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.'"
What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I guess if you want to videotape the police, you'd better declare yourself an independent journalist and hope the judge values our freedom of the press?
This is both shocking & amazing on so many levels. I can think of several ways to look at this that make it hilariously backwards. The cops are on duty, their income is supplied by individuals like this man. As far as I'm aware, employers are allowed to videotape their employers.
I've met good policemen and I've met pigs. These instances sound like a pig on a power trip. Illegal wiretapping, yeah right! It has a sound function so he's wiretapping? Everything just sounds so ridiculous. If it happens in public, it's public domain. This is just obvious abuse of those they are supposed to protect.
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Informative)
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]
We need more people filming the police (Score:5, Informative)
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: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).
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:get set, point, fire (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is my understanding that this audio was only recently "discovered."
Why are you knee-jerk talking the National Guard's side? Not one NG member was injured in any way. Not one witness present, except the NG, claims anyone fired at the NG. There is video, audio, and numerous photographs of the incident and not one shows any protester holding or firing a firearm. There is unanimity from those present, even some of the NG members, that the killing were unprovoked.
And frankly, what makes you think its EVER acceptable under ANY circumstances to fire rifles into an unarmed crowd?
Re: (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
Re:We need more people filming the police (Score:4, Insightful)
Standing in a riot zone bolsters the mob by your presence. It's called mob mentality. If the mob hurts someone, and you're part of the mob, you are partly responsible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It happens more often then you'd think.
Re:We need more people filming the police (Score:5, Informative)
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:What a Power Trip! (Score:4, Funny)
Cohesion? <Inigo>I do not think that word means what you think it means.</Inigo>
Cohesion is how much stuff tends to stick to other stuff of the same type. Unless there's a meaning of which I am unaware, it's not remotely illegal.
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
??? Evidence?
American cops seem worse than those in many other places. Better than the worst places, but hardly the best, as you imply.
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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 y
Re: (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 secr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, this is a common misconception. Their income is supplied by the police department, which is budgeted for by the local government, which is funded by taxpayers like this man.
It's equally true that the police enforce the laws which protect my property, my life, and my job, but I wouldn't dare to argue that this implies that my income is supplied by police officers.
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
* this is what I write in the memo field of any check I write for the purpose of paying taxes.
Re:What a Power Trip! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll second that
Re: (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
Re: Sorry, but you make no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, videotaping or photography has nothing to do with this case. The issue is audio recording.
Third, you are the officer's employer in a very indirect sense at best. You have no actual power over him or her. You have handed that over to your government, and you can only effect a change through your government. Fourth, employers do not have an unqualified right to videotape their employees. Fifth, you bring up public domain? This is not a copyright case. I do know what you mean though, and while it is true that you have no expectation of privacy in public with regard to the way you are viewed (since you can be seen from far away), the same cannot be said about what you say. Sound only carries so far, and it is not unreasonable to expect privacy with regard to what you say.
To be clear, I do not believe the officer had an expectation of privacy with regard to what he said, but the PA legislature has deemed the wiretapping law to be a good one, so they are the ones to blame.
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: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: (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:Where have I seen laws like this before? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have never ever, ever met a good policeperson. Not even mediocre. 90% of America also shares this sentiment. (the other 10% being the most wealthy)
That sounds silly and made up. Most of our experience with policemen come when we're pulled over for speeding or some other traffic infraction. It's happened to me probably ten times in my life. Never once have I had a problem in any of the four states I was pulled over. In each case, the policeman was professional and polite. These incidents happened from the year I got my driver's license at 16 years old and was driving a beat up, 13+ year old Mustang, in another case driving a kind of old Honda Accord with a friend, another time when I was along with two other friends driving an early model Hyundai, and another time driving a Geo Storm. And yet another time when a friend and I decided to sleep in that same Hyundai in a shopping center parking lot in the L.A. area rather than spending money on a hotel; in retrospect, that probably looked very suspicious. And with the possible exception of the Geo Storm (which was new and pretty at the time), none of the cars gave an impression of me/us being anywhere near wealthy. And when we were in other states, there was definitely no way the policeman knew by the address on my driver's license that it was a upper middle-class neighborhood. But I've always been treated well.
I think how a policeman behaves has a lot more to do with the demeanor of the person that he is dealing with. If you're an ass, don't expect stellar treatment. Granted, being an ass isn't an excuse for them to treat you poorly, but there's no reason to be an ass to start with. Just be a polite human being and I bet you find that the police do the same. That's been my experience, anyway.
On the other hand, maybe you're right. Maybe 90% of the population does agree with you because 90% of the population do tend to be asses and then wonder why they "don't get no respect."
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:I find this offensive. I work with PD frequentl (Score:3, Insightful)
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 are you talking about? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a few reasons why.
First, what kind of person wants to become a cop? The job itself sucks -- it's incredibly dull for 95% of the time (cruising around looking for someone to ticket, pointing speed guns at people, filling out endless paperwork, etc) and is dangerous the other 5% of the time. It does not pay all that well (here in Atlanta, you start at about 35k). You get decent benefits, I guess, but I doubt anyone goes into a career just for that. A sense of civic duty is possibly a motive, but that quickly fades for most people when they realize that busting people for expired tags and other petty crap, which is the bulk of a beat cop's work, ain't exactly cleaning up the mean streets.
What are we left with? What possible benefit could there be to this job?
Power.
Make no mistake that power is the single most attractive and established benefit to police work. Therefore, most people -- not all -- who pursue this career are, surprise, power hungry animals. Combined with the abysmally low standards for entry (in most jurisdictions any schmuck with a GED who can do 25 pushups can get the job) and you've got a police force composed largely of power-tripping twits on the lower end of the intelligence scale. Dont' forget that cops are not hired for their brains. They are essentially the muscle of the state and that's all the state cares about.
Next we have all the silly laws the cops are told to enforce. This is not directly the cop's fault, of course, but they did choose this job and stay in it. Moreover, I hold the cops accountable for how selective they are in their enforcement. Partially related to the local legislature, traffic cops in particular are far more interested in pursuing "crimes" that result in profit for the state than they are about public safety. They're happy to pull you over and cite you for something like an expired tag (you monster, you!) or whatever inane non-moving violation, but when it comes to the idiot swerving through traffic or the jackass going 20mph below the limit they're nowhere to be found, or drive right by.
A cop is also generally not held accountable for his or her actions. Oh, sure, in extreme cases, they might receive a slap on the wrist in the form of "administrative leave" which amounts to a week of paid vacation, but in general, they can do whatever the hell they want and let the court sort it out later. I hate anecdotal evidence, but I'll offer the example of myself, arrested in 2000 for "terrorist activities". I lost a job thanks to that, not to mention the 3000 dollars I had to front for the 17k bond, the legal hassle, and so forth. When it finally got to the arraignment the DA took one look at the cop's notes, saw that the cop had absolutely no reason to think I was up to no good, and dismissed the charges right then and there in the hallway.
Do you think anything happened to Mister Officer?
This is all too common. Most cases are not as extreme as mine, but cops routinely pull people over just to be jerks, bark orders when they have no legal authority (but know people will comply because, well, it's a cop), and otherwise abuse their power.
The citizenry has almost no recourse, either. Suing for false arrest is almost never successful -- it's not like the system hasn't built in protection for that. And that's assuming you were arrested, and not just harrassed with some bullshit ticket. A cop's charge against you can make your life a living hell and cost you considerable money and you have no way to defend yourself -- he says you ran a red light, you say you didn't, and who is the judge going to believe?
Our legal system is so constructed that no one really watches the watchers -- no one who can do anything about it, anyway. There's a reason we all get nervous when a cop is behind us in traffic, even when we know we're not doing anything wrong.
We should not be nervous around the people we are paying to protect us. There is something wrong when that's the case.
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (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-speedlimit
From the Kent County inform
I love laws like this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I love laws like this... (Score:4, Funny)
We citizens of the Homeland are in constant danger. Terrorists brazenly roam the countryside, nuking preschools when we least expect it.
How do you expect the police to do their job when they are constantly hogtied with red tape, unable to perform a little simple extrajudicial torture without spending huge amounts of time and money to ship the detainee overseas?
The answer: they cannot.
We should cheer when a terrorist-sympathizer photographer is arrested. That's one less evildoer threatening our benevolent overseers' iron hand, and one less distraction from our nation's righteous course.
Kind of like another case (Score:5, Informative)
If they have nothing to hide .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that the only REAL way to watch the watchmen?
Re:If they have nothing to hide .... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not believe it is illegal to videotape police from a lawful position, while the police are engaged in police activity (if you're in an unlawful position - e.g. committing a crime - your rights are always different to some degree). It remains to be seen whether the courts agree with me.
However, if your argument is going to be "if they've got nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind", then you cannot complain when the police themselves turn that argument around
Re:If they have nothing to hide .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If they have nothing to hide .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Off-duty police officers have the rights as anyone else.
On-duty, those rights are restricted. Police officers and other public servants do not have an expectation of privacy while carrying out their duties. Why do police officers have name tags and numbered badges? To identify them both so that they can carry out their duties and so that they can be identified while carrying out their duties.
The police have a lot more "power" than the average citizen. I can't tell a random person on the street to move along. I can't ask people for their ID's. I can't hit or shoot people because they fail to comply with my instructions.
I'm sorry that you think that restricting the power of public servants is somehow restricting their human rights. It is not and it is a necessary and fundamental principle for a free society.
Re:If they have nothing to hide .... (Score:5, Insightful)
No its not. They're public agents. Public agents are granted special powers over private citizens to be able to perform their duties. In the interests of preventing abuse of those special powers, public agents should not expect the same level of privacy (esp. in the process of using those powers) as private citizens gets.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit! I am a CITIZEN of this nation endowed with certain inalienable rights. The cops are agents of the GOVERNMENT which has only those powers explicitly granted to it.
Who Guards The Guardians (Score:5, Informative)
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
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.
Each? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 funde
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The news, don't they film crowds in public places?
Traffic Cams?
Is it only the audio part that is supposed to be illegal?
Mute your video camera I guess.
all the best,
drew
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
-GameMaster
Couple Who Catch Cop Speeding Could Face Charges (Score:2, Informative)
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."
"without their consent" (Score:3, Interesting)
Note it doesn't say "without notification," it says "without consent." Important difference.
Video maybe not (Score:2, Informative)
Other states, like AZ, are one party states. This means that only a single person in a conversation
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pigs. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not Likely (Score:2)
This is more likely to get the law thrown out then get this guy put in prison. It is unreasonably broad for this officer to be applying this law in this way.
It certainly shouldn't be... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent."
Okay...what? Why is this illegal? I mean, I can see some potential for abuse, recording someone saying something and using it to incriminate them etc. But seriously, if you say it aloud to someone they can report that you say it in court (presumably without hearsay as, as far as I know, that only applies to stating facts you heard from someone else, not what someone else said. As in I can say "Billy said..." in court but not "I know that because Billy said so")
I mean, I'm sure this law is great for privacy freaks, but it just seems off. If you're going to say something to me why don't I have the right to record it? My brain's already doing that, what's wrong with having a more accurate representation of it? You'd prefer I improperly remember you saying "I'm gonna blow them up!" and not have the recording that actually says "He's gonna blow them up?" I wouldn't mind people recording my conversations, why would you ever say anything you wouldn't want recorded to another human being with a memory?
Just seems like an off law to me. The case itself, not so much. If it's illegal there, no matter how off that law may be, then he should be arrested. However I'd hope he could get off with only a fine due to the extreme obscurity and horrible naming policy (really, they're supposed to know that videotaping someone talking is wiretapping?).
Re:It certainly shouldn't be... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It certainly shouldn't be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Conversations with your wife on the bus or at the park do not. You could have an expectation of privacy, but not a very reasonable one at that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But if it's on public... (Score:2)
Right?
And what would you call such a show? (Score:3, Funny)
The bad argument... (Score:5, Funny)
Who's watching Big Brother??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course we have an executive branch which has put itself above the law in the name of terrorism and freedumb(sic)....
and a legislature which does not have the will to fix our healthcare crisis because they have their own healthcare system which isolates them from the f'd up system the rest of us are dealing with.....
There must be literally HUNDREDS of cases since Rodney King in which cops (especially LA cops) have been caught doing bad, abusive and unconstitutional things to perps -er citizens.
There should be no right of public officials to privacy while they conduct the tasks that they are allegedly performing on our behalf.
Cameras and things like open government sessions are about the accountability which is becoming rarer in this society.
LET THE SUNSHINE IN (ie. 'sunshine' laws)
I'm just sayin'
Pure bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, police officers ought to be required by law to wear pickups that record ALL sound and a snapshot every 10 seconds while they are on duty. Ideally, said recordings would also be instantly transmitted to a secured location which nobody in their headquarters has access to for archival purposes.
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.
Public locations == not private (for cops either) (Score:2)
This is ludicrous. It's a public location, there is no expectation of privacy.
And that's on top of the assumption of these ... "pigs" is fair, here ... that they should be immune to citizen oversight. There's no way that *SEVEN* *EXTRA* *COPS* were needed to arrest him.
So, the video part, not the audio, is OK? (Score:2)
I'm also curious to know whether the subject, as a passenger in the vehicle, would be considered a party to the conversation (something that some wiretapping statutes take into account).
What ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't believe there was criminal intent, why the fuck was he arrested & why should he plead guilty to a lessor charge ?
Sue the fuckers !
Serious reform efforts (Score:2)
Next time, they'll have solid law to prosecute any SOB who films them at work and the recordings (being illegally obtained) won't be usable in court.
No (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Reasonable Expectations (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, the fact that there is a 'state offical' involved too, it makes things much more complex. There is no black and white 'covers all situations' answer here.
Nothing to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that the crap the authorities come back with when people complain about CCTV cameras?
I'm guessing the COPS were videotaping the arrest with a car camera, if so, THEY have already CONSENTED
to having their actions recorded while on the job.
They are employees of the public going about public business IN PUBLIC. They damn well better be able to be recorded
or we are in serious trouble.
ACLU (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, videotaping The Police is illegal (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, you meant actual cops? Never mind.
understandable... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Such a reach (Score:5, Insightful)
The officer probably didn't know of the wiretap law either, and the DA was fortunate to find it, or they'd be even worse off than they are now. Arrested for no reason at all. They clearly wanted to harass and scare the kid, which the obviously succeeded at. Now the city should fork over $100K compensation, along with a sincere apology in the process.
If it ever goes to trial, and I was on the jury, it would be Jury Nullification all the way, baby!
Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
The officer DID consent to have the conservation recorded. In fact, he was recording it with his own audio/video system.
He didn't consent to have it on the defendant's tape... but unless the statute draws that line, the court should not either.
What do the police have to hide? (Score:4, Insightful)
Snoop onto them, as they snoop onto us!!
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.
Law is messed up (Score:5, Insightful)
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. Unless they call out every exception, then TV news crews are roving criminal bands. It's ridiculous. The fact they're police officers is irrelevant. There's no expectation of privacy in a public place and the same standards should apply to audio as video.
This is completely insane.
No... implied consent (Score:3, Informative)
In other news from the same blog... (Score:4, Funny)
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/camp
Cops are above the law (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Just Trust The Police (Score:4, Insightful)
Why, just the other day the neighbors called the cops to come visit me. I have such great neighbors. The officer said it was because someone *heard* a child crying. Think of that, they just wanted to be sure my children were happy. Of course, a crying child is very concerning. Why would a child cry? Well, only two reasons I know of: because you are hitting them with a shovel, or they want to stay up past their bed time. I'm sure my neighbor would know that my kids never cry at bedtime, so they naturally assumed a shovel.
The officer who showed up was such a friendly chap. He came in to my home and woke my kids by shining his flashlight in their faces. The kids thought it was a riot! We all had a good laugh afterwords. See kids! See what fun it is to be woken up by a big police officer with a gun and a flashlight in your face!? Good times. My two year old son especially appreciated it. I think he really grew to appreciate the police that day.
Well, the cop did his job. None of my kids were bleeding, nor had any signs of child abuse at all. He could see they were probably crying because they wanted to stay up and watch that friendly purple dinosaur. See how we trusted the police fully? I can let a complete stranger with a loaded weapon in to my child's bedroom and not have a care in the world. Why? Because he is an officer of the law. Just for good measure, of course, he referred us to the local child abuse center in order to keep our kids safe. What a great police officer. The city's finest I tell you. I wouldn't dream of video taping them because I trust them fully.
My wife sat in tears as the police officer left. She was so thrilled about the visit.
This isn't federal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This isn't federal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However:
Re:This isn't federal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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...