
Man arrested for filming Boston police with cellphone camera sues city, officers - ilamont
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/02/02/man_arrested_for_taping_police_sues_city_officers/
======
simon_
It seems clear to me that police actively carrying out their duty have (and
should have) immensely more obligations and fewer rights than citizens
generally.

For example, while I certainly don't have the right to demand identification
from a random person on the street, I better have the right to demand
identification from a police officer giving me an order.

~~~
nebula
True in most cases, but I think there might be exceptions like when dealing
with an emergency like a hostage situation.

~~~
trafficlight
That's the kind of logic that got us into this mess. At no point, regardless
of the situation, should a police officer be above the law.

~~~
BigO
Just trying to point out situations where this can not be followed to the
letter. If someone is speeding away from a robbery the police should not be
allowed to speed after them? If someone is currently robbing a store should
the police not be allowed to trespass to stop them? I do agree that they
should be held to a higher standard. I also think if malicious intent is
evident in their actions they should be given harsher sentences because they
are given so much public trust. But they must be allowed to break some laws or
they wont be able to do their jobs at all.

~~~
fnid2
There are countless tragedies caused by police officers speeding after
criminals. So I would say no, they shouldn't go speeding off after the
criminals. As the cops often say, "You can't outrun radio waves!"

In the robbing store case, there is probable cause to enter the premises.

------
pmichaud
This is an important case to watch, and I think the precedent set will have
compounding effects in the future, either leading to a more or less
transparent government, depending on which way it falls.

~~~
nebula
I'm a little surprised at the tone of your observation. I thought U.S.
citizens were the most empowered on the planet.

More transparent government is clearly the desirable. If the outcome of this
case can determine that, then the outcome should be in favor of transparent
government. If the law of the land doesn't agree, then it's time it's changed;
isn't it?

Well that's what it looks like to me trapped under an oppressive government on
the other side of the globe, idealizing the freedom of American citizens.

~~~
sailormoon
Are you being sarcastic? I honestly can't tell.

At any rate, in a Common Law system like the US's (and most other British
Inheritors'), the outcome of a court case like this _decides_ the law. The
system relies on the judges to interpret the constitution's protections of
rights. What they say goes. Of course, it can be appealed all the way up to
the Supreme Court but then that's the final word and the lawmakers don't have
much to do with it.

~~~
jrockway
_lawmakers don't have much to do with it_

Traditionally they don't, but they could if they wanted to. If the Supreme
Court rules that something is not legal, the legislature can make it legal.
The Constitution can also be amended, making the issue of constitutionality
null.

Some of the most powerful Constitutional protection is in the form of
amendments; the Bill of Rights. Technically, the freedom of speech is implicit
in the text of the main body of the Constitution. (Any powers not specifically
given to the Federal government falls to the States and People.) But the
explicit text of the First Amendment has made it much easier for the People to
retain their right to Free speech and press.

~~~
sailormoon
Well, yes. But an amendment is kind of a Big Deal. I have my doubts that this
issue is of the type to inflame The People sufficiently that such ponderous
wheels might be set in motion.

You're right, though, thanks for the correction.

------
theblackbox
"Now, Glick - a criminal defense attorney, _according to his lawyer_ "

I don't get it. Have Journalistic standards slipped so much that they couldn't
even corroborate this simple piece of information? Or is it something I'm
missing?

~~~
warfangle
Because it's a comment on an ongoing case, the newspaper probably attempted to
corroborate the fact with Glick himself, but he probably referred them to his
lawyer. It's the smart thing to do, even (some might say especially) if you're
a lawyer yourself. Comments on an ongoing case should go through the lawyers
involved instead of the individuals involved: they have to be very careful
about what they say so as not to tank the case.

~~~
ilamont
I noticed that too. But it's not hard to verify his occupation, or at least
that he used to practice law, either through court documents, LexisNexis, or
newspaper archives.

One other thing that came up last night on the local public radio station:
They interviewed someone from the ACLU who said that if the camera was hidden
during the taping, that would be a violation of the law (it wasn't,
apparently).

That made me wonder: If I had a Web cam on my computer facing outside the
window, and it is not obvious that it is a camera (on an iMac it's impossible
to see from more than a few feet away) and it captured such an arrest, could I
be arrested for secretly taping the scene?

~~~
FahnRobier
Only if you are recording audio as well. The wiretapping law applies to
secretly recording audio, not video.

Edit: A good read, from the RCFP... <http://www.rcfp.org/taping/>

~~~
swixmix
It's not very secret if you're holding up a cell phone.

And if that is decidedly secret, then nobody should care as long as the
unlawful audio is removed before distribution.

I use the term unlawful audio because only the personally identifying
information should need to be censored/removed.

~~~
FahnRobier
I used "secret", probably shouldn't have.

The article I referenced says that it varies by state, especially with regards
to consent. Some states are single-party, some states require all party
consent.

But if you're on the street in public, you'd think everything is fair game...
especially if you're a public servant.

It's nice to see someone taking a stand and clearing it up (in one state at
least).

------
imgabe
So if this case succeeds and the two party consent law isn't valid in public,
does that mean that the police could follow a suspect around and record their
conversations with a directional mic without a warrant? (as long as the
conversations took place in public)

This might end up being a case of "be careful what you wish for".

~~~
timwiseman
With the obligatory "I Am Not a Lawyer" out of the way, I should point out
that in many places (it varies state by state) two-party-consent is not
required. Two party notification is required. There can be some significant
differences in some cases.

Again, far from an expert in law anywhere, but my understanding is that in
most states you can go around in public openly recording conversations with no
problems. The issue comes when you try to do it illicitly. A microphone that
is obvious would cause no problems, but one that is concealed or otherwise
nonobvious could be an issue.

If anyone really knows what they are talking about, I would be most
appreciative for confirmation or correction.

As to how it should be, yes, I think that you should be able to record
anything legally as long as the other party has no reasonable expectation of
privacy (and yes, without their notification or consent as long as they do not
then have a reasonable expectation of privacy). If you do something in a
public place, you should assume it is being recorded. If you do something in
the privacy of your own home or a bathroom stall, you should be able to do it
with no fear of being recorded without your consent.

I know this begs the question of where we draw the line between public and
private, but I think there will be little disagreement on most cases. Those
fringe cases where there is disagreement I would tend to lean towards allowing
recordings.

I think this should be true of all citizens, but I think it becomes especially
important of public servants such as Police Officers whom the public has a
right to demand accountability from. The Law Enforcement Agencies in America
are fantastic, and I have the highest praise for them in terms of their
performance and the effect they have on the streets of America. But they
should never forget that they are public servants and (at least indirectly)
accountable to the public in a Democracy.

~~~
sokoloff
IANAL. That said, I believe the relevant law is
<http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-99.htm> and the key element will prove
to be whether using a cell phone as a video/audio camera would constitute a
"secret" recording of audio as required by definition B4. (Apparently, with
Glick's original case dismissed, there's a chance that it would not suffice.)

In terms of his suit, anyone can sue anyone for anything. It's the winning
that's hard. I can't imagine any cause for action on impairing his freedom of
speech, nor that sufficient probable cause did not exist to effect the arrest.
While I don't like how the law is written, and may not agree with the premise,
the law is the law and it's easy for an officer to believe that they have
probable cause for an arrest under that law. Frankly, I think they had PC for
the arrest, even as I wish they didn't and wish that even if they had, they'd
have chosen not to make that arrest. I can't see how Glick can meaningfully
win this case...

------
Yaa101
If the officers in question just do their work normal within the law they
should not be afraid to be filmed, the behavior of these police officers is at
least fishy in that perspective. Also it had to occur sooner or later that
they arrested the wrong person, a criminal defense attorney no less.

------
moron4hire
Being Boston, I'm surprised the cops didn't paint it as a bomb scare. Boston
PD has to be neck-and-neck with LAPD for most corrupt police department in the
country.

~~~
tibbon
1-31-07 Never Forget

~~~
moron4hire
The Abu Ghraib protester was first
[http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/3/boston_protester_faces_...](http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/3/boston_protester_faces_felony_charges_for)

Then the ATHF thing you referenced
[http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/01/mooninites_from_one...](http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/01/mooninites_from_one_of_th.html)

Then a freaking traffic counter that had been put in place by the department
of transportation [http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/28/boston-police-
blow-u.ht...](http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/28/boston-police-blow-u.html)

and the MIT student with the LED sweater
<http://boingboing.net/2007/09/21/mit-student-arrested.html>

These are only the ones I know of. Maybe there are more cases of Boston PD
going nutso over some imagined bomb threat. It reminds me of the aftermath of
9/11, all of the soccer moms in my rural home town, running around and buying
up all the bottled water and duct tape in town, like they expected The
Terr'ists to be interested in bombing Middelofnowheresburg, PA.

I'm sure Boston is a great city, but stories like these make me never want to
visit there, lest I worry if I forgot a half-finished Arduino blinky-light
project in the back seat of my car. I don't view Boston as _that_ important of
a city for someone to want to bomb it.

~~~
MrFoof
_It reminds me of the aftermath of 9/11, all of the soccer moms in my rural
home town, running around and buying up all the bottled water and duct tape in
town, like they expected The Terr'ists to be interested in bombing
Middelofnowheresburg, PA._

Keep in mind that Flight 11 and Flight 175 - the two aircraft that struck the
World Trade Center towers - departed from Boston Logan International Airport.
It makes you wonder what happened internally in the Boston PD after that
event. A very high profile incident in everyone's recent memory originated
from an area under their watch, so my guess is the paranoia stems from their
desire to never be associated with such an incident ever again.

The paranoia runs deep elsewhere. Though not the first skyscraper you'd ever
think to target, Boston's John Hancock Tower (tallest building in New England)
is similar to the World Trade Center towers in which the elevators and
stairwells are all contained within the core of the building. Working in the
building, I can definitely say that security gets a bit antsy when the
turnstiles buzz when something may be awry.

------
swixmix
I agree with Mr. Nee that police officers "are entitled to the same rights as
every citizen" because they, simply, are.

I believe any individual should be allowed to record anything they please. But
I also believe the distribution should be controlled by those who can be
identified in the recording.

The biggest deciding factor in this case should be if the recording was
interfering with keeping the peace or not. If it's a personal issue, then the
Officers were acting in a personal capacity and they were abusing their power.
They should handle the situation the same way I would if someone were
recording me.

If I reported to the Police that someone was unlawfully recording me, what do
you think they would do?

~~~
georgecmu
You don't have the right to control any video/photo recording of yourself
that's done in a public place. All you can do is cover your face and walk
away.

EDIT: the person recording only needs your permission if the photo or video is
going to be used to promote goods or services.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
"The lawsuit argues that public places are not covered by this law."

What if they were? Could the local news do a live broadcast from the street
without fear that someone would walk up behind them, shout something, and then
claim that his rights had been violated?

~~~
jrockway
I am pretty sure anyone can _claim_ anything. I think you would have a pretty
hard time going anywhere with a case against the news people, though.

------
sailormoon
I thought police in LA were going to start wearing cameras on their heads to
record everything!

<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580667,00.html>

Isn't that fairly strong evidence that it's OK to record public interactions
without consent?

~~~
ggchappell
> Isn't that fairly strong evidence that it's OK to record public interactions
> without consent?

Possibly, in California, but not in Massachusetts.

Compare the 3rd paragraph of this page:

<http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/california.html>

with the first paragraph of this:

<http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/massachusetts.html>

