

Maryland Judge finds that it is legal to record police in public - MartinCron
http://hellforleathermagazine.com/2010/09/squid-defeats-thug-cop-in-landmark-recording-case/

======
baddox
> _An attorney representing [the police] said the ruling, “will make it more
> difficult for the police to do their jobs.”_

If your job as a cop is hindered by being videotaped while in public areas,
then your job is by definition not in the public's interest, and you should
not be allowed (and especially paid) to conduct it.

~~~
hugh3
Are there sensible scenarios under which it's reasonable for a cop to want to
avoid being filmed?

For instance, certain organized crime and/or labor union groups will often
threaten reprisals against individual cops who enforce the law against them.
If you're a cop whose job it is to escort people across a particularly unruly
picket line then I can see how you could reasonably object to being filmed.

~~~
akadruid
No. It's never reasonable to prevent a record being made of the actions of a
police officer.

In the case of undercover officers, it is reasonable in some cases to to hide
the fact they are police officers.

I believe there are cases in which police may seek and should probably be
granted the ability to obscure their identities, while still acting as
uniformed officers, for specific operations. The Mexican police who took down
a major drug lord recently all wore balaclavas and helmets in public, for this
reason. This needs to be justified on a case by case basis or you will get
abuse (like the cop who attacked Ian Tomlinson).

But in every case, their actions should be legal and legitimate. They should
having nothing to hide.

~~~
cschneid
While I agree that it should be allowed to tape any interactions you have with
an officer, it's a bit of a gray area if you follow one around taping
everything they do.

First: they are off duty sometimes (they get breaks too)

Second: They are dealing with other people, and that interaction deserves a
level of privacy as well. If I follow a officer up to a car stop, and start
recording, that seems intrusive.

So, the question is where the limit of permissible is. Do off duty police
officers have normal citizen rights to prevent themselves from being taped? Do
on break officers have that? How about on duty officers talking with another
person? Can I record that audio? Video?

In my mind it should be more permissible than taking video of normal people,
but a blanket "lets tape everything" doesn't work either. Where exactly the
correct middle ground lies isn't clear to me.

~~~
jerf
Remember that police officers are still normal citizens, too, with the
attendant rights and protections thereto. If you followed _me_ personally
around with a camera 24/7, that would be harassment. If you just followed me
around 24/7 without a camera, that would be harassment. By "harassment" I
don't mean necessarily that exact legal term but I'm sure there's some legal
recourse if such a thing happened.

We don't necessarily need lots of "special" rights to film police, we just
need them not to have special rights _not_ to be filmed.

------
biturd
Why isn't the cop getting sued or under any investigation? As far as I can
see, he was plain clothed, in an unmarked car, no walkie talkie, no gear, a
gun, and did not identify himself until after the third yell of "get off the
bike".

I am not even sure that an off duty officer should be able to make a traffic
stop. That creates a situation where people are expectant of it, which gives
much more leverage to criminals who want to pretend to be police.

Now anyone can pull someone over and say they are a cop and most are going to
take their word for it? This could prove to be the most calm and non violent
form of car jacking I have heard of...

1) Approach person at a stoplight while out of breath 2) Ma'am, I need your
car for official police business, get out, leave your belongings and the keys
as they are. Contact the XXPD in 4 hours to retrieve your car. 3) Oh... Yes
sir, thank you!

A great yet small win for possibly getting a chance to re-visit the original
wire tapping laws that are being abused. However, there are other more
superficial issues that are related directly to law enforcement that are
seemingly going overlooked.

I can understand, as the guy is probably relieved to know he is not going to
jail for 7 years, but hope that over time he will at least smell the cash he
could possibly make; or more ideally, do it for the sake of doing the right
thing for society.

~~~
Gupie
There is a regular marked police car and uniformed officer behind the bike so
that should have made it clear that the guy with the gun was also police, or
perhaps a very stupid criminal.

~~~
stretchwithme
so you understand the confusion then huh?

~~~
Gupie
No, the "very stupid criminal" comment was just an attempt at humour. If you
get stopped by two cars and one of them is a marked police car then it is
obvious that the other car is also a police car.

~~~
stretchwithme
hmm, I thought the marked car was behind him. I didn't see it the very end.

------
jakewalker
This has been a major issue recently, and Radley Balko of the libertarian-
themed Reason magazine has done a great job covering the issue (from the pro-
taping side, anyway), viz.:

<http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/20/how-to-record-the-cops>
<http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/14/cops-and-cameras>
[http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/27/maryland-judge-tosses-
the-...](http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/27/maryland-judge-tosses-the-felo)

EDIT: Radley, sorry.

~~~
bbatsell
*Radley

------
adamsmith
I'm pretty surprised the police department thought they could ever win this.
The best interests of the public seem pretty clear cut here.

~~~
chaosmachine
They didn't have anything to lose. And if they somehow managed to win, all the
better for them.

Just bringing the case is intimidating enough. Even if it's legal, the fact
that you might have to go to court to defend yourself will deter some people
from filming them.

~~~
1337p337
It is a personal hobby of mine to record cops in the off-chance anything
happens. Usually it's stuff like driving on the median to get around a traffic
jam (ugh) or parking in front of fire hydrants.

With the proliferation of camera phones, I think the world would be a better
place if everyone pulled out cameras and started shooting as a matter of
principal. I don't sympathize much with Rodney King, but the LAPD is more
civilized (at least in public) since then.

~~~
guns
Make sure you're prepared to lose your camera and get roughed up a bit if you
decide to do this (which is admirable). In my experience, cops have no
patience for people who assert their rights as citizens.

Many police cars nowadays are fitted with front-facing video cameras. One sage
piece of advice from a friend of mine is to:

    
    
        * be extremely polite and cordial; "How may I help you officer?"
        * respond requests to be searched with, "Sir, I don't consent to 
          any searches"
        * When you step out of a vehicle, assume the position: legs 
          apart, hands behind your head.
        * Politely ask, "Am I free to go officer, or am I under arrest?"
          (repeatedly if necessary)
    

The point of this is to ensure that nothing you do can be possibly interpreted
as an act of aggression by the officer, while asserting your rights. The
police camera will show you in a pose of total submission, and any aggression
on the part of the police officer will be unjustifiable.

The cop will be annoyed, but he won't touch you, and if he does, you will be
vindicated. Your camera footage, OTOH, isn't guaranteed to survive a run-in
with the cops (this happened to a friend of mine), and any natural reaction
you might have to your camera getting snatched from your hands can be used as
an excuse to whip out the tazer.

Remember HNers, the job of contemporary police is to arrest you, not to "serve
and protect".

This American Life had a great show on this recently:

[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/414/r...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/414/right-to-remain-silent)

~~~
loewenskind
I wouldn't personally rely on the police camera to not get edited or lost
before an important trial.

~~~
steveklabnik
Your fears have been realized recently:
[http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Milford-cop-suspended-
for...](http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Milford-cop-suspended-for-erasure-
of-dashboard-677193.php)

~~~
loewenskind
I originally said "is known to" but I couldn't find the citation. Thanks for
that.

------
bigsassy
As a former co-worker of Anthony, I'm so happy the charges have been dropped.
You couldn't meet a nicer guy. As much as I'd like to see this case continue
to higher courts so it can set a higher precedent, I hope they don't appeal
and Anthony can put this behind him.

~~~
shpxnvz
An appeal seems unlikely given that the Attorney General's office issued their
own opinion that recording an officer during a stop is legal under state law,
but who knows?

------
jasonwatkinspdx
This is a great ruling, but now the fight will shift to regulators. It may be
another year or two, but I predict we'll see bills both at the state and
national level restricting the recording of public servants.

