Slashdot Mirror
Court Case To Test Legality of Recording the Police With Your Cell Phone
suraj.sun sends this excerpt from Ars Technica:
"If you pull out your cell phone to make a video of police officers arresting a suspect, are you 'secretly recording' them? 'No' seems like the obvious answer, but that's precisely the claim that three police officers made to justify their arrest of a Boston man. In arguments before the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Wednesday, the city also denied the man's claim that his First or Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The case will be an important test of whether the Constitution protects individuals' right to record the police while they are on duty. Many states have 'one-party notification' wiretapping laws that allow any party to a conversation to secretly record it. But under the strict 'two-party notification' laws in Massachusetts, it's a crime to 'secretly record' audio communications unless 'all parties to such communication' have given their consent. The police arrested Glik for breaking this law. For good measure, they also charged Glik—who did no more than stand a few feet away with his cell phone—with 'aiding the escape of a prisoner' and 'disturbing the peace.'"
It's a good thing the US was founded with the notion of check and balances so as to prevent abuse of power...
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
when performing official duties for the good of the public.
If their supervisor showed up, they'd have to fully disclose everything which they were doing, ditto internal affairs, the police chief / superintendent, or a government functionary whose bailiwick involved the performance of their current duties.
If they have something to hide, which they don't want revealed in court, they need to find some other line of work.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Especially when I doubt any of these same police officers ask consent of the drivers they record with their dashboard cams.
Hopefully the First Circuit court doesn't forget their 1999 ruling in Iacobucci v. Boulter where the upheld the right to record public figures on public property. But according to the article the judges seem to find the reasoning of the city to be quite absurd so that is a good sign.
In the event that the outcome goes the wrong way, all that's needed is for enough campaign groups on both sides of the political spectrum to encourage their supporters to routinely record the police whenever they see them, providing they are in groups of more than some particular size and providing their camera streams to a remote server.
R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy brought the saying to English law that it is not enough that justice must be done - it must also be seen to be done. The principle is about impartiality and appeared before video cameras, but surely preventing or destroying any recording of a police officer acting in public under colour of law is, "creat[ing] a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice."
The law is for audio recordings, not video only. I know I was pulled over once (light out) and the first thing the officer did was to inform me that he was recording audio and asked if I consented (I don't know what would happen if I didn't....).
And police officers are exempt from this wiretapping law as well despite what these asshat cops and Boston think. Public officials, in this instance police officers, have NO expectation of privacy in a public place. There is already relevant case law from this very same circuit court to back this up.
Yet the jury is given such specific instructions that if they don't know their rights as a juror before serving on the jury, then the judge has nearly complete control over what happens.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Agreed, and in addition, the destruction or attempted destruction of civilian video of law enforcement activity by any interested party (including government agents or subjects of the police activity) should be considered destruction of evidence, and treated accordingly. It should also be possible to subpoena the contents of this video by any interested party.
Patrol car video should continue recording for at least 10 minutes after the stop recording event happens (no turning the camera off and on during a stop), and it should be illegal for a police officer to intentionally attempt to prevent the recording via any means.
In sort, recordings on both sides should be used to protect either party of a police action, not just the police officer.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
If a news crew happen to be in the area and record what happens, are they violating the law also? Perhaps some legal expert can explain the difference to me.
Proverbs 21:19
The charges were dropped, of course, since they had no chance of standing up in court. The point was to intimidate the guy and put him in jail. The problem is that cops can just arrest you for a bogus charge and then drop the charges later. You get screwed anyway.