Who watches the watchmen?

[commandlinegamer]

If you photograph the police in some states you may be arrested, according to this article:

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

I get the impression from visiting various websites that there is more paranoia toward law-enforcement personnel and potential abuses in the US than the UK. I have no evidence that it's so, but if it is, I can hardly see cases like those mentioned helping matters.

IIRC, in the UK you can photograph anyone in a public place, with no consent, no model release required (with the exception of recent anti-terror legislation designed to protect sensitive areas). Footage of protests last year, where a man died after being forced to the ground and a woman was slapped in the face, both by police officers caused widespread condemnation of the tactics involved.

Is this really a cause of concern, or will it be struck down as bad law?

[Rat]

As you'll know if you read the Register regularly (or many other news outlets, I guess), while it is not in itself illegal to photograph the police in this country, many police officers believe that it is, and several people have been arrested and had their kit confiscated for doing so.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would be surprised if there were such laws. One issue I see is what if it's not intentional? If you have a security camera on a parking lot, and a police officer is caught doing something illegal on that camera, I see no good reason that those images shouldn't be admissible evidence.

And I definitely don't think the camera owner should be guilty of a crime just because the officer was photographed by it.

Similarly, what if you're taking a picture of something else and happen to catch a police officer in the frame? I suspect there are laws against interfering with police officers doing their duty, and a cameraman who stays in the way after an officer tells him to get out of the way is definitely a problem.

There was a recent chase here where the images provided by the TV news helicopters were fed to the police to help them catch the guy. The TV news shows broadcast live images of the police doing their thing, so I'm pretty confident it's not illegal here.

[Professor Yaffle]

There was a lot of trouble here recently over police "tactics" at some protests in the UK. Police removed their numbers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/21/police-protest-id-numbers)(which they are required to have visible), used unsafe "kettling tactics, searched people illegally, and assaulted a man who then died of a heart attack (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault)and the police lied about it later. And you wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere near the Italian cops at the G8 summit in Genoa (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Five+Italian+police+jailed+over+G8+summit+riots-a01611739685). I'm not sure things are necessarily worse in the US.

Due to the ubiquitous camcorders - they are now being called to account for this sort of thing.

[Big Les]

IIRC, in the UK you can photograph anyone in a public place, with no consent, no model release required (with the exception of recent anti-terror legislation designed to protect sensitive areas).

Not the Rozzers you can't. We have a parallel law;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7888301.stm

[Bikewer]

I cannot imagine that any such law would pass even appellate-court scrutiny. We, as police, are constantly told and warned that we are liable to be filmed, photographed, or video-ed at any time by anyone.
If not by citizens, then by increasingly ever-present surveillance cameras.

The ONLY situation I could see where someone might be told to shut down is one similar to a SWAT hostage-standoff some years ago. The decision was made to "go in", but the local news were filming in real-time and broadcasting the situation as it played out.
The suspect was able to see the deployment of the officers on his TV....

[JoeTheJuggler]

I cannot imagine that any such law would pass even appellate-court scrutiny. We, as police, are constantly told and warned that we are liable to be filmed, photographed, or video-ed at any time by anyone.
If not by citizens, then by increasingly ever-present surveillance cameras.

The ONLY situation I could see where someone might be told to shut down is one similar to a SWAT hostage-standoff some years ago. The decision was made to "go in", but the local news were filming in real-time and broadcasting the situation as it played out.
The suspect was able to see the deployment of the officers on his TV....

Funny, I recently was having some problems with the tenants of a nuisance property behind my house, and the police officers suggested that anytime I'm out in my backyard, shed, garage or the alley that I should set up my video camera to catch the problem guy in the act (on two occasions he threatened to beat me up if I called the police on him for his several chronic violations of city ordinances). It worked very well.

Funny how people will behave better when they see a camera!

(Are you on the SLPD? If so, I salute you! My experiences with them over the last few years has given me a much greater appreciation of the job they do.)

[Bob Klase]

I cannot imagine that any such law would pass even appellate-court scrutiny. We, as police, are constantly told and warned that we are liable to be filmed, photographed, or video-ed at any time by anyone.
If not by citizens, then by increasingly ever-present surveillance cameras.


If such law does pass an appellate court then I can see where the police might have problems trying to use their dashboard video cams against people who didn't consent although I'm sure the laws would quickly be amended to make an exception for that.

[GreNME]

I cannot imagine that any such law would pass even appellate-court scrutiny. We, as police, are constantly told and warned that we are liable to be filmed, photographed, or video-ed at any time by anyone.
If not by citizens, then by increasingly ever-present surveillance cameras.

Not to mention all the red-light cameras being used to raise revenues. Frankly, I can think of several states right now where recording laws as I understand them allow for recording interactions (mostly conversations) as long as one side of the interaction consents. I'm having a hard time believing that these attempts to ban videotaping on public property (or one's own private property) are going to pass judicial muster for very long.

The ONLY situation I could see where someone might be told to shut down is one similar to a SWAT hostage-standoff some years ago. The decision was made to "go in", but the local news were filming in real-time and broadcasting the situation as it played out.
The suspect was able to see the deployment of the officers on his TV....

This is actually why many SWATs I've seen in action try to keep folks cordoned off at least a half-block to a block away. It's partly for the safety of onlookers, and partly for the safety of the officers.

[INRM]

This is very dangerous if it's illegal to photograph a law enforcement officer. What if they are engaging in misconduct? This sounds like a textbook way of protect law enforcement officers from being caught engaging in misconduct.

I certainly do not believe, at the same time, that the police should have the right to engage in surveillance of American citizens without probable cause, and a warrant.

Different standards of scrutiny apply from the People, who should be presumed innocent, than the government, who should be liberally scrutinized (The government wields a lot of power, and it's important that transparency exist as to reasonably prevent abuse of power)

[KingMerv00]

I would think any such restrictions on public filming would violate the freedom of the press.

I also don't see how cops have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are walking the streets.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is very dangerous if it's illegal to photograph a law enforcement officer.

But it's not. Have you read the thread?

[drkitten]

I would think any such restrictions on public filming would violate the freedom of the press.

I also don't see how cops have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are walking the streets.

I'm not sure that "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a relevant concept in this case. It's important in 4th amendment cases, but private individuals aren't bound by the 4th amendment, any more than they're bound by separation of church and state.

[KingMerv00]

I'm not sure that "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a relevant concept in this case. It's important in 4th amendment cases, but private individuals aren't bound by the 4th amendment, any more than they're bound by separation of church and state.

Not the best choice of words on my part. I meant to convey that cops shouldn't claim violation of privacy laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States#Modern_tort_law) . Those laws are in part based on an expectation of privacy.

[The Painter]

But it's not. Have you read the thread?

Have you read it???? What part of this don't you understand?

From the OP link;
In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.


This is very bad law. The police video people all the time. Even traffic lights and toll booths take your picture. Now a private citizen can't photo or video them? Big Brother, Police State, here we come. I hope all lawyers will fight this to the Supreme Court.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Have you read it???? What part of this don't you understand?
I don't get my information from blogs.

I don't think any law forbidding the photographing or video recording of any on-duty police officer have been enacted and enforced.*

I think the blog is probably distorting laws that might exist that forbid doing so if and when it interferes with the police doing their jobs. Even in the blog article, there is the huge exception mentioned in those 3 states: "unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway".

*ETA: I take it back. I suppose it's possible such laws have passed, and they'd need to be enforced before they can be legally challenged in the courts. If they exist as represented by this blog, I predict they will not survive legal challenges. In other words, there is no such "trend" in law enforcement. If these laws exist, they are the exception and not the rule, and they will undoubtedly not survive long.

[Beerina]

I was under the impression cameras were good things for cops -- it vindicates them far more often than not. It shoots down the "cops are bad, mmmkay?" thing that "everybody knows is true",

There's a reason the occasional bad cop interaction ends up on national news -- precisely because they are so rare.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was under the impression cameras were good things for cops -- it vindicates them far more often than not. It shoots down the "cops are bad, mmmkay?" thing that "everybody knows is true",

There's a reason the occasional bad cop interaction ends up on national news -- precisely because they are so rare.
Exactly.

I think those worried about "Big Brother, Police State" are worrying unnecessarily or at least prematurely (to be polite).

[geni]

I was under the impression cameras were good things for cops -- it vindicates them far more often than not. It shoots down the "cops are bad, mmmkay?" thing that "everybody knows is true",

There's a reason the occasional bad cop interaction ends up on national news -- precisely because they are so rare.

Police forces have historicaly tended to favor tarnishing the reputation of the entire force rather than dealing with their problematical elements. Camera make this aproach more difficult.

[The Painter]

Exactly.

I think those worried about "Big Brother, Police State" are worrying unnecessarily or at least prematurely (to be polite).

And I think you are sticking your head in the sand.

[KingMerv00]

Deleted for not having anything nice to say.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I think you are sticking your head in the sand.

Even the blog article argues against itself. The case its cites in Illinois invoked an eavesdropping law (one against the clandestine recording of someone without his knowledge) and had nothing to do with laws against recording on-duty police officers specifically.

In some of the other cases cited in the blog article, no mention is made of what charges were filed in these arrests (that is, whether a law against photographing an on-duty police officer was even involved at all).

In one, the case resulted in just what I said: the law was thrown out. In fact, the blog notes that the police departments involved "adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen".

Yup--my head is in the sand. The cops are out to get us all!

[Mark6]

I don't get my information from blogs.

I don't think any law forbidding the photographing or video recording of any on-duty police officer have been enacted and enforced.*

I think the blog is probably distorting laws that might exist that forbid doing so if and when it interferes with the police doing their jobs. Even in the blog article, there is the huge exception mentioned in those 3 states: "unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway".

*ETA: I take it back. I suppose it's possible such laws have passed, and they'd need to be enforced before they can be legally challenged in the courts. If they exist as represented by this blog, I predict they will not survive legal challenges. In other words, there is no such "trend" in law enforcement. If these laws exist, they are the exception and not the rule, and they will undoubtedly not survive long.
Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Massachusetts has had a law against recording police officers for years, and it has been successfully enforced for years. You "do not get your news from blogs" -- is Suffolk University Law Review a more reliable source?

http://www.law.suffolk.edu/highlights/stuorgs/lawreview/documents/Skehill_Note_Final.pdf

[INRM]

Mark6,

Thank you.

As I reiterate earlier, different standards apply for the people and for the government when it comes to scrutiny. The people are supposed to be presumed innocent unless probable cause exists to suspect that they may have committed a crime; the government on the other hand is supposed to be scrutinized. That's why we have Freedom of the Press, and why our Founding Fathers wanted the government to be reasonably transparent. This kind of law is not conducive towards a reasonable transparency of government.


INRM

[The Painter]

Even the blog article argues against itself. The case its cites in Illinois invoked an eavesdropping law (one against the clandestine recording of someone without his knowledge) and had nothing to do with laws against recording on-duty police officers specifically.

In some of the other cases cited in the blog article, no mention is made of what charges were filed in these arrests (that is, whether a law against photographing an on-duty police officer was even involved at all).

In one, the case resulted in just what I said: the law was thrown out. In fact, the blog notes that the police departments involved "adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen".

Yup--my head is in the sand. The cops are out to get us all!

Just do a quick search. It's that easy. You can do things with a computer other than just post on a message board.

[Darth Rotor]

Just do a quick search. It's that easy. You can do things with a computer other than just post on a message board.

That's because the internet is for porn...

As to who watches the watchmen ... I did, when it came out in the cinema. Decent flick.

[EvilSmurf]

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Massachusetts has had a law against recording police officers for years, and it has been successfully enforced for years. You "do not get your news from blogs" -- is Suffolk University Law Review a more reliable source?

http://www.law.suffolk.edu/highlights/stuorgs/lawreview/documents/Skehill_Note_Final.pdf

So what if Rodney King lived in Boston? Is it likely that the person recording that beating could themselves have been prosecuted?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Massachusetts has had a law against recording police officers for years, and it has been successfully enforced for years. You "do not get your news from blogs" -- is Suffolk University Law Review a more reliable source?

http://www.law.suffolk.edu/highlights/stuorgs/lawreview/documents/Skehill_Note_Final.pdf

You're wrong. The law in Massachussets is an anti-wiretapping law that forbids surreptitiously recording anyone. The article you cite is arguing that there should be an exception to the law to allow the surreptitious recording of police officers.

This is not a law that specifically bans recording police officers.

And again, there's ample evidence that there is no such "trend" as the blog article says.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just do a quick search. It's that easy. You can do things with a computer other than just post on a message board.

Yes? So do you think there is a law in Massachusetts that specifically bans recording on-duty police officers? (See my previous post.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

So what if Rodney King lived in Boston? Is it likely that the person recording that beating could themselves have been prosecuted?

I doubt it. Under the Massachusetts law, it would have to have been surreptitiously recorded. I don't recall the details of the Rodney King beating, but I think it was openly recorded by someone in the crowd.

FWIW, I'm not defending the Massachusetts law, but I don't think the solution is to make an exception to allow the secret recording of police officers, but to repeal the law altogether. It should be legal to photograph anyone in a public place.

ETA: And it is not accurate to characterize the law as a law forbidding the recording of on-duty police officers.

[EvilSmurf]

I doubt it. Under the Massachusetts law, it would have to have been surreptitiously recorded. I don't recall the details of the Rodney King beating, but I think it was openly recorded by someone in the crowd.

My understanding is it was actually recorded surreptitiously by someone in a nearby apartment. Could someone who knows more about the case please clarify?

[JoeTheJuggler]

My understanding is it was actually recorded surreptitiously by someone in a nearby apartment. Could someone who knows more about the case please clarify?

If that's the case, then yes, the guy could have been charged under the Massachusetts law (if it happened in Massachusetts)--but not because he was recording police officers at work, but because he was surreptitiously recording anyone.

I agree it's a bad law, but again it's not a law that makes any distinction between secretly recording police officers at work and secretly recording anyone else.