Woman arrested for videotaping police...

[Coito ergo sum]

Rochester Police Arrest Woman For Videotaping Them From Her Front Yard

http://www.pixiq.com/rochester-police-a ... -them.html

[JimC]

Interesting site, quite argumentative...

But sure, over-the-top bullshit by the cops in this case...

[Seth]

Interesting site, quite argumentative...

But sure, over-the-top bullshit by the cops in this case...

Actually, and unfortunately, their legal arguments for "qualified immunity" are quite strong, based on other federal court precedent.

It's going to take a Supreme Court case to resolve this, and I hope one gets there soon. However, it's incredibly difficult to get a case to the SCOTUS when the police can successfully get federal civil rights violation cases tossed on immunity grounds, and they can do so because the state of the law is ambiguous at best, and in some cases (like this one) there is a specific state statute making recording audio without all parties consent a felony.

So, if you record the police, do video, not audio to improve your chances of not being convicted of wiretapping.

[devogue]

So not Sting then? I thought that bitch of a wife of his was playing up again.

[mistermack]

Surely this is going to work against the police in the long run?

If it's a felony to record the police without their consent, isn't it a felony for the police to record suspects, without THEIR consent? And recorded evidence is of huge benefit to the police.
Or does it only work one way. The police can record whoever they like, but the public can't ? I can't see the US public buying that.

What happens at a football match, or a rock concert? Can one person in the crowd object to being recorded? It sounds like a real can of worms to me.
.

[Cormac]

Interesting site, quite argumentative...

But sure, over-the-top bullshit by the cops in this case...

Actually, and unfortunately, their legal arguments for "qualified immunity" are quite strong, based on other federal court precedent.

It's going to take a Supreme Court case to resolve this, and I hope one gets there soon. However, it's incredibly difficult to get a case to the SCOTUS when the police can successfully get federal civil rights violation cases tossed on immunity grounds, and they can do so because the state of the law is ambiguous at best, and in some cases (like this one) there is a specific state statute making recording audio without all parties consent a felony.

So, if you record the police, do video, not audio to improve your chances of not being convicted of wiretapping.

Surely that is limited to where the recording is intended to be used as evidence in a civil or criminal proceeding. Otherwise, the use of any recording device in public or private would become impossible.

In this case, the police definitely overstepped the mark. A big cash layout should follow for that woman.

Unless the US is a police state, that cop:

1. Misrepresented his authority
2. Trespassed
3. Entered without a warrant.
4. Falsely arrested that lady

On criminal grounds:

1. Assault
2. Battery
3. False imprisonment

The police cannot be immune from this, as it would be a breach of the separation of powers. If they are, US democracy has been degraded.

[Coito ergo sum]

Surely this is going to work against the police in the long run?

If it's a felony to record the police without their consent, isn't it a felony for the police to record suspects, without THEIR consent?

No, because they have a different law that specifically authorizes and sometimes even requires videotaping.

And recorded evidence is of huge benefit to the police.

Not when they act like total tools. The cops like to be in control of the on/off switch.

Or does it only work one way. The police can record whoever they like, but the public can't ? I can't see the US public buying that.

That is the way it is, though. The cops can record you, and even if you say "I don't consent" your only option is to keep quiet.

What happens at a football match, or a rock concert? Can one person in the crowd object to being recorded? It sounds like a real can of worms to me.
.

No, because it's in public. Normally, when one is in public the law does not protect you from being recorded at any time. So, if you bring a video/audio device to a football game, you aren't committing a crime by recording the game and even the voices of your neighboring fans.

[mistermack]

what if there are police at the football game?

[Coito ergo sum]

what if there are police at the football game?

Good question.

If they tell you to shut the camera off, do so, or they will either crack your skull, arrest you, or both. And, if you get arrested, you will invariably be charged with "resisting." In the US, "resisting arrest" means "pissing the cop off."

[Seth]

Interesting site, quite argumentative...

But sure, over-the-top bullshit by the cops in this case...

Actually, and unfortunately, their legal arguments for "qualified immunity" are quite strong, based on other federal court precedent.

It's going to take a Supreme Court case to resolve this, and I hope one gets there soon. However, it's incredibly difficult to get a case to the SCOTUS when the police can successfully get federal civil rights violation cases tossed on immunity grounds, and they can do so because the state of the law is ambiguous at best, and in some cases (like this one) there is a specific state statute making recording audio without all parties consent a felony.

So, if you record the police, do video, not audio to improve your chances of not being convicted of wiretapping.

Surely that is limited to where the recording is intended to be used as evidence in a civil or criminal proceeding. Otherwise, the use of any recording device in public or private would become impossible.

In this case, the police definitely overstepped the mark. A big cash layout should follow for that woman.

Unless the US is a police state, that cop:

1. Misrepresented his authority
2. Trespassed
3. Entered without a warrant.
4. Falsely arrested that lady

On criminal grounds:

1. Assault
2. Battery
3. False imprisonment

The police cannot be immune from this, as it would be a breach of the separation of powers. If they are, US democracy has been degraded.

We can only hope that the courts will address this issue. The police, nationwide, are being very aggressive in this, arguing that because there is no clear-cut law (in just a few states) that expressly permits citizens to videotape or audio record them, that the wiretapping laws apply.

This is only an issue in those few states where there is "two-party consent" when it comes to recording. Most of those states are back east. Colorado has a "one-party consent" law so they can't use wiretapping laws, but many big city cops will use "obstructing government operations" as an excuse to arrest you and wipe your tape if they catch you recording them. One of the specious excuses they use is that by dividing their attention from what they are doing (beating up and arresting a suspect) you are interfering with their work because they have to determine if you are a threat to them and they have to keep watching you rather than being able to tell you to "move along" so they can proceed in privacy.

This of course is nonsensical because so long as you are a reasonable distance away from them, and you aren't making a pest of yourself by speaking to them or physically interfering with them, particularly when there's a crowd around, you aren't "obstructing" anything, you're just witnessing the events.

But few people have the money or the will to fight the DA when charged with obstruction or "failure to obey a lawful command" (an illegal order to disperse or leave is not a "lawful command"), so the law remains ambiguous except, generally speaking, for credentialed members of the Press (like me) who are generally pushed back from the scene of an incident, but aren't usually arrested for videotaping or recording.

The Supreme Court has ruled that despite the First Amendment, the Press has no greater right to be in a place that Joe Average Citizen does not have a right to be, and it has granted very, very broad authority to police to close off crimescenes and other incidents to looky-loos, including the Press, so that they can go about their duties unhampered. It's still a dynamic and uncertain thing to determine just how far the police can push the media back, but of late the police have had no compunctions about moving the cordon sanitaire blocks away, so there is no chance to get film of the actual event. I once had a state trooper try to tell me that I could not stand more than 100 feet away from the scene of a truck accident where firemen were having to extricate the body of the truck driver, even though photographers on the OTHER side of the truck, where there was no view of the work going on were allowed within 10 feet of the vehicle. He was clearly trying to keep me from getting photos, particularly of the body. He failed to succeed because I had a telephoto lens, and he also got a reprimand after I complained to his supervisor that he was not preventing me from interfering with the extrication, he was violating my rights as a member of the press by attempting to censor what photographs I was allowed to take.

The former is a legitimate police function. The latter is a civil rights violation. It's not up to the police to try to "protect the dignity" of the deceased or the deceased family. That's up to the photo editor.

Anyway, the situation is fluid, but it's beginning to become an issue. Previously, the police cooperated with the press, but after Rodney King, the relationship soured and the police are now circling the wagons and forting up against the public's right to video and audiotape their actions in public, and it's long past time for the SCOTUS to take a case and rule in favor of the right of the public to scrutinize and record their public employees at work.

[Cormac]

Interesting site, quite argumentative...

But sure, over-the-top bullshit by the cops in this case...

Actually, and unfortunately, their legal arguments for "qualified immunity" are quite strong, based on other federal court precedent.

It's going to take a Supreme Court case to resolve this, and I hope one gets there soon. However, it's incredibly difficult to get a case to the SCOTUS when the police can successfully get federal civil rights violation cases tossed on immunity grounds, and they can do so because the state of the law is ambiguous at best, and in some cases (like this one) there is a specific state statute making recording audio without all parties consent a felony.

So, if you record the police, do video, not audio to improve your chances of not being convicted of wiretapping.

Surely that is limited to where the recording is intended to be used as evidence in a civil or criminal proceeding. Otherwise, the use of any recording device in public or private would become impossible.

In this case, the police definitely overstepped the mark. A big cash layout should follow for that woman.

Unless the US is a police state, that cop:

1. Misrepresented his authority
2. Trespassed
3. Entered without a warrant.
4. Falsely arrested that lady

On criminal grounds:

1. Assault
2. Battery
3. False imprisonment

The police cannot be immune from this, as it would be a breach of the separation of powers. If they are, US democracy has been degraded.

We can only hope that the courts will address this issue. The police, nationwide, are being very aggressive in this, arguing that because there is no clear-cut law (in just a few states) that expressly permits citizens to videotape or audio record them, that the wiretapping laws apply.

This is only an issue in those few states where there is "two-party consent" when it comes to recording. Most of those states are back east. Colorado has a "one-party consent" law so they can't use wiretapping laws, but many big city cops will use "obstructing government operations" as an excuse to arrest you and wipe your tape if they catch you recording them. One of the specious excuses they use is that by dividing their attention from what they are doing (beating up and arresting a suspect) you are interfering with their work because they have to determine if you are a threat to them and they have to keep watching you rather than being able to tell you to "move along" so they can proceed in privacy.

This of course is nonsensical because so long as you are a reasonable distance away from them, and you aren't making a pest of yourself by speaking to them or physically interfering with them, particularly when there's a crowd around, you aren't "obstructing" anything, you're just witnessing the events.

But few people have the money or the will to fight the DA when charged with obstruction or "failure to obey a lawful command" (an illegal order to disperse or leave is not a "lawful command"), so the law remains ambiguous except, generally speaking, for credentialed members of the Press (like me) who are generally pushed back from the scene of an incident, but aren't usually arrested for videotaping or recording.

The Supreme Court has ruled that despite the First Amendment, the Press has no greater right to be in a place that Joe Average Citizen does not have a right to be, and it has granted very, very broad authority to police to close off crimescenes and other incidents to looky-loos, including the Press, so that they can go about their duties unhampered. It's still a dynamic and uncertain thing to determine just how far the police can push the media back, but of late the police have had no compunctions about moving the cordon sanitaire blocks away, so there is no chance to get film of the actual event. I once had a state trooper try to tell me that I could not stand more than 100 feet away from the scene of a truck accident where firemen were having to extricate the body of the truck driver, even though photographers on the OTHER side of the truck, where there was no view of the work going on were allowed within 10 feet of the vehicle. He was clearly trying to keep me from getting photos, particularly of the body. He failed to succeed because I had a telephoto lens, and he also got a reprimand after I complained to his supervisor that he was not preventing me from interfering with the extrication, he was violating my rights as a member of the press by attempting to censor what photographs I was allowed to take.

The former is a legitimate police function. The latter is a civil rights violation. It's not up to the police to try to "protect the dignity" of the deceased or the deceased family. That's up to the photo editor.

Anyway, the situation is fluid, but it's beginning to become an issue. Previously, the police cooperated with the press, but after Rodney King, the relationship soured and the police are now circling the wagons and forting up against the public's right to video and audiotape their actions in public, and it's long past time for the SCOTUS to take a case and rule in favor of the right of the public to scrutinize and record their public employees at work.

A very slippery slope. Police cannot be allowed to behave like this.

It is exactly to prevent this kind of abuse that the supposed right to bear arms exists. So much for "From my Cold Dead Hands"...

(Not that I'm advocating armed resistance ... yet).

[mistermack]

It seems pretty clear that the cop in this case had been trained in what to say, if someone was filming him.
He was clearly quoting a rehearsed script, rather than expressing real concern about someone being behind him.
I could tear the fucker to bits in the witness box. And the chances are, it would be ignored.
It's about time judges distanced themselves from the police a bit more. They are just too cosy, like they feel it's there duty to help them out. (not all, but too many).

Judges should be subject to scrutiny, same as anybody else.
When you look where they come from, and how they get their jobs, it's obvious that they are going to have a bias to favour the police in disputes.
.

[Cormac]

It seems pretty clear that the cop in this case had been trained in what to say, if someone was filming him.
He was clearly quoting a rehearsed script, rather than expressing real concern about someone being behind him.
I could tear the fucker to bits in the witness box. And the chances are, it would be ignored.
It's about time judges distanced themselves from the police a bit more. They are just too cosy, like they feel it's there duty to help them out. (not all, but too many).

Judges should be subject to scrutiny, same as anybody else.
When you look where they come from, and how they get their jobs, it's obvious that they are going to have a bias to favour the police in disputes.
.

Electing judges is dangerous for democracy.

Police and judges should be in an almost antagonistic relationship. Certainly, from what I've seen of the courts here, Judges haul police over the coals to drive correct behaviour. I once saw a poor junior solicitor from the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions - like the state criminal prosecutor's office) having to stand up in front of a judge, having been given a pile of cases sure to fail due to police and prosecution failures of one sort or another. Strictly, they should have withdrawn all the cases. Instead, they stupidly sent this kid down to face the music.

The judge stood him up, and ordered him to go back to his office and instruct his boss, his bosses boss, and his bosses bosses boss, to appear in the court within 2 hours. (This meant that the most senior criminal prosecutor in the state was told to appear at almost no notice). The junior was told to tell them that if they didn't turn up they'd be held in contempt of court, and would be arrested and jailed that very day.

This is how to drive better practice.

[Mysturji]

Surely this is going to work against the police in the long run?

If it's a felony to record the police without their consent, isn't it a felony for the police to record suspects, without THEIR consent?

No, because they have a different law that specifically authorizes and sometimes even requires videotaping.

And recorded evidence is of huge benefit to the police.

Not when they act like total tools. The cops like to be in control of the on/off switch.

Or does it only work one way. The police can record whoever they like, but the public can't ? I can't see the US public buying that.

That is the way it is, though. The cops can record you, and even if you say "I don't consent" your only option is to keep quiet.

What happens at a football match, or a rock concert? Can one person in the crowd object to being recorded? It sounds like a real can of worms to me.
.

No, because it's in public. Normally, when one is in public the law does not protect you from being recorded at any time. So, if you bring a video/audio device to a football game, you aren't committing a crime by recording the game and even the voices of your neighboring fans.

And that woman was recording in public, which makes the whole thing bullshit.
BTW, the link in the OP is 404 broken. Does this "news" story even exist?

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/art ... |text|News

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 ... 82122.html

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... front-yard