8 ms·

Relevant question: if you decide to record the police as a result of this ruling, they tell you to stop, you refuse and continue recording them, and they arrest

by whack 10y ago

Relevant question: if you decide to record the police as a result of this ruling, they tell you to stop, you refuse and continue recording them, and they arrest you as a result... could you get into any legal trouble? Is it safe to act upon this ruling, or should you just do what the police tell you to do regardless?

AlexCoventry 10y ago
Is it safe to act upon this ruling, or should you just do what the police tell you to do regardless? Do what they tell you. "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." However, once you're out of immediate danger, talk to a lawyer. You would probably have standing for a §1983 lawsuit.
- jMyles 10y ago
  I think this is awful advice. The second you turn your camera off, you lose your side of the story. If you're seriously nervous and unsure about what to do, ask for a supervisor. In my experience, they'll typically tell other offices to cool it with the cameraphobia crap. But never turn your camera off if you think you're a suspect. What good can it possibly do?
  - AlexCoventry 10y ago
    If you have a record of a government official ordering you under the color of law to turn it off, you have all the story you need.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      You really don't, and if they want to take it away by force record that.
    - djsumdog 10y ago
      That's even more reason to no stop filming ...
  - crusso 10y ago
    How often are you in confrontational encounters with the police?
    - jMyles 10y ago
      These days? Rarely. But I have had a number of positions which have required me to have encounters (in some cases documented) with police, and although I was (I believe in every single case) professional and courteous, I have occasionally interacted with police officers who weren't. Additionally, I have (like pretty much everybody) had chance encounters with police, and I have chosen to record these, without exception. Here's a rather strange example (note that in this video an officer does incorrectly assert that my video recording him is against the law - when I calmly correct him and move on, he doesn't say another word about it): https://vimeo.com/2230232 https://vimeo.com/2230232
      - wfunction 10y ago
        > Here's a rather strange example (note that in this video an officer does incorrectly assert that my video recording him is against the law - when I calmly correct him and move on, he doesn't say another word about it): > https://vimeo.com/2230232 https://vimeo.com/2230232 I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but after watching the video, I wanted to let you know that you definitely do sound like a smart aleck when talking to officers (e.g. "well, we both know that in the real world there is such a thing"... or, "well, fundamentally, I...")... maybe you weren't "disrespectful" in your choice of words, but I can't say the same about your tone and approach. It seems like you're willing to give officers as hard a time as possible just because it's not outright illegal. Don't expect a nice reaction when you do that. They had quite a bit of patience with you and you saturated it.
        MagnumOpus 10y ago
        You are basically saying that he is guilty of Contempt of Cop and therefore officers "giving him a hard time" (i.e. illegal harassment, arbitrarily detention etc) is normal and to be expected. You are part of the problem here.
  - morganvachon 10y ago
    There's a concept in law enforcement called a "lawful order", which is when a police officer orders you to do something and if you don't comply, he can arrest you for obstruction. The thing is, the order must truly be lawful; he can't order you to do something illegal, and he can't order you to (for example) take off your clothes or give him your money. Typically a lawful order will be something like during a domestic dispute, ordering one of the parties to find somewhere else to stay for the night and not to return home for a certain number of hours (a "cooling off" period). This avoids an arrest for domestic violence, which carries harsh repercussions even if the aggressor is found not guilty, and gives both parties a chance to work on their issues (as well as gives the victim time to leave safely if necessary). Another example might be in a civil dispute, where one party claims ownership of a 50 year old vehicle and the other party disputes this, and there isn't enough documentation to support either party's claim. The police are called, and the officer issues lawful orders to both parties to not touch the vehicle until they've sorted it out in court. If one of the parties tries to take possession of the vehicle later that day, they can be arrested by that officer. The problem with the camera issue and lawful orders is that some jurisdictions have statutes prohibiting video and/or audio recording of the police or other government workers, and this empowers the police to issue locally lawful orders to stop recording. However, if this ruling carries any weight, the Constitutional right to record will theoretically trump the local restriction, rendering the order no longer lawful. All of that said, even if the order is supposedly lawful, I agree that you should keep recording and ask for a supervisor. In some jurisdictions you may end up arrested for obstruction, but chances are the supervisor will realize the implications of continued harassment of a lawfully recording citizen and drop the issue.
    - wyldfire 10y ago
      > However, if this ruling carries any weight, the Constitutional right to record will theoretically trump the local restriction, rendering the order no longer lawful. It certainly carries weight in the fifth district. If Grinalds/Dyess petition SCOTUS they'll likely hear the case in order to make sure their decision makes a consistent precedent wrt 1st amendment right to "videotape" the police.
      - 10y ago
- mikeash 10y ago
  On the other hand, the fact that "you can't beat the ride" suggests that you shouldn't even try to. Your goal should be to survive the encounter and not be convicted of a crime. I'm not at all convinced that complying with an unlawful order to stop recording helps those goals.
  - stonogo 10y ago
    > Your goal should be to survive the encounter and not be convicted of a crime. This is how rights are eroded. Your goal should be to live in a free society; capitulating to illegal civil rights infringements is not how to achieve that goal.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      It's hard to be free when you're dead or in prison. In any case, I don't quite get your point, since I used that to argue against capitulating.
      - jat850 10y ago
        Much better people than I have been dead or in prison in the name of preserving or gaining civil rights. And many more people are freer because of those people. Sometimes people have to die or go to prison so that others may live or be free. We should all hope to never have to be one of those people, but if someone, somewhere isn't or hasn't been, things will get worse and not better.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Getting killed or framed by a police officer because you stopped recording him and give him the opportunity to act in secret doesn't do anything to advance the cause of civil rights.
        jat850 10y ago
        I think I misunderstood the last part of your original comment in the context of your first part. I understood it to mean that one should stop recording in an effort to survive or not get arrested, but re-reading it I do not think that's what you meant, but the opposite. To clarify my own comment, I'd be of the belief that one should not stop recording, even if that means getting arrested or dead (both unfortunate outcomes, but both sometimes necessary in advancement of civil rights for a greater number of others).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nickff 10y ago
IANAL, but the police could hold you, and you could be charged, though the prosecutor is likely not to charge, or to try to get you to plead to something else, as the charges are unlikely to stick. The police can lie to you, and tell you to do all kinds of things. The law may not be on their side, but if they have a hand on their gun, they will get their way.
jMyles 10y ago
> should you just do what the police tell you to do regardless? I am not a lawyer, but I think it's pretty obvious that there are some things that the police might tell you to do that you are well advised not to do if you think you are a suspect. Examples include: performing sexual favors, selling drugs, and giving them money directly (whether directly or pretextually as some sort of fund-raiser). I think that recording the police fits in this category. It is obviously completely legal and works to your distinct advantage. I have plenty of videos of police telling me to turn my camera off. I have never done so. And I have never had any further flack raised over it. Think of it this way: if they are telling you to turn your camera off (a pretty brazenly thuggish and illegal thing to do), then how do you think they're going to behave once you do? 85% of police appreciate being recorded. Ask your cop friends. It helps them too. If you are actually seriously in doubt about what to do, buy yourself some time by asking for a supervisor. In my experience (which is ample), a supervisor will not want to be seen one camera telling you to turn your camera off and will want the internal political advantage that comes from footage being recorded of the officers under her command. But never turn your camera off if you think you are a suspect. Never.
- username223 10y ago
  > I think that recording the police fits in this category. It is obviously completely legal and works to your distinct advantage. This is true, but be prepared to deal with an angry-acting man with a gun and the presumed right to put you in jail and take your stuff (via civil asset forfeiture). Most cops are decent, overworked public servants, but they're also trained to exhibit "cop rage" when they feel a lack of control.
  - jMyles 10y ago
    But which scenario is more likely to foment such an encounter? The one where the officer thinks he's being recorded? Or the one where he doesn't?
    - username223 10y ago
      Pointing a camera at an officer is likely to cause him to become aggressive. I've had this happen when there was no danger to anyone involved, and no one was doing anything wrong, and it was intimidating as hell. In such a situation, you have to ask yourself: Do you know your precise rights? Are you willing to spend some time locked up and take your chances dealing with the law? Sadly, it's often up to the civilian to "de-escalate" the situation.
sbuttgereit 10y ago
IANAL... just like pretty much everyone else, but circuit court rulings are only valid for areas that are under the jurisdiction of that circuit court. And circuit courts do disagree. Only the Supreme Court has national weight. (Yes, circuits can and do look to other circuits for guidance, but still...) What ever the case. Consult an attorney before deciding you know enough to act and know what court rulings apply to where you are going to try this stuff.
- vizeroth 10y ago
  While circuits disagree, their rulings still hold weight outside of their district or circuit. A case comes to them because it is federal in nature or because there was a reason to remove the case from a state court. By the very nature of a federal court their cases have national weight, and they are not usually supposed to rule on matters of state or local law unless the issue at hand is a law which violates federal protections. One of the important points in almost every part of this particular ruling is that the court denied or upheld claims almost entirely based on whether there was a reasonable belief that the officers should have known they were violating the law and/or his rights, and in most cases they chose to protect the officers even when making broad statements about the right to film officers. The dissenting opinion is also important (as it sometimes is in Supreme Court rulings as well) in showing that there are other ways the law can be interpreted, and even within this particular district (or on appeal to a higher court) you may not have the same result just because you think you're in the same situation.
  - sbuttgereit 10y ago
    I should have said it more precisely. That a given circuit court is only mandatory in its jurisdiction (the district courts in that circuit or that circuit court itself) whereas outside of that circuit it is persuasive. My language about guidance was imprecise, but not exactly wrong. http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/toddbruno/mandatory_v__persuasive.htm http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/toddbruno/mandatory_v__persuasive...
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
I would suggest that you in no way impede what they are doing. If you get in their way, make distracting noise, etc., you probably have a legal issue on your hands. But, if you're at a safe distance, you probably have a good case if they arrest you. IANAL.

by whack 10y ago

AlexCoventry 10y ago

Is it safe to act upon this ruling, or should you just do what the police tell you to do regardless? Do what they tell you. "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." However, once you're out of immediate danger, talk to a lawyer. You would probably have standing for a §1983 lawsuit.

jMyles 10y ago
I think this is awful advice. The second you turn your camera off, you lose your side of the story. If you're seriously nervous and unsure about what to do, ask for a supervisor. In my experience, they'll typically tell other offices to cool it with the cameraphobia crap. But never turn your camera off if you think you're a suspect. What good can it possibly do?
- AlexCoventry 10y ago
  If you have a record of a government official ordering you under the color of law to turn it off, you have all the story you need.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    You really don't, and if they want to take it away by force record that.
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    That's even more reason to no stop filming ...
- crusso 10y ago
  How often are you in confrontational encounters with the police?
  - jMyles 10y ago
    These days? Rarely. But I have had a number of positions which have required me to have encounters (in some cases documented) with police, and although I was (I believe in every single case) professional and courteous, I have occasionally interacted with police officers who weren't. Additionally, I have (like pretty much everybody) had chance encounters with police, and I have chosen to record these, without exception. Here's a rather strange example (note that in this video an officer does incorrectly assert that my video recording him is against the law - when I calmly correct him and move on, he doesn't say another word about it): https://vimeo.com/2230232 https://vimeo.com/2230232
    - wfunction 10y ago
      > Here's a rather strange example (note that in this video an officer does incorrectly assert that my video recording him is against the law - when I calmly correct him and move on, he doesn't say another word about it): > https://vimeo.com/2230232 https://vimeo.com/2230232 I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but after watching the video, I wanted to let you know that you definitely do sound like a smart aleck when talking to officers (e.g. "well, we both know that in the real world there is such a thing"... or, "well, fundamentally, I...")... maybe you weren't "disrespectful" in your choice of words, but I can't say the same about your tone and approach. It seems like you're willing to give officers as hard a time as possible just because it's not outright illegal. Don't expect a nice reaction when you do that. They had quite a bit of patience with you and you saturated it.
      - MagnumOpus 10y ago
        You are basically saying that he is guilty of Contempt of Cop and therefore officers "giving him a hard time" (i.e. illegal harassment, arbitrarily detention etc) is normal and to be expected. You are part of the problem here.
- morganvachon 10y ago
  There's a concept in law enforcement called a "lawful order", which is when a police officer orders you to do something and if you don't comply, he can arrest you for obstruction. The thing is, the order must truly be lawful; he can't order you to do something illegal, and he can't order you to (for example) take off your clothes or give him your money. Typically a lawful order will be something like during a domestic dispute, ordering one of the parties to find somewhere else to stay for the night and not to return home for a certain number of hours (a "cooling off" period). This avoids an arrest for domestic violence, which carries harsh repercussions even if the aggressor is found not guilty, and gives both parties a chance to work on their issues (as well as gives the victim time to leave safely if necessary). Another example might be in a civil dispute, where one party claims ownership of a 50 year old vehicle and the other party disputes this, and there isn't enough documentation to support either party's claim. The police are called, and the officer issues lawful orders to both parties to not touch the vehicle until they've sorted it out in court. If one of the parties tries to take possession of the vehicle later that day, they can be arrested by that officer. The problem with the camera issue and lawful orders is that some jurisdictions have statutes prohibiting video and/or audio recording of the police or other government workers, and this empowers the police to issue locally lawful orders to stop recording. However, if this ruling carries any weight, the Constitutional right to record will theoretically trump the local restriction, rendering the order no longer lawful. All of that said, even if the order is supposedly lawful, I agree that you should keep recording and ask for a supervisor. In some jurisdictions you may end up arrested for obstruction, but chances are the supervisor will realize the implications of continued harassment of a lawfully recording citizen and drop the issue.
  - wyldfire 10y ago
    > However, if this ruling carries any weight, the Constitutional right to record will theoretically trump the local restriction, rendering the order no longer lawful. It certainly carries weight in the fifth district. If Grinalds/Dyess petition SCOTUS they'll likely hear the case in order to make sure their decision makes a consistent precedent wrt 1st amendment right to "videotape" the police.
    - 10y ago
mikeash 10y ago
On the other hand, the fact that "you can't beat the ride" suggests that you shouldn't even try to. Your goal should be to survive the encounter and not be convicted of a crime. I'm not at all convinced that complying with an unlawful order to stop recording helps those goals.
- stonogo 10y ago
  > Your goal should be to survive the encounter and not be convicted of a crime. This is how rights are eroded. Your goal should be to live in a free society; capitulating to illegal civil rights infringements is not how to achieve that goal.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    It's hard to be free when you're dead or in prison. In any case, I don't quite get your point, since I used that to argue against capitulating.
    - jat850 10y ago
      Much better people than I have been dead or in prison in the name of preserving or gaining civil rights. And many more people are freer because of those people. Sometimes people have to die or go to prison so that others may live or be free. We should all hope to never have to be one of those people, but if someone, somewhere isn't or hasn't been, things will get worse and not better.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Getting killed or framed by a police officer because you stopped recording him and give him the opportunity to act in secret doesn't do anything to advance the cause of civil rights.
        jat850 10y ago
        I think I misunderstood the last part of your original comment in the context of your first part. I understood it to mean that one should stop recording in an effort to survive or not get arrested, but re-reading it I do not think that's what you meant, but the opposite. To clarify my own comment, I'd be of the belief that one should not stop recording, even if that means getting arrested or dead (both unfortunate outcomes, but both sometimes necessary in advancement of civil rights for a greater number of others).

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nickff 10y ago

IANAL, but the police could hold you, and you could be charged, though the prosecutor is likely not to charge, or to try to get you to plead to something else, as the charges are unlikely to stick. The police can lie to you, and tell you to do all kinds of things. The law may not be on their side, but if they have a hand on their gun, they will get their way.

jMyles 10y ago

> should you just do what the police tell you to do regardless? I am not a lawyer, but I think it's pretty obvious that there are some things that the police might tell you to do that you are well advised not to do if you think you are a suspect. Examples include: performing sexual favors, selling drugs, and giving them money directly (whether directly or pretextually as some sort of fund-raiser). I think that recording the police fits in this category. It is obviously completely legal and works to your distinct advantage. I have plenty of videos of police telling me to turn my camera off. I have never done so. And I have never had any further flack raised over it. Think of it this way: if they are telling you to turn your camera off (a pretty brazenly thuggish and illegal thing to do), then how do you think they're going to behave once you do? 85% of police appreciate being recorded. Ask your cop friends. It helps them too. If you are actually seriously in doubt about what to do, buy yourself some time by asking for a supervisor. In my experience (which is ample), a supervisor will not want to be seen one camera telling you to turn your camera off and will want the internal political advantage that comes from footage being recorded of the officers under her command. But never turn your camera off if you think you are a suspect. Never.

username223 10y ago
> I think that recording the police fits in this category. It is obviously completely legal and works to your distinct advantage. This is true, but be prepared to deal with an angry-acting man with a gun and the presumed right to put you in jail and take your stuff (via civil asset forfeiture). Most cops are decent, overworked public servants, but they're also trained to exhibit "cop rage" when they feel a lack of control.
- jMyles 10y ago
  But which scenario is more likely to foment such an encounter? The one where the officer thinks he's being recorded? Or the one where he doesn't?
  - username223 10y ago
    Pointing a camera at an officer is likely to cause him to become aggressive. I've had this happen when there was no danger to anyone involved, and no one was doing anything wrong, and it was intimidating as hell. In such a situation, you have to ask yourself: Do you know your precise rights? Are you willing to spend some time locked up and take your chances dealing with the law? Sadly, it's often up to the civilian to "de-escalate" the situation.

sbuttgereit 10y ago

IANAL... just like pretty much everyone else, but circuit court rulings are only valid for areas that are under the jurisdiction of that circuit court. And circuit courts do disagree. Only the Supreme Court has national weight. (Yes, circuits can and do look to other circuits for guidance, but still...) What ever the case. Consult an attorney before deciding you know enough to act and know what court rulings apply to where you are going to try this stuff.

vizeroth 10y ago
While circuits disagree, their rulings still hold weight outside of their district or circuit. A case comes to them because it is federal in nature or because there was a reason to remove the case from a state court. By the very nature of a federal court their cases have national weight, and they are not usually supposed to rule on matters of state or local law unless the issue at hand is a law which violates federal protections. One of the important points in almost every part of this particular ruling is that the court denied or upheld claims almost entirely based on whether there was a reasonable belief that the officers should have known they were violating the law and/or his rights, and in most cases they chose to protect the officers even when making broad statements about the right to film officers. The dissenting opinion is also important (as it sometimes is in Supreme Court rulings as well) in showing that there are other ways the law can be interpreted, and even within this particular district (or on appeal to a higher court) you may not have the same result just because you think you're in the same situation.
- sbuttgereit 10y ago
  I should have said it more precisely. That a given circuit court is only mandatory in its jurisdiction (the district courts in that circuit or that circuit court itself) whereas outside of that circuit it is persuasive. My language about guidance was imprecise, but not exactly wrong. http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/toddbruno/mandatory_v__persuasive.htm http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/toddbruno/mandatory_v__persuasive...

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

I would suggest that you in no way impede what they are doing. If you get in their way, make distracting noise, etc., you probably have a legal issue on your hands. But, if you're at a safe distance, you probably have a good case if they arrest you. IANAL.