Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Justice Dept Defends Right To Record Police

Posted by samzenpus on from the watching-the-watchers dept.

Fluffeh writes "In recent times, it seems many Police Departments believe that recording them doing their work is an act of war with police officers, destroying the tapes, phones or cameras while arresting the folks doing it. But in a surprising twist, the U.S. Justice Department has sent letter (PDF) to attorneys for the Baltimore Police Department — who have been quite heavy handed in enforcing their 'Don't record me bro!' mantra. The letter contains an awful lot of lawyer babble and lists many court cases and the like, although some sections are surprisingly clear: 'Policies should prohibit officers from destroying recording devices or cameras and deleting recordings or photographs under any circumstances. In addition to violating the First Amendment, police officers violate the core requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process clause when they irrevocably deprived individuals of their recordings without first providing notice and an opportunity to object.' There is a lot more and it certainly seems like a firm foothold in the right direction."

23 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. About time by honestmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    About goddamn time we get a voice of reason and someone "higher up" on our side. Not that it'll make a damn bit of difference. "Protect and Serve" is a joke. Cops don't care and won't care. I imagine the mantra from cops now will be "What photos? I never saw any."

    --
    Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    1. Re:About time by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When simply asking for a complaint form gets you arrested in police departments all over the country, I'd say his description is pretty accurate.

      The Largest Street Gang in America

    2. Re:About time by chuckymonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know I'm responding to an AC here, but I think this needs to be said. Every cop is culpable for the actions of these bad cops because almost none of them stand up for what's right. What happens to these guys is they're put on paid vacation for a couple weeks until everyone forgets that they did something, no matter how heinous or egregious the violation was. When the rest of the police force stands up and starts throwing the bad cops out to the curb, then I'll stop lumping them in together. Until then, they're all in cahoots as far as I'm concerned and I'll avoid dealing with them by whatever means I have.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    3. Re:About time by bratwiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, you take the actions of a small percentile of cops to represent the masses?

      It's the actions of a small percentile of cops that ARE the problem. So what's your point? If you happen to be misfortunate enough to have a run-in with one of them, that's all that will matter. Not how many others or what the percentages are-- just that one cop. He'll be a 100% dick and will be busy fucking up your day. But you can console yourself as you're getting ass-raped by the four biker dudes with skull tattoos that it's really not that big a problem for everybody else.

    4. Re:About time by archieaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Simply put: With our police, we have created a class of "Super Citizens" who get to do things that the general population can't. It is extremely important that they follow the rules and we are able to observe their actions. The penalties for breaking the rules MUST be higher for those in charge of enforcing the rules. Anything less is a gradual invitation for creating a police state. Transparency and oversight. We always need them. Each of the three branches of government watch each other and All three should answer to us. I am profoundly worried by the fading away of the free press and its replacement by partisan reporting designed to comfort what ever political leaning you have. It is good for all sides to exchange views. It is good to challenge your assumptions. There also is great need for fact checking in the media. The need to draw attention to half truths and out and out lies. The real war has been a war on debate. End Rant.

    5. Re:About time by JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've known an awful lot of "good" cops, but you're right, the good ones won't step up to do anything about the few "bad" ones that there are.

    6. Re:About time by IonOtter · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think law enforcement-in general-is prone to fascism. Fascism is a political/social ideology of extreme patriotism, such that nothing the nation does can be wrong.

      I would say that law enforcement is prone to totalitarianism, wherein the populace is strictly controlled in every single aspect of their lives.

      This may or may not be a predisposed condition of law enforcement, as in "they were always like that"? Rather, I suspect it is a product of the environment that most law enforcement exists.

      Law enforcement is not a 90-10 job, where 90% of the time you're bored out of your skull, and 10% crapping your pants in fear. It's more of a 60--20-40 job, where 60% of the time you're not in danger, but busy as Hell, 20% in actual danger, and 40% trying to catch up on paperwork. Yes, that's 120%, which means most law enforcement is running on a 20% deficit of time. Your finest days are when you can actually go home, on time, with no paperwork hanging over your head.

      This cultivates a very dangerous mentality of "Leave me the fuck alone, OR ELSE!". And because all of the other officers are in the same boat, this can foment a culture of totalitarianism, not out of a desire for convenience, but out of the struggle to merely keep one's head above water.

      That politicians and the public do not want to provide sufficient warm bodies to reduce the workload on the overall force, only makes the situation worse. You get a feedback loop that only gets worse and worse, until you have officers who have gone beyond thinking "Hitler may have had a good idea," to "This is how I am going to do it!"

      Is this acceptable? No.
      Is this excusable? No.

      But it is an explanation of a problem, and that means it can be fixed.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    7. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Normally I'm not one for collective responsibly, but since in this case their stated profession is the pursuit of justice and upholding the law, so is it fairly egregious that the typical response to official misconduct is the closing of ranks and whitewashing. If anything the standard of behavior should be higher and more strict.

      One thing about the letter, they mentioned constitutional issues, but I'm surprised the possibility of destruction of evidence charges didn't come up.

    8. Re:About time by the_enigma_1983 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I think if a cop doesn't "step up" that makes him part of the problem. The only good cops, in my ideal view of the world, are the ones who do "step up".

    9. Re:About time by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're not supposed to have to give any of that information at all. Any citizen in this country should be able to walk into any police station in this country and get a complaint form upon request. All the bullshit "questions" being asked as a barrier to entry is nothing more than the cop trying to get some information so they can cover both their own asses and the asses of anyone potentially involved in the report.

      Why do you think they want their name so bad? Just so they have it? Get fucking real. This is the police department we're talking about, not Pizza Hut. They want the person's name so they can go pull their file, see the names of any officers they may have had contact with, and start playing their coverup games. The first thing they would do is contact every officer in that file and tell them "PSSSSS Just so you know John Doe is in here asking for a complaint form" and then all of a sudden documents, reports, evidence goes "missing" and VOILA! No more complaint, it's just someone trying to "get free money from the police department". That's precisely what the one guy even says: "I need to make sure it's legitimate." Who the fuck put him in charge of investigating a report? Does Internal Affairs watch the fucking front desk now at a police station? Please...

      No matter how angry they get at you, no matter how much the bluster and bitch, no matter how much they try to beg, plead, and cajole you, the fact remains that you do not have to tell them a fucking thing, not even your name. Asking for a complaint form is within the legal rights of every citizen in this country, no questions asked.

    10. Re:About time by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ignoring cops will never end well

      Regardless of how it will "end", we have a right to refuse to speak. That is guaranteed by decades of case law. Just because they don't like it or it makes their job harder, that still does not give them the right to react the way they did to it.

      You have the right to stare at them blankly and keep your mouth closed no matter what. Regardless of what impression that gives the police, that is a right that everyone in this country has. They cannot compel you to speak until you are standing in front of a judge, having already been sworn in before the court, and even then, there are restrictions on what exactly they can compel you to say.

      Walking into a police station and saying "I want a complaint form" only has one legal response: Producing said fucking form. The end. Everything else is nothing more than police trying to cover their ass and the asses of others in their department. They are not in charge of an investigation against a police officer. They're the fucking desk clerk, for fuck's sake. It's not like they have I.A. supervisors handling the desks now, obviously. Given that assumption, I think it's clear why they want all this information up front. Only a real idiot would think that their motives were not entirely selfish, because there simply is no other reasonable motive.

      Wrap your mind around this: What if the officer you wish to file a report on is manning the fucking desk? Can you not see how everything they're doing outside of handing over the form is possibly obstructing the ability of a citizen to file an anonymous complaint?

      Despite what you may think, we still have the right to anonymity in this country, even when we're asking for a complaint form. Honestly, I'm not interested in playing their fucking game, and I don't legally have to, so fuck them and their questions. Do you not see how simply "playing along" does just as much to erode your rights as condoning this shit in the first place?

  2. Why delete the recordings? by guanxi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The elephant in the room is that they rarely have a good reason to delete the recordings. Why would a police officer not want his work recorded?

    (The rare reason: It violates the privacy of a citizen who is involved.)

    1. Re:Why delete the recordings? by guanxi · · Score: 5, Funny

      You would be surprised. google around. Specifically gun owners/people WITH cameras have been targeted.

      Targeted for what? Gun owners are having the recordings on their guns erased?

    2. Re:Why delete the recordings? by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hearing about such destruction of recordings makes me think of the doctrine of spoliation. The underlying principle is that when a party intentionally destroys evidence, there's reason to infer the evidence would hurt them, not help them. Seems doubly important when the police are involved.

    3. Re:Why delete the recordings? by Nocturnal+Deviant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what guanxi said makes no sense.

      It is very relevant, because the ones who have RECORDED it, recorded themselves being harassed and police have been trying to get those thrown out at court.

      --
      -Noc
    4. Re:Why delete the recordings? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My question is always this: "Am I committing a crime by recording this?"

      If the answer is "Yes, I am", then deleting the photos/videos is destroying evidence.
      If the answer is "No, I'm not", then they have no reason for deleting the photos/videos.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Why delete the recordings? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Informative

      What do you do when the answer is "YOU'RE RESISTING ARREST!!!" and they beat the shit out of you, taze you, then 'lose your phone down the sewer in the struggle'?

      And don't count on any dashcam footage to help you. Here's an example where nine independent dashcams mysteriously "failed" to record an incident where a reporter, who was coincidentally (of course it's just a coincidence, am I right?) covering a series of corruption scandals within the local government, was pulled out of her car by a dozen officers, along with her cameraman, and roughed up on the side of the road.

      Here's a nice passage:

      Although I was the first journalist in the United States known to be subjected to a felony traffic stop while on the job, some officers said I was "lucky it wasn't a real one." Had it been, they claimed, I would have been "eating the pavement." One police official told Washingtonian magazine, "McCarren should quit her whining. She wasn't shot."

      America! Fuck Yeah!!

    6. Re:Why delete the recordings? by Tastecicles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      POLICE OFFICERS are public servants. Into that, read: as long as they wear the UNIFORM they represent (or are supposed to) the LAW, and are responsible for making sure it is upheld in a VISIBLE MANNER. When they fuck up, they should expect to be called on it. Publicly.

      With that uniform and the visibility comes the realisation that one HAS NO PRIVACY. If one cannot accept that, then one has NO BUSINESS WEARING THE UNIFORM.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  3. destruction of property is a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about instead, they advise the police if they are caught doing it again, said officers will be arrested by the FBI or similar, and put in federal prison. Seems that would be a good incentive.

  4. Re:that first sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a sentence. Just because we have insisted on simplifying everything down to where those who can barely read at a 2nd grade level can "understand" it, that doesn't mean that complex sentences that express a sophisticated set of connected ideas are invalid.

  5. Something Good by ToastedRhino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's great how when something good actually happens in the US the comments on Slashdot are still mostly negative.

    The existence of these letters and their public nature will make it basically impossible for any police department in the country to win a case in which they are accused of illegally destroying a recording. The legal arguments are handed to us here, by the DoJ no less. This creates a huge financial incentive for states and cities to make sure that their officers are not destroying recordings, and as they say, money talks. This seems like a good move which saves the administration from having to arrest police officers while accomplishing basically the same goal.

    1. Re:Something Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not really that good a thing. At all.

      It formalizes privilege. It says that it's a violation of the constitution they admit is happening, and that they will not arrest them over it, but will instead brief in favor of the defendant. In effect, it /weakens/ a position of strength, but doesn't punish the abuse. It admits they know it's happening and have done nothing about it. It's like fining microsoft a thousand a day on antitrust violations... the punishment may be real, but it's wholly trivial and effectively legitimizes the violations, the same as wehrgeld used to permit rape and murder by the wealthy aristocracy.

      And even if it was a good thing, it's still just one small step forward after a hundred big steps back. I'm not cheering for that.

      The DoJ handed out legal arguments. What they have not done is:
          - prosecuted the officers
          - revoked their pensions or suggested they be turned over to the victims via civil forfeiture. Which, if you're aware ... is the penalty for a lot of relatively minor civilian crimes. Shoot a deer in the wrong spot, have some weed in your house... you can lose your car or home.
          - stripped them of the protection of their department and union -- as they are allowed to do by law in most civil rights violations.
          - revoked their qualified immunity when acting in egregious violation of law
          - revoked departmental immunity
          - taken out entire departments, internal affairs, and the citizen's review board on charges of corruption, conspiracy, battery, kidnapping (that is what unlawful arrest is usually), sexual assault (most frisks) and then thrown them all in for the rest of their natural life under rico. They are of course, free to roll on their comrades in exchange for a 5-10 year reduced sentence with 20 years of probation. The same as any other violent felon would be in a first time offense.

      Because let's face it. Citizens get the book thrown at them. Police should too. They at least have the benefit of a bit of training in the law.

      You want progress -- do the above publicly to TWO police department's, one sheriff, and one executive law enforcement agency somewhere in the US.

      Until then -- it is a mere piece of advice that it is a violation of the constitution which comes with no repercussion save paid leave and the possibility of a civil suit. Not good enough.

  6. Re:It Won't Really End Until... by garcia · · Score: 5, Informative

    Have you ever been involved in government at the city level? They most certainly do care--even about very little citizen participation and news coverage.

    You get someone to stir up shit about something like that at a City Council meeting and have several news outlets there and a packed room and I guarantee you that the City Council will not make the typical stupid moves it normally does.