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...
Nope. From the linked orders
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.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
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.
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.
I hate to correct but to say our rights derive from the Will of The People is completely false. Our rights are inherent, we are imbued with them by our creator. The Will of The People is what stops the government from infringing on them.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Citation please? I have a K9 dog, I know some trainers and Im friendly with a few policemen with K9s, and I've never heard of such a thing. I could be wrong or uninformed so I'd yield to a citation, but without one and having seen the dogs and trainers and handlers in action I dont believe it without confirmation. The bit about "most dogs react to food smells" is utterly false though, being distracted by a nice juicy steak is the fastest way to get a dog kicked out of any training program, and a working dog has very little interest in food when performing a task. The average cop may not give a rats ass about people, but a K9 handler training their dog to "lie" is disrespecting the dog and I dont know a single handler that would do that ever.