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.
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.
Freedom isn't always convenient. Hell some people enjoy very nice lives under a dictatorship (particularly the dictator themselves). Doesn't mean its right. What you're effectively saying is that people should have their speech restricted even if its the truth so long as someone else finds that speech embarrassing or offensive.
Do you not know the road that takes us down?
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
No, he's saying that we should expect common decency from our fellow man, but, since people have decided to think in Black and White and act like "buttinski's", never acknowledging that reasonable limits can be self enforced by individuals, he's willing to accept that maybe we don't deserve the freedom we say is so important.
Remember its not just the government who can stomp all over the individual...other individuals can do it to. Unfortunately we're so quick to point out absolute wrong of the government, that we ignore our responsibility not to be an ass in a functioning society. Just because the police are wrong doesn't make the guy with the camera right.
Maybe I did something shameful and don't want it to be public?
Then you shouldn't have done it in public.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
That's presuming "a violent mental breakdown" matches the actual events. If I was beaten up by the police and loaded into an ambulance with the tag "this guy is psychotic", I'd sure as hell want someone to have recorded what really happened.
If you are in public you have should have no expectation of privacy. If someone edits and shares the video to change the story then that could be grounds for libel.
Allowing the police to avoid being observed and recorded has consequences that affect society as a whole. That's really bad.
Allowing the police to enforce the privacy of someone they're arresting only really affects those few who are arrested. Arrest being an offical duty by a public official, should not really carry any sort of reasonable expectation of privacy. And whatever is captured on video actually happened, so there are no legitimate concerns of libel or slander. On the whole, this is not that bad.
I think it's clear where the balance lies. I would rather have a 100% chance of any future interaction between myself and law enforcement to be recorded and distributed on the internet than risk the slightest chance of police getting away with brutality. Allowing video might reveal some crazy shit I actually did. Prohibiting video might conceal some crazy shit the police actually did.
Of course, in some jurisdictions a police officer can be caught on tape sodomizing a prisoner with a tazer and suffer nothing but "additional training". So YMMV.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Being an asshole is legal, and should be. Freedom when it gets right down to it is all about doing things other people don't like. If every action you perform is in complete compliance with society's accepted definition of normal then you don't need any laws to protect your rights, because nobody is going to complain about your actions in the first place.
The protections are there to specifically protect against the UNPOPULAR actions that people get chided for. Freedom to do what you want so long as it conforms to exactly what society approves of isn't freedom at all.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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?
Are you in public? then your right to privacy does not include filming you about your business.
That is ANYBODY.
"And, what if I did not want the tape to be posted? "
Too damn bad.
"Maybe I did something shameful and don’t want it to be public?"
Too damn bad.
" A little careful editing and it could look very bad."
and now you change the subject. That would be lying or fraud. We have laws for that already.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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 is *no privacy* in a *public* place. By definition. For any party, anywhere. How you act in public, witnesses around or not, is open to public knowledge--be it praiseworthy or ridicule-worthy.
Furthermore, if they first claim it was being taken in as evidence, then later they *deleted* the file--doesn't that constitute destruction of evidence (the source recording) on the police department's part? (unless they used full chain-of-custody and a data-forensics lab to copy the file?) Not to mention the obvious violation of his private information as well--I highly doubt they bothered to get a search warrant before perusing his phone's contents.
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.
It's noted that the person being arrested was having a mental health breakdown. Photographing people having that and then posting it online is usually classified as "cyber bullying".
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.
>Should public officials have privacy while on duty?
If they are out in public, no. They have the same right to privacy that you and I do out in public: none.
>But what about citizens?
You have no right to privacy out in public. This is established law. Doing something out on a public thoroughfare, sidewalk, public building, etc, means that you expect people to see you do/say things. It's the reason why the police don't need a warrant to arrest you for doing something illegal in front of them.
>A good phone should be able to eavesdrop on the private interview between suspect and cop.
If it's in an office, it's private, but not out in public. It's a publich conversation.
Tough shit.
>And, what if I did not want the tape to be posted?
Tough shit.
>Maybe I did something shameful and donâ(TM)t want it to be public?
Tough shit.
>Maybe something that is implied to be shameful â" like a false arrest.
Tough shit.
You can redress this by various means up to and including suing for false arrest and making public statements about the bad practices of the PD that led to the false arrest.
>Letâ(TM)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.
Tough shit. The only right you have to complain is whether the editing was defamatory.
--
BMO
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?
So if someone runs up and pantses you and another takes a pic of you in your skivvies, you were in public so there's no recourse for them posting it all over the Facebook?
No - "pantsing" someone, i.e. making unwelcome physical contact, is called "assault," possibly even "sexual assault," and is illegal. Posting a picture, obtained illegally, in a public forum is also a crime, probably harassment (but more likely, defamation), and is prosecutable in civil court at the very least.
Videotaping cops doing their jobs in a public place is not assault, nor is it harassment. Also worth note - the cops do not get to press charges on your behalf (as the cop in this tale apparently took it upon herself to do), they merely serve the charges being filed and make arrests if necessary.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
I was merely pointing out the most common thing people do with such videos, and what officer said she was trying to prevent.
Note that the officer said this AFTER THE FACT while trying to justify their own illegal behavior.
Also, it is irrelevant what the individuals mental state was, this was an event taking place in PUBLIC involving PUBLIC SERVENTS. In other words, a PUBLIC EVENT.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.