There are more than 280 million cellphone subscribers in the U.S., and many of those phones can record video. With so many cameras in pockets and purses, clashes between police and would-be videographers may be inevitable.
Consider what happened to Khaliah Fitchette. Last year, Fitchette, who was 16 at the time, was riding a city bus in Newark, N.J., when two police officers got on to deal with a man who seemed to be drunk. Fitchette decided this would be a good moment to take out her phone and start recording.
"One of the officers told me to turn off my phone, because I was recording them," she said. "I said no. And then she grabbed me and pulled me off the bus to the cop car, which was behind the bus."
The police erased the video from Fitchette's phone. She was handcuffed and spent the next two hours in the back of a squad car before she was released. No charges were filed.
Think THAt's bad? You should search for the recent story regarding a guy in (Las vegas, i believe?) who was sitting in his car outside his house and was filming the cops (think they arrested two . he DID kinda get a bit cocky, I believe, but ended up getting beat up pretty badly...
One thing I've learned is, you don't eff with cops, especially right after they bust someone or are involved with stuff that may have made their adrenaline pump...
[This message has been edited by FieroRumor (edited 05-13-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:12 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
in hind sight & with arm-chair quarterbacking, everything a officer does can be easily dissected & problems found. their jobs entails on-the-spot choices. and getting them 100% everytime is just not realistic. but, on the other side - there is the "bullet-proof" mentality some officers may have. I do not see a reason the public should be banned from making videos of public workers. do we like setting the precedent that employees cannot be videod by employers?
IP: Logged
10:14 AM
css9450 Member
Posts: 5560 From: Glen Ellyn, Illinois, USA Registered: Nov 2002
I have no personal interest in photographing the police but being in a public place (or a place generally open to the public, like in a city bus) I should have every right to photograph whatever I want to. The bus company may or may not have rules prohibiting photography on their premises.
I'm a photographer and I could go on all day reciting tales of all the times I've been questioned by the police for standing on a sidewalk with a camera around my neck.
Legal precedents have always been that what police do in public has no expectation of privacy. Every single case where police have gone after videographers they have lost. Why keep doing it? Because, like with this girl, it builds up an environment of intimidation and fear. Every case they've lost the police's legal fees were paid by taxpayers. Every case won the victim's legal fees were paid out of their pocket, tens of thousands of dollars, which due to governmental immunity they won't ever get back. From the police point of view they've got nothing to lose by breaking the law, and everything to gain by keeping their illegal activities unrecorded. I personally have witnessed police intimidating a woman recording harassment, she was told that if she didn't stop recording the police harassing a group of motorcyclists in a parking lot she would be arrested and thrown in jail. She was crying from terror and fear when I saw her.
Think THAt's bad? You should search for the recent story regarding a guy in (Las vegas, i believe?) who was sitting in his car outside his house and was filming the cops (think they arrested two . he DID kinda get a bit cocky, I believe, but ended up getting beat up pretty badly...
One thing I've learned is, you don't eff with cops, especially right after they bust someone or are involved with stuff that may have made their adrenaline pump...
I hope that ******* cop get fired and charges filed against him. Even if that guy did not live there, so what? The cop is full of **** saying he would have been trespassing if he was on someone else's property. You are only trespassing if there are no trespassing signs or if the owner tells you to leave.
I also hope he sues the police department and that cop personally for civil libery violations along with assault.
IP: Logged
10:36 AM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9891 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
"They need to move quickly, in split seconds, without giving a lot of thought to what the adverse consequences for them might be," says Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police.
"We feel that anything that's going to have a chilling effect on an officer moving — an apprehension that he's being videotaped and may be made to look bad — could cost him or some citizen their life," Pasco says, "or some serious bodily harm."
I don't buy this excuse at all. Do police hesitate to respond to calls in shopping malls, corner stores or anywhere else that has survelence cameras? In fact, one of the first things they do during the investigation is get the video footage.
Mr. Pasco is an avocate for his officers and that is obvious. He doesn't want any video footage that might incriminate his officers. Too bad. The rest of the public has to live with video cameras everywhere. So do the cops.
IP: Logged
11:04 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
We have video surveillance where I work. I am subject to being recorded anywhere at work (except places like rest rooms, showers, etc.) The Police should be under the same scrutiny. They have dash cams to help them convict suspects. The People should have the right to record an on duty LEO at any time for any reason as long as they do not interfere with the LEO doing their job, i.e., stay out of the way.
It's funny how a group so in favor of video and audio recording to use against others doesn't want to be recorded themselves. I think the Police should have a big campaign to encourage citizens to record them doing their job, and if anything is suspected inappropriate, to submit it for investigation. Obviously if there is danger in the area and the LEO asks you to leave, you would need to comply, as well as not getting in their way, but other than that I can see no reason why we shouldn't record them at any time.
IP: Logged
12:11 PM
Raydar Member
Posts: 41218 From: Carrollton GA. Out in the... country. Registered: Oct 1999
We have video surveillance where I work. I am subject to being recorded anywhere at work (except places like rest rooms, showers, etc.) The Police should be under the same scrutiny. They have dash cams to help them convict suspects. The People should have the right to record an on duty LEO at any time for any reason as long as they do not interfere with the LEO doing their job, i.e., stay out of the way.
It's funny how a group so in favor of video and audio recording to use against others doesn't want to be recorded themselves. I think the Police should have a big campaign to encourage citizens to record them doing their job, and if anything is suspected inappropriate, to submit it for investigation. Obviously if there is danger in the area and the LEO asks you to leave, you would need to comply, as well as not getting in their way, but other than that I can see no reason why we shouldn't record them at any time.
I agree with this completely. We, as a society, are subject to being under video scrutiny any time we're in public. Much of that scrutiny is at the hands of law enforcement. And they don't want us to film them? "F" that!!.
Regarding the bolded statement... You do lead a rich fantasy life, don't you?
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 05-13-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:50 PM
Isolde Member
Posts: 2504 From: North Logan, Utah, USA Registered: May 2008
It's not that they're all crooked, they're not. Plenty of good officers out there on the job. No, the problem is that within the police community the generally feeling is that a bad cop is still better than everyone else so bad behavior is tolerated, even encouraged. The "Can do no wrong" syndrome. In point of fact, police are just ordinary citizens doing a job. An important job, yes, but no more important than many other jobs, and they should do that job with the same social behavioral restraints expected of anyone else expecting to get along in this society. In other words, they need to be better than the thugs they're supposed to be protecting us from. Any police officer who believes that being publicly recorded inhibits their ability to do their job probably shouldn't be a police officer in the first place.
IP: Logged
01:27 PM
Gridlock Member
Posts: 2874 From: New Westminster, BC Canada Registered: Apr 2002
This made it a big deal. The cops brewed a story about the whole thing and oops! Right there on the news showing how it actually went down. They would have been heroes if it wasn't for the tape being public.
It's happened many times.
I have no problem with police being taped while in action. They may like to ignore the fact, but they are paid with public dollars and act in public space.
This made it a big deal. The cops brewed a story about the whole thing and oops! Right there on the news showing how it actually went down. They would have been heroes if it wasn't for the tape being public.
Wow, even with the tape it doesn't look like any of the 4 involved will ever see any "issues" from murdering a man. 3 of them are still at work.
Then they blocked the guys home country from investigating, in what technically should be considered an international area.
Canada, looking more like Mexico every day.
Brad
[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 05-13-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:06 PM
Scottzilla79 Member
Posts: 2573 From: Chicago, IL Registered: Oct 2009
If i were in this situation and I'm taping a cop telling me to put down my camera, I will aim it away from him and send the video to everyone in my mailbox. I'm not sure about the actual legal rulings but I don't think a public employee has a right to any expectation of privacy while in the line of duty. Police more than anyone should not expect privacy because their actions need to be open and public. Also more than anyone except for lawyers, those cops should know that people have the right to film them in a public place. It makes their actions even more reprehensible.
IP: Logged
03:14 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9891 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
Just a FYI, check your local laws before you record the police in your area. There are some states that are using (abusing) wire tap laws to prevent anyone from recording police.
Taping, video or audio, any cop is a criminal act in a grown list of city and states. NYC and I thick Michigan two I know of.
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
Just a FYI, check your local laws before you record the police in your area. There are some states that are using (abusing) wire tap laws to prevent anyone from recording police.
I'm kinda torn here. If the cops are video taped as a result of someone capturing them on camera either by accident, or as the result of filming something unrelated to the actions of the cops, then I don't see a problem. Similar to you being video taped by stationary cameras, security cameras, or simply caught on tape by someone filming something totally unrealated to your presence. Passive video if you will. It is not specifically targeted at someone personally.
The problem I'm having and seems to be missing in most of the threads is when the camera is focused specifically and intentionally on a particular person(s). With the motive being to capture images of them "doing something" that can possibly be used against them legally. I believe that is how/why something like the wire tap law might be being used. A specific and/or targeted person can not be "taped" for purposes of legal incrimination without a court ordered warrant.
I'm kinda torn here. If the cops are video taped as a result of someone capturing them on camera either by accident, or as the result of filming something unrelated to the actions of the cops, then I don't see a problem. Similar to you being video taped by stationary cameras, security cameras, or simply caught on tape by someone filming something totally unrealated to your presence. Passive video if you will. It is not specifically targeted at someone personally.
The problem I'm having and seems to be missing in most of the threads is when the camera is focused specifically and intentionally on a particular person(s). With the motive being to capture images of them "doing something" that can possibly be used against them legally. I believe that is how/why something like the wire tap law might be being used. A specific and/or targeted person can not be "taped" for purposes of legal incrimination without a court ordered warrant.
You mean like someone pointing a device at you, and waiting for you to do something wrong, like a radar gun? Or reading plates until one comes back as a trouble maker, and pulling him over?
Or finding out that someone has a past, and searching more than you would have before?
Brad
IP: Logged
05:07 PM
nitroheadz28 Member
Posts: 4774 From: Brooklyn, NY Registered: Mar 2010
You mean like someone pointing a device at you, and waiting for you to do something wrong, like a radar gun? Or reading plates until one comes back as a trouble maker, and pulling him over?
Or finding out that someone has a past, and searching more than you would have before?
Brad
Owned. lol
[This message has been edited by nitroheadz28 (edited 05-13-2011).]
I have personally been told ,"I will smash your face on that brick sidewalk if you dont turn that off and leave" by a cop as he pointed towards the sidewalk. I was standing at the bottom of the pier here at the beach, large night life scene. It was around closing time and they were sweating some drunk guy. Like ten cops.
I was like twenty feet away and the cop calmly walked over to me and said the above. I replied, " Oh yeah which brick?" And the friggin cop says, "That one right there". LOL I couldnt help but laugh when he said that and that really pissed him off! He was coming for me right when my buddy grabbed me and we walked away.
Prick!
IP: Logged
05:23 PM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
It was always a bit shakey to me to trust cops. A recent minor traffic stop (they were looking for a burglar) taught me they will flat out lie. As soon as I was stopped, I followed the CCP law and informed the cop I had a gun and I had a permit. He asked where it was and i pointed to my left hip. They checked to validate my permit and found it complied with ohio law. Next thing I knew there were 4 officers standing by me sitting in the back of the cruiser in handcuffs. It took them an hour there to decide to arrest me. There charges (totally made up BS) were I didnt tell the officer I had it and I grabbed it and pulled it out. I posted my own bail $4000 and went home. At the arraignment, the judge returned my bail money and gave me a court date. I showed up in court and my lawyer said they would drop the felony counts if I pled guilty to a 4th degree misdemeanor of creating a disturbance. I was quiet and 100% cooperative the whole time. He said it was their word against mine since I had no witnesses, and recommended I take the deal. I did and the fine was $300 and released with permit returned to me. It was all about getting money from the out of town guy, making up what ever they wanted to milk me. After this episode I will never trust any cop under any circumstances again...period. This was Circleville, Ohio. If Id pled not guilty and the cops charges stuck, (lawyer said they prob would) id got fined plus up to a year in jail for a felony. This way im still out the cash and time, but have a clean record.
I'm really torn here.... while i think that "we" should have a "right" to record public servants, they should have a "right and ability" to do their jobs effectivly... thoughts come to mind... rodney king would he had a chance in court without the tape? OTOH i have "seen" people acting like jack-holes with a camera phone right in a cops face... and food for further thought guns that look like cells http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/cellgun.asp ... and why unless you had a death wish would you pull out a small object and point it at a officer?
=todd=
IP: Logged
06:17 PM
Xerces_Blackthorne Member
Posts: 6163 From: Mertztown PA Registered: Mar 2008
It was always a bit shakey to me to trust cops. A recent minor traffic stop (they were looking for a burglar) taught me they will flat out lie. As soon as I was stopped, I followed the CCP law and informed the cop I had a gun and I had a permit. He asked where it was and i pointed to my left hip. They checked to validate my permit and found it complied with ohio law. Next thing I knew there were 4 officers standing by me sitting in the back of the cruiser in handcuffs. It took them an hour there to decide to arrest me. There charges (totally made up BS) were I didnt tell the officer I had it and I grabbed it and pulled it out. I posted my own bail $4000 and went home. At the arraignment, the judge returned my bail money and gave me a court date. I showed up in court and my lawyer said they would drop the felony counts if I pled guilty to a 4th degree misdemeanor of creating a disturbance. I was quiet and 100% cooperative the whole time. He said it was their word against mine since I had no witnesses, and recommended I take the deal. I did and the fine was $300 and released with permit returned to me. It was all about getting money from the out of town guy, making up what ever they wanted to milk me. After this episode I will never trust any cop under any circumstances again...period. This was Circleville, Ohio. If Id pled not guilty and the cops charges stuck, (lawyer said they prob would) id got fined plus up to a year in jail for a felony. This way im still out the cash and time, but have a clean record.
Being a CCP holder myself, this is one of the MAJOR reasons I now carry the micro recorder in the car.
Again, "Its not what you know, its what you can prove."
With that said, in situations where I do have to utilize the micro recorder, I am always courteous enough to ask the officer if I can record the stop, and explain to him why. Usually they are understanding enough, and don't mind.
IP: Logged
06:34 PM
May 14th, 2011
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Id not be courtious and tell them your recording it. Keep it to yourself unless you need it later. In my case, all these cops were so crooked that if id told them I was recording it, they would have erased or destroyed it to eliminate my proof. That is a good idea though, from now on if a cop ever approaches me, im using my cellphone to record the conversation without their knowing.
IP: Logged
09:31 AM
MidEngineManiac Member
Posts: 29566 From: Some unacceptable view Registered: Feb 2007
Yuppp.......IMHO, its long past time to put down the cameras---and take up sniper riffles. Video taping the master class is next to teets on a bull for useless, just exterminate the gestappo on sight, and hire a new batch. frack 'em, the only thing they are in charge of is their own gentiles in a masturbation session. If they cant respect the same constitutions and bill of rights everyone else does, toss 'em in the atlantic and let the fish deal with the remains disposal.
I've had about all the fascist crap I am ever going to take from them.....they are no more than the schoolyard bully grown up and given a taser and gun. They needed the crap kicked out of them in grade school, and they need it now.
IP: Logged
10:44 AM
jetman Member
Posts: 7803 From: Sterling Heights Mich Registered: Dec 2002
The problem I'm having and seems to be missing in most of the threads is when the camera is focused specifically and intentionally on a particular person(s). With the motive being to capture images of them "doing something" that can possibly be used against them legally. I believe that is how/why something like the wire tap law might be being used. A specific and/or targeted person can not be "taped" for purposes of legal incrimination without a court ordered warrant.
I have a similar point (or two) in connection to the original story. My thought was if the cops were trying to be lenient on the (aledged)drunk person, deciding he was no harm, had a ride, etc they could let him go into the custody of his friends but the video later would show the cops not doing their job by not arresting a drunk person and that vbideo could get the cops into trouble later. Maybe the cops didn't want to be "forced" into making the arrest because the camera was filming them. See what I'm saying here?
Ok then, the second part is a bit trickier but here goes. Is the (aledged) drunk persons rights or miranda rights infringed upon by taking the video? Lets say the cops wanted only to chat with him informally prior to reading the miranda rights but that video is put up on a public forum such as youtube, that video could be used against him?
Ok, how about the (aledged) drunk person just going out and acting like a sailor for a night, we've all been there, he wouldn't be telling everyone at the church or at work, nobodys business but that video shows up at a public forum and he gets kicked out of the church or loses his job? His rights infringed since he wasn't aware that his activitires were going to be taped and displayed on a public forum?
I'm not specifically defending the cops per se or anti-video laws, just trying to look at a different direction.
IP: Logged
10:49 AM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
More proof that all of the officers in the video are crooked. The officer that did the beating and the other officers who went along with the lie. It takes more than (1) officers to lie. Usually there are (2) to (4) and later on the scene, the sergeant. They will concoct a lie followed up by the union lawyers. That in turn will force the entire branch of officers becoming "muted" regarding the case. The cycle is now complete. The ones who did nothing, the ones who saw nothing, and the ones who heard nothing.
As for the 16 year old. What was on the video that was damaging to the officers? Obviously, enough that they didn't want it shown to the media or posted on you tube. She will win the case hands down and the mayor will perform the same "song and dance" before the public and the media. "Police re-training" will be the theme and the cycle repeats itself all over again.
Originally posted by jetman: Ok, how about the (aledged) drunk person just going out and acting like a sailor for a night, we've all been there, he wouldn't be telling everyone at the church or at work, nobodys business but that video shows up at a public forum and he gets kicked out of the church or loses his job? His rights infringed since he wasn't aware that his activitires were going to be taped and displayed on a public forum?
Except You have NO Right to Privacy when you are in public space. Many Courts, including SCOTUS, said so... You go out of you home then take your chances... Being taped, picture took, etc, then tough luck. Is why cops love camera they control... traffic cam, stop light cam, "high crime" cam, etc, etc...
And ignorance is not a excuse in any court.
Is also why some city/states made it criminal to take picture/tape cops. They want to stop Rodney King etc tapes.
Many people think you need a "release" to take any picture of your... Wrong. Release only affects some instances when picture/video is sold. Copyright picture/video is owned by image taker not subject in most cases.
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
Id not be courtious and tell them your recording it. Keep it to yourself unless you need it later. In my case, all these cops were so crooked that if id told them I was recording it, they would have erased or destroyed it to eliminate my proof. That is a good idea though, from now on if a cop ever approaches me, im using my cellphone to record the conversation without their knowing.
In that case, you could be convicted of violating wiretapping laws. It's happened. Apparently video recording is ok, but if there's audio it is covered by wiretapping laws.
In that case, you could be convicted of violating wiretapping laws. It's happened. Apparently video recording is ok, but if there's audio it is covered by wiretapping laws.
I know that in Missouri one party has to know that they are being taped. If I am pulled over, and record what happens between the officer(s) and I, that is legal.
If I see a cop talking to someone, and record that, then that is against the law.
I think that a sign stating that you are recording would be sufficient to get around the law, but that's just me thinking.
This is also the basis for the signs that say "photo enforcement" when you come up to a signal here. (found to be illegal in Missouri). They have to notify you that they are recording.
Brad
[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 05-14-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:37 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
The law is different for video than audio. Video only is much easier to get away with, but if it includes audio, or is an audio only recording, then wiretapping laws apply. This may vary from state to state, of course. Something to be aware of if you plan on recording yourself. Be sure to check your local laws.
IP: Logged
06:38 PM
May 15th, 2011
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
In that case, you could be convicted of violating wiretapping laws. It's happened. Apparently video recording is ok, but if there's audio it is covered by wiretapping laws.
Id record it on my phones video mode, you just wont see anything except what happens to be in front of the lens.
and this pretty much describes what happened perfectly. The original officer didnt say anything after the sergant got there, then it was all him.
"It takes more than (1) officers to lie. Usually there are (2) to (4) and later on the scene, the sergeant. They will concoct a lie followed up by the union lawyers"
IP: Logged
07:56 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25242 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
There are more than 280 million cellphone subscribers in the U.S., and many of those phones can record video. With so many cameras in pockets and purses, clashes between police and would-be videographers may be inevitable.
Consider what happened to Khaliah Fitchette. Last year, Fitchette, who was 16 at the time, was riding a city bus in Newark, N.J., when two police officers got on to deal with a man who seemed to be drunk. Fitchette decided this would be a good moment to take out her phone and start recording.
"One of the officers told me to turn off my phone, because I was recording them," she said. "I said no. And then she grabbed me and pulled me off the bus to the cop car, which was behind the bus."
The police erased the video from Fitchette's phone. She was handcuffed and spent the next two hours in the back of a squad car before she was released. No charges were filed.
There is a blog down here in Miami which deals with this very thing. It's called "Photography is Not a Crime."
I've met the guy before, and he seems pretty normal. The only thing is that I almost get the feeling like he instigates the situations, as in... he puts himself into situations where he'll be confronted by police.
His website is crazy looking now, used to be much more organized...
The only thing is, I can imagine that in many situations, video can be used to mis-portray a situation. If the photographer has an obvious bias, they can start recording, or only share part of the recording which helps their point of view. For example, if a perp is running, and starts attacking an officer, but the person only starts recording at the moment when the officer tackles the person and hand cufs him violently... it can show a completely different situation. That said, it keeps officers on their toes and helps keep them in line with exactly how they should be handling a situation.
..., but the person only starts recording at the moment when the officer tackles the person and hand cufs him violently... it can show a completely different situation. That said, it keeps officers on their toes and helps keep them in line with exactly how they should be handling a situation.
Right, but there should be no reason for the officer to "handcuff violently" I understand the feeling that some deserve it, but it's not the cops place to punish the offender. That's why there are judges. The officer should treat each "suspect" exactly the same, regardless of what they say, do, or act. (exceptions to place a screen over their faces so they cannot spit on officers, or others.) It can really be hard to remain professional in the line of duty, but they have a standard to uphold.
It can be difficult to remain professional when the adrenalin is pumping, but isn't that why there is training?
This is becoming more and more common. I dont think there is any law saying you cannot photograph an officer, But i do believe if you are filming a traffic stop the officer must be notified he/she is being recorded.
IP: Logged
03:49 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25242 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Right, but there should be no reason for the officer to "handcuff violently" I understand the feeling that some deserve it, but it's not the cops place to punish the offender. That's why there are judges. The officer should treat each "suspect" exactly the same, regardless of what they say, do, or act. (exceptions to place a screen over their faces so they cannot spit on officers, or others.) It can really be hard to remain professional in the line of duty, but they have a standard to uphold.
It can be difficult to remain professional when the adrenalin is pumping, but isn't that why there is training?
Brad
I completely agree... and it should be done with professionalism too (not with attitude, arrogance / emotion)... but sometimes it's hard NOT to be violent if the perpetrator is physically resisting, and you're literally fighting the guy while trying to hand-cuff him.
