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.
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."
Not news, but always worth reminding people.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
Errr, except that it was a woman...
Give an AC the ability to post but not read and here's what happens... :P
Not all cops are bullies, liars, or thugs. I have personally known some very nice ones. Unfortunately all jobs done by people get good and bad ones alike. Yes there are some bad cops. There are also alot of officers who just have to put up with bad people all day. I know its a pipe dream but I wish people would stop making horrible generalizations just because they see one bad egg. You might do well to remember that police officers go out every day all over world with the prospect of not making it home that night. All in the name of protecting people like you and me.
I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
You might do well to remember that police officers go out every day all over world with the prospect of not making it home that night.
So do taxi drivers. Seriously, it's more dangerous than being a cop.
But if you get a bad taxi driver, you generally don't tip or don't pay.
Get a bad cop and they'll ruin your life.
See the difference?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Right.. and how many of the rest of them look the other way, actively cover up, or otherwise tighten up on the thin blue line? Its almost like theres a phrase in the law for that: accessory after the fact.
Where is the outrage from law enforcement over such flagrant abuse of authority? Where are the criminal charges for the so-called police officers at fault?
Oh and further than that.
Pretty much every time a police misconduct case comes up in the news, it seems that it always involved a hefty dose of cops covering for other cops.
I think the number of bad cops is quite high.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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)
Part of the problem I think is a lack of accountability, too many cases come down to the cop's word vs. the defendant's and the cop's is taken without question landing innocent people into the system. I think the issue can easily be solved as somebody on here said in a discussion a while ago by installing cameras in ALL police cars. An extreme step past that would be to track the officer themselves, but there's gotta be a better way than that. The reason for all this: they hold a position of power that they've proven time and time and again they're capable of abusing, those in power should be held accountable, even if it's over the wrongful arrest of a single individual. Imagine being "that" guy, not a good day indeed.
All cops are either bullies, liars, or thugs. They are required to be bullies by the existance of sumptuary laws like those against cannabis. If they enforce those laws they are bullies. If they refuse to enforce those laws, they are liars. QED.
As long as there are bad laws, police will be bad people.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
Be fair, it's not more then 90% or so. Maybe a little more in small towns.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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?
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.
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.
It's my impression that Police culture, much like Military culture, heavily frowns on ratting out another member of your group, even if you know they did something wrong... especially if they do something wrong.
Perhaps having a collective group whose mission is to take out bad guys, and seeing bad guys constantly, creates a very stong "us" and "them" driven ethos.
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 that the Stanford Prison Experiment provides evidence that most people place in that role will show this sort of behavior.