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...
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.
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.
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.
She can't dictate what rights you have. But she can issue orders to the Metro Police Department. Which is what she did.
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!”
Is it false, then, they they still have the clause I mentioned and wrote my post about? If it is still true... then your outrage is pointless and idiotic, and my point stands. Qualified rights, especially when they involve taking away your ability to defend them in court, are not rights.
Great Intellect...
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.
Why don't you just read the damn thing instead of commenting on something you obviously didn't even look at?
Clever signature text goes here.
Yup, you didn't read it.
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.
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
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.
You are talking about the theory. He is talking about the practice. Given that experience has long shown that police in particular have a tendency to smash first and ask questions later, who's the idiot?
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.
um... wrong. I'll tell you why.
To make a recording legal, you need the written consent of ONE party in the conversation.
That can be YOU.
Covered.
This is true for telephone conversations as well.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
spoliation. produce the broken camera in court (hell you don't even have to do *that* much, the mere suggestion should be enough to swing the jury to a not guilty verdict).
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
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.
in most places, there are I think 2 states in the US and im sure other countries where you need consent of both parties
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
did you even read what was posted? it defines what those officers can do if interference is found by the officers and describes specifically when interference cannot be claimed. It is very much the practice.
This varies state by state in the US. Some states are one party consent states, others are two party consent states. For example, Maryland is a Two Party consent state. Often this law is used against those who film others who break the law. Recent examples include James O'Keefe when he did some undercover video of some very unflattering behavior by ACORN. The state of Maryland went after O'Keefe for obtaining video without permission, while they left ACORN alone.
In general, one party recording consent works better.
As for the instructions from Chief Lanier, it's a good start. She is one of the more level headed police chiefs in this country. I hope others follow her example.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
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?
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.
"Lanier says that if an officer sees an individual recording his or her actions, the officer may not use that as a basis to ask the citizen for ID, demand an explanation for the recording, deliberately obstruct the camera, or arrest the citizen. And she stresses that under no circumstances should the citizen be asked to stop recording.
That applies even in cases where the citizen is recording "from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties." In that situation, she says, the officer may ask the person to move out of the way, but the officer "shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording."
She also notes that "a person has the right to express criticism of the police activity being
observed."
Try reading the fucking article.
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?
What is to stop the officers from interpreting that as:
"a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of public/police"="a postion where they can see what is going on."
"move to a position that will not interfere"="move them to where they can not see what is going on"
"a safe distance"="enough distance that they cannot see what is going on"
Are you going to argue with them when they claim that? Even when they threaten to arrest you for not complying with their order? Do you expect a judge to agree with you? Do you expect the district atorney to file charges against cops who interpret the order like that?
What was posted (there might be more in TFA, but hell if I am going to RTFA) doesn't pin it down to more than "interferes" and "a safe distance", which leaves plenty of wiggle room for the police to act as they do now.
"sigh"
It specifically says all they can do is tell you to move to a location not interfering with them. It even goes as far as saying if you are at a safe distance and don't do anything that obstruct the police or puts them in danger, you are not interfering. If they can only tell you to move when you are interfering and it spells out when you are not, it leaves no wiggle room at all. This, btw, is not some new policy because someone all the sudden got some common sense, it is a policy developed because they lost or settled a lawsuit over their previous handling of these situations.
Most cops are corrupt asshats that are wasting good oxygen others could be taking advantage of. But I can understand why they do some of the shit they do after reading a few of the replies here. It doesn't justify their behavior but i have to have some apathy for them if they deal with idiots who can't even read or comprehend what they read, on a regular basis. If i was a cop, I would probably already snapped and started beating some sense into people.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-09-24/news/0909230103_1_acorn-bertha-lewis-maryland-court-records
The Baltimore Sun is known to be a left leaning newspaper even in the significantly left-leaning state of Maryland.
The case was later dropped after the plaintiffs failed to meet a 120 day deadline for filing. And by the way AC, all you had to plug in to Google was O'keefe acorn maryland and you'd have seen results.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
i have to have some apathy for them if they deal with idiots who can't even read or comprehend what they read, on a regular basis.
I don't think the problem is not understanding, but expecting the police to go unresonably far to interpret the law in their favor, and disregard the law if they can't do that. This expectation is build on countless news stories of the police doing just that. Whether that is a reasonable expectation of real world police conduct, I cannot tell.
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
I haven't seen "100s" of instances where they use the "interference with my duties" excuse, but I've seen plenty.
www.copblock.org has some good videos.
Many instances of people getting harassed by armed thugs in blue for filming traffic stops. Including one guy standing in his own garage filming a traffic stop across the street.
The boys in blue will one day regret fomenting this adversarial relationship with law abiding citizens.
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.
This policy statement pertains to one police department and is basically the result of a lawsuit filed by someone who had been mistreated for recording them in the past. This isn't a policy statement by someone wanting to improve their image to enter higher levels of politics or something. The entire policy change is pretty detailed in what the cops can and cannot do including what specific situations that a camera can be seized and how to handle a situation where someone will not voluntarily hand it over.
If you find they are abusing their discretion, file a complaint against the officers. There is even a web site that allows that which is floating around in these comments. My understanding is that the complaint stays with the officer's permanent record whether they find something substantial or not coming from it. It will eventually show a pattern that will eventually catch up with them.
Seriously, read the PDF associated with it. It is very specific and part of a settlement from which someone was mistreated by one of the cops.
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.
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.
Perhaps whoever drafted the law thought that would be covered already by things like destruction of/tampering with evidence.
The loophole is that if you destroy the evidence there is no evidence that you destroyed the evidence.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I don't give a shit.
P.S. I guess thickcunt was already taken and randomignorantstupidretardedbastard was too long?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It defines an official departmental policy. What those officers can do is limited only to what they can get away with. In particular, there's an old saying to the effect that you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride. The cops will still arrest you for failure to disperse/move away/follow a lawful police order, and maybe there will be a little asterisk by his name in the next department newsletter and a court-costs settlement to you after you sue him for breaking dept policy. But there sure as hell won't be you, anywhere near where they don't want you taking pictures, taking pictures.
"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.