The American Civil Liberties Union contended in an Illinois lawsuit last year that "individuals ... may make audio (and video) recordings of police who are performing their public duties in a public place and speaking in a voice loud enough to be heard by the unassisted human ear."
Other advocates warn that police first have a duty to protect the public — which can include bystanders with cameras, as well as other bystanders who may be imperiled by the officer's distraction with the camera.
"An officer who takes his or her attention away from the task at hand *to worry about a person running videois going to suffer from split-attention deficit," Sgt. Ed Flosi of the San Jose, Calif., Police Department told PoliceOne, a journal for law enforcement professionals. "When a person is forced to focus on more than one item, the amount of focus on either item suffers. In other words, they may miss something that the primary suspect(s) is doing that could get them hurt or killed."
*What's the worry? That someone is running video?
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 06-27-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:40 PM
Jun 28th, 2011
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9891 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
The American Civil Liberties Union contended in an Illinois lawsuit last year that "individuals ... may make audio (and video) recordings of police who are performing their public duties in a public place and speaking in a voice loud enough to be heard by the unassisted human ear."
Other advocates warn that police first have a duty to protect the public — which can include bystanders with cameras, as well as other bystanders who may be imperiled by the officer's distraction with the camera.
"An officer who takes his or her attention away from the task at hand *to worry about a person running videois going to suffer from split-attention deficit," Sgt. Ed Flosi of the San Jose, Calif., Police Department told PoliceOne, a journal for law enforcement professionals. "When a person is forced to focus on more than one item, the amount of focus on either item suffers. In other words, they may miss something that the primary suspect(s) is doing that could get them hurt or killed."
*What's the worry? That someone is running video?
I'm with you there. Funny how this can cause an unsafe situation and "split-attention" for law enforcement officers.
Did they ever mention one peep about "split-attention" when law enforcement across the country were asking for traffic cameras and even police monitored surveillance cameras in some cities? I guess a person driving their car though an intersection never has "split-attention" as the traffic cam is flashing in their face. And an intersection that has a traffic camera never causes rear end accidents as people make panic stops to avoid a $500+ fine plus points on their license. Nope, all we heard were how great traffic cams were and how they would free up officers to write more speeding tickets err....I mean investigate other crimes.
As the saying goes, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Did they ever mention one peep about "split-attention" when law enforcement across the country were asking for traffic cameras and even police monitored surveillance cameras in some cities? I guess a person driving their car though an intersection never has "split-attention" as the traffic cam is flashing in their face. And an intersection that has a traffic camera never causes rear end accidents as people make panic stops to avoid a $500+ fine plus points on their license. Nope, all we heard were how great traffic cams were and how they would free up officers to write more speeding tickets err....I mean investigate other crimes.
As the saying goes, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Let's not forget the T.V. espisodes of "Cops" where law enforcement rides around with a camera crew. Yeah, the moronic "split-attention" doesn't hold water. Plus, if it was moroncially true. Why would law enforcement take or destroy your cell phone?
IP: Logged
01:01 PM
Jun 30th, 2011
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
"The report found that there was enough evidence to support allegations that 10 police officers deleted cell phone pictures, text messages, and other data about the raid. Plus, there was no search warrant executed which is a violation of the fourth amendment.Chief Turner told CBS Atlanta on Wednesday, "What we want everyone to know is that we will deal with these officers accordingly if they are in violation of the standard operating procedures."
"The report found that there was enough evidence to support allegations that 10 police officers deleted cell phone pictures, text messages, and other data about the raid. Plus, there was no search warrant executed which is a violation of the fourth amendment.Chief Turner told CBS Atlanta on Wednesday, "What we want everyone to know is that we will deal with these officers accordingly if they are in violation of the standard operating procedures."
While I don't condone the actions of the Atlanta Police Officers in any of their actions surrounding this event, in fairness to the officers, regarding the cell phone information that was deleted:
The information deleted was from their personal and city issued cell phones, not from those of the patrons at the bar.
Almost universally, in the USA a person may film anything visible from a public place, so long as it's not for criminal intent or use. That includes filming someone having a conjugal visit in front of an open window or police in the performance of their duties, providing the person filming isn't close enough to personally interfere with the officer's duties. Overzealous police officers, sometimes try to enforce their own laws against an unknowing public. A recent local case resulted in a woman being arrested for stalking and harassment of her neighbor by means of a video camera. The police report stated that the complainant wanted her neighbor's video security cameras removed because some were pointed in the direction of her house. When the offender refused to remove the cameras, she was arrested.
The resulting court case found the woman innocent and the case was dismissed. The defendant now has a pending case against the arresting officer and police department for false arrest and interfering with her civil liberties.
In Boonie's video link, it appears that the woman got a little close to the officers, which could have endangered herself or the officers. If she wanted to continue filming, she should have gone back onto her property at the furthest distance where she could still film, and kept her mouth shut.
Originally posted by fierofool: In Boonie's video link, it appears that the woman got a little close to the officers, which could have endangered herself or the officers. If she wanted to continue filming, she should have gone back onto her property at the furthest distance where she could still film, and kept her mouth shut.
Jez!! Step back, be quiet, we vill be vith you shortly.
She looks to have a sidewalk between her and the officers, meaning that she was at least 6 feet away, about the same distance as the other people, she never stepped forward, but instead back.
What it sounds like you are saying is "Go inside, draw your curtains, ignore any noises, the Police have a lot to do."
The headline in today’s New York Times’ article sums up perfectly why so many cops feel threatened by photographers: When Evidence From Surveillance Cameras Leads to Charges Against Officers.
The article highlights several cases where police officers ended up facing criminal charges for lies exposed on video cameras, either though surveillance cameras or citizen videos. A couple of the incidents have been reported on this blog.
New York City detective Debra Eager was indicted on three felony perjury charges after her testimony before a grand jury about a 2007 drug arrest “starkly contradicted” video surveillance of the event.
New York City police officer Patrick Pogan, who was caught on video assaulting a bicyclist, was indicted in December on charges of assault and filing false paperwork, and has since resigned.
New York City narcotics officers Henry Tavarez and Stephen Anderson, were charged with official misconduct and conspiracy in January after prosecutors said they lied about a “buy and bust” operation at a bar in Queens. One of the men they had arrested, on charges of selling the officers drugs, produced video evidence showing that the officers had had no contact with him or three other suspects, prosecutors said. The charges against the men were dropped.
New York City police officer Maurice Harrington was caught on citizen video hitting Michael Cephus 10 times with a metal baton before charging him with assault. Charges were later dropped. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is now investigating Harrington.
New York City police officer David London was indicted on charges of assault and filing false records after surveillance video showed he pulled a man he had accused of resisting arrest out of an elevator and beat him 18 to 20 times with a baton.
These incidents, which are hardly contained to New York City as any reader of this blog knows, demonstrate why we all need to arm ourselves with compact video cameras when leaving our homes.
It also goes to show you why a South Florida model felt compelled to bring a video camera when she went to pick up her son who had been detained by police earlier this month.
And it makes you wonder how would things have turned out had citizens not videotaped a Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer shooting an unarmed suspect in the back.
According to Bronx District Attorney Robert T. Johnson: “untruthful testimony” from law enforcement officers “strikes at the very heart of our system of justice and seriously erodes public confidence in our courts.”
When Evidence From Surveillance Cameras Leads to Charges Against Officers
By CHRISTINE HAUSER Published: March 25, 2009
Surveillance cameras have captured the faces of criminal suspects in banks, in elevators and on street corners. But they have also surfaced in an unexpected law enforcement role: as evidence against police officers accused of misconduct or of lying on the witness stand.
The latest such case emerged on Monday, when a New York City detective, Debra Eager, 41, was indicted on three felony perjury charges after her testimony before a grand jury about a 2007 drug arrest “starkly contradicted” video surveillance of the event, according to Robert T. Johnson, the Bronx district attorney.
Detective Eager pleaded not guilty to the charges, said her lawyer, Peter E. Brill, who pointed out that she had 15 years’ experience on the force and no disciplinary history. He explained the discrepancies between her testimony and the video as honest mistakes.
Mr. Johnson, commenting on the case, said in a statement that “untruthful testimony” from law enforcement officers “strikes at the very heart of our system of justice and seriously erodes public confidence in our courts.”
Detective Eager’s indictment is one of several in recent months in which video recordings played a role in establishing criminal cases against police officers or led prosecutors to drop charges against suspects the officers had arrested.
In September, the Manhattan district attorney’s office dropped charges of attempted assault, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct against a cyclist, Christopher Long, after videotape showed a police officer, Patrick Pogan, knocking him off his bicycle during a cycling event in Manhattan last summer. Mr. Pogan was indicted in December on charges of assault and filing false paperwork, and has since resigned.
In January, two undercover narcotics officers, Officer Henry Tavarez and Detective Stephen Anderson, were charged with official misconduct and conspiracy after prosecutors said they lied about a “buy and bust” operation at a bar in Queens. One of the men they had arrested, on charges of selling the officers drugs, produced video evidence showing that the officers had had no contact with him or three other suspects, prosecutors said. The charges against the men were dropped.
Last month, assault charges were dropped against a truck driver, Michael Cephus, after a video showed a police officer, Maurice Harrington, hitting him 10 times with a metal baton on Delancey Street in Manhattan, according to Brian Orlow, a lawyer for Mr. Cephus.
Alicia Maxey Greene, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, confirmed that the office was investigating Officer Harrington, but declined to comment further.
Also last month, Officer David London was indicted on charges of assault and filing false records after video from a surveillance camera at an Upper West Side building showed that he pulled a man he had accused of resisting arrest out of an elevator and beat him 18 to 20 times with a baton. Officer London has pleaded not guilty.
Detective Eager was released on a $15,000 personal recognizance bond, and her case was adjourned until May 12. Each of the three counts carries a maximum sentence of seven years in prison, prosecutors said.
Mr. Brill said Detective Eager had no incentive to lie. “What did she have invested in lying?” he said on Tuesday, recounting his remarks in court the day before. “She has made 1,300 arrests.”
The chief spokesman for the Police Department, Paul J. Browne, declined to comment on Detective Eager’s case other than to say that she had been suspended from the force. But when asked to comment about police officers accused of perjury, he said, “It does not happen often, but when it does, it is baffling why police officers would risk prosecution and their careers to advance a criminal case rather than let the chips fall where they may.”
The case against Detective Eager stems from her arrest of three people on drug charges in November 2007 at an apartment building on Holland Avenue in the Bronx.
In an excerpt from her grand jury testimony, released by Mr. Johnson’s office, Detective Eager says she and a partner left their van and entered the building through a broken door to follow two men who they believed had two boxes of marijuana. In another excerpt, she says she and her partner “went up to the fourth floor” and then “to the fifth floor” when they heard the suspects jingling keys to unlock Apartment 55N.
The third perjury count was based on her remarks that during the arrest she had recovered two boxes of marijuana, one 15 pounds and the other 18 pounds.
The district attorney’s statement does not say what the video showed, but claims that her testimony was “specific in detail” and contradicted by the video surveillance.
The felony and misdemeanor charges were dropped against the drug suspects last October, prosecutors said.
Mr. Brill said the surveillance video became part of the case when one or more of the defendants filed a complaint against Detective Eager with the Civilian Complaint Review Board.
Mr. Brill said that after Detective Eager saw the video, she realized that “some of the things she said in the grand jury were incorrect based upon not lying, but mistakes she had made in recalling this.”
Within days, he said, she went to the district attorney’s office and explained the situation.
Mr. Brill said the video showed that Detective Eager and her partner had gone up to the fifth floor separately, perhaps minutes apart, and that members of the police team she was with made the recovery of the boxes — she did not recover them on her own.
Let's not forget the T.V. espisodes of "Cops" where law enforcement rides around with a camera crew. Yeah, the moronic 
"split-attention" doesn't hold water. Plus, if it was moroncially true. Why would law enforcement take or destroy your cell phone?
