Mass. Court Says Constitution Protects Filming On-Duty Police 473
Even in a country and a world where copyright can be claimed as an excuse to prevent you from taking a photo of a giant sculpture in a public, tax-paid park, and openly recording visiting police on your own property can be construed as illegal wiretapping, it sometimes seems like the overreach of officialdom against people taking photos or shooting video knows no bounds. It's a special concern now that seemingly everyone over the age of 10 is carrying a camera that can take decent stills and HD video. It's refreshing, therefore, to read that a Federal Appeals Court has found unconstitutional the arrest of a Massachusetts lawyer who used his phone to video-record an arrest on the Boston Common. (Here's the ruling itself, as a PDF.) From the linked article, provided by reader schwit1: "In its ruling, which lets Simon Glik continue his lawsuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said the wiretapping statute under which Glik was arrested and the seizure of his phone violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights."
Re:typo? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Missed one... (Score:2, Funny)
Bad cops obviously don't want to get caught, and good cops often choose to cover up for bad cops. Why, I'm not sure - any good cops want to weigh in on that problem?
Good cop here. They'll fucking kill me if I don't back them up.
Re:I really really hope this is appealed (Score:5, Funny)
If there's one thing I've learned from watching 10,000 cop procedurals
There isn't.
Re:typo? (Score:4, Funny)
Someone who goes to cort
... and is not a yoot [youtube.com]