Washington, D.C. Police Affirm Citizens' Right To Record Police Officers 210
dcsmith writes "Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier says, 'A bystander has the same right to take photographs or make recordings as a member of the media,' and backs it up with a General Order to her Department. Quoting: The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) recognizes that members of the general public have a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and/or audio record MPD members while MPD members are conducting official business or while acting in an official capacity in any public space, unless such recordings interfere with police activity.'"
Loophole (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet we'll find a bunch of cops using this as an excuse to take away your camera...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
he shoots..... he shoots..... (waiting for the event) .... oh, no, he misses! ;(
loopholes: the 'we almost gave you what you wanted' part.
Re:Loophole (Score:5, Informative)
I bet we'll find a bunch of cops using this as an excuse to take away your camera...
Nope. From the linked orders [mpdconline.com]
So, they may not tell you to stop recording, and they may not take your camera. Later on in the order it explains in more detail how they MAY NOT TAKE your camera as evidence without probable cause, even then they need their supervisor present, and under no circumstances may they delete recordings.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe on some other planet where the cops don't look for a lame pretext in order to arrest/detain/search you. Disorderly conduct, "looks suspicious", drug dogs that could never pass a double-blind test....
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Police dogs may have to pass such tests during training, but police officers give their dogs a signal to get "excited" when they want to use it as a pretense for a search. It doesn't take much to get a dog excited. "get em boy" under your breath or even just the tone of voice when deploying them will trigger the response and willful ignorance can mistake that for the correct response. Most dogs will react to food smells too and the cop can "mistake" that for a positive detection of drugs. All they have to d
Re:Loophole (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Loophole (Score:4, Informative)
tl;dr version: K9 dogs are better cops than many cops, respect them and let them do their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
The grandparent isn't concerned with truth.
They're just pushing their "The Man Is Keeping Me Down" and "The Police Are Out To Get Me" conspiracy theories.
Just file him/her away with the Flat Earthers, Hollow Earthers, and Moon Landing Deniers.
Re:Loophole (Score:4, Informative)
It's not that trainers train the dog to lie. Dogs are pack animals and pick up on cues from the pack leader (the handler); if the human thinks "this guy must have drugs", the dog picks up on his pack leader's subtle (possibly unconscious) cues and performs as he believes he is expected. No maliciousness required on the part of the trainer or handler, just a ridiculous legal precedent that allows a dumb (as in unable to properly communicate) non-human animal to make legally valid "judgment" calls that trump citizens' constitutional rights.
Re:Loophole (Score:5, Informative)
...under no circumstances may they delete recordings.
Well, no, because that would be spoliation. Not that this doesn't happen a LOT.
Refer to the Rodney King case for a bloody good reason for a cop to want a video recording to disappear. More recently, the Ian Tomlinson murder trial which resulted in the cop who was videotaped in the act of killing a man was acquitted by a bought jury.
So continues the record of the British police, not a single member of whom has ever been convicted of causing or by omission of action causing, a wrongful death.
We know different.
Re:Loophole (Score:4, Interesting)
A bought jury? That's just hilarious.
I love how very single court decision that groupthink on slashdot doesn't agree with simply *must* be the result of corruption, bought judges or juries...
I don't believe you followed the case any closer than the media reported it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your last paragraph is enough to dismiss your entire post - a false flag operation? What evidence supports that?!
Just more evidence of the absurdity that frequents slashdot these days - its starting to reek of UFO levels of conspiracy talk and stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
More recently, the Ian Tomlinson murder trial
It was a manslaughter trial.
We know different.
Who's this "we"?
Re:Loophole (Score:5, Informative)
Theory and practice are quite different, and in NYC, people photographing the subways are still harassed by cops even with a printout of the specific law allowing them to take photos.
Also, refer to the video of that woman that was taping an arrest from her private property - the front lawn of her home. The cop who was making the arrest some 30 feet away claimed he felt threatened and arrested her. Ironically, the people that were initially being arrested were let go on the scene.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Logically, having a printout of the law should be useless. If the officer doesn't know about the law already, he would be foolish to believe that a law is whatever some random person with a computer printout tells him it is--you can print anything on a computer printout.
Re:Loophole (Score:5, Interesting)
A Law Enforcement Officer cannot enforce the Law if they do not know what the Law is.
Any officer who doesn't know the law already shouldn't be in uniform.
And, yes, I'm totally cool with requiring a law degree before you can wear a uniform. Think about how awesome it would be to have police officers worthy of the badge for a change.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm as annoyed as the next guy when a cop shows his ignorance and arrogance when manipulating the law to make his job easier, but the idea that cops should have law degrees is a little "pie-in-the-sky" if you ask me. Even lawyers don't know the laws on the spot. Have you seen some of the crazy statutes passed? There are exceptions,
Re: (Score:3)
Actually no one person can know the law. There is just too much of it. And this is the problem. Every citizen is expected to know ALL the laws. But it is not possible.
The law is the problem. It needs to be drastically simplified. If you need a law degree to understand it, it is too complicated.
Re: (Score:3)
Logically, a thinking man will spent a moment investigating whether a computer printout when it is presented by a calm and rational free person, and attempt to discern is indeed a valid representation of an actual law or if it is a forged do
Re: (Score:2)
The problem I have with all this is the punishment -- any police officer that violates a citizen's rights should permanently lose their badge and do time.
As a citizen I've entrusted the officer to protect and serve *me* and when they violate that trust, they should be properly maligned, and not just given time off with pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if trolling, or attempting to be funny...
But it seems clear enough that "safety", in this context, is referring to immediate physical safety and not job security or being portrayed in "unflattering light" after the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't trolling or joking in the slightest. I know what the stated intent was, but I'd stake money that it will be deliberately misinterpreted at least once. A potential argument was that an officer felt that the filming would result in an immediate risk to his safety, along the lines of "I thought he might be uploading it live and encouraging viewers to come stop me".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
yeah, DC cops have never been keen on being filmed if it would remotely portray them in a negative light. I watched them perform an illegal search and while trying to pull out my camera I was threatened with jail time for "loitering" and they weren't remotely kind about it either; intimidation via threats of violence is how I would refer to it.
Re:Loophole (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't loitering just the best law ever. You can be arrested for standing there, doing absolutely nothing.
Bystander, not person being interviewed, searched (Score:5, Insightful)
A bystander has the same right to take photographs or make recordings as a member of the media
Emphasize "bystander". If the officer is trying to interview you, search you, etc then you are not a bystander.
Re: (Score:2)
You have the same right to record an ongoing conversation w/ a government official on a public street as you've always had.
The fact we've replaced the old notepad & witness account of black-and-white movies w/ a modern audio recorder does not erase the natural right. "There is no expectation of privacy on a public street." - Supreme Court. This is true not just for us but also government employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if a cop is trying to handcuff you and you refuse to separate your hands because you are operating a camera, then you couldn't use this edict to claim a violation of your rights, because it was interfering with their business. It doesn't mean you cannot record, simply that it cannot interfere. I guess you can put the camera down, pointed at you, while you get arrested or interviewed.
Same as a member of the media? (Score:2)
Press pass is a courtesy (Score:2)
The order makes a lot of sense. But I wonder why anyone thought reporters had special rights. Freedom of the press means they can print what they want, but when they're on the scene the press pass doesn't mean anything.
The press pass, press ID, etc is merely a courtesy extended to the press in some jurisdictions. It does allow some members of the press into areas a civilian would normally not be allowed. Again, a courtesy, often subject to the needs of the person on the scene who is in charge.
Re: (Score:3)
Rights mean nothing if they can be infringed (Score:4, Interesting)
Nowadays we're all media.
We're all bloggers.
And we can upload pics and vids and stream them around the world.
How about we just remove the rights of Corporate Media from reporting, instead of Citizens?
Corporations aren't People.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because a corporation has people inside of it does not mean that it has rights, anymore than a building filled with people has rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A building is not comparable to a corporation as a building is not a legal entity,
You said it yourself right there! A corporation is a legal entity, not a person! Saying a corporation is a person is the same as saying a marriage license is a person... it's ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rights mean nothing if they can be infringed (Score:5, Insightful)
You are missing the point.
We (the US) thankfully have a pretty air-tight protection of speech in our First Amendment. There are two important aspects that come into play.
1. People have the right to associate, and assemble.
2. People have the right to say what they wish.
Because of that first part, you can't declare that a specific grouping of people does not deserve the protection of that second part.
If you declared corporations to NOT be protected under the First Amendment, how would you differentiate them from Newspapers or the Broadcast corporations? Would they have to be journalists? Who gets to determine who can be a member of the press?
Would it be illegal for a corporation like Pixar to create a movie with a specific political message simply because they are a corporation and not an individual? Who gets to determine 'how political' the message is before the government censors it.
Like it or not, we CAN'T impose restrictions on what corporations can say without creating some sort of government speech approval board for films, newspapers, television. Such a thing could not exist within the bounds of the US Constitution, nor do I think I would welcome such a board as it would be horrifically politicized.
Business structure is not a human right. (Score:2)
So, if a corporation does something illegal, how about we put it in jail? I'm very much for dissolving companies that break the law.
But we're off topic. See, the point you're missing is that corporations exist only at the pleasure of the people via their government. There is no situation where the corporate business structure can be construed as a human right.
I'm not saying people don't have a right to run a business, everyone should be able to run a business if they wish. However, I am saying people do not
Re: (Score:2)
Would they have to be journalists? Who gets to determine who can be a member of the press?
I should have addressed this in my other post.
A person in the act of journalism should be protected, not just a member of the press. The news company or lack of one is not relevant to this argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are a legal business structure defined by their charter. If everyone in the corporation quit, the corporation would still exist on paper. So, yes, a corporation can exist by itself. It's just not very useful.
Citizens United did that ... (Score:4, Informative)
How about we just remove the rights of Corporate Media from reporting, instead of Citizens? Corporations aren't People.
The controversial "Citizens United" US Supreme Court decision says exactly that. My understanding is that the court did *not* say that "corporations are people" and that this phrase was spin from the opponents of the decision. I believe the court said two things. One: that groups of people have the same speech rights as an individual person, the nature of that group (company, union, special interest, etc) is irrelevant. Two: that media corporations have no special speech rights, all organizations have the same speech rights. Well, that was my understanding from skimming the decision. Perhaps I missed something. If you think I missed something I'd prefer a reference to the decision, not what some talking head on TV said, what some political blogger said, etc. I don't trust these to accurately report a supreme court decision any more than I expect them to accurately report on technical/computer issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Your interpretation of Citizen's United v. FEC is correct.
There is indeed a history of SCOTUS decisions, dating back to the late 1800s, which have created this "corporate personhood" nonsense. However, Citizen's United was NOT one of them. As you say, that concept was just dragged into the debate by opponents.
The decision simply affirms that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". Making it illegal for a group of people to run ads on TV is a clear violation.
Re:Citizens United did that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to correct but to say our rights derive from the Will of The People is completely false. Our rights are inherent, we are imbued with them by our creator. The Will of The People is what stops the government from infringing on them.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Re:Citizens United did that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... so... my mom and my dad?
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations as people pervert capitalism to the point that if this goes much further, one would not be able to call our economic system capitalism any more.
You're at least a century too late on that one.
Re: (Score:3)
Citizens United was just one decision in a decades-long war to turn corporations into immortal, incorporeal, sociopathic people.
Not true. The Citizens United ruling merely granted groups of people the same rights they had as individuals. I think there's a great of hypocrisy here as well. I doubt corporate personhood would be on the radar if Citizens United had been Democrat oriented instead of Republican oriented.
Re: (Score:2)
One clarification.
Corporations are a legal fiction we use to allow owners to appoint other people to manage the operations of a business which present people with a method of limiting their liability when they do not directly or indirectly participate in the act.
Contrary to popular belief, no corporate veil will protect someone from their own actions. It only protects people from acts they are not part of outside of ownership interest of a company. For instance, you are a working owner and make a decision t
Police are not supposed to have any special power. (Score:5, Interesting)
Police are supposed to have the same rights as citizens. They are just more highly trained in the area of law enforcement. Citizens and police should be held to the same standards of conduct. In Florida for instance a police officer out of his jurisdiction has the same rights as a citizen to make arrests. They can hold the suspect until the sheriff arrives to take the person into custody. When the case gets to trial you have to show up. If you break the law during the arrest you can be sued as well. Every move police make should be filmed since they are supposed to be experts.
Re:Police are not supposed to have any special pow (Score:5, Insightful)
Police do have special powers, and I'm not sure why you would claim otherwise. I can't arrest someone with the same leeway given to cops (note that your example had to specify an officer out of his jurisdiction). I can't get a warrant to bust down someone's door. I can't pull a car over for speeding. I can't own certain weapons.
And that's how it should be. We want law enforcement officers to have an edge over the regular civilians, because that means they'll also have an edge over criminals. But since we're giving them extra powers, we need to hold them to an extra high standard. Unfortunately, we tend to fall short on that last part.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Police are not supposed to have any special pow (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't arrest someone with the same leeway given to cops
In the state whose laws I know best (Utah) the only additional arrest power given to police is the authority to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felony suspect. Other than that, it's identical.
I can't get a warrant to bust down someone's door.
Technically, you can, if you can get a judge to give you one. In fact, prior to the advent of large organized police forces, nearly all warrants were served by private citizens, and AFAIK the law hasn't changed -- though practice clearly has, and in practice it's unlikely any judge would issue you a warrant.
I can't pull a car over for speeding.
Sure you can, legally. As a practical matter you'd have a hard time doing it without red and blue flashing lights, and there are laws against putting those on your vehicle. I'd bet that if you put yellow flashing lights on, though, you could successfully convince many people to pull over. After that you couldn't issue a citation, but you could get the driver's information and take it to the relevant prosecutor and see if you can convince him to issue a court summons on the strength of the evidence you can provide (mostly, your testimony, same as a police officer).
Again, this isn't a difference in real authority, it's a difference in common practice and who's likely to actually be listened to.
I can't own certain weapons.
You can own anything a police officer can own himself. There are some weapons a police department can own that you cannot, but none that police departments commonly issue. You could, for example, own a fully-automatic M-16 (per federal law, anyway; a few states are more restrictive). It'd cost you $20K+, due to the 1986 law restricting civilian ownership of full-auto firearms to those that were already in civilian hands then (fixed supply and growing demand means the price goes up), and it would take a few months of doing paperwork and waiting, but you could do it if you're not a felon or otherwise legally disqualified due to your own record.
We want law enforcement officers to have an edge over the regular civilians, because that means they'll also have an edge over criminals.
I don't agree that there's any significant "edge" we can give to officers that doesn't serve the same goals in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Granted that citizens rarely have need of them, and that it's better to let the police do their jobs wherever possible, but there are rare circumstances in which it is useful for citizens to exercise their police powers, and in general it's better for society if police don't have a special status in the eyes of the law. It's hard enough to keep them from exceeding their authority even without that.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't arrest someone with the same leeway given to cops
In the state whose laws I know best (Utah) the only additional arrest power given to police is the authority to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felony suspect. Other than that, it's identical.
The main difference is that you had better be right if you arrest someone. The police enjoy limited immunity when making an arrest. You have no such protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Police are supposed to have the same rights as citizens. They are just more highly trained in the area of law enforcement. Citizens and police should be held to the same standards of conduct. In Florida for instance a police officer out of his jurisdiction has the same rights as a citizen to make arrests. They can hold the suspect until the sheriff arrives to take the person into custody. When the case gets to trial you have to show up. If you break the law during the arrest you can be sued as well.
That is not quite right. Law enforcement has special authority to conduct pre-emptive and other active/offensive operations within their jurisdiction, and to use equipment/weapons unavailable to civilians during these operations. Law enforcement is not held to the same standard as civilians, they are held to a higher standard because of their expertise, training, equipment, etc. For example the interpretation of "appropriate response" in the context of self defense is more narrow for law enforcement than fo
Re: (Score:2)
It usually is a matter of state lines, not purely the jurisdiction that the officer is employed in. In certain states, you are a peace officer that has been certified by the state, which means that you can carry a weapon and, if necessary, cross county and town lines to make arrests if you are in pursuit.
Depending on the state, you can make lawful arrests without being in pursuit as well. The thing is, there are going to be administrative rules about that, and you also don't want to step on the toes of co
Re: (Score:2)
It usually is a matter of state lines, not purely the jurisdiction that the officer is employed in.
There are several police forces that aren't state bound or related, and yes, it's the jurisdiction that counts.
A US National Zoological Park Police cop has a different jurisdiction than an FDA Office of Criminal Investigations cop.
Re: (Score:2)
They are just more highly trained in the area of law enforcement. Citizens and police should be held to the same standards of conduct.
As they are more highly trained - on the tax payer's dollar - they should be held to higher standards. And that's before we even begin talking about all the special privileges afforded to the police in the name of being more effective at their job.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that is entirely true that you can't distinguish between a "real" reporter and a curious bystander. There is freedom of the press, and the courts would be very careful to make sure that the police didn't simply redefine the press into a subservient propaganda organ, but I don't think everyone can claim to be a reporter. Or, even if they could, that they have an absolute right to get as much coverage as the other hundred or so people out there with camera phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless (Score:3)
Pardon Me, Sir... (Score:5, Funny)
Google (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why it's important to support Google's right to record audio or EM spectrum signals in public places. If we don't stick up for the uses we don't like, the uses we DO like will disappear along with.
For the majority of posters (who didn't RTFA) (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worth noting that this order is part and parcel of a lawsuit settlement that the MPD reached with someone who was victimized for recording the police at a traffic stop. This order isn't entirely being done spontaneously because the MPD are good little fonzies. I like Chief Lanier, a lot...but for the most part the MPD remain a group of heavily-armed monkeys, most of whom seem to have a racial issue with whatever races they don't belong to. A white officer recently was suspended for stating...openly, to fellow officers...that he would shoot Michelle Obama. And I can state plainly that I've gotten a lot of trouble from non-white officers, personally. It's one of the reasons I moved from DC to a nearby suburb.
Re: (Score:2)
I would shoot Michelle Obama too if I was defending myself or others from imminent life threatening harm- A situation I do not realistically think would ever come about in real life. Was this officer participating in some fantasy "what if" game when the comment was made or was it something he offered on his own out of stupidity?
I mean we have played the game of what would you do and then set out impossible and unrealistic scenarios. What would you do if you turned a corner and looked down a dark alley to se
Reversing the police state trend (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame this announcement was necessary. A generation ago, it wouldn't have been required.
Now that it's been made perfectly clear, I'd like to see the next DC police officer who interferes with a citizen-photographer lose his job.
I'm not sure that a generation ago this clarification of rights wouldn't have been necessary. For a very long time the police have wanted to be in full control of the entire situation. And whether that includes shooting your dog because he barked, or stopping photography by anyone who isn't the press where there was already a too cozy relationship, this has gone on for far too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Or shooting your dog, then shooting your wife in the head with a sniper rifle. Ruby Ridge was almost a generation ago now.
Re: (Score:2)
A generation ago, you didn't have half the population constantly carrying around motion picture cameras and recording devices in their cellphones.
Public Commendation (Score:2, Informative)
You can send feedback here: http://app.dc.gov/apps/about.asp?page=atd&type=dsf&referrer=mpdc.dc.gov&agency_id=1027 [dc.gov]
Public commendations/complaints go on an officer's permanent record.
First amendment? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rather annoying that it's called a "first amendment" right. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. If anything, the ninth amendment is a better justification. The very best justification is that there is no law against it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I completely agree. This order is clearly unconstitutional.
Sudden Outbreak of Common Sense (Score:2)
What he have here is a Sudden Outbreak of Common Sense.
You might not have recognized it at first because sadly it is such a rare event.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad here in Massachusetts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the pointer. Good reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Colour me confused. That article clearly states that he did have a right to record them, that this was upheld by the court, and that Boston settled out of court and paid him $170,000.
For anyone who doesn't want to read it, he filmed the police and, after asking if it included audio, they arrested him for breach of the peace, wiretapping and another charge they basically invented. After it inevitably didn't go anywhere and they refused to investigate internally, he sued the city for violation of his 1st and
This is a good thing (Score:2)
All joking aside, this really is a good thing.
The reports of ordinary people getting beat up, arrested, hassled, yelled at and harassed for videotaping or photographing cops - especially cops who were not really doing anything strange let alone those who WERE using excessive force - were very chilling indeed.
Of course, that is assuming this actually does anything.
I predict (Score:2)
This should be a short thread... no one on the internet ever seems to have much of an opinion about police matters, particularly where recording comes in...
The police fought this for 2+ years (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone living in DC, I see the summary fails to mention a few things: 1) This was the result of a class action lawsuit settlement, not police wanting to respect peoples' rights, 2) police fought this lawsuit for 2+ years as is common when they're caught oppressing people's constitutional rights (Google "DC Trinidad Checkpoints" or "DC pershing park MPD"), and 3) this has always been legal, but the police have commonly violated our rights- we shouldn't give them a cookie for simply following the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well, it's still sad when the cops 'affirm' our rights, it becomes a newsworthy event.
Re: (Score:2)
spoliation. produce the broken camera in court (hell you don't even have to do *that* much, the mere suggestion should be enough to swing the jury to a not guilty verdict).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, you didn't read it.
1. If a person is photographing or recording police activity from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties, a member may direct the person to move to a position that will not interfere. However, a member shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording.
2. If a person is photographing or recording police activity from a position that impedes or threatens the safety of members of the public, a member shall di
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't seen "100s" of instances where they use the "interference with my duties" excuse, but I've seen plenty.
www.copblock.org has some good videos.
Many instances of people getting harassed by armed thugs in blue for filming traffic stops. Including one guy standing in his own garage filming a traffic stop across the street.
The boys in blue will one day regret fomenting this adversarial relationship with law abiding citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
did you even read what was posted? it defines what those officers can do if interference is found by the officers and describes specifically when interference cannot be claimed. It is very much the practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"sigh"
It specifically says all they can do is tell you to move to a location not interfering with them. It even goes as far as saying if you are at a safe distance and don't do anything that obstruct the police or puts them in danger, you are not interfering. If they can only tell you to move when you are interfering and it spells out when you are not, it leaves no wiggle room at all. This, btw, is not some new policy because someone all the sudden got some common sense, it is a policy developed because the
Re: (Score:2)
i have to have some apathy for them if they deal with idiots who can't even read or comprehend what they read, on a regular basis.
I don't think the problem is not understanding, but expecting the police to go unresonably far to interpret the law in their favor, and disregard the law if they can't do that. This expectation is build on countless news stories of the police doin
Re: (Score:3)
This policy statement pertains to one police department and is basically the result of a lawsuit filed by someone who had been mistreated for recording them in the past. This isn't a policy statement by someone wanting to improve their image to enter higher levels of politics or something. The entire policy change is pretty detailed in what the cops can and cannot do including what specific situations that a camera can be seized and how to handle a situation where someone will not voluntarily hand it over.
I
Re: (Score:3)
"a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of public/police"="a postion where they can see what is going on."
"move to a position that will not interfere"="move them to where they can not see what is going on"
"a safe distance"="enough distance that they cannot see what is going on"
Are you going to argue with them when they claim that? Even when they threaten to arrest you for not complying with their order? Do you expect a judge to agree
Re: (Score:2)
um... wrong. I'll tell you why.
To make a recording legal, you need the written consent of ONE party in the conversation.
That can be YOU.
Covered.
This is true for telephone conversations as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This varies state by state in the US. Some states are one party consent states, others are two party consent states. For example, Maryland is a Two Party consent state. Often this law is used against those who film others who break the law. Recent examples include James O'Keefe when he did some undercover video of some very unflattering behavior by ACORN. The state of Maryland went after O'Keefe for obtaining video without permission, while they left ACORN alone.
In general, one party recording consent wo
Re: (Score:2)
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-09-24/news/0909230103_1_acorn-bertha-lewis-maryland-court-records [baltimoresun.com]
The Baltimore Sun is known to be a left leaning newspaper even in the significantly left-leaning state of Maryland.
The case was later dropped after the plaintiffs failed to meet a 120 day deadline for filing. And by the way AC, all you had to plug in to Google was O'keefe acorn maryland and you'd have seen results.
Re: (Score:3)