What To Say When the Police Tell You To Stop Filming Them 509
HughPickens.com writes: Robinson Meyer writes in The Atlantic that first of all, police shouldn't ask. "As a basic principle, we can't tell you to stop recording," says Delroy Burton, a 21-year veteran of DC's police force. "If you're standing across the street videotaping, and I'm in a public place, carrying out my public functions, [then] I'm subject to recording, and there's nothing legally the police officer can do to stop you from recording." What you don't have a right to do is interfere with an officer's work. ""Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations," according to Jay Stanley who wrote the ACLU's "Know Your Rights" guide for photographers, which lays out in plain language the legal protections that are assured people filming in public. Police officers may not confiscate or demand to view your digital photographs or video without a warrant and police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances.
What if an officer says you are interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations and you disagree with the officer? "If it were me, and an officer came up and said, 'You need to turn that camera off, sir,' I would strive to calmly and politely yet firmly remind the officer of my rights while continuing to record the interaction, and not turn the camera off," says Stanley. The ACLU guide also supplies the one question those stopped for taking photos or video may ask an officer: "The right question to ask is, 'am I free to go?' If the officer says no, then you are being detained, something that under the law an officer cannot do without reasonable suspicion that you have or are about to commit a crime or are in the process of doing so. Until you ask to leave, your being stopped is considered voluntary under the law and is legal."
What if an officer says you are interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations and you disagree with the officer? "If it were me, and an officer came up and said, 'You need to turn that camera off, sir,' I would strive to calmly and politely yet firmly remind the officer of my rights while continuing to record the interaction, and not turn the camera off," says Stanley. The ACLU guide also supplies the one question those stopped for taking photos or video may ask an officer: "The right question to ask is, 'am I free to go?' If the officer says no, then you are being detained, something that under the law an officer cannot do without reasonable suspicion that you have or are about to commit a crime or are in the process of doing so. Until you ask to leave, your being stopped is considered voluntary under the law and is legal."
One small problem (Score:5, Interesting)
"If it were me, and an officer came up and said, 'You need to turn that camera off, sir,' I would strive to calmly and politely yet firmly remind the officer of my rights while continuing to record the interaction, and not turn the camera off," says Stanley.
And if it were me, I would think twice or thrice about getting on the bad side of the local police department, being arrested (and who knows what else). Of course I would be vindicated, but that can occur after I spent some time in jail, got charged with some bullshit, spent who knows how much money on laywers and called ACLU for help...
I mean, look -- there were a bunch of recent stories with suspects getting killed or beaten, and if one is lucky, the police is charged afterwards. Sometimes not even that. Basically, most of us cannot afford to stand on principle. Many have family to support or career to preserve, or both.
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, the biggest risk to you to keep filming is that you spend a few nights in jail, hurt your career, hire a lawyer, spend a few days over the next who knows how many months or years in court, etc.
Their biggest risk if they deny you your rights is some paid administrative leave while the department investigates.
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Insightful)
But. In exchange for the lack of personal inconvenience your compliance ensures, your rights die just a tiny bit.
I understand the wisdom of not getting cross with the leos, and admit there are immediate and everlasting benefits, but know there are consequences as well.
Of course you do... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The primary responsibility a photographer or any other bystander has is not to invade a crime scene, which is the perimeter delimited by yellow police tape. Just stepping into this area and possibly walking on shell casings, blood spatters, etc. could blow the entire court case against a perpetrator. If you arrive before this was set up, stay out of the area where this perimeter might expected to be set up - in other words, don't get in their faces while they're working.
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Insightful)
When an officer of the law (which implies "officer of the law-courts") tells you to do something you, as a citizen under the law, must comply.
If you do not comply, then the officer has the right and obligation to clear you from the area by whatever means necessary.
So, if an officer tells me to cluck like a chicken, I must do it or face arrest? I'm not sure that's right.
Please don't bring that weak-ass "I have rights" crap to court because even your lawyer will want to smack you. The American Public has rights, an individual citizen has no rights.
I'm not sure that's right either.
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The American Public has rights, an individual citizen has no rights.
This is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. A group has no rights, period. Individuals have rights, those rights extend to where there are groups (see First Amendment). The idea that groups have rights is simply the mistake of the far left wing, and their "Group Politics", and a big reason why Civil Rights Movement has failed.
I have rights, society doesn't. Society is built to protect the rights of the individuals. This is the part of "Liberty and Justice for all". The defense of liberty is the primary function of government. Justice is how that liberty is protected.
Anything less, is simply a step towards tyranny.
Re: (Score:3)
Anything less, is simply a step towards tyranny.
I think that is the point the OP was making. The US government (and it's various arms, subsidiaries, et al.) have made so many of those steps they have become tyrannical.
Re:One small problem (Score:4, Informative)
The idea that groups have rights is simply the mistake of the far left wing, and their "Group Politics", and a big reason why Civil Rights Movement has failed.
As a long time Democrat and coming from a staunchly, fiscal conservative Democratic family I can say unequivocally that the idea that individuals have no rights and only groups do is NOT a "far left wing" idea. The left is not the group that is making corporations (a group of people that work for a legal document that creates a non-entity and gives it tax status) "people" and forcing Christian religious dogma and doctrine on the citizens of the United States. I'm sorry, but your view of the "far left wing" in the United States is sadly misinformed.
I have rights, society doesn't. Society is built to protect the rights of the individuals. This is the part of "Liberty and Justice for all". The defense of liberty is the primary function of government. Justice is how that liberty is protected.
1. Everyone in a society governed by democratically elected representatives has rights (privileges, actually [see George Carlin])
2. Groups have rights and is why we have laws that protect minorities and other disenfranchised groups of people (think Native Americans, ethnic groups, etc.)
3. Society is built to protect the rights of that society, not just the individual
4. "Liberty and Justice for all" is a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, not the Constitution and is therefore NOT part of how we as a society are governed. It's dogma at best, propaganda at worst
5. The primary function of government is governing, that's why it's called government
6. Liberty is protected by force. Period. Whether that be force of arms or the force of the vote, but it's protected by force and force alone.
7. Justice protects the innocent and prosecutes the guilty and has little or nothing to do with liberty unless the law enforcement part of a government is wholly and completely corrupt (see Ferguson, Missouri; Baltimore; Maryland, et al). In that case there is not justice and no liberty.
Anything less, is simply a step towards tyranny.
Not really since your underpinnings are not properly formed. Basically, I don't think your idea of tyranny is the same as that defined by history or the dictionary, let alone current events. Sounds like you want to call anything you don't agree with as tyranny or persecution and I'm sorry, that's just not the way it works. Tyranny is when a group or entire society is being made to suffer by a single, authoritarian individual or group. That's just not happening in the United States, unless you're talking about the billionaires and mega-corporations that practically own our government right now. That's bordering on oligarchy and not democracy and will only lead to tyranny down the road, but that's because society as a whole will suffer, not just a minority nor an individual.
On topic. Check your local laws before you pipe up to a cop while you are recording his/her activities. The laws vary from state to state, but Illinois and Massachusetts are currently the only states where you are not allowed to record a police officer under any circumstance. There are over a dozen states where consent of all parties to a recording have to be received before you can record, and 39 states where, as long as the activity is going on in public or in full view of the public, you can record whatever you want.
It's best you check the laws where you live and PRINT OUT THOSE LAWS and have them handy if you are going to make a habit or passing fancy out of recording police officers while they perform their duty. Otherwise, have a lawyer next to you. One other thing to keep in mind is that even if it is legal for you to record, local cops can put you in their cross hairs forever if you piss them off. I'm not saying they will do anything illegal, but they can legally make your life miserable if they so choose. Do one little thing wr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends upon where you are. In Wyoming, it isn't a big deal. In San Fransisco or Chicago, it is.
I personally would feel much safer in Wyoming than in Chicago. But that is me.
Re:One small problem (Score:4, Informative)
Okay, try this. Go get a gun and walk into a police station.
Good luck.
Where I live, we do this all the time. In fact, we open carry and concealed carry into there every other Thursday for the meeting of our local gun rights organization. This is 5 miles from Washington D.C.
Re: (Score:3)
No, see you're confusing some things. Society does not have the right to protect itself from dangerous individuals. Individuals have the right to this. In order to achieve these goals, individuals have empowered their government to protect their right to life and property. Society has no right to demand anything of its members. Individuals empowered government to collect taxes to fund operations in the service of the general welfare. Society again does not have the right to decide who is a member (citizen).
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, a cop can take you in for any reason for something like 24-48 hours even without a formal charge. You will be taken in handcuffs, you will be fingerprinted, you will get a DNA swab taken, you will be strip-searched, you will be forced to spread your cheeks and cough in front of a cop... then they let you go after 24 hours with no charges and a have a nice day. All that just because you pissed off a cop and there's no legal recourse.
You may beat the wrap, but you won't beat the ride. All the humiliation is just a bonus for them to 'get ya' because you didn't bow down in a humble enough fashion.
Re: (Score:3)
Thing is, a cop can take you in for any reason for something like 24-48 hours even without a formal charge. You will be taken in handcuffs, you will be fingerprinted, you will get a DNA swab taken, you will be strip-searched, you will be forced to spread your cheeks and cough in front of a cop... then they let you go after 24 hours with no charges and a have a nice day. All that just because you pissed off a cop and there's no legal recourse.
You may beat the wrap, but you won't beat the ride. All the humiliation is just a bonus for them to 'get ya' because you didn't bow down in a humble enough fashion.
Umm, I think you've watched too much TV with your description of outcomes. You can be handcuffed and held in police custody Once at the station, if no formal charges have been made, they can make you empty your pockets and take off your shoes and belt and any exterior garments like jackets, etc. They can put you in a holding cell or interrogation room and ask you questions, but you DO NOT have to answer if you are not charged with anything and you are required to be immediately released or they have to char
Compliance, huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
When an officer of the law (which implies "officer of the law-courts") tells you to do something you, as a citizen under the law, must comply.
If you do not comply, then the officer has the right and obligation to clear you from the area by whatever means necessary.
Tell that to Rosa Parks.
Re:Compliance, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
If police in the '50s were like they are now, I wouldn't be surprised if Rosa Parks would have been summarily shot.
Re:Compliance, huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
You, and everyone who modded up this ignorant comment, could not possibly be more wrong. Police were a LOT more likely to shoot someone in the 50s then they are now. The public was just not aware of this because there was no video evidence. 50s cops were mostly on the take, and it wasn't even referred to as bribery. It was just part of the perks of the job.
Besides, if the Rosa Parks situation happened today, she would win millions in a wrongful arrest suit.
Re: (Score:3)
When an officer of the law (which implies "officer of the law-courts") tells you to do something you, as a citizen under the law, must comply.
If you do not comply, then the officer has the right and obligation to clear you from the area by whatever means necessary.
Tell that to Rosa Parks.
More like tell that to Rodney King, for a more contemporary example. And no, the officer of the law is not an "officer of the law-courts". That's a bailiff or in some states the sheriffs that deliver subpoenas and other court documents. Those are the only instances where cops are servants of the court. The rest of the cops are servants of the Attorney General of the state whose job it is to prosecute criminals. Cops and AGs work for the state. Courts are run by judges, not Attorneys General, and are part of
Re: (Score:3)
The American Public has rights, an individual citizen has no rights.
Take note of the above, folks.
The next time you scream about the NRA and claim that the 2nd amendment is some sort of "collective" right instead of an individual right, remember that this is what we've been arguing against for the last couple of decades. Becasue once you redefine "the people" in the 2nd amendment, the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th are next on the list.
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Informative)
The biggest risk to you is that you die. Less likely than being arrested and having to spend money on a lawyer and so on, but piss off the wrong cop in America and ending up shot, choked to death, beaten to death, etc isn't an unexpected outcome.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Funny)
Dream on. When a police starts a fight with you, it will be escalated beyond your level of force (i.e. you would be shot) so fast that you stand no chance.
Depends entirely on your level of training. I wouldn't stand a chance, but...
Was sitting in a boss's office one morning when he got a call from a worker saying he couldn't come him because he was in jail. Gist of call was: guy was working on his car in the street, cop stopped and started harassing him, cop got sufficiently belligerent that he started to fear for his safety, so he disarmed the cop and held him until others came and arrested him. No shit. That was his story. Didn't like cop's attitude, so disarmed him and detained him. You just never know when that black man in a crappy neighborhood working on his crappy car is ex special forces ;-)
But the boss's side of the conversation was priceless. "Wait. What? Did I hear that right? You disarmed him???"
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds reasonable. I once pulled a police car over on the freeway because they were breaking the law.
They threatened me, but nothing came of it.
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Informative)
THAT IS A LIE, AND YOU ARE A LIAR. Counterexample: Tamir Rice.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are continuing to blatantly lie.
Tamir Rice "waved around" precisely nothing, and "refused to drop" precisely nothing. He was in fact shot to death before he would have even had a chance to do anything remotely resembling that!
Re: (Score:3)
The VIDEO proves he didn't.
I AM "The White Man," you shiteating fuckwad! What, you think because I have the shred of basic human decency necessary to admit the truth I can't possibly be white?! Fuck off, you racist douche!
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Informative)
Let's be honest here: the biggest risk to you is that they beat you to death and then concoct some bullshit to justify it after-the-fact.
That said, if you let that scare you so that you "COMPLY", then you've let the totalitarians win.
Re: (Score:3)
No. What they'll do is take the camera. What are you going to do about it? It's your word against theirs in court, and they're the cop. And this is assuming they're a decent cop, rather than a corrupt one who'll simply shoot you and say they mistook your camera for a gun.
Re: (Score:3)
No. What they'll do is take the camera. What are you going to do about it? It's your word against theirs in court, and they're the cop.
Ideally you'd bring to court the camera footage -- either the camera footage that your camera was transmitting to a separate storage device the cop wasn't aware of, or the camera footage from a second camera that the cop wasn't aware of.
Not commonly done these days, but there's no technical reason why it couldn't be done.
(btw I'm not sure I'd consider a cop who perjures himself under oath to be a "decent cop" -- it sounds like standards for decency aren't what they used to be!)
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Prove it: name a single white person unjustifiably killed by police in the last 3 years.
As a white person myself, I'd like to believe it's not a racism issue... but I can't because the evidence is overwhelming.
(That is not to say it isn't probably also a general police brutality issue, but the vast majority of that police brutality appears to be directed towards minorities and that isn't a coincidence.)
Re:One small problem (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Prove it: name a single white person unjustifiably killed by police in the last 3 years.
Tyler Comstock [cbsnews.com]
Your move.
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Insightful)
What part of Baltimore is racist? The black run Police Dept? The Black run City Council? The Black Representation in the state? Three of the six police charged in Grey's death?
The problem isn't racism. The problem is that there is a whole class of people excusing bad behavior because of skin color alone, except when it really matters, and sometimes when it isn't even involved (like you here).
Is there racism? Sure, when white liberal guilt makes people say blacks "need our help", that is Racism. Blacks don't need white people's help. They need to help themselves, rather than leaning on the perpetual crutch of "white people hate us". If that is true, then don't depend on white people at all, and excel on your own.
It is Racist make excuses for repeated failures.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So, you're saying black people need white people's help, because they can't help themselves? You are saying that black people can't excel without white people helping them. Do you realize how fucking racist that is?
Re: (Score:3)
I think the question people need to start asking themselves, first, is WHY they're filming in the first place.
I'm a photographer. My answer to that question is - so I don't face 10-20 years in jail on falsified charges made by an officer in retaliation for my recording - or just because I was nearby with a professional camera.
Assaulting photographers simply for recording is a crime. Falsifying charges against a photographer is a crime. Destroying a photographers (often extremely expensive) equipment is a crime. Those things became so common, so pervasive that holding a professional camera near an officer was know
Re:It really depends on the situation ..... (Score:4, Insightful)
And if the officer falls for it, then it proves that he was in fact bad! It is quite literally the police's job to deal with asshats, and to deal with them appropriately, fairly, and with care to respect their civil rights. If the officer fails to do that, then he deserves to look bad.
Of course, if arresting the person doing the filming is genuinely justified, then when the public sees the video they'll agree the officer was being reasonable and it'll make the person doing the filming look bad, not the officer.
Boo fucking hoo. Being accountable is part of the job. Cop doesn't like it? Then he should turn in his damn badge and GTFO!
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget that after the camera is off and nobody is watching you will resist arrest, get physically assaulted and tazed because you know you resisted. In the end resisting arrest will stick and see it was all justified.
Cops need body camera's and a hard and fast law that anything not captured on body camera the cop can not testify to. Were past the time where we need to or should trust the cops word as to visible facts, technology is capable of giving an impartial viewpoint.
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya'll watch too much TV. If you want to see what a police officer does then ask to do a full shift ride-along. It's rather eye opening.
The negative focus on officers is 99.9% wrong. If you want laws changed then vote for different politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want laws changed then vote for different politicians.
That is the quote of the day, but nobody's picking it up.
Re:One small problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe because laws aren't the issue, police department policies (that we don't get to vote for) are. For example, the policy of refusing to hire people who score "too high" on aptitude tests, as evidenced by Jordan v New London. That's just the part of the iceburg we can see.
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the interface, it's operator error. The keyboard has more than two keys.
Re: (Score:3)
For US President, sure. For state and local elections, there often actually isn't a third-party candidate at all (at least in my area).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Informative)
Thats fine that 1 in 1000 officer is still significant enough to justify correcting the system. We have learned time and time again authority must be tempered with oversight. We now have the technical means to reasonably oversee all interactions the police have on duty.
It has been shown police do not follow the law hell even use ignorance of the law as an excuse. Real substantial change in policing will take decades, with unions and politicians scratching and clawing to keep the status quo.
I grew up with cops, I've seen a lot more than a one night ride along and I pretty much don't watch TV. Having been around cops I will tell you the number is a lot higher than 1 in 1000, I would want to loose at least 1 in 10 cops and suspect that number would go far higher. I can say cops policing their own community tend to be far better than those that live elsewhere. I can also say police chiefs feel/are handcuffed by the unions and lawyers in getting rid of these bad cops.
Re: (Score:2)
Given this advice or not, I think the wise person will make the right c
Re: (Score:3)
He who sees the world through the lens of race........
... may well be a police officer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Funny)
If it were me, well I'm black, so I'd stop filming and pray the fucker doesn't shoot me and take my camera.
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Many have family to support or career to preserve, or both.
Yes, that is how tyranny flourishes. Keep everybody fed just well enough...
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I think ONE thing is pretty clear.
Don't RUN from the cops. The one common denominator from most of the recently publicized cop shootings of citizens, is that the citizen generally ran from the officer.
But one thing to do for sure...don't act like an ass, if you are (and you should) exerting your rights, do so in a calm, non-threatening fashion. Don't shout. Don't curse, use clear concise language. The "Am I free to go" statement is a very simple and very powerful thing to say and get an answer to.
If you don't give them a reason to beat you...99.999% of the time they are not. Yes, there are bad apples, but I don't think that is the majority. If you do not fight, resist, run or act an ass, chances are you are not going to be arrested or hurt. And if they DO arrest you....just face it, you are going to jail...don't resist, doing so give the cops a LOT of leeway in how they manhandle you.
Don't give them a reason to do abuse you, but also, you should always know and assert your rights.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't RUN from the cops. The one common denominator from most of the recently publicized cop shootings of citizens, is that the citizen generally ran from the officer.
And this is a clear violation of department policy and law everywhere I'm familiar with and should result in the immediate charging of the officer(s) involved. A person that runs away is not an imminent threat, and therefore there is no justification for use of force. The problem is that officers are often not charged, even with video evidence, far too often. Honestly, officers should shoot second, unless going into a known shooting situation, and should never shoot to kill unless actually attacked. Further
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and should never shoot to kill unless actually attacked.
I agree with everything you said except this, this is a nonsensical statement. Shooting IS shooting to kill, there's no other expected outcome. It's lethal force and should always be treated as such. Yes the technical phrase they use is "shoot to stop" or "shoot to disable" but in actuality it is ALWAYS shoot to kill and should ALWAYS be treated as such. If killing the target is not an acceptable outcome then shooting should not be used period.
Re: (Score:3)
When dealing with the police, avoid being black. This will greatly reduce your chances of being beaten, unlawfully being detained/arrested/searched, or otherwise having your other civil rights violated.
Re:One small problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there are bad apples, but I don't think that is the majority.
I think you misunderstand the "bad apple" metaphor. It's important to note the entire phrase or it makes zero sense: One bad apple spoils the bushel. What this means is that if you allow a minor corruption to go unchecked, it will eventually corrupt all of the apples in the bushel. One bad cop allowed to stay on the force will eventually corrupt all of the cops in the department. As soon as someone covers for him, that person is complicit. The bad apples need to be removed IMMEDIATELY before they destroy the department (or the public's trust in that department).
Little corruption begets big corruption until eventually the cops can't tell right from wrong. It starts with fixing a ticket for a friend and the next thing you know, they're planting evidence and falsifying reports "for the greater good".
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I think ONE thing is pretty clear.
Don't RUN from the cops. The one common denominator from most of the recently publicized cop shootings of citizens, is that the citizen generally ran from the officer.
wait, are we talking cops here, or are we talkin' rhinoceros'es[es?]
I know at least one of those things does not like it. maybe its both? I guess it could be both. so, when you see a wild animal OR a scared cop, don't run, don't charge them. maybe put your hands up right high so that they think you a
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I think ONE thing is pretty clear.
Don't RUN from the cops. The one common denominator from most of the recently publicized cop shootings of citizens, is that the citizen generally ran from the officer.
But one thing to do for sure...don't act like an ass, if you are (and you should) exerting your rights, do so in a calm, non-threatening fashion. Don't shout. Don't curse, use clear concise language. The "Am I free to go" statement is a very simple and very powerful thing to say and get an answer to.
If you don't give them a reason to beat you...99.999% of the time they are not..
Tell that to poor Mr. Sureshbhai Patel: http://www.al.com/news/index.s... [al.com]
Re: One small problem (Score:2)
"Am I free to stay?" (Score:5, Interesting)
"The right question to ask is, 'am I free to go?'"
Are you not sort of expected to leave if you ask if you're free to go? I don't want to leave, I want to continue doing the legal thing that I'm doing.
Re:"Am I free to stay?" (Score:5, Insightful)
You dont have to completely leave, but it gives you the ability to walk away from the officer without the claim of resisting.
Re: (Score:2)
You dont have to completely leave, but it gives you the ability to walk away from the officer without the claim of resisting.
Wow, is that the rule?
So then you have to record your question being asked and answered. Otherwise, it's your word against the police officer's word that "....but s/he said I was free to leave", when you are charged with resisting arrest.
Re: (Score:3)
ianal, but I think 'free to go' means free to move about. it does not mean you have to change (x,y) locations right there at that moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Am I free to stay?" (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that question says "are you embarking on legal proceeding against me, or are you just flapping your gums?".
If the officer isn't detaining you, he's not doing anything other than speaking to you and you can walk away from him, or just stand there.
That, of course, assumes the police officer knows or cares what that is supposed to mean ... just like the officer obviously neither knows nor cares about the fact that you can legally film him in the first place.
The problem becomes when police don't give a fuck about the law, attempt to illegally detain you, and then when you say "what the hell are you doing?" they charge you with resisting arrest, despite that you weren't being arrested.
In theory this says "unless you are arresting me, this is a voluntary interaction which I am ending".
In practice, I'm not convinced all the police know or care about these things, because they believe they can do whatever they wish.
And it's those police officers who are causing us to say "fuck it, I can't tell the difference between the good ones and the bad ones, so put a body camera on them at all times and stop trusting them at their word". And I'm sorry to the good police who feel all butt hurt over this, but too damned bad.
Re: (Score:3)
If the good cops would turn in the bad cops, they would still be good cops
Re:"Am I free to stay?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Free to go does not mean required to go. Expectations are irrelevant.
Yeah, you can say it from jail (Score:5, Informative)
Where I'm from if you backtalk a cop, they take you to jail (if you're lucky they don't beat you for "resisting arrest" too). They make up some charges after-the-fact. Or maybe there are no charges and they let you go after 48 hours of sharing a cell with crackheads. Either way, the lesson is "don't backtalk."
Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail (Score:4, Insightful)
You go be the hero then. I've got a wife and kids who aren't going to accept "Daddy did something heroic" as an excuse when I lose my job and we're living in a van down by the river. Is the ACLU going to pay my mortgage when I have to call into work and explain to them that I can't come in because I'm in jail?
Re: (Score:3)
You go be the hero then. I've got a wife and kids who aren't going to accept "Daddy did something heroic" as an excuse when I lose my job and we're living in a van down by the river. Is the ACLU going to pay my mortgage when I have to call into work and explain to them that I can't come in because I'm in jail?
I have heroes in my family. More than one. Big, international-scale heroes. Heroes who lived apart from their families, risked arrest, or even lost their lives, to do great things. My wife would slap me in anger and disgust if I were to cower in front of an abuse of power, and it would be well-deserved. "Daddy did something heroic," isn't an excuse, it is an expectation.
Problem only for now (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's better if the police know you're filming them. They tend to be a little more polite.
You also have to be careful because of these states where there are "mutual consent" laws about recording. i.e. in some states you can record a conversation surreptitiously, while in others, all parties to the conversation must know it's being recorded. The authorities have actually tried to use this against people who film their encounters with the police. There was a case in MD where an off-duty cop pulle
Re: (Score:2)
Most (all?) states allow video-only recording without two party consent. Two party consent typically pertains to the audio portion of the recording.
Re: (Score:2)
All-party consent (rather than one-party consent) for recording has always been a stupid fucking brain-dead policy, but the proliferation of cameras means we ought to be making getting those laws repealed a high priority.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think it's better if the police know you're filming them. They tend to be a little more polite.
You also have to be careful because of these states where there are "mutual consent" laws about recording. i.e. in some states you can record a conversation surreptitiously, while in others, all parties to the conversation must know it's being recorded. The authorities have actually tried to use this against people who film their encounters with the police. There was a case in MD where an off-duty cop pulled over a motorcycle driver who was wearing a helmet cam and they tried to say he broke the "wiretapping" laws by recording without the cop's consent.
They tried the same thing in Massachusetts. Only problem: the guy filming was a lawyer and he fought it. Courts came back and said that filming a public official in a public place was completely legal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming to a file that one person has to connect to later?
A copy kept in the device.
If its to a public, live service then the material exists globally from that device.
A request could be made to hand over all passwords related to the device and service.
If the device is examined and found to be a protected upload site with a file, that could get interesting before a law
you lie to them. (Score:3)
You say, "ok officer" but keep filming them from your waist level, or from a distance. Honestly, get a frigging telephoto lens for your phone or carry a good video camera where you can be far enough away so you are not noticed.
People need to be recording the police all the time and posting it all in public places. Cops need a strong light on them at all times, they need to be afraid of the public, and afraid of not being professional in public.
I also say we need to film them when off duty, rat on the fucking scum cops that speed and violate laws.
I hear ya cous (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, if you get the camera slapped out of your hand while being tazed and the officer then claims you assaulted him who's gonna film it?
Just how many cops have behaved inappropriately and have remained on the force. How many messed up or plainly did wrong and are still earning your tax dollar?
Idealistic talk is nice...facts on the ground is another thing.
Land of the free...yeah right.
Embassi in Laos (Score:5, Informative)
I tried to use my tablet to take a picture of the new American Embassy building outside Vientiane, Laos. I was told by the guards that this is prohibited. I went out to the street and took a picture from a public road on Lao territory, but they again told me to delete the picture. I figure they had no right to prohibit the picture, but I deleted it anyway. Then they had the paradox that they were insisting that I delete the picture, but they could not touch my tablet and I could not delete the picture because it was already gone.
So two days later, while I was in a taxi driving from downtown Vientiane to the Thai bridge, I pulled out my tablet and shot a video as we went past the new Embassy building. As soon as I got home I posted the video on my web site at
http://www.andycanfield.com/Th... [andycanfield.com]
So far the idiots in the U.S. State Department haven't contacted me. Is it an act of treason for you to look at it? Ask your lawyer.
Warrant not required to seize phone. (Score:5, Informative)
The summary isn't quite right. A warrant would not be required to seize your phone or other recording device if the officer has probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime (and exigent circumstances exist, which they probably do). Then he can try to get a warrant to get that evidence off your device. An example would be they roll up on a crime scene and you were recording before they got there, or, maybe you got video of the suspect assaulting the police. They wouldn't need a warrant to seize it at that point, because exigent circumstances (you could leave, the evidence could easily be destroyed if they don't secure the phone) would justify seizure without a warrant. However they could not legally search it without a warrant. (Typically in a case where a bystander has video of the crime they'll be cooperative and send the video to the police if possible, or give consent to them to get it off their device).
The smarter police aren't going to go around taking phones. If they believe you have evidence on your phone they'd probably like to talk to you about what you saw anyway and ripping your phone out of your hands isn't going to help that. But just be aware that they can most likely legally seize your phone without a warrant, if they have probable cause it has evidence of a crime, and if seizing your phone is the only way to preserve that evidence from being destroyed or lost (you could delete the video or walk away before a warrant could be obtained).
Just be white (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, Freddie Gray was stopped by police, who later killed him just for eyeballing them.
If you want to play on-the-spot eyewitness news reporter with your cell phone, you should try your best to have white skin.
Re: (Score:3)
That's an interesting finding of facts on your part - can you cite some established evidence?
The police report, asshole.
Advice is one thing... (Score:2)
I always carry a camera and will readily use it, but before you take your newly re-discovered rights watch this....
https://www.facebook.com/micha... [facebook.com]
Knowing your rights isn’t enough; I am not suggesting this advice is wrong but you need to fully understand that if you find yourself in a situation like this that you are risking a confrontation with an officer that has deemed him or herself ‘worthy’ of your camera. Police must learn to respect the citizens they ‘protect’ and stop
Intimidating Cops guilty of assault with firearm ? (Score:2)
Most cops are polite -- with good reason: If anyone approaches you in a menacing tone, stance or attitude, they _are_ guilty of assault, with firearm if armed. Cops have no legal immunity except when arresting. Assault is the _threat_ of violence, battery/mayhem is the act.
With confidence they will not be prosecuted, some cops push the line. They make forceful requests they mean to be taken as orders. (Plausible deniability) One remedy is to ask: "Is this a request or an order?" "Will you use force if
The problem is not the Police - it's the lawyers. (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution is simple:
Pass the following laws: 1) Prosecutors can not prosecute or even investigate accusations of legal crimes by police that they may in the future have to work with. Instead, each state should set up an "Internal Affairs Office of Prosecution", whose sole job is to prosecute police and similar law enforcement officers. They will be judged on how many convictions they get, and only the best will be allowed to become managers.
2) After rule #1 has been in place for at least 5 years, require every one appointed to be a Judge to have previously successfully prosecuted at least one police officer.
This system attempts to counter the natural prejudice prosecutors and judges have in favor of the police while at the same time creates a strong motivation within the government to prosecute their own.
Hands Up App (Score:5, Informative)
The "Hands Up" app ( http://www.handsuptheapp.com/ [handsuptheapp.com] ) has just been released and is designed to deal with these issues. It's quite clever and records the your interaction with the police as usual, but also:
- Turns the screen blank but keeps recording;
- Automatically uploads geotagged video segments to Dropbox every few seconds, preserving the recording even if it's erased or the phone is destroyed; and,
- Sends a text message to your emergency contact notifying them of the recording's existence.
photographyisnotacrime.com (Score:3)
if you want to see what all the fuss is about, go to photographyisnotacrime.com
A few points (Score:3)
1) The problem I see with the "Am I free to go?" question is that in all of the recorded interactions I have seen, the police officer more often than not just ignores the question.
Police: "Sir, can you tell me your address?" ...and so on. Eventually the police officer will either concede the person is free to go, or will call for assistance.
Citizen: "Am I free to go?"
Police: "Sir, I need your address so I know if you should be on this street."
Citizen: "Am I free to go?"
Police: "Sir, do you live on this street or not?"
2) For all of the talk about "99.6% of officers do not abuse their power", I have a problem when 99.6% of officers willingly choose to cover for the 0.4% that abuse their power. In my mind, that means that the 99.6% are also guilty of abusing their power, this time by not investigating and arresting criminals - in this case their coworkers.
If a big city police department was found to completely ignore the crimes of another subset of the population, that would be described as a corrupt police department. The fact that the subset in this question is the very same police department should not make a difference.
3) I am always confused by the "Let the investigation run its course, do not give in to the demands for immediate justice" calls that follow incidents of police brutality caught on tape. If someone records me shooting someone as they are running away from me, you had better believe I would be arrested as soon as the police located me. Putting me on paid leave for a few weeks while they "investigate"?
4) As was seen in the Baltimore riots and countless other major protests before, the police, as a department-wide policy, have no problem locking people up for 24-48 hours and then releasing them without charging them with anything.
The few people that are charged are caught in the catch-22 of being charged with resisting arrest, but no other crime. Their only crime was verbally and/or physically trying to prevent an officer from handcuffing them when the protestor was not doing anything illegal in the first place.
5) At what point do we start holding North Carolina officers responsible when they unconstitutionally pull people over for a burned-out rear tail light? NC law only requires a single "stop lamp" on the rear of a car. The Walter Scott incident should have never happened, as it is reasonable for NC officers to know by now that NC law has held being pulled over for only a failed brake light is unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if this flies in two party consent states. You wouldn't be allowed to record their voice or conversation
IANAL, but I am quite sure that "X party consent" only applies to private conversation (e.g., phone). Any event happening in public, you can pretty much record. Otherwise, in states with two party consent laws, you could never record videos outside within an earshot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
Also, regardless of consent laws, public servants engaged in their public duties in a public place have no legal right to privacy under those circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The authorities have actually tried to use this, but if you're filming police in a public place as they conduct their official duties, that law does not apply.
If you are in the position where you are filming your personal interaction with the cops, make sure to tell them that they are being recorded.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if this flies in two party consent states.
It does not - this was settled in the Gericke decision, and Glick weighs heavily as well. Technically it's only binding in the 1st Circuit (Northeast and Puerto Rico) but good luck finding a judge in the 9th Circuit or similar to try to go against it.
Re: (Score:3)
Check out "Filming Cops" and "Cop Block". They've been advocating and doing this for years and facing violence and intimidation from the police as a result.
Yes, it's definitely easy to say and hard to do, but people ARE doing it. Just know that you have every right to film the cops in public and if they try to stop you, they are in the wrong. You might even get lucky and get a payday out of it.
It's funny. For years, people on the Cop Block message boards have been criticizing people who were actively
Re: (Score:2)
"Too bad that the "racism" thing had to enter the picture when cops have been brutalizing people of all races, but if that's what it takes to raise awareness, so be it."
This is what irritates me about the recent Baltimore case. It’s being passed as “cops vs. blacks”, when in reality it’s “cops vs. everyone”. Take a look at the racial makeup of the 6 cops that are facing charges (3 are black). Hell, even the Baltimore police chief is black.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05 [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it's definitely irritating as hell that it suddenly became a racism thing instead of a government vs. the people thing. Especially to those of us who have been paying attention to law enforcement abuses over the long term. I've been following "Cop Block" for years, long before anyone ever heard the name "Michael Brown" and there are cases of egregious police abuses against citizens of all races. Look up the case of "Kelly Thomas".
However, I think the whole politically correct "white tyranny" theme an
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence requires preservation.
If it's returned without a) a court order saying the evidence was removed by order of the court or b) the evidence, then the evidence has been improperly recorded.
In the circumstances discussed, it's rarely about evidence preservation or even victim protection. In both those cases, there are laws against deleting the evidence from your devices without the correct permission from the court. If you say you filmed something, the officer confiscated your device but the device co