7 ms·

Illegal to record an on-duty officer?

158 points by f1gm3nt 16y ago

malbiniak 16y ago
Why the question mark? If you live in Illinois, Massachusetts, or Maryland, the title reads "It is illegal to record an on-duty officer." And not just sort of illegal. Class 1 felony punishable 4-15 years in prison illegal.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jbarciauskas 16y ago
  This article clarifies the current state of affairs in Massachusetts: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/ http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010... The key seems to be how evident it is that the person is recording. If it is at all not obvious to the police that a recording is being made, it is illegal. If you put a microphone or camera in their face however it is OK.
  - georgieporgie 16y ago
    So the Rodney King tape would be illegal. In fact most police abuse tapes I can recall would be illegal, since people don't like to get very close to packs of violent officers.
- vollmond 16y ago
  I've been trying to find reliable sources that say one way or the other about Maryland (my current state of residence). Do you have any links? I did find this (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html) which says that MD state courts have interpreted the law not to apply in public.
  - hga 16y ago
    Radley Balko: In Spite of State Law, Maryland Law Enforcement Officials Still Arresting, Charging People for Recording Cops: http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-illegal http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-ille...
    - vollmond 16y ago
      Excellent read, thank you.
- k33n 16y ago
  I think the question mark serves to denote surprise/disappointment that this is a fact.
  - pwhelan 16y ago
    It will also end up being questionable considering USSC rulings on reasonable expectations of privacy in public settings. That is what surprises me considering this seems to fall squarely as 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th amendment issues.
tjmaxal 16y ago
So are the viewers on you tube co conspirators complicit for failing to report a crime? This is scary and ridiculous at the same time.
mathewgj 16y ago
I immediately wondered how the Rodney King case would have been different if it was affected by a law of this kind. Does anyone know if the video footage would have been inadmissable? On a different note, I have spent a lot of time in developing countries, and some of the most consistent hallmarks are ridiculous bans on photographing anything government-related. Laws like this in the US make me worry about the country sliding backwards into dysfunction.
- evgen 16y ago
  The catch with most of these statutes is that the part that is illegal is the audio recording. If you record video without an audio track or are too far away for any audio of the encounter to be heard then you are usually in the clear. In the King case my memory of the video is that it was shot from a distance and that you can't really hear anything (checking a few archives seems to confirm that the only thing that you can really hear is helicopter noise.)
steveklabnik 16y ago
> In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state’s electronic surveillance law — aka recording a police encounter — the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. This is the worst part of this. Frivolous lawsuits, okay, but seeing this blatant violation of the spirit of the law upheld really sucks.
MartinCron 16y ago
I'm looking forward to when one of these laws gets challenged in court and finally thrown out for good. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy if you're a public employee, on duty, in a public place. It doesn't matter how much you try to torture the words "reasonable", "private", or "public" If someone really is obstructing police work, then the current statutes against obstructing police work are applicable. Police should be limited to enforcing those and not try to criminalize photography.
- jorgeortiz85 16y ago
  Don't hold your breath. Part of the article is about how courts are upholding these interpretations of electronic surveillance laws.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Why not record the police with a hand-cranked film camera? If no electronic devices are in use, how could electronic surveillance laws apply?
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Good luck getting your film developed! Also, undeveloped film tends to meet with 'accidental overexposure' when confiscated, even if only temporarily.
      - jrockway 16y ago
        Polaroid.
        jacquesm 16y ago
        Did polaroid ever make motion picture film ?
        jrockway 16y ago
bertm 16y ago
"Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison." The sentence length mentioned strikes me as severe, seems the law is being use in a way that differs from the original intent.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
This is, of course, a terrible thing, but it's nothing new. From personal experience, back in 1991 I was with a group of friends, one of whom was using a camcorder to record a police officer. The cop threatened him, exclaiming "Get that camera thing away from me!". The difference now is the ubiquity of video recording devices, and thus increased perceived urgency on the part of police to defend themselves against them.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  If they're doing nothing illegal, they've got nothing to fear, right ? Or so the argument goes when the 'other' side wants their goodies (dna samples, finger prints, all your mail headers (and probably their contents), your browsing history, your credit card purchases, surveilance footage and so on). What goes around comes around, if transparency is a 'good thing' and we're all to be tracked and followed then it stands to reason that police officers can and should be tracked and followed by citizens, as long as the recordings do not interfere with the police work.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    They are not robots. They behave differently on camera, just as you and I do. They can be embarrassed, clutch, and act out. Just watch an episode of a real crime show on cable for any number of examples.
    - stakent 16y ago
      Change in their behaviour is secondary effect. In most cases it is change for better one so maybe there should be mandatory recording of all proceedings of authorities? Well, at least the public ones.
      - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
        You're kidding! Just watch Cops. On camera, policemen get macho, brutal and generally act out for the audience. This is NOT better behavior.
johngalt 16y ago
But I thought the surveillance rule was "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear"? That is what I find most hilarious about this. We are supposed to submit to warrantless wiretapping, and routine public recording because it "makes us safer". Yet Police aren't required to do the same.
- goldenbough 16y ago
  It would not surprise me if the states with these surveillance laws equip their police cars with on board cameras that record traffic stops and other incidents. Can we order them turned off too?
  - tomhogans 16y ago
    At this rate they might be our only hope.
goldenbough 16y ago
I find this all very disturbing. One of the principles of democracy is transparency and government accountability. Clearly at this time the citizens of Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and wherever else this happens deserve the government they make for themselves. I would like to see a broad ranging Supreme Court ruling allowing everyone the right to film in public. If not by the court, then some action by Congress.
- URSpider94 16y ago
  "Clearly at this time the citizens of Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and wherever else this happens deserve the government they make for themselves." While I understand your rhetorical point, as a citizen of Massachusetts, I can certainly say that I do not feel that I "deserve" to be treated in this manner. Sure, I'll make my voice heard on this issue, but the case discussed in this article represents primarily a decision by the executive branch (police and prosecutors) to apply a law commonly used for wiretapping in this case, and then by the courts to uphold this decision. It's not as if we held a referendum to criminalize filming of police officers.
jrockway 16y ago
It will be interesting to watch the outcomes of the appeals. The dangerous underlying issue is applying statutes to situations that they were not written to cover. If the government wants to make it illegal to videotape police officers, the law should say "it is a class 1 felony to videotape police officers". If the intentions of what a law prohibits is not made clear, how can people be expected to comply? When the law can be shaped to cover whatever a prosecutor dislikes about a particular person, then law becomes a tool of oppression, not a way to ensure an orderly society. How can I not violate the law if I don't know what the law is!? The second dangerous underlying issue is that it is not clearly illegal to pass such a law. People tend to misuse the expression "police state", but if these convictions stick, that is exactly what this is. When you are legally unable to prepare evidence in your own defense, there might as well not be a criminal justice system at all. I propose that we pass a law, perhaps with a clever name like the "PROTECT CHILDREN act" (you make the backronym), that makes it a Class I felony for any police officer or other government official acting in an official capacity to interfere with any video recording of events that would otherwise occur in the plain view of the recorder. (You can't go into someone's home and videotape the police, but you can videotape the police when they come to arrest you.) This will never happen, though. Oh well, at least everyone has McDonalds and a big-screen TV...
- dnsworks 16y ago
  Anti-Flag described the problem best in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEtEG2Q7zCk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEtEG2Q7zCk
oldgregg 16y ago
A few well known photogs need to get together and launch a "Film the 5-0" day where everyone just goes out and films cops for a day. Bring the issue to a head instead of quietly letting them pass more restrictive laws like they have in the UK.
- Crowcrow 16y ago
  Hold on there, the uk has far more liberal laws that the us, can you give any examples? Btw you can film anything here, including arrests. Only issue is if they think you are making a film to aid terrorists, but the police have had a very hard time using that. Also don't forget that the uk is crawling in cctv, so the police are bound to be filmed anyway!
  - philwelch 16y ago
    The UK has abolished self defence, compromised the legal protection against double jeopardy, and lifted many restrictions against government agents entering one's home. Political speech is less free as in the United States as well. There's also the sizable DNA database, and the CCTV itself (which is still controlled by the government, and hence on the other side of the table from any recordings made by citizens).
    - Robin_Message 16y ago
      I agree the UK has been going in the wrong direction on civil liberties, but your post is too much FUD, which is ultimately harmful to our cause. > The UK has abolished self defence, The most recent cause celebre on this was a robber being given permanent brain damage after escaping the scene of the robbery. The attack was not self defence, and frankly, the brothers who joined in the attack got off very lightly indeed. In reality, reasonable force in defending oneself and others is allowed, and is interpreted by juries, so how can you possible argue self defence has been "abolished?" > compromised the legal protection against double jeopardy, Only in the event of important new evidence, i.e. DNA that couldn't be done at the time due to lack of science. Not ideal perhaps, but you have to draw a line somewhere, and smarter people than you or I supported it. > lifted many restrictions against government agents entering one's home. Any more details on this one, citation/statute? > Political speech is less free as in the United States as well. The HRA mostly fixes that although there is not an inalienable right to free speech. Since there isn't in the USA either, are you sure it is measurably less free? > There's also the sizable DNA database Declared illegal by our highest court, and currently being fixed by the government in the proposed Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill, as is ID cards, right to protest and so on. > and the CCTV itself (which is still controlled by the government, and hence on the other side of the table from any recordings made by citizens). CCTV is generally controlled by local shopping centres or business associations, or local councils. I recently visited our local council CCTV control room and was interested to discover they actually won't let the police into the viewing room, except for a specific operation (which has to authorised by the chief of police and the head of the CCTV stuff on the council). They will report crimes to the police, but the police cannot trawl or watch their system. So, I really don't see what the problem with CCTV really is. It watches the public, but so could a council employee up a hill with a telescope. It remembers, but only for a limited time, and so could the same council employee with a pencil and paper. The biggest argument against CCTV is it is a total waste of money, doesn't reduce or deter crime, and is not backed up with any proper evidence of efficacy whatsoever. I agree the UK has been going in the wrong direction, but I don't think it is as bad as you say, and I am offended by the continual denigration of the UK compared to America, as if America was the capital of human rights and civil liberties, and we still have the star chamber. Also, you didn't mention the most worrying thing of all - the powers the police have been using to prevent climate change protest. Regardless of your views on climate change, the fact public resources have been so heavily diverted to protect commercial interests worries me much, much more. That way fascism lies.
jcromartie 16y ago
I've written my governor on this. We'll see what kind of canned half-assed response it gets.
- f1gm3nt 16y ago
  Dear jcromartie %LAST_NAME%, Thanks for writing me with your concerns on %TOPIC_NOT_FOUND%. I will soon be writing up a law to prevent this from happening again. Thanks, %GOVERNOR_NAME%
WillyF 16y ago
I agree that police abuse is a problem, and I also agree that laws like the ones mentioned in the article are an obscene violation of our liberties; however, I'm starting to see the problems that recording officers can cause. I was recently leaving North Avenue Beach after playing beach volleyball when a gang fight erupted. Hundreds of kids started mobbing each other and causing all kinds of mayhem. I got out of there quickly, so I don't know what exactly went down, but I do know that the day before there was an attack on joggers, fights, arrests, and even a shooting. Here's a story mostly focused on what happened the day before I was there: http://cbs2chicago.com/local/north.avenue.beach.2.1714897.html http://cbs2chicago.com/local/north.avenue.beach.2.1714897.ht... There hasn't been a ton of news coverage about the recent problems at North Ave Beach beyond the article above, but I was able to find a few videos of the violence on YouTube like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDd5-QfjDXM&has_verified=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDd5-QfjDXM&has_verified=... It seems to me that the focus of the videos is more on how the cops are treating the criminals than what the criminals are doing (assaulting police officers and acting like idiots in the video above). A lot of comments on the Second City Cop blog - http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com - have indicated that law enforcement officers in Chicago are becoming extremely hesitant to act because they are worried about how their actions may look on camera. Yes, "citizen journalists" with cell phone cameras will help to curb police abuse, but they will also discourage use of force by police officers when it is justified. The video above isn't the best example since the cops do end up using force to restrain some of the perpetrators, but they do seem to show a decent amount of restraint. In the situation that I saw, the cops seemed wary of getting involved. The situation that I witnessed opens up a number of other issues, but my point is that I want the people who are paid to protect me to be fully empowered to do what they need to do to quell situations like a massive gang fight on the beach. I don't think that passing laws prohibiting citizens from recording on-duty officers is the right way to go about this, but I do think that citizens and the media need to be more understanding of the fact that sometimes it is necessary for cops to use force. A 30 second YouTube clip doesn't always tell the whole story, yet these types of videos can ruin an officer's career. Social media is a great thing for Democracy. I think that recording police is a good thing. I just think that knee-jerk reactions to news that comes in bits and pieces can be extremely damaging to our society. Our law enforcement officers shouldn't be afraid of making the right decision because an edited video clip will make it look like abuse.
donaldc 16y ago
I think the benefit of people being able to record police officers in action far outweighs any disadvantages. Beyond this, I am rather offended that it seems to be ok for any number of local governments, businesses, and who knows who else to record me as I go about my daily business out in the world, and then claim it's somehow not ok for me to do the same to the police, or anyone else, in a public setting.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  It is not fair, but it is also different. For one thing, there are many of "us" and very, very few of "them". I believe the test cases mentioned in this article were actually contrived cases intended to embarrass the police, and were probably perceived as an attack by them. And when they get attacked, they tend to close ranks - police, judges etc.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    "... tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law".
sliverstorm 16y ago
Best part of all this is if you are filming something and the police approach you, and don't give you an opportunity to turn off your camera, you are going to commit a crime whether you like it or not!
natmaster 16y ago
And then who watches the police? This is how police states are finalized.
nearestneighbor 16y ago
Anything a cop says is copyrighted by the police department.
motters 16y ago
This sounds like they're basically copied what's been happening in the UK, where photographers in public places have been harassed and sometimes arrested. The excuse given is usually that photographs could aid terrorists in planning an attack, but of course the notion that terrorists abstain from using Flickr, Google street view or Google Earth is absurd. In the UK the "war on photography" has been going on for at least the last few years. For an example see http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/police-arrest-photographer http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/police-arrest...
Daniel_Newby 16y ago
Actually, most state constitutions protect recording in public places. The free speech clauses allow making, transmitting, and publishing anything you want, and an audio recording is simply a publication of one record to yourself. To put it another way, if an audio recording can be prohibited, then the same law could also provide for summary execution for taking pencil and paper notes, which is a patent civil rights violation. This is a matter of established black letter law, with precedents out the wazoo. The classical wiretap laws are based on a theory of trespass. It is trespass and vandalism to plant a bug in someone's office. Recordings from the bug are not a violation of some nebulous (and expandable) right to privacy, but rather the ill-gotten gains of a crime. And what are the cops thinking, anyway? When you place yourself outside the protections of the law, you are outside the protections of the law. If I get beaten and robbed with impunity, and locked up for 20 years if I try to protect myself, I'll simply kill every cop that so much as looks at me wrong.
wake_up_sticky 16y ago
"A lot of comments on the Second City Cop blog - http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com - have indicated that law enforcement officers in Chicago are becoming extremely hesitant to act because they are worried about how their actions may look on camera." Good.

158 points by f1gm3nt 16y ago

Why the question mark? If you live in Illinois, Massachusetts, or Maryland, the title reads "It is illegal to record an on-duty officer." And not just sort of illegal. Class 1 felony punishable 4-15 years in prison illegal.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jbarciauskas 16y ago
This article clarifies the current state of affairs in Massachusetts: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/ http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010... The key seems to be how evident it is that the person is recording. If it is at all not obvious to the police that a recording is being made, it is illegal. If you put a microphone or camera in their face however it is OK.
- georgieporgie 16y ago
  So the Rodney King tape would be illegal. In fact most police abuse tapes I can recall would be illegal, since people don't like to get very close to packs of violent officers.
vollmond 16y ago
I've been trying to find reliable sources that say one way or the other about Maryland (my current state of residence). Do you have any links? I did find this (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html) which says that MD state courts have interpreted the law not to apply in public.
- hga 16y ago
  Radley Balko: In Spite of State Law, Maryland Law Enforcement Officials Still Arresting, Charging People for Recording Cops: http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-illegal http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-ille...
  - vollmond 16y ago
    Excellent read, thank you.
k33n 16y ago
I think the question mark serves to denote surprise/disappointment that this is a fact.
- pwhelan 16y ago
  It will also end up being questionable considering USSC rulings on reasonable expectations of privacy in public settings. That is what surprises me considering this seems to fall squarely as 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th amendment issues.

tjmaxal 16y ago

So are the viewers on you tube co conspirators complicit for failing to report a crime? This is scary and ridiculous at the same time.

mathewgj 16y ago

I immediately wondered how the Rodney King case would have been different if it was affected by a law of this kind. Does anyone know if the video footage would have been inadmissable? On a different note, I have spent a lot of time in developing countries, and some of the most consistent hallmarks are ridiculous bans on photographing anything government-related. Laws like this in the US make me worry about the country sliding backwards into dysfunction.

evgen 16y ago
The catch with most of these statutes is that the part that is illegal is the audio recording. If you record video without an audio track or are too far away for any audio of the encounter to be heard then you are usually in the clear. In the King case my memory of the video is that it was shot from a distance and that you can't really hear anything (checking a few archives seems to confirm that the only thing that you can really hear is helicopter noise.)

steveklabnik 16y ago

> In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state’s electronic surveillance law — aka recording a police encounter — the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. This is the worst part of this. Frivolous lawsuits, okay, but seeing this blatant violation of the spirit of the law upheld really sucks.

MartinCron 16y ago

I'm looking forward to when one of these laws gets challenged in court and finally thrown out for good. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy if you're a public employee, on duty, in a public place. It doesn't matter how much you try to torture the words "reasonable", "private", or "public" If someone really is obstructing police work, then the current statutes against obstructing police work are applicable. Police should be limited to enforcing those and not try to criminalize photography.

jorgeortiz85 16y ago
Don't hold your breath. Part of the article is about how courts are upholding these interpretations of electronic surveillance laws.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Why not record the police with a hand-cranked film camera? If no electronic devices are in use, how could electronic surveillance laws apply?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Good luck getting your film developed! Also, undeveloped film tends to meet with 'accidental overexposure' when confiscated, even if only temporarily.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      Polaroid.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        Did polaroid ever make motion picture film ?
        jrockway 16y ago

bertm 16y ago

"Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison." The sentence length mentioned strikes me as severe, seems the law is being use in a way that differs from the original intent.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

This is, of course, a terrible thing, but it's nothing new. From personal experience, back in 1991 I was with a group of friends, one of whom was using a camcorder to record a police officer. The cop threatened him, exclaiming "Get that camera thing away from me!". The difference now is the ubiquity of video recording devices, and thus increased perceived urgency on the part of police to defend themselves against them.

jacquesm 16y ago
If they're doing nothing illegal, they've got nothing to fear, right ? Or so the argument goes when the 'other' side wants their goodies (dna samples, finger prints, all your mail headers (and probably their contents), your browsing history, your credit card purchases, surveilance footage and so on). What goes around comes around, if transparency is a 'good thing' and we're all to be tracked and followed then it stands to reason that police officers can and should be tracked and followed by citizens, as long as the recordings do not interfere with the police work.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  They are not robots. They behave differently on camera, just as you and I do. They can be embarrassed, clutch, and act out. Just watch an episode of a real crime show on cable for any number of examples.
  - stakent 16y ago
    Change in their behaviour is secondary effect. In most cases it is change for better one so maybe there should be mandatory recording of all proceedings of authorities? Well, at least the public ones.
    - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
      You're kidding! Just watch Cops. On camera, policemen get macho, brutal and generally act out for the audience. This is NOT better behavior.

johngalt 16y ago

But I thought the surveillance rule was "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear"? That is what I find most hilarious about this. We are supposed to submit to warrantless wiretapping, and routine public recording because it "makes us safer". Yet Police aren't required to do the same.

goldenbough 16y ago
It would not surprise me if the states with these surveillance laws equip their police cars with on board cameras that record traffic stops and other incidents. Can we order them turned off too?
- tomhogans 16y ago
  At this rate they might be our only hope.

goldenbough 16y ago

I find this all very disturbing. One of the principles of democracy is transparency and government accountability. Clearly at this time the citizens of Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and wherever else this happens deserve the government they make for themselves. I would like to see a broad ranging Supreme Court ruling allowing everyone the right to film in public. If not by the court, then some action by Congress.

URSpider94 16y ago
"Clearly at this time the citizens of Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland and wherever else this happens deserve the government they make for themselves." While I understand your rhetorical point, as a citizen of Massachusetts, I can certainly say that I do not feel that I "deserve" to be treated in this manner. Sure, I'll make my voice heard on this issue, but the case discussed in this article represents primarily a decision by the executive branch (police and prosecutors) to apply a law commonly used for wiretapping in this case, and then by the courts to uphold this decision. It's not as if we held a referendum to criminalize filming of police officers.

jrockway 16y ago

It will be interesting to watch the outcomes of the appeals. The dangerous underlying issue is applying statutes to situations that they were not written to cover. If the government wants to make it illegal to videotape police officers, the law should say "it is a class 1 felony to videotape police officers". If the intentions of what a law prohibits is not made clear, how can people be expected to comply? When the law can be shaped to cover whatever a prosecutor dislikes about a particular person, then law becomes a tool of oppression, not a way to ensure an orderly society. How can I not violate the law if I don't know what the law is!? The second dangerous underlying issue is that it is not clearly illegal to pass such a law. People tend to misuse the expression "police state", but if these convictions stick, that is exactly what this is. When you are legally unable to prepare evidence in your own defense, there might as well not be a criminal justice system at all. I propose that we pass a law, perhaps with a clever name like the "PROTECT CHILDREN act" (you make the backronym), that makes it a Class I felony for any police officer or other government official acting in an official capacity to interfere with any video recording of events that would otherwise occur in the plain view of the recorder. (You can't go into someone's home and videotape the police, but you can videotape the police when they come to arrest you.) This will never happen, though. Oh well, at least everyone has McDonalds and a big-screen TV...

dnsworks 16y ago
Anti-Flag described the problem best in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEtEG2Q7zCk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEtEG2Q7zCk

oldgregg 16y ago

A few well known photogs need to get together and launch a "Film the 5-0" day where everyone just goes out and films cops for a day. Bring the issue to a head instead of quietly letting them pass more restrictive laws like they have in the UK.

Crowcrow 16y ago
Hold on there, the uk has far more liberal laws that the us, can you give any examples? Btw you can film anything here, including arrests. Only issue is if they think you are making a film to aid terrorists, but the police have had a very hard time using that. Also don't forget that the uk is crawling in cctv, so the police are bound to be filmed anyway!
- philwelch 16y ago
  The UK has abolished self defence, compromised the legal protection against double jeopardy, and lifted many restrictions against government agents entering one's home. Political speech is less free as in the United States as well. There's also the sizable DNA database, and the CCTV itself (which is still controlled by the government, and hence on the other side of the table from any recordings made by citizens).
  - Robin_Message 16y ago
    I agree the UK has been going in the wrong direction on civil liberties, but your post is too much FUD, which is ultimately harmful to our cause. > The UK has abolished self defence, The most recent cause celebre on this was a robber being given permanent brain damage after escaping the scene of the robbery. The attack was not self defence, and frankly, the brothers who joined in the attack got off very lightly indeed. In reality, reasonable force in defending oneself and others is allowed, and is interpreted by juries, so how can you possible argue self defence has been "abolished?" > compromised the legal protection against double jeopardy, Only in the event of important new evidence, i.e. DNA that couldn't be done at the time due to lack of science. Not ideal perhaps, but you have to draw a line somewhere, and smarter people than you or I supported it. > lifted many restrictions against government agents entering one's home. Any more details on this one, citation/statute? > Political speech is less free as in the United States as well. The HRA mostly fixes that although there is not an inalienable right to free speech. Since there isn't in the USA either, are you sure it is measurably less free? > There's also the sizable DNA database Declared illegal by our highest court, and currently being fixed by the government in the proposed Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill, as is ID cards, right to protest and so on. > and the CCTV itself (which is still controlled by the government, and hence on the other side of the table from any recordings made by citizens). CCTV is generally controlled by local shopping centres or business associations, or local councils. I recently visited our local council CCTV control room and was interested to discover they actually won't let the police into the viewing room, except for a specific operation (which has to authorised by the chief of police and the head of the CCTV stuff on the council). They will report crimes to the police, but the police cannot trawl or watch their system. So, I really don't see what the problem with CCTV really is. It watches the public, but so could a council employee up a hill with a telescope. It remembers, but only for a limited time, and so could the same council employee with a pencil and paper. The biggest argument against CCTV is it is a total waste of money, doesn't reduce or deter crime, and is not backed up with any proper evidence of efficacy whatsoever. I agree the UK has been going in the wrong direction, but I don't think it is as bad as you say, and I am offended by the continual denigration of the UK compared to America, as if America was the capital of human rights and civil liberties, and we still have the star chamber. Also, you didn't mention the most worrying thing of all - the powers the police have been using to prevent climate change protest. Regardless of your views on climate change, the fact public resources have been so heavily diverted to protect commercial interests worries me much, much more. That way fascism lies.

jcromartie 16y ago

I've written my governor on this. We'll see what kind of canned half-assed response it gets.

f1gm3nt 16y ago
Dear jcromartie %LAST_NAME%, Thanks for writing me with your concerns on %TOPIC_NOT_FOUND%. I will soon be writing up a law to prevent this from happening again. Thanks, %GOVERNOR_NAME%

WillyF 16y ago

I agree that police abuse is a problem, and I also agree that laws like the ones mentioned in the article are an obscene violation of our liberties; however, I'm starting to see the problems that recording officers can cause. I was recently leaving North Avenue Beach after playing beach volleyball when a gang fight erupted. Hundreds of kids started mobbing each other and causing all kinds of mayhem. I got out of there quickly, so I don't know what exactly went down, but I do know that the day before there was an attack on joggers, fights, arrests, and even a shooting. Here's a story mostly focused on what happened the day before I was there: http://cbs2chicago.com/local/north.avenue.beach.2.1714897.html http://cbs2chicago.com/local/north.avenue.beach.2.1714897.ht... There hasn't been a ton of news coverage about the recent problems at North Ave Beach beyond the article above, but I was able to find a few videos of the violence on YouTube like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDd5-QfjDXM&has_verified=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDd5-QfjDXM&has_verified=... It seems to me that the focus of the videos is more on how the cops are treating the criminals than what the criminals are doing (assaulting police officers and acting like idiots in the video above). A lot of comments on the Second City Cop blog - http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com - have indicated that law enforcement officers in Chicago are becoming extremely hesitant to act because they are worried about how their actions may look on camera. Yes, "citizen journalists" with cell phone cameras will help to curb police abuse, but they will also discourage use of force by police officers when it is justified. The video above isn't the best example since the cops do end up using force to restrain some of the perpetrators, but they do seem to show a decent amount of restraint. In the situation that I saw, the cops seemed wary of getting involved. The situation that I witnessed opens up a number of other issues, but my point is that I want the people who are paid to protect me to be fully empowered to do what they need to do to quell situations like a massive gang fight on the beach. I don't think that passing laws prohibiting citizens from recording on-duty officers is the right way to go about this, but I do think that citizens and the media need to be more understanding of the fact that sometimes it is necessary for cops to use force. A 30 second YouTube clip doesn't always tell the whole story, yet these types of videos can ruin an officer's career. Social media is a great thing for Democracy. I think that recording police is a good thing. I just think that knee-jerk reactions to news that comes in bits and pieces can be extremely damaging to our society. Our law enforcement officers shouldn't be afraid of making the right decision because an edited video clip will make it look like abuse.

donaldc 16y ago

I think the benefit of people being able to record police officers in action far outweighs any disadvantages. Beyond this, I am rather offended that it seems to be ok for any number of local governments, businesses, and who knows who else to record me as I go about my daily business out in the world, and then claim it's somehow not ok for me to do the same to the police, or anyone else, in a public setting.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
It is not fair, but it is also different. For one thing, there are many of "us" and very, very few of "them". I believe the test cases mentioned in this article were actually contrived cases intended to embarrass the police, and were probably perceived as an attack by them. And when they get attacked, they tend to close ranks - police, judges etc.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  "... tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law".

sliverstorm 16y ago

Best part of all this is if you are filming something and the police approach you, and don't give you an opportunity to turn off your camera, you are going to commit a crime whether you like it or not!

natmaster 16y ago

And then who watches the police? This is how police states are finalized.

nearestneighbor 16y ago

Anything a cop says is copyrighted by the police department.

motters 16y ago

This sounds like they're basically copied what's been happening in the UK, where photographers in public places have been harassed and sometimes arrested. The excuse given is usually that photographs could aid terrorists in planning an attack, but of course the notion that terrorists abstain from using Flickr, Google street view or Google Earth is absurd. In the UK the "war on photography" has been going on for at least the last few years. For an example see http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/police-arrest-photographer http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/police-arrest...

Daniel_Newby 16y ago

Actually, most state constitutions protect recording in public places. The free speech clauses allow making, transmitting, and publishing anything you want, and an audio recording is simply a publication of one record to yourself. To put it another way, if an audio recording can be prohibited, then the same law could also provide for summary execution for taking pencil and paper notes, which is a patent civil rights violation. This is a matter of established black letter law, with precedents out the wazoo. The classical wiretap laws are based on a theory of trespass. It is trespass and vandalism to plant a bug in someone's office. Recordings from the bug are not a violation of some nebulous (and expandable) right to privacy, but rather the ill-gotten gains of a crime. And what are the cops thinking, anyway? When you place yourself outside the protections of the law, you are outside the protections of the law. If I get beaten and robbed with impunity, and locked up for 20 years if I try to protect myself, I'll simply kill every cop that so much as looks at me wrong.

wake_up_sticky 16y ago

"A lot of comments on the Second City Cop blog - http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com - have indicated that law enforcement officers in Chicago are becoming extremely hesitant to act because they are worried about how their actions may look on camera." Good.