Slashdot Mirror
Photographing Police: Deletion Is Not Forever
Geoffrey.landis writes "The courts have now ruled that the public has the right to videotape the police in the performance of their duties. Of course, that doesn't stop the police from harassing people who do so — even journalists, who sometimes have their cameras confiscated. As it turns out, though, they're not always very knowledgeable about how deletion works. I would say that erasing, or attempting to erase, a video of police arresting somebody illegally (How can a journalist be charged with 'resisting arrest' when he was not being arrested for anything other than resisting arrest?) is a clear case of destruction of evidence by the officers. Destroying evidence is obstruction of justice. That's illegal. Why haven't these police officers been arrested?"
If you can't be above the law then why be a cop?
See Blade Runner.
The simple reason that police are not arrested for destruction of evidence is that the police enforce the law. And the police cover for each other when they break the law. Therefore the police are above the law.
I know you like to think you're living in a democratic republic where all are equal under the law, but that's just not the case. And the sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
So basically you're saying that as long as the police tell everyone to stop being witness to their criminal and unlawful acts, they are within their legal rights to detain those witnesses and destroy any evidence they may have collected.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
No, what I'm saying is that it is possible for police to issue a lawful dispersal order to a group or area (not passing judgement on whether or not this one was, since I don't have all of the information), and you're not exempt because you happen to have a camera in your hand.
And I'm saying I disagree.
A dispersal order is supposed to be used by officers to difuse a potentially dangerous situation, or an unlawful or unsafe gathering (on private property, or blocking safety exits, for instance). If a cop is telling you that you have to leave only because he doesnt want you to witness his activities then he is wrongfully applying his authority and you are within your rights to decline his order.
If you start down the path of conceeding that you have to do what a cop says just because he said so, you have forfeited your freedoms gauranteed by our Constitution. And you're not likely to get them back.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
If the photographer/journalist committed a crime, then the photos/video shouldn't be deleted as it is evidence.
If they didn't commit a crime, then the photos/videos shouldn't be deleted since the they were engaging in a legal activity.
If a police officer (or worse, security guard) orders you to or seizes your camera to delete a photo/video you've taken, they are either destroying evidence, infringing on your civil liberties, or both.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Was america ever worthy of that title? Slavery for the first part of the countries history, women didn't get sufferage until 1919. Blacks were still segregated until the 60's and by then there was the paranoia over the cold war with people getting accused of being a communist (so what if you are?). Perhaps after the wall came down for that 10 years or so people were fine and then 9/11 happened and the US went to a police state. Also when your country has one of the highest incarceration rates you can't really claim to be very free.
The laws for when and under what circumstances police may issue a dispersal order vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. They can indeed be lawfully used for mass public gatherings, on public or private property, even in cases where no imminent danger exists. In the case of some of the Occupy camps, municipalities justified removal on the grounds of the camps being a "public nuisance", or a public health hazard.
Clearly some disagree with these judgments, but once that judgment is made by a duly elected or appointed authority, police may lawfully clear the area. Those who disobey the order would be subject to arrest, and it's not the job of the police to discern whether someone may or may nor be press, affiliated with the camp, an innocent observer, etc. If someone is refusing to obey the dispersal order, they'll be arrested.
It's that simple. Again, this isn't a value judgment — just the facts.
Also, following the directions of law enforcement officers is required in many states and jurisdictions, and this isn't a new or recent construct. There are varying degrees, some of which include provisions for presenting identification and similar. It's your opinion, like the submitter's, that this is somehow "illegal". The rule of law doesn't work when individuals get to decide what applies to them on a whim.
In the case of some of the Occupy camps, municipalities justified removal on the grounds of the camps being a "public nuisance", or a public health hazard.
Safety. I mentioned that.
Also, following the directions of law enforcement officers is required in many states and jurisdictions, and this isn't a new or recent construct. There are varying degrees, some of which include provisions for presenting identification and similar. It's your opinion, like the submitter's, that this is somehow "illegal". The rule of law doesn't work when individuals get to decide what applies to them on a whim.
So by your reasoning an officer can show up at your home right now, and tell you to let him in. According to you, you must comply.
This is wholly false. You are protected by law. You have rights. You may legally and rightfully refuse this order from an officer when it voiliates those rights. That officer MUST provide a warrant issued by a court, or have probable cause to enter your home. Period. End of discussion.
Your stance is based on the fact that most people are ignorant, or complacent, or fearful, and do enforce their rights when challenged. The rule of law doesnt work when those enforcing it are above it.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Am I the only one who thinks, in this day and age of easy video & audio recording, that ANY interaction police have with ANYONE for ANY reason (in an official capacity or as "an off duty police officer" responding to something) should be required to be recorded by the police themselves or "it didn't happen"?
Traffic stops, parking tickets, entering homes - ANYTHING - get it all on video and audio and require that said videos be made available for all parties privy to that.
Were I in charge of the world, that's one of the first things I would do - require all law enforcement people to wear video and audio recording devices at all times, even inside of their offices etc.
It should be a no brainer that civilians should be able to record any interaction they have with police, of course. I can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't be.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Yes, but the example you gave is clear-cut: other than in exigent circumstances, one does not have to allow law enforcement personnel onto/into private property without a proper warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction.
The situation here of clearing an Occupy camp and issuing a dispersal order is anything but clear-cut. Assuming for a moment that it's possible this dispersal order was lawful, at least as far as it goes, why would you claim that they can't compel this person to clear the area as well? How, specifically, was the arrest inappropriate if this was a lawful order to disperse?
Now, if you're saying the order to disperse wasn't lawful, what's your basis for that, given that nearly all municipalities that have cleared Occupy camps have ensured that they at least have a justification for removal that can withstand some scrutiny? Again, without having sat in on all of the council meetings that resulted in this order, I can't comment for certain.
My stance is in no way based on the fact that people are any of those things you claim. But you don't get to decide on your own that something doesn't apply to you. This was not about a legal or constitutional violation (UNLESS the dispersal order was unlawful). There was what was very likely a LAWFUL order to disperse issued by appropriate authority, and this guy chose to say, essentially, "I'm not doing anything wrong," and refused to disperse instead of obeying the order. Well, 99% of the people in the camp probably weren't "doing anything wrong" at that very moment, either, other than being there. If I walked in just to "observe" the camp and refused to leave when directed by a police officer, I can guarantee you I would be arrested on the spot, no matter what I said.
Now we're getting to places where someone might say, hey, the "law" is made by those in "power", and these Occupy camps are just people trying to "take back" their power, so someone needs to stand up and fight the system, document the struggle, etc., etc., etc. Okay, fine. But if you're going to actively oppose civil society and the system of laws that are in place, regardless of from where they stem, expect that there will be consequences to those actions.
I believe we're in disagreement mainly because I didn't clarify myself in that I am no limiting my comments to this one case. There are cases in which a cop can lawfully ask people to disperse and those people need to comply. I mentioned that. But I adamantly disagree that just because a cop says you have to disperse it does not inherently mean that he has done so lawfully. Too few people peacefully challenge this because they dont want to deal with the consequences. And as that concession becomes more and more common, it becomes expected by both the citizens and law enforcement. The rights which we rely upon to remain free become effectively void in practice if not in law.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
A key fact is that the Police are Public Servants. Their salaries are paid by the Public. So, if the Public wants to record the activities of the Police, a very simple reason why is, "to ensure that they are actually Serving the Public". It is quite logical that if it can be proved that certain members of the Police are actually only serving themselves (thereby misusing their Power and Responsibility), they should be fired.
One could argue that all Congresscritters should always be on-camera, a separate video channel for each. Then we will see how many of those "Public Servants" are actually doing their jobs, Serving the Public, instead of working for their own selfish interests.