Is Videotaping the Police a Felony? 622
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.'"
"without their consent" (Score:3, Interesting)
Note it doesn't say "without notification," it says "without consent." Important difference.
Re:Video maybe not (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It certainly shouldn't be... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pure bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a key to doing this. you either need to outnumber the cops, be "live" and look like a film crew as a cop will not DARE to even touch a reporter or camera guy that is on the air live, or do it clandestine.
I have resorted to buying and using a cheap Canon HV20 camcorder with a canon shotgun on the top in a modified bag to shoot police footage of an arrest or other activities that the news likes to pay for. Why? because I have been assaulted by police on several occasions. It's better to be "invisible" while recording them (window glass camera mounts work great at long zoom) than to anger the police and have them accidentally break your camera or confiscate it and then it magically never get's put into evidence nor a report filed.
yes I have had that happen. Now I do it invisible, they dont know I am recording and the news stations around here still accept my video (even more so now it's HD, no other freelance guys in town do it in HD)
I have never met a cop that was courteous or honest when I had a camera on them. Every single one of them got hostile and either threatened me or assaulted me. And I was always out of their way (100 feet or more). others might have had better experiences, I hope one day I will, and i live in a smallish town and shoot in that town and the nearby medium town.
Re:Where have I seen laws like this before? (Score:5, Interesting)
Potential terrorist? Hardly... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is bullshit. It's clear that this is an abuse of power to stop people from being able to document further abuses of power. It's meant to also have a chilling effect and prevent others from doing the same.
Remember, one of the stated definitions of "terrorist" by the current administration is people who:
are Defenders of the Constitution
reference the constitution and the bill of rights
are property rights advocates
are loners
this is from an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force pamphlet which you can see here:
http://www.welfarestate.com/pamphlet/ [welfarestate.com]
If a cop is doing his or her job, he or she should be proud to be videotaped.
Now if someone was following a cop all day with a videocam for no good reason, I can see where that could maybe be an issue - but it should be fine to videotape a traffic stop on a public street, especially if you are the one being stopped.
The fascism keeps creeping.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:understandable... (Score:3, Interesting)
Public Peace officers in China are a refreshing experience compared to police in the USA. Suppose you get in an altercation in China. Most of the time the public peace officers will show up, try to find out what happened, reason with the two sides, decide one side was wrong, and encourage the party that was wrong to make a private settlement. Nobody gets arrested or fingerprinted or put into the legal 'system'. In this respect the average "Public Peace" officers in China are very much like Andy Griffith was in Mayberry, NC.
The common misconception that China is a police state is in reality a myth. China has a population of over 1,500 Million people. For readers in the USA, think of multiplying the number of people in your workplace or in Starbucks by FIVE. That is how crowded it is over here. Spying on that many people is not manageable. China does not have the infrastructure to have that many people in the system. In China, as long as you dont participate in organized government protests the police by and for the most part leave the average person alone.
The United States has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's incarcerated population. We rank first in the world in locking up our fellow citizens. A U.S. Justice Department report released on November 30, 2006 showed that a record 7 million people - or one in every 32 American adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole at the end of 2005. Of the total, 2.2 million were in prison or jail in the USA. More people are behind bars in the United States than in any other country. China ranks second with 1.5 million prisoners, followed by Russia with 870,000. But China has a population five times the size of the United States, so from a percentage standpoint Chinas incarceration rate is less than 1/7 of the USA and the fraction of people in the 'system' is even smaller.
That is not to say that police in China never act contrary to the law. There are bad eggs in every batch. But in the situation described in this case the chance of the photographer getting locked up for filming a traffic stop would be extremely remote in China. Traffic Police in China would probably just smile and wave to the camera.
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Interesting)
I asked the security department at the US Embassy in Manila for permission to take photos across the street on a public sidewalk -- on Philippine soil -- just so they would know who I was and could clear me in advance. The Philippine constitution also has freedom of speech and the press, and the embassy security officer told me there was no law he knew of (US or Philippine) against me taking photos. The embassy had no procedure to for me to get authorization or clearance from them.
However, he made it very clear that if I did so, he would have the Philippine National Police to detain, hold, and interrogate me, after which they would detain, hold, and interrogate me. Again, this detention would be for conduct they don't consider unlawful, and I openly disclosed to them. I'm also a U.S. citizen, for what that's worth, and I'm a professional photographer. Like the incident in the article, this is presumably a civil rights violation.
The problem is that even if you prevail, the experience chills freedom of the press. It makes exercising one's rights unnecessarily costly and burdensome. People will reasonably have to weigh exercising their rights against harassment, legal or not, by those who neither understand nor respect the rights of others to make recordings in public places.
There have been protests outside the U.S. embassy in Manila, newsworthy events. It is lawful to photograph them, but military, police, private security guards, shop owners, or just the general public might harass or detain you based on ignorance of the legal right and logical entitlement to take photos in public places.
When it was google street views, many people on slashdot labeled it invasion of privacy. Now that the police are saying they, too, don't want to be recorded in public, it's perhaps more relatable that anyone can record anything in public, as once you start making exceptions, freedom of the press is no longer a right. I always assumed this is why freedom of the press applies equally to all citizens, not just those the government decides are entitled to that right.
Re:This isn't federal (Score:3, Interesting)
However: I would expect a police officer acting on public grounds would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. So while the police can arrest anybody for anything, fortunately they're ultimately not the decision makers, and a judge will hopefully sort this all out. Or maybe I have too much faith in the system
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a model for the law: http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/nma-zone.html [ibiblio.org]
This is a decent explanation: http://www.kentcountyroads.net/policies-speedlimi
From the Kent County information:
Re:If they have nothing to hide .... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:2, Interesting)
By the videographer's refusal to obey the officer, it appears the videographer is looking for a confrontation, and he got it. I am hard pressed to think the officer's demand to move as illegal, but he should have been able to convey WHY it was illegal. Let me try...
Filming/photographing military equipment or near a military installation, as shown in the TV report posted on uTube, is generally illegal. There's usually signs posted on the base perimeter to that effect. I suspect the officer may have been ex-military, because his response was a bit too emotional.
Also, I noticed the railroad tracks. I can attest that filming near a rail line is going to attract unwanted attention even if it's legal.
My response is predicated on two things: A 30 year association with the military for which I am extremely grateful, and as 35+ year railroad videographer/photographer. Someone filming near both a military installation and rail line will not find themselves on the receiving end of the city's Good Citizen Award.
I find this offensive. I work with PD frequently. (Score:5, Interesting)
I know many officers. Some are good, some are not good. Most are somewhere in the middle. The youngest, smallest ones have in my experience been the ones closer to the stereotype. I refer to these as "25 year olds with their first mirrored shades and a gun" and are dangerous to themselves as much as the public they insult. Most though, grow up and become good natured and humble just like we all try to.
Cops are people, and suffer the same foibles as the rest of us. For them, like all others, power is a drug to be taken in small doses.
When you give a little man a little power, you create a big problem.
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Interesting)
On a related note, don't go to Disney World! Anyone can video tape you there, while you're on vacation, which I personally feel is alot more private than my job.
tip of the iceberg (Score:1, Interesting)
They are the brainwashed mouth breathing steroid addicted psychopathic stepchildren of the foreign corporate wars mercenaries. That's right, the same mentality (and now a lot of the same "people", that's the number one recruit for the pig forces, ex military with combat experience) that brought you abu ghraib and the genocide in Fallujah is bringing you officer friendly and the local "anti terrorist" SWAT teams, complete with full auto, silencers, and armored vehicles. Police follow orders, orders come down from the top to always protect the status quo and the power brokers.
Look back in history, WHEN have cops been on the right side when it came to civil or human rights? NEVER, NOT ONE TIME YET, they have always fought against the people on orders from the powerful, once all is said and done. Racial discrimination was wrong, yet every time some cop was ordered to protect the status quo of racial discrimination-they did so, violently.
The nam war was based on total lies, tonkin gulf never happened, and the draft that was illegally continued after WW2 and used to send young kids off to fight in corporate wars for profit and murder millions was obviously unconstitutional and illegal and morally bankrupt, yet every single time the cops protected the status quo power brokers against the people.
Now we have them enforcing so called "free speech zones" (hello, can ANY cop even READ and comprehend at a third grade level?? the Bill of inalienable rights, ever hear of it??) and arresting folks with cameras in a public place? What do you expect from paid mercenaries? That's their mercenary gig, follow orders from the rich and powerful, and now make sure there is never any evidence that might be used against them. Just call it "security". Mumble the word "terrorism". Anything they do is jow "right, legal, lawful". Anything..
YOU can get pulled over for speeding or blocking traffic, the ultra rich and powerful dudes in government and their corporate string pullers get POLICE ESCORTS and YOU have to make way to let them by. Get it yet? A lot of -places it is "illegal" for you to be armed for self protection, but some rich asshole like that fat pig mayor in new jerk city, who says you can't protect yourself and his pig mercenaries would arrest you for it, has round the clock armed 24/7 protection. See it yet? See how it works? Some group of transnational disloyal corporate execs can get together and scheme which new set of people will be losing their jobs and incomes and get full complete pig protection at their "trade conferences", but people trying to protest against that are "terrorists" now "radical extremsists" who's groups "need to be infiltrated to gather intelligence". The pigs don't care, because they know THEY will get their mercenary blood money paycheck from their corporate masters even when YOURS goes kaput. See how that works? And YOU pay for that, even if your job gets jobjacked, you will still have to pay your "property taxes" so that they can pay the pigs to keep you in thralldom. If the cops were really for the people, they would march in and arrest those WTO conmen traitors-but they sure don't, do they?
We just had that article the other day where the MAFIAA goons hired cops to act as official raid people. Can YOU go hire cops and just raid some of the MAFIAA offices looking for evidence of industry collusion and price fixing and payola, which we know go on?
Cops are disgusting mercenaries. That they occasionally help out some poor schmuck in a pickle is barely 1% of their normal function (I'll grant that 1%, but no more, not any longer), and even that 1% is fading fast now. They could give crap one if you get robbed or mugged, exploited or hoodwinked by corporate cons, just boring paperwork to them.
The US is now a
Re:We need more people filming the police (Score:5, Interesting)
These are people who pretend to be part of [rawstory.com] the targeted group [reason.com] and commit acts of violence [indybay.org] and incite others [israelinsider.com] to commit acts of violence in order to justify the violent police responce to follow.
Even if all that fails, the police can still lie and say that they were defending themselves, as the National Guard did at Kent State. [wikipedia.org] They shot and killed four students, claiming that someone fired on them, when the order "Right here! Get Set! Point! Fire!" was recorded on an audiotape. [guardian.co.uk]
All of this makes it that much more important that the events be recorded so everyone can see the truth of the matter.
Re:We need more people filming the police (Score:5, Interesting)
Couldn't agree more. In a more perfect world, competent and conscientious (read, honest) peace officers should not fear being filmed.
Sadly, I can relate to a police office's fear of being filmed. While I think it smacks of dishonesty or abuse of power at best (police officers objecting to being filmed/photographed)... Can anyone refute the contention that most law is so nebulous (open to a huge range of judicial interpretation and/or special interest manipulation) it's not impossible (or even unlikely) police officers could be sued (and be found guilty of misconduct) for entirely legitimate police conduct. If a burglar can effectively sue a home owner for bodily injury suffered why burglarizing said home, couldn't a police officer loose a civil suit for enforcing the law in a manner most of us would consider appropriate.
All that aside, I still believe there should be a federal statute 100% sanctioning a civilian legal right to film police conduct (excepting situations where filming poses an obvious and immediate risk to officers or others).
Police are NEVER to be trusted (Score:5, Interesting)
I was quite cooperative, told them any meds I was taking (none of which would have caused impairment -- had been taking them for long time). On the side of the road, on rough gravel and on a hill side, they had me trying to walk the straight line in the mid-heeled sandals that, at best, might be comfortable to walk in, but not pirouette on an incline and rough gravel. So they decided to arrest me. Then they refused to allow me to get a jacket, sweater, or any warmer clothes. Even lied to me, saying they'd get my bag (they didn't) so I could put on a jacket. They then took me downtown and my car was towed. The breathalyser on the scene was negative, but that wouldn't have showed effects of other drugs. Downtown they took a pee test AND a blood test (both, a week or two later came back negative). But meanwhile, they locked me up for 8 hours to "sober up" (since they couldn't get the blood and urine tests back for a few to several days). Locked up, down in basement, where it was 65 degrees -- and I was dressed for 80's and sunny.
It cost me $40 for a taxi ride at midnight to the lot where they had towed my car where I had to pay over $200 for an after-hours "release". I put the spare on the car in 10 minutes and was on way home. Then I had to deal with a DUI charge that I wasn't guilty of. I had to hire a lawyer to deal with the court issues, since otherwise, they'd want me to be in court 45 miles away at 8am to enter my plea. The lawyer was able to talk to the DA's office the morning of the trial. They found nothing in my blood other than the 'scripts I'd told them about and they decided to drop the charges. They refused to return my prescriptions -- and ran me around in circles trying to get them from the police -- who eventually refused because, they claimed, they were not doctors and it would be illegal for them to return my prescriptions as they were not doctors -- I'd need a court order.
At this point I was out $250 for the night I had to get home from jail and another $1200 down to the lawyer. The court order to return my meds would have cost, minimum, another $800-1000, so gave up that idea and just went into the pharmacy for refills a bit early.
So I'm out $1500 due to some cop thinking my "flat tire" causing steering problems was me being "DUI" -- no recourse to get the money. I found out 3-4 years later (!!!) when I went to get insurance on a new car, that the cop at the scene had reported it to the DMV as an accident. The asshole cop didn't even check to see if my car had any scratches on it -- and the tire had no side-wall damage (as would be the case if I brushed against the center divide). Nevertheless the idiot recorded it as an accident which caused me to have to do some explaining to my insurance company to supposedly tell them about my "accident". I didn't know anything about an acc
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:4, Interesting)
You didn't mention what you were photographing, and in which direction. Let's face it, the Philippines isn't the most stable country in the world (my dad was a classmate of Joseph Estrada, also many members of my family were denied travel privileges under Marcos' regime because my grandfather was a known dissident), and there's quite a lot of terrorism that happens there, not to mention the frequent incidence of domestic unrest. Even back in 1999, we'd already stopped an Al-Qaeda plot that was based in the Philippines (The Bojinka Plot [wikipedia.org]).
As a professional photographer who clearly has world travel experience, you should know better than to ask officials if taking pictures is OK, unless its absolutely necessary to get the shot. Sure, what the security personnel told you is a civil rights violation, but that's not going to do you much good. Presumably it wasn't an actual US Marine who told you this (the Marines probably know better than to answer such a question--they'd kick it up to a commander), so its entirely possible that the person who told you this simply didn't know what the hell they were talking about and was just jerking your chain. Notwithstanding that, as a professional photographer who clearly spent a lot of money to get to the other side of the globe to get some good pictures, maybe you want to avoid doing things that prevent you from getting the pictures in the first place.
The freedom of the press is a natural right. It cannot be taken away, only infringed upon.
Re:We need more people filming the police (Score:4, Interesting)
There will be a day, 10 or 20 years from now, when there will be no privacy left. Cameras will be so cheap and plentiful and ubiquitous that, just as in Diamond Age, even the insides of homes and offices will be on the internet. I consider this the same mixed blessing as the invention of guns, specifically cartridge guns. They level the playing field. It makes it incredibly harder for the rich to control the poor, for the aristocracy to control the peasants. As much as I dislike the idea of someone watching me take a dump, the reality is that very few people would want to. Faced with zillions of cameras to choose from, the vast majority will watch the rich and powerful rather then me. Paris Hilton will certainly have a ton of watchers, but there will also be watchers for Donald Trump and George Bush and the local mayor and police chief and power brokers.
Police are already backing down from personally deciding to be judge, jury and executioner on the spur of the moment. It's going to get better. I don't like losing my privacy, but I think the tradeoff is worth it.
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:3, Interesting)
The military just like every other government organisation better get over the loss of privacy, it is high time that secrets between the government and the public are dismantled. All they do nowadays is hide misbehaviour, corruption, abuse, generally a whole range of acts unbecoming any kind of honest citizen.
A whole range of secrets over the past decade, have been not been about protecting anybody but the corrupt.
In most countries filming a military base from outside is no problem at all, telephoto or not, doing it whilst on the base does put you under the temporary control of the military (but as a civilian the military can only hold you temporarily until they pass you over to the civilian authorities) but outside of the base the military can GGF and adhere to civilian law.
Some countries have given their 'authorities' entirely to much authority and should really make some genuine efforts to limit their 'authorities' excesses be they 'military' or 'civilian' and force them to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the law and not just allow them to become a law unto themselves.
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We need more people filming the police (Score:3, Interesting)
It happens more often then you'd think.
Re:We need more people filming the police (Score:2, Interesting)
If someone has forcefully entered your house and they don't belong there, you're free to fire on them. On the advice of my sister, a practicing lawyer, any Oregonian would have nothing to fear by killing a burglar that entered their home. If you went to court at all, (which you wouldn't; but say the burglar's family is rich [oddly enough] and they sue) you would get off by saying something to the effect of, "I didn't know who they were, and I thought they might harm me and/or my family."
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:3, Interesting)
A legal order issued by police should be followed. One may ask: What about an illegal order? The short answer is: no. You do not have to follow an illegal order. However, the legality may be disputed and until the question is resolved, expect the police to assume that they are right, and arrest you for not following the order.
Example 1: consider an order that would physicaly endanger yourself or another human being (say kick or punch another protester , eat or drink something harmful etc.) that order you would be very right to disobey. (You will be arrested and hopefully cleared and the cop(s) involved prosecuted.)
Example 2: consider that you are ordered to hand over the keys to your car, though there is no search warrant and probable cause (note that this latter may be argued in court for hours, while the officer and you has seconds to decide), or that you turn of your camera or cell phone without any law asking you to do so. If you disobey you will be arrested, confined and probably not charged and soon released.
Note that in example 2 you may not even win a false arrest charge, since the arrest was for disobeying a direct police order. I guess that a good lawyer could show that the arrest was solely based on the illegal police request to begin with; the police will try to claim they also felt threatened by your conduct (nebulous) etc., litigating this will not worth your time and money. The difference with example 1 is the scope, litigating that one will be (hopefully) done by the DA and the false arrest will be the least of problems of the officer(s) in question.
Also consider, what will happen in example 2. If you do not hand over your car keys, they may also search your person, or if the car opens with a number code say or you throw the key into the nearest gutter, then just force the car open causing damage. Same for the camera. Notice that in the story the videographer followed the order and turned off the device. (It was very funny though how the officer tried and could not figure out the camera off switch.) The officer was correct in pointing out that the camera could get damaged if they have to turn it off.
So what should you do in situations like this (example 2)? First, note that the videographer may have achieved his goal: a youtube video and even a spot on TV.
In the camera case turn off the camera. I would say you have about 10 seconds to do this, and may say while the tape running that you contest/dispute the legality of the order, but that you will obey. Once the camera turned off, ask for the officers identification (write it down as an old fashioned journalist using pen and paper) ask what law he was intending to enforce. Ask clarification on where and when you can resume taping. Hand over the legal material describing your position.
In an ideal world the officer will be impressed by you following his order and will stop yelling at you. He will consider what you said and showed him. Then he either allows you continue taping or will say (if he is clever) that he follows the instructions of his superiors on this matter. At this point you ask for his superior's contact, and try to get an interview and get your fame that way.
In the car example you take your keys out and offer opening the car yourself while also clearly stating that you do not consent to the search. Make sure you and the officer are both in the visible range of the camera installed in the officer's car when you say that you do not consent.
Do not look for confrontation with a police officer. When stopped, turn off the radio/music, remove your sunglasses, keep your hand on the wheel. Show respect.
I had no real serious dealings with police, but had traffic stops. (I got warnings for speeding in both cases.) The officer asked why I was speeding, was there a medical or other emergency! That impressed
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:3, Interesting)
In my hometown, a cop got his car stuck in the mud. Someone took a picture of it, thinking it was funny.
The cop radios his friend, who pulls over the picture taker, and takes the camera...
From the below linked article: "The victim John Bell says Officer Devore threatened him. The lawsuit claims the officer said he'll "give Bell until the count of three to hand over the camera or he'll make his life "a living hell." "
Full story from the local news, WKYC [wkyc.com]
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:3, Interesting)
You're absolutely right. I'd like to offer another perspective. Mind you, I really hate authority figures, and I hate the institution of traffic cops as a waste of resources (and I therefore disagree that police are a societal necessity)... however, we have to consider the psychology of law enforcement. This is a group of people who almost uniformly interact only with criminals (in the broadest sense of the term). They're trained to be suspicious and domineering. The are authoritarian, both by training and more generally by nature. There's a lot of violence in their work, in training, in equipment, and in the exercise of their duties. They are largely convinced that they're the Good Guys, and so if someone opposes them then that person is, by definition, a Bad Guy. And if my father is any reasonable stick to measure cops in general by, then they're likely to have the opinion that The System lets off criminals on technicalities (undoing all of the hard work they've done), and that "societies deserve the police that they get" (the theory that police adapt their behavior to the environment in which they work).
So, I tend to not think of police as corrupt, per se, but rather as culture that sees itself as an embattled clan, a cadre of brothers, who have the authority of God on their side and, therefore, the Right. As such, they'll tend to defend each other over the lawless pinko anarchists. In other words, they're just defensive, and a lot of wrong gets done because of this.
--- SER
Re:get set, point, fire (Score:3, Interesting)
His statement could allow for some inbred officer panicking and shooting himself and leading to student being shot. I don't think he touch on the method or intent just that supposed command to fire was off quite a bit. And you don't have to be in the military to know what the firing commands were 40-60 years ago. The movies use real people who served in real wars and real military operations. Surely we would have heard that terminology somewhere from someone other then this source. Up until the 70's early 80's a movie star got goody points with the public for serving in the military and acting like he was proud of it. I don't think it would have been an oversight if it wasn't mentioned in any major movie.
Now, I agree with your assessment on the practical reasons. I grew up in ohio not too far from Kent state. I have gone there for Halloween parties and to hang out with high school buddies who went to college there. This is the actual second time I have heard of the command to fire supposedly being said like that. And these two instances are the only two time I have heard someone was ordered to be fired on. The story around campus and from a history teacher was that someone though a janitor with a broom on a roof of a distant building was a person with a gun and when that soldier reacted, it started a chain reaction that ended up with 4 dead in Ohio. That has been the official story except the janitor was a sniper and they were shooting tear gas into the crowds, the by standers who weren't part of the demonstration back this up.
There were a lot of students and teachers who weren't part of the demonstrations watching from the buildings. Some of those student became teachers and one of them was my 8th grade history teacher who was the influence of several friends who attended Kent state university. Her recount as a student was the first I heard of it outside the the song 4 dead in Ohio. When she pulled out her own pictures of the event and passed them around class, she told us stories about how to get teargas out of your cloths and what soap to use to deaden the sting. We got one hell of a feeling about how real it was and a far more vivid lessen then a book lesson would give.