Slashdot Mirror
$57,000 Payout For Woman Charged With Wiretapping After Filming Cops
mpicpp sends this news from Ars:
'A local New Hampshire police department agreed Thursday to pay a woman who was arrested and charged with wiretapping $57,000 to settle her civil rights lawsuit. The deal comes a week after a federal appeals court ruled that the public has a "First Amendment" right to film cops. The plaintiff in the case, Carla Gericke, was arrested on wiretapping allegations in 2010 for filming her friend being pulled over by the Weare Police Department during a late-night traffic stop. Although Gericke was never brought to trial, she sued, alleging that her arrest constituted retaliatory prosecution in breach of her constitutional rights. The department, without admitting wrongdoing, settled Thursday in a move that the woman's attorney speculated would deter future police "retaliation." ... The First US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (PDF) in Gericke's case last week that she was "exercising a clearly established First Amendment right when she attempted to film the traffic stop in the absence of a police order to stop filming or leave the area."
" settled Thursday in a move that the woman's attorney speculated would deter future police "retaliation." ... "
But then this:
"...that she was "exercising a clearly established First Amendment right when she attempted to film the traffic stop in the absence of a police order to stop filming or leave the area."
Seems to imply that if the police had ordered her to stop filming or leave the area, then she could have been arrested had she continued.
So really, doesn't this just mean that Police will now simply order people to stop filming or leave the area in order to end the filming?
So a simple "stop filming" or "go away" from the police, and THEN they can arrest you.
"exercising a clearly established First Amendment right when she attempted to film the traffic stop in the absence of a police order to stop filming or leave the area."
Now the cops will simply say "move along" before arresting you.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Did it come out of the fucking pockets of the individuals responsible? Because if it didn't, it's definitely not going to send the needed message...
"Before the settlement, the appeals court had kept alive the possibility of a trial because New Hampshire law forbids the recording of police if the authorities order people to disperse for legitimate safety concerns."
So this implies at least they'll have to make up some "legitimate safety concern" which I'm sure they won't have any problem doing.
So if I claimed a made a reasonable mistake, would the same immunity be granted to me (an unwashed, private citizen)?
taking a video is nothing more than making a better record than what your brain can do. It's a way of preserving the witness. The types of people who object to that are the
class facist_controller_oppressive{
function (abuse) {
people at will + get away with it
}else{
divide and conquer
}
}
With awards coming directly out of the police budget for that year - no fobbing off the penalty on the taxpayers.
The people responsible should be brought to justice.
Although Gericke was never brought to trial, she sued, alleging that her arrest constituted retaliatory prosecution in breach of her constitutional rights. The department, without admitting wrongdoing, settled Thursday in a move that the woman's attorney speculated would deter future police "retaliation."
And now we get to learn what her suing was really about. Was it really about having her rights violated? Or was she just looking for a pay out? If she ends up dropping the charges at this point, I think we can all agree it was never about her constitutional rights.
The camera is very adept at lying, sometimes on accident..
Take number 18, he has a gun!
http://www.jeodot.com/here-are...
choice of lens and perspective can be imported as well.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
Its harder with video, but it still happens.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
Except what if taking the money from the police budget adversely effects the way the police do their jobs? What if these payouts from the budget force them to fire officers or generally make it so they have a harder time going after "real" crime?
While I agree there should definitely be some compensation to victims of government, I like to remind people that it's OUR MONEY! They get it from taxes we pay. Instead, we simply need other punitive measures. I am more inclined to fine the police actors directly. Having a fine placed on them would quickly resolve the problem and prevent MANY police from behaving badly. Additionally, in the event that there is police department cooperation and collaboration, actual criminal charges should be filed.
I just don't believe government should have THAT much more power than the average person on the street and should only be as equally armed.
sometimes on accident..
It's "by accident" (or, as the case may be, "on purpose"). Pet peeve, BTW (primarily due to living among Fundamentalist hicks and imbeciles for the past ten years).
You're not being an ass about it, tis all good.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
Organize some crowd-sourcing and buy one way tickets to North Korea for all police and government security forces.
They will be happy there: censorship, live ammunition and full regime.
Leave American people alone, "protect and serve" Kim Jong-Un instead.
They are not going to lay off anyone. They will simply seize peoples property under false pretenses and sell it.
No. Just No. Good judges are precise. He was very specific about the circumstances for the ruling. He did not "carve out an exception" at all. He was specifying in discreet detail his ruling, so that the context was extremely clear. He was specifically not ruling on a case where the cops ordered someone to depart or stop filiming, so that this case would not be misused as precedent.
Why is a good question -- I believe our population is very heavily propagandized. And not only by the obvious commercial interests. The local TV news focus on violence ("if it bleeds, it leads") conditions much of the law-abiding populace to desire greater police protection and so to tolerate misbehaviour.
i thought wiretapping is the monitoring of telephone and Internet conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on the telephone line.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
She is not a member of the press. i'm confused.
The dash cams cops have are the same as hand held cameras by citizens. What if i demand the cops turn off their dash cam. what ever right that gives them to film me also applies to them.
Which is good incentive to get multiple recordings. Let the officers record themselves, and the public do so as well, and it's extremely unlikely that you'll get a false agreement on the facts of the matter. You may however glaringly expose an attempt at an intentional distortion of the facts.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The society is way more authoritarian than it was generations ago. Not that it ever was likely in the center.... except maybe at the beginning.
See http://politicalcompass.org/ for yourself. Now it could be the "ideal" is not in the middle or is a bit authoritarian but that is a side issue, the point is that the culture is authoritarian which is why the public is goosestepping along.
Our schools are raising kids to love the boot of authority... or at least to be used to it. Schools are more like prisons in many ways and the traditional amount of anarchy and chaos in school is being beaten down; even in the art,music,gym classrooms and for some schools the playground is even being put into "order" (if not completely eliminating recess all together which has been done where I am for elementary kids... then we wonder why so many are being called ADD and given drugs to keep them in their seats... while still giving them tons of sugar and caffeine...)
Look at peaceable assembly. That right is almost dead. We just think "order" is more important than our rights and even "peace" has alternate meanings now... You can't peacefully protest if you make noise or fill up public space (while still allowing others to transit that space) because that isn't "peaceful" enough! You have to be invisible and THEN it is ok... completely ineffective and even then 1st chance they have they will find an excuse to invoke "order" and do anything they wish to terrorize the population into never wanting to join in a protest again. Vote every few years (if you are white and not a college student) and shut up and lick boots in between. Only lobbyists should be getting attention between elections. etc.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
for police brutality. That you seem to think so speaks volumes about yourself, and does nothing to change the facts that they were in the wrong.
Keep in mind that this was in the First Circuit. (Liberal circuit, includes Boston, case law there based on cops trying to stop someone from filming *on Boston Common*). If you try this in Alabama, Nevada, or LA you are more likely to get the shit kicked out of you by the cops and then for them to arrest you.
> you might well miss whatever it is that you're wanting to see because you're looking at a different monitor at the time.
Who said anything about watching 24/7? When an event like this occurs, the attorneys get the video from car #54 at 2:45 PM.
> Nor the logistical challenge of uploading that much data to a server while the officer is out on patrol.
Yes, that's true.
> There's also the issue of all the people they come into contact that don't necessarily want their images being put on a publicly accessible website.
Who said anything about a public web site?
A Grand Jury could indict misbehaving police as easily as any ham sandwich.
I was not aware that ham sandwiches could talk, nevermind issue an indictment.
It was a former union president who pointed out to conservatives the problem of having unions "negotiating" with the politicians they put in office. This is completely different from most unions, who negotiate with companies. An endorsement from the police and teachers' unions normally all but guarantees the election for a mayor or city council. Throw in some cash contributions and campaigning by the teachers' union and the police union ...
What ends up happening is that the police and teachers unions hand money to a mayoral candidate. A month later, the now mayor hands your money to the union. It's a win for the union and a win for the politician, a lose for the taxpayers and citizens who aren't represented in this process. The politician is supposed to represent the citizens owes a huge favor to the union.
Prior to the 1980s, was kind of common sense, everybody saw the conflict of interest. In the 1980s, a former union president became ppresident of the US, and defined modern conservatism. Because Reagan pointed out the obvious conflict of interest, democrats suddenly didn't want to talk about it. Democrats extreme and illogical support for screwing the citizenry is only because that was the position they had to take in order to be opposite of Reagan - who, as president of a union, obviously wasn't anti-union. He was anti-screw-over-the-citizens-with-an-obvious-conflict-of-interest.
Secondly, and even more importantly, what do unions do when they don't want to accept a negotiated contract? They go on strike. If GM doesn't give the auto union what they want, there is a strike and GM doesn't build any cars for a week. If the police union doesn't get what they want, they go on strike and there's no police protection for a week? Really? You think the union should be allowed to hold the entire city hostage like that?
sometimes on accident..
It's "by accident" (or, as the case may be, "on purpose"). Pet peeve, BTW (primarily due to living among Fundamentalist hicks and imbeciles for the past ten years).
Atheist urbanites and smart people can make the same errors. It's a combination of carelessness and incomplete education.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
The camera is very adept at lying, sometimes on accident..
Take number 18, he has a gun!
http://www.jeodot.com/here-are...
At least he was just shot with a camera, the police tend to use guns. Mistaken vision on a film can be corrected later, bullet holes are a lot harder to fix.
NY has that sorted out with the Taylor Law.
tl;dr of the taylor law is the old contract stays in effect as it was when it expired with no changes in pay or benefits until new contract is negotiated and public services cannot strike. every striker faces fines of a day's pay for each day on strike and organizers of a strike can be prosecuted criminally.
you can tell it's a good law because both unions and anti-union groups bitch about it from time to time.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I haven't visited Slashdot since January, when all of that crap with the beta started happening.
So today, after visiting for the first time in six months, I am faced with a damning reality: Slashdot truly is dying.
As I scroll down the front page, I see story after story with fewer than 40 comments. Some have less than 15 comments, even hours after being posted!
This is truly a shame, for we have very few alternatives today. Reddit is full of hipsters of the vilest kind. HN is a haven of abusive moderation, censorship, and Silicon Valley groupthink. Stack Overflow will just close any discussion that isn't a basic jQuery question easily answered by looking at its docs.
I knew it would happen someday, but I am saddened to see that we have come upon that time. Slashdot, once the greatest discussion forum known to mankind, has been decimated. I weep.
It's what happens when you roll the Dice.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
While switching trains, I once saw the police arresting someone at the train stop. They were becoming very aggressive and seemed about to become violent with the man they were arresting, despite the fact that he was not threatening them in any way.
I took out my cell phone and began filming. Very shortly after, one of the officers pointed at me and said something (not audible, he was too far away), but all of a sudden, their behavior became very professional, and the arrest proceeded without incident.
If I were in the same situation, I hope someone would do the same. There is no reason police should not be accountable for their behavior while performing their duties. After all, isn't it they who so often say "If there's nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear"? What would be wrong with a video of police officers doing their job properly? If anything, that would protect them if they were later accused of doing something wrong. The only ones with anything to fear from a video recording are those who intend on doing something wrong, and that's the exact time we need them being taped.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
every cop involved needs to be executed immediately so this doesn't happen again
And how many misbehaving police officers have appeared before a grand jury?
In typical deference to the police, the court has technically ruled against them whilst explicitly communicating to them what will be accepted as a workaround: "a police order to stop filming or leave the area."
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
This case got far enough to establish a good First Amendment right in the Circuit Court (which covers all of Maine, NH, Mass, RI and PR). Settling it at this point was the right thing to do (and kudos to the victim on that, because Glick got way more than she settled for but tying it up here benefits the largest majority). Bringing it further risks rolling back a victory. Don't worry - there will be plenty of cops violating people's rights to bring another case very soon. In fact, several are already pending that will almost certainly leverage this new decision.
Besides the lawful filming (Established 1st Amendment right), what really burns me is the police's insistance that Gericke refused to identify herself:
"Another officer arrived at the scene and demanded to know where her camera was. She refused to say. She also declined to provide her license and registration. She was arrested for disobeying a police officer, obstructing a government official, and "'unlawful interception of oral communications.'"
Here are a bunch of similar examples:
http://libertyfight.com/2014/GA_Police_charge_man_who_refused_id_with_obstruction.html
"In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), for example, the court ruled "'to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself...'"
She should have gotten more than $57,000.
New markets open up, run about with a video camera videoing public servants (cops) and profit.
There is no recession.
But ultimately nothing to see here.
No wrongdoing was acknowledged and it was settled, so there's no case law involved. The police have long since become a corporate entity rather than a public service, so this is just marked up as cost of doing business. The police have been sued before for precisely this kind of retaliation and it hasn't made any difference yet.
No, if you want law enforcement to change, you have to eliminate the market economy within it. You get nothing for issuing fines, you get no rewards for arrests made or cases closed. You should get penalties for things undone, but nothing for doing what you should be doing to begin with.
You also have to demilitarize it. Guns should be limited or eliminated. Using fear and intimidation to control should be banned entirely. The use of violence of any kind should be limited or eliminated - there is almost never any need and if you're a cop, you have no business claiming you were in fear. Cops are paid to go into danger. If you're so wimpy you have to go in guns blazing, you're not a cop, you're a wimp with a badge.
I've no interest in people telling me I've not been there, I've not been paid to walk into the lion's den in a long time. And when I have, I went. Sane, rational and sober. Which, apparently, US police aren't capable of being.
If you're not cut out to face danger and the possibility of death at any time, don't even bother going to a motor race.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Sounds like she's getting taxpayers' money, and there have been no actual consequences for the thugs in question. Anyone lose their job or do a day in jail for this?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's not only distasteful but outright fascist that filming for one side (indiscriminately), namely the police surveillance on public walkways and highways in many cities without any individual "due process" and without your permission or probable cause when it's NOT OK for civilians to indiscriminately surveil law enforcement while they are performing their duties supposedly for the public's safety. Clearly a double standard is being applied in no one's interest other than the police or other law enforcement agencies. I'd even question the validity of referring to law enforcement as "law enforcement" per se when clearly many of the laws as applied by such agencies as part of their duties obviously are bending or breaking the original intent of specific laws. In such a case as recording the actions of law enforcement as referenced in this case, it is even inconceivable that a bystander (someone not a direct part of the police action) could be guilty of anything for tapping the incident in a so-called "free society". It seems clear that restricting the recording of such situations in a "public" place, which by the way government claims everyday that the moment you step out of your home onto public thoroughfares such as a sidewalk or street, that your actions are no longer "private" thus they are free to record anyone they want, that they could claim it unlawful for citizens to do the same to law enforcement. Maybe we should begin to address reality as it is in the world and accept the fact that no one is "free" and that freedom is a mere myth?
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
The top dozen posts are talking about a ruling made that never actually got on the books since the case never actually went to trial.
Therefore, the ruling made at the federal level has zero consequence or bearing on any future court cases, except where a judge personally chooses to allow the ruling to influence their thinking.
I swore an oath, to "...obey the orders of the President of the US, as CIC, and those placed above me...", after which, the military spent days on end training me as to which orders could be "lawful" and which are definitely "un-lawful" and are to be ignored, or dis-obeyed, with the
most respectful objection!
All of this involved learning the "laws of armed conflict", the Geneva Accords, not to shoot at parachutist enemy soldiers until they hit the ground, "rules of engagement" that we cannot use hollow point, Soft point, or garlic tipped bullets, and Molatov Coctails are Verboten,
what constitutes a "Mutiny", so that, if ONE of us objects and refuses an "un-lawful" order, we don't make it into a mutiny by signing a petition, or a list! We were taught to NEVER put anything in writing!
Most important rule is to ONLY GIVE name, rank, serial number! Under torture, we could divulge that we we're a cook, or a bus driver,
for everyone has a breaking point. So, it appears all that is what passes for "legal advice" when encountering any cop, these days!
that it doesn't cost the police or anyone involved a d@mned dime. The people are footing the bill.