anyone know if COPS was filmed in PA? Wouldn't this same law apply in reverse, and the cameramen charged with the same felony?
Cops == Morlocks
You == Eloi
Honestly it's more like a veal-thing but you get the point. BTW, did you know there are cops pulling down $200k a year?
Welcome to dinner, we'll be serving you soon.
I can't see how a recording or photographing a police officer while performing his or her job is considered wiretapping when anybody can listen to and record the police using a radio scanner. Nothing that is being said between a cop and a person he is talking to or his actions with that person are something he should be worried about. By virtue of their job, the opposite should be true. From the article 'Young man, turn off your ... camera,'
I notice at the end that the ACLU might get involved and I hope they crush that cop and his department.
What about dash cams and microphones on police cars used as evidence?
-Nuke the moon
this happened to my friend in Carlise in March/ 03/police-corruption.html
here is his crappy misspelled blog of it
http://carlislepolicecorruption.blogspot.com/2007
The officer probably didn't know of the wiretap law either, and the DA was fortunate to find it, or they'd be even worse off than they are now. Arrested for no reason at all. They clearly wanted to harass and scare the kid, which the obviously succeeded at. Now the city should fork over $100K compensation, along with a sincere apology in the process.
If it ever goes to trial, and I was on the jury, it would be Jury Nullification all the way, baby!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent."
The officer DID consent to have the conservation recorded. In fact, he was recording it with his own audio/video system.
He didn't consent to have it on the defendant's tape... but unless the statute draws that line, the court should not either.
Maybe they want to protect the cops to avoid another "Rodney King scandal". If it's illegal to tape the cops, your video footage of certain incidents is illegal and can't be used against them in court.
But if they are so keen to apply that law in this case, it's looking grim in others. The law says: "...bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation...". So if I stand on a bus stop and next to me there are two people having a conversation and I listen in, I'm technically intercepting their conversation and hence can be charged for wiretapping. Even if I bloody lip read what they're saying, I'm intercepting their convo. It may be a good idea to use ear muffs and a blindfold when you are in PA...
No expectation of privacy in public places. That's all I have to say.
Libertas in infinitum
What's needed is a citizen dashboard camera system with external microphone, that can be turned on discreetly with a switch, and wirelessly stores the video somewhere else in the car. There are already rear-view video systems that could be integrated with multiple external cameras and mikes.
In the U.S. Republic, concerned citizens document police abuses with videotape to expose corruption (rodney king case). In Soviet Amerika, police power is abused to harass innocent advocating sunshine law and open government (this case). I for one, welcome our new orwellian overlords.
Learn to know, the dark side of the force, and you will achieve a power greater than any Jedi...the power to save your w
"If they're not doing anything wrong, they shouldn't have anything to worry about."
Snoop onto them, as they snoop onto us!!
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Everyone in public should expect to be recorded there. We're already based on that way of expecting publicity in public, rather than expectations of privacy in private. Technology is just letting us live up (or down) to our expectations.
These police aren't just appearing in public. They work for the public, represent the public. They absolutely should expect to be recorded when in public.
In fact, all police should be recorded every minute they're on duty, with explicit (and logged) privacy breaks. Their records should be scanned for completeness after every shift, and archived for some reasonable time, like a year, or after a couple of performance reviews. Cops should use the videos as evidence in trials, as reports (just voice annotated), as tools to help other people identify and link suspects. How many escaping suspects require excessive force to stop them, because otherwise they'd get away, who could just be recorded and caught later, without car chases and shooting that endangers the cops, the suspects, and bystanders?
Once the public is already always recorded, we'll have good reason to stop being so lazy and defend our actual privacy, in private, which the government is already invading and recording all the time, even despite laws against it.
--
make install -not war
Even if you find the law valid, the police had no way of knowing if the defendants camera was recording audio or just video thus they had no probable cause for seizure and since the defendant was essentially in police custody at the time(and undoubtable not informed of his rights before being forced to hand over evidence) there was no reason not to wait and get a search warrant. Plus the police officer already notified the defendant that he was recording them...thus making the tape just an other copy of a recording that is already evidence in a criminal case and a matter of public record
Second, videotaping or photography has nothing to do with this case. The issue is audio recording.
Third, you are the officer's employer in a very indirect sense at best. You have no actual power over him or her. You have handed that over to your government, and you can only effect a change through your government. Fourth, employers do not have an unqualified right to videotape their employees. Fifth, you bring up public domain? This is not a copyright case. I do know what you mean though, and while it is true that you have no expectation of privacy in public with regard to the way you are viewed (since you can be seen from far away), the same cannot be said about what you say. Sound only carries so far, and it is not unreasonable to expect privacy with regard to what you say.
To be clear, I do not believe the officer had an expectation of privacy with regard to what he said, but the PA legislature has deemed the wiretapping law to be a good one, so they are the ones to blame.
I hope this law takes effect in the UK with all their government sponsored CCTV's. Imagine cops arresting themselves! It would be like watching a bad coding bug in a video game. I'll be sure to grab some popcorn as I watch the chaos that ensues!
Why is this even a question? Of course we should be able to film and take pictures of them.
You can police the police at http://www.copwatch.org/
I guess this would fall under "attempting to police the police" (which IS needed in a lot of cases) and is one of the actions listed in the FBI JTTF pamphlet as being the action of a "potential domestic terrorist."
This is bullshit. It's clear that this is an abuse of power to stop people from being able to document further abuses of power. It's meant to also have a chilling effect and prevent others from doing the same.
Remember, one of the stated definitions of "terrorist" by the current administration is people who:
are Defenders of the Constitution
reference the constitution and the bill of rights
are property rights advocates
are loners
this is from an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force pamphlet which you can see here:
http://www.welfarestate.com/pamphlet/
If a cop is doing his or her job, he or she should be proud to be videotaped.
Now if someone was following a cop all day with a videocam for no good reason, I can see where that could maybe be an issue - but it should be fine to videotape a traffic stop on a public street, especially if you are the one being stopped.
The fascism keeps creeping.
Don't let anyone here on /. fool you! A silent movie of our cops doing their job is perfectly legal here in PA, the Keystone state. You'll need to add your own music soundtrack to keep audiences coming back for more, though.
Error:
I don't think these charges will stick because photography is considered a standard of truth. The right to capture the relative truth is necessary to prevent abuse of power by police and authorities. Besides, the wiretapping argument will not hold because the police are performing their duties in plain sight and therefore do not have a heightened expectation of privacy. The video taping is legal so long as the camera is capturing the footage from a distance sufficient that its operators are not interfering with the police officer's performance of duty. A first year law school student should be able to quash this thing. Also, I went to school in Carlisle, PA and the Carlisle PD does behave in a dubious fashion. Between you, me, and the microchips, C/PD is concerned that their tactics would be revealed.
A District Attorney is going to have a hard time of getting a conviction unless someone is willing to press charges, accusing someone else (in this case, Brian Kelly) of a crime. What would happen to the D.A.'s case, if Brian Kelly asked his pal to be a witness, and his pal said "Heck, I wanted Brian to record the cop that was yelling at me!"
Kind of makes the "non-consensual recording" charge go out the window, don't you think?
*technically, detention == arrested, if only long enough to issue a citation.
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
We really need more people filming the police.
It seems that police brutality is getting so common now that they are willing to beat members of the media on camera . (The clip begins with the narrator suggesting that the protestors were "asking for it" by throwing rocks at the police, but they can't spin the footage of their own camerapeople getting beaten up.)
What's worse, is that police now tend to focus on people with cameras , as you can also see in the above video.
The tapes are very helpful in prosecuting police misconduct , so we neeed more people taping.
Otherwise, the police tend to lie about the incidents , even going so far to claim in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in Britain that 5 different cameras watching the action were all somehow not functioning .
In a Missouri case, a teenager was being harassed by the police at a DUI checkpoint for not telling them where he was going -- when he asked why he was being detained, he was told "If you don't stop running your mouth, we're going to find a reason to lock you up tonight".
Cameras are getting tinier and tinier all the time, and now we have Wi-Fi enabled storage cards. When cameras get so small the cops can't see them, and people can record the content wirelessly to hidden devices, it will be a lot harder for the bad cops to stop the filming of the brutality.
C'mon, we all know the cops are never in the wrong! After all, they're working for the good of the public, ya know...
By this interpretation of the law anyone with a camcorder at a back yard cookout or public event is committing a felony, unless you have permission from everyone there. Unless they call out every exception, then TV news crews are roving criminal bands. It's ridiculous. The fact they're police officers is irrelevant. There's no expectation of privacy in a public place and the same standards should apply to audio as video.
This is completely insane.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Yes! The government is not like your nosy neighbor. We can and should put additional restrictions on public servants while they are performing the jobs that we ask them to. Don't treat the government like a peer - it is both a useful and dangerous servant that needs to be watched and restricted so that those who would abuse the power we give the government cannot.
splash splash
Oh the irony.
I'm sure not everyone has forgotten about him yet, but if you have, here's the refresh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King I find it quite amazing how things that weren't a problem years ago have become problems these days. I honestly can't say I stay current on all laws of all jurisdictions but I'm sure if this were the case back then somebody might have mentioned it. Instead we have entered a world where solid lines no longer divide right from wrong and instead with a good enough lawyer anyone can justify being on either side of the line.
The police may realize that they only have a limited amount of time to establish these rules before it is effectively too late. The time is fast approaching when nearly everyone will have a personal recording device (possibly concealed) running all day long for their own protection. This will severely hamper the ability of the cops to act like thugs unless they can somehow make such recordings illegal and inadmissable when a police officer is involved.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Similarly in New York city there was recent arrest because a cameraman was apparently racketeering by videotaping a police car. There's a video on blip tv here: http://timesup.blip.tv/file/252942/ The police will do anything to arrest anyone who is seen as nuisance or a minor threat to their authority. Welcome to the police state!
Camp Hill is to buy a street-sweeper. You heard it here first. I mean, second. Maybe third.
_ hill_to_buy_street_sweepi.html
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/camp
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
you are in a public place. As such, it will be interesting to see what takes hold. But with this case, the private citizen is a friend of the camera man. I am guessing that he will not file charges.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"You were put here to protect us, but who protects us from you?"
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Want to piss off the police in Carlisle and get them back? Simple. Go into their station and look around for a camera. Once you see one, ask an officer if it records audio. If it does, then ask to see the police chief or sheriff because they are the ones in charge. Once you meet him/her, perform a citizens arrest on them for felony wiretapping. Don't read them their miranda because you could get arrested yourself for impersonating an officer. But if you play it cool and calm, you can arrest the chief of police. My advice is to first get the news crews down there IF and only IF they have cameras that record audio. If they don't, then simply find a reputable business that has a camera recording audio and perform a citizens arrest. The police will have to come and arrest the dude. If this doesn't get you/your-buddy off the hook then go from business to business doing this. After awhile the entire town will be in jail and the prosecutor will drop the charges against you.
Either that, or next time I go to a convenience store or "big-box" retailer I'm going to demand that they turn off their cameras because they don't have my permission.
As far as I understand, the law says you have to be notified of recording. Otherwise, if it's your life, and it's happening to you, you can tape it.
You can't publish it without consent, but you (or your approved surrogate) sure as heck can record it. These cops were out of line.
IANAL.
--
Toro
Police, in America less so than elsewhere, are basically fascists. There are good guys which always include them, and bad guys, (more often than not, you).
According to this worldview, everything they do is legal and everything you do is illegal. They have the power to use lethal violence against anyone that they feel is illegal. Which is everyone, including you.
But their resources are limited and there is a lot of paperwork to fill out for every illegal (you, baby) that they process. So they have to be selective. Anything outside the local norm gets selected. (You are outside someone's local norm).
When you understand this mentality, you understand the police everywhere in the world. There are only two other things that you need to know. 1: Having a lot of money changes you from being illegal to being legal, especially if you give some of this money to the police. 2: In most legal systems, the police don't determine whether a person or activity is guilty of anything. The courts do and the courts are a completely different branch of government from the police.
In America, the court's determination of your guilt is directly dependent upon the amount of money that you spend on lawyers. This isn't opinion or bias or fantasy, it's a basic fact that is simply never discussed publicly.
The question of whether it is illegal to video the police is irrelevant, the real question is whether the person arrested is willing and able to spend what is necessary to affirm his innocence in a court of law in the US.
The police everywhere are always going to arrest you for videotaping them. Whether or not they kill you, beat you half to death while you're in their custody, or simply detain you for a period of time depends on the traditions of the local jurisdiction.
One thing is for sure. If you do video tape the police in action, make sure that the image is being broadcast to another recording machine that they don't know about. This way you will have something to bargain with in court and you won't have to spend as money proving your innocence than if the police just take the tape from your machine.
This is not fantasy, this is the way that the world works once you get away from your PC.
Were this the law in California the Rodney King case would never have come to light, nor at least a dozen other cases of police use of 'excessive force' (also known as 'beating the snot out of some poor schmuck who can't defend himself').
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
in England
Everyone knows that. Here in NC it's a felony to tape cops who come to your own house, for instance if you have a surveillance camera at the front door and the cop comes to your door to talk to you or serve a warrant it is in fact illegal for the homeowner to record that 'interaction' in any way.
Also, the state legislature is working on a bill to exempt all police from all traffic violations at all times if they are in their official vehicles whether they are on duty or pursuing someone or not.
As a fire fighter, I work with PD frequently. Despite what you see on TV, most of the FF/PD back and forth is overall friendly or at worst good natured sparing.
I know many officers. Some are good, some are not good. Most are somewhere in the middle. The youngest, smallest ones have in my experience been the ones closer to the stereotype. I refer to these as "25 year olds with their first mirrored shades and a gun" and are dangerous to themselves as much as the public they insult. Most though, grow up and become good natured and humble just like we all try to.
Cops are people, and suffer the same foibles as the rest of us. For them, like all others, power is a drug to be taken in small doses.
When you give a little man a little power, you create a big problem.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Now this is just silly. The police have cameras in their car. I realize they don't always turn them on, particularly when 'bad' things happen. But hey! Nobody is perfect! The police are not out to get you. They don't want to take you to jail just to meet a quota, or because they are on a power trip. When you video the police what you are saying is: "We don't trust you." And that is just plain wrong. So wrong, in fact, it should be criminal.
Why, just the other day the neighbors called the cops to come visit me. I have such great neighbors. The officer said it was because someone *heard* a child crying. Think of that, they just wanted to be sure my children were happy. Of course, a crying child is very concerning. Why would a child cry? Well, only two reasons I know of: because you are hitting them with a shovel, or they want to stay up past their bed time. I'm sure my neighbor would know that my kids never cry at bedtime, so they naturally assumed a shovel.
The officer who showed up was such a friendly chap. He came in to my home and woke my kids by shining his flashlight in their faces. The kids thought it was a riot! We all had a good laugh afterwords. See kids! See what fun it is to be woken up by a big police officer with a gun and a flashlight in your face!? Good times. My two year old son especially appreciated it. I think he really grew to appreciate the police that day.
Well, the cop did his job. None of my kids were bleeding, nor had any signs of child abuse at all. He could see they were probably crying because they wanted to stay up and watch that friendly purple dinosaur. See how we trusted the police fully? I can let a complete stranger with a loaded weapon in to my child's bedroom and not have a care in the world. Why? Because he is an officer of the law. Just for good measure, of course, he referred us to the local child abuse center in order to keep our kids safe. What a great police officer. The city's finest I tell you. I wouldn't dream of video taping them because I trust them fully.
My wife sat in tears as the police officer left. She was so thrilled about the visit.
For interactions between a citizen and a policeman/woman, it isn't reasonable to grant the ability to legally record what occurs to the officer but not the citizen. The officer is already the one with more power in their relationship. Without the citizens being able to monitor policemen/women, the relationship between power and privacy becomes greatly imbalanced, and abuses will occur with greater frequency. There are more than enough historical examples (and a few in the news right now) that illustrate why monitoring the force that monitors us is necessary.
"Filming police officer not invasion of privacy * The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the state of Washington's Privacy Act does not prohibit filming a police officer, allowing a civil rights lawsuit against the officer to advance." http://www.rcfp.org/news/2004/1105johnso.html --- End Paste --- Though it doesn't directly apply to PA. it sets a strong precedent which can be cited by someone arrested in other locations. The Police in the performance of their official duties have no expectation of privacy and therefore this law does not apply.
for the last 6 years, they have given this admin a VERY free ride. They will not take this on, because it will open another can of worms. In particular, US PATRIOT act. You did note that it gave the police the right to videotape what they are doing, but does not give us the right to see that video. If ACLU makes headway, then the bloggers will go after it, and then the press. As it is, they are headed in the same direction as CDs; immaterial.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"When you give a little man a little power, you get a big problem"
Little refers to the character of the man, not the stature. Clearly it also refers to your ability to understand metaphor.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
In the Public Domain aren't there to be no expectations of privacy. I know this was used by the defense in some nude shots of girls on the street in mardi gras for something like Girls Gone Wild, when they were being sued by the girl (I might be wrong on the particulars but it was something of the sort.) So, considering it was outside in the public domain why should the cops be any different. When in public expect to be watched/listened to. I thought wiretapping came into effect when privacy was expected i.e. inside ones own house.
There is no expectation of privacy. That is why police are allowed to look INTO the visible parts of your car (ie, through the windows, etc) without probable cause or a warrant.
Presumably, that's why they also can tape a traffic stop.
I seriously doubt the Constitution would stand for government employees to have GREATER protections and expectations of privacy when performing official government duty.
Personally I've been harassed by our local stormtrooper wannabes (small town police). That stopped when I made it clear that I carry a tape recorder and will record any and all interactions.
Corporatism != Free Market
There is no reasonable "expectation of privacy" in public. Period. This is well-established law.
This is usually applied to photography (either still or motion pictures), though it also applies to audio. If you're in public, and I'm in public, and I can hear you, I can tape you. End of story.
It is lawful to record audio and video of the police at work in public for the same reason it's lawful to record Paris Hilton in public. Police agencies do not have any more (or less) expectation of privacy in public.
Now, a person with a videocamera could still be charged with other crimes, such as impeding or obstructing a police matter. But if the photographer complies with lawful commands from the police (such as, for instance, "stay behind that line"), and does not impede the investigation, no offense has been committed.
This is bravado from the fuzz. Nothing more. I hope the photog has a capable attorney.
For the most part, I agree, but I've never seen the good cops keep the bad in line and I've seen the bad do some pretty fucked up stuff. I think it would be better if the cops and guards were watched 10 times as closely as anyone else. It's slightly harder for us to get away with murder.
I haven't read the PA statutes and I'm not going to take the time to do that and dig through case law on it, but generally the way it works is you have to make someone aware of it, so that they can consent or not consent. So like on the phone call when it notifies you it might be recorded, you are free to hang up, or if a business has signs up saying the record you are free to not go in. In public, well who knows? Kind of a grey area. Comes down to a balance between the lack of expectation of privacy (you have no general expectation of privacy in public) versus the fact that you can't very well tell people to just not go out in public.
My guess is that the argument would be that provided the person is doing a reasonable job to make you aware they are recording (obvious equipment, signs, etc) then your consent is implied, unless you say something. However if you say "You need to stop recording me," they have to comply.
Now as a practical matter, shit like this isn't going to court for public recording unless it involved someone powerful, like the police. However the law is probably such that it IS illegal to keep recording (audio at least, maybe video too) if someone tells you to stop.
Really the answer is just better laws. The whole one party idea really takes care of it. You can't record a conversation that you aren't present for, without permission. However if you are there, you can record. Makes good sense, as you could be writing it all down, or remembering it or whatever. While it wouldn't stop the police form illegally taking your camera or something it will stop them from trying to use the courts to stop you from recording them. It is legal, no matter if you are covert or not, so long as you are a party to what you are recording.
So now I'm a felon for listening to two neighbors yell at each other? Wow.
If he broke a wiretapping law, what wires was he tapping? Also, by entering a public place, then you are willfully giving your consent to being videotaped. Police officers are no exception.
I just think that these cops are trying to squirm out of the jam of having a display of their unprofessional attitude caught on tape by arresting the driver as intimidation for documenting their public indiscretions.
Seriously, if you want to cover up bad actions, try a less obvious way than by arresting the person who videotaped your PUBLIC outburst.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Perhaps:
The police should not be videotaped in their interaction with the public because there exists huge potential to exploit such video as defaming of random (or not so random) people who may in fact be doing nothing wrong.
"In tonight's exclusive, we have shocking footage of heavyweight champ John Smith being placed in the back of a patrol car. Police aren't saying what it is that Smith did wrong, but our confidential sources say that he is involved in a [sophisticated money laundering scheme/cocaine binge/nasty divorce/child custody case/other unproven or private nastiness]."
Don't get me wrong. I'm generally all for all sorts of liberties and rights, whether it be of the press or the general public, but especially the much more vague right to avoid being fucked with -- in any form.
What right does a guy with a camera have to start the wheels of the rumor mill churning?
Anecdotally, I've been in the back of a patrol car for questioning. I didn't do anything wrong, and I'm not ashamed of the event. But I do not wish for it to be spun into the public eye, where I would either be forced to defend myself against the spin or admit (by silence) being guilty of something that never happened.
Just a thought.
Kid-proof tablet..
The assholes are *hooding* people now when they arrest them in a lot of places. HOODING THEM. Guess what comes next? For a clue, check the headlines.
They are the brainwashed mouth breathing steroid addicted psychopathic stepchildren of the foreign corporate wars mercenaries. That's right, the same mentality (and now a lot of the same "people", that's the number one recruit for the pig forces, ex military with combat experience) that brought you abu ghraib and the genocide in Fallujah is bringing you officer friendly and the local "anti terrorist" SWAT teams, complete with full auto, silencers, and armored vehicles. Police follow orders, orders come down from the top to always protect the status quo and the power brokers.
Look back in history, WHEN have cops been on the right side when it came to civil or human rights? NEVER, NOT ONE TIME YET, they have always fought against the people on orders from the powerful, once all is said and done. Racial discrimination was wrong, yet every time some cop was ordered to protect the status quo of racial discrimination-they did so, violently.
The nam war was based on total lies, tonkin gulf never happened, and the draft that was illegally continued after WW2 and used to send young kids off to fight in corporate wars for profit and murder millions was obviously unconstitutional and illegal and morally bankrupt, yet every single time the cops protected the status quo power brokers against the people.
Now we have them enforcing so called "free speech zones" (hello, can ANY cop even READ and comprehend at a third grade level?? the Bill of inalienable rights, ever hear of it??) and arresting folks with cameras in a public place? What do you expect from paid mercenaries? That's their mercenary gig, follow orders from the rich and powerful, and now make sure there is never any evidence that might be used against them. Just call it "security". Mumble the word "terrorism". Anything they do is jow "right, legal, lawful". Anything..
YOU can get pulled over for speeding or blocking traffic, the ultra rich and powerful dudes in government and their corporate string pullers get POLICE ESCORTS and YOU have to make way to let them by. Get it yet? A lot of -places it is "illegal" for you to be armed for self protection, but some rich asshole like that fat pig mayor in new jerk city, who says you can't protect yourself and his pig mercenaries would arrest you for it, has round the clock armed 24/7 protection. See it yet? See how it works? Some group of transnational disloyal corporate execs can get together and scheme which new set of people will be losing their jobs and incomes and get full complete pig protection at their "trade conferences", but people trying to protest against that are "terrorists" now "radical extremsists" who's groups "need to be infiltrated to gather intelligence". The pigs don't care, because they know THEY will get their mercenary blood money paycheck from their corporate masters even when YOURS goes kaput. See how that works? And YOU pay for that, even if your job gets jobjacked, you will still have to pay your "property taxes" so that they can pay the pigs to keep you in thralldom. If the cops were really for the people, they would march in and arrest those WTO conmen traitors-but they sure don't, do they?
We just had that article the other day where the MAFIAA goons hired cops to act as official raid people. Can YOU go hire cops and just raid some of the MAFIAA offices looking for evidence of industry collusion and price fixing and payola, which we know go on?
Cops are disgusting mercenaries. That they occasionally help out some poor schmuck in a pickle is barely 1% of their normal function (I'll grant that 1%, but no more, not any longer), and even that 1% is fading fast now. They could give crap one if you get robbed or mugged, exploited or hoodwinked by corporate cons, just boring paperwork to them.
The US is now a
sadly, this is not the beginning of an "in soviet russia" joke
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
WTF??!!
Are the mods all 12?
If anything it deserves a +/-1 Sarcasm mod.
Insightful?!
Damn.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Police can be assholes independently of any citizen actions. I was getting a slow flat that I didn't notice immediately. Later I was told I'd run over a spike which caused the leak (covered under tire warantee!). I was starting to notice the steering was getting less responsive -- driving on a curvy 4-lane highway. At first I thought it was a fluke or maybe I wasn't paying attention, but paying full attention, it became difficult to avoid going into a center divide, and the tire blew the rest of the way then. I calmly signaled to get over in outer lane (no loss of control of vehicle), pulled over at a turnout. I was followed when pulling over by an off-duty cop who thought I was "inebriated". At that point, I wasn't quite sure what had happened (had I hit something? (no), did my tire or car hit the center divide and that's what caused the blow out? (no). I was on my way to a doctor's appointment. Was a hot day and was wearing a skirt, light top and middle-to-low height sandals (not flats, but not high heels -- fine for shopping in, but not taking outdoor hikes in). The policeman called fellow pigs to the scene and convinced them I was under the influence of "something".
I was quite cooperative, told them any meds I was taking (none of which would have caused impairment -- had been taking them for long time). On the side of the road, on rough gravel and on a hill side, they had me trying to walk the straight line in the mid-heeled sandals that, at best, might be comfortable to walk in, but not pirouette on an incline and rough gravel. So they decided to arrest me. Then they refused to allow me to get a jacket, sweater, or any warmer clothes. Even lied to me, saying they'd get my bag (they didn't) so I could put on a jacket. They then took me downtown and my car was towed. The breathalyser on the scene was negative, but that wouldn't have showed effects of other drugs. Downtown they took a pee test AND a blood test (both, a week or two later came back negative). But meanwhile, they locked me up for 8 hours to "sober up" (since they couldn't get the blood and urine tests back for a few to several days). Locked up, down in basement, where it was 65 degrees -- and I was dressed for 80's and sunny.
It cost me $40 for a taxi ride at midnight to the lot where they had towed my car where I had to pay over $200 for an after-hours "release". I put the spare on the car in 10 minutes and was on way home. Then I had to deal with a DUI charge that I wasn't guilty of. I had to hire a lawyer to deal with the court issues, since otherwise, they'd want me to be in court 45 miles away at 8am to enter my plea. The lawyer was able to talk to the DA's office the morning of the trial. They found nothing in my blood other than the 'scripts I'd told them about and they decided to drop the charges. They refused to return my prescriptions -- and ran me around in circles trying to get them from the police -- who eventually refused because, they claimed, they were not doctors and it would be illegal for them to return my prescriptions as they were not doctors -- I'd need a court order.
At this point I was out $250 for the night I had to get home from jail and another $1200 down to the lawyer. The court order to return my meds would have cost, minimum, another $800-1000, so gave up that idea and just went into the pharmacy for refills a bit early.
So I'm out $1500 due to some cop thinking my "flat tire" causing steering problems was me being "DUI" -- no recourse to get the money. I found out 3-4 years later (!!!) when I went to get insurance on a new car, that the cop at the scene had reported it to the DMV as an accident. The asshole cop didn't even check to see if my car had any scratches on it -- and the tire had no side-wall damage (as would be the case if I brushed against the center divide). Nevertheless the idiot recorded it as an accident which caused me to have to do some explaining to my insurance company to supposedly tell them about my "accident". I didn't know anything about an acc
It sounds pretty easy to take care of with just a little forethought?
!!! WARNING !!!
Security Camera Area
This area is covered by a security camera that records images and audio.
Your continued presence on this property / in proximity to this vehicle /
and/or engaging property owners, residents, guests, bystanders, pedestrians
or entities within this area / drivers and/or passengers in or around this
vehicle / in any fashion shall be considered legal consent to permit the
recording of the likenesses, images and/or voices of yourself and your
associates, partners, guests, spouses, children, pets and/or entities out
of camera range but within audible range of the recording device, for any
purpose including but not limited to personal, commercial and/or legal use.
If you do not consent to being recorded in this fashion then you must present
a warrant declaring that the owner and/or one of their family or guests is
under arrest and/or the property under surveillance is being secured pursuant
to the terms dictated in the issued warrant, or you and your associates, partners
guests, spouses, children, pets and/or entities must depart the designated
security area without delay.
IANAL, but I think that pretty much covers the issue of "informed consent"?
Now, just make this into a sign for your property and a window sticker for your car.
Done and dusted!
[End Of Line]
Perhaps you should consider contacting the guys at Justin.tv. I don't care about them in the least, but it sounds like their tech might be useful to you.
Police Record You
Power trip? Uh... Yeah.
Be sure to obey all speed limits, (no matter how stupid they seem) here in PA - especially in small towns. This form of revenue is common here and a lot of cops here have this kind of attitude. I'll be interested to see how this particular case goes down, but I have a feeling it'll be much like the nearby Mechanicburg justice system I experienced a few years back: "Well... That's some good proof there, but I'm going to find you guilty." (judge turns to officer) "So Jim, how's the wife and kids these days?"
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
It is my understanding that this audio was only recently "discovered." I can assure you during my military service I NEVER received an order to fire my weapon like that. Maybe "Ready, Aim, Fire" or "Contact [direction], Fire" ...never something like "Get Set! Point! Fire!" They just aren't ligitimate weapons commands. It sounds to me like some agitator wanted to add it and just messed it all up. He may be able to fool someone who has never been on a weapons range, but not anyone who has actually put rounds downrange.
Cohesion? Were you maybe going for coercion?
If they're not doing anything wrong they have nothing to worry about, at least that's what politicians and the Police say every time civil rights groups complain about the public being CCTV'd everywhere they go.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
I'm going to have to look into the law in question, but it seems that the intent of the prohibition on wiretapping is to protect the privacy of citizens.
So what's odd is that the policemen were acting in a public capacity, yet Kelly is being charged with a law intended to protect the privacy of private citizens. Don't get me wrong, cops are private citizens when they're off-duty.
But when on-duty, they're instruments of Government, who are employees of the taxpayer.
I've met police men as an EMT and in private, while helping someone after a car accident. It's like night and day. As soon as you're out of your uniform they stop being nice. But it's the same with paramedics. They don't even listen.
This seems so stupid. Most wiretap laws require you to intercept the sound via a wiretap. There was no wire to tap in this case. I think they should prosecute the cop and the prosecutor for obstruction of justice, intimidation, false arrest and RICO violations. Put the prosecutor in General Population. I think this is an abuse and the prosecutor, cops should be taught the lesson to not abuse their positions.
So at what point can paparazzi's be prosecuted?
Why can't the same logic be applied to private citizens. For instance, if the person taping had informed the officer that he was recording the officer, couldn't there be implied consent since the officer didn't vacate the area?
Also, what difference does it matter who is recording whom? If the cop is allowed to record a traffic stop, a citizen should be able to record the same traffic stop.
This entire situation scares me a great deal.
I think the cops are in the right on this one. Why? The cops are only enforcing the law. The law basically says that no one can record conversations of others except police during police interviews. Why is thie a good thing? Think little. If you had the right to record conversations of others, then you would. You and other slashdotters aren't the problem. It's that if you have the right, then companies would have that right. (See where I'm heading with this.)
If companies were allowed to record converstations, then places like walmart, target, and gas stations would add audio recordings to their video tape survillance. Right now, it wouldn't be useful, but I could see "them" actually developing the tech to convert audio converstations into easily searchable text. (Heck, you might even be ID'd by your voice.) Would you want a world where every converstation that you had was recorded by whomever owned that building? You go to the gas station, and its recorded, you go to a Walmart type store and all your converstations are recorded, you go to any government building and every converstation that you have is recorded.
The law sounds like it was trying to prevent that which is a good thing.
You do realize that you're completely ignoring the context of the pamphlet don't you?
"'defenders' of the Constitution" does not mean the same as "Defenders of the Constitution". You're pretending it does.
You go on to make the same ridiculous mistakes with each of your supposed quotes from the pamphlet, and in doing so ignore the context.
You're the worst kind of liar.
Yes, Mr. Cheney, it is all a big conspiracy.
Don't you ahve to put a notice when videotaping someone? I think this is how stores and private property get around the law. So with that, just put a bumper sticker on the car that says activities within this car are taped and monitored at all times. Then when you get pulled over, turn the camera on. The cop has notice and if he doesn't want to be videotaped then maybe he shouldn't be pulled over. If you give him notice and it's within your own property then i don't think he can tell you to turn it off. of course he'd probably tell you to get out of the car and definately give you a ticket.
It amazes me in the U.S. the amount of faith people put in law enforcement. Many cops are little better than the criminals they police. And there are whole departments (New Orleans, I'm looking in your direction) that are either in direct alliance with criminals or actively extorting them. Anyone stupid enough to think that cops obey the law DESERVES that nightstick up their ass.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Exactly, If you are on a public street . . . its public, no expectation of privacy. Bunch of BS. I know several state and local police officers, they are all pretty nice guys a few a little strange, but I know several have been in trouble for abusing there position. Only one was serious, the other nothing really just stepped over the line a little, but the position naturally leads to power trips even by the nice guys . . . Dealing with a lot a**holes on a regular basis doesn't help.
Just like the cop told them they were being videotaped (probably as a form of legal disclosure), they probably could have just told the police that he himself was being videotaped and then it was not undercover or spying on the cop?. That the guy needs the consent of the people he video on a public place (and a public officer of the law), I really wonder if that is needed. IANAL of course.
I used to live there. The police loved to harass me while on my bicycle, obeying the law too. I was harassed on several occasions. One was when I was straddled on the bike on a blocked-off road for some carnival (not riding, mind you). Another I was finishing a ride at dusk, and a cop pulled up behind me at a red light and used his PA system to tell me I had to walk because I didn't have a light on (never mind that none of the cars at the red light had their lights on yet either, and there were a couple of people illegally riding bikes down the sidewalks). I miss the trails up there, but certainly not the police force.
An axiomatic presumption of this law is that the parties involved have the option of terminating the conversation upon being notified that it will be recorded. That's not the case here: under no sane conditions would the officer say "oh, if you're going to record the conversation then we're not going to have a conversation" and walk away.
If the cop wins in this case, we could very well see criminals getting surveilance recordings thrown out of court for the same reason: they weren't notified that their "conversation" was being recorded. Unintended consequences...
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
If the commanding officer was incompetent enough to shoot on unarmed civilians, what makes you think he's competent enough to follow standard procedure?
Just because you never used "Get Set, Point, Fire" doesn't mean others haven't. How about you not make the mistake of extrapolating out your personal experiences to others. Hmm?
It sounds to me like some agitator wanted to add it and just messed it all up.
Sounds to me like you enjoy the taste of cop dick. But that's just wild speculation - just like your comment was.
He may be able to fool someone who has never been on a weapons range, but not anyone who has actually put rounds downrange.
Anyone who really has been on a weapons range knows that they are responsible for their weapon's discharge. Too bad that sense of responsibility evaporates whenever one of their little tin-pot authoritarians goof up. Then its "Guns kill people" or "Hippies kill themselves by wandering into our bullets." Sheez. Get up off your knees and Man up, will you?
...not that I would compare the skill and training of paramedics to surgeons, but the attitude can sometimes come from the same place. The training and pressure under which they must do their work means it has to attract people with confidence in abundance and the ability to make snap decisions.
;-)
I've also heard them referred to as "paragods".
I'm not an EMT, just a firefighter (well, a fire officer). If they're stuck somewhere, I'll get them out. If they're on fire, I will put water on them. After that, they're someone else's problem.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
But I believe that the police don't have this right either. We all do have the right to defend ourselves from an attacker. Only* the police have the right to do this preemptively if a person is armed and obviously* dangerous and fails to comply with instructions to put the weapon down and submit.
* The starred words are unverified and are my interpretation of what I've observed of police behavior.
I don't see why this particular police officer wouldn't want him being video taped at that particular moment. For one the police cars usually have video recorders taping the entire incident. If he didn't want to be taped, maybe he wasn't doing his job necessarily legal, police officers tend to have a history of bending the law. Police officers are a public figure, I don't see why they need to ruin the life of someone just because they video taped a cop.
It says so right here on my ticket that cameras and recording equipment are strictly forbidding so I'm guessing they can at least kick you out of the statdium.
Oh well, see you at the concert tonight!
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
I wish we had speed cameras EVERYWHERE. Cops would not have to do dangerous patrols, we'd just mail people their tickets. AND EVERYBODY THAT EXCEEDED THE POSTED LIMIT BY 1 MPH WOULD GET A TICKET. EVEN COPS. EVEN JUDGES. And it would take about one week of this for everyone to realize that the posted speed limit is STUPIDLY LOW. If there was 100% enforcement of traffic laws, we'd quickly weed out the ones that are unnecessary.
If we can't fully monitor cops to ensure their compliance with the law, then we need Robocop. A cop who doesn't let his ego get in the way of justice. A cop who arrests everybody that breaks the law, even my hot blonde girlfriend, or the chief's brother.
I'd happily pay my traffic ticket fine if i knew that everyone else who had done the same violation had to pay, too. But right now, I look "too ethnic" to be let go with just a warning that other "special" people get.
Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state; however, the public performance of police duties is not a private conversation. I believe this will be thrown out.
If I understand it correctly, the wiretapping law requires that the recorded persons have an expectation of privacy. The police are video taping any stop. How can they claim they have an expectation of privacy if they themselves are taping the stop?
You exceeded the speed limit on your way to work today. I guarantee it. Did you get a ticket? No, because law enforcement is arbitrary and subject to the whims of the enforcers. They could track your GPS cell phone or EasyPass and know every time you were speeding. But if they actually gave out a ticket every time someone broke their stupid laws, the laws would quickly get repealed and then they'd have no traffic fine revenue. So they'll keep selectively shaking us down.
Bad boys, bad boys,
whatcha gonna do
whatcha gonna do when civilians film you?
[WHACK! THWACK! SMACK! THUMP! THUMP! THUMP!] "He resisted arrest."
That's what they're gonna do.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
First Assistant District Attorney Jaime Keating said case law is in flux as to whether police can expect not to be recorded while performing their duties.
Fuck that shit
Anyone who seriously thinks that a police office performing his or her duty should be exempt from recording needs to be shot, now. This shouldn't ever be a question, the police are accountable to the people, we have the right and responsibility to make sure that they are not abusing the authority that has been granted to them. They have accepted a job with some special caveats, one of those is that they get to work under a public microscope, either deal with it or quit.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
"The outcome hinges on whether the person had a malicious intent, Freed said."
I do not see how videotaping a police officer has any malicious intent. In fact, its merely trying to make sure the facts are reported accurately. Police officers should have no problem being recorded (both audio and visual) assuming they are doing their jobs correctly.
I hope this Judge throws out the case.
I've been in a near riot -- basically a race riot. It's not about government control over the sheeple. It's a terrifying event that transforms your perception of human free-will. I'm posting this AC because it's a moment that I'm deeply ashamed to have been associated with.
In my freshman year of high school, I was in the marching band when my school made it to the quarterfinals and had to play a game at an all-black school with a nasty reputation for crowd violence when they lost. How much of this reputation was earned and how much of it was racist fearmongering at my own nearly all-white school, I can't say. However, long before the game rumors had spread at my school which had a lot of the students gripped with fear.
We heard that they would take out frustration on fans from the other team. We heard that they sometimes brought guns. We heard that they had attacked a referee before. We heard about vandalism to the cars of fans from visiting teams. We heard about a lot of stuff that may have been the gospel truth and may have been absolute nonsense.
In response, people came prepared. County sheriff's deputies and the sheriff himself had kids at the school and were supposedly going to the game to provide "security" (well out of their jurisdiction, mind you). Some of the more redneck members of the school (including members of our drum section) planned to smuggle knives in just in case. The tension and fear in the crowd were pre-seeded before the actual event.
At the actual game, the fans from the opposing team were pretty nasty in behavior. They forced our player to change in an open gym where people could just wander in and out. Taunting the misfortune of the opposing team is a pretty normal thing at a game, but there was a spitefulness in the way they did it that our fans weren't accustomed to. Ugly rumors began spreading through our crowd -- some people said they saw a fan from the other team flash a gun at the referee on a bad call.
Towards the end of the game, we were up by a couple of points. The situation was turning ugly. The visitor stands were on the opposite side of the field from the parking lot, and the home crowd that extended to crowd around the end-field had not too subtly shifted into a position that blocked off easy exit to the parking lot. The mood of the home crowd was quietly angry and very menacing. Catcalls and cheers had mostly stopped and been replaced with yells of a more threatening tone. The band was right at that end of the stands, and many of the girls who played woodwind instruments in the front row were starting to cry because they were afraid.
Then, with a few minutes left to go, the referees made a call that seemed blatantly bad to our fans. I can't remember the details, but the call was so bad that people were convinced the referees had been intimidated into throwing the game. The call allowed a reversal that allowed the opposing team to score the winning points. The mood in our crowd turned toxic at that point, though many of us (especially the girls on the front row) were deliriously happy at mob violence averted. The crowd quickly shifted back away from blocking the stands in the last few minutes as home team fans erupted in cheers, and then the game ended and we had to leave.
The mood for our team's fans was, as mentioned, toxic. Our crowd sulked out, many people practically spoiling for a fight. We quickly evacuated the band and there was a sort of honor guard on our Korean drum majorette because people were of the belief that she might be first targetted in any racial violence. Ironically, people at the time weren't really capable of understanding that they were the racially violent ones.
In the parking lot, the mood turned to open hatred. Racial slurs, taunts, and screams of frustration were spreading around. People expressed desires to vandalize and hurt people at the "injustice" of the bad call that lost us the game and at the people who we were convinced had intimidated the referees into throw
Wiretapping? What "wire" could be tapped when you're filming a public scene?
I have a lot of respect for law enforcement; however, amongst some of them is the mentality that they can behave with impunity. Ever see a cop use his lights to get through a red light, because he didn't want to wait (and was not in pursuit or on a call)? Little things.
Then there are the beatings. Did someone get arrested for filming the various beatings in LA by bad cops? No.
I could go on and on. We pay law enforcement and they are accountable. If they have nothing to hide, then they shouldn't be concerned about being filmed. I like the idea of keeping our public officials honest. If you know or believe someone may be watching, chances are your behavior will be altered accordingly. Especially if you do something WRONG and you could be filmed and get into trouble (or lose your job), you sure as hell will think twice.
Cops are no different. They are not above the law. Get over it, get used to it.
boo-hoo - yeah cause whites (that's an ethnic group too isn't it?) never ever get speeding tickets or into trouble of any kind (and if they do the cops let them go). ass.
It is called a wiretapping law. What wire did this guy tap? I think they meant to charge him with ethertapping ...
.... all the police are criminals ....
A) The police have no expectation of privacy while performing their duties. They work for me.
B) If the guy recorded them without their knowledge, then they would have been unable to arrest him on the spot, in the very overt act of recording them.
There should be a law that states that anyone who possesses a video camera and has an opportunity to record the police must do so. If you think that all, or even most, police are law abiding, well intended, benevolent folks getting a tough wrap from conspiracy kooks then think again. My Father married a cop. She rose up through the ranks to be a Chief of Police. He also had many friends who were police officers (both local and state), and I can assure you that the Rolling Stones got it right
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The facts are that the soldiers fired knowingly unto an unarmed crowd of students. Even if they did think they heard a shot, since they didn't know where it came from, the only possible consequence of their shots could have been to wound and kill innocent students, which is what happened.
Nothing can justify knowingly shooting innocent people, much less firing indiscriminately into a crowd. 4 students died and 9 were wounded, and two of the students were not even protesting -- they were just walking from class to class. The guardsmen who aimed and fired at them did not see any weapons, so they knew they were shooting innocent people.
What is amazing is that there are so many people who will excuse the behaviors of the "authorities" who are willing to commit atrocities.
Any evidence of wrongdoing must be the work of "agitators" -- yeah, that's it!
So the police don't like being filmed? Well, it's high time to use their own logic against them. If you're not doing anything wrong, you won't mind being recorded.
This is an obvious case of taxpayer dollars hard at work. Does anyone here know of the reason for the Revolutionary War? Seems like a case of taxation of without representation. I just wonder how bad it has to get before another revolution comes to a head.
I regret that I only have one mod point to give per post.
i don't know about paramedics, but i work with surgeons, and i have to say that while the surgical field may attract confident types, it's mostly those with obsessive, competitive, and/or perfectionist personalities that end up surviving the program. one does not complete a surgical residency. you have to survive it. i say this because the handful of washouts from the program that i have seen looked like they had suffered some sort of trauma.
the process is pretty simple: take a super over-achiever and run them thru a brutal course that qualifies them to make life and death decisions and you have the recipe for arrogance on a stick.
don't get me wrong... if i need a heart transplant, don't hand me over to just anybody... sign me up for the obsessive perfectionist that has outclassed all of his peers. if he reminds his peers of this fact on a daily basis... what do i care?
getting back on topic, i think that cops, paramedics, and ER types hear and see the same situations over and over and they probably can't see each person as unique anymore and aren't as likely to be compassionate. your car accident/fire/assualt is unique to you, but just part of the daily grind to people who handle that stuff for a living. you can only bust so many real gangbangers before you start to think that all minority teens are in drug gangs. you can only treat so many junkies before you start to think that every one is just trying to score pain meds.
i know something similar happened to me... when i worked on a helpdesk i vowed i wouldn't be one of those "reboot your computer" types and that i would actually try to fix things for people and not treat everyone like they were an idiot when they called. after a year of telling 90% of the idiots that called to reboot their computers, i became just that.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
I'm a middle aged man with a wife and kid. I drive a 'nice' car and live in a 'nice' neighborhood. I'm a typical suburbanite and if I say 'fuck the cops', you know it has gotten bad. The cops are lying pieces of shit and need to treated the way they treat the public. Until their actions are constantly recorded and they have to live with the consequences of their actions, they will continue to be shit. I believe the job turns them, but so fucking what? Cops should be held to a higher standard. The cops serve themselves not me.
From the Article:
The wiretap charge was filed after consultation with a deputy district attorney, police said.
Can an officer arrest you for something that he doesn't know is a crime? Probably just knew that it pissed him off. Would be interesting to see what the officer told him when he made the initial arrest.
I recall recently waiting for my wife to come out of having surgery on her shoulder, and the surgeon came out to tell me how it went. The conversation was like this:
Me: How is she?
Surgeon: I did fantastic work, it will be terrific.
Me: So she came through it ok then?
Surgeon: Oh yes, of course.
Me: So the repair should hold this time?
Surgeon: Certainly. It's much stronger now than it ever was, I really just had to finish up what wasn't done by [the previous surgeon] and it's now perfect.
Are you seeing the trend here?
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
This facsist police state is getting old.
after what happened with Rodney King I wonder why........
Number one seems more likely, since we already know for a fact that police have done this. Do some research on groups like the black panthers before making condescending comments.
In a totalitarian police state it is.
DUh.
Most people don't even think inside the box.
Take that officer to court, and go "Where's the fucking wire being tapped? Where's the wire running right to your video camera in your cruiser? Last I checked with the FCC I'm free to do as I please with the visible spectrum when I'm on public property with my own equipment."
Then put his ass in jail for Cohesion.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The mere fact that the police got caught out all these times, and that you know about it, is evidence that it isn't easy to infiltrate the groups. Again, whats easier? A mass conspiracy involving multiple entities by the police? Or simple human hatred that is within all of us, even so-called peace groups? Perhaps you should do some research into logic.
So, cops are people, but short people aren't? Fuck you, asshole.
*wags little finger*
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Get out while it's still legal to leave. These guys might be able to smuggle your family out. Fair warning, though, the ribs up here are awful - you might hit these folks on your way out.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
CFD339 raises some interesting points that I don't have much trouble agreeing with. His experience is limited to one city or area, though. Different PD's are run in different ways, and the PD you are familiar with can easily have a great effect on your opinion of the average police officer.
I grew up in a suburb and never liked the police. I was actually mocked in high school, in front of the rest of the class, by a cop who didn't feel like answering my (perfectly valid) question. I found the PD of our urban city to be similar for a long time.
About 18 months ago I got a job working as a tester of wireless networks (UMTS, not 802.11) in my metro area. This requires driving around in a van covered with antennas, sometimes in very strange patterns, and can look quite suspicious. My driver and I were pulled over many times, sometimes more than once in a night, in different cities in two states, by both local and state police. It was my experiences from this job that changed my views and made me realize how different things can be when you cross over into another department's jurisdiction.
Two big examples:
We had severe computer problems one night and had to repeatedly pull over, reboot, etc. then restart a certain segment. The 3rd or 4th time we pulled over a cop noticed. We noticed we were being followed while it happened two more times. I'm pretty sure it looked like we were insane or on drugs and trying very poorly to lose the officer. We pulled over again to reboot and within seconds we were surrounded by police cars, several officers getting out of their cruisers and coming up on different sides of our van. They weren't happy =) But, we politely explained what we were doing, showed them a generic explanation letter written to police officers by our parent contractor, and they were very professional throughout the whole incident. The whole thing took less than 5 minutes, and the senior officer thanked us and wished us a good night.
Another night, we had a single random problem, turned off of the main street we were on, and pulled into a small parking lot. A cop had seen us and he deliberately parked his car sideways in the lot entrance so we couldn't get out. Before even coming to the driver's door he pulled out his flashlight and gun, and walked around the van shining the light in my eyes and examining anything he could see. When he came to talk we gave the same explanation we always gave, and showed him the letter. He didn't believe us and questioned us for a few minutes. Finally realizing he was wasting everyone's time, he said the reason he "pulled us over" was the fact that there is "a lot of prostitution in the area". Okay..?
Those two incidents represent the police forces perfectly. We always acted in a polite manner and gladly explained what we were doing. State police were always professional and never needlessly rude. Local police from every suburb but mine were the same. Local police from the big city and from my suburb were frequently needlessly rude and rarely professional. They talked down to us for no reason, asked arbitrary questions, etc.
It's those assholes that deserve the blame for the public opinions of police. Some cities have asshole commissioners that allow that sort of behavior and some of their officers decide to take advantage of it.
I don't think he was justifying the shooting or anything of the sort. It was clear to me that he was just criticizing this ridiculous command to fire that according to him was released years after the fact by someone not connected to the government.
His statement could allow for some inbred officer panicking and shooting himself and leading to student being shot. I don't think he touch on the method or intent just that supposed command to fire was off quite a bit. And you don't have to be in the military to know what the firing commands were 40-60 years ago. The movies use real people who served in real wars and real military operations. Surely we would have heard that terminology somewhere from someone other then this source. Up until the 70's early 80's a movie star got goody points with the public for serving in the military and acting like he was proud of it. I don't think it would have been an oversight if it wasn't mentioned in any major movie.
Now, I agree with your assessment on the practical reasons. I grew up in ohio not too far from Kent state. I have gone there for Halloween parties and to hang out with high school buddies who went to college there. This is the actual second time I have heard of the command to fire supposedly being said like that. And these two instances are the only two time I have heard someone was ordered to be fired on. The story around campus and from a history teacher was that someone though a janitor with a broom on a roof of a distant building was a person with a gun and when that soldier reacted, it started a chain reaction that ended up with 4 dead in Ohio. That has been the official story except the janitor was a sniper and they were shooting tear gas into the crowds, the by standers who weren't part of the demonstration back this up.
There were a lot of students and teachers who weren't part of the demonstrations watching from the buildings. Some of those student became teachers and one of them was my 8th grade history teacher who was the influence of several friends who attended Kent state university. Her recount as a student was the first I heard of it outside the the song 4 dead in Ohio. When she pulled out her own pictures of the event and passed them around class, she told us stories about how to get teargas out of your cloths and what soap to use to deaden the sting. We got one hell of a feeling about how real it was and a far more vivid lessen then a book lesson would give.
Actually, I do like the taste of cop dick. I don't want to throw personal experience on you or anything like that...but maybe you should try it before you knock it. It should also be noted that I'm not trying to protect anybody. What happened at Kent was clearly wrong. If given a blatantly illegal command [ie... kill unarmed civilians] there is no protection under any law for someone who obeys it. The WW2 Nazi trials back this up. I was just stating that the phrase was not right for the command.
The police only have the power YOU have given them.
And frankly, what makes you think its EVER acceptable under ANY circumstances to fire rifles into an unarmed crowd? Even if we concede to the NG's argument that a few protesters fired at them (and it would have to be a very few, since there is no record of them), how did it help the situation for the NG to fire blindly into the crowd? Rationallity and common sense should have told the NG that if they fired into the crowd the would almost certainly not hit the "attackers" but they WOULD definitely kill innocent people. So the only conclusion we can reach is that either the NG was grossly incompetent to the point where they shouldn't be trusted with firearms or that they deliberately attacked the crowd thinking it was somehow justified.
What a farce. Those officers were not wanting to get caught in their illegal activity. Their is all this is about. Unless the American public gets their collective head out of their ass they're going to lose their democracy. Osama wins. G.W. Bush has brought shame on our people and I'm not going to argue with his pin headed supporters.
When a public citizen on public land is told to turn off her or his camera, it is called coercion, and is illegal.
I had a horrible incident with the police in St. Louis MO... Sorry so long, but this deserves hearing. I was stopped at a security checkpoint coming out of the airport. The airport has a post off that is open til 11PM. I worked at home repair electronics and reselling them on eBay. I would never get stopped coming into the airport, but without exception coming out of the airport. Which in itself is very funny. One night, as usual, a "security" guard waved his flashlight and I pulled over. He walked up and asked why I didn't stop when he told me to. I told him that I obviously did stop, since he was standing next to me speaking. Then I added that he never "asked" me to do anything, he waved a flashlight, and I had stopped just like I'd always done. He then told me if I spoke another word, I'd be there all night. I responded with a cheerful, "Fuck you". He got on his radio and called his supervisor, and informed this person that I would not let him search my truck. The truck with the open bed and four rolled down windows and unlocked doors that he hadn't mentioned to me yet... His supervisor showed up a minute later and pulled him aside (3 feet) and asked him what was going on. He continued lieing, and I spoke up and told her what had really happened. She asked if they could search my vehicle and I responded sure. The security guard with the shitty attitude flashed his light in the back of the truck and said, "You're good". I laughed and commented on how thorough his search was and drove away. I never left my vehicle. The next night, same thing, same guy. "IF YOU SAY ONE WORD I'LL KEEP YOU HERE ALL NIGHT". Not caring, I repeated my favorite explitive, "Fuck you". Same thing over. The supervisor showed up. Same thing, yet this time after I explained my situation, I told her, "You should get a handle on your boy over there". The nut job security guard freaked out and reached through the rear window of my four door truck and tried to hit me in the back of the head. I said, "Did you see that" to his supervisor, who responded, "No". Then he punched me in the face through the driver side window. The supervisor pushed him back and got on her radio. The police showed up momentarily (they have a station at the airport). And proceded to interview us both. Only at this time did I levae my vehicle. They sat me down on the sidewalk and went off to discuss among themselves. I asked why I was still being held, and was informed that I was going to jail. I was totally shocked. I asked what I did wrong and they stated that they'd get to that when I got to the station. I was handcuffed put in a cop car, and taken to the station, and before I got into the building, the "sargeant" stopped us all and asked where I was from. I told him Arkansas, and he stated, "We don't need your hillbilly ass up here doing this kind of shit.". I was charged with disorderly conduct, fingerprinted and questioned. I was told that I called the security guard a nigger and that the incident wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been a jerk. I asked which law prohibited me from being a jerk, and was asked in response if I'd like to spend the night in the jail or go home... They did give me a ride back to my truck, which they didn't impound... Along the way I was informed that the security guard would most likely loose his job, and I asked, "Don't you think he needs to?". Long story short, they gave us both the same court date, I skated because I brought a lawyer (to a misdemeanor), the security guard got fined. Long story even shorter: FUCK ST. LOUIS POLICE THEY SUCK COCK. And I'm not slamming anyone who sucks cock by preference, I could care less about your skin color, or your sexual preference. I just hate god-complex having, self-righteous, dickheaded bigots, which cover 99% of all police. This was the main reason I moved away from St. Louis and back to my native Arkansas. I support video taping of any official. Oh and I'm not really an "eXFeLoN", I just like the handle...it's funny.
My other sig is a knife wound.
They have that already. Just move to the UK.