Slashdot Mirror
Washington, D.C. Police Affirm Citizens' Right To Record Police Officers
dcsmith writes "Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier says, 'A bystander has the same right to take photographs or make recordings as a member of the media,' and backs it up with a General Order to her Department. Quoting: The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) recognizes that members of the general public have a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and/or audio record MPD members while MPD members are conducting official business or while acting in an official capacity in any public space, unless such recordings interfere with police activity.'"
I bet we'll find a bunch of cops using this as an excuse to take away your camera...
Be seeing you...
If only we had the same rights in europe/netherlands.
Here, it'd be 'illegal aquired evidence' anyways, and rejected in court right away.
Hell, you can't even use an audual recording in your own house as evidence, unless you acknowledged permission from the person being recorded first.
A bystander has the same right to take photographs or make recordings as a member of the media
Emphasize "bystander". If the officer is trying to interview you, search you, etc then you are not a bystander.
"...unless such recordings interfere with police activity."
So more or less, nothing changes, this is just a PR stunt to cover their asses. They'll still take your camera and smash it so you have no evidence, and just say you were interfering. Your word against the infallible police force.
Great Intellect...
The order makes a lot of sense. But I wonder why anyone thought reporters had special rights. Freedom of the press means they can print what they want, but when they're on the scene the press pass doesn't mean anything.
Nowadays we're all media.
We're all bloggers.
And we can upload pics and vids and stream them around the world.
How about we just remove the rights of Corporate Media from reporting, instead of Citizens?
Corporations aren't People.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Police are supposed to have the same rights as citizens. They are just more highly trained in the area of law enforcement. Citizens and police should be held to the same standards of conduct. In Florida for instance a police officer out of his jurisdiction has the same rights as a citizen to make arrests. They can hold the suspect until the sheriff arrives to take the person into custody. When the case gets to trial you have to show up. If you break the law during the arrest you can be sued as well. Every move police make should be filmed since they are supposed to be experts.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
You have the same right to record an ongoing conversation w/ a government official on a public street as you've always had.
The fact we've replaced the old notepad & witness account of black-and-white movies w/ a modern audio recorder does not erase the natural right. "There is no expectation of privacy on a public street." - Supreme Court. This is true not just for us but also government employees.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Ahah, there's the magic word.
The order makes a lot of sense. But I wonder why anyone thought reporters had special rights. Freedom of the press means they can print what they want, but when they're on the scene the press pass doesn't mean anything.
The press pass, press ID, etc is merely a courtesy extended to the press in some jurisdictions. It does allow some members of the press into areas a civilian would normally not be allowed. Again, a courtesy, often subject to the needs of the person on the scene who is in charge.
I am about to commence an intense program of police brutality against this suspect, future events with which your recording would interfere. So kindly turn the camera off.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is why it's important to support Google's right to record audio or EM spectrum signals in public places. If we don't stick up for the uses we don't like, the uses we DO like will disappear along with.
Been trying to get my mind around what 'department approved strikes' actually consisted of.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
It's worth noting that this order is part and parcel of a lawsuit settlement that the MPD reached with someone who was victimized for recording the police at a traffic stop. This order isn't entirely being done spontaneously because the MPD are good little fonzies. I like Chief Lanier, a lot...but for the most part the MPD remain a group of heavily-armed monkeys, most of whom seem to have a racial issue with whatever races they don't belong to. A white officer recently was suspended for stating...openly, to fellow officers...that he would shoot Michelle Obama. And I can state plainly that I've gotten a lot of trouble from non-white officers, personally. It's one of the reasons I moved from DC to a nearby suburb.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
How about we just remove the rights of Corporate Media from reporting, instead of Citizens? Corporations aren't People.
The controversial "Citizens United" US Supreme Court decision says exactly that. My understanding is that the court did *not* say that "corporations are people" and that this phrase was spin from the opponents of the decision. I believe the court said two things. One: that groups of people have the same speech rights as an individual person, the nature of that group (company, union, special interest, etc) is irrelevant. Two: that media corporations have no special speech rights, all organizations have the same speech rights. Well, that was my understanding from skimming the decision. Perhaps I missed something. If you think I missed something I'd prefer a reference to the decision, not what some talking head on TV said, what some political blogger said, etc. I don't trust these to accurately report a supreme court decision any more than I expect them to accurately report on technical/computer issues.
Police do have special powers, and I'm not sure why you would claim otherwise. I can't arrest someone with the same leeway given to cops (note that your example had to specify an officer out of his jurisdiction). I can't get a warrant to bust down someone's door. I can't pull a car over for speeding. I can't own certain weapons.
And that's how it should be. We want law enforcement officers to have an edge over the regular civilians, because that means they'll also have an edge over criminals. But since we're giving them extra powers, we need to hold them to an extra high standard. Unfortunately, we tend to fall short on that last part.
More importantly, journalists aren't supposed to have any special power.
Constitutionally, it's indefensible to try to distinguish between the New York Times and one guy with an occasional blog - they're both "the press" by any reasonable definition, and any law that did draw a meaningful distinction between them would clearly break the First Amendment.
It's a shame this announcement was necessary. A generation ago, it wouldn't have been required. Now that it's been made perfectly clear, I'd like to see the next DC police officer who interferes with a citizen-photographer lose his job.
Who's she?
The police chief.
And since when can she dictate what rights we have?
Never. She's just explaining to the cops in her department something about the rights people have.
You can send feedback here: http://app.dc.gov/apps/about.asp?page=atd&type=dsf&referrer=mpdc.dc.gov&agency_id=1027
Public commendations/complaints go on an officer's permanent record.
The chief of police in DC. It's right there in the summary.
She can't, she doesn't claim to be able to, and you didn't get the impression that she does.
She can't dictate what rights you have. But she can issue orders to the Metro Police Department. Which is what she did.
Who's she?
She's the police chief, like it says in TFS.
And since when can she dictate what rights we have?
Since never. TFS explains that she is explaining this to her department.
Police are supposed to have the same rights as citizens. They are just more highly trained in the area of law enforcement. Citizens and police should be held to the same standards of conduct. In Florida for instance a police officer out of his jurisdiction has the same rights as a citizen to make arrests. They can hold the suspect until the sheriff arrives to take the person into custody. When the case gets to trial you have to show up. If you break the law during the arrest you can be sued as well.
That is not quite right. Law enforcement has special authority to conduct pre-emptive and other active/offensive operations within their jurisdiction, and to use equipment/weapons unavailable to civilians during these operations. Law enforcement is not held to the same standard as civilians, they are held to a higher standard because of their expertise, training, equipment, etc. For example the interpretation of "appropriate response" in the context of self defense is more narrow for law enforcement than for civilians.
Rather annoying that it's called a "first amendment" right. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. If anything, the ninth amendment is a better justification. The very best justification is that there is no law against it.
I always mod up spelling trolls.
Yeah well, it's still sad when the cops 'affirm' our rights, it becomes a newsworthy event.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Note that caveat at the end of the statement: "unless such recordings interfere with police activity". If you are the person being interviewed, searched, etc then actions taken to film the interaction may be considered to be such "interference". Again, that word "bystander" was probably very carefully chosen to distinguish between those involved in the interaction and those not.
It usually is a matter of state lines, not purely the jurisdiction that the officer is employed in. In certain states, you are a peace officer that has been certified by the state, which means that you can carry a weapon and, if necessary, cross county and town lines to make arrests if you are in pursuit.
Depending on the state, you can make lawful arrests without being in pursuit as well. The thing is, there are going to be administrative rules about that, and you also don't want to step on the toes of cops in other jurisdictions unless you have to. You will also likely have to sort out the jurisdictional issues when it comes down to where you cart the person to jail.
They do have special powers, and they may or may not be what you think they are, but the reality of it is that no matter what they are, they can make your day a bad one if you mess with them.
I'm not sure that is entirely true that you can't distinguish between a "real" reporter and a curious bystander. There is freedom of the press, and the courts would be very careful to make sure that the police didn't simply redefine the press into a subservient propaganda organ, but I don't think everyone can claim to be a reporter. Or, even if they could, that they have an absolute right to get as much coverage as the other hundred or so people out there with camera phones.
Now enforce it, and we can all get along.
What he have here is a Sudden Outbreak of Common Sense.
You might not have recognized it at first because sadly it is such a rare event.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This should go without stating.. oh wellz :/
In the United States you are allowed to photograph or video tape anything as long it is on public property. Otherwise you are infringing on their privacy rights.
There are a few exceptions. i.e. in a hospital where doctor/patient confidentiality could be breached, some high level officials such as military/secret services/national security or if your intent is to use the photographs to cause illegal harm to others...
although state, local and national laws may vary.
-- SnappleX
And don't forget to define jurisdiction. In TX, all cops are empowered by the state. So a college cop for University of Houston has the same powers in Austin as an Austin City Police Officer. Sure, he'll get in trouble if he exercises them without a very very good reason (like visiting a relative and being in a bank when it is robbed, as opposed to pulling over people for random traffic violations), but he has the power without restriction outside his "jurisdiction." Now if he were in Russia at the time, there'd be different issues if he dressed up as a cop and pulled people over.
Learn to love Alaska
It's not just for DC, but a Constitutional Right for all Americans.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-criminal-law-reform/doj-defends-your-right-record
They are just more highly trained in the area of law enforcement. Citizens and police should be held to the same standards of conduct.
As they are more highly trained - on the tax payer's dollar - they should be held to higher standards. And that's before we even begin talking about all the special privileges afforded to the police in the name of being more effective at their job.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The SJC has ruled we don't have the right to record the cops.(But apparently one of the federal court of appeals decide why yes, we do actually.) Look up Simon Glik if you care to read more.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
I can't arrest someone with the same leeway given to cops
In the state whose laws I know best (Utah) the only additional arrest power given to police is the authority to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felony suspect. Other than that, it's identical.
I can't get a warrant to bust down someone's door.
Technically, you can, if you can get a judge to give you one. In fact, prior to the advent of large organized police forces, nearly all warrants were served by private citizens, and AFAIK the law hasn't changed -- though practice clearly has, and in practice it's unlikely any judge would issue you a warrant.
I can't pull a car over for speeding.
Sure you can, legally. As a practical matter you'd have a hard time doing it without red and blue flashing lights, and there are laws against putting those on your vehicle. I'd bet that if you put yellow flashing lights on, though, you could successfully convince many people to pull over. After that you couldn't issue a citation, but you could get the driver's information and take it to the relevant prosecutor and see if you can convince him to issue a court summons on the strength of the evidence you can provide (mostly, your testimony, same as a police officer).
Again, this isn't a difference in real authority, it's a difference in common practice and who's likely to actually be listened to.
I can't own certain weapons.
You can own anything a police officer can own himself. There are some weapons a police department can own that you cannot, but none that police departments commonly issue. You could, for example, own a fully-automatic M-16 (per federal law, anyway; a few states are more restrictive). It'd cost you $20K+, due to the 1986 law restricting civilian ownership of full-auto firearms to those that were already in civilian hands then (fixed supply and growing demand means the price goes up), and it would take a few months of doing paperwork and waiting, but you could do it if you're not a felon or otherwise legally disqualified due to your own record.
We want law enforcement officers to have an edge over the regular civilians, because that means they'll also have an edge over criminals.
I don't agree that there's any significant "edge" we can give to officers that doesn't serve the same goals in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Granted that citizens rarely have need of them, and that it's better to let the police do their jobs wherever possible, but there are rare circumstances in which it is useful for citizens to exercise their police powers, and in general it's better for society if police don't have a special status in the eyes of the law. It's hard enough to keep them from exceeding their authority even without that.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Well, if a cop is trying to handcuff you and you refuse to separate your hands because you are operating a camera, then you couldn't use this edict to claim a violation of your rights, because it was interfering with their business. It doesn't mean you cannot record, simply that it cannot interfere. I guess you can put the camera down, pointed at you, while you get arrested or interviewed.
So, if a corporation does something illegal, how about we put it in jail? I'm very much for dissolving companies that break the law.
But we're off topic. See, the point you're missing is that corporations exist only at the pleasure of the people via their government. There is no situation where the corporate business structure can be construed as a human right.
I'm not saying people don't have a right to run a business, everyone should be able to run a business if they wish. However, I am saying people do not have a right to run a limited liability business structure. There's a difference, and that difference boils down to who is responsible for the actions of the business.
We can impose restrictions on what corporations can say and do, it's just a matter of properly changing corporate law. The question is, should we do it?
Your logic is flawed; the mere idea that criminals won't do X, because X is illegal, whereas a law bidding citizen won't do X, because X is illegal, is so very deeply flawed. Hint, law-abiding citizens won't do X, because it is illegal. Criminals sometimes will, sometimes won't.
We want law bidding citizens to have an equal footing with criminals, so, they should be afforded those tools that put them on an equal footing. So, if a criminal would enter my house with a glock, I should be allowed to have a glock. If they would use body armor to enter my house, guess what, I want high energy round capable of equalizing the threat. Restricting a law-abiding citizen's ability to defend themselves, so that criminals have en edge is wrong; there should be no restrictions.
I can't arrest someone with the same leeway given to cops
In the state whose laws I know best (Utah) the only additional arrest power given to police is the authority to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felony suspect. Other than that, it's identical.
The main difference is that you had better be right if you arrest someone. The police enjoy limited immunity when making an arrest. You have no such protection.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
So can you or can't you film them coming into your property, or for instance, a friends property if you happen to be present with a recording device?
I just wanted to point something out. Note that the restrictions on owning post-86 machine guns applies to private citizens only. Military and LEO's have specific exemptions for this. Sure, according to a strict definition of the applicable laws, the machine gun is owned by the department or agency, but the individual LEO's are the ones in possession of the weapons, and upon whom the responsibility is laid. To buy a Class III restricted non-transferable machine gun, you need to prove you are military or LEO. For the military, this would probably amount to a signed letter of endorsement from that person's CO, specifying the weapon is needed in that person's duty. This never happens because the military doesn't expect its soldiers to buy their own equipment. Anyone in the military who would be expected to use said restricted item in the performance of their duties has said item issued by the military.
But for LEOs the situation is different. Many departments do not have the funding to provide all the equipment necessary for the officers. Thus many small agencies or departments might expect the officer to supply his own equipment. For the restricted items, they need a letter of endorsement from their CLEO superior, confirming the fact that they are indeed a sworn member of law enforcement, and they can buy whatever gun they want. At the end of the officer's career, and after retirement, the department may choose to gift their duty weapon to the private citizen, formerly a LEO. The restriction is that they can never sell or lose possession of that firearm.
So yes. LEOs do have access to a substantial variety of weapons that private citizens do not.
Every human being has a natural right (god-given if you prefer) to complete, total, 100% self-ownership. This isn't merely self-evident to human beings; this is pure instinct. If you intend to prove otherwise, then you will need to prove the exact opposite: that some human beings deserve a special "right" to violate the self-ownership of other human beings. The only way to accomplish this, of course, is though coercion (physical force or threat thereof).
(Oops, did I just challenge the core principle of government?)
All joking aside, this really is a good thing.
The reports of ordinary people getting beat up, arrested, hassled, yelled at and harassed for videotaping or photographing cops - especially cops who were not really doing anything strange let alone those who WERE using excessive force - were very chilling indeed.
Of course, that is assuming this actually does anything.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Freedom of the press does not refer to the profession of journalism, it refers to the printing press, which means the right to use a printing press and to distribute that which you have printed. This has been interpreted to cover radio, television and electronic information distribution as well.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
This should be a short thread... no one on the internet ever seems to have much of an opinion about police matters, particularly where recording comes in...
As another child points out, you are incorrect about the guns. LEO's have extra special above-the-law privileges when it comes to guns, even when they are off duty, even in their personal life, and even after they are retired. My police-officer neighbor has a full-auto short-barrel Thompson, personally-owned. I would love to have one, but some animals are more equal than others.
As someone living in DC, I see the summary fails to mention a few things: 1) This was the result of a class action lawsuit settlement, not police wanting to respect peoples' rights, 2) police fought this lawsuit for 2+ years as is common when they're caught oppressing people's constitutional rights (Google "DC Trinidad Checkpoints" or "DC pershing park MPD"), and 3) this has always been legal, but the police have commonly violated our rights- we shouldn't give them a cookie for simply following the law.
Who defines what "interference" is? What is the procedure for this? These questions need to be asked first.
Oh, and some advice from my own observations: The Public Domain is a wonderfully secure place to store such recordings
In Missouri only a shop owner (read some employees too) can detain a criminal (other then law enforcement), mind you if they are wrong they can be charged with Kidnapping as will anyone else who is not a shop owner or law enforcement with out regard to how right they are to detain..... so a visiting cop would... be given professional courtesy and not be charged.
It usually is a matter of state lines, not purely the jurisdiction that the officer is employed in.
There are several police forces that aren't state bound or related, and yes, it's the jurisdiction that counts.
A US National Zoological Park Police cop has a different jurisdiction than an FDA Office of Criminal Investigations cop.
It's sad he has to give a General Order to keep his fascists from wielding their clubs against innocent photographers documenting their actions, but I'm glad he has given it.
He who?
Knee-jerk comment is knee-jerk.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
a little "pie-in-the-sky" if you ask me...
Yeah, perhaps. But consider a couple of things:
1. We have an army of young law school graduates in this country who have no hope of paying off their student loans and are currently working as baristas. I love the iea of peppering law degrees throughout the police force. The next time some cop yells "Your first amendment rights can be revoked," I'd love to hear his partner reflexively yell, "Oh no they can't!"
2. I'm a gadget geek who loves his toys and frequently uses them for work. Stop me at any given time and I'm probably carrying something stamped "Leatherman" or "Spyderco." The average police officer cannot even accurately tell you what the laws concerning the carrying of deadly weapons are. (There are four overlapping jurisdictions in my metropolitan area). This means the officer can arrest me at any time for "carrying a deadly weapon" for a 2 1/2" pocket knife, and then feign ignorance of the law when it goes before the judge. My life gets destroyed (such an arrest -- just the arrest -- would bar me from my industry), and the cop gets to say "oops."
Wouldn't you love to once, just once, hear an officer of the law stop to consider the fourth amendment before a search, or an officer at a protest refuse an order to disperse the crowd because of the first amendment?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
According to the Utah Code, Title 77, Chapter 7...
Police officers can arrest people they reasonably suspect have committed a crime. Private citizens cannot. They can only arrest someone who has actually committed a crime in their presence. (An exception is made for felonies, in which case citizens can make an arrest based on reasonable cause (not suspicion)). Police officers can arrest someone for simply fleeing or attempting to flee. Private citizens cannot. A police officer can arrest someone he believes is an illegal alien, or has provided false identification. A private citizen cannot. The police can detain and question you based on reasonable suspicion. Private citizens cannot. Police can search you. Private citizens cannot (though you can take any visible weapons away if you make an arrest).
I could go on, but it isn't the same at all. A sworn law enforcement officer in the state of Utah has a lot more power than the average citizen. That said, you are right to point out that citizens have a lot more power to enforce the law than they may realize. Things would be much better for us all if they did. Though, most Utahns I know have never read a single section from the Utah Code. Let alone the several chapters that they probably should read to be considered informed citizens.
I found what I originally saw last week http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns Apparently the ruling was in 2001 and covered a conviction of Michael Hyde. Guess since then they actually figured out the correct ruling.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
After that you couldn't issue a citation
Whaaaaat? I thought you said the only difference was that I can't detain a fleeing suspect.
The inability to issue a citation, when coupled in fact with the inability to detain a suspect, is a huge difference. A cop can detain you, write a citation, and then at that point you're legally obligated - and legally aware of your obligation - to appear in court. A random asshat with a camera can't detain you, can't write a citation, and *if* he goes to court and shows substantial evidence that you committed the crime (note that the cop merely needed to write a citation), then you will have to actually be tracked down and found in order to actually summon you to court.
"No animal shall kill any other animal without cause."
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.