View Full Version : Discuss photographing/videoing of LEO.
Let's try not to have this go South in a fiery ball of flames right out of the gate. Intelligent debate, advice and comments are all welcome with respect to the given topic. A friend of mine recently had a bit of a "debate" with an Officer and I was curious as to what other people's opinions were, LEO or private citizen.
In no way is this a thread to slander, bash, insult or denegrate LEOs for their actions. This is a thread to discuss the legality of videotaping or photographing LEOs in their work capacity, the ramifications of it and if it should be legal or not?
Myself personally I feel that as long as someone's not interfering in the performance of the LEOs duties than there's nothing wrong with taping them. There are already dashboard cams and audio recordings so what's the difference in a private citizen taping an incident?
Here's one incident using a really quick search.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu8Ye2hIfn8
Unless the officer is doing something wrong, they shouldn't mind being video taped. If anything, officers should look at a citizen putting them on Video as evidence of doing their job well!
Plus, if the officer is allowed to tape citizens (VIA Dashboard cam or otherwise), then the citizen should be allowed to tape the officer.
On a side note about the video, there is no way I would turn the video camera off if the officer approached me like that. I'll admit, I don't know why he was stopping those guys. But he seemed way to aggressive, and there's no way I'd give up my only evidence if something went wrong. :)
Outlander Systems
02-01-10, 12:08
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8027854162700568157&q=ktla#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KM1ukwBGv4
John_Wayne777
02-01-10, 12:13
Police don't have any more of an expectation of privacy out in public than anyone else does. Now that's not to say you can hop into the middle of an arrest and stick a camera in their face, but if you're not obstructing the performance of their duties then there shouldn't be a problem.
NCPatrolAR
02-01-10, 12:16
It doesnt bother me as long as they arent getting inthe way or trying to rile up the person my partner and I are dealing with.
It doesnt bother me as long as they arent getting inthe way or trying to rile up the person my partner and I are dealing with.
Thanks for voicing your opinion NCP. Are there specific laws dealing with this in NC and are the laws different in various states?
I don't have a problem with being filmed per se, but in order for the person to do the filming they often do not obey commands.
Examples:
1) At night they may use a light to illuminate the officer for the video. The only person illuminated at night is the contact/suspect and it will not be tolerated as it puts the officer in danger.
2) Hands of the contact are to be in controlled positions such as on the hood/trunk, or flat on the ground.
3) During a contact, the officer controls the position of everyone involved. Someone filming often moves around for better shots, and will directly disobey the officer.
4) Camera operators often start trying to interrogate the officer, or question commands as they get a "power" boost from the camera. Once the officer gives out a lawful command and it is not obeyed, the officer is bound to uphold the command in three steps. Ask, tell, make. With a power tripping camera operator, the officer must often take the 3rd step to "make"......in order to have his commands obeyed. The "make" part is the physical part which the operator will recoil after being touched and begin resisting......this is often how the youtube videos come about.
5) When making a contact, all objects and devices are to be out of the hands of those contacted. Continuing to allow someone to hold a device can be a recipe for disaster. Camera and cellphone guns have been confiscated in the past.
Just to emphasize, I have no problem with having my contacts filmed. What I have a problem with is the issues above that can cause the escalation of force in order to maintain a controlled contact, and camera operators tend to believe that because they have a camera that they are not bound to obey commands that keep the officer in a position of advantage over the contacts, and puts the contacts in positions of disadvantage.
Officers in POA, contacts in POD......"ask, tell, make" so that that goal is accomplished. That is how we do business.
Lynn Freshly
02-01-10, 12:43
I have been an officer for over 25 years. Do I like people video taping me, No. Because I am wondering what is their motive!! But I have never tried to stop someone from doing it.
However, law enforcement has no rights to privacy in a public setting. As long as the person video taping is not interfering or agitating the situation, they are not doing anything illegal. There have been cases where officers have arrested people for video taping and most get tossed. There is some case law and it all goes in favor of the person videoing unless they interfered.
Here is a case not involving the police but a town council meeting.
A New Jersey man was arrested for videotaping a municipal council meeting. He was acquitted and sued in federal court. The District Court rejected his federal claims and declined to review his state law claims. A three-judge appellate panel affirmed. Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, #03-3100, 105 Fed. Appx. 357, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 14597 (Unpub. 3rd Cir. 2004). They concluded that a police chief could reasonably believe that he had probable cause to arrest a man for disorderly conduct when he refused requests to cease videotaping a borough council meeting or move his video equipment, and thereby “disrupting” the meeting. After the District Court decision, the plaintiff filed a parallel complaint in state court, raising his state law claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. He lost again in the trial court and in the intermediate appellate court. He ultimately prevailed. The New Jersey Supreme Court wrote: “Openness is a hallmark of democracy--a sacred maxim of our government--and video is but a modern instrument in that evolving pursuit. The Mayor and Borough ran afoul of that principle and violated the common law right to videotape by imposing unreasonable ad hoc restrictions. .... The use of modern technology to record and review the activities of public bodies should marshal pride in our open system of government, not muster suspicion against citizens who conduct the recording.”
Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497, 916 A.2d 1036 (2007).
Here is a LE case:
In Georgia, a married couple filed a civil rights suit against the tiny city of Cumming (pop. 4,220) and its police chief, alleging that the police prevented them from videotaping police actions in violation of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The District Court rejected that claim, but the 11th Circuit reversed. The three-judge panel wrote: “As to the First Amendment claim under Section 1983, we agree with the Smiths that they had a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct. The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.”
Smith v. City of Cumming, #99-8199, 212 F.3d 1332 (2000).
• Cases will succeed or fail on the facts unique to the event.
Now some states have laws that unless both parties agree to audio recordings, recording of a situation by audio is illegal. Some states have their laws read that only one person has to agree.
Lynn
It should be something of a duty for citizens.
I'm in no way anti-LE, but there's been enough instances where videotape showed illegal actions that very likely would have ended up hidden behind the blue line.
The Critical Mass assault in NYC is a good example: Gothamist.com (http://gothamist.com/2008/07/28/cop_caught_on_video_assaulting_cycl.php). A bicyclist was arrested and held 26 hrs. for attempted assault and resisting arrest. The charges were dropped when amateur video showed the cop lunging from the side of the road to basically sucker hit the bicyclist. This is just one relatively minor example, but the 'net's full of many others.
There's also many instances where people have been arrested for videotaping police, and it's not hard to tell why. They didn't respect their authorit-i. It basically goes like: cop sees camera, tells the person to stop. The person doesn't stop, because they're doing nothing illegal, so cop arrests them for something like illegal eavesdropping or whatever else law might fit. Even if the photographer was doing nothing wrong and the charges end up dropped, they still have to deal with the arrest and booking and whatnot.
Again, I am not anti-LE in any way, but I think it's in everybody's best interests that the bad apples get weeded from the bunch. LEOs have a hard enough job without some jackasses on the force creating ill will with the citizens because they can't keep themselves from going over the line. And just as much as we have to keep our politicians in check in regards to our rights, we must do the same to ensure that those sworn to protect us aren't running roughshod over the very principles that make this the great country that it is.
In Georgia, a married couple filed a civil rights suit against the tiny city of Cumming (pop. 4,220) and its police chief, alleging that the police prevented them from videotaping police actions in violation of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
Seriously?!? :eek:
There's also many instances where people have been arrested for videotaping police, and it's not hard to tell why. They didn't respect their authorit-i. It basically goes like: cop sees camera, tells the person to stop. The person doesn't stop, because they're doing nothing illegal, so cop arrests them for something like illegal eavesdropping or whatever else law might fit. Even if the photographer was doing nothing wrong and the charges end up dropped, they still have to deal with the arrest and booking and whatnot.
I can't comment on the actions of other officers, but should it be in the officer's discretion he can arrest on any misdemeanor offense committed in his presence. For example, if a police officer stops a vehicle and smells burnt marijuana coming from the car, he now has probable cause to believe that anyone in the car could be in possession of a controlled substance. The officer may now conduct a search of the car and the clothing of all those who were in the car. This means that the officer can now articulate additional means of control of those involved(even handcuffs). The suspects have a right to film the contact, but they have no right to operate the camera if it interfers with the officers commands of situation control. A reasonable charge in this situation would be interferance with agency function, disobeying a lawful order, and or disorderly conduct. So the filming was not the illegal action, it was the action of holding the camera to record. Get it?
So anyone on the street can film an officer. However if the officer is approaching someone to conduct an investigation of the person, that person cannot just whip out a camera and begin recording the incident unless it can do so independent of the person's control. The officer has the authority to control all objects and aspects of the person's physical self during an investigation.
So the filming was not the illegal action, it was the action of holding the camera to record. Get it?
When I thought of this thread I hadn't envisioned discussing the subject as being the person taping. If you're under legitimate suspicion and are being lawfully detained than I think it's obvious that the person would have to relinquish physical control of the camera. The thing I've seen most often is a bystander taping and being threatened or having their camera/tape confiscated or erased.
So anyone on the street can film an officer. However if the officer is approaching someone to conduct an investigation of the person, that person cannot just whip out a camera and begin recording the incident unless it can do so independent of the person's control. The officer has the authority to control all objects and aspects of the person's physical self during an investigation.
Kind of like an Article 92 in the UCMJ. An investigation, in the current context, sounds like a catch all to be used at their discretion in order for them to circumnavigate the rights of the citizen. Don't be offended, and I may be misinterpreting what you're saying, but it sounds like a convenient excuse to me when it comes to not being taped.
Don't get in the way. Verbally or physically. Beyond those 2 very small things, have at it.
Kind of like an Article 92 in the UCMJ. An investigation, in the current context, sounds like a catch all to be used at their discretion in order for them to circumnavigate the rights of the citizen. Don't be offended, and I may be misinterpreting what you're saying, but it sounds like a convenient excuse to me when it comes to not being taped.
If the officer has observed, or has the suspicion that a petty offense, misdemeanor, or felony has occured then he has the authority to conduct an investigatory detention. That means that the contact is not free to leave and is bound to obey lawful commands made by the officer. The subject of a detention can be ordered to put down the camera in order for the officer to control the person, but it probably would not hold up in court to order the subject to turn OFF the camera.
If you're implying that an officer will see a guy filming him, and then use that as probably cause to begin an investigatory detention of the camera man, that is not legal. However, if the officer observes something illegal in plain sight(smells marijuana) during a voluntary contact("hello, how are you doing?") then the officer may legally detain for investigation. If the camera man has nothing about him draw reasonable suspicion or probably cause from the officer, then the encounter is over.
Ridge_Runner_5
02-01-10, 13:38
Police don't have any more of an expectation of privacy out in public than anyone else does. Now that's not to say you can hop into the middle of an arrest and stick a camera in their face, but if you're not obstructing the performance of their duties then there shouldn't be a problem.
Fully my feelings, as well.
Iraq Ninja
02-01-10, 13:39
Has there ever been cases of LEO being filmed by criminal elements either to gather information or to document an attack?
I my world, getting filmed is a threat indicator. Either we are about to get hit, or more likely someone is trying to document our tactics and team structure. I have seen young kids who should not normally have cell phones film us at various choke points, such as intersections.
I remember a story from a colleague about an ambush he survived back in 2004 in Baghdad. His PSD team was moving through a certain Iraqi city, and noticed a camera crew set up on the sidewalk. The camera crew appeared to be Western. As they spotted them, small arms fire broke out from the same side the crew was on. The lead vehicle turned up onto the sidewalk to avoid the fire and the traffic to the front. Racing to get off the X, the vehicle took out the film crew during the evasive maneuvers. I think they never filed their story. They were working with the insurgents who probably promised them a good story.
Back in the States, you all live in the YouTube.com world and people with cell phones/recorders. I expect that we will have to learn to live with it.
Has there ever been cases of LEO being filmed by criminal elements either to gather information or to document an attack?
All the time with Border Patrol, Port Police, and other smuggling areas. There are thousands of cases where a criminal enterprise of many, or just one person has collected intelligence on police officer's family and routines. However, an officer being filmed in a public setting during the performance of his official duties is quite different from his family being filmed. An officer being filmed off duty, or his family being filmed is something that would likely be punishable in court.
If it can be articulated that the purpose of someone filming an officer in the performance of his duties was to obtain sensitive information such as patrol routes, shifts, bank runs, and other such things that it can also be punishable in court and an officer can order someone to stop filming.
woodandsteel
02-01-10, 13:46
I don't have a problem with being filmed per se, but in order for the person to do the filming they often do not obey commands.
Examples:
1) At night they may use a light to illuminate the officer for the video. The only person illuminated at night is the contact/suspect and it will not be tolerated as it puts the officer in danger.
2) Hands of the contact are to be in controlled positions such as on the hood/trunk, or flat on the ground.
3) During a contact, the officer controls the position of everyone involved. Someone filming often moves around for better shots, and will directly disobey the officer.
4) Camera operators often start trying to interrogate the officer, or question commands as they get a "power" boost from the camera. Once the officer gives out a lawful command and it is not obeyed, the officer is bound to uphold the command in three steps. Ask, tell, make. With a power tripping camera operator, the officer must often take the 3rd step to "make"......in order to have his commands obeyed. The "make" part is the physical part which the operator will recoil after being touched and begin resisting......this is often how the youtube videos come about.
5) When making a contact, all objects and devices are to be out of the hands of those contacted. Continuing to allow someone to hold a device can be a recipe for disaster. Camera and cellphone guns have been confiscated in the past.
Just to emphasize, I have no problem with having my contacts filmed. What I have a problem with is the issues above that can cause the escalation of force in order to maintain a controlled contact, and camera operators tend to believe that because they have a camera that they are not bound to obey commands that keep the officer in a position of advantage over the contacts, and puts the contacts in positions of disadvantage.
Officers in POA, contacts in POD......"ask, tell, make" so that that goal is accomplished. That is how we do business.
That is a well thought out answer.
Unfortunately, I have nothing more to add. It does cause me to worry about how the tape is going to be used. But, there is nothing here that can be done about it, as long as the viteotaper is adhering to local ordinances as far as walking in the streets or obstructing sidewalks. And as long as they are not becoming part of the problem.
It should be something of a duty for citizens.
I'm in no way anti-LE, but there's been enough instances where videotape showed illegal actions that very likely would have ended up hidden behind the blue line.
The Critical Mass assault in NYC is a good example: Gothamist.com (http://gothamist.com/2008/07/28/cop_caught_on_video_assaulting_cycl.php). A bicyclist was arrested and held 26 hrs. for attempted assault and resisting arrest. The charges were dropped when amateur video showed the cop lunging from the side of the road to basically sucker hit the bicyclist. This is just one relatively minor example, but the 'net's full of many others.
There's also many instances where people have been arrested for videotaping police, and it's not hard to tell why. They didn't respect their authorit-i. It basically goes like: cop sees camera, tells the person to stop. The person doesn't stop, because they're doing nothing illegal, so cop arrests them for something like illegal eavesdropping or whatever else law might fit. Even if the photographer was doing nothing wrong and the charges end up dropped, they still have to deal with the arrest and booking and whatnot.
Again, I am not anti-LE in any way, but I think it's in everybody's best interests that the bad apples get weeded from the bunch. LEOs have a hard enough job without some jackasses on the force creating ill will with the citizens because they can't keep themselves from going over the line. And just as much as we have to keep our politicians in check in regards to our rights, we must do the same to ensure that those sworn to protect us aren't running roughshod over the very principles that make this the great country that it is.
Good post.
An officer being filmed off duty, or his family being filmed is something that would likely be punishable in court.
If it can be articulated that the purpose of someone filming an officer in the performance of his duties was to obtain sensitive information such as patrol routes, shifts, bank runs, and other such things that it can also be punishable in court and an officer can order someone to stop filming.
Out of curiousity, how would such a person be "punished in court" for merely filming these things? What would be the charges?
Nathan_Bell
02-01-10, 14:07
I don't have a problem with being filmed per se, but in order for the person to do the filming they often do not obey commands.
Examples:
1) At night they may use a light to illuminate the officer for the video. The only person illuminated at night is the contact/suspect and it will not be tolerated as it puts the officer in danger.
2) Hands of the contact are to be in controlled positions such as on the hood/trunk, or flat on the ground.
3) During a contact, the officer controls the position of everyone involved. Someone filming often moves around for better shots, and will directly disobey the officer.
4) Camera operators often start trying to interrogate the officer, or question commands as they get a "power" boost from the camera. Once the officer gives out a lawful command and it is not obeyed, the officer is bound to uphold the command in three steps. Ask, tell, make. With a power tripping camera operator, the officer must often take the 3rd step to "make"......in order to have his commands obeyed. The "make" part is the physical part which the operator will recoil after being touched and begin resisting......this is often how the youtube videos come about.
5) When making a contact, all objects and devices are to be out of the hands of those contacted. Continuing to allow someone to hold a device can be a recipe for disaster. Camera and cellphone guns have been confiscated in the past.
Just to emphasize, I have no problem with having my contacts filmed. What I have a problem with is the issues above that can cause the escalation of force in order to maintain a controlled contact, and camera operators tend to believe that because they have a camera that they are not bound to obey commands that keep the officer in a position of advantage over the contacts, and puts the contacts in positions of disadvantage.
Officers in POA, contacts in POD......"ask, tell, make" so that that goal is accomplished. That is how we do business.
Assuming they are following your pretty common sense guidelines, what should a third party video taker do if an officer demands they shut off the camera?
Lynn Freshly
02-01-10, 14:18
Another thing to consider here. When you watch a video of LE officers, are you getting the whole story or are you just getting the edited version after things went bad??? Also there is a group in CA that tells people to film LE officer actions but do not film the criminal acts that preceded the incident.
Lynn
Out of curiousity, how would such a person be "punished in court" for merely filming these things? What would be the charges?
Not sure, I've never pursued a case like that. It would most likely be a mandatory court appearance and the ADA or AUSA would present charges based on what's on the books. The officer would confiscate the video for court evidence.
It should be something of a duty for citizens.
I'm in no way anti-LE, but there's been enough instances where videotape showed illegal actions that very likely would have ended up hidden behind the blue line.
The Critical Mass assault in NYC is a good example: Gothamist.com (http://gothamist.com/2008/07/28/cop_caught_on_video_assaulting_cycl.php). A bicyclist was arrested and held 26 hrs. for attempted assault and resisting arrest. The charges were dropped when amateur video showed the cop lunging from the side of the road to basically sucker hit the bicyclist. This is just one relatively minor example, but the 'net's full of many others.
There's also many instances where people have been arrested for videotaping police, and it's not hard to tell why. They didn't respect their authorit-i. It basically goes like: cop sees camera, tells the person to stop. The person doesn't stop, because they're doing nothing illegal, so cop arrests them for something like illegal eavesdropping or whatever else law might fit. Even if the photographer was doing nothing wrong and the charges end up dropped, they still have to deal with the arrest and booking and whatnot.
Again, I am not anti-LE in any way, but I think it's in everybody's best interests that the bad apples get weeded from the bunch. LEOs have a hard enough job without some jackasses on the force creating ill will with the citizens because they can't keep themselves from going over the line. And just as much as we have to keep our politicians in check in regards to our rights, we must do the same to ensure that those sworn to protect us aren't running roughshod over the very principles that make this the great country that it is.
100% Agreed.
Assuming they are following your pretty common sense guidelines, what should a third party video taker do if an officer demands they shut off the camera?
If they aren't interferring with the situation, then they "probably" aren't breaking the law. It can depend on if the camera man is posing a safety risk to the officers, bystanders, or to himself. If so, then the officer can legally tell the camera man to move. Either way, if you aren't certain of the law it might be a wise idea to obey the officer.
There are other circumstances in which a 3rd party can be legally told to not only shut off the camera, but give up the tape. If he filmed a security risk area during a police action, if he was filming children without their parent's consent at the scene, if someone was arrested and they accidently had their pants fall down(no permission from the person to record their nudity),......etc. An officer can protect a victim should they, or aspects of their case be on tape. So, there are circumstances in which the recording of video can be stopped and tapes confiscated at least until a decision is made in court. Obviously there are ways to abuse these things, but that is why it is good for a department/agency to practice good and thorough hiring practices for their officers.
Police don't have any more of an expectation of privacy out in public than anyone else does. Now that's not to say you can hop into the middle of an arrest and stick a camera in their face, but if you're not obstructing the performance of their duties then there shouldn't be a problem.
Actually, LEOs have NO privacy rights whatsoever while on the job.
Privacy rights in the U.S. are recognized by our Constitution.
The Constitution has ONE central job: protect the rights of citizens from our government.
Once LEOs put on that uniform, they become "government." The Government does not have "rights." The Government only has what limited authority it is granted by its masters - which in this case are: we, the people. As master, I can video my servants whenever they are serving us.
Unless congress passes some law against photographing the police, we citizens can photograph or video our employees at work.
Besides, since LEOs do not have any right to privacy at work, "if they are not doing anything wrong then what could they possibly be afraid of?"
Once LEOs put on that uniform, they become "government." The Government does not have "rights." The Government only has what limited authority it is granted by its masters - which in this case are: we, the people. As master, I can video my servants whenever they are serving us.
Unless congress passes some law against photographing the police, we citizens can photograph or video our employees at work.
Besides, since LEOs do not have any right to privacy at work, "if they are not doing anything wrong then what could they possibly be afraid of?"
Chill out on this angle of attack please. This has been a very civil and enlightening thread thus far. While some may agree or disagree with your sentiment, stance or position try to refrain from making remarks that are not only insulting but also fuel an unnecessary argument on this thread.
Cascades236
02-01-10, 14:50
The only time I've had an issue with it is during swat calls and that mostly regards the media broadcasting live and compromising positions. Tho a citizen snapping a quick cell pic of my position could just as easily be texting it to the target. I'm not doing anything wrong but have plenty to be afraid of under these circumstances.
Otherwise film all you want, but don't cry when it is reciprocated and the second you begin to obstruct my investigation I'm going to call you on it.
Maybe not wanting to be filmed has nothing to do with being a cop. How many people here would like being filmed at work maybe even see it pop up later on youtube. I don't thinl many people outside of the entertainment business find that appealing.
The way some people post, they forget that when we take off the uniform we are citizens too. We shop at the same grocery stores, our kids go to the same schools, hell I might be your neighbor. There always bad eggs but the majority of us are putting up the good fight so that we can retain the rights so many of us have fought before us for.
Otherwise film all you want, but don't cry when it is reciprocated.
Damn those dashboard cams ;)
Chill out on this angle of attack please. This has been a very civil and enlightening thread thus far. While some may agree or disagree with your sentiment, stance or position try to refrain from making remarks that are not only insulting but also fuel an unnecessary argument on this thread.
Fair enough. I agree with you that this has been an enlightening discussion. The more important point, which seems to be lost on many citizens today is this simple lesson from my first year in law school:
"Privacy rights in the U.S. are recognized by our Constitution.
The Constitution has ONE central job: protect the rights of citizens from our government."
I hope that no one finds that insulting.
Fair enough. I agree with you that this has been an enlightening discussion. The more important point, which seems to be lost on many citizens today is this simple lesson from my first year in law school:
"Privacy rights in the U.S. are recognized by our Constitution.
The Constitution has ONE central job: protect the rights of citizens from our government."
I hope that no one finds that insulting.
Thank you. And no that's not insulting in the least bit.
Not sure, I've never pursued a case like that. It would most likely be a mandatory court appearance and the ADA or AUSA would present charges based on what's on the books. The officer would confiscate the video for court evidence.
Ok, so why do you proclaim that these things would likely be punishable in court, when you don't even know what the charges would be and have never been involved in such a case?
No offense, but it sounds like you just don't like this practice, for personal reasons, and want to imply that it could be a crime. If somebody is part of a real criminal conspiracy and has met the elements, or has committed some actual crime or attempt at a crime, then I agree that the act of videotaping people or agencies to gather intel in furtherance of the same could be evidence - but I don't see how videotaping somebody in public in itself can be a crime, regardless of who that person might be.
Kentucky Cop
02-01-10, 15:16
Everytime I have been in a situation were I or my team have been video taped, it has ALWAYS been someone from the party that we had to fight, deploy spray or tazer that wants to come up and start filming. We (the group of officers I work with) have no issue with cell phone recordings. And again, everytime the video starts to roll, the person shooting the footage begins to yell at the police or the suspect(s) that we are attempting to arrest or detain and it makes for a very dangerous enviroment. Film all you want, but when you start to obstruct my operation verbally or physically you are putting me, my guys, and the suspects in danger do to the attention that is being drawn to the person making things worse on purpose as they record.
We had a quick pursuit of a suspect that would always run from us. Anyways, he calls his house and advised them and all of his college roomates to get ready because he was being pursued by the police. As the pursuit terminates in the drive way, all the college kids were filming or attempting to prevent us from taking the suspect into custody. After several minutes and a few taking a ride, the others that were filming were encouraged to continue filming by our Sergeant. He brought all 4 of the kids filming together just off scene. I looked over to witness my Sergeant as if he was talking to the media, in this case, several kids who were filming him and he advised him that the he needed ID from all of them. He explained to them on film that if any of these tapes are lost, destroyed, or altered in anyway that he would charge them with tampering with physical evidence. Trial comes around and all 4 "filmers" were to testify and explain their footage to the jury. It was priceless to see them explain the footage they took as they were verbally taunting the police and and encouraging the other college kids to block us with their bodies to make it hard for us to chase the suspect. Nothing but priceless and they all had there parents with them in court and the faces on the parents as they witness'ed what kind of language and activities their kids engaged in with the police.
I say have at it with the recorders.;)
Ky Cop
Everytime I have been in a situation were I or my team have been video taped, it has ALWAYS been someone from the party that we had to fight, deploy spray or tazer that wants to come up and start filming. We (the group of officers I work with) have no issue with cell phone recordings. And again, everytime the video starts to roll, the person shooting the footage begins to yell at the police or the suspect(s) that we are attempting to arrest or detain and it makes for a very dangerous enviroment. Film all you want, but when you start to obstruct my operation verbally or physically you are putting me, my guys, and the suspects in danger do to the attention that is being drawn to the person making things worse on purpose as they record.
We had a quick pursuit of a suspect that would always run from us. Anyways, he calls his house and advised them and all of his college roomates to get ready because he was being pursued by the police. As the pursuit terminates in the drive way, all the college kids were filming or attempting to prevent us from taking the suspect into custody. After several minutes and a few taking a ride, the others that were filming were encouraged to continue filming by our Sergeant. He brought all 4 of the kids filming together just off scene. I looked over to witness my Sergeant as if he was talking to the media, in this case, several kids who were filming him and he advised him that the he needed ID from all of them. He explained to them on film that if any of these tapes are lost, destroyed, or altered in anyway that he would charge them with tampering with physical evidence. Trial comes around and all 4 "filmers" were to testify and explain their footage to the jury. It was priceless to see them explain the footage they took as they were verbally taunting the police and and encouraging the other college kids to block us with their bodies to make it hard for us to chase the suspect. Nothing but priceless and they all had there parents with them in court and the faces on the parents as they witness'ed what kind of language and activities their kids engaged in with the police.
I say have at it with the recorders.;)
Ky Cop
Nice!
Obviously I am not an officer. But I feel the filming of officers serves an important purpose. It keeps those who may not otherwise be honest. It also helps weed out the bad ones. Seems to me that it doesn't have an impact on 99% of the police force.
Nice!
Obviously I am not an officer. But I feel the filming of officers serves an important purpose. It keeps those who may not otherwise be honest. It also helps weed out the bad ones. Seems to me that it doesn't have an impact on 99% of the police force.
A video of an incident may in fact prove an officer's innocence as well. There are 2 sides to every coin.
Very good point. So I guess it could have an effect on that other 99% :)
Ok, so why do you proclaim that these things would likely be punishable in court, when you don't even know what the charges would be and have never been involved in such a case?
.....because I rarely encounter matters of terrorist, homeland security, or organized crime issues. However, I keep track of the case law and many such instances have been brought to Federal court and convictions are made in conjuction with the intent of the defendant to malicious action in connection with the taping. I just don't remember the charges off the top of my head......because I've never had a case like that.
No offense, but it sounds like you just don't like this practice, for personal reasons, and want to imply that it could be a crime. If somebody is part of a real criminal conspiracy and has met the elements, or has committed some actual crime or attempt at a crime, then I agree that the act of videotaping people or agencies to gather intel in furtherance of the same could be evidence - but I don't see how videotaping somebody in public in itself can be a crime, regardless of who that person might be.
Please quote me where I made any reference having a personal bias against video taping of officers in a legal way. It is legal to tape officers in public during the performance of their duties the majority of the time. However, there are circumstances in which I mentioned in previous posts where the officer can legally stop the taping and/or confiscate the tape of any 1st or 3rd party.
tracker722
02-01-10, 16:04
I do not care if someone videotapes me as long as they are not involved in the situation I am dealing with at the time. If I tell a subject to put down a camera, he/she better put it down. They can keep it on, but it will not be in their hand. The reason being, I DO NOT want it to be used as a weapon against me. I want their hands empty and in plain sight at all times.
With that said, if a bystander is videotaping the proceedings, as long as they are not interfering and being stupid, dangerous or obnoxious, have at it. Just don't expect an interview.
John_Wayne777
02-01-10, 16:11
Actually, LEOs have NO privacy rights whatsoever while on the job.
That's not even remotely true. There are plenty of USSC cases where you can read about all sorts of rights that government employees have against their employers.
Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
IIRC, one or two of those states have had cases where LEO's tried to halt videotaping of a police action because they didn't have the consent of the LEO to tape. Obviously they may have stopped the videotaping because the consent of the subjects hadn't been obtained, which would be impossible without interfering with the police action.
My only point would be that if LEO's were successful in having charges brought against videographers due to these consent laws, wouldn't that then make dash cam and other LEO videotaping illegal without a warrant?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I wonder if there is any legal precedent where these 12 state's consent laws have been upheld in federal court? It seems to me they make term "public" much less so.
Patrick Aherne
02-01-10, 17:41
Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
IIRC, one or two of those states have had cases where LEO's tried to halt videotaping of a police action because they didn't have the consent of the LEO to tape. Obviously they may have stopped the videotaping because the consent of the subjects hadn't been obtained, which would be impossible without interfering with the police action.
My only point would be that if LEO's were successful in having charges brought against videographers due to these consent laws, wouldn't that then make dash cam and other LEO videotaping illegal without a warrant?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I wonder if there is any legal precedent where these 12 state's consent laws have been upheld in federal court? It seems to me they make term "public" much less so.
You list California. I know you can film me at work. Many departments even have policies that state officers are to allow videotaping and not confiscate tapes, cards, etc. as long as the videographer is not obstructing the officer in the performance of his duty.
I have ordered people to move that were videotaping me. As in, "You can tape from across the street, or in that driveway. I don't want you distracting me, or getting run over by standing in the street."
Every cop, everywhere, should ALWAYS assume everything they do is filmed.
I can recall one conversation I had with a colleague who told me how some WWII vet came to her aid as she was fighting some crazy bum in front a Starbuck's while a bunch of 30-something techy geeks were filming her fighting the bum. Imagine 5-6 healthy men watching a female officer rolling around on the ground with a dirtbag, doing nothing more than holding up their cell phones to get the best angle.
Belmont31R
02-01-10, 17:45
I don't believe in two sets of laws. If LE can film me when they want I should be able to film them when I want to. Obvious exception is gross interference in their duties.
One set of rules of gov workers, and one for citizens is not a principle this country was founded on. It should not be tolerated in any capacity.
There are plenty of USSC cases where you can read about all sorts of rights that government employees have against their employers.
Employment laws are irrelevant in discussing the constitutional rights of citizens and exercise of police power by the government. Our Constitution draws clear lines between citizens (who have rights) and "government" - which in this case derives limited authority from one source: "the people."
QuietShootr
02-01-10, 17:50
It's easy to set up a camera and mic in your vehicle and stream the video to a remote server for storage.
And the way things are going, it might not be a bad idea.
Apropos of nothing, of course.
You list California. I know you can film me at work. Many departments even have policies that state officers are to allow videotaping and not confiscate tapes, cards, etc. as long as the videographer is not obstructing the officer in the performance of his duty.
I have ordered people to move that were videotaping me. As in, "You can tape from across the street, or in that driveway. I don't want you distracting me, or getting run over by standing in the street."
Every cop, everywhere, should ALWAYS assume everything they do is filmed.
I can recall one conversation I had with a colleague who told me how some WWII vet came to her aid as she was fighting some crazy bum in front a Starbuck's while a bunch of 30-something techy geeks were filming her fighting the bum. Imagine 5-6 healthy men watching a female officer rolling around on the ground with a dirtbag, doing nothing more than holding up their cell phones to get the best angle.
That's why I bolded under most circumstances. Each state may have specific exemptions to the rule that allow police to tape citizens and/or vice versa.
GLOCKMASTER
02-01-10, 18:09
Employment laws are irrelevant in discussing the constitutional rights of citizens and exercise of police power by the government. Our Constitution draws clear lines between citizens (who have rights) and "government" - which in this case derives limited authority from one source: "the people."
Even though you see the uniform as government, there is a person who wears that uniform and that person does have rights.
I do not have a problem being videoed as long as people keep their distance. I worked under the watchful eye of a dash cam for over five years and it always cleared me when someone would complain. The best part was it showed who was telling the truth when a person would make false accusations.
Alpha Sierra
02-01-10, 20:14
Back in the States, you all live in the YouTube.com world and people with cell phones/recorders. I expect that we will have to learn to live with it.
That is to be expected in a free society.
Even though you see the uniform as government, there is a person who wears that uniform and that person does have rights.
I have to agree with this. Your rights end where my nose begins, whether I'm on the clock for the .gov or not.
Only criminals avoid being filmed in a public venue.
Here's a few more instances.
An officer and a media cameraman:
Caught on Tape: APD officer, photographer scuffle (http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/610534/caught_on_tape_apd_officer_photographer_scuffle)
"Police brutality" in Florida:
Another YouTube video leads to police internal investigation (http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2009/09/another_youtube_video_leads_to.html)
This punk kid records a checkpoint stop:
Missouri: Police Roadblock Harassment Caught on Tape (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1522.asp)
Then does it again with an officer who stops him in a parking lot:
Missouri: Police Threaten, Detain Motorist for Parking After Hours (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp)
These days, even if they are within the law, it seems officers must pay much more attention to PR than they should for the job they have to do.
On the other hand, if officers expect cameras when they work, the less scrupulous among them may rise to the expectations of the citizens and their more righteous brethren. As a citizen, I feel that those sworn to uphold the law should never be cavalier with it; I demand and must have that in order to trust in the justice system at all.
Most of the LEOs I've encountered in my life have been fair, professional, and human in their interactions, and it sucks that one incident caught on video can overshadow the good work done by countless others. But if law and principle are of the highest order, then it's worth it if justice is served in the end.
NinjaMedic
02-01-10, 22:14
Examples:
1) At night they may use a light to illuminate the officer for the video. The only person illuminated at night is the contact/suspect and it will not be tolerated as it puts the officer in danger.
While I certaintly understand the tactical advantage of not being illuminated at night I dont think the argument can be made that an LEO (or any other person for that matter) has a reasonable expectation of a lack of illumination. If an officer had the expectations of never doing their work while illuminated at the same level as the subject that they are interacting with then they could never work in daylight. It is something that you can and should use to your advantage, however unless someone is shining a light into yours eyes bright enough to disrupt your visualization of the subject and thus interfering and compromising your safety, I dont think you have the authority to require a person to cease illuminating you.
Police are public servants. My take on the issue is that if they are in uniform or performing official duties then they are subject to video taping. Lord knows the Eyes of the world are always on the U.S. military good, bad, or indifferent. The bottom line is this: always perform your duty to the fullest, treat everyone with duty and respect, and always be the consummate professional. You must always be a professional because the eyes of the world are upon you.
Here's a few more instances.
An officer and a media cameraman:
Caught on Tape: APD officer, photographer scuffle (http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/610534/caught_on_tape_apd_officer_photographer_scuffle)
"Police brutality" in Florida:
Another YouTube video leads to police internal investigation (http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2009/09/another_youtube_video_leads_to.html)
This punk kid records a checkpoint stop:
Missouri: Police Roadblock Harassment Caught on Tape (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1522.asp)
Then does it again with an officer who stops him in a parking lot:
Missouri: Police Threaten, Detain Motorist for Parking After Hours (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp)
These days, even if they are within the law, it seems officers must pay much more attention to PR than they should for the job they have to do.
On the other hand, if officers expect cameras when they work, the less scrupulous among them may rise to the expectations of the citizens and their more righteous brethren. As a citizen, I feel that those sworn to uphold the law should never be cavalier with it; I demand and must have that in order to trust in the justice system at all.
Most of the LEOs I've encountered in my life have been fair, professional, and human in their interactions, and it sucks that one incident caught on video can overshadow the good work done by countless others. But if law and principle are of the highest order, then it's worth it if justice is served in the end.
Seems like videotaping encounters with LEOs gives the public a check and balance against police powers. It is a very slippery slope when you give a person a certain amount of authority and they misuse or abuse it. I watched the video tape of the kid that was stopped at a DUI checkpoint and detained because he didn't want to tell officers where he was going. The kid was respectful and wasn't antagonistic. I guess it could have been worse.
Officer #1: How are you tonight sir?
Brett: Hi.
Officer #1: Can you put your window down for me.
(I roll the window ALL the way down.)
Officer #1: Do you have a driver's license and proof of insurance?
(I begin to get my information out of my wallet)
Officer #1: Where you headed tonight?
Brett: To your house your wife/daughter paged me (I'll leave the rest to your imagination). :D
Even though you see the uniform as government, there is a person who wears that uniform and that person does have rights.
I agree that the individual has rights. However, when you are in uniform or operating in an official capacity you are a public official and some of your individual rights are forfeited. Hollywood (had to wash my hands after typing that word) has dealt with this issue for decades. Public figures can't expect to have much privacy when in public. When I step out of my house in uniform I realize that I represent the U.S. Army and conduct myself accordingly. The average U.S. citizen has certain expectations of it's uniformed personnel that have taken an oath to uphold the law and defend the constitution. The only way to keep that expectation positive is to conduct yourself in such a way as to bring great credit upon your department and fellow officers. We all know that it only takes one incident to screw it up for everyone else. Hopefully our LEOs are being trained to expect to be videotaped and to conduct themselves accordingly.
Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
IIRC, one or two of those states have had cases where LEO's tried to halt videotaping of a police action because they didn't have the consent of the LEO to tape. Obviously they may have stopped the videotaping because the consent of the subjects hadn't been obtained, which would be impossible without interfering with the police action.
My only point would be that if LEO's were successful in having charges brought against videographers due to these consent laws, wouldn't that then make dash cam and other LEO videotaping illegal without a warrant?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I wonder if there is any legal precedent where these 12 state's consent laws have been upheld in federal court? It seems to me they make term "public" much less so.
In PA LEOs are not subject to the two party consent laws. You can video/tape all you want. The wiretapping/recording laws are very strict in PA for law enforcement use.
For Journalists you can film/video anything anywhere that is public or if you are filming from a reasonable public location (and are not interfering with Police). For example if you are standing on the sidewalk you can legally video thru someone's front window into their home, but if you walked onto their property on the side of the house and did this you are committing a crime.
I dont think you have the authority to require a person to cease illuminating you.
We certainly do. Light control is one of the primary officer safety requirements for any field training program for police officers. Remember, the officer is to keep a POA(position of advantage) while keeping the contacts/suspects in a POD(position of disadvantage). The officer has FULL authority to maintain that POA over any and all contacts. Illumination of the officer gives the suspects the ability to size the officer up and make them an easy target. Unless the officer has ALL of the suspects illuminated, some of them can move without the officer noticing as the officer's flashlight only gives him tunnel vision. Night time contacts are far more dangerous to the officer justifying more strict suspect controls.
For example: At 1am, a county deputy is dispatched to a gun store for a report of someone walking suspiciously around the back of the store. The police officer shows up, and proceeds to do an exterior search on foot. The officer hears voices, and lights up two suspects that also have a flashlight. The officer IDs himself to them, and one of them claims to be the owner, while the other claims to be his son. So the officer allows the suspect to continue to illuminate him. A third suspect notices the officer, and because he has a clear image of him, shoots him in the back of the head with a shotgun. During daylight hours, the officer would have likely been able to scan the area easier and pick up on the third suspect. The officer's flashlight only allows him tunnel vision to identify potential threats, which is why the officer has the authority control all illumination at night. This was an actual shooting in Oklahoma.
I am a big fan of patrol car cams, body mics, and small digital recorders. I use them frequently. I'm not opposed to having the same technology used on me as well. Like guns, knives, etc, I assume that they are always around and prepare myself accordingly.
Those doing the recording should stand back, make themselves unobstrusive, and do nothing that resembles obstruction. The use of artificial light that compromises my safety, impairs my ability to see, or otherwise impairs my ability to do my job in some articulable manner will likely meet the elements of offenses of obstruction or interference in most states, and may result in an arrest or citation. Temporary confiscation of the camera, and/or its placement into evidence with the recording media, is likely.
I'm opposed to statutes requiring two/all-party consent to recording. I think that when one is in the presence of others, what they say and do should be fair game for recording.
I agree that the individual has rights. However, when you are in uniform or operating in an official capacity you are a public official and some of your individual rights are forfeited. Hollywood (had to wash my hands after typing that word) has dealt with this issue for decades. Public figures can't expect to have much privacy when in public. When I step out of my house in uniform I realize that I represent the U.S. Army and conduct myself accordingly. The average U.S. citizen has certain expectations of it's uniformed personnel that have taken an oath to uphold the law and defend the constitution. The only way to keep that expectation positive is to conduct yourself in such a way as to bring great credit upon your department and fellow officers. We all know that it only takes one incident to screw it up for everyone else. Hopefully our LEOs are being trained to expect to be videotaped and to conduct themselves accordingly.
Well put!
I have also worked as a public servant. To get that job, I had to submit to pre-employment drug testing. What about my right to privacy from searches of my urine? If I wanted to retain that right, I would NOT have been working there. It was that simple.
I was also required to undergo periodic backround investigations on that job. The original investigative forms I completed for that job included a waiver of all my privacy rights concerning my medical records (and they were all photocopied and collected by the investigator - I checked with my doctors). Public servants/i.e., government, DO NOT have the same rights while on the job which citizens enjoy 24/7, though as pointed out above, there might be employment laws which recognize certain civil rights such as EEO protections.
But, again, those employment protections are irrelevant to our discussion of a citizen photographing a governement official exercising police powers over other citizens in public.
We certainly do. Light control is one of the primary officer safety requirements for any field training program for police officers. Remember, the officer is to keep a POA(position of advantage) while keeping the contacts/suspects in a POD(position of disadvantage). The officer has FULL authority to maintain that POA over any and all contacts. Illumination of the officer gives the suspects the ability to size the officer up and make them an easy target. Unless the officer has ALL of the suspects illuminated, some of them can move without the officer noticing as the officer's flashlight only gives him tunnel vision. Night time contacts are far more dangerous to the officer justifying more strict suspect controls.
For example: At 1am, a county deputy is dispatched to a gun store for a report of someone walking suspiciously around the back of the store. The police officer shows up, and proceeds to do an exterior search on foot. The officer hears voices, and lights up two suspects that also have a flashlight. The officer IDs himself to them, and one of them claims to be the owner, while the other claims to be his son. So the officer allows the suspect to continue to illuminate him. A third suspect notices the officer, and because he has a clear image of him, shoots him in the back of the head with a shotgun. During daylight hours, the officer would have likely been able to scan the area easier and pick up on the third suspect. The officer's flashlight only allows him tunnel vision to identify potential threats, which is why the officer has the authority control all illumination at night. This was an actual shooting in Oklahoma.
To an extent I agree with you. But I think you'd have difficulty articulating the threat to you from a camcorder light outside the "protected zone" that happened to be illuminating you as part of the scene unless you were in a completely dark area. If you're in an area where there's ambient lighting such as street lamps, storefronts or vehicle headlights, it might appear that you're using the lighting as an excuse to not be recorded. After all, there have been lots of officers filmed for TV shows such as COPS. Granted, the videographers in these cases are professionals with rules of enagement, but they do illuminate officers at times in low light. JMO
4thPointOfContact
02-02-10, 10:41
In Georgia, a married couple filed a civil rights suit against the tiny city of Cumming (pop. 4,220) and its police chief, alleging that the police prevented them from videotaping police actions in violation of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
Seriously?!? :eek:
Yeah, I agree, Cumming's not That small. We're 1/2 hour from Atlanta. "Just take Georgia 400 North; Cumming's just right before Paradise."
NinjaMedic
02-04-10, 12:12
I agree with you Marcus on the importance of light control and also agree that you have the right to tell someone to turn it off just like any citizen would. That being said I have never seen in any penal code a section that gives a LEO supreme control over light emissions around you. If someone doesn't comply with a request to turn off a flashlight what is you next move? I doubt your agency's legal dept would be a big fan of you escalating your use of force as a result of a few stray photons striking you. While you have a huge amount of control over your surroundings you dont have supreme control as your FTO might like you to believe.
I would love to hear an explanation for tasing a bystander walking past with an led headband in a park because they wouldn't turn it off, "but officer I cant walk over these rocks without tripping unless I have supplemental illumination" "I dont care my FTO hates flashlights, turn the damn thing of because i told you too or else" "but its unsafe" "ZZZAAAAAPPP"
We all have risks that we accept when we come to work and while we do every we can WITHIN OUR POWER to mitigate those risks that does not mean that we magically have the authority or right to be in control of EVERYTHING.
I expect when I show up at work that there will be cameras recording me 24/7 and attempt to conduct myself accordingly.
Everyone loves to monday morning quarterback the situation videotape or not. I have been video and audio taped while working on more than one occasion. My biggest concern is that only parts of the recording that work to either parties favor are 'published' on the web or elsewhere, rarely do you get the full story.
Even when you watch the full video, you still may not get the whole story. For example watch the two videos below from 2 seperate dash cams taping the same event. The first one looks like an assinatioon by the LEO's, The second tells the rest of the story where the subject is comes out of his car pointing his weapon at the other officer and then shoots over his shoulder at the officer directly behind him.
Police Dash Video 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7At5RyV_yo)
Police Dash Video 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPEiRQoALcs&feature=related)
Yes bad acts are captured on both sides. We all just have to be sure that we get the whole story. The recorders vantage point and bias can certainly determine what is shown and not shown on a video.
-Mike.
I agree with you Marcus on the importance of light control and also agree that you have the right to tell someone to turn it off just like any citizen would. That being said I have never seen in any penal code a section that gives a LEO supreme control over light emissions around you. If someone doesn't comply with a request to turn off a flashlight what is you next move? I doubt your agency's legal dept would be a big fan of you escalating your use of force as a result of a few stray photons striking you. While you have a huge amount of control over your surroundings you dont have supreme control as your FTO might like you to believe.
I would love to hear an explanation for tasing a bystander walking past with an led headband in a park because they wouldn't turn it off, "but officer I cant walk over these rocks without tripping unless I have supplemental illumination" "I dont care my FTO hates flashlights, turn the damn thing of because i told you too or else" "but its unsafe" "ZZZAAAAAPPP"
We all have risks that we accept when we come to work and while we do every we can WITHIN OUR POWER to mitigate those risks that does not mean that we magically have the authority or right to be in control of EVERYTHING.
I expect when I show up at work that there will be cameras recording me 24/7 and attempt to conduct myself accordingly.
You are still off base.
I f a citizen is filming me while I am conducting business and his use of illumination creates an environment that put me a tactical disatvnatage, I have the authority to change that circumstance. The order would be lawful.
I dont understand how that is refutable.
thegoat273
02-04-10, 19:46
I don't have a problem with anyone trying to video tape me while in the capacity of my duties. That being said, we all know that just about everyone has a video camera out there on their cell phones. In IL there is not a law that would prohibit someone video taping an officer while in a public type of venue. Now if you record a voice recording where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, that is a different story. Doing this without consent and with out an overhear order is subject to a felony arrest. The only time we had a problem w/ the video taping is when individuals were attempting to record undercover officers. So in that instance their videos were erased. just my 2 cents
NinjaMedic
02-04-10, 23:06
I have never ever ever been known to be wrong in the past ;) but I still have to disagree.
I agree with you Marcus on the importance of light control and also agree that you have the right to tell someone to turn it off just like any citizen would. That being said I have never seen in any penal code a section that gives a LEO supreme control over light emissions around you. If someone doesn't comply with a request to turn off a flashlight what is you next move? I doubt your agency's legal dept would be a big fan of you escalating your use of force as a result of a few stray photons striking you. While you have a huge amount of control over your surroundings you dont have supreme control as your FTO might like you to believe.
...
We all have risks that we accept when we come to work and while we do every we can WITHIN OUR POWER to mitigate those risks that does not mean that we magically have the authority or right to be in control of EVERYTHING.
...
I have never ever ever been known to be wrong in the past ;) but I still have to disagree.
You make a good point. How much control, and in what circumstances, depends on a lot of large and small variables in a given scenario. No two are likely to be alike, nor will how they are handled be exactly the same.
I remember watching a video of a pursuit the suspect exited the vehicle and pointed a shiny object at a police officer the officer fired and during the preliminary investigation the shiny object was a cell phone. When I used to work in security I always recorded the contact and would advise the person/suspect not only for their protection but for mine. I had an incident once where if I hadn't recorded the DA would not have filed charges. The suspects (4 gang members) said that I illegally detained them. The audio recording proved otherwise.
Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
IIRC, one or two of those states have had cases where LEO's tried to halt videotaping of a police action because they didn't have the consent of the LEO to tape. Obviously they may have stopped the videotaping because the consent of the subjects hadn't been obtained, which would be impossible without interfering with the police action.
My only point would be that if LEO's were successful in having charges brought against videographers due to these consent laws, wouldn't that then make dash cam and other LEO videotaping illegal without a warrant?
Washington's law says consent of all parties is required when recording "private" conversation. Because of the way private has been defined in case law around RCW 9.73 I don't think you could successfully argue that a public law enforcement contact should be considered private. Also RCW 9.73.030(3) provides the following:
(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.
...biggest concern is that only parts of the recording that work to either parties favor are 'published' on the web or elsewhere, rarely do you get the full story.
Even when you watch the full video, you still may not get the whole story...
Quoted for the truth.
arizonaranchman
02-05-10, 21:39
Police don't have any more of an expectation of privacy out in public than anyone else does. Now that's not to say you can hop into the middle of an arrest and stick a camera in their face, but if you're not obstructing the performance of their duties then there shouldn't be a problem.
This is exactly right.
Collegefour
02-08-10, 03:43
I was actually involved in an incident just the other night in which a college kid wanted to record me. Since it was just a citizen assist (giving him a ride), I allowed it.
The problem was, he was underage and had been drinking (not heavily intoxicated, just three or so beers), and I wanted to speak about it with him and two of his friends that he had been with earlier. My bad on not confiscating the phone, because he used it to text ahead to one of his friends, who left his dorm room prior to our arrival.
The kid seemed very paranoid that he was going to get busted, and did not trust me at all. I explained to him multiple times that I just wanted to have a conversation with him and his friends, but he up and texts the guy to get away anyhow. Hopefully he will calm down now, since we had a discussion and he did not get busted, but I think I made a minor mistake in not confiscating his cell phone, even for something as simple as a ride home. Thing is, I don't think the kid that fled prior to our arrival was even intoxicated....
Washington's law says consent of all parties is required when recording "private" conversation. Because of the way private has been defined in case law around RCW 9.73 I don't think you could successfully argue that a public law enforcement contact should be considered private. Also RCW 9.73.030(3) provides the following:
Wouldn't that mostly deal with such things as telephone calls or recording some one discreetly? It doesn't sound like a law that's intended for using a video camera in a public place. It sounds like it's more about wiretapping, which most states have laws against.
Wouldn't that mostly deal with such things as telephone calls or recording some one discreetly?
I believe that is what Washington law is intended to do, so as long as what you were recording couldn't reasonably be considered a "private" situation you would be safe here. If you had any doubt you could just notify the person you were recording, as provided in the section I quoted.
But in other jurisdictions who knows. I have read of some people prosecuted for recording people without their consent in other States.
I was actually involved in an incident just the other night in which a college kid wanted to record me. Since it was just a citizen assist (giving him a ride), I allowed it.
The problem was, he was underage and had been drinking (not heavily intoxicated, just three or so beers), and I wanted to speak about it with him and two of his friends that he had been with earlier. My bad on not confiscating the phone, because he used it to text ahead to one of his friends, who left his dorm room prior to our arrival.
The kid seemed very paranoid that he was going to get busted, and did not trust me at all. I explained to him multiple times that I just wanted to have a conversation with him and his friends, but he up and texts the guy to get away anyhow. Hopefully he will calm down now, since we had a discussion and he did not get busted, but I think I made a minor mistake in not confiscating his cell phone, even for something as simple as a ride home. Thing is, I don't think the kid that fled prior to our arrival was even intoxicated....
Help me understand your logic and train of thought. On the one hand I applaud you for giving the kid a ride home, most deserve a break, unless of course they're out being destuctive, fighting, etc. On the other hand I'm curious as to how you know what the kid texted, whom to and why would you even contemplate confiscating his phone? Under what law would you have the authority to do so and how would you justify it? Simply put, for what reason?
This isn't meant to be antagonistic, I'm simply trying to understand your reasoning.
I was actually involved in an incident just the other night in which a college kid wanted to record me. Since it was just a citizen assist (giving him a ride), I allowed it. The problem was, he was underage and had been drinking (not heavily intoxicated, just three or so beers), and I wanted to speak about it with him and two of his friends that he had been with earlier. My bad on not confiscating the phone, because he used it to text ahead to one of his friends, who left his dorm room prior to our arrival. The kid seemed very paranoid that he was going to get busted, and did not trust me at all. I explained to him multiple times that I just wanted to have a conversation with him and his friends, but he up and texts the guy to get away anyhow. Hopefully he will calm down now, since we had a discussion and he did not get busted, but I think I made a minor mistake in not confiscating his cell phone, even for something as simple as a ride home. Thing is, I don't think the kid that fled prior to our arrival was even intoxicated....
Help me understand your logic and train of thought. On the one hand I applaud you for giving the kid a ride home, most deserve a break, unless of course they're out being destuctive, fighting, etc. On the other hand I'm curious as to how you know what the kid texted, whom to and why would you even contemplate confiscating his phone? Under what law would you have the authority to do so and how would you justify it? Simply put, for what reason? This isn't meant to be antagonistic, I'm simply trying to understand your reasoning.
That's another complex but interesting issue. There are circumstances in which it would be reasonable to control the communications ability of someone you're in contact with, but others where it would not be. The authority to do so would be derived from the same statutes and case law. It all depends on the small variables.
I am not an LEO. I agree that there are abuses that happen in the business of policing just like they do in any other profession. However, having just this week watched the video of the young sheriff's deputy meeting his end at the hands of the man he stopped for speeding, I would have to come down on the side of controlling the contact and the parties in the immediate vicinity as a high priority.
I would hope that if you were silently standing at a discreet distance filiming with a camera that nothing would be said to you. If you are involving yourself in the officer's transaction with others, you have put yourself in the mix. Seeing how easily and badly it can go wrong, can you blame the officer for trying to keep tabs on everyone there and staying safe?
Help me understand your logic and train of thought. On the one hand I applaud you for giving the kid a ride home, most deserve a break, unless of course they're out being destuctive, fighting, etc. On the other hand I'm curious as to how you know what the kid texted, whom to and why would you even contemplate confiscating his phone? Under what law would you have the authority to do so and how would you justify it? Simply put, for what reason?
This isn't meant to be antagonistic, I'm simply trying to understand your reasoning.
Because it has happened where people have texted or called their peeps to come "help". Long time ago we had someone who had 2 cell phones (we took the one we found) call from the back of the car, in handcuffs, while we were finishing our investigation. His brother showed up pumped and looking for a fight. He had all the information he needed to ambush us. Location, number of us, was there a K9, etc. etc. Luckily it ended well for us.
Now before anyone attempts to distinguish between the 2 re: bad guy vs drunk college kid, perhaps you should look into how many shootings and/or OH SHIT moments we've had doing simple well being checks on the elderly. We've been shot at more than once for simply checking in on citizens at the request of their family members. We lost a deputy in this very manner. If you have the authority to protect yourself, you absolutely must. Also, it's my damn car. My damn rules. :)
Case law and statute is where any authority LEO possess comes from.
glockshooter
02-08-10, 23:04
Here is my feeling on being taped. Rule #1 get my good side. Rule #2 Stay back and outside of my scene or stop. If you get to close I will ask you to move back. If you get to close again I will tell you to move back. If you get to close a third time you take a ride. I am a very reasonable person, and I understand that I am no more special or entitled to special treatment than any one else. I have absolutely no problem with taping me. If you work at a level that is above reproach, as I do then there are no worries. I know that there are bad cops out there and I have worked with guys that have disgraced the badge.
For all you guys that have it ingrained in your mind that cops are all bad and corrupt, you are intitled to your opinion. Just remember that in the end you can say whatever you want, but truth be told when the SHTF my brethren and I will be there to save you and yours. And in some cases give up our lives and families to save yours. Remember that next time you bitch about getting a ticket or summons or arrested for your actions. Hate all you want, I will save you regardless.
Matt
In the matter of illumination of the scene ,if a news helicopter happens to illuminate you while doing your duty you will be in violation of first amendment rights if you try to stop them . They are only doing their job and informing the public.
In the matter of illumination of the scene ,if a news helicopter happens to illuminate you while doing your duty you will be in violation of first amendment rights if you try to stop them . They are only doing their job and informing the public.
Who has told you this?
This is a "Variable question with variable answers".
If it is a bystander, then he should have a right to photograph, (From a safe distance). If the officer doesn't want "Anyone" to Photograph, (From a safe distance) then is he above the law, instead of trying to uphold the law? Each individual instance could be very different. It takes a very controlled person to not allow others to get to them, and maintain safety.
Unfortunately it can only take a few bads to ruin it for a lot of goods. We don't live in a perfect world.
Collegefour
02-09-10, 04:54
Help me understand your logic and train of thought. On the one hand I applaud you for giving the kid a ride home, most deserve a break, unless of course they're out being destuctive, fighting, etc. On the other hand I'm curious as to how you know what the kid texted, whom to and why would you even contemplate confiscating his phone? Under what law would you have the authority to do so and how would you justify it? Simply put, for what reason?
This isn't meant to be antagonistic, I'm simply trying to understand your reasoning.
First off, policy states that you are subject to handcuffing and search prior to entering my patrol vehicle for ANY reason. If I decide not to, I take on a certain level of liability. Second, the kid was arrestable, and his demeanor was that of a criminal with something to hide. Third, although all he did was text his friend to get away, he could have texted his friend to have the entire dorm standing by upon my arrival. My job is to DE-escalate situations. By taking the phone, I could have stopped a minor incident from becoming a MAJOR one, perhaps even one that the local news would have taken an interest in. I guarantee you the question of why I didn't take his phone would have come up if the administration of the college suddenly found itself in a PR situation.
BTW, I know the kid texted ahead because when that kid was gone and I asked my guy where he was, he admitted texting ahead.
RE. Illumination by news chopper .Pretty difficult to stop them if they [news crew]
have night sun, and 20x magnification, and are live.
RE. Illumination by news chopper .Pretty difficult to stop them if they [news crew]
have night sun, and 20x magnification, and are live.
That's not what you said. You didn't post about the complexities of shutting a news chopper down you stated stopping them would be a violation of their first amendment rights. I want to know who has told you this.
Just saying that, bec of 1st amendment that once they get their nose in, it is very difficult to stop them from broadcasting, or filming any thing they want. have some experience in this from 20 years in fire service.
Just saying that, bec of 1st amendment that once they get their nose in, it is very difficult to stop them from broadcasting, or filming any thing they want. have some experience in this from 20 years in fire service.
You are dodging the question yet again. Either that or you simply don't understand. I'm not discussing the difficulty of the act of getting them to stop. I'm asking, again, who has told you it would be a violation of 1st amendment rights IF you were able to stop them? This is what you said and I'm curious as to who's feeding you this crap. It's been discussed here over and over if anyone is interfering with your ability to do your job, they can belegally stopped. You have stated something entirely different. Who has told you this?
I apologize for stepping on your toes .I have never been told this, but once the media get their nose in it is almost impossible to stop them, and if you try they will bring up 1st amd. every time .
I apologize for stepping on your toes .I have never been told this, but once the media get their nose in it is almost impossible to stop them, and if you try they will bring up 1st amd. every time .
While they may bring it up every time, they would be wrong..... every time, as long as they are truly interfering with your duties. You need to know this as a public servant.
You didn't step on my toes. You made a statement of fact that it would be a violation of 1st amendment rights if you as a FF or myself as a LEO were to stop a news crew from reporting on an issue, live, if they were getting in the way. That's simply not true. I was curious if your higher ups were feeding you this or if it was a misunderstanding on your part of your scope of authority to ensure your safety on scene. Just trying to help.
Misinformation on my part.Thanks for clarifying ,I learned something today .so all's well.
Help me understand your logic and train of thought. On the one hand I applaud you for giving the kid a ride home, most deserve a break, unless of course they're out being destuctive, fighting, etc. On the other hand I'm curious as to how you know what the kid texted, whom to and why would you even contemplate confiscating his phone? Under what law would you have the authority to do so and how would you justify it? Simply put, for what reason?
This isn't meant to be antagonistic, I'm simply trying to understand your reasoning.
Again it comes down to officer safety. There have been numerous cases of people on traffic stops calling/texting buddies to come and ambush officers while investigating the stop. Where I work an officer was killed in that exact scenario. The Supreme Court also upholds this case law where and officer can reasonably articulate what constitutes a threat to his safety or the safety of others and grants the ability to the officer to control the scene as necessary. If that means I ask you not to use your phone while I run your name I will. If it escalates to me taking your cellphone since you refuse to cooperate, I will. If it goes beyond that, you could be arrested for obstructing a lawful investigation (traffic stop).
There is also another variable in recording an officer that no one has brought up and it falls on officer safety again. Do a search on "cellphone hangun" and you'll find plenty of videos that show what looks like a cellphone actually shooting bullets. Is that a threat? You bet. How would an officer know you pointing a camera or cellphone at him is not actually some type of gun? They wouldn't. Again, it comes down to how the officer presents it in court and in the report. Does this mean you go around thinking everyone with a cellphone is actually carrying a gun, absolutely not. It means every situation is different.
Police officers are held to a higher standard than the average citizen. That is taught the first day at the academy. Are we your "servants"? I challenge you to show me ANY government document which clearly states such. It's that type of dialogue which perpetuates an "us vs. them" mentality on both sides.
Also most news channels I've dealt with on a tactical level do their best NOT to cause the officers to be in harms way (such as illuminating them, showing real time team movements, flying in the police helicopter airspace). The 1st amendment gets thrown around a lot but in reality the courts have ruled common sense prevails (yelling "fire" in an auditorium).
An interesting topic for discussion but these threads almost always become something else.
SNY
Police officers are held to a higher standard than the average citizen. That is taught the first day at the academy.
I hear this quite often but I can't figure out a real example of this claim. LE gets exemptions, both official and "unofficial" courtesies, on everything from gun laws to traffic laws. Regular people don't get any of that.
You take the same oath when you testify as any other witness.
You're given authority to do things that regular people are not allowed to do, and given great deference in your decisions in doing those things as long as you can articulate some reasonable basis - as your own post above states. Everyone else gets charged/sued and has to actually prove an affirmative defense when they use force or threaten to steal somebody's cellphone.
You have sovereign immunity when performing your duties.
You have the protection of a union, appeals, etc. if disciplined or fired.
So tell us, in what way, and in what situations, are you held to a higher standard than anyone else?
(And for the record, I DO believe that LE is held to a much higher standard in terms of their initial hiring. I just don't see it anywhere else.)
I hear this quite often but I can't figure out a real example of this claim. LE gets exemptions, both official and "unofficial" courtesies, on everything from gun laws to traffic laws. Regular people don't get any of that.
You take the same oath when you testify as any other witness.
You're given authority to do things that regular people are not allowed to do, and given great deference in your decisions in doing those things as long as you can articulate some reasonable basis - as your own post above states. Everyone else gets charged/sued and has to actually prove an affirmative defense when they use force or threaten to steal somebody's cellphone.
You have sovereign immunity when performing your duties.
You have the protection of a union, appeals, etc. if disciplined or fired.
So tell us, in what way, and in what situations, are you held to a higher standard than anyone else?
(And for the record, I DO believe that LE is held to a much higher standard in terms of their initial hiring. I just don't see it anywhere else.)
If you curse at me, so be it. I have to take it (but not like it). If I curse at you, you complain, I get written up. A bunch of write ups, and I get fired.
You get caught speeding, you might or might not get a ticket. I get caught speeding (especially by the media) and I'm gone. It will be at least two years to fight to get my job back.
I can go on. You have a long day at work and decide to get a few drinks, go to a strip club and get into a fight. Sounds like fun. For us it's conduct unbecoming in off duty matters and again I'm terminated.
There are PLENTY of ways that LEOs are held to a higher standard. If police weren't given sovereign immunity who the hell would do the job?! Not everyone has the protection of unions either.
The process to become a LEO is not one interview. For the FED world it can take up to two years! Most are between six months to a year. We have polygraphs, psych tests, written tests, oral tests and background checks. Then six more months of an academy. Four months on FTO and then another nine on probation. How long did it take to get your job? Mil aside, do you go to work everyday with the possibility you will get into a gunfight? Put your life on the line for people you don't even know? Maybe you do.
As I stated before, as much as these threads start with the best intentions, they always become LEO bashing.
SNY
My latest pet project is filming sleeping on duty cops. Seriously, I see this all of the time - local, state, federal.
I am looking to do something along the lines of 'The People of Walmart' where people submit their own pics of sleeping cops with time, date and place.
My latest pet project is filming sleeping on duty cops. Seriously, I see this all of the time - local, state, federal.
I am looking to do something along the lines of 'The People of Walmart' where people submit their own pics of sleeping cops with time, date and place.
That’s a coincidence... I have a pet project of my own that involves banning people from M4C who display an anti LEO slant… Maybe we should compare notes…
B
John_Wayne777
02-09-10, 22:50
This one has clearly jumped the shark.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.