Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Your Rights Online

Man Charged With HIPAA Violations For Video Taping Police 620

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the being-a-jerk-is-not-a-prosecutable-crime dept.
Bob the Super Hamste writes "The St. Paul Pioneer Press is reporting that Andrew Henderson was recording Ramsey County sheriff's deputies frisking a bloody-faced man, who was then loaded into an ambulance by paramedics. Then sheriff's deputy Jacqueline Muellner approached Henderson and confiscated his video camera, stating, 'We'll just take this for evidence,' which was recorded on Henderson's cell phone. On October 30th, Henderson went to the Arden Hills sheriff's office to retrieve his video camera, where he was told where he would have to wait to receive his camera back. A week later, Henderson was charged with obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct, with the citation stating, 'While handling a medical/check the welfare (call), (Henderson) was filming it. Data privacy HIPAA violation. Refused to identify self. Had to stop dealing with sit(uation) to deal w/Henderson.' In mid November, Henderson went back to the sheriff's office to attempt to retrieve his camera and get a copy of the report when Deputy Dan Eggers refused. ... Jennifer Granick, a specialist on privacy issues at Stanford University Law School, states that the alleged violation of HIPAA rules by Andrew Henderson is nonsense, stating, 'There's nothing in HIPAA that prevents someone who's not subject to HIPAA from taking photographs on the public streets, HIPAA has absolutely nothing to say about that.'" The article notes that the Deputy in question basically told the guy he was arrested for being a "buttinski" and recording someone in the midst of a violent mental health breakdown. Supposedly the footage was deleted from the camera while in police custody.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Man Charged With HIPAA Violations For Video Taping Police

Comments Filter:
  • sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RearNakedChoke (1102093) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:27PM (#42534553)
    For fraks sake. Will SCOTUS please making a damn ruling that absolutely allows for any and all recording of police officers in a public place no matter what? This is getting ridiculous.
    • Re:sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SJHillman (1966756) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:30PM (#42534591)

      They're already making up bullshit to get away with it... what makes you think a SCOTUS ruling will stop it? They may have well charged the guy with poaching polar bears... it would have made as much sense as claiming a HIPAA violation to get him to stop video taping.

      • Re:sigh (Score:5, Funny)

        by Sulphur (1548251) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:47PM (#42534791)

        They're already making up bullshit to get away with it... what makes you think a SCOTUS ruling will stop it? They may have well charged the guy with poaching polar bears... it would have made as much sense as claiming a HIPAA violation to get him to stop video taping.

        This here poaching a pola bears has to stop. Yo in a heap a troulble heah.

      • Re:sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ohnocitizen (1951674) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:47PM (#42534795)
        We need legislation that not only enshrines the right to record any and all public officials, but adds severe consequences to the destruction of evidence.
        • Re:sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

          by DragonTHC (208439) <Dragon AT gamerslastwill DOT com> on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:59PM (#42535025) Homepage Journal

          The police have been terrified ever since Rodney King was filmed getting his beating.

          Let's not forget, today's police are not Andy Griffith. Their job can be dangerous, and they're only human. That doesn't mean they have a right to privacy in their work. It doesn't mean they can violate their use of force policies because no one is watching. People are watching. That just means they need to follow the rules too. Understood they're not happy about it.

          • Re:sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ChipMonk (711367) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:30PM (#42535665) Journal

            Their job can be dangerous, and they're only human.

            Which is all the more reason to allow citizen recording. When some flaming asshole decides he's going to accuse the police of excessive force, brutality, what have you, third-party record of the incident will be the police officer's best friend.

            • Re:sigh (Score:5, Informative)

              by 0111 1110 (518466) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @03:32PM (#42536961)

              The problem is it is almost never their best friend. I was told by a criminal attorney in my state that the state decided to discontinue video recording police encounters because 99.9% of the time it was losing cases for them. The video evidence was almost never in their favor. So they stopped. The number of violent, dangerous, angry, sadistic cops on the force is nothing but an embarrassment for the state. Police brutality and perjury is not just routine it is expected by almost everyone.

            • Re:sigh (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Dr Damage I (692789) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @03:33PM (#42536983) Journal
              The police already have dash cam videos and the sanctity of police testimony on their side. They don't need the protection of members of the public recording them and recordings made by members of the public that are inconvenient cannot be made to disappear.
          • Re:sigh (Score:4, Interesting)

            by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:45PM (#42535991) Homepage Journal
            With that in mind....

            Does NO ONE out there have their phone to automatically 'lock', and have their password be longer than 4x numbers?

            A cop gets my phone...will take them more than casual effort to get into it, no?

            Hell, last time I got pulled over, and was asked to get out of the car, I dropped the phone down beside the seat, and when I stepped out of the car, I locked it behind me, and no...if they had asked, I would not have given consent for search.

            • Re:sigh (Score:4, Informative)

              by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:51PM (#42536089) Homepage

              A cop gets my phone...will take them more than casual effort to get into it, no?

              Actually, no [forbes.com].

              Generally, law enforcement is going to get into your phone pretty handily.

          • Re:sigh (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Man On Pink Corner (1089867) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:54PM (#42536155)

            Their job can be dangerous

            Which explains why I'm not allowed to film loggers, pilots, miners, roofers, fishermen, pizza drivers, or any of several other professions that carry an even higher risk [riskmanage...onitor.com] of on-the-job fatalities.

            No, police officers are just better at whining about how dangerous their job is.

          • Re:sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

            by sjames (1099) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @03:12PM (#42536525) Homepage

            Perhaps if they WERE more like Andy Griffith their job would be less dangerous.

            Their job is dangerous because they have lost public support in many communities. They lost that support because people don't support jack booted thugs. It's why parents tell their kids that if they get lost, avoid the police and find a woman with kids to help them.

          • Re:sigh (Score:4, Insightful)

            by RearNakedChoke (1102093) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @05:09PM (#42538505)

            The police have been terrified ever since Rodney King was filmed getting his beating.

            Let's not forget, today's police are not Andy Griffith. Their job can be dangerous, and they're only human. That doesn't mean they have a right to privacy in their work. It doesn't mean they can violate their use of force policies because no one is watching. People are watching. That just means they need to follow the rules too. Understood they're not happy about it.

            To quote the police, "if the police are doing nothing illegal, they have nothing to fear from being recorded"

        • Re:sigh (Score:5, Interesting)

          by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:39PM (#42535853) Homepage Journal

          We need legislation that not only enshrines the right to record any and all public officials, but adds severe consequences to any violation of law by law enforcement personnel.

          FTFY.

          I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing corrupt cops literally getting away with murder (and every crime between). Time to bring the Blue Wall of Silence crashing down.

    • Re:sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Derekloffin (741455) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:32PM (#42534629)
      I agree, although sadly they'd probably find another BS reason to arrest people over this. I just wish these cops and prosecutors wouldn't keep proving they lack integrity like this. Sigh.
      • Re:sigh (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Scutter (18425) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:40PM (#42534703) Journal

        Stop voting for the prosecutors who lack integrity. I blame voters who don't pay any attention to the candidates for whom they vote. They vote for whichever name sounds the best.

        • Re:sigh (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:02PM (#42535085)

          AAAahahahaha!

          Oh, that's good, acting like voting matters.

          But no, seriously, we should come up with a real way to solve the problem.

          • How would we know? Voter turnout for the presidential election was about 50%. For local elections, like prosecutors, it's lower. Aside from rare occasions, people who don't know a local candidate personally don't vote. Can you name any of your state legislators, prosecutor etc? WE HAVEN'T TRIED INFORMED VOTING. At least not in a while.

            Anyway, what are you suggesting? If not voting them out... then what? Vigilante justice? Living in the woods away from society?
            • Re:sigh (Score:5, Interesting)

              by 0111 1110 (518466) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @03:48PM (#42537233)

              Well after being severely beaten and nearly killed by an angry cop and nearly getting several years in prison for made up charges I am moving to somewhere very remote, with very loose gun laws (so that I can protect myself against cops), and where coming into contact with the police at all is much less likely. For me, it's either that or leaving the country. America has some of the most violent, dangerous, corrupt, and angry cops in the world. And they are both well armed and well protected with body armor. How I long for a place where cops are just normal people doing a job. Somewhere where the majority of cops are not sociopaths with no feelings of remorse and no conscience. Was there ever a time when cops in America actually had a sense of right and wrong like they often have in the movies and on TV? American cops don't even respect the very laws they are supposed to enforce. At least when it applies to themselves.

              • Re:sigh (Score:4, Interesting)

                by Nyder (754090) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @07:50PM (#42540689) Journal

                Well after being severely beaten and nearly killed by an angry cop and nearly getting several years in prison for made up charges I am moving to somewhere very remote, with very loose gun laws (so that I can protect myself against cops), and where coming into contact with the police at all is much less likely. For me, it's either that or leaving the country. America has some of the most violent, dangerous, corrupt, and angry cops in the world. And they are both well armed and well protected with body armor. How I long for a place where cops are just normal people doing a job. Somewhere where the majority of cops are not sociopaths with no feelings of remorse and no conscience. Was there ever a time when cops in America actually had a sense of right and wrong like they often have in the movies and on TV? American cops don't even respect the very laws they are supposed to enforce. At least when it applies to themselves.

                But in previous posts on slashdot you've already claimed that you got beat by cops for talking smack to them. While it sucks you got beat down, I think you should accept that you provoked it.

                I've been arrested a ton of times, I have NEVER been beaten by a cop. Why? Because I know better then to talk shit when they have the upper hand. That gets you nowhere, except beaten or dead.

                • Re:sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by 0111 1110 (518466) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @11:22PM (#42542443)

                  I never said it was unprovoked. It was provoked. I swore right back at the thing. Are you saying that makes what it did to me okay?

                  Right after the words left my mouth I knew I was in deep shit. In fact, at the time I thought it might actually be illegal. Only later did I learn that it is perfectly legal (although suicidal) to do so. I had no idea how truly suicidal it was and almost died because of it. I'll also have to live with memory impairment for the rest of my life because of those two words.

                  I had had very little contact with cops before (mainly lots of speeding tickets) and, although I already hated them and knew they were bullies/thugs I guess I assumed they had at least some respect for the laws they enforced. I watched too much Miami Vice and other cop shows I guess. I knew that stuff wasn't real, but maybe it subtly distorted my view of what real cops were like. Real cops don't have principles, don't care about right or wrong or abstract ideas like justice.

                  The essential mistake I made was in assuming that they were just regular guys who might think such roadblocks were bullshit. That they were just doing a job. I should never have tried to complain to it in the first place. Now I know that they are not truly human. Not like you and I. They are animals. Just mindless things who understand only violence. Trying to talk to one is like trying to talk to a hungry shark or crocodile. Not a lot of point to it and it's likely to end badly.

                  So due to all those faulty assumptions, when it called me an asshole I swore right back at the thing just like I would if anyone else swore at me. I simply would never have imagined in my wildest dreams that it would try to kill me just for saying two words to it. And then file false charges against me as if the strangling and beating I received were not sufficient punishment. I had never before met another human being that was quite that twisted and evil and violent. It was a tough lesson. I would never treat a cop like a human being ever again and avoiding contact with them at any cost is my priority.

                  I've been arrested a ton of times, I have NEVER been beaten by a cop. Why? Because I know better then to talk shit when they have the upper hand. That gets you nowhere, except beaten or dead.

                  Yeah. I realize that now, but I didn't know it at the time. I'm just an aging, overweight computer geek. I didn't have that kind of street wisdom. The way I thought about cops seems to be pretty common here on slashdot. It's a result of ignorance, movies, and a lack of real exposure to cops.

                  I see the same ignorant assumptions all the time here and after my experience I made a decision to try to at least give some prior warning to other geeks like me who may not realize how indistinguishable real life cops are from the most violent criminals. So I try to make at least one post in every police brutality thread I happen to notice so other isolated computer geeks can at least hear about the truth of what cops are really like. They may not believe the warning, but at least they have the chance to avoid what happened to me.

                  When I spent the night in jail after being arrested I noticed everyone else in the holding cells referred to the cop jailers as "sir". That gave me pause. When I thought about why they would do that and what they might know that I didn't know it definitely worried me. AFAIK they were all just drunk drivers (and yeah, they were really drunk). So I'm not sure how they came about this wisdom, but I respected it. Although I couldn't bring myself address them this way myself. I was terrified of them. All of them. But I just couldn't bring myself to call them "sir".

    • by alexander_686 (957440) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:41PM (#42534709)

      So, let me ask the flip question – one that I have been struggling with. Should public officials have privacy while on duty? Probably not. But what about citizens? How do we protect their rights?

      If I were Rodney King I would want my arrest to be videotaped. Check on the power of the police – that fine.

      A good phone should be able to eavesdrop on the private interview between suspect and cop.

      And, what if I did not want the tape to be posted? Maybe I did something shameful and don’t want it to be public? Maybe something that is implied to be shameful – like a false arrest. Let’s say you were pulled over for a moving violation in a red light district? A little careful editing and it could look very bad.

      • by hondo77 (324058) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:46PM (#42534775) Homepage

        Maybe I did something shameful and don't want it to be public?

        Then you shouldn't have done it in public.

        • by Luckyo (1726890) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:01PM (#42535043)

          It's noted that the person being arrested was having a mental health breakdown. Photographing people having that and then posting it online is usually classified as "cyber bullying".

          • by tooyoung (853621)
            Where did you get that the video was posted online? The only thing posted was the audio of the discussion with the police.
          • you mean the cops automagically follow rules, laws, regulations, and start acting in their victim's best intrest when someone is having a "mental health breakdown",

            so what would normally be checks and balances against abuse of authority, now becomes cyber bullying if you ever question "being arrested for having a mental health breakdown"
      • by Furmy (854336) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:49PM (#42534841)
        If you are in public you have should have no expectation of privacy. If someone edits and shares the video to change the story then that could be grounds for libel.
      • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:53PM (#42534903) Homepage Journal

        Are you in public? then your right to privacy does not include filming you about your business.
        That is ANYBODY.

        "And, what if I did not want the tape to be posted? "
        Too damn bad.
        "Maybe I did something shameful and don’t want it to be public?"
        Too damn bad.

        " A little careful editing and it could look very bad."
        and now you change the subject. That would be lying or fraud. We have laws for that already.

        • Are you in public? then your right to privacy does not include filming you about your business.

          Unless, of course, it's the government installing security cameras everywhere. Then it becomes a major problem for me.

          • by davydagger (2566757) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:23PM (#42535487)
            the problem is that many of them are "secret" cameras.

            So the system can ignore evidence, and only use the recordings when they deem fit.

            I think that all police and government owned cameras not installed with a warrant, should produce footage which is public domain, and made available as web cams, with recorded copies available via FIOA
        • by perpenso (1613749) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:25PM (#42535529)

          Are you in public? then your right to privacy does not include filming you about your business. That is ANYBODY.

          I do not think that is accurate. If you are recording things for your personal use I suspect its true. If you are recording for public use I suspect its not true, hence the need to get "model release" signatures or blur the faces of regular people who are recognizable. Note "regular" people, celebrities and public officials do not get this sort of protection.

          Also note that some places open to the public are not public spaces. I believe that on private property open to the public recording can be prohibited. I don't think you can get arrested but the property owner can surely instruct you to leave. If you fail to do so then you are trespassing and subject to arrest.

      • by ezakimak (160186) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:53PM (#42534909)

        There is *no privacy* in a *public* place. By definition. For any party, anywhere. How you act in public, witnesses around or not, is open to public knowledge--be it praiseworthy or ridicule-worthy.

        Furthermore, if they first claim it was being taken in as evidence, then later they *deleted* the file--doesn't that constitute destruction of evidence (the source recording) on the police department's part? (unless they used full chain-of-custody and a data-forensics lab to copy the file?) Not to mention the obvious violation of his private information as well--I highly doubt they bothered to get a search warrant before perusing his phone's contents.

        • by arth1 (260657)

          There is *no privacy* in a *public* place. By definition. For any party, anywhere.

          This is dead wrong, and doesn't get more true by being repeated. See, there is this legal phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" that applies even in public spaces.

          If you walk on the street, you have every right to expect someone not pushing a camera under your skirt or taking infra-red camera pictures to check out your body.
          And if you hike in a national forest, you have every right to not being charged with public exposure if you take a whizz behind a tree.

          A public servant on duty in a public space, o

      • by bmo (77928) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:11PM (#42535225)

        >Should public officials have privacy while on duty?

        If they are out in public, no. They have the same right to privacy that you and I do out in public: none.

        >But what about citizens?

        You have no right to privacy out in public. This is established law. Doing something out on a public thoroughfare, sidewalk, public building, etc, means that you expect people to see you do/say things. It's the reason why the police don't need a warrant to arrest you for doing something illegal in front of them.

        >A good phone should be able to eavesdrop on the private interview between suspect and cop.

        If it's in an office, it's private, but not out in public. It's a publich conversation.

        Tough shit.

        >And, what if I did not want the tape to be posted?

        Tough shit.

        >Maybe I did something shameful and donâ(TM)t want it to be public?

        Tough shit.

        >Maybe something that is implied to be shameful â" like a false arrest.

        Tough shit.

        You can redress this by various means up to and including suing for false arrest and making public statements about the bad practices of the PD that led to the false arrest.

        >Letâ(TM)s say you were pulled over for a moving violation in a red light district? A little careful editing and it could look very bad.

        Tough shit. The only right you have to complain is whether the editing was defamatory.

        --
        BMO

    • Re:sigh (Score:5, Informative)

      by MobyDisk (75490) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:58PM (#42535013) Homepage

      They have.

      One state supreme court struck down a law making recording police officers illegal [slashdot.org]. And the Department of Justice wrote a letter to the police departments telling them to knock it off. [slashdot.org] And several courts have repeatedly thrown out [slashdot.org] these cases [slashdot.org] already.

    • Re:sigh (Score:5, Informative)

      by MrKevvy (85565) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:00PM (#42535029)

      SCOTUS doesn't need to make a ruling upholding a constitutional right, as the constitution already does.

      The Justice Department affirmed this strongly when they sent a letter to the Baltimore PD [wired.com] which asserted that it is a first amendment right to record, and a violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments to access and/or destroy such recordings without due process and/or a warrant.

      This made national headlines and so it's assured every police department in the U.S. is well aware of this.

      The victim should be contacting the DOJ and ACLU in short order.

    • by Amouth (879122)

      SCOTUS rulings mean very little until you are in a court room.

  • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:27PM (#42534559)

    Supposedly the evidence was deleted from the camera while in police custody.

    Fixed that for ya.

    • by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya.gmail@com> on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:43PM (#42534745)

      Supposedly the evidence was deleted from the camera while in police custody.

      Fixed that for ya.

      Well, at least he can no longer be charged without any evidence, right? Or are they trying to charge him with HIPAA violation without a video that he allegedly recorded?

      Seriously, when did it become acceptable that evidence can just disappear in police custody? I know it is not the same as 11 (or was it 17?) police cruiser cameras malfunctioning simultaneously but still.

    • by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:51PM (#42534873)

      Supposedly the evidence was deleted from the camera while in police custody.

      This is obviously a case of the police not knowing the law (shocker, I know). I think the officers meant well enough -- I mean, how would you like the worst day of your life being thrown up on YouTube by some paparazzi? But they handled this very badly. I would be willing to bet that if the police had simply approached the guy and said, "Look man, this guy's had a rough night and he doesn't need video of it showing up on the internet. Unless you think there's a crime happening here, could you please delete the footage? I think this guy deserves a little respect," that the guy would have complied. Unless of course he's a total douche, in which case that's what disorderly conduct is for, and the police, while still wrong, could have simply taken him to jail, had his possessions surrendered, and then deleted the footage and released him after booking.

      There are good ways, bad ways, and terrible ways, to handle these sorts of issues. I think it's obvious here which one they picked.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      tampered with, destroyed, deleted, obstructed by conspiracy you say?

      In a manner in which they have institutionally committed multiple felonies that would be eligible under RICO you say?

      Yeah, good luck getting a fucking prosecutor to do their job.

      The US needs a citizen commission of prosecutors eligible to bypass prosecutorial 'discretion' with all of the normal assistance and good faith a defendant representing themself would get.

  • by HornWumpus (783565) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:30PM (#42534595)

    He's set.

    I just wish he could take the cops houses as well as a bunch of taxpayer money.

  • Mix (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phantomfive (622387) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:32PM (#42534627) Journal
    I disagree and think that police should be allowed to be filmed in public places at all times, to help keep them honest.

    At the same time, if I were being loaded into an ambulance by police, in the midst of a violent mental health breakdown, I would really appreciate it if the police stopped people from filming me. That's not something you want out spread around the internet.
    • Re:Mix (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MBGMorden (803437) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:36PM (#42534653)

      At the same time, if I were being loaded into an ambulance by police, in the midst of a violent mental health breakdown, I would really appreciate it if the police stopped people from filming me. That's not something you want out spread around the internet.

      Freedom isn't always convenient. Hell some people enjoy very nice lives under a dictatorship (particularly the dictator themselves). Doesn't mean its right. What you're effectively saying is that people should have their speech restricted even if its the truth so long as someone else finds that speech embarrassing or offensive.

      Do you not know the road that takes us down?

      • Re:Mix (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:44PM (#42534757)

        No, he's saying that we should expect common decency from our fellow man, but, since people have decided to think in Black and White and act like "buttinski's", never acknowledging that reasonable limits can be self enforced by individuals, he's willing to accept that maybe we don't deserve the freedom we say is so important.

        Remember its not just the government who can stomp all over the individual...other individuals can do it to. Unfortunately we're so quick to point out absolute wrong of the government, that we ignore our responsibility not to be an ass in a functioning society. Just because the police are wrong doesn't make the guy with the camera right.

        • Re:Mix (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MBGMorden (803437) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:50PM (#42534855)

          Being an asshole is legal, and should be. Freedom when it gets right down to it is all about doing things other people don't like. If every action you perform is in complete compliance with society's accepted definition of normal then you don't need any laws to protect your rights, because nobody is going to complain about your actions in the first place.

          The protections are there to specifically protect against the UNPOPULAR actions that people get chided for. Freedom to do what you want so long as it conforms to exactly what society approves of isn't freedom at all.

        • by fredrated (639554)

          On the other hand, if the person being detained by the police was injured they would be screaming at the top of their lungs calling for video.

          As for "not to be an ass in a functioning society" I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      Except there's actually nothing at all which is illegal about what the guy did, and absolutely no legal basis to arrest him on a HIPAA violation.

      These are trumped up, bullshit charges. Period.

      The cops are being asshats, and should be charged.

      • by admdrew (782761)

        Except there's actually nothing at all which is illegal about what the guy did

        Correct, although...

        and absolutely no legal basis to arrest him on a HIPAA violation.

        ...he wasn't arrested, nor was he charged "on a HIPAA violation". See this comment [slashdot.org].

    • Re:Mix (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ohnocitizen (1951674) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:49PM (#42534833)
      That's presuming "a violent mental breakdown" matches the actual events. If I was beaten up by the police and loaded into an ambulance with the tag "this guy is psychotic", I'd sure as hell want someone to have recorded what really happened.
    • Re:Mix (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:49PM (#42534843) Journal

      Allowing the police to avoid being observed and recorded has consequences that affect society as a whole. That's really bad.

      Allowing the police to enforce the privacy of someone they're arresting only really affects those few who are arrested. Arrest being an offical duty by a public official, should not really carry any sort of reasonable expectation of privacy. And whatever is captured on video actually happened, so there are no legitimate concerns of libel or slander. On the whole, this is not that bad.

      I think it's clear where the balance lies. I would rather have a 100% chance of any future interaction between myself and law enforcement to be recorded and distributed on the internet than risk the slightest chance of police getting away with brutality. Allowing video might reveal some crazy shit I actually did. Prohibiting video might conceal some crazy shit the police actually did.

      Of course, in some jurisdictions a police officer can be caught on tape sodomizing a prisoner with a tazer [huliq.com] and suffer nothing but "additional training". So YMMV.

    • by Spamalope (91802)

      in the midst of a violent mental health breakdown, I would really appreciate it if the police stopped people from filming me.

      The article says he saw the police handling a bloodied man. While shooting the video he wouldn't know the circumstances resulting in the injury. Even now we don't have information about whether the person in the video was bloodied by the police. If he was, that's the exact time video should be rolling. A complete video record is the best defense an honest officer has. People in positions of special trust should be held to a higher standard, and we can start with the 'if you have nothing to hide' trope.

      I'm a

  • by Scutter (18425) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:38PM (#42534687) Journal

    If he was charged with a crime directly related to that video and it somehow got deleted while in police custody, how is that not tampering with evidence?

  • by EmperorOfCanada (1332175) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:55PM (#42534957)
    There needs to be a new law that makes it clearly illegal for the police to interfere with someone recording them in a public place. Given the fact that police can be menacing it should be illegal for them to even ask you to stop or actively try to block you. In the same way they can't continue to ask you questions once you invoke your right to have an attorney present and have invoked your right to silence. The penalty for the law should be multi fold. Potential felony for the cop but also a minimum fine partially payable to the victim. This would serve to get more people videoing the police and the insult of the police having to write out checks to people they tried to intimidate would be golden.

    The next tier of offense would be if the police then erase the video. With that there should be a minimum mandatory sentence along with a huge fine, again with much going to the victim.

    Lastly there should be no exceptions tossed in as the slightest wedge given to the police would be abused to hell; So no being able to say it is evidence. If someone videos the police then the video should be as sacrosanct as client attorney privilege; if they want to youtube it then fine if they want to keep it safe then their choice.

    It all boils down to information is power. Previously it was the whole your word against a policeman's which basically made their side of a story the only side of a story. But now the public has massive power not only through the video but through the near frictionless ability to distribute that video. 20 years ago if you were to say video the police pulling over a clearly drunk powerful politician even the local media might not touch that video assuming the police let you walk 5 feet away with it. Now you put it on youtube and the police suddenly do their job and charge the politician and while the prosecutor might not go for the throat will at least go through the minimum motions.

    But all arguments that this somehow interferes with the police being able to do their jobs is false. The police have the clear ability to abuse or not abuse their power. But someone videoing the police does not change what happens they are not able to create abuse they can potentially try to show something out of context or add a colourful commentary but most people aren't stupid and will see through that in a flash. My guess is that any policeman that gets frustrated with being recorded is a policeman who doesn't want to be forced to obey the rules or knows they just broke the rules. They are lashing out because of frustration not because they think they are in the right.

    This all reminds me of a local Indian restaurant lashing out after being closed for a zillion health violations; they argued that the health inspectors didn't understand Indian cooking nor did they think the health inspectors had any right to be in their kitchens. They argued that their insurance didn't cover health inspectors only employees, that the health inspectors were exaggerating, and that the inspection reports should not be public as the public wouldn't understand them. These all sound like the arguments that police make against recording them.
  • by DragonWriter (970822) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:56PM (#42534965)
    While the headline of TFS asserts that he was charged with a HIPAA violation, the TFA makes clear that he was, in fact, charged with "obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct"; the notes on the citation describing the event mention a HIPAA data privacy violation, but that's the description of the officer's version of the facts surrounding the charge, not the charged offense.
  • by segfault_0 (181690) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @01:56PM (#42534971)

    HIPAA protects patients from medical entities and corporations, not from citizens on the street who have nothing to do with the dispensation of medical care.

    CROOKED COPS.

  • by swb (14022) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:00PM (#42535041)

    This is the problem with the mindset that everytime something bad happens we need a law to prevent it from happening again.

    We have so many laws now that new laws often go unenforced (or the old ones they supplement go unenforced), and the police now have a laundry list of bullshit laws they can whip out when convenient.

  • by davydagger (2566757) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:05PM (#42535119)
    "The article notes that the Deputy in question basically told the guy he was arrested for being a "buttinski""

    If thats an arrestable offense, I'm in serious shit.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:07PM (#42535145)

    Since the recorded video was in fact a video/movie, and the MPAA has bought the laws that state that IP = P, then deleting the movie is destruction of property.

    So we have

    False Arrest
    Aggrevated theft
    Destruction of property
    Making false police reports
    Falsifying evidence
    Evidence tampering

    I'd say minimum 5 years in prison for the deputy.

  • by Trailer Trash (60756) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:15PM (#42535305) Homepage

    Start by not using their language. They didn't "confiscate" his camera - they robbed him and stole his camera. See how that's suddenly a different story? But that's the *correct* version of it. "Confiscation" implies that they took it temporarily under some statutory authority. What they actually did was "strong-arm robbery", with an aggravating circumstance of "under color of law" or "with a gun", or both. That's a felony any way you slice it.

    I read a lot of these stories, and the press and everybody discussing it uses the weasel language created by law enforcement to cover up LEO crimes. So, a kidnapping becomes a "false arrest" (no such thing, as an "arrest" is defined as "taking someone into custody *under legal authority*"), robbery becomes "confiscation", perjury becomes "made a mistake while filing a sworn affidavit", assault becomes "excessive force", etc. This is a problem. Start calling the crimes by their proper names and it suddenly becomes a lot more difficult to justify it or write it off.

    The victim needs to go straight to the DA and demand prosecution. It wouldn't happen unless the prosecutor is honest (and there actually are a few), but with enough noise he'll get his camera back and hopefully someone will get at least a stern talking-to.

  • by alexo (9335) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:26PM (#42535551) Journal

    It will never stop until police "officers" are personally criminally responsible for their criminal actions, and are actively prosecuted for them.
    Since that will never happen, the abuse will never stop.

  • by viperidaenz (2515578) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:39PM (#42535865)

    So media can be uploaded immediately.

    Dropbox uploads all my photos for me.

  • Legal defense fund? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:39PM (#42535873)

    If someone sets up a legal defense fund, I'd be happy to chip in.

    I'd also chip in for a fund to pay for going after that deputy and that police department.

  • by DynamoJoe (879038) on Wednesday January 09, 2013 @02:53PM (#42536143)
    Doesn't the justin.tv app stream to a remote server while it's recording? Good luck deleting the video there, officer.

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay

Working...