
Recording police with your smartphone is a Constitutional right, says DoJ - ubasu
http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/recording-police-is-a-constitutional-right-says-doj/
======
ori_b
Why aren't the police equipped with recording devices that are active whenever
they are interacting with the public? It seems that anyone with that sort of
power should have an audit trail for their actions.

~~~
spindritf
There are a couple of legitimate reasons why police officers might not want to
be recorded 8-12 hours a day.

First is purely psychological. Would you want to have someone looking over
your shoulder all the time? Would you want your employer to record everything
you do on your computer through some spyware? Have a camera mounted above your
head?

Second is procedural. There are so many rules and regulations that it's almost
impossible not to break some of them (just like with laws in western
countries) so police officers (just like citizens) rely on low detection rate
for minor violations and difficulty of proving anything.

There is also something to be said about how trustworthy police officers would
be everyone they come in contact while on duty. People (and that includes
criminals) find it much easier to trust a person they see standing in front ot
them than some unknown tape reviewer.

And finally, basic privacy. If you work for many hours with little to do
(patrolling the streets isn't exactly a consuming task), you probably have a
lot of personal conversations with your partners.

Those problems will also be made worse by the officers themselves struggling
with yet another piece of equipment (have you ever seen a cop running?).

All or almost all of the above could probably be resolved with selective
recording, clear indicators of when the camera is running, light and easy to
use devices and other technical solutions. Though we all know that, as with
any other technological project, first users will get a lot of leakage and
other bugs. And with the feedback loops what they are in the government, many
may not be fixed for a really long time.

~~~
drumdance
_Would you want to have someone looking over your shoulder all the time?_

People who work in retail seem to be doing just fine, not to mention officers
of the court who's every word and deed is recorded and transcribed.

~~~
mikeash
Don't forget airline pilots. And call center employees. And....

Well, I think it's clear enough that people can manage to do their jobs while
being constantly watched. I won't say it's necessarily a good idea, but if
it's a good idea for _anybody_ , then people who are legally empowered to use
force to enforce the law ought to be at the top of the list.

~~~
sokoloff
Airline pilots have strict protections on how the cockpit voice recorder
information can be used; it's only a 30-minute loop, etc. Hardly the same as
having every working day recorded permanently...

~~~
drumdance
Yeah, but pilots don't have the ability to put you in jail.

------
newbusox
Not to burst anyone's bubbles, but just because the DoJ has issued a letter
stating that they believe this is constitutional does not make it so. There
are opinions, I believe, from the First and Seventh Circuits that state
explicitly that this is the case, but, probably until there is a definitive
decision from the US Supreme Court or the like, or of an appellate court in a
given state, local police could still try to arrest you for recording them,
and the police may be able to make a colorable argument that that is valid.
It's not inconceivable, depending on the jurisdiction, that a court could
decide in police's favor were someone to sue in a situation like that.

~~~
felipemnoa
Considering this:

[http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2012/04/supreme-court-
sa...](http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2012/04/supreme-court-says-police-
can-strip-search-anyone-they-arrest-without-probable-cause.html)

I don't think is a wise idea to take this to the supreme court at this moment.
They could easily say that it is illegal to record police.

~~~
cynicalkane
I find it very strange that you're citing (a highly erroneous summary of) a
Court ruling restricting the right privacy for jail inmates in specific
situations, in order to argue that the Court will extend privacy of persons in
public places. Actually, the lack of prisoners' rights to privacy, and the
right to record things in public areas, are both well established.

By the way, the word you're looking for is "unconstitutional", not "illegal".
Even should the Court restrict the right to record--which they won't, it's a
well-established right--jurisdictions may establish that right through law
anyway.

------
sodafountan
I've actually been arrested once for recording a police officer, I went up to
her with my cellphone in hand when she was questioning my intoxicated friend
on my college campus. She snatched my phone away from me and said I was
prohibiting her from doing her job, and so I was taken in with my friend.
Looks like i'll be fighting this one. Never thought HN would be a good source
for legal advice ;)

~~~
13rules
"said I was prohibiting her from doing her job"

Translation: You've done something that I don't like, but isn't illegal, so
here's a trumped up charge so you have to spend the night in jail.

~~~
jasonlotito
At the same time, shoving a camera into someones face could impact their
ability to perform their job. In, fact, unless your job involves working with
a camera, I imagine a camera in the face wouldn't help matters.

Simply put, while I agree we should be able to records officers, I also
believe that playing a game of "I'm not touching you" with a camera is out of
place.

Indeed, if your dealing with drunk people as a cop, having someone else walk
up to you is going to be threatening. So, why does a person with a camera
automatically get a pass.

Yes, you have the right to record. But that doesn't give you the right to
ignore the officer.

~~~
13rules
_At the same time, shoving a camera into someones face could impact their
ability to perform their job._

Agreed - you should maintain your distance, but I've seen many videos on
YouTube where the person videoing wasn't interfering at all and certainly
wasn't "in their face", but the cops did not like being filmed and arrested
the person. That is just not right.

------
wpietri
Just copied this to my smartphone so I have it on hand.

For years I've been in the habit of just hanging around for a bit if I come
across cops when they're dealing with citizens. I encourage everybody to try
it from time to time. Worst case, you learn something. Best case, you subtly
remind the police who they work for: their fellow citizens.

------
ghayes
The quality of this memo truly reflects the appropriate attitude of DoJ in
regards to First (Speech), Fourth (Search), and Fourteenth (Due Process)
Amendment rights.

> E.g. "Officers should be advised not to threaten, intimidate, or otherwise
> discourage an individual from recording police officer enforcement
> activities or intentionally block or obstruct cameras or recording devices."

------
Cieplak
Here is a case from my state of Maryland where a motorcyclist was charged with
recording a police man without the officer's permission; it was very upsetting
to me when in happened two years ago:

[http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/05/stat...](http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/05/state_police_charge_motorcycli.html)

~~~
13rules
I remember that when it happened and totally agree. It's ok for the cop to get
out of his car with his gun drawn and no identification that he is police and
go up to the guy on the bike, but it's not ok that the rider had a helmet cam
that recorded the entire thing?

The bottom line with these kinds of cases is that if not for the video, the
victims of police brutality and abuse would have nothing to show ... and there
have been many cases where police have lied to cover up their actions.

One case that sticks in my mind is when a Maryland basketball fan was attacked
and beaten by three police officers completely unprovoked:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYckCapjdnY>

The reporting officer falsified the report and stated that the student had
struck the police horse. This video turned up a few days later and shows that
none of that happened. If not for the video, those officers would have gotten
away with beating up a student and lying about it ... and the victim would
have been the one having to pay for it with jail time, fines, and lawyer's
fees.

That's exactly the kind of abuse we need to protect against.

~~~
Cieplak
I went to Maryland and was a student when this happened. The video you mention
was filmed from South Campus Commons Building 3, and I lived in 4. I was at a
friends house when this happened, and rode my bike home shortly after this
happened, not knowing all of this had happened (not a big basketball fan). As
I was riding my bike down Baltimore Avenue, two cops in riot suits were
standing on the sidewalk beside the street, and when I was just square with
them, they suddenly jumped at me screaming stop. I almost lay down by bicycle
as one of the cops tries to tackle me. He managed to kick my back tire, and I
skid to a halt and dismount. They come up to me and point their 50mm canister
guns in my face and start yelling in my face. I smile at them and sort of
laugh, and ask if there's a problem officer. They say I was entering a
restricted area, and tell me I have to turn around. I point to the my building
and they don't really care. They say I have to turn around. These cops don't
get to go to riots very often, so when they do get the chance, they like to
have as much fun as they can with it.

------
protomyth
The Fullerton case would have been buried without the recordings - here is
reason.tv's latest video [http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/16/outraged-
fullerton-citizen...](http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/16/outraged-fullerton-
citizens-react-to-kel)

------
cgs1019
link to actual letter published:
[http://www.pixiq.com/sites/default/files/united_states_lette...](http://www.pixiq.com/sites/default/files/united_states_letter_re_photography_5_14_2012_0.pdf)

------
jamesBB
Occupy Cal. Thank god someone recorded this and I hope the police get fired.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_f06VQOkI4>

------
evolve2k
I'm wondering is there a Wikipedia article on this issue, I was interested to
get more background on this, especially the status in other countries.

~~~
TDL
Radley Balko has written extensively on this topic. It is also a frequent
topic @ Reason.com. Carlos Miller maintains a blog called "Photography is not
a Crime" that deals with this issue. Those sources are good places to start
learning about the ongoing issues of photography in public spaces & of police
actions.

------
ck2
But I wonder what they think of police downloading and cloning your phone's
content at their whim.

~~~
rpedroso
"officers must not search or seize a camera or recording device without a
warrant."

The seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment would seem cover any case in which
they wanted a copy of your data.

~~~
cookiecaper
You should inform Michigan State Police.

>The CelleBrite UFED is a handheld device that Michigan officers have been
using since August 2008 to copy information from mobile phones belonging to
motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. [...] [I]t can copy everything
on your smartphone in a matter of minutes.

[http://thenextweb.com/us/2011/04/20/us-police-can-copy-
your-...](http://thenextweb.com/us/2011/04/20/us-police-can-copy-your-iphones-
contents-in-under-two-minutes/)

~~~
rpedroso
That's very alarming, but also pre-exists this DOJ precedent. Hopefully this
gets tested and validated in court soon.

------
dotBen
I assigned the bit.ly link <http://bit.ly/filmpolice> to this pdf, so that you
can call it up on your phone if you needed it at the police station, etc.

------
philip1209
How does this apply Illinois' law?

~~~
ludflu
its my understanding that due to the supremacy clause, federal
(constitutional) law trumps state laws. in some cases, state laws can grant
addiitional rights, but they can't abridge the rights granted by the
constitution.

~~~
ComputerGuru
Not exactly - you're right about most of what you said, except the
constitutional rights/bill of rights. The Bill of Rights defends individuals
against the _federal_ government, and did not originally apply to State
governments.

One by one, the amendments have been/are being slowly _incorporated_ to
protect individual rights against State governments as well, as the result of
Supreme Court rulings:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights)

To date, the first, second, fourth, partially fifth, (by and large) sixth, and
partially eight amendments have been incorporated, i.e. apply equally to both
State and Federal governments. The 2nd (the right to bear arms) was the most
recent one, incorporated in 2010 here in Chicago.

~~~
ludflu
interesting thanks. so freedom of speech and lots of other stuff has been
incorporated, but not everything in the constitution applies to states
automatically

------
ktizo
Has anyone done a decently researched bust card website/app for smartphones
that covers different laws for different worldwide jurisdictions yet?

I am sure that this could be funded by contextually advertising lawyers
selected for their qualifications in each area, so that you can get their
services with a button.

Also, have an off-phone media recording service to lots of different
territories so as to preserve evidence. Very difficult to destroy evidence
that is being recorded globally.

And if you want to make it nice and fluffy, you make sure that it is
independent of the lawyers/sponsors and can kick them off and replace them if
they are crap.

