$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."

Comments

An interesting caveat

[dr_canak]

" 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?

Re:An interesting caveat

[lagomorpha2]

I've personally sat through a case where a bystander's filming was manipulated and only pieces of it brought to court. Without the full context, the film was a lie. That sent a good police officer to prison. The laws are far behind these double edged swords... whatever happened to "the full truth"?

If the bystander had the full tape then manipulating it is evidence tampering and laws already exist to deal with this.

Although I am not familiar with the particular case I'm skeptical that a 'good police officer' exists and if that officer had ever done the common police tactic of deleting inconvenient police car video recorder evidence then prison seems poetic justice.

Re:An interesting caveat

[CanEHdian]

Exactly. You see that more often that hints are being given about circumstances that would have lead to a different outcome. Even in copyright trolling cases. Just the phrase "(hint, hint!)" is missing. So for instance it wouldn't be "Denied because it is unclear if the subscriber is the perpetrator" it becomes instead "Denied because no secondary evidence was presented where -for instance being the only adult male in the household- it could be presumed that the subscriber is the only one likely to have been the perpetrator, which would be enough evidence to grant the subpoena". As I said, only the "(hint, hint)" is missing.

If the police orders you to "stop filming" even IF YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DO SO, you are still not following their orders. This ALSO applies to flight attendants. It doesn't matter ONE LITTLE BIT if the order was proper, you ARE guilty of not following it.

The CURRENT "proper way" of doing this is to follow their orders and then file a complaint at the station about the infringement on your rights. And yes, you won't have your videotaped evidence. And yes, police will likely retaliate. And no, the officer won't be immediately fired with cause. You lose.

Re:An interesting caveat

[hawguy]

I've personally sat through a case where a bystander's filming was manipulated and only pieces of it brought to court. Without the full context, the film was a lie. That sent a good police officer to prison. The laws are far behind these double edged swords... whatever happened to "the full truth"?

It's too bad that the police don't have access to the same advanced technology that normal citizens use to make recordings.

There is no excuse for police not having body-cams and dash-cams that signs and dates all recordings and are unalterable by the officers. (and they should have enough recording space/battery life to stay on during an entire shift so you don't end up with a situation like "Oh gee, we shot someone by mistake, but none of us remembered to turn on our cameras)

Then when a citizen's camera shows the police in a bad light, the police can counter with their own camera footage.

Re:An interesting caveat

[radiumsoup]

in order for a police order to be enforceable, it must be a lawful order. A cop cannot order you to stop filming them performing their public duties, because doing so has already been established to be an individual right. It's practically identical to how a police officer cannot order you to answer their questions while you are being detained. They can lie to you about it (whole other argument there), but you do not have to speak at all during questioning. The only exception I know of is identifying yourself when ordered - but if you fail to identify yourself in a jurisdiction that requires it, you don't get arrested for refusing to obey a lawful order - you're arrested for failing to identify, a specifically and highly limited exemption to the 5th Amendment. If a cop arrests you for filming after he tells you to stop, consider yourself lucky - you were just handed a decent payday.

Now, it's not OK to shove a camera in his face, mind you - stay 50 feet away if you can (unless you're the subject of the original police action and are filming for your own safety) so they can't claim that they felt threatened or that it was a matter of the blanket excuse of "officer safety". As long as a reasonable person in the same situation would not feel their safety was threatened by your filming, then you're good to go.

oh, and IANAL.

Re:An interesting caveat

[hduff]

If the police orders you to "stop filming" even IF YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DO SO, you are still not following their orders. This ALSO applies to flight attendants. It doesn't matter ONE LITTLE BIT if the order was proper, you ARE guilty of not following it.

The CURRENT "proper way" of doing this is to follow their orders and then file a complaint at the station about the infringement on your rights. And yes, you won't have your videotaped evidence. And yes, police will likely retaliate. And no, the officer won't be immediately fired with cause. You lose.

It is not illegal to refuse to obey an order that violates the law ("Kill that innocent bystander by order of the police!"), especially one that violates your clearly established Constitutional rights ("Surrender your Constitutional rights or face arrest!").

Yes, you will be arrested and face retaliation, but you should prevail in court. If you don't want the hassle, obey the unlawful order.

That said, there's a time and place for everything.

Did it come out of their pockets?

[Type44Q]

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...