

Illegal to record an on-duty officer? - f1gm3nt
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/are-cameras-the-new-guns/#

======
MartinCron
I'm looking forward to when one of these laws gets challenged in court and
finally thrown out for good. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy if
you're a public employee, on duty, in a public place. It doesn't matter how
much you try to torture the words "reasonable", "private", or "public"

If someone really is obstructing police work, then the current statutes
against obstructing police work are applicable. Police should be limited to
enforcing those and not try to criminalize photography.

~~~
tome
When you say "public employee" are you referring just to law enforcement
officers and other officials with authority or do you actually mean _all_ of
them?

I can't see a need to permit the recording or some guy who sells tickets for a
municipal railway, or sweeps the streets and is paid by the local authority
(although I don't _particularly_ see the need to ban it, either).

~~~
noarchy
Interestingly, taking a photo of a guy selling tickets (or actually, not
selling tickets...he was sleeping) actually made news in Toronto not long ago:
[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/201...](http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2010/01/22/ttc-
napper-under-investigation.aspx)

~~~
ojbyrne
One of my fondest memories is arriving at a border crossing in mid-afternoon
from the US to Canada and having to wake up the customs guy. Pre 9/11 of
course.

------
mathewgj
I immediately wondered how the Rodney King case would have been different if
it was affected by a law of this kind. Does anyone know if the video footage
would have been inadmissable?

On a different note, I have spent a lot of time in developing countries, and
some of the most consistent hallmarks are ridiculous bans on photographing
anything government-related. Laws like this in the US make me worry about the
country sliding backwards into dysfunction.

~~~
evgen
The catch with most of these statutes is that the part that is illegal is the
audio recording. If you record video without an audio track or are too far
away for any audio of the encounter to be heard then you are usually in the
clear. In the King case my memory of the video is that it was shot from a
distance and that you can't really hear anything (checking a few archives
seems to confirm that the only thing that you can really hear is helicopter
noise.)

------
jrockway
It will be interesting to watch the outcomes of the appeals.

The dangerous underlying issue is applying statutes to situations that they
were not written to cover. If the government wants to make it illegal to
videotape police officers, the law should say "it is a class 1 felony to
videotape police officers". If the intentions of what a law prohibits is not
made clear, how can people be expected to comply? When the law can be shaped
to cover whatever a prosecutor dislikes about a particular person, then law
becomes a tool of oppression, not a way to ensure an orderly society. How can
I not violate the law if I don't know what the law is!?

The second dangerous underlying issue is that it is not clearly illegal to
pass such a law.

People tend to misuse the expression "police state", but if these convictions
stick, that is exactly what this is. When you are legally unable to prepare
evidence in your own defense, there might as well not be a criminal justice
system at all.

I propose that we pass a law, perhaps with a clever name like the "PROTECT
CHILDREN act" (you make the backronym), that makes it a Class I felony for any
police officer or other government official acting in an official capacity to
interfere with any video recording of events that would otherwise occur in the
plain view of the recorder. (You can't go into someone's home and videotape
the police, but you can videotape the police when they come to arrest you.)

This will never happen, though. Oh well, at least everyone has McDonalds and a
big-screen TV...

~~~
dnsworks
Anti-Flag described the problem best in
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEtEG2Q7zCk>

------
johngalt
But I thought the surveillance rule was "If you have nothing to hide then you
have nothing to fear"?

That is what I find most hilarious about this. We are supposed to submit to
warrantless wiretapping, and routine public recording because it "makes us
safer". Yet Police aren't required to do the same.

~~~
goldenbough
It would not surprise me if the states with these surveillance laws equip
their police cars with on board cameras that record traffic stops and other
incidents. Can we order them turned off too?

~~~
tomhogans
At this rate they might be our only hope.

------
oldgregg
A few well known photogs need to get together and launch a "Film the 5-0" day
where everyone just goes out and films cops for a day. Bring the issue to a
head instead of quietly letting them pass more restrictive laws like they have
in the UK.

~~~
Crowcrow
Hold on there, the uk has far more liberal laws that the us, can you give any
examples? Btw you can film anything here, including arrests. Only issue is if
they think you are making a film to aid terrorists, but the police have had a
very hard time using that. Also don't forget that the uk is crawling in cctv,
so the police are bound to be filmed anyway!

~~~
philwelch
The UK has abolished self defence, compromised the legal protection against
double jeopardy, and lifted many restrictions against government agents
entering one's home. Political speech is less free as in the United States as
well. There's also the sizable DNA database, and the CCTV itself (which is
still controlled by the government, and hence on the other side of the table
from any recordings made by citizens).

~~~
Robin_Message
I agree the UK has been going in the wrong direction on civil liberties, but
your post is too much FUD, which is ultimately harmful to our cause.

> The UK has abolished self defence,

The most recent cause celebre on this was a robber being given permanent brain
damage after escaping the scene of the robbery. The attack was not self
defence, and frankly, the brothers who joined in the attack got off very
lightly indeed.

In reality, reasonable force in defending oneself and others is allowed, and
is interpreted by juries, so how can you possible argue self defence has been
"abolished?"

> compromised the legal protection against double jeopardy,

Only in the event of important new evidence, i.e. DNA that couldn't be done at
the time due to lack of science. Not ideal perhaps, but you have to draw a
line somewhere, and smarter people than you or I supported it.

> lifted many restrictions against government agents entering one's home.

Any more details on this one, citation/statute?

> Political speech is less free as in the United States as well.

The HRA mostly fixes that although there is not an inalienable right to free
speech. Since there isn't in the USA either, are you sure it is measurably
less free?

> There's also the sizable DNA database

Declared illegal by our highest court, and currently being fixed by the
government in the proposed Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill, as is ID cards, right
to protest and so on.

> and the CCTV itself (which is still controlled by the government, and hence
> on the other side of the table from any recordings made by citizens).

CCTV is generally controlled by local shopping centres or business
associations, or local councils. I recently visited our local council CCTV
control room and was interested to discover they actually won't let the police
into the viewing room, except for a specific operation (which has to
authorised by the chief of police and the head of the CCTV stuff on the
council). They will report crimes to the police, but the police cannot trawl
or watch their system. So, I really don't see what the problem with CCTV
really is. It watches the public, but so could a council employee up a hill
with a telescope. It remembers, but only for a limited time, and so could the
same council employee with a pencil and paper.

The biggest argument against CCTV is it is a total waste of money, doesn't
reduce or deter crime, and is not backed up with any proper evidence of
efficacy whatsoever.

I agree the UK has been going in the wrong direction, but I don't think it is
as bad as you say, and I am offended by the continual denigration of the UK
compared to America, as if America was the capital of human rights and civil
liberties, and we still have the star chamber.

Also, you didn't mention the most worrying thing of all - the powers the
police have been using to prevent climate change protest. Regardless of your
views on climate change, the fact public resources have been so heavily
diverted to protect commercial interests worries me much, much more. That way
fascism lies.

~~~
philwelch
The funny thing about America is that we actually got all of our civil
liberties from English tradition. America and the UK share the tradition of
the English common law, and a lot of the reforms the UK has seen (including
the erosion of double jeopardy) would be unthinkable in America.

That said, there seem to be promising signs that the new Con/LibDem coalition
is putting things in the right direction. It's encouraging that you folks
threw out the Labour party, and it's more encouraging that you seemed to do it
for many of the right reasons. (I feel comfortable saying things like that
because I have a feeling many British people feel the same way about us and
the Republicans.) Of course, it remains to be seen whether the new boss is
really any better than the old boss.

I don't really mean to denigrate the UK. The UK's done things in recent years
that are very worrying. They're probably par for the course for European
countries, but given the traditions of civil liberties we share, a lot of us
have higher expectations for the UK.

------
malbiniak
Why the question mark? If you live in Illinois, Massachusetts, or Maryland,
the title reads "It is illegal to record an on-duty officer."

And not just sort of illegal. Class 1 felony punishable 4-15 years in prison
illegal.

~~~
jbarciauskas
This article clarifies the current state of affairs in Massachusetts:

[http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010...](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/)

The key seems to be how evident it is that the person is recording. If it is
at all not obvious to the police that a recording is being made, it is
illegal. If you put a microphone or camera in their face however it is OK.

~~~
georgieporgie
So the Rodney King tape would be illegal. In fact _most_ police abuse tapes I
can recall would be illegal, since people don't like to get very close to
packs of violent officers.

------
WillyF
I agree that police abuse is a problem, and I also agree that laws like the
ones mentioned in the article are an obscene violation of our liberties;
however, I'm starting to see the problems that recording officers can cause. I
was recently leaving North Avenue Beach after playing beach volleyball when a
gang fight erupted. Hundreds of kids started mobbing each other and causing
all kinds of mayhem. I got out of there quickly, so I don't know what exactly
went down, but I do know that the day before there was an attack on joggers,
fights, arrests, and even a shooting.

Here's a story mostly focused on what happened the day before I was there:
[http://cbs2chicago.com/local/north.avenue.beach.2.1714897.ht...](http://cbs2chicago.com/local/north.avenue.beach.2.1714897.html)

There hasn't been a ton of news coverage about the recent problems at North
Ave Beach beyond the article above, but I was able to find a few videos of the
violence on YouTube like this one:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDd5-QfjDXM&has_verified=...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDd5-QfjDXM&has_verified=1)

It seems to me that the focus of the videos is more on how the cops are
treating the criminals than what the criminals are doing (assaulting police
officers and acting like idiots in the video above). A lot of comments on the
Second City Cop blog - <http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com> \- have indicated
that law enforcement officers in Chicago are becoming extremely hesitant to
act because they are worried about how their actions may look on camera.

Yes, "citizen journalists" with cell phone cameras will help to curb police
abuse, but they will also discourage use of force by police officers when it
is justified. The video above isn't the best example since the cops do end up
using force to restrain some of the perpetrators, but they do seem to show a
decent amount of restraint. In the situation that I saw, the cops seemed wary
of getting involved.

The situation that I witnessed opens up a number of other issues, but my point
is that I want the people who are paid to protect me to be fully empowered to
do what they need to do to quell situations like a massive gang fight on the
beach.

I don't think that passing laws prohibiting citizens from recording on-duty
officers is the right way to go about this, but I do think that citizens and
the media need to be more understanding of the fact that sometimes it is
necessary for cops to use force. A 30 second YouTube clip doesn't always tell
the whole story, yet these types of videos can ruin an officer's career.

Social media is a great thing for Democracy. I think that recording police is
a good thing. I just think that knee-jerk reactions to news that comes in bits
and pieces can be extremely damaging to our society. Our law enforcement
officers shouldn't be afraid of making the right decision because an edited
video clip will make it look like abuse.

~~~
rlpb
> A 30 second YouTube clip doesn't always tell the whole story

This just provides an incentive for the police to wear their own cameras, no?
Wouldn't this solve your problem?

What if it became irregular for a policeman to be on the stand retelling
events that occurred while he was on duty but not to have video corroboration?
In a future world where all police wear cameras while on duty, and the court
expects to see all relevant footage, not just the footage picked out by the
prosecution or by the defence? Wouldn't this be a good thing?

~~~
hugh3
Mostly, yes, though I can also see downsides. Juries might become overly
dependent on this form of evidence, to the detriment of their ability to weigh
evidence.

For instance, suppose that man A punches man B, and a policeman sees it. But
suppose his camera just happened to be turned the wrong way or momentarily
obscured at the time so the video footage doesn't actually show the moment
where man A punches man B. With this ambiguous footage available, juries might
be hesitant to convict, even though multiple witnesses saw it happen, because
the jury expected to be able to see it with their own eyes.

~~~
jrockway
By your logic, we should blind people who can see, because they have an unfair
advantage over the blind.

~~~
hugh3
I don't really see how that follows from my logic. I was just pointing out how
sticking a camera on every police officer might have downsides in some cases.
On the other hand, the upsides might quite likely outweigh it.

I suppose another objection is that police officers would then have a whole
new responsibility: they'd have to constantly worry about aiming their camera
in the right direction. That means that a policeman who _should_ be trying to,
say, break up a fight will instead be concentrating on making sure he has his
camera pointed at the fight.

------
donaldc
I think the benefit of people being able to record police officers in action
far outweighs any disadvantages.

Beyond this, I am rather offended that it seems to be ok for any number of
local governments, businesses, and who knows who else to record _me_ as I go
about my daily business out in the world, and then claim it's somehow not ok
for me to do the same to the police, or anyone else, in a public setting.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
It is not fair, but it is also different. For one thing, there are many of
"us" and very, very few of "them". I believe the test cases mentioned in this
article were actually contrived cases intended to embarrass the police, and
were probably perceived as an attack by them. And when they get attacked, they
tend to close ranks - police, judges etc.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
"... tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art
downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law".

------
bertm
"Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable
by 4 to 15 years in prison."

The sentence length mentioned strikes me as severe, seems the law is being use
in a way that differs from the original intent.

------
CWuestefeld
This is, of course, a terrible thing, but it's nothing new.

From personal experience, back in 1991 I was with a group of friends, one of
whom was using a camcorder to record a police officer. The cop threatened him,
exclaiming "Get that camera thing away from me!".

The difference now is the ubiquity of video recording devices, and thus
increased perceived urgency on the part of police to defend themselves against
them.

~~~
jacquesm
If they're doing nothing illegal, they've got nothing to fear, right ? Or so
the argument goes when the 'other' side wants their goodies (dna samples,
finger prints, all your mail headers (and probably their contents), your
browsing history, your credit card purchases, surveilance footage and so on).

What goes around comes around, if transparency is a 'good thing' and we're all
to be tracked and followed then it stands to reason that police officers can
and should be tracked and followed by citizens, as long as the recordings do
not interfere with the police work.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
They are not robots. They behave differently on camera, just as you and I do.
They can be embarrassed, clutch, and act out. Just watch an episode of a real
crime show on cable for any number of examples.

~~~
stakent
Change in their behaviour is secondary effect. In most cases it is change for
better one so maybe there should be mandatory recording of all proceedings of
authorities?

Well, at least the public ones.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
You're kidding! Just watch Cops. On camera, policemen get macho, brutal and
generally act out for the audience. This is NOT better behavior.

~~~
CWuestefeld
What's the control in this experiment? Obviously you can't know how the _Cops_
guys behave off-camera.

------
tjmaxal
So are the viewers on you tube co conspirators complicit for failing to report
a crime?

This is scary and ridiculous at the same time.

------
goldenbough
I find this all very disturbing. One of the principles of democracy is
transparency and government accountability. Clearly at this time the citizens
of Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and wherever else this happens deserve
the government they make for themselves. I would like to see a broad ranging
Supreme Court ruling allowing everyone the right to film in public. If not by
the court, then some action by Congress.

~~~
URSpider94
"Clearly at this time the citizens of Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and
wherever else this happens deserve the government they make for themselves."

While I understand your rhetorical point, as a citizen of Massachusetts, I can
certainly say that I do not feel that I "deserve" to be treated in this
manner. Sure, I'll make my voice heard on this issue, but the case discussed
in this article represents primarily a decision by the executive branch
(police and prosecutors) to apply a law commonly used for wiretapping in this
case, and then by the courts to uphold this decision. It's not as if we held a
referendum to criminalize filming of police officers.

------
steveklabnik
> In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state’s
> electronic surveillance law — aka recording a police encounter — the
> Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2.

This is the worst part of this. Frivolous lawsuits, okay, but seeing this
blatant violation of the spirit of the law upheld really sucks.

------
jcromartie
I've written my governor on this. We'll see what kind of canned half-assed
response it gets.

~~~
f1gm3nt
Dear jcromartie %LAST_NAME%,

Thanks for writing me with your concerns on %TOPIC_NOT_FOUND%. I will soon be
writing up a law to prevent this from happening again.

Thanks,

%GOVERNOR_NAME%

------
motters
This sounds like they're basically copied what's been happening in the UK,
where photographers in public places have been harassed and sometimes
arrested. The excuse given is usually that photographs could aid terrorists in
planning an attack, but of course the notion that terrorists abstain from
using Flickr, Google street view or Google Earth is absurd.

In the UK the "war on photography" has been going on for at least the last few
years. For an example see
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/police-
arrest...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/police-arrest-
photographer)

------
wake_up_sticky
"A lot of comments on the Second City Cop blog -
<http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com> \- have indicated that law enforcement
officers in Chicago are becoming extremely hesitant to act because they are
worried about how their actions may look on camera."

Good.

------
natmaster
And then who watches the police? This is how police states are finalized.

------
nearestneighbor
Anything a cop says is copyrighted by the police department.

------
sliverstorm
Best part of all this is if you are filming something and the police approach
you, and don't give you an opportunity to turn off your camera, you are going
to commit a crime whether you like it or not!

------
Daniel_Newby
Actually, most state constitutions protect recording in public places. The
free speech clauses allow making, transmitting, and publishing anything you
want, and an audio recording is simply a publication of one record to
yourself. To put it another way, if an audio recording can be prohibited, then
the same law could also provide for summary execution for taking pencil and
paper notes, which is a patent civil rights violation. This is a matter of
established black letter law, with precedents out the wazoo.

The classical wiretap laws are based on a theory of trespass. It is trespass
and vandalism to plant a bug in someone's office. Recordings from the bug are
not a violation of some nebulous (and expandable) right to privacy, but rather
the ill-gotten gains of a crime.

And what are the cops thinking, anyway? When you place yourself outside the
protections of the law, you are outside the protections of the law. If I get
beaten and robbed with impunity, and locked up for 20 years if I try to
protect myself, I'll simply kill every cop that so much as looks at me wrong.

