I don't understand how these laws will possibly hold up. How can police use dash cams under such laws? They can't possibly have consent of the other party prior to pulling them over. I doubt this holds much water and is probably just wishful thinking on the part of police agencies trying to shield themselves from lawsuits.
On the other hand, some of the people were probably combative and deserve what they get.
arresting people doing nothing wrong can be a deterrent to whatever legitimate behavior officers don't particularly like or wish to discourage.probably just wishful thinking on the part of police agencies trying to shield themselves from lawsuits
(you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride)
to protect (their own interests) and to serve (their own interests)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57...news&tag= leThe City of Boston tacitly acknowledged today that arresting a man for recording a police officer in public may not exactly have been the wisest -- or most cons utional -- choice.
That acknowledgement comes in the form of a $170,000 payment to Simon Glik, a Boston attorney who was prosecuted under criminal wiretap laws for using his cell phone to record police arresting someone on the Boston Common. They prosecuted the wrong fellow: Glik himself specializes in criminal defense.
A spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department told CNET this afternoon that the city has taken steps to ensure arrests-for-recording don't happen again. That includes "conducting training sessions for all department officers regarding the state wiretap statute," including updating the curriculum at the police academy, and publishing multiple training bulletins for officers, Elaine Driscoll said.
sameAdding extra impetus to Boston's training regimen was a ruling last August in the Glik case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Glik filed suit after being charged with violation of Massachusetts' wiretap statute, disturbing the peace, and aiding in the escape of a prisoner (the original fellow being arrested by police, who did not actually escape).
Glik said he made the recording because he believed excessive force had been used during the arrest. Eventually, prosecutors dismissed the charge of aiding in the escape. Only after the case went to court did they abandon the other charges; Glik responded filed a civil rights lawsuit alleging, among other things, First Amendment violations.
The First Circuit sided with Glik, saying that "numerous circuit and district courts" have reached similar conclusions and that the First Amendment's newsgathering protections apply beyond traditional media organizations:
The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these (First Amendment) principles... This is particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties... Such peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers' performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation.
I read the ruling last night on the Boston Commons case. Extremely well written for those that like to read that stuff.
Absolute bull . Are we just supposed to rely on our word against the police? The police will always have the upper hand in that case; video recording just keeps things fair. I hope to see this get overturned at a higher level.
Nice to see Boston ahead of the curve. *facepalm*
Last edited by LnGrrrR; 03-28-2012 at 07:10 PM.
From the OP:
WC, bringing the goods.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...g-photography/For the general public, just be aware that this may happen to you. Tell them, “I’m on a public street, this is America, I can take pictures.”
if God didn't want us to take pictures, why did he make cows out of meat?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...0,686331.storyThe U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal of a controversial Illinois law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job.
By passing on the issue, the justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police officers.
"who audiotape police officers"
does that mean "videotape" is perhaps illegal?
maybe. dunno. didn't read the appeals court ruling.
Texas cop suspended after kneeing teen in the head
A police officer in Hurst, Texas has been place on leave after cell phone video showed him kneeing a teen in the back of the head.
Assistant Chief Steve Niekamp said that the department was investigating video in which Officer Disraeli Arnold apparently knees the 17 year old and then admits it to the camera operator.
Kelly Pope, the mother of Andrew Pope, acknowledged that her son was struggling with Hurst Officer Miguel Jiminez, who was calmly talking to the teen while trying to arrest him at Bellaire Park on a warrant last week.
That’s when the video showed Arnold rushing into the scene.
“He [her son] knows that he handled it badly at first, that he should have been a little more cooperative,” Kelly Pope told KXAS. “But, you know, the second officer — there was no reason for it.”
“He comes up at a jolting sprint, kneed him in the back of the head and, as you can see on the video, he says, ‘If you move I’m going to ing kill you,’” Pope said.
As Andrew Pope is being escorted to the police cruiser, Arnold taunts the camera operator.
“You got it on tape?” he asks. “Arnold, [badge number] 654!”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/2...=Google+Reader
My guess: badge 654 "suspended with pay" aka, vacation!
Wow the first sentence had me highly concerned about them allowing such to stand.
That officer is an idiot.
lol think he hard
My country is far from perfect, just recently comes out of chaos and economic troubles, but atleast this issue isn't haunting us overhere. That quite helps, because it effectively reduces police and military arogancy and excessive action in the daily life, to some degree (no matter how small it is).
It's not that cameras are bad, it's that people adopt the mindset of out of sight out of mind, and media outlets that grab these clips instill a sense of mob rule and the system of powers that be sways with that momentum, ergo we end up spending taxpayer money to calm a storm of Youtube watchers instead of dealing with real issues. One person becomes more important than entire cities.
Well, I would argue we spend a good amount of taxpayer money trying to prohibit people from filming public servants in public places. If there is indeed one or two bad apples, we should be dealing with them instead of attempting to pass uncons utional blanket prohibitions and then defending them in court. Heck, the actual perception when laws like this come around is that if any of these laws are allegedly needed, then the problem must be bigger than just a few particular instances.
My double barrel shotgun???
I have some pictures I've taken with an old Sawyers stereo camera, and have them mounted in Viewmaster reels.My double barrel shotgun???
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
