

Cops Would Be Liable Arresting Citizens For Recording Under Approved Conn. Bill - cwan
http://www.pixiq.com/article/connecticut-senate-approves-bill

======
MartinCron
_Looney also noted that interfering with an officer is already a crime and
would remain so._

The thing that always bothers me about the anti-photo/video side uses the
bogus argument that people taking photos or videos will interfere with police
business. If the photographer is being a material interference, they are
committing a crime with or without their camera. Otherwise, just let them be.

~~~
rdtsc
> he anti-photo/video side uses the bogus argument that people taking photos
> or videos will interfere with police business.

that is a common pattern in authoritarian regimes -- a slew of catch-all laws
that can be applied selectively. there is "interfering with police business",
"interfering with official business", and whole set of others that can always
be used to at least get you to the police station.

------
GoodIntentions
Per the article, LEO has immunity:

"if they were acting within their scope of authority and the conduct was not
willful, wanton, or reckless."

I think this is pretty much the way it works everywhere in North America -
sworn officers are ( rightfully ) immune to prosecution while in discharge of
their duties. _unless_ their conduct qualifies as malfeasance. Arguably, ( in
my mind at least ) arresting people for simply recording the public conduct of
an officer already falls into this territory.

~~~
rohansingh
The article does not say that they have immunity in that case. It says that
can be repaid for any damages that they end up owing.

------
tonystree123
Your all a bunch of morons. Since when in a civilized society to you think it
is okay to belittle a guy for doing his job? By your description, he was
simply looking at you and did not say anything. You are both allowed to look
at each other. Your interpretation of his look is just your opinion but it
sounds to me that you were the confrontational one. In what world is it okay
for you to challenge anyone about meer look and reply with obscenities "What
the fuck are you thinking?" I would have to say that this security guards
suspicion about you was dead on. Get a life please and do not waste anyone's
time again with your stupidity. I'm sorry I took the time to read your post
and am now dumber myself for it.

------
samstave
Tangentially related personal anecdote:

This morning on my walk into work, I passed two private security guards
standing in front of Bank of America on Market Street [1].

I noticed they were standing on little rubber mats to reduce the strain of
standing there all day - as I looked at one, I glanced to the other to see if
he also had a mat and see if it was the same size as the others'.

As I did so, the short asian guard said very intently at me, in a way he was
trying to assert his authoritative role, and said gruffly "GOOD MORNING" and
glared at me as I walked by - so I continued staring at him.

I said back to him "What? Do you think I am not allowed to look at you now?
What the fuck are you thinking"

He glared at me with his hand on his gun.

I wanted to go back and take his picture, but it would certainly aggravate
this already moronic figure with an authority complex.

[1]:
[http://maps.google.com/maps?q=one+market+sf+ca&hl=en&...](http://maps.google.com/maps?q=one+market+sf+ca&hl=en&ll=37.793953,-122.395458&spn=0.001202,0.002642&sll=35.746512,-92.109375&sspn=129.750612,143.789063&hq=one+market+sf+ca&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.793921,-122.395497&panoid=4o82tBocunJTbJLY9EANww&cbp=12,104.59,,2,5.06)

~~~
mc32
>As I did so, the short asian guard said very intently at me, in a way he was
trying to assert his authoritative role, and said gruffly "GOOD MORNING" and
glared at me as I walked by - so I continued staring at him.

If that were my job -to guard a bank or whatever, I too would eye everyone
with suspicion, as my default behavior. If I were a greeter, on the other
hand, I would trust everyone as my default behavior.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were getting paid to guard, I would at least try
to do so. I don't mean I would be a dick to everyone, but I would certainly
"watch" as many people as walked into my field of vision.

I'm not sure acting relaxed and friendly and being off-guard would serve me in
the capacity of being a guard. (Altho' I'm open to being corrected, if this
assumption is incorrect).

~~~
samstave
If being looked at by a well dressed business man sets off your alarms as
though you believe you are being cased, to the point where you feel you need
to have your weapon hand at the ready - then screw that.

Screw this guard and every single mentality that supports him and people like
him.

I am not a fan of the police state - and the last person I have any respect
for is an armed civilian who believes himself to be some arm of the law.

Simply put, he is a hired thug for the bank. I give him no greater mind, or
respect because he is wearing military like clothing. Here I went back and
took this picture of him:

<http://i.imgur.com/E0rjw.jpg>

 __edit: and to be clear, if I were casing him - he would never know it. If I
had bad intentions for him - clearly I would have used a moment like this
where he was texting on his phone and oblivious to those around him to spring
Operation Currency Liberation.

~~~
mc32
>If being looked at by a well dressed business man sets off your alarms

If I were a guard, I would not make any assumptions about how people are
dressed.

>to the point where you feel you need to have your weapon hand at the ready

I hear you. If I were in your shoes, I too would feel like there was an
overreaction. I do some street photography on occasion, and I do get weird
looks from guards, on occasion. When you do photography a while, you learn to
brush it off. Also, If I were the guard, I would remind myself that an
unprepared guard is a potentially neutralized (or dead) guard.

We don't live in Japan where you can pretty much assume, that with very rare
exceptions, a firearm will not be produced by an assailant.

>and the last person I have any respect for is an armed civilian who believes
himself to be some arm of the law

Ok, we agree there.

>Simply put, he is a hired thug for the bank.

That statement tells me a lot. It's a pretty antagonistic interpretation of
his aggressive attitude. Maybe he is maybe he isn't. Do we know he has a
criminal record of unprovoked violence toward innocent people?

> if I were casing him - he would never know it.

I'm pretty sure you would not let him on. Do we know others would not be more
impulsive?

For all I know he is a dick and does explode violently at others unprovoked.
Still, I didn't read any evidence to that effect.

~~~
samstave
> _It's a pretty antagonistic interpretation of his aggressive attitude_

I find it ironic that his overly aggressive attitude makes me antagonistic,
but I will concede that i get more emotionally heated about such things
because i have contempt for his delusion of authority or power.

> _I do some street photography on occasion_

A while back, while doing some street photography of a homeless woman feeding
some pigeons, in an alley not far from where this guard was, a guard emerged
from some building telling me I was not allowed to take pictures.

I challenged her saying 'why?' - she said it was a federal law. I asked her if
she was a federal employee or guard. She reiterated it was 'federal law' - I
said 'but the building behind you isnt a federal building.'

She tried to press her position. I simply said "I don't care if it is a
federal law - I refuse to obey it, further, you're not a federal employee and
this is not a federal building" I also said "If I am standing on public
property, and I can see it, I am allowed to photograph it. Period."

She realized she wasn't going to get me to stop, and left.

~~~
mc32
In talking to other photographers what I've learned is that there are two
different approaches to take upon confrontation: One, defend oneself about
extant rights as if life depended on it. Two, take a more practical approach,
explain oneself (even if this should not be necessary) and if their objections
remains, back down calmly. Fight another day.

While one would prefer that people not try to exert power where none exists,
life will proceed smoother, if approach two is taken (as it regard
photography)

Approach one can lead to agressive behavior by [guard|police|public] and has
resulted in detention/citation. Approach two can and has resulted in some
understanding and acceptance.

Confrontation one: You have no right to inquire about what I'm doing while on
a public street. You ignorant $%#^# I'm going to call my lawyer, I'm going to
sue you for harassment, etc...

Confrontation two: Are you familiar with street photography? It has a long
tradition. You might have seen some of the photography on gallery visit. Have
you heard of Winogrand, Cartier-Bresson, Frank? Here, I have some examples
--carry some print-outs or load some into your DSLR.

------
Spoom
"...Under the bill, officers cannot be found liable if they reasonably
believed that the interference was necessary to (1) lawfully enforce a
criminal law or municipal ordinance; ..."

Is there anything that would prevent a police department from convincing their
municipality to enact an ordinance stating that recording of police officers
was illegal?

~~~
camiller
I didn't see a specific supremacy clause in the text of the bill, so probably
that will happen, then the state will have to go back in a couple years and
amend this to say that the state law overrides any municipal law.

------
Andrex
Proud of my home state for once.

------
LyleK
Does this mean you no longer need a permit to film in Connecticut? Ought to
bolster the movie industry there.

~~~
loumf
If you are making a documentary about the police doing their jobs, then I
think you can go ahead. Not sure if you need permission from documentary
subjects to show the film, but you can film it.

------
ChrisNorstrom
The more power you give someone, the more you have to keep an eye on them so
they don't abuse that power.

So I hope this spreads to the other states. It should be a federal law. All
citizens should have the right to record police officers in public. We pay for
them. They're job is to protect us. They are given a lot of freedom and power.
And if they step over a line they should be punished the same way we would if
we step over a line. Besides, photographing or recording people in public is
perfectly legal.

I always thought it was stupid how Britney Spears can be hounded day and night
by paparazzi or the news can play your frantic 911 call, violating your
privacy when you most expect and need it, yet in Illinois you record one
officer while he's giving you a ticket and you get sent to jail with rapists,
robbers, and crack heads.

------
javajosh
Does anyone have stats on how many people are arrested for recording police?

Why (and why) did police begin to think that they could arrest people for
taking pictures anyway?

~~~
camiller
No idea on the stats, but there have been a few high profile incidents in the
news in the last several years.

For awhile police officers have been attempting to apply a personal right to
privacy to their on-duty activities.

~~~
javajosh
Yes, those high profile cases always get my blood boiling - far more than the
general public's blood, apparently.

My question was _supposed_ to be "When (and why) did police start arresting
people for photographing them?" and while I don't have data to support this, I
think it was a combination of a) Rodney King, and b) 9/11. The former incident
demonstrated the power of personal video recording in creating problems for
police. The latter incident gave police more confidence in an broader range of
powers, including the tangentially related issue of enforcing ban on the
photography of sensitive places (which is, of course, a rather stupid policy,
but I digress).

So, greater awareness of risk plus enhanced power yielded the application of
that enhanced power to reducing that risk. Could there be anything more
reasonable, more human, and more evil?

------
excuse-me
I may be slightly confused here. If it is legal to do something - take a
picture - then why do you need a specific bill to allow you to sue a police
officer for arresting you for doing something that isn't a crime?

Doesn't this get a bit infinite-set? Do you need a specific bill to allow you
to sue a police officer who arrests you for doing anything else that is
allowed in the Constitution?

~~~
rohansingh
The difference is that here you are able to sue the police officer rather than
the police department, as you usually would. The theory is that this will
discourage officers from acting in a certain way, since they would be
personally liable.

However, one could also argue that this is bad for victims, since the
officer's pockets will almost always be shallower than the municipality's.
However, if this law were to pass, a smart attorney would probably file a suit
against both the municipality and the officer.

~~~
damoncali
One could also argue that it's bad for victims of other crimes. If police are
personally liable for everything, then I suspect the won't be particularly
motivated to do _anything_.

These ideas tend to come with unintended consequences.

~~~
rhizome
Oh please, the sky isn't falling. Rape is not going to go uninvestigated
because a police officer can't tell someone to stop filming.

~~~
damoncali
That's not what I mean. Boil this down to it's logical conclusion. If a cop
arrests anyone for something that is deemed after the fact unjustifiable, they
should similarly be held liable for damages. I mean, why stop at taking
pictures? Is it not just as much an inconvenience to be arbitrarily arrested
for burglary?

Throw in the culture of the police corps - and you could see a lot more "not
my job" type behavior from the police. This sort of law could very well be
interpreted as a slap by an ungrateful populace.

I'm just saying there is a balance here. Us vs. them isn't likely to result in
improvement. This law seems very knee-jerky to me.

~~~
rhizome
Don't change the subject, it's exactly what you mean. This law doesn't cover
"anyone" for "something," it's covers photography, period.

~~~
damoncali
You're missing the bigger point. Look at the message sent. It's bigger than
some hippie taking pictures at an occupy berkeley event.

~~~
rhizome
No, I'm not. I simply don't agree that there is a "bigger point" at all, nor
that this is a slippery-slope that must be guarded.

