Photographing Police: Deletion Is Not Forever 482
Geoffrey.landis writes "The courts have now ruled that the public has the right to videotape the police in the performance of their duties. Of course, that doesn't stop the police from harassing people who do so — even journalists, who sometimes have their cameras confiscated. As it turns out, though, they're not always very knowledgeable about how deletion works. I would say that erasing, or attempting to erase, a video of police arresting somebody illegally (How can a journalist be charged with 'resisting arrest' when he was not being arrested for anything other than resisting arrest?) is a clear case of destruction of evidence by the officers. Destroying evidence is obstruction of justice. That's illegal. Why haven't these police officers been arrested?"
Privelege (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't be above the law then why be a cop?
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Insightful)
Why haven't these police officers been arrested?
Arrested by who? Their peers who do not want to be videotaped either?
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Funny)
Why haven't these police officers been arrested?
Arrested by who? Their peers who do not want to be videotaped either?
By metacops, naturally.
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Funny)
Why haven't these police officers been arrested?
Arrested by who? Their peers who do not want to be videotaped either?
By metacops, naturally.
But who metas the metacops?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Funny)
Why haven't these police officers been arrested?
Arrested by who? Their peers who do not want to be videotaped either?
By metacops, naturally.
But who metas the metacops?
Robocop metas the metacops of course. He obeys the directives of the robots.txt, by following the metatags.
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Funny)
Why haven't these police officers been arrested?
Arrested by who? Their peers who do not want to be videotaped either?
By metacops, naturally.
But who metas the metacops?
It's metacops, all the way down.
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Funny)
The Department of Redundancy Depart is filing a injunction against this thread, they are also talking to a judge about it as well.
I meta cop once, he gave me a ticket.
Re:Privelege (Score:4, Funny)
Why haven't these police officers been arrested?
Arrested by who? Their peers who do not want to be videotaped either?
By metacops, naturally.
But who metas the metacops?
The Obsidian Order.
Re:Privelege (Score:4, Insightful)
Why haven't these police officers been arrested?
Arrested by who? Their peers who do not want to be videotaped either?
Internal Affairs...
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Insightful)
Why haven't these police officers been arrested?
Arrested by who? Their peers who do not want to be videotaped either?
Internal Affairs...
Thank goodness Internal Affairs is a completely independent and unbiased organization then, eh comrade?
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank goodness someone's browsing through the thread with a citation to show that it has, in fact, happened, eh comrade?
http://www.pixiq.com/article/Houston%20Police%20Threaten%20To%20Arrest%20Photographers%20To%20Protect%20Own [pixiq.com]
Sorry, but the pictures of Cap'n Manzo's men covering up beer bottles and telling everyone for two weeks that the cop's breath was minty fresh and he was clean as a whistle just aren't serious enough to get IA's attention. Can't open an investigation on Cap'n Manzo's coverup, unless Cap'n Manzo says so.
Bonus points: because of Cap'n Manzo's coverup, the guy was not immediately arrested. Because he was not immediately arrested, the hospital's .205 reading isn't admissible evidence, so the cop can't be charged with DWI. It's not clear whether the poor lady driving the bus had her ticket (which probably got her fired) expunged, or if the cops even bothered to pull her back out after she was "thrown under the bus" by Cap'n Manzo's men as part of the coverup.
Re:Privelege (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Informative)
Why not fully comply with a Cop, format the card, take it home and run Photorec? ( http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRecPhotorec) :)
Undeleting isn't a crime
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not install the latest version of dropbox and have the picture automatically uploaded as soon as its taken.
That way its propagated to all the computers you have which are idling with Dropbox running in the background.
There are other services that do this as well.
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Informative)
Why not fully comply with a Cop
Your solution is to accept an invasion of your rights from a person in power because you can do some extra work to re-gain what was lost?
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it is being taught in schools.
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/homework-class-test-school-of-fail-stop-being-all-defiant-and-right-about-things-dammit.jpg [wordpress.com]
Re:Privelege (Score:4, Insightful)
When you read the letter in its entirety, it doesn't really pass the smell test. If I had to guess, I'd say it was written by someone trying to make schools look bad to promote their homeschooling agenda, but it could just be a prank as well. Either of those are more plausible than a teacher emphasizing a student correcting a legitimate mistake over his ostensibly disruptive methods of doing so. The way to write that letter, if it really happened, would be to emphasize the disruptive behavior and probably not even mention the details of the mistake the teacher made. The "accept my teachings without resistance" bit is particularly suspect.
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe instead you should use it to teach some critical thinking/don't believe everything on the net. However since you've apparently accepted it as Complete Fact(tm) that may be asking too much.
What evidence do you have that this is a real note? A picture of something printed out is not evidence of anything other than that somebody wanted to make a picture. There is no evidence this is real.
In fact, there is some evidence to the contrary. So it is dated 1994, yet the document uses smart quotes. I certainly don't recall my system in 1994 having that feature. I'd have to do more research (which I'm not going to do because I don't care) but I suspect such a feature was not in use then, which implies a forgery. There's other things too such as the "crease marks" in the paper that don't show visual distortion, as they normally would if they actually existed in 3 dimensions and weren't added in post and the askew angle, which would be more consistent with a camera photo rather than a scan but digital cameras were very rare back then.
There's also some circumstantial things such as date happening to be Hitler's birthday and the teacher's initials being A.H. Could simply be a coincidence, of course, but does get one's antenna twitching.
So perhaps a little more critical thinking, and maybe try and use it as a lesson that just believing anything on the net that happens to reenforce your preconceived notions is not such a good thing.
Also, it is a bit silly to claim that it is "being taught in schools" if your best example is for near 2 decades ago. If it is "being taught in schools" then a more recent example should be easy to find.
Re:Privelege (Score:4, Funny)
Whether it's a fake or not, the point is to use critical thinking. So a whoosh is in order for you.
Re:Privelege (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
My wife was stopped for blowing a stop sign.
Funny thing is that the cop had their priority lights on prior to her pulling up to the limit line, and she stopped and tried to see what was going on before continuing. Hmmmm...
I think is is more common with City PDs than HP or Sherrifs though.
They need to raise capitol for the city.
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Funny)
My wife was stopped for blowing a stop sign.
I would stop her to. That is a weird fetish.
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Interesting)
Orson Wells was famous for using Ambulances as a taxi service, because he could get around mid-town Manhattan much faster with an Ambulance than with a conventional taxi service.
Such acts are currently illegal in most jurisdictions because of abuse like this in the past, where the only time you can turn on the sirens and/or lights is to respond to a bona fide emergency. None the less, a server crash might fit the technical scope of an "emergency" when it does involve official police business.
Illegal Everything (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can't be above the law then why be a cop?
There are a bunch of similar stories here [youtube.com] (as well as several other atrocities like selling lemonade, Girl Scout cookies, felony ditch cleaning, and holding illegal prayer meetings).
Cops on tape, breaking the law, and nothing is done about it.
Re: Judges ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
All judges make rulings on law. If the ruling take precedence, then it is in effect a new law. It is the basis of our judicial system. I.e. trial court, to intermediate appellate court, to highest appellate court.
It doesn't matter if a Judge is good or bad; new law through judicial interpretation is going to happen in our system. If the legislature doesn't like the ruling, they have the power to change the law.
Learn about our legal system; don't just think that only 'bad' judges make new law through rulings.
Disclaimer: I AM a lawyer; but I'm NOT your lawyer.
Re: Judges ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Judges ruling (Score:5, Informative)
In which case a judge would not be able to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional, but this has happened.
But, and get this, only if it violates other parts of the constitution.
As far as I understand it -- and I am neither a lawyer nor a US-American -- amendments to the US constitution can only be made ineffective by the Supreme Court declaring them unconstitutional (i.e. it violating either a prior or a later, other amendment), but only repealed by the legislative branch (Senate/House of Repr.) by introducing a new amendment; which has happened with the 18th amendment (prohibition) that was repealed by the 21st after the Supreme Court ruled it violated the 4th and 5th amendment.
To put it in CompSci terms: The judicative (courts) only did a sanity check on the input, whereas the legislative (parliament) took measures to actually clean up the input. So the former only prevented bad input from producing bad output, which caused the former to make sure that that brand of bad input is not possible at all anymore.
You could say that in these cases, the courts can only negate or affirm, but not ask a new question. They might state their opinion that a new question should be asked, but can't ask it themselves.
Re: Judges ruling (Score:4, Informative)
The only way that a constitutional amendment could be declared unconstitutional is if the process through which it became a part of that constitution was done in an unconstitutional manner. That is a very small loophole, and usually is something that is almost never tried (and has thus far always failed so far as amendments recognized by the U.S. Secretary of State and/or the National Archives).
That said, there are some rather vague parts of the U.S. Constitution that are open to interpretation, such as the Interstate Commerce Clause and finding "new rights" not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights (such as what Roe v. Wade attempted to do in terms of a "right to an abortion").
The main thing that happens in terms of constitutional review though is that statutory law can be "set aside" because it conflicts with the constitution. New law isn't created, but instead the law is treated as if that law never existed in the first place.
Where American courts do create "new law" is with case law and "common law", when a legal question comes up that statutory law and constitutional law simply don't cover the situation. Most states also recognized earlier English "Common Law" precedence, at least the "Common Law" that existed prior to July 4th, 1776. It is rare that somebody cites legal precedence from the 15th Century to win a legal argument any more, but it is still a possibility in 49 of the 50 American states (Louisiana excepted.... because they use the Napoleonic Code instead and follow French/Spanish/Roman precedence instead of English).
Re: Judges ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Homosexual Marriage has NEVER existed in history until very recently. Marriage was for the purposes of a man an woman(women/polygamy) having a family and defining the rights and responsibilities thereof. Homosexuals are incapable of producing children therefore aren't given the protection of Marriage.
By that argument, heterosexual marriages should end at death of either spouse ("'til death do you part"), when the wife enters menopause, when the husband becomes impotent, or when either suffers an injury or illness that renders them infertile.
In that scenario, marriage licenses would also require signed notification from a medical practitioner certifying the fertility of each spouse, which would require one of:
* the prospective wife currently being pregnant and the prospective husband being the father as determined by DNA testing
* the prospective husband providing a sample for testing with his own hands and the prospective wife undergoing medical testing to ensure her fertility
* a medical practitioner performing testing on both prospective spouses to ensure their fertility
None of those options seem particularly palatable to me. Taking that one step further, you would also need to show that same evidence to an IRS auditor if you filed a joint tax return and were audited. If you wanted to visit your spouse in the hospital after a serious accident and the hospital had a "relatives only" visiting policy, you wouldn't be allowed to visit until the doctors were certain their reproductive capabilities had not been damaged. And don't adoption agencies favor married couples when deciding who is allowed to adopt? Then people who had one of the best reason for wanting to adopt would no longer be favored.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Privelege (Score:5, Interesting)
You know I was right there with you when Bush started doing warantless wiretapping and the patriot act etc, but when Obama is just as bad as his predecessor I don't think you can blame just the right anymore.
Who said Obama was on "the left"? Other than the really far right, of course.
Power and Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
One could argue that all Congresscritters should always be on-camera, a separate video channel for each. Then we will see how many of those "Public Servants" are actually doing their jobs, Serving the Public, instead of working for their own selfish interests.
Re:Power and Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps more importantly: the police aren't military. Though, they are becoming more and more so in approach, there is an important distinction that seems to be getting lost.
Especially with HLS trying to fill in the role of a national police force.
Re:Power and Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
"A key fact is that the Police are Public Servants. Their salaries are paid by the Public."
Yes. Yes they are. So were the Gestapo and the Stasi.
Good luck to us all.
Re:Power and Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
A key fact is that the Police are Public Servants.
Not trying to troll, but while this -should- be the case and this was how the system is/was envisioned, the data speaks otherwise. As illustrated in this story, a very large percentage of the time police will violate your rights when you (legally) record them on video.
They should be, but in practice what they are NOT, is "Public Servants"- They are "Authority".
When police break the law, the number of instances where officers have to take responsibility for their actions are exceedingly few. Only when they break faith with their department (fraud, embezzlement, etc.), are they sometimes dealt with more harshly.
A cop here in Houston causes a wreck while drunk driving, he's suspended with pay and demoted... That's IT. A cop in Deer Park is caught (on video) regularly stealing substantial amounts of stuff from a refrigerator and is suspended without pay for 30 days- not even fired. A cop in San Francisco shoots a guy (in the back), and kills him while he's laying face-down and handcuffed, and he gets a relative slap on the wrist....AND he wouldn't have gotten THAT if the police had managed to round up all the phone videos of the incident, as they tried to. You or I would spend the rest of our lives in prison had either of us done that.
Most police are "Authority"- If you're lucky, they may provide help when you're in a bad situation, but they work for and report to those who write their paychecks, not us (yes, yes, I know that the "taxpayers" are the source of those paychecks, but our "leaders" decide to whom and how much to pay...not us). Police report to those people and otherwise do more or less as they please with few consequences, barring a Federal civil rights investigation now and then. They do not "serve" the public.
Re:Power and Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the prisoners in an American prison are treated much better than prisoners in a Soviet-era gulag in the middle of Siberia. The number of differences between a small town in Iowa and even 1970's Russia (heck, make that even 1970's Iowa if you want a comparison, but I presume you think the "police state" is more recent in America) is still quite substantial and personal freedoms still are substantially better in Iowa than in that Soviet-era small town you are presumably trying to compare.
At the moment, guns are not pointed at the borders preventing Americans from leaving, and it is still possible to stand on any street corner of America, holding a sign which proclaims "The President of this country is an ass and needs to leave office!" Blatant election fraud is not happening on a widespread scale, and when a clear majority of the citizens want somebody different in office it usually happens. If you think otherwise, that is fine, but please spare me the conspiracy theories on that topic.
So far, there haven't been millions of Americans forced out of their homes at gunpoint left to starve to death and die due to exposure simply because they are political dissidents. That did happen in Stalin's USSR. One reason he didn't have so many prisoners is in part because he killed those he considered very dangerous, so they didn't remain in prison all that long. In that sense, prison was merely something for torture.
I'm not disagreeing with you that there are some very disturbing trends in terms of increased authority for police officers in America, and I also would agree that the "war on drugs" is something that has filled up the prisons with people that really don't belong in them and would do much to reduce that notion that America has "a bigger prison population than Stalin". I am also concerned that America may get to that point, and that this intrusion of the government into our lives is something that needs to not only be stopped but reversed. Then again, I think that the whole of the government needs to be cut down substantially in America at all levels, and not just the military and police.
Two separate things here (Score:5, Informative)
he wasn't arrested for filming the police, he was arrested for disobeying a dispersal order.
I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, and I am aware he is a member of the press (though with some claiming that ANYONE can be a member of the "press").
However, it's also possible for police to issue a lawful order to disperse that, if not obeyed, could result in arrest — alongside a charge of resisting arrest.
The individual was being arrested for failure to obey a dispersal order, which was exactly what the officer said, not for "resisting arrest".
Further, it's the submitter's OPINION that this person was being arrested "illegally". That's something the courts will now decide. The troubling part is that the video would probably be the key evidence in such a case, I agree.
Of course, it's pretty clear that he disobeyed a direct (and likely lawful) order to disperse, and whatever happens after that I sort of lose interest in. :-/
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what I'm saying is that it is possible for police to issue a lawful dispersal order to a group or area (not passing judgement on whether or not this one was, since I don't have all of the information), and you're not exempt because you happen to have a camera in your hand.
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Insightful)
A dispersal order is supposed to be used by officers to difuse a potentially dangerous situation, or an unlawful or unsafe gathering (on private property, or blocking safety exits, for instance). If a cop is telling you that you have to leave only because he doesnt want you to witness his activities then he is wrongfully applying his authority and you are within your rights to decline his order.
If you start down the path of conceeding that you have to do what a cop says just because he said so, you have forfeited your freedoms gauranteed by our Constitution. And you're not likely to get them back.
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Insightful)
The laws for when and under what circumstances police may issue a dispersal order vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. They can indeed be lawfully used for mass public gatherings, on public or private property, even in cases where no imminent danger exists. In the case of some of the Occupy camps, municipalities justified removal on the grounds of the camps being a "public nuisance", or a public health hazard.
Clearly some disagree with these judgments, but once that judgment is made by a duly elected or appointed authority, police may lawfully clear the area. Those who disobey the order would be subject to arrest, and it's not the job of the police to discern whether someone may or may nor be press, affiliated with the camp, an innocent observer, etc. If someone is refusing to obey the dispersal order, they'll be arrested.
It's that simple. Again, this isn't a value judgment — just the facts.
Also, following the directions of law enforcement officers is required in many states and jurisdictions, and this isn't a new or recent construct. There are varying degrees, some of which include provisions for presenting identification and similar. It's your opinion, like the submitter's, that this is somehow "illegal". The rule of law doesn't work when individuals get to decide what applies to them on a whim.
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Insightful)
In the case of some of the Occupy camps, municipalities justified removal on the grounds of the camps being a "public nuisance", or a public health hazard.
Safety. I mentioned that.
Also, following the directions of law enforcement officers is required in many states and jurisdictions, and this isn't a new or recent construct. There are varying degrees, some of which include provisions for presenting identification and similar. It's your opinion, like the submitter's, that this is somehow "illegal". The rule of law doesn't work when individuals get to decide what applies to them on a whim.
So by your reasoning an officer can show up at your home right now, and tell you to let him in. According to you, you must comply.
This is wholly false. You are protected by law. You have rights. You may legally and rightfully refuse this order from an officer when it voiliates those rights. That officer MUST provide a warrant issued by a court, or have probable cause to enter your home. Period. End of discussion.
Your stance is based on the fact that most people are ignorant, or complacent, or fearful, and do enforce their rights when challenged. The rule of law doesnt work when those enforcing it are above it.
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the example you gave is clear-cut: other than in exigent circumstances, one does not have to allow law enforcement personnel onto/into private property without a proper warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction.
The situation here of clearing an Occupy camp and issuing a dispersal order is anything but clear-cut. Assuming for a moment that it's possible this dispersal order was lawful, at least as far as it goes, why would you claim that they can't compel this person to clear the area as well? How, specifically, was the arrest inappropriate if this was a lawful order to disperse?
Now, if you're saying the order to disperse wasn't lawful, what's your basis for that, given that nearly all municipalities that have cleared Occupy camps have ensured that they at least have a justification for removal that can withstand some scrutiny? Again, without having sat in on all of the council meetings that resulted in this order, I can't comment for certain.
My stance is in no way based on the fact that people are any of those things you claim. But you don't get to decide on your own that something doesn't apply to you. This was not about a legal or constitutional violation (UNLESS the dispersal order was unlawful). There was what was very likely a LAWFUL order to disperse issued by appropriate authority, and this guy chose to say, essentially, "I'm not doing anything wrong," and refused to disperse instead of obeying the order. Well, 99% of the people in the camp probably weren't "doing anything wrong" at that very moment, either, other than being there. If I walked in just to "observe" the camp and refused to leave when directed by a police officer, I can guarantee you I would be arrested on the spot, no matter what I said.
Now we're getting to places where someone might say, hey, the "law" is made by those in "power", and these Occupy camps are just people trying to "take back" their power, so someone needs to stand up and fight the system, document the struggle, etc., etc., etc. Okay, fine. But if you're going to actively oppose civil society and the system of laws that are in place, regardless of from where they stem, expect that there will be consequences to those actions.
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough — and as someone else noted, I think we're in fundamental agreement here.
— wait, what's happening here? A rational discussion on slashdot?!?
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Funny)
I'll abort the singularity by returning us to irrationality by either taking the sqrt of -1 or calling you both asshats with about as much justification as the police often use in the debated dispersal orders ;)
Re:Two separate things here (Score:4, Insightful)
The way these things are best challenged is usually after-the-fact in court. If you want to ignore that and challenge police while they're doing your duty, you'd better have a really good reason.
The fact that an order was unlawfully given is a really good reason to disobey. The fact that you are engaged in capturing a photographic record of events that will otherwise be lost forever, is another one.
The moment an officer attempts to exceed their authority they are no longer doing their duties. The only problem is that in almost every jurisdiction, your sincere belief that the order is unlawful is not good enough justification to disobey. The order must ALSO actually be unlawful. The officer is not under an obligation to convince you that the order is lawful (although sometimes they are required to say certain special words). If it is a lawful order, you must obey whether you understand why.
unless you have a really good reason to risk being in the wrong, you might want to just comply to be on the safe side.
maybe that is what you intended to say?
However.. I'm going to pretty much assume any cop who destroys video evidence on purpose without a judges order was not acting lawfully. destroying video evidence goes against their training and standard procedures.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry to step in, but I think you guys fundamentally agree - daveschroeder is just saying that he doesn't know the circumstances and is happy to let the court figure it out.
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an accurate assessment. The reality is that if a police officer is issuing a direct order and you choose to disobey it, there will likely be consequences. Indeed, even if you think the police officer's order really is unlawful, you're probably still going to be detained or arrested if you refuse to obey it.
Even if one makes this argument from a moral/ethical perspective, in such frameworks there is still the notion that as an independent, thinking being, one has the ability to do anything that they physically can do — whether it's take a walk, kill someone, leak a secret, tell a lie, or disobey the police. The key is recognizing that the event can have consequences.
In this case, my only concern comes from the police attempting to delete imagery from the camera. The courts can now decide whether or not this arrest is legitimate.
Re:Two separate things here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Two separate things here (Score:4, Funny)
My concern is the overwhelming willingness to be treated unlawfully so as to avoid the consequences, and yet so little consideration is given to the consequences of allowing society as a whole to be consistently treated unlawfully.
It's called 'cowardess' for a reason.
I think in this PC era we call both the male and female versions "coward".
Re:Two separate things here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
my only concern comes from the police attempting to delete imagery from the camera
So you have no concern whatsoever with your tax dollars spent to deal with it, or with the company's money being spent on lawyers to deal with it? Lost wages and productivity while sitting in jail and/or court dealing with it?
These too are consequences, yet much of it is incurred before a court decides whether or not the cop's order was lawful.
The key is recognizing that the event can have consequences.
But only for the little
Re:Two separate things here (Score:4, Interesting)
If a cop is telling you that you have to leave only because he doesnt want you to witness his activities ...
And that would be an unlawful dispersal order. That's why the parent post specifically said, "... it is possible for police to issue a lawful dispersal order ..." (emphasis added) in order to specifically speak to the point in question. Your example is clearly outside that purview, making your post merely argumentative rather than constructive.
If you believe an order to be unlawful, you are free to ignore it, and suffer the consequences until such time that the judicial system agrees with you or not. I have done so, and, fortunately for me, the consequences were not grave. A friend of mine did the same, at a different time, was subsequently arrested, but was later found to have been within his rights. The enlightened reader will understand that when the enforcement arm of our society issues a directive, not abiding by that directive has potentially serious implications, completely independent of the lawfulness of the directive.
Let's put it simply: someone carrying a badge and a gun tells you to move. You don't. There's a very real possibility that you will get shot. Yes, it would be illegal for that to happen, but the reality is that you're still bleeding, and bleeding as a result of your choice to ignore the command. Or perhaps you're not bleeding, but you've been beaten about the head, or been arrested. Eventually the judicial system might catch up and rule in your favor, but that won't change the fact that you've been injured or detained.
Re:Two separate things here (Score:4, Insightful)
I was a legal observer during the Vancouver Olympics. Luckily there were no major abuses of police power (although one officer did put a mark on our head by telling a drug dealer that we were collecting evidence against him, pretty unprofessional if you ask me).
The best advice I've been given for videotaping police is to ask where they want you to stand so that you are not in their way. If you record them saying that they want you completely out of sight, then you have collected evidence that their request was unreasonable. If they give you a reasonable distance where you can keep filming their activities, then it's not really a problem. It's dangerous to disobey a police officer even if you think you are in the right, and if you turn out to be wrong there could be consequences.
You don't have to be right beside the officers to get a good view of what's going on, and standing back a few meters often affords a better vantage point anyways.
As far as police deleting your footage, it's good to have a second voice recorder under you shirt. Vocalize your objections, "Why are you destroying this evidence??" It might be useful later.
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Informative)
The good news is that, in a court, if one party destroys evidence, the court is required to assume that the evidence is favorable to the other party. I.e. if the cops destroy a video, then the court assumes that it would be in favor of the defendant.
Re: (Score:3)
The good news is that, in a court, if one party destroys evidence, the court is required to assume that the evidence is favorable to the other party. I.e. if the cops destroy a video, then the court assumes that it would be in favor of the defendant.
the court is not required to assume anything. It is just another piece of evidence that the court must consider in totality with all the other evidence when deciding how reliable a particular witness is. It isn't as cut n dry as you make it.
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Informative)
What you are talking about is Spoliation (seriously, that's the spelling), and it can be a jury instruction, where the judge tells the jury that they should assume that the contents of the destroyed evidence (tape, image, whatever) showed that the officer was doing whatever it was the photographer says he was doing.
It could be worked like this hypothetically: I take video of police brutality, some officers come over, rough me up, take my tape, and I yell out: "This is police brutality! I'm going to sue you! That tape is evidence!" If the cop then deletes the images, destroys the tape, etc, then he has committed spoliation. When/if I sue the cop, and depending on jurisdiction, I can either: a. File a motion for sanctions and fines because the cop destroyed the evidence; b. File a motion to have the judge tell the jury that they should assume that the tape showed the judge roughing me up; or c. File an civil complaint on the topic of spoliation alone, and then even if I lose on the battery case, I might still win on the destruction of evidence case.
Jurisdictions very, don't try this at home, try not to go out into the world with a machine that still uses tape (my hypothetical apparently took place 10 years ago). There is a decent and free law journal article on the topic in Illinois, and we are very much having the video-tape-the-police-discussion here. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1536805#%23 [ssrn.com]
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Informative)
he wasn't arrested for filming the police, he was arrested for disobeying a dispersal order.
No, RTFA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, RTFA.
You have to glance at the news source... ars. It's a great tech rag, but they aren't very good journalists. If you look at the linked blog of the journalist in question (Carlos Miller - love his mug shot), [pixiq.com] you will see that he says:
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Interesting)
And if you actually research it further, you'll find that the only charges he is actually facing is "Resisting arrest". He wasn't cited for failure to disperse.
Funnily enough, he was actually asking the police if he could go to his car when one of the commanders started shouting "Arrestee! Arrestee!" and had him arrested. So apparently asking police to allow you to leave an area they have ordered you to leave is "disobeying a lawful order to disperse"... Much like being tackled from behind is "Assaulting a police officer" and lying unconscious on the ground due to a diabetic coma while cops kick you is "Resisting arrest."
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, it's the submitter's OPINION that this person was being arrested "illegally". That's something the courts will now decide. The troubling part is that the video would probably be the key evidence in such a case, I agree.
Of course, it's pretty clear that he disobeyed a direct (and likely lawful) order to disperse, and whatever happens after that I sort of lose interest in. :-/
Obviously it depends upon the jurisdiction, but in most places police do not have the authority to order people to disperse except under certain special circumstances.
If we're talking about an officer who would actually DELETE THE VIDEO then I seriously doubt the order to disperse was lawful because it is that video which would prove in court that the order to disperse was lawful. The act of deleting the video reasonably implies that the motive behind the order to disperse was simply to prevent the video from being made. In most places, destroying evidence is not a valid justification to interfere with a persons liberty and order them to disperse and consequently the order itself was without a valid purpose and was thus unlawful.
police have no right to destroy other peoples private property at their own discretion.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that anybody who says, "We don't want to have to hurt you" generally wants to hurt you.
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Two separate things here (Score:5, Informative)
The individual was being arrested for failure to obey a dispersal order, which was exactly what the officer said, not for "resisting arrest".
No, he wasn't. From TFA:
Miller was charged with a single count of resisting arrest. "Aside from a blatant violation of Mr. Miller’s First Amendment rights to record matters of public interest in a public place," [National Press Photographers Association General Consul] Osterreicher wrote [in a letter to the Miami-Dade PD], "we do not understand how, absent some other underlying charge for which there was probable cause, a charge of resisting arrest can stand on its own?"
Now, I agree that there are occasions where the police can give lawful dispersal orders, but I don't believe those orders should apply to members of the press who are documenting events (and not participating in whatever actions are causing the police to call for dispersal). Of course, as you point out, it is extremely difficult for police on the ground to identify who is "legitimate" press (and hard for us as a society to decide what "legitimate" press even is). But the thorniness of that problem should not give police the blanket authority to disperse/arrest everyone and prevent documentation of such events.
You mentioned "two separate things": the charges for which he was arrested; and the "opinion" that the arrest was illegal (it's a minor point, but I agree with you). You left out a third thing, which is probably the most important part of this piece.
After he was arrested, while the police had his camera in custody, they allegedly erased video of the events up to and including his arrest. I can't think of any reason this can be justified. If the footage was taken illegally (which may be the case since the appellate ruling referenced was for a MA case and may not apply in FL - IANAL), then the police should have preserved the evidence for trial. If the footage was not taken illegally, then there is no reasonable cause for them to delete it either. I don't think I would hold the police to a 100% standard in terms of returning property whole to suspects - it's possible if they impound your car that it get's dinged accidentally in the impound lot; your phone or computer may get dropped (not "dropped" - that would be a problem) on the floor of the evidence room. Accidents happen and like I said, I would expect the police to be perfect. But here it seems someone deliberately access the camera's memory and selectively deleted videos. It's hard to construe that as accidental.
Bottom line, once the police have evidence in custody, they are obligated to preserve it. That apparently didn't happen here, and if the allegation are true and there are no repercussions, then it is indeed a scary (police) state we live in.
Duh, if you're not a cop you're little people (Score:5, Insightful)
See Blade Runner.
The simple reason that police are not arrested for destruction of evidence is that the police enforce the law. And the police cover for each other when they break the law. Therefore the police are above the law.
I know you like to think you're living in a democratic republic where all are equal under the law, but that's just not the case. And the sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be.
Re:Duh, if you're not a cop you're little people (Score:5, Informative)
The simple reason that police are not arrested for destruction of evidence is that the police enforce the law. And the police cover for each other when they break the law. Therefore the police are above the law.
Worth noting the difference between de facto and de jure here. The police are not above the law in a purely de jure sense as there is theoretically some degree of accountability. Practically speaking, in most cases, they are above the law to some extent in a de facto sense, because it's extremely difficult for ordinary citizens to make complaints against them stick in court.
(Although in most states, the state police do have oversight responsibility over local PD's, and the FBI has oversight responsibility over state and local police. Which is one of many reasons local PD's aren't fond of state police or the Feds. And one reason you do want to be able to find contact info for your state police and FBI in the phone book.)
Re:Duh, if you're not a cop you're little people (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm I ponder...
If I make a company on another state, and my equipment belongs to said company... not only that but the equipment is constantly "broadcasting" to a datacenter (so deletions are never actually possible) ... can a savy journalist get the FBI involved since it's a cross-state crime where the local state officer tempred with property of an out-of-state company?
Slouching toward Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the former land of the free and the brave - should we ever again be worthy of that title, we'll let you know.
We know everything about you and where you live
Re:Slouching toward Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
Was america ever worthy of that title? Slavery for the first part of the countries history, women didn't get sufferage until 1919. Blacks were still segregated until the 60's and by then there was the paranoia over the cold war with people getting accused of being a communist (so what if you are?). Perhaps after the wall came down for that 10 years or so people were fine and then 9/11 happened and the US went to a police state. Also when your country has one of the highest incarceration rates you can't really claim to be very free.
Re:Slouching toward Fascism (Score:5, Informative)
Also when your country has one of the highest incarceration rates you can't really claim to be very free.
It's actually the highest. The highest in any place on the planet at any time in history.
Re:Slouching toward Fascism (Score:5, Informative)
1 out ever every 32 Americans is in prison. [commondreams.org]
Clarification: in prison, on parole, or on probation.
Re: (Score:3)
Was america ever worthy of that title? Slavery for the first part of the countries history, women didn't get sufferage until 1919. Blacks were still segregated until the 60's and by then there was the paranoia over the cold war with people getting accused of being a communist (so what if you are?). Perhaps after the wall came down for that 10 years or so people were fine and then 9/11 happened and the US went to a police state. Also when your country has one of the highest incarceration rates you can't really claim to be very free.
But to look at what you wrote a different way, we were making slow progress in the right direction. We weren't perfect, but we used to be striving to be increasingly free both in depth and breadth. That's what I miss, and I guess I'm not brave enough on my own to reclaim.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Slouching toward Fascism (Score:4, Interesting)
The US has only existed for 340 years, give or take.
Umm.... how much are you giving and taking there? I don't think a few colonies of farmers count as "the United States". You might want to review your history and your math. My ancestors came to this continent 378 years ago, but the constitution wasn't ratified until 1788 or 1789. 340 years is a very strange number to pick.
People tend to pick July 4, 1776 as the start of the United States -- which is itself a bit of an odd choice. The Declaration of Independence was passed on July 2, and some delegates thought that should be the day that was considered the birth of the US. It was signed on July 4, when clean copies were available. It wasn't read in the public square until July 6 -- basically to give all the signers a two day head start out of town on the fastest horse they could find -- signing was a act of treason, punishable by "cruel and unusual" death -- and the court room for the highest court the King had in the colonies was right across the hall from the room they were meeting in.
duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be new here? they're cops , everyone knows cops don't like to arrest other cops. And DA's don't like to charge cops unless there's a public outcry. And their sergeants usually give even the dirtiest of cops "their full support", even when there is public outcry. Most of the time they just get some paid vacation for their bad behavior. It's no wonder it just doesn't stop. When's the last time you saw a cop get suspended instead of "placed on administrative leave"?
Because cops enjoy protected status. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's illegal. Why haven't these police officers been arrested?"
Cops get let off all the time, some examples: http://bit.ly/dWV5ab [bit.ly]
This cop is not suffering from dementia, they showed him on the TV afterwards walking, talking, and smiling. In addition, it is typical in VA to be held indefinitely if your are unable to stand trial, as VA has no insanity defense.
Remember the Katrina shootings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/mistrial-declared-in-katrina-shooting_n_1239525.html [huffingtonpost.com]
After enough mistrials, the case will likely be quietly dropped as the public forgets. Shit it has been 7 years already.
Do I really need to mention the Rodney King riots?
Learn your Katrina history (Score:5, Informative)
Remember the Katrina shootings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/mistrial-declared-in-katrina-shooting_n_1239525.html [huffingtonpost.com] After enough mistrials, the case will likely be quietly dropped as the public forgets. Shit it has been 7 years already.
Please don't make comments if you don't know what you are talking about! (oh, wait, this is slashdot...) And forget?? Where you live 'people' might forget but here in New Orleans we forget very, very little of Katrina. Officers that did the shooting have been convicted and sentenced. The mistrial you point out is for one officer who was on the cover up side. Dugue was not even involved in the shooting. Please don't spread ignorance. (and don't back-peddle saying it was the cover-up dude getting off. He's not off, there's just been a mistrial)
Crimes Code Origin (Score:5, Insightful)
It's quite simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the photographer/journalist committed a crime, then the photos/video shouldn't be deleted as it is evidence.
If they didn't commit a crime, then the photos/videos shouldn't be deleted since the they were engaging in a legal activity.
If a police officer (or worse, security guard) orders you to or seizes your camera to delete a photo/video you've taken, they are either destroying evidence, infringing on your civil liberties, or both.
'resisting arrest' (Score:4, Informative)
"How can a journalist be charged with 'resisting arrest' when he was not being arrested for anything other than resisting arrest?"
I believe that resisting arrest is an umbrella term that can apply by itself.
If a cop is legally pulling you over to simply check if you are intoxicated (etc) or just asking to talk to you on the street and you run away then legally you are resisting arrest even though you where not being arrested in the first place.
Head's hurting (Score:5, Funny)
1 "You're under arrest"
2 "For what?"
3 "For resisting arrest"
4 "Arrest on what charge?"
5 "Resisting arrest." GOTO 1
?@#! Calls for an xkcd.
Re:Head's hurting (Score:5, Informative)
1. Am i being arrested?
2. Am i free to go?
Re:Head's hurting (Score:5, Informative)
Odd, I once commented, with some indignation, that I was annoyed that a police cruiser was parked in a supermarket lot, with no one inside, and the engine running. I think I said, (of the non-present cop), "What an idiot! Leaving the car running like that!". It was an opinion.
Well, said "idiot" appeared, and asked me if there was a problem. I responded (politely) that I found it annoying that one would leave a car, with its engine running, like that. He informed me "It's the law". I didn't know if such police protocol was actually dictated by statute or not, so chose not to disagree. I STILL think it is idiocy, whether required by statute, or not. Officer "idiot" was in the way of my path, so I asked him, "Am I under arrest?" He replied, "No." I then asked "Am I free to go?" I was THEN told "No," and detained in the back of the running crusier while he conferred with his partner to determine if I should be arrested. I was warned that "next time", I'd be arrested for "disorderly conduct", and released.
So, now expressing an opinion in public is "disorderly conduct". I was not in "anyone's face", blocking anyone's path, or following anyone to express my opinion to them: I looked, spoke my mind, and kept on my way.
Photojournalists already know the tricks (Score:4, Informative)
Most decent photojournalists know every slight of hand and trick in the book when it comes to keeping the material, especially those who are used to working in corrupt countries. A little sleight-of-hand and the cop is smashing a blank tape, confiscating a blank hard drive on a different camera, or ignoring the memory stick the report has under his tongue.
Am I the only one? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who thinks, in this day and age of easy video & audio recording, that ANY interaction police have with ANYONE for ANY reason (in an official capacity or as "an off duty police officer" responding to something) should be required to be recorded by the police themselves or "it didn't happen"?
Traffic stops, parking tickets, entering homes - ANYTHING - get it all on video and audio and require that said videos be made available for all parties privy to that.
Were I in charge of the world, that's one of the first things I would do - require all law enforcement people to wear video and audio recording devices at all times, even inside of their offices etc.
It should be a no brainer that civilians should be able to record any interaction they have with police, of course. I can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't be.
Re: (Score:3)
"resisting arrest" is not the same "arrest" (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm just guessing, but I think "resisting arrest" is english, whereas being "arrested" is jargon. Being "arrested" is being detained by police on charges. Where as "resisting arrest" is simply resisting being stopped by police. Just a thought.
Re: (Score:3)
There, that's fixed it for you.
The virtue of OSS (Score:4, Interesting)
Every comment I have seen has been on the social aspects of this incident. Let's talk about the software aspect of it
(from TFA)
"I used Stellar Phoenix recovery software for the first recovery, which has proven to be unable to recover large files in its entirety. I used PhotoRec for the second recovery, which did the job. PhotoRec has a steeper learning curve than Stellar Phoenix, but it’s free, unlike the former."
Score one for open source software. Better than the proprietary alternative in this case.
Full video now available (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.pixiq.com/article/i-recovered-the-full-uninterrupted-video-police-deleted [pixiq.com]
What an arrest actually is (Score:4, Informative)
tl;dr "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge. [thefreedictionary.com]
The purpose of an arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the administration of the law. An arrest serves the function of notifying the community that an individual has been accused of a crime and also may admonish and deter the arrested individual from committing other crimes. Arrests can be made on both criminal charges and civil charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure that is not looked upon with favor by the courts. The federal Constitution imposes limits on both civil and criminal arrests.
An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest.
The test used to determine whether an arrest took place in a particular case is objective, and it turns on whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go. A reasonable person is one who is not guilty of criminal conduct, overly apprehensive, or insensitive to the seriousness of the circumstances. Reasonableness is not determined in light of a defendant's subjective knowledge or fears. The subjective intent of the police is also normally irrelevant to a court's determination whether an arrest occurred, unless the officer makes that intent known. Thus, a defendant's presence at a police station by consent does not become an arrest solely by virtue of an officer's subjective view that the defendant is not free to leave, absent an act indicating an intention to take the defendant into custody.
I have highlighted the important points. One can be arrested on the scene of a possible crime and let go with no charges. One can be arrested by the officer(s) telling one not to leave because he wants to question one. Then, by attempting to leave, one can be arrested for resisting arrest, but this time taken into custody, transported to jail, booked, etc. It wasn't that long ago that one might be arrested for being drunk, dropped in the drunk tank, then let go without charges when one sobered up.
This is yet another problem with the ambiguity of the English language especially in the case of legal or professional jargon as opposed to general usage.
Re:Why haven't these police officers been arrested (Score:5, Insightful)
American outrage has been downgraded to camping in public places or really really aggressive drum circles.
Because here in the USA, if you do much more than that without really covering your ass, you become a "terrorist" and a guest of the government down in Gitmo. Dissenting speech is only "free" in theory here .. for all practical purposes, it might as well be illegal for all that you get to exercise it.
And never underestimate the teaching power of a public (and clearly nonviolent) drum circle in certain places at certain times .. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Ya right because our police are sooo much better!! Good ol' RCMP never gets their hands dirty right?
Oh wait...
More guns than they have (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot arrest a cop. You can try, but he'll hit you with his billy club, or taser you, or shoot you, because he feels he's in the right and you're the perp, and nothing you do will change that. The more you try and arrest him, the angrier he'll get.
So, it comes down to numbers. He'll call for backup to take you down. You then need to have enough backup to take him and his backup down. So, they'll call for more backup, and it will simply escalate until it's a full-blown shooting war and the national guard is involved.
Ever see 5 police cars to pull over 1 guy? Ever see 30 cops questioning one dude in the subway?
Cops use overwhelming force to take down a perp. So unless you have a significant army at your disposal that can outgun, essentially, the entire police force, and possibly even the SWAT teams, the National Guard, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, you can't arrest a cop.
How'd that work out for those Branch Dividians?
Re: (Score:3)
A backpack nuke with a deadman's switch should work...
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)