Slashdot Mirror
Police Officers Seek Right Not To Be Recorded
linzeal writes "When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop. Judges, juries, and legislatures support the police overwhelmingly on this issue, with only a few cases where those accused of 'shooting' the cops being vindicated through the courts."
While I'm sure some(most) of this sentiment is created by media exaggeration and selective reporting, cops have the persona of themselves being above the law.
A movement to remove recording them will only serve to propagate that idea, and remove one of the only tools that civilians have to combat any police abuse.
My other sig is clever.
And I'm sure getting rid of probable cause makes their jobs easier too. I guess I don't want their jobs to be easy. I want their jobs to be really fucking hard. That's what you get along with a badge and a gun... scrutiny. At least, that's what should happen but rarely does.
After all, if you have nothing to hide Mr. Office Sir, what's the big deal?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
All states with heavy Democratic majorities in both Executive and Legislative branches. Still more Hope and Change...
Eventually such laws will end up before the supreme court in a first amendment (freedom of speech) test.
Then (hopefully) it will fail the constitutionality test.
No kidding.
FTFA
In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.
[...]
Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.
[...]
Hyde used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the police. After doing so, he was criminally charged.
And their defense is
The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped.
Does that mean you can break in and rob a store - and if there is security footage, whoever owns the camera is going to jail for 4 years?
Can I write a legal disclaimer that simply by looking at my face you agree to allow me to record footage of you, and post this disclaimer on my T-shirt?
Sure, then you just get it confiscated and the footage mysteriously disappears.
I've been thinking that it'd be neat to have a wireless camera which streams wireless and encrypted to the actual recording device. One person could have the camera while a friend nearby has the recordings save in his pocket.
Trolling is a art,
This over the ear video unit is being used by some San Jose, CA cops after they beat the living crap out of a Vietnamese foreign exchange student who is suing for 6 million dollars now.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
(Please dont mod me down, I am just a messenger)
When you point a camera, it is not just a passive device recording events. Instead, it can actually influence the events that it is recording. A witness at a crime scene may be hesitant to say exactly what he or she thinks because he knows the neighbors may see it. People may run away or refuse to come forward because they are afraid that they will be identified later on television and thus could become the victims of a crime. A lot of things happen in police encounters and sometimes a camera can have a chilling effect on the proceedings. Sometimes the influence of camera presence can benefit society by keeping police abuses in check. Sometimes it can be a harm.
Personally, I think the police officers only have their own benefit in mind when they ask for a ban on cameras.
In the Mass. Supreme Court case, there was a conviction for a person recording a police stop. The finding that it was illegal under Mass. law was upheld, but one of the comments from the Supreme Court stated there should be an exception and recording of police on duty should be allowed to be recorded.
Fight Spammers!
It damages the credibility and prestige of the police. Important for a number of reasons.
Of course, ignoring genuine abuses will do far greater damage in the long run. A few bad eggs is one thing, but if you protect them it calls the whole system into question.
And yet when I complained the school district was illegally audio and video taping my daughter on the bus without our knowledge or consent, their response was "Oh no, that's perfectly legal -- everybody does it!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"When somebody invokes the authority of law enforcement, they assume the responsibility, too."
That is where you are wrong. Police are more or less unaccountable for their actions, because it usually boils down to their word against someone else, and their word always wins.
The exception is when the brutality is video taped and becomes evidence. Then and only then are the police given a paid vacation and a slap on the wrist. These laws only seek to give Police carte blanch to rule by the fist, and is but one more step along the road to tyrannical despotism.
they obviously have something to hide, but it's probably more of a fear of what might happen. I doubt many cops go into a situation intending to behave illegally. There's so many laws that if taken literally can make their jobs really hard to do. I'm not really defending the cops on this, just saying I can somewhat relate and see their problem with it.
That being said, I'd personally like to see a federal law or constitutional amendment etc that explicitly gives people the right to record (audio, video) anyone on public property or their own property without their consent. Including cops. And without any requirement for you to notify them they are/may be recorded. If you're in the public, or you're in someone else's private, you should have no expectation of privacy, outside certain limits. (bathroom for example)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
We live in a big brother society. Everywhere you go, you are on camera. My city just installed cameras at every intersection, stating it was to help traffic flow analysis, and oh yeah it will also issue speeding an red light photo tickets. Now we are a small city so this was easy to do, but so far, traffic patterns seem the same, but there are a lot more flashes at the intersections now. But more importantly, did you consent to being filmed? I can even pull up the AMA website and watch and capture video from some of these video feeds. I dont remember allowing myself to be filmed.
Walk into a store, look up, again you are being captured on video. Did you consent to that?
Now try this, take your video camera, put it on your shoulder and walk into the local police station... Or even stand outside and take a picture. Google was able to do this all over north america, but I will bet if you stand out there filming for 10 min, you will be asked to leave.
At some point we have given up our right, if we ever really had one, to not be filmed without our consent. At one point, it might have been because we were still reasonably anonymous. Now with a few searches through facebook, I can get an awful lot of pictures to cross reference with my video.
And now the police are saying they should be exempt from all of this video. Fact is we live in a video captured society, and it is getting worse. I remember reading in a novel about a society that had every moment of their lives recored. This was held in a secure private data facility, and only accessed if a crime was committed. I see us heading in that direction.
Lastly, the police have a hard enough time keeping up with catching the criminals. I am on the side of if you are doing nothing wrong, what does it matter. That is why I dont worry about the store video camera, im not stealing. Yes partial editing or videos can be used, but then they are also taken in context.
I am sure...
Police arrest suspect.
Suspect strikes officer.
bystander starts filming.
police strike back, wrestle suspect to ground and handcuff.
Suspect gets video and charges police.
Would a judger really not take into account that the video started 1/2 way through an incident? And if the media started to sensationalize then its time to charge the media!
In fact in this situation, the police could turn around and use the video to support thier argument that they used "reasonable force". UNLESS they decided on a little payback for the the first hit. But then the police themselfs have sunk to the level of a street gang.
We live in a recorded society. Learn to make home movies or really good disguises.
At the beginning of every encounter with law enforcement, clearly utter the simple phrase "You are being recorded." (Regardless of whether or not you actually have a recording device.) If they continue the encounter, they are obviously consenting to being recorded, and you are obviously not in violation of any wiretap laws.
It would be interesting to see if these states slap the same penalties on someone for making a "nannycam" video of their babysitter and catching them abusing their child -- obviously the babysitter has an expectation of privacy when they are in someone's home slapping an infant around!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If you ride the Amtrak Southwest Chief from LA to Chicago, and are a white/hispanic male in coach, you will be stopped in Albuquerque, and your belongings searched (because you're obviously smuggling meth).
I had recently, just before my trip, read a bit on slashdot about people being stopped in Amtrak terminals for taking pictures, and being an artist, was duely pissed at that.
At Albuquerque, there were a couple of rail cops who stopped all of the above mentioned groups coming off the train, I was respectful, addressed him as sir, kept my hands in plain sight...
so when the officer asked if I had any weapons, I jokingly said "just a camera"...
Spent the next 15 minutes handcuffed, sitting on a rail with his partner looking like he was ready to kick me in the teeth while the first officer meticulously went through my baggage.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, a vid of that should have been worth a few million dollars.
Instead I'm left with a funny story to tell people one of the reasons when they ask, why I don't explicitly trust cops.
(I do know some good cops, lots of them, but there's always "that guy" that fucks it up for them).
Hmmmm . . . an armed revolution because the police don't want to be videotaped.
No. But a revolution because elected officials do not represent the citizens, because the courts and politicians support the police being able to secret violate your rights, because unions and big business get to make law, because we are 13 TRILLION dollars in debt and all they want to do is spend more money on government / union programs, because everytime you bitch about their spending they threaten to cut infrastructure and police and firemen not union contracts and new cars for the politicians.
Look at the whole picture.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
[citation needed]. Seriously. YouTube is very, very mainstream, and virtually every single one of my non-geek-friends regularly watches videos on YouTube and most probably watch YouTube videos even more than I do. (And it may surprise you, but I'm almost 40. Now get off my lawn.)
You're right about mainstream America watching lots of TV, but even TV is increasingly showing things like police brutality more and more. It's definitely on the mainstream news channels.
But voters are increasingly aware of the problems surrounding police brutality and have been demanding action from politicians for years.
My blog
I RTFA and this is really bad. It seems that since they only want to prosecute video where the police office in question is doing something that makes him look bad this is the reverse of "equal protection" and as such will create a rift between concerned and active citizens and police. In other times and places, this is referred to as a "police state". I don't think it could hold up as Constitutional, but given the actions of the courts in the last 9 years I just don't even know.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
For those questioning why this is such an issue. take a look at this headline in South Florida "2 ex-Hollywood cops arrested in video frame-up case"
MiamiHerald.com: News 13 hours ago Two former Hollywood police officers were arrested Wednesday and charged with doctoring a police report in 2009 after one of them crashed into a vehicle of an alleged drunken driver.
while this is the minority, it's exactly this type of crap that justifies why we should be capturing this beloved moments on video.....
Those cameras in their cars are never used to show cop misconduct. The video disappears.
It’s their video and they won’t use it to self-incriminate. What did you really expect?
Good luck forcing them to yield the video as evidence. It’s theoretically possible, but nearly impossible.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Well, the don't want camera's off. I'm sure they would be very adamant about that. Just, they want control of the cameras. CCTV, DashCams, even the new "Officer Safety Cameras" that they want to start deploying in PA, are all controlled by the police. All footage is recorded and managed by the same departments that record it. So they are monitored themselves. Not a bad concept, ie Internal Affairs, except for the fact that there is _no_ oversight of this. Up until now, this has not been too greatly called into question, as citizens have taken their own video and stills and provided third party documentation. So if a police officer steps across the line, that footage can find it's way to the media/youtube.
As a local editorial said: "Ever try to subpoena the footage from a DashCam? We have 8 times. Of those eight attempts, 3 actual subpoenas were issued. However, in each instance the tape had been 'erased' for reuse. However, in one of the instances, the police were able to produce a DashCam tape that was 3 and a half years old as evidence. When questioned as why they had a 3 and a half year old tape but could not produce a 2 month old record, their response was 'the older tape had been misplaced and as such was not erased on schedule'."
On another note, how do you know if you took a picture of an undercover cop? Shout out "Everyone who is an undercover cop, raise your hand?" Yup, that should work.
"To Do Is To Be" - Socrates, "To Be Is To Do" - Sartre, "Do Be Do Be Do" - Sinatra
Everyone is aware of the police car cams used in traffic stops, but many also are equipped with voice recorders which they turn on at the beginning of every encounter. Some even have personal video recorders. These recordings may be obtained through a freedom-of-information inquiry, although the departments may resist or deny they exist.
I think a reasonable law would be to make any recording equally available, which is implied if you are prosecuted (defendant's right to view evidence). Same with the unavoidable recordings that are made when calling customer service, both parties should have access to that recording. Also if someone is recording you, you should be allowed to make your own recording of that encounter. The few times on a customer service call where I announced I might also be recording the conversation "for quality assurance purposes", I was transferred immediately to the completely freaked out boss. I mean really, every conversation he's ever had at work was recorded, and suddenly it's scary?
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
There were a huge number of scumbags in Rampart- a lot were wearing gang colors, others police uniforms.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
You absolutely can have in-car video subpoenaed as part of a trial. Your lawyer does it and there is no way it can be denied. Losing the video is pretty clear at trial that something hinky is going on. There are rules about how in-car video has to be kept. My company deals with police archiving in-car video for this very reason.
Traffic court without a lawyer? Forget about it - nobody wants to deal with that and you would be correct.
Submitting your own video record is going to be problematic because there is no presumption (or even requirement) how this video has been handled. Who exactly would be available to testify that the video hasn't been altered? You would need a video forensic expert to be on hand and there would need to be documentation about the chain of custody of the video, just as for any other piece of evidence. Not having that pretty much means it would be excluded.
So if you have a video of police misconduct you need to get proper documentation and have witnesses that can testify about the chain of custody and handling of the video. Best to have a neutral third party take the video from the camera and put it on a DVD or something where is cannot be altered. And they need to mark the DVD and be prepared to testify that it is the DVD they made.
This is already the reality in many places. What would be nice is if we could also do it back to the people monitoring us. It's already unbalanced in that they don't face the same penalties we do, but to then add in a law forbidding the gathering of evidence of abuse and still taking only their word on it? Doesn't sound like a a reasonable thing. Then add in to it that the police are filming you, and if they don't like what the vid shows they have the ability to vanish it, and seldom face any action for it. Yea, some get nailed if they do it too much and too many people find out, but with all the horror stories out there about abuse from police and evidence that vanishes, wouldn't it be nice to have more evidence? Police say to me, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear, so I now say to them. If you have nothing to hide, why do you fear?
Question reality.
And, as has been pointed out by numerous good cops who have kept their mouth shut (and as demonstrated in American Gangster near the beginning), if you really do get into a bad situation, you never know who else is going to be out on patrol to respond to your "officer needs assistance" call...
If I had the authority to throw people in jail, to write them tickets that would cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars on my say-so (see the discussion about the Ohio Supreme Court decision about speeding tickets), and to use physical (or perhaps even deadly) force to restrain people if in my opinion they were committing a crime? I'd be okay with my work duties being captured by video cameras.
... but with great power comes great responsibility. Recording the on-the-job behavior of the police seems like a reasonable amount of responsibility to balance out their significant amount of power.
I know it's cliched
look at the carnage caused by a few relatively talentless nutballs out there. Remember the DC "snipers"? That was two, unskilled and relatively dumb dudes in a white van, but it was enough to captivate the media and terrorize a whole city. Imagine that in every city in america. Continuously. If there was ever any kind of Fight-club style, pseudo-organized armed domestic insurrection it could be extremely effective in short order. The ammo box remains effective, it is just dormant.
Disclaimer: I install these systems as part of my income.
According to some Federal statute that I can't be bothered to look up right now, an officer's use of an in-car camera must be indicated by a light. What light? Where?
In one county I work for, it's a bright yellow light behind the grill of the car. If the light is on, the system is recording.
In another, it's part of the camera: A bright, green LED that shines through the windshield whenever the system is recording.
In the latter case, most (perhaps all) of the deputies have placed black tape over the light and insist that the law doesn't apply to them.
FYI, FWIW, etc, so on, and so forth.
Kid-proof tablet..
Europeans don't even allow you to record and publish murderers and criminals.
Yes, god fucking forbid we protect the rights of those who are still presumed to be innocent. Or aren't you referring to the fact that we disallow the publishing of names and faces of folks when they get arrested?
Try recording a police officer in Europe doing something unflattering and posting that video on YouTube; you'll get prosecuted for invasion of privacy.
Well, yes, the same thing happens if you film *me* and do the same. One of our civil liberties is privacy, even in public places. You don't get to record me without my permission and vice versa.
In Europe, they're effectively already gone, but the people don't even notice.
Wow...and you base this on what exactly? My free speech seems to be working just fine. I get to do a lot of stuff you guys can't even dream about. The only thing I can't have is a gun and that's historically something nobody but the 'Merkins gives a shit about anyway.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.