
Federal Court Establishes Constitutional Right to Film Police Officers in Public - jseliger
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/07/07/third_circuit_affirms_the_constitutional_right_to_record_police_officers.html
======
AndrewKemendo
_Fortunately, Friday’s ruling establishes the right to record within the 3rd
Circuit beyond any doubt, meaning officers who violate that right in Delaware,
New Jersey, or Pennsylvania may be sued_

Key term here is, _may_ be sued.

I think it's great that these decisions are widespread and unambiguous,
however on the street in real time, they basically don't matter.

From a cop's perspective they evaluate it like this: There is a very high risk
of a shit storm coming from someone releasing a video of me doing something
questionable. Alternatively there is a fairly low risk that if I take or break
that same person's camera that they will accurately identify me, find legal
counsel, sue me and then stick out the trial backed by police union and LEO
supporters. Even if all that happened, the likely outcome is that I would get
suspended with pay.

So it seems pretty clear cut that for officers that would have the intention
of obstructing first amendment protections, because of their actions, that any
legal recourse is trivial compared to the alternative of letting anyone film
whatever.

~~~
colanderman
But live streaming is becoming more mainstream, and I think a cop would have
to be dumb as rocks not to be aware of that fact. The shit storm due to a
video of questionable activity is nothing compared to the shit storm of
questionable activity that ends abruptly as the officer's boot meets the lens.

------
1024core
Until there is harsh punishment for officers who violate thie right, nothing
will change.

The reality is, _there is no punishment for violating someone 's
Constitutional rights_. Nobody gets jailed for it. Until and unless that
starts happening, this ruling is moot.

~~~
burntrelish1273
There are complementary approaches to reform policing:

0\. Citizen-led policing, e.g., what Michael A. Wood, Jr. advocates.

1\. Police must face both criminal and civil liability, with mandatory
insurance for the latter.

2\. Selection must screen for those whom can stay cool: eg those with front-
line battle experience don't get scared as easily.

3\. Training must be exhaustive, continuous and realistic, situational,
diplomacy and use-of-force.

~~~
burntrelish1273
Maybe also "record and share everything, (nearly) all the time" in terms of
body- and dash-cams.

~~~
mattzito
I think there's a legit concern around sharing everything, since so much of
police work involves being a first responder to some really tragic things -
I'd be pretty upset if the video of a loved one dying in a car crash popped up
on YouTube. But _storing_ everything for some limited period of time seems
very reasonable.

------
uiri
This ruling effects New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.

Similar rulings exist for Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and
Washington state.

Hopefully the remaining circuit courts (most notably, the 2nd circuit which
includes New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) will have similar rulings if the
issue ever arises in those states.

------
mnm1
And of course, the cops get immunity for their crimes.

~~~
mirimir
Those two in Philadelphia did, because the ruling wasn't applied
retroactively. The dissenting judge argued that it should have been. But
there's nothing in the opinion about immunity for future violations.

~~~
mnm1
No, the court just wants to pretend like it is the source of inalienable
rights, as if these rights just came into being because of its decision. They
didn't.

~~~
mirimir
Courts clarify Constitutional rights. Which they did here. Or mangle them, as
they've done re the drug war etc.

