Is Videotaping the Police a Felony?

AtomicSnarl writes "When Carlisle, PA, police noticed their traffic stop was being videotaped, they arrested the fellow with the camera for felony wiretapping. From the story: 'Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent... An exception to the wiretapping law allows police to film people during traffic stops.. [An assistant DA] said case law is in flux as to whether police can expect not to be recorded while performing their duties.'"

Kind of like another case

[Exstatica]

Its almost the same situation with guy who got permission from a land owner to sit on the property and video tape police. The judge considered it unlawful seizer, and he won the case. Mainly because video taping is a legitimate way of gathering evidence. The full case is at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05 D0847P.pdf [uscourts.gov] That case was federal, I have no idea about state laws but in theory it could be appealed and possibly get the federal court involved.

Who Guards The Guardians

[gbulmash]

It's an old saw of photography that in a place where a celebrity does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, you can take their photo without permission. You can even publish it. When I was handling photos for a major movie site, I had to remind agents and managers of this when they'd try to bluster about how neither they nor their client authorized us to run a photo they didn't like from a premiere or party. We didn't need their authorization.

Now take something that is within the public interest, recording a police officer in the performance of his/her duties in a public place. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? If there isn't an exception to the wiretapping laws when a citizen records the police, but there is an exception when the police record citizens, there is something seriously wrong with that law. This case bears watching.

- Greg

P.S.: And to have some stereotypical /. post elements:

In Soviet Russia, the police record *you*.

1: Record Police Officer
2: Get Arrested For Felony
3: ???
4: Profit!!

I, for one, welcome our new wiretapping overlords.

Couple Who Catch Cop Speeding Could Face Charges

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Feb 19, '07 04:13 PM
from the turnabout-isn't-fair-play dept.

a_nonamiss writes "A Georgia couple, apparently tired of people speeding past their house, installed a camera and radar gun on their property. After it was installed, they caught a police office going 17MPH over the posted limit. They brought this to the attention of the local police department, and are now being forced to appear in front of a judge to answer to charges of stalking."

Video maybe not

[Sycraft-fu]

But in PA audio recording probably is. PA is a two party state. What that means is that all parties involved in a conversation must be aware it is being recorded for that to be legal. There are a number of states like this, and that's why there's the "this call may be monitored or recorded" crap on 800 numbers and such. They don't really care if you know, except that they are required to say so in some states.

Other states, like AZ, are one party states. This means that only a single person in a conversation needs to be aware it is being recorded for it to be legal. So while you can't, say, tap your girlfriend's phone (because you aren't a party in those conversations) you can tap your own phone, or walk around with a recorder in your pocket and it is legal.

So, if shit like this pisses you off, and it should, check and see if you are a two party state. If so, you should be getting on your state legislature about changing that.

Re:What a Power Trip!

[macboygrey]

It is *NOT* illegal to film the police. The organization CopWatch is based on that freedom. In fact, it is legal to film your public officials at any time. (Well, maybe not in the bathroom). When a public citizen on public land is told to turn off her or his camera, it is called cohesion, and is illegal.

Video of my friend being coerced here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DMDW4Fszj2U [youtube.com]
Also, a follow up here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QWmLufB6Bsw [youtube.com]

This isn't federal

[Sycraft-fu]

This is state. Recording laws vary state to state and in PA, it's a state where all participants in a conversation must be informed they are being recorded (for audio at least). There are plenty of states this is not the case for. This all predates 9/11, Bush, and whatever other big brother federal things you are thinking of by quite some time.

No

[r_jensen11]

I forget which case it was, I had to do a research project on it about 4 years ago, but it involved wiretapping in public areas. The incident involved wiretapping a payphone booth that was used regularly by the defendent for placing bets on sports events over the phone (both betting on sports and gambling over phone lines were illegal at the time.) The FBI claimed that because the pay phone was in a public area that they were free to tap it because it wasn't considered a private area. The court ruled in favor of the defendent, stating that conversations in this type of pay phone booth, which had a door that closed so nobody outside could hear, was reasonably expected by the publicto be a place where one could hold a conversation in private. The general ruling is that if there is a commonly accepted expectation of privacy, a warrant is required. The incidence for the case here is that the police were out in public on the streets. Nobody can reasonably believe that a conversation in the street is a private event. Therefore, this case should be closed and in favour of Mr. Kelly. Update: The case I referenced in the beginning of this post is Katz v. United States. I found an audio recording of the case 4 years ago that was in mp3 format. It can be found at http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/198/argumen t.mp3 [oyez.org], along with the transcript at http://www.oyez.org/oyez/audio/198/argument-ra.smi l [oyez.org]

Re:Why not?

[Jarjarthejedi]

"Would you like it if anyone could video tape you doing your job?"

Who cares? Unless I do something really dumb/mean/evil/stupid no one's going to watch it...I don't see why this would be an issue.

Also most jobs that citizens have take place in private property, where videotaping can be banned no matter the state. If I go outside to use my laptop to program I don't see why anyone should be banned from taping me, they can bore themselves if they want.

This happened on public property and involved someone funded by public taxation, why should we treat it the same way we would an event on private property involving someone funded by private funds?

There was a similar case in another state....

[Big Smirk]

The result was that it was O.K. to tape record the police during a traffic stop.

The rational was that since the traffic stop happened in public, there was no expectation of privacy.

Basically, you can record anything that happens in public.

Now PA law might be a bit different.

Re:No

[idesofmarch]

That is an interesting story but has nothing to do with this case. Your case revolves around whether or not police are allowed to place a particular wiretap, which is a completely different matter. Bear in mind, when police tap a phone, neither party to the conversation is aware of the recording. A warrant is required for this, and the government must meet a certain burden of proof to get such a warrant.

The present case involves civilian wiretapping, which is probably completely legal in PA if all parties consent to the recording, but illegal if one or more parties is unaware or does not consent.

We need more people filming the police

[soren100]

We really need more people filming the police.

It seems that police brutality is getting so common now that they are willing to beat members of the media on camera [youtube.com]. (The clip begins with the narrator suggesting that the protestors were "asking for it" by throwing rocks at the police, but they can't spin the footage of their own camerapeople getting beaten up.)

What's worse, is that police now tend to focus on people with cameras , as you can also see in the above video. [mediachannel.org]

The tapes are very helpful in prosecuting police misconduct [cnn.com] , so we neeed more people taping.

Otherwise, the police tend to lie about the incidents [bbc.co.uk], even going so far to claim in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in Britain that 5 different cameras watching the action were all somehow not functioning [wikipedia.org].

In a Missouri case, a teenager was being harassed by the police at a DUI checkpoint for not telling them where he was going -- when he asked why he was being detained, he was told "If you don't stop running your mouth, we're going to find a reason to lock you up tonight" [thenewspaper.com].

Cameras are getting tinier and tinier all the time, and now we have Wi-Fi enabled storage cards. When cameras get so small the cops can't see them, and people can record the content wirelessly to hidden devices, it will be a lot harder for the bad cops to stop the filming of the brutality.

Re:What a Power Trip!

[anagama]

If I give a donut to person A and say "give this to person B", and A does as I request, you would say I didn't give B a donut.

Re:What are you talking about?

[mrchaotica]

I think you're slightly mistaken there. In my transportation engineering class, we were recently taught that the posted speed limit is about 85% of the design speed of the highway (rounded to the nearest 5mph). The design speed is presumably the maximum "safe" speed, although I'm not sure how it's determined. I imagine it's based on some kind of lowest-common-denominator, like a half-blind old lady driving a huge Buick with drum brakes, or a semi, or something. One thing I can tell you it's not though, is that it's not based on a survey of existing traffic speeds -- you have to design the road before the traffic exists! And also it's not so much that "15% percent of people" should be speeding, it's that it should be safe for [100% of] people to go 15% faster than the posted limit.

Re:This isn't federal

[mrchaotica]

States laws unfortunately [vary].

Unfortunately? Are you aware that the separation of powers between the federal and state goverments is designed to prevent tyranny (i.e., it's supposed to be a good thing)?

'Course, between the Civil War and the New Deal that idea was all blown to Hell, but I digress...

Cops are above the law

[gelfling]

Everyone knows that. Here in NC it's a felony to tape cops who come to your own house, for instance if you have a surveillance camera at the front door and the cop comes to your door to talk to you or serve a warrant it is in fact illegal for the homeowner to record that 'interaction' in any way.

Also, the state legislature is working on a bill to exempt all police from all traffic violations at all times if they are in their official vehicles whether they are on duty or pursuing someone or not.

No... implied consent

[Jeff Molby]

By this interpretation of the law anyone with a camcorder at a back yard cookout or public event is committing a felony, unless you have permission from everyone there.

No, if the camcorder is clearly visible, you have the implied consent of of everyone. The law has serious problems, but let's not exaggerate them.

Re:get set, point, fire

[Speedracer1870]

It is my understanding that this audio was only recently "discovered." I can assure you during my military service I NEVER received an order to fire my weapon like that. Maybe "Ready, Aim, Fire" or "Contact [direction], Fire" ...never something like "Get Set! Point! Fire!" They just aren't ligitimate weapons commands. It sounds to me like some agitator wanted to add it and just messed it all up. He may be able to fool someone who has never been on a weapons range, but not anyone who has actually put rounds downrange.

Re:Police are NEVER to be trusted

[jollyreaper]

Mod parent up. Pigs are pigs. While I'm sure there are good cops out there, I've never met them. Cops are the worst when it comes to abusing their own privilege and lord it over the rest of us crims and proles. You know the Bastard Operator from Hell? That same mentality is your average for the pigs. Pigs will cheat, lie, steal, whatever the hell they want to get away with, and it's your word against theirs. They will cover and lie for their fellow pigs. You are at their mercy and have no recourse. The ones I've known personally, even the genial ones, still laugh about the good o' boy system that lets them get out of traffic tickets. One who was a customer in a computer shop I worked at was tickled pink about a bust he was involved in that fit the definition of entrapment to a T.

Never trust a pig. Don't do anything that will give them an excuse to fuck with you, always be polite and respectful, cooperate as much as you can within the letter of the law, but never ever fucking trust 'em.

Re:We need more people filming the police

[DrVomact]

In this country (the USA), the people have a right to peacefully assemble and petition for redress of grievances. If the police attack such a peaceful assembly, does that make it a "riot"? I was a student at Berkeley from 66-70, and I was in quite a few such "assemblies" that didn't remain peaceful. Granted, sometimes it was the demonstrators' fault, but more often than not the police simply decided that we had no right to be there, and started tossing tear gas and beating up people. Did being there with my camera make me guilty of something? I don't think so.

I oppose your assertion that being in a "riot zone" is itself some sort of crime, and that anyone who is there deserves getting the crap kicked out of him. For one thing, it's not always easy to distinguish between a riot and a bunch of people who've been attacked by the police--the two look pretty much the same on TV. Second, some people get caught in genuine riots by mistake--they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Third, journalists have an obligation to cover riots--to make sure that the cops stay within reasonable bounds, and use only the amount of force that's necessary. If you don't think it's necessary for the public to watch the police, then you're pretty naive. If you'd seen some of the things I've seen, your attitude might be different.

Oddly enough, the only time I got beat up by the police was after a riot had taken place and been dispersed. I was walking home from campus, and happened on a bunch of cops and a few people just standing around an intersection. I stopped to chat with someone I recognized to find out what had happened. Big mistake...there were no reporters present. I heard one of the cops say, "OK, let's get 'em!"--and the next thing I knew people were running around screaming, being surrounded by cops and methodically clubbed. I remember lying on the ground with some cop poking at my nuts thinking, "Oh my god, they're going to arrest me and my parents will freak!". They didn't break anything, but I was one massive bruise the next day, and my left knee wasn't the same for about a year. Now if we'd only had cellphone cameras in the 60s...

Re:yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

what sounds more likely?

1. police have infiltrated a vast number of groups and during large gatherings they try to stir up the groups through a number of methods with the end function being a propaganda coup and blow to the image of these groups or;

2. there are violent arseholes among protestors and so-called progressives e.g. the black bloc or "the terror" during revolutionary france.

Number one seems more likely, since we already know for a fact that police have done this. Do some research on groups like the black panthers before making condescending comments.

Re:What a Power Trip!

[ealar dlanvuli]

I've had serious dealings with the police. Your advice is half correct.

You should obviously be respectful, and work to resolve the investigation (assuming your innocent as I always have been). However, never ever ever obey a command by an officer unless (1) you are under arrest or (2) he cites you as being presently dangerous.

Police officers can not issue private citizens commands unless they fear immediate danger to public saftey. They can however ask for your permission and cooperation, which you should grant for most non-objectionable requests.

You can always, at any time, ask for the identification of a police officer. You can ask if they bevieve they have probably cause for a request, and what it is. You can ask if they believe you to be a immediate danger to public saftey. You can, and should regularly, ask if you are under arrest. Until you are under arrest you are not compelled to follow orders by the police.

3sat