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.'"

Comments

Re:Loophole

[Drishmung]

...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...

Nope. From the linked orders

1. If a person is photographing or recording police activity from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties, a member may direct the person to move to a position that will not interfere. However, a member shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording.
2. If a person is photographing or recording police activity from a position that impedes or threatens the safety of members of the public, a member shall direct the person to move to a position that will not interfere. However, members shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording.
3. A person’s recording of members’ activity from a safe distance, and absent any attendant action that obstructs the activity or threatens the safety of the member(s), does not constitute interference.
4. A person has the right to express criticism of the police activity being observed. So long as that expression does not jeopardize the safety of any member, suspect or bystander; and so long as that expression does not violate the law or incite others to violate the law, the expression does not constitute interference.

So, they may not tell you to stop recording, and they may not take your camera. Later on in the order it explains in more detail how they MAY NOT TAKE your camera as evidence without probable cause, even then they need their supervisor present, and under no circumstances may they delete recordings.

Re:Loophole

[Tastecicles]

...under no circumstances may they delete recordings.

Well, no, because that would be spoliation. Not that this doesn't happen a LOT.

Refer to the Rodney King case for a bloody good reason for a cop to want a video recording to disappear. More recently, the Ian Tomlinson murder trial which resulted in the cop who was videotaped in the act of killing a man was acquitted by a bought jury.

So continues the record of the British police, not a single member of whom has ever been convicted of causing or by omission of action causing, a wrongful death.

We know different.

Re:Loophole

[fafaforza]

Theory and practice are quite different, and in NYC, people photographing the subways are still harassed by cops even with a printout of the specific law allowing them to take photos.

Also, refer to the video of that woman that was taping an arrest from her private property - the front lawn of her home. The cop who was making the arrest some 30 feet away claimed he felt threatened and arrested her. Ironically, the people that were initially being arrested were let go on the scene.

Re:Loophole

[jahudabudy]

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/2010-2011/02/20110223_drug_dogs.html

It's not that trainers train the dog to lie. Dogs are pack animals and pick up on cues from the pack leader (the handler); if the human thinks "this guy must have drugs", the dog picks up on his pack leader's subtle (possibly unconscious) cues and performs as he believes he is expected. No maliciousness required on the part of the trainer or handler, just a ridiculous legal precedent that allows a dumb (as in unable to properly communicate) non-human animal to make legally valid "judgment" calls that trump citizens' constitutional rights.