Slashdot Mirror
Man Charged With HIPAA Violations For Video Taping Police
Bob the Super Hamste writes "The St. Paul Pioneer Press is reporting that Andrew Henderson was recording Ramsey County sheriff's deputies frisking a bloody-faced man, who was then loaded into an ambulance by paramedics. Then sheriff's deputy Jacqueline Muellner approached Henderson and confiscated his video camera, stating, 'We'll just take this for evidence,' which was recorded on Henderson's cell phone. On October 30th, Henderson went to the Arden Hills sheriff's office to retrieve his video camera, where he was told where he would have to wait to receive his camera back. A week later, Henderson was charged with obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct, with the citation stating, 'While handling a medical/check the welfare (call), (Henderson) was filming it. Data privacy HIPAA violation. Refused to identify self. Had to stop dealing with sit(uation) to deal w/Henderson.' In mid November, Henderson went back to the sheriff's office to attempt to retrieve his camera and get a copy of the report when Deputy Dan Eggers refused. ... Jennifer Granick, a specialist on privacy issues at Stanford University Law School, states that the alleged violation of HIPAA rules by Andrew Henderson is nonsense, stating, 'There's nothing in HIPAA that prevents someone who's not subject to HIPAA from taking photographs on the public streets, HIPAA has absolutely nothing to say about that.'"
The article notes that the Deputy in question basically told the guy he was arrested for being a "buttinski" and recording someone in the midst of a violent mental health breakdown. Supposedly the footage was deleted from the camera while in police custody.
For fraks sake. Will SCOTUS please making a damn ruling that absolutely allows for any and all recording of police officers in a public place no matter what? This is getting ridiculous.
Supposedly the evidence was deleted from the camera while in police custody.
Fixed that for ya.
What a surprise, cops are bullies, liars, and thugs. That's not exactly "news".
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
He's set.
I just wish he could take the cops houses as well as a bunch of taxpayer money.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
> confiscated his video camera, stating, 'We'll just take this for evidence,'
> Supposedly the footage was deleted from the camera while in police custody.
So... where is the "destruction of evidence" charge?
Give a large man with a small brain a gun and some authority and here's what happens.
I disagree and think that police should be allowed to be filmed in public places at all times, to help keep them honest.
At the same time, if I were being loaded into an ambulance by police, in the midst of a violent mental health breakdown, I would really appreciate it if the police stopped people from filming me. That's not something you want out spread around the internet.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If he was charged with a crime directly related to that video and it somehow got deleted while in police custody, how is that not tampering with evidence?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
'nuff said.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
So, let me ask the flip question – one that I have been struggling with. Should public officials have privacy while on duty? Probably not. But what about citizens? How do we protect their rights?
If I were Rodney King I would want my arrest to be videotaped. Check on the power of the police – that fine.
A good phone should be able to eavesdrop on the private interview between suspect and cop.
And, what if I did not want the tape to be posted? Maybe I did something shameful and don’t want it to be public? Maybe something that is implied to be shameful – like a false arrest. Let’s say you were pulled over for a moving violation in a red light district? A little careful editing and it could look very bad.
Observation caused the quantum super-state of me having / not having a breakdown to collapse into a breakdown. The person with the camera should be charged with disturbing the peace for forcing reality down that particular route of events. Case closed.
I have had cause to research this in a different set of circumstances. The public is not bound by HIPAA. Only health professionals and organizations routinely dealing in health information are covered.
ever hear of a telephoto lens?
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
He stole my soul!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Record the police with a telephoto lens from far enough away that you can run and lose them when they try to steal your property.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Can I be arrested for taking a video of someone with a limp? How about bad acne? How are any public cameras legal? How are police dash cams legal? Wouldn't these all be HIPAA violations?
There needs to be a new law that makes it clearly illegal for the police to interfere with someone recording them in a public place. Given the fact that police can be menacing it should be illegal for them to even ask you to stop or actively try to block you. In the same way they can't continue to ask you questions once you invoke your right to have an attorney present and have invoked your right to silence. The penalty for the law should be multi fold. Potential felony for the cop but also a minimum fine partially payable to the victim. This would serve to get more people videoing the police and the insult of the police having to write out checks to people they tried to intimidate would be golden.
The next tier of offense would be if the police then erase the video. With that there should be a minimum mandatory sentence along with a huge fine, again with much going to the victim.
Lastly there should be no exceptions tossed in as the slightest wedge given to the police would be abused to hell; So no being able to say it is evidence. If someone videos the police then the video should be as sacrosanct as client attorney privilege; if they want to youtube it then fine if they want to keep it safe then their choice.
It all boils down to information is power. Previously it was the whole your word against a policeman's which basically made their side of a story the only side of a story. But now the public has massive power not only through the video but through the near frictionless ability to distribute that video. 20 years ago if you were to say video the police pulling over a clearly drunk powerful politician even the local media might not touch that video assuming the police let you walk 5 feet away with it. Now you put it on youtube and the police suddenly do their job and charge the politician and while the prosecutor might not go for the throat will at least go through the minimum motions.
But all arguments that this somehow interferes with the police being able to do their jobs is false. The police have the clear ability to abuse or not abuse their power. But someone videoing the police does not change what happens they are not able to create abuse they can potentially try to show something out of context or add a colourful commentary but most people aren't stupid and will see through that in a flash. My guess is that any policeman that gets frustrated with being recorded is a policeman who doesn't want to be forced to obey the rules or knows they just broke the rules. They are lashing out because of frustration not because they think they are in the right.
This all reminds me of a local Indian restaurant lashing out after being closed for a zillion health violations; they argued that the health inspectors didn't understand Indian cooking nor did they think the health inspectors had any right to be in their kitchens. They argued that their insurance didn't cover health inspectors only employees, that the health inspectors were exaggerating, and that the inspection reports should not be public as the public wouldn't understand them. These all sound like the arguments that police make against recording them.
While the headline of TFS asserts that he was charged with a HIPAA violation, the TFA makes clear that he was, in fact, charged with "obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct"; the notes on the citation describing the event mention a HIPAA data privacy violation, but that's the description of the officer's version of the facts surrounding the charge, not the charged offense.
HIPAA protects patients from medical entities and corporations, not from citizens on the street who have nothing to do with the dispensation of medical care.
CROOKED COPS.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Follow the logic here, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. He was charged with violating HIPAA, based on the evidence confiscated by police during the evidence. Since such evidence doesn't exist (as the police erased it/seems to have gone missing), shouldn't the charges be dropped? For all intents and purposes, the guy was arrested and charged for something that has not happened/did not happen. This would mean that they would either a) have to let the guy go, based on lack of evidence, or b) produce the undoctored evidence, showing the missteps that police took. Either way, the guy walks, or the police gets dinged with evidence tampering.
If you're used to dealing with HIPAA (and as someone who has done human subjects research, I have), it's easy to not understand the borders of that; HIPAA training describes a set of norms for dealing with your subjects/patients, but it isn't legal advice per se. Someone in the heat of the moment who has never had to think about if HIPAA extends to other people might easily make the wrong call on the law.
People will learn how to handle this better in the future. There's no sense getting riled up about this. It's a simple mistake that anyone could make.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
if the police won't let us tape them being crazy?
Best Slashdot Co
This is the problem with the mindset that everytime something bad happens we need a law to prevent it from happening again.
We have so many laws now that new laws often go unenforced (or the old ones they supplement go unenforced), and the police now have a laundry list of bullshit laws they can whip out when convenient.
First, its HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996), not HIPPA.
Second, since law enforcement agencies are not generally covered entities under HIPAA (which generally applies to health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses, and their contracted business associates) in the first place, it might be harder to find a HIPAA violation than you think.
Some recordings should be restricted to a degree. For example an ongoing barricaded hostage situation where the police are about to make an entry to conduct a rescue. A recording should not be broadcast or otherwise shared in a live or near-live manner. The hostage taker could see what is going on outside. Once the hostage situation is resolved then broadcasting/sharing should be allowed.
"The article notes that the Deputy in question basically told the guy he was arrested for being a "buttinski""
If thats an arrestable offense, I'm in serious shit.
Since the recorded video was in fact a video/movie, and the MPAA has bought the laws that state that IP = P, then deleting the movie is destruction of property.
So we have
False Arrest
Aggrevated theft
Destruction of property
Making false police reports
Falsifying evidence
Evidence tampering
I'd say minimum 5 years in prison for the deputy.
Okay, so where to we sent the money to help Henderson with his legal issues and get the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office to behave properly?
Start by not using their language. They didn't "confiscate" his camera - they robbed him and stole his camera. See how that's suddenly a different story? But that's the *correct* version of it. "Confiscation" implies that they took it temporarily under some statutory authority. What they actually did was "strong-arm robbery", with an aggravating circumstance of "under color of law" or "with a gun", or both. That's a felony any way you slice it.
I read a lot of these stories, and the press and everybody discussing it uses the weasel language created by law enforcement to cover up LEO crimes. So, a kidnapping becomes a "false arrest" (no such thing, as an "arrest" is defined as "taking someone into custody *under legal authority*"), robbery becomes "confiscation", perjury becomes "made a mistake while filing a sworn affidavit", assault becomes "excessive force", etc. This is a problem. Start calling the crimes by their proper names and it suddenly becomes a lot more difficult to justify it or write it off.
The victim needs to go straight to the DA and demand prosecution. It wouldn't happen unless the prosecutor is honest (and there actually are a few), but with enough noise he'll get his camera back and hopefully someone will get at least a stern talking-to.
Do you have ESP?
When the police don't obey the law, how can they expect anyone else to? If I lived in this jurisdiction I would use this to show an unequal enforcement of the law and get my own charges dismissed. Since the police were acting outside the law, I would go after each police officer personally and privately for the damage to my reputation, loss of creative works and loss of necessary equipment FOR work. Hence also loss of income. I bet the police would settle and apoligize before I take their houses and retirement plans away.
Are you in public? then your right to privacy does not include filming you about your business. That is ANYBODY.
I do not think that is accurate. If you are recording things for your personal use I suspect its true. If you are recording for public use I suspect its not true, hence the need to get "model release" signatures or blur the faces of regular people who are recognizable. Note "regular" people, celebrities and public officials do not get this sort of protection.
Also note that some places open to the public are not public spaces. I believe that on private property open to the public recording can be prohibited. I don't think you can get arrested but the property owner can surely instruct you to leave. If you fail to do so then you are trespassing and subject to arrest.
It will never stop until police "officers" are personally criminally responsible for their criminal actions, and are actively prosecuted for them.
Since that will never happen, the abuse will never stop.
Asshole cops trump up charges against a man for doing something legal that they don't like. News at 11.
Thanks data connection and free app for syncing my video automatically for me :)
So media can be uploaded immediately.
Dropbox uploads all my photos for me.
If someone sets up a legal defense fund, I'd be happy to chip in.
I'd also chip in for a fund to pay for going after that deputy and that police department.
Doesn't the justin.tv app stream to a remote server while it's recording? Good luck deleting the video there, officer.
bah.
I think they will draw the line at "recording is allowed in any place where being there holding a camera without recording taking place is allowed."
Here's a silly example of why "no matter what" can be abused by an photographer:
Officer is leading a suspect to his police car.
Four citizens stand in front of police cars' doors, blocking access.
All 4 are arrested, charged, and convicted with obstructing justice, interfering with an arrest, or some similar charge.
Inspired, 4 different people do the same thing, but this time holding cameras.
They claim "we were photographing police, you can't arrest us."
Surely they are no less guilty of interfering with a lawful arrest than the first group who were not wielding cameras.
The law needs to protect "passive" "citizen-photography" of public officials who are doing their jobs while in public places. The fact that someone is photographing something not be used as a license to do what would otherwise be illegal.
By the way, the term "citizen-photography" should not be limited to citizens. When it comes to photographing public servants, I think the "right to passively photograph public servants in public" should extend at a minimum to all legally competent adults who are not foreign diplomats or agents of a foreign government.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
DId they delete it or format the drive and overwrote the deleted info? Other wise I'm sure its still there.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
We as a society need to turn this around. Instead it being our right to record police who are publicly abusing their power, it should be our duty to record them. Most smart phones these days can record video. Imagine a half dozen people recording any incident. It's hard to confiscate them all. Also, if you see the police trying to confiscate a camera, that should be a red flag for even more cameras to start recording. If there was no abuse of power, then the video will show that, so the police have nothing to worry about. Hell, let them record themselves too in the line of duty if they think it's needed. Video is just too easy and available that we should make it standard operating procedure.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Unless idiots police departments start losing big money on bullshit like this it will only get worse.
When in public, and not on private property, a person should darn well be able to record absolutely anything and everything that they can see or hear for themselves. On private property, you respect the wishes of the owner of the property or you are trespassing.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Second, since law enforcement agencies are not generally covered entities under HIPAA (which generally applies to health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses, and their contracted business associates) in the first place, it might be harder to find a HIPAA violation than you think.
Though that's all true, it still didn't stop this particular officer from arresting a non-health worker for allegedly committing a HIPPA violation.
Ze street, she runs both ways!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The charges will probably be dropped for political reasons, but as a person whose family mostly consists of medical professionals (doctor, surgeon, psychiatrist, psychologist, two RN's, two FNP's, a naval surgeon, an EMT, a BSN with FNP. ...) they take HIPPA matters like it's sacred. Someone getting hauled off in an ambulance constitutes a medical action. The privacy is intended for the individual, who has to waive his/her rights so that others may possess or even review documentation of these medical events. Any time care is provided (both "provide" and "care" have broad meanings, btw), HIPPA kicks in. It's between you and the provider. So, the man should not have filmed the event if the man had not already received release from the patient to obtain that information. The key word here is documentation. Eye witness accounts are moot because they are not documentation. A/V Recordings are documentation. It's tantamount to roaming a hospital ward and reading people's personal medical charts. Do you get it?
Oh, and sorry so many of you have never ever been in a situation where HIPPA has been to your benefit. I'm guessing all of you have been, you just don't know it. Every time you see a doctor or fill an Rx or file an insurance claim, HIPPA is protecting you. At any rate, I, for one, would not want it documented by some random person that I was carried off in an ambulance. Who are you to waive MY right to privacy? Who are you to say MY privacy concerns are outweighed by your "information is free" mantra?
Presumably, they're in public or they wouldn't be recordable. I hear what you're saying, though. There are a lot of absolute slimeballs out there who record awfulness for the amusement of losers on the internet. Don't be one of those people.
You're not claiming that the guy with a badge never reports just the facts (or version thereof) that makes him look like the good guy, are you? Really, all I need to see is ONE video of a handcuffed young man getting shot by police who then start rounding up the cell phones of people who were recording to say that this right ALWAYS needs to be protected. We grant police tremendous power. It's not asking much at all to claim that, in return, we get to have video of you exercising that power. If that bothers you, find another line of work where the lives of the public are not in your hands.
No, I WANT them to be wonderful people who never abuse their authority. Some of them are. We've probably all seen those internet videos of the state trooper shows the patience of a saint while some nutjob is verbally going off on them. Some of them aren't. One of the reasons I'm quite happy with the idea of videos is that once you get into a courtroom, what the police say is disproportionally believed over what you say. It is as if by putting on the uniform and badge, regular people become paragons of virtue. Well, that's simply not true. They remain regular people.
It's already legal to video tape them. Some of them don't know this, or pretend not to know it, but it's true. And yes, it will make it a little harder on them. Sorry (not really), but the point here is to strike a balance with the rights of the accused. If you're going to arrest me and accuse me of a crime (and have the right to beat the snot out of me if I resist arrest), then I'd like video of the whole thing.
This cop makes the three honest, intelligent cops look bad.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
The only thing that is going to stop these abuses are actual penalties. At the very least the deputy needs to be charged with armed robbery, he took a citizen's property at the point of a gun when he knew he had no legal grounds to do so. The Sheriff needs to be charged with conspiracy, and willful destruction of evidence in a criminal case for erasing the video. Once the police start serving time in prison instead of paid administrative leave, this illegal practice will end.
Sure it did. The person was cited and charged with obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct, not with a violation of HIPAA (and, as note in GP, its "HIPAA" -- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 -- not "HIPPA".)
People (including the author of the headline of TFS) seem to have trouble distinguishing what TFA describes the subject being charged with with the officer's description of the events supporting the charge on the citation. "HIPAA data privacy violation", "refused to identify himself", etc., are events that are described in the notes on the citation, but they aren't the legal charges. The legal charges are obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct.
Except that, if you read TFA rather than trusting the Slashdot headline, the police are not charging him with a HIPAA violation; they are charging him with obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct. There is mention of a "HIPAA data privacy violation" in the narrative of events (including note of the subject "refusing to identify himself", etc.) on the citation supporting the charge, but the idea that he is being charged with a HIPAA violation is a pure invention of the Slashdot headline writer.
On what basis do you draw this conclusion? TFA doesn't address it one way or another.
No one is pressing HIPAA charges in this case, either. The charge is obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct.
There is a mention of "HIPAA data privacy violation" in the officer's narrative of events supporting the citation, but that's not what is charged .
"footage was deleted from the camera while in police custody. 'We'll just take this for evidence,'"
So the police are tampering with evidence? Isn't that a crime?
While there were no HIPAA charges here (the /. headline is wrong: if you RTFA you will see that the charges were obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct, not HIPAA violations, though there was a HIPAA violation mentioned in the officer's narrative of events on the citation, which is distinct from the legal charges, both of these AC statements about HIPAA are incorrect. I direct you to the main criminal privacy-related part of HIPAA, 42 USC Sec. 1320d-6:
Note that people who illegally obtain information that was held by a HIPAA-covered entity are liable, and that liability most certainly includes criminal liability.
To be fair to GP, they said HIPAA is complicated, and that its understandable if people misunderstand its borders; the officer here may not have understood HIPAA and may have been wrong in the notes describing a "HIPAA data privacy violation", but that's pretty much irrelevant to your statement because (1) there was no arrest, and (2) the legal charge in the citation (rather than the description of events) wasn't about a HIPAA violation anyway.
If by "a typical citizen" you mean "one who isn't violating HIPAA" (which is certainly the vast majority of citizens), that's true. If you mean "a citizen who is neither a HIPAA covered entity nor an employee of such an entity", then its not true at all -- HIPAA makes it a crime for anyone to knowingly obtain protected information that is maintained by a covered entity without authorization, regardless of whether the person doing the obtaining has any special relationship to a covered entity. (See 42 USC Sec. 1302d-6)
Well, at that point, you'd be deliberately looking into somebody else's private property.... something that you're not legally supposed to do with intention in the first place without permission, even without recording being involved.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
From the article - which no one reads, I know - it sounds like Deputy Eggert implied that, because the video is missing from the camera, once returned, that Henderson must've deleted it, himself, or there would be "documentation" of its deletion. In that case, even if Henderson "deleted" it, the police would have a copy, right? If it's evidence, and the police were able to obtain it, they must still have it. Henderson should petition for the "evidence" that the police must have. So, coppers, cough up the video that you took from the camera.
Re: For fraks sake. Will SCOTUS please making a damn ruling that absolutely allows for any and all recording of police officers...
.
SCOTUS can only make a ruling when a case finally gets in front of them which they decide to review and rule upon. So it's going to take a grave miscarriage of justice (possibly even someone's death) that occurs because of the presence/existence/enforcement of an unconstitutional law before a case gets appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court of the USA.
Slightly longer (and vastly better) answer: footage intentionally edited to give a misleading impression of what happened wouldn't exactly be the truth, would it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Making it legal to video tape them will only make it worse on them.
It is legal to videotape them. Confirmed by state supreme courts in at least 49 out of 50 states now. I believe Massachusetts and Illinois were among the last, but it is most definitely legal to video record the police while they perform their duty of beating the shit out of suspects. Or just tasering or pepper spraying them if they are one of the few less violent ones.
In certain states you do have to be careful that your video equipment is visible and not hidden. That requirement should definitely be removed because as this case shows police can and will just confiscate and erase your recorder if they see it. And then charge you with all kinds of contempt of cop charges as well.
As for the rest were you under the impression that video taping someone in public without their permission was against the law? Well it isn't. Except under very rare circumstances and never in the context of a police officer murdering or beating the shit out of their victims in public.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Unlawfully instigating a 50-50 chance of the destruction of a cat.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Exactly. I have no doubt there is a significant correlation between sociopathy and police officers. Female police officers would do a bit better, but on the whole those guys have about as much empathy as a rock. Eyes like dolls' eyes. Either no emotion at all, or just uncontrolled anger. Not the slightest hint of remorse no matter what they do.
It would make a very interesting psychological/sociological study and/or documentary. I might consider filming such a documentary myself except that I am too terrified of cops to have any voluntary contact with them at all. Also, I suspect sociopathy would be high in prison guards as well. I couldn't help noticing that Charles Graner was a prison guard before joining the Army and getting shipped to Iraq, where he would become famous (mostly due to the astonishing photos Lynndie took for him).
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
What I like best about this article is that real names identifying the officers at fault were used. If you're going to be paid on the public dime then there should be a public record of every thing you do, searchable on the internet (note no addresses for these people should ever be given).
I disagree and think that police should be allowed to be filmed in public places at all times, to help keep them honest.
At the same time, if I were being loaded into an ambulance by police, in the midst of a violent mental health breakdown, I would really appreciate it if the police stopped people from filming me. That's not something you want out spread around the internet.
So, basically, you're all for truth and justice, except when it's inconvenient for you.
Wow. Does anyone listen to themselves anymore?
no. Absolutely no. You do not give up freedom to record just because something is happening. That's absurd.
Sorry for not being clear but I was referring to "recording" in its noun form, the data itself, not its verb form, the acquisition of the data. Hence the reference to broadcasting while events are unfolding. I was not suggesting that the pictures or video should not be taken, just that their use should be delayed.
Replay this scene, but every citizen has google glass posting shit to facebook, google+, twitter and shit at the push of one button.
Not just this guy, but everyone nearby, the passing pizza deliverer, a taxidriver waiting for a trafficlight, the jogger, the medics, the victim.
The police will have an heartattack when those glasses get mainstream.
In all cases where it can be reasonably proven that recorded evidence was destroyed/tampered with/ hidden from the court the next words out of the Judge should be
CASE DISMISSED
the burden of proof should always fall on the LEOs side of the case.
auto uploading utilities should be very popular on smart phones
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
I've been a Pharmacist for over 30 years, and, have to strictly adhere to HIPAA regulations. If I'm consuling a patient and someone overhears or even records any protected information it's not the recorder who violated HIPAA, it would be me, since I allowed the possibility of overhearing or recording. In that light, it was not the person who videoed this incident, it was the police who failed to block the view of the public who actually violated HIPAA regulations (If indeed, any HIPAA regs. actually applied here) So, I would suggest that the person who video recorded this incident get in touch with the person who may or may not have had his rights violated to sue the police department for all they are worth! (Not Much!!!) This would turn the tables on the police and put them in the hotseat where they belong.
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!