5 ms·

> It's always ethical to film police misconduct, in fact what's unethical is that they're not already filming themselves. That it is possible to film ethically

by IanCal 6y ago

> It's always ethical to film police misconduct, in fact what's unethical is that they're not already filming themselves. That it is possible to film ethically is not the point. Particularly if you include sharing the video as part of "filming" then there's a lot to consider which this goes into. Two things to me are simple and good examples - does what I'm filming accurately reflect what's happening? If I deliberately avoid filming certain things then I can distort the facts. The other is around consent of the other people in the video (more important when it comes to sharing).

hkai 6y ago
Correct. If you are filming someone, be aware that your video may be used as proof in court - for example, to prove that a person was indeed resisting arrest. It's best to not release it to anyone except to the victim's lawyers who will make sure the video supports their case instead of undermining it.
- belorn 6y ago
  Please elaborate, are you saying that resisting arrest is a law that should not exist even in the case where it can be proven?
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Only unethical lawyers? Suppressing evidence can get them disbarred.
  - curryst 6y ago
    Ianal, but I wouldn't think the defense attorney would be required to share that? Wouldn't it violate your clients right to not self-incriminate? The prosecution is definitely not allowed to suppress evidence that would demonstrate someone's innocence, but I don't think the same is true of the defense.
    - bzbarsky 6y ago
      Also not a lawyer, but as I understand it, both the defense and the prosecution tell each other and the judge what evidence they plan to bring; unlike crime shows, you generally don't spring surprises in court. In this case the defense would say "we have a video that shows we are innocent" and the prosecution would then request a copy of the video, and a warrant to acquire it. Providing said video doesn't seem any more self-incrimination than the prosecution asking for a warrant to get written evidence that is in possession of the accused, say, though the line there might start getting blurry if the video is something routinely filmed from the accused's viewpoint. But if it's filmed by a third party, I doubt the self-incrimination provisions would extend to it in any way...
      - curryst 6y ago
        Right, that's discovery as I understand it. But why would you, as the defense, plan to present a video that demonstrates your guilt? If you aren't going to present it, it isn't part of discovery. The prosecution is required to share material that undermines their own case under the Brady Rule [1], but the defense does not bear the same burden as far as I know. In fact, the defense is not even required to request or subpoena the exculpatory evidence; the prosecution is expected to share it of their own accord. Which typically means the prosecution just shares everything they have, in case something turns out to be exculpatory (the Brady Rule is still in play even if the prosecution is unaware they have the evidence). My take is that this situation applies to evidence the defense has acquired. I don't think the _defense_ is required to share it voluntarily (although it could probably still be subpoenaed if the prosecution was aware of its existence). I.e. if Joe Shmoe was being charged with burglary, and someone sent his a lawyer a video of him committing the crime, his lawyer is not required to disclose the existence of the video. If the prosecution found out that it existed, they could still subpoena it. Although I don't know if you could subpoena it from Joe Shmoe, that's beyond my limited reading. You could definitely subpoena it from whoever sent it to the defense, as their right against self-incrimination doesn't apply. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule
        6y ago

by IanCal 6y ago

hkai 6y ago

Correct. If you are filming someone, be aware that your video may be used as proof in court - for example, to prove that a person was indeed resisting arrest. It's best to not release it to anyone except to the victim's lawyers who will make sure the video supports their case instead of undermining it.

belorn 6y ago
Please elaborate, are you saying that resisting arrest is a law that should not exist even in the case where it can be proven?
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Only unethical lawyers? Suppressing evidence can get them disbarred.
- curryst 6y ago
  Ianal, but I wouldn't think the defense attorney would be required to share that? Wouldn't it violate your clients right to not self-incriminate? The prosecution is definitely not allowed to suppress evidence that would demonstrate someone's innocence, but I don't think the same is true of the defense.
  - bzbarsky 6y ago
    Also not a lawyer, but as I understand it, both the defense and the prosecution tell each other and the judge what evidence they plan to bring; unlike crime shows, you generally don't spring surprises in court. In this case the defense would say "we have a video that shows we are innocent" and the prosecution would then request a copy of the video, and a warrant to acquire it. Providing said video doesn't seem any more self-incrimination than the prosecution asking for a warrant to get written evidence that is in possession of the accused, say, though the line there might start getting blurry if the video is something routinely filmed from the accused's viewpoint. But if it's filmed by a third party, I doubt the self-incrimination provisions would extend to it in any way...
    - curryst 6y ago
      Right, that's discovery as I understand it. But why would you, as the defense, plan to present a video that demonstrates your guilt? If you aren't going to present it, it isn't part of discovery. The prosecution is required to share material that undermines their own case under the Brady Rule [1], but the defense does not bear the same burden as far as I know. In fact, the defense is not even required to request or subpoena the exculpatory evidence; the prosecution is expected to share it of their own accord. Which typically means the prosecution just shares everything they have, in case something turns out to be exculpatory (the Brady Rule is still in play even if the prosecution is unaware they have the evidence). My take is that this situation applies to evidence the defense has acquired. I don't think the _defense_ is required to share it voluntarily (although it could probably still be subpoenaed if the prosecution was aware of its existence). I.e. if Joe Shmoe was being charged with burglary, and someone sent his a lawyer a video of him committing the crime, his lawyer is not required to disclose the existence of the video. If the prosecution found out that it existed, they could still subpoena it. Although I don't know if you could subpoena it from Joe Shmoe, that's beyond my limited reading. You could definitely subpoena it from whoever sent it to the defense, as their right against self-incrimination doesn't apply. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule
      - 6y ago