10 ms·

NYPD barred from telling people they can't film in precinct stations

260 points by danso 3y ago

NickC25 3y ago
Good. Barring any attempts to hinder a police investigation or crime scene, the right to record law passed in NY should be absolute. I see no reason why it's a bad thing to keep law enforcement honest and make sure their actions are legal and above board....because otherwise, their mistakes and ignorance of the law can cost the public money. It also allows the good folks within police departments to have a straightforward way to root out the bad folks and the corruption that a police union might traditionally try to cover up. If I were a cop and I knew one of my coworkers was a bad apple, and might screw things up for me, knowing that they are getting recorded on the job would give me peace of mind.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  The only reason I see is if it captured citizens that don't want the fact that they were in a NYPD Precinct livestreamed.
  - stronglikedan 3y ago
    It's a public place. If a separate law gave them a right to privacy then the police have to make accommodations to bring them into the station privately, like through a back door.
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      My position is that it is good that everyone going into the precinct should be publicly noticed. Nobody goes in through "a back door". Nobody goes into police custody without the public knowing. Yes, this gets embarrassing. But it keeps people from silently "disappearing". If they're in police custody, everybody knows (or can find out).
      - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
        Which is fine if you're being arrested, not great if you're trying to report domestic violence. I get it, it's better like this, but it could have secondary side effects for some people.
        KennyBlanken 3y ago
        Trying to report any crime where the victim fears repercussions. Organized crime, crime by an employer, etc.
        Kye 3y ago
        Every law is a balance with some compromises toward or against personal and public good. Some of that balance should include alternate channels for reporting things with hazards like this.
      - AniseAbyss 3y ago
        [dead]
    - fishtacos 3y ago
      To echo the previous reply, it's a ridiculous stance to defend absolving of documentation of their presence when all these situations involved taxpayer money. Whether it's an officer, a congressman,Trump under subpoena, or a random drunk ... if they are being charged with something, they are in the public record. That public record includes public documentation of where they were taken, why, and sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power. Otherwise, we don't live in a functional democracy. This is a good decision. It's sad the PD is appealing it, but not unexpected.
      - tzs 3y ago
        People often go to police stations for reasons other than being charged with something.
      - koolba 3y ago
        > That public record includes public documentation of where they were taken, why, and sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power. The problem for the specific case of being charged with something, or even a step before when someone is brought in for questioning, is enough to tarnish the person's reputation for life. If someone is brought in for questioning on suspicion of spousal battery, rape, or kiddie porn, that stink is not going to subside even if the officers or prosecutors later admit to being completely wrong.
        fishtacos 3y ago
        That's a socio-cultural issue, not something related to what the law requires because it's the just thing to do. Otherwise, we'd have no knowledge of anything. We fought so hard (US-specific) for the FOIA and that barely even works. Crawling backwards into a decades of state and police corruption isn't the answer. I get what you're saying. There is an imbalance of power between the common citizen and state. Wanting transparency instead of the alternative because of abuse of power is precisely why this should be the norm.
      - barbazoo 3y ago
    - barrkel 3y ago
      What if a private organization set up cameras observing everyone walking every street and avenue, and stored facial eigenvectors of all the people walking there. It could then set up shop as a service, and given a picture of someone's face, tell you when and where they went anywhere on foot in NYC. It's all public, right?
      - wongarsu 3y ago
        That's what companies do with license plate scanners. I don't think faces would be substantially different in the eyes of the law. I agree that it's an issue. In Europe there is some expectation of privacy even in public and what you describe would be illegal.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        > In Europe there is some expectation of privacy even in public which is reason #1367 why the UK had to leave the EU. Thanks, I'll be here all week, until I die.
        jakupovic 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
        In thr US that is probably legal currently
      - roywiggins 3y ago
        It's being done for police, but I don't think there's any legal bar to selling this data to the public instead. https://www.404media.co/fusus-ai-cameras-took-over-town-america/ https://www.404media.co/fusus-ai-cameras-took-over-town-amer...
      - usea 3y ago
        The scenario you're describing is already the status quo.
    - omginternets 3y ago
      I think there's room for protecting people's public image so long as they have not been convicted.
      - heliodor 3y ago
        Are you saying that every crime punishment should automatically include loss of privacy? Cause that's what your statement sounds like.
        omginternets 3y ago
        That's a very bizarre reading of this thread of conversation.
        heliodor 3y ago
        I didn't read it well, I guess. "Protecting people's public image" sounds much broader than whether an arrest or conviction is public record.
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        Every crime conviction is a public record, so that ship has sailed.
        themaninthedark 3y ago
        I would say that we want to know what crimes our government is convicting people of. Otherwise, you can have the government arrest and convict some one of "secret" charges, perhaps in "secret" courts with "secret" evidence. The convicted just disappeared. I think we had something like that happen before, it caused a bit of upset.
        AniseAbyss 3y ago
        [dead]
        tick_tock_tick 3y ago
        I mean pretty much that's a cornerstone of our legal system. There's a strong bias against hidden courts where someone may be convicted in secret and punished in secret.
    - oneplane 3y ago
      The public place doctrine is uniquely weird (and American) in that regard. Being seen or heard by others in a public place should not mean that you, as a private person, also gets recorded.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        I agree. I think that US law is actively harmful in this regard. It should be possible to be in public spaces without having to worry about being recorded, either by authorities or other people.
        ultrarunner 3y ago
        This reverses the subject, though: even if we grant that private civilians should have a (possibly limited) expectation of privacy in public, civilians acting in a public capacity, like the police, should not. Given the enormous power they have to act outside the law with impunity, removing the only check on that power— transparency into their conduct— would be a mistake. One only need to consider any of the many times police have been caught outright lying by video surfacing afterward to understand why.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        I agree entirely. We give police extraordinary power over us, and it seems completely reasonable that they have little expectation of privacy when using those powers.
    - qwertox 3y ago
      What a simplistic view of the world. "It's a public place.". Do I want to be there? No. Do I have to be there? Yes. Oh, the back door, right. And don't forget to make the appointment. Fact is, if I'm being there as a private citizen dealing with private matters, I don't want some person hanging around there filming me. And at least in Europe I have the right to expect this.
  - JackFr 3y ago
    What about crime victims?
  - themaninthedark 3y ago
    What if the mob is paying people to film inside the Precinct?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I get the argument. This is a tough problem, though, because someone recording in a police building can easily prevent citizens from conducting their business in there. I know that if I saw some random person recording in the building (or in other sensitive places), I wouldn't set foot in there. I doubt I'm the only one. Particularly if someone is going in there to deal with an issue where they don't want others to know they're going to the police.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - MrDrMcCoy 3y ago
    I'm still in favor of absolute recording rights despite all that. You're quite right to point out chilling effects of active recording, but you have to also consider that bad police behavior is chilling in and of itself. People don't want to make reports when the police might make things worse or neglect things they're supposed to help with. Recording can help with that and will become less common as bad police are held to better account. Another thing that can balance that would be for police stations to have a reception desk with a transparent, soundproof box for citizens to make reports with some privacy and safety regardless of recording.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > Another thing that can balance that would be for police stations to have a reception desk with a transparent, soundproof box for citizens to make reports That doesn't really address the issue, though. The issue is that people can be shown to have been at the police station at all.
      - chrsig 3y ago
        Surely if it's that big of an issue they could call the police station and arrange a more discrete venue? Maybe in the best of times this would seem a bigger concern, but in the present day it definitely seems like there needs to be more pressure on police to meet minimum standards.
- JackFr 3y ago
  Should other people in a police station have any expectation of privacy? Victims of crimes? People who've been arrested?
  - Kab1r 3y ago
    People who have been arrested don't usually just hang out in the lobby. There is no expectation of privacy in any public space
    - kube-system 3y ago
      That is not universally true, there are some expectations of privacy in some public places. For example, public restrooms, phone booths, dressing rooms, people's person, car, belongings, etc.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > There is no expectation of privacy in any public space But there should be protection against being recorded against your will.
      - drdaeman 3y ago
        In a public place? Why? If you’ve been somewhere others saw you, and it was a place where privacy is not expected (i.e. not someone peeking into your backyard or a bathroom stall), why should others be prevented from recording and retelling this, if they want to?
Lord-Jobo 3y ago
You are legally allowed to, but doing so may result in excessive bodily harm and weeks of incarceration, with low or zero repercussions for the police that do it to you. Until Qualified Immunity is uprooted, these lawsuits really wont do much to move a needle. Still a good outcome from the courts.
- stronglikedan 3y ago
  > may result in excessive bodily harm and weeks of incarceration It won't, because that's exactly what this law prevents.
  - Centigonal 3y ago
    But... who enforces that law?
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      Contempt of court against a federal district court order? A hacked off (in the case of any actual violation) federal judge with pretty broad direct power, U.S. Marshals,.and, potentially, the applicable US Attorney’s office, FBI, and the rest of thr federal criminal law enforcement apparatus for any criminal contempt or other federal crime involved.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    The law has historically not been a significant concern for the NYPD. Put another way: this is a "win" in the sense that there's judicial recognition of the problem, but attempting to test this law is still going to get you harassed and potentially arrested. The question then becomes whether 24+ hours in jail is worth ultimately being vindicated in court. Compare recent attempts to get the NYPD to stop parking illegally[1][2]. [1]: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/01/23/tipster-sues-nypd-for-harassment-over-311-complaints-about-illegal-parking https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/01/23/tipster-sues-nypd-for... [2]: https://hellgatenyc.com/nypd-try-to-illegally-park-then-ticket-cyclist https://hellgatenyc.com/nypd-try-to-illegally-park-then-tick...
mc32 3y ago
In the UK apparently you can’t record past precinct property —which can be just beyond the sidewalk, or if there’s a gate to the parking lot… of if there's police activity on a public street. There's a guy who goes around challenging them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5G2mL_7BMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5G2mL_7BMg
resters 3y ago
One of the best things about Youtube (and now TikTok) is the growing popularity of videos that reveal the shocking extent of police misconduct. Thanks to camera phones we have all become outraged at the way may police treat black people, and I credit camera phones as the driving force behind the social movement now known as BLM. But the creators on TikTok and YouTube who focus on police misconduct are going beyond BLM and focusing on the routine, institutionalized bullying of citizens of all ages, races, etc. We should all be very outraged by this, and we should all rally to support these creators, BLM, etc. This is what the internet was supposed to give us. Better transparency into government misconduct, and defense against oppression committed against citizens by government.
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
  The only problem is there’s no step in social media to activate people to put pressure on the government to reduce police abuse. I want stuff like cops who beat their significant others taken off the force. Cops sent to jail if they rape or sexually assault their detainees. I want a reversion to the legal precedent that cops have no duty to defend civilians from crime. But there’s no way to do this without large popular action,. Hell even with BLM mass protests, no city actually defunded the police!
  - nxm 3y ago
    Cops do not get sent to jail if they rape or sexually assault their detainees?
    - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
      In some cases no. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/this-teenager-accused-two-on-duty-cops-of-rape-she-had-no https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/this-teena...
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      Hah. There was a case a few years ago where a cop "had sex with" a female teen (minor but above age of consent) who was handcuffed and in custody. He argued it was consensual, and the court agreed. The sister reply has this stunning statement: > She had no idea she lived in one of 35 states where officers can claim a detainee consented. Why is any state allowing LEOs to have sex with detainees, "consensually" or otherwise?
Mobil1 3y ago
[dead]
logicalmonster 3y ago
I'm glad it's legal to film, particularly when you want to protect yourself when reporting a crime and you fear police reprisal for some reason. However, I can see some truly asshole-ish behavior resulting from this if the influencers get wind of this decision and they decide to use it to make content. Imagine some Instagrammer gawking at a crime victim on the worst day of their life as they go to the police for help and they sit there smugly saying "It's legal, fr fr bruh, no cap. on god". EDIT: IDGAF, just curious, why the downvotes?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > I'm glad it's legal to film, particularly when you want to protect yourself when reporting a crime and you fear police reprisal for some reason. I am not glad it's legal to film, because of the risk of reprisal from criminals you may be going in to the police department to talk about.
- pixxel 3y ago
  > EDIT: IDGAF, just curious, why the downvotes?
- gqcwwjtg 3y ago
  The downvotes, I guess, are because this is kind of a silly concern. Steamers do rude things all the time, but that’s not a good reason to change the law to prevent everyone from doing the thing that seems rude in that case.
iandanforth 3y ago
The line between 'annoying ego-trip' and 'act essential for the preservation of freedom and democracy' is surprisingly thin. In many cases it boils down the manners and this guy seems to at least try to be polite in his videos.
- intrasight 3y ago
  Is thin or non-existent. But still VERY glad that these individuals do what they do. It's just one example of what can be done, besides voting, to uphold civil rights.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bdcravens 3y ago
  they needn't be mutually exclusive
- tehwebguy 3y ago
  It’s vital and we need people who have the resources to be professionally annoying so that regular people don’t get caught up in this.
austin-cheney 3y ago
In most US jurisdictions it is still illegal to film within the confines of a courthouse, unless prior authorized, due to potential privacy violations, but anybody can film on the courthouse steps. These privacy violations may compromise persons charged with crimes, witnesses, jury members, court staff, or plaintiffs. Since the conduct and presence of many people at a courthouse is often involuntarily and yet not part of the public record their privacy concerns, and even potential safety concerns, exceed third-party expression concerns.
- CobrastanJorji 3y ago
  > due to potential privacy violations This may be a thing people say, but it doesn't make any sense to me. The whole premise of the legal system is that it's public. Closed door procedures are the exception. You can generally walk in to nearly any courtroom, observe the whole thing, write down what everybody said, and publish it, and that's 100% legal. So the "no cameras because it might violate privacy" argument always felt weird to me.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    But you can't walk in and demand to see the jurors' IDs.
    - CobrastanJorji 3y ago
      But if it was somehow important to privacy, for example because maybe you could ID jurors, than they would never allow cameras in there, but many judges do allow cameras. Why is it up to the judges if there's an important reason for it?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I see a really huge difference between being able to observe something and being able to record the thing. The latter is so much more intrusive than the former that different standards should apply.
    - 3y ago
notacoward 3y ago
Cue the copyrighted music playing 24/7 in NYPD stations in 3, 2, 1, ... No, I'm not joking. This is a real thing that has happened elsewhere, using copyright law to take down evidence of police misbehavior. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/15/california-police-disney-music-investigation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/15/california-p...
chimeracoder 3y ago
It's a good ruling, but the NYPD will almost certainly ignore it. The worst part is that any restitution will come in the form of fines, which are paid not by police officers, but by taxpayers. NYPD officers can break the law with complete impunity, because a third party (the taxpayers) is paying for both their legal fees and any punitive fines.
- LegitShady 3y ago
  The activist that fought this in court and won will come back and do it again.
yieldcrv 3y ago
the public needs something on par with Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) (for the uninitiated, many state corporations and agencies have judges on staff and inhouse that can hear an agency’s case the same day, getting emergency injunctions done at a moment’s notice.) it would be cool if this was like a perk with unions or something that wouldnt get too bogged down by the general public immediately, but for the general public.
sys_64738 3y ago
NYPD will take you down violently if you show them any lip. No silly regulations will get in their way of running your ID if you catch their gaze.
Mobil1 3y ago
[dead]

260 points by danso 3y ago

Good. Barring any attempts to hinder a police investigation or crime scene, the right to record law passed in NY should be absolute. I see no reason why it's a bad thing to keep law enforcement honest and make sure their actions are legal and above board....because otherwise, their mistakes and ignorance of the law can cost the public money. It also allows the good folks within police departments to have a straightforward way to root out the bad folks and the corruption that a police union might traditionally try to cover up. If I were a cop and I knew one of my coworkers was a bad apple, and might screw things up for me, knowing that they are getting recorded on the job would give me peace of mind.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
The only reason I see is if it captured citizens that don't want the fact that they were in a NYPD Precinct livestreamed.
- stronglikedan 3y ago
  It's a public place. If a separate law gave them a right to privacy then the police have to make accommodations to bring them into the station privately, like through a back door.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    My position is that it is good that everyone going into the precinct should be publicly noticed. Nobody goes in through "a back door". Nobody goes into police custody without the public knowing. Yes, this gets embarrassing. But it keeps people from silently "disappearing". If they're in police custody, everybody knows (or can find out).
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      Which is fine if you're being arrested, not great if you're trying to report domestic violence. I get it, it's better like this, but it could have secondary side effects for some people.
      - KennyBlanken 3y ago
        Trying to report any crime where the victim fears repercussions. Organized crime, crime by an employer, etc.
      - Kye 3y ago
        Every law is a balance with some compromises toward or against personal and public good. Some of that balance should include alternate channels for reporting things with hazards like this.
    - AniseAbyss 3y ago
      [dead]
  - fishtacos 3y ago
    To echo the previous reply, it's a ridiculous stance to defend absolving of documentation of their presence when all these situations involved taxpayer money. Whether it's an officer, a congressman,Trump under subpoena, or a random drunk ... if they are being charged with something, they are in the public record. That public record includes public documentation of where they were taken, why, and sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power. Otherwise, we don't live in a functional democracy. This is a good decision. It's sad the PD is appealing it, but not unexpected.
    - tzs 3y ago
      People often go to police stations for reasons other than being charged with something.
    - koolba 3y ago
      > That public record includes public documentation of where they were taken, why, and sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power. The problem for the specific case of being charged with something, or even a step before when someone is brought in for questioning, is enough to tarnish the person's reputation for life. If someone is brought in for questioning on suspicion of spousal battery, rape, or kiddie porn, that stink is not going to subside even if the officers or prosecutors later admit to being completely wrong.
      - fishtacos 3y ago
        That's a socio-cultural issue, not something related to what the law requires because it's the just thing to do. Otherwise, we'd have no knowledge of anything. We fought so hard (US-specific) for the FOIA and that barely even works. Crawling backwards into a decades of state and police corruption isn't the answer. I get what you're saying. There is an imbalance of power between the common citizen and state. Wanting transparency instead of the alternative because of abuse of power is precisely why this should be the norm.
    - barbazoo 3y ago
  - barrkel 3y ago
    What if a private organization set up cameras observing everyone walking every street and avenue, and stored facial eigenvectors of all the people walking there. It could then set up shop as a service, and given a picture of someone's face, tell you when and where they went anywhere on foot in NYC. It's all public, right?
    - wongarsu 3y ago
      That's what companies do with license plate scanners. I don't think faces would be substantially different in the eyes of the law. I agree that it's an issue. In Europe there is some expectation of privacy even in public and what you describe would be illegal.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        > In Europe there is some expectation of privacy even in public which is reason #1367 why the UK had to leave the EU. Thanks, I'll be here all week, until I die.
        jakupovic 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
      In thr US that is probably legal currently
    - roywiggins 3y ago
      It's being done for police, but I don't think there's any legal bar to selling this data to the public instead. https://www.404media.co/fusus-ai-cameras-took-over-town-america/ https://www.404media.co/fusus-ai-cameras-took-over-town-amer...
    - usea 3y ago
      The scenario you're describing is already the status quo.
  - omginternets 3y ago
    I think there's room for protecting people's public image so long as they have not been convicted.
    - heliodor 3y ago
      Are you saying that every crime punishment should automatically include loss of privacy? Cause that's what your statement sounds like.
      - omginternets 3y ago
        That's a very bizarre reading of this thread of conversation.
        heliodor 3y ago
        I didn't read it well, I guess. "Protecting people's public image" sounds much broader than whether an arrest or conviction is public record.
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        Every crime conviction is a public record, so that ship has sailed.
      - themaninthedark 3y ago
        I would say that we want to know what crimes our government is convicting people of. Otherwise, you can have the government arrest and convict some one of "secret" charges, perhaps in "secret" courts with "secret" evidence. The convicted just disappeared. I think we had something like that happen before, it caused a bit of upset.
      - AniseAbyss 3y ago
        [dead]
      - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
        I mean pretty much that's a cornerstone of our legal system. There's a strong bias against hidden courts where someone may be convicted in secret and punished in secret.
  - oneplane 3y ago
    The public place doctrine is uniquely weird (and American) in that regard. Being seen or heard by others in a public place should not mean that you, as a private person, also gets recorded.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      I agree. I think that US law is actively harmful in this regard. It should be possible to be in public spaces without having to worry about being recorded, either by authorities or other people.
      - ultrarunner 3y ago
        This reverses the subject, though: even if we grant that private civilians should have a (possibly limited) expectation of privacy in public, civilians acting in a public capacity, like the police, should not. Given the enormous power they have to act outside the law with impunity, removing the only check on that power— transparency into their conduct— would be a mistake. One only need to consider any of the many times police have been caught outright lying by video surfacing afterward to understand why.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        I agree entirely. We give police extraordinary power over us, and it seems completely reasonable that they have little expectation of privacy when using those powers.
  - qwertox 3y ago
    What a simplistic view of the world. "It's a public place.". Do I want to be there? No. Do I have to be there? Yes. Oh, the back door, right. And don't forget to make the appointment. Fact is, if I'm being there as a private citizen dealing with private matters, I don't want some person hanging around there filming me. And at least in Europe I have the right to expect this.
- JackFr 3y ago
  What about crime victims?
- themaninthedark 3y ago
  What if the mob is paying people to film inside the Precinct?
JohnFen 3y ago
I get the argument. This is a tough problem, though, because someone recording in a police building can easily prevent citizens from conducting their business in there. I know that if I saw some random person recording in the building (or in other sensitive places), I wouldn't set foot in there. I doubt I'm the only one. Particularly if someone is going in there to deal with an issue where they don't want others to know they're going to the police.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- MrDrMcCoy 3y ago
  I'm still in favor of absolute recording rights despite all that. You're quite right to point out chilling effects of active recording, but you have to also consider that bad police behavior is chilling in and of itself. People don't want to make reports when the police might make things worse or neglect things they're supposed to help with. Recording can help with that and will become less common as bad police are held to better account. Another thing that can balance that would be for police stations to have a reception desk with a transparent, soundproof box for citizens to make reports with some privacy and safety regardless of recording.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > Another thing that can balance that would be for police stations to have a reception desk with a transparent, soundproof box for citizens to make reports That doesn't really address the issue, though. The issue is that people can be shown to have been at the police station at all.
    - chrsig 3y ago
      Surely if it's that big of an issue they could call the police station and arrange a more discrete venue? Maybe in the best of times this would seem a bigger concern, but in the present day it definitely seems like there needs to be more pressure on police to meet minimum standards.
JackFr 3y ago
Should other people in a police station have any expectation of privacy? Victims of crimes? People who've been arrested?
- Kab1r 3y ago
  People who have been arrested don't usually just hang out in the lobby. There is no expectation of privacy in any public space
  - kube-system 3y ago
    That is not universally true, there are some expectations of privacy in some public places. For example, public restrooms, phone booths, dressing rooms, people's person, car, belongings, etc.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > There is no expectation of privacy in any public space But there should be protection against being recorded against your will.
    - drdaeman 3y ago
      In a public place? Why? If you’ve been somewhere others saw you, and it was a place where privacy is not expected (i.e. not someone peeking into your backyard or a bathroom stall), why should others be prevented from recording and retelling this, if they want to?

Lord-Jobo 3y ago

You are legally allowed to, but doing so may result in excessive bodily harm and weeks of incarceration, with low or zero repercussions for the police that do it to you. Until Qualified Immunity is uprooted, these lawsuits really wont do much to move a needle. Still a good outcome from the courts.

stronglikedan 3y ago
> may result in excessive bodily harm and weeks of incarceration It won't, because that's exactly what this law prevents.
- Centigonal 3y ago
  But... who enforces that law?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Contempt of court against a federal district court order? A hacked off (in the case of any actual violation) federal judge with pretty broad direct power, U.S. Marshals,.and, potentially, the applicable US Attorney’s office, FBI, and the rest of thr federal criminal law enforcement apparatus for any criminal contempt or other federal crime involved.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  The law has historically not been a significant concern for the NYPD. Put another way: this is a "win" in the sense that there's judicial recognition of the problem, but attempting to test this law is still going to get you harassed and potentially arrested. The question then becomes whether 24+ hours in jail is worth ultimately being vindicated in court. Compare recent attempts to get the NYPD to stop parking illegally[1][2]. [1]: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/01/23/tipster-sues-nypd-for-harassment-over-311-complaints-about-illegal-parking https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/01/23/tipster-sues-nypd-for... [2]: https://hellgatenyc.com/nypd-try-to-illegally-park-then-ticket-cyclist https://hellgatenyc.com/nypd-try-to-illegally-park-then-tick...

mc32 3y ago

In the UK apparently you can’t record past precinct property —which can be just beyond the sidewalk, or if there’s a gate to the parking lot… of if there's police activity on a public street. There's a guy who goes around challenging them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5G2mL_7BMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5G2mL_7BMg

resters 3y ago

One of the best things about Youtube (and now TikTok) is the growing popularity of videos that reveal the shocking extent of police misconduct. Thanks to camera phones we have all become outraged at the way may police treat black people, and I credit camera phones as the driving force behind the social movement now known as BLM. But the creators on TikTok and YouTube who focus on police misconduct are going beyond BLM and focusing on the routine, institutionalized bullying of citizens of all ages, races, etc. We should all be very outraged by this, and we should all rally to support these creators, BLM, etc. This is what the internet was supposed to give us. Better transparency into government misconduct, and defense against oppression committed against citizens by government.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
The only problem is there’s no step in social media to activate people to put pressure on the government to reduce police abuse. I want stuff like cops who beat their significant others taken off the force. Cops sent to jail if they rape or sexually assault their detainees. I want a reversion to the legal precedent that cops have no duty to defend civilians from crime. But there’s no way to do this without large popular action,. Hell even with BLM mass protests, no city actually defunded the police!
- nxm 3y ago
  Cops do not get sent to jail if they rape or sexually assault their detainees?
  - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
    In some cases no. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/this-teenager-accused-two-on-duty-cops-of-rape-she-had-no https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/this-teena...
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    Hah. There was a case a few years ago where a cop "had sex with" a female teen (minor but above age of consent) who was handcuffed and in custody. He argued it was consensual, and the court agreed. The sister reply has this stunning statement: > She had no idea she lived in one of 35 states where officers can claim a detainee consented. Why is any state allowing LEOs to have sex with detainees, "consensually" or otherwise?

Mobil1 3y ago

[dead]

logicalmonster 3y ago

I'm glad it's legal to film, particularly when you want to protect yourself when reporting a crime and you fear police reprisal for some reason. However, I can see some truly asshole-ish behavior resulting from this if the influencers get wind of this decision and they decide to use it to make content. Imagine some Instagrammer gawking at a crime victim on the worst day of their life as they go to the police for help and they sit there smugly saying "It's legal, fr fr bruh, no cap. on god". EDIT: IDGAF, just curious, why the downvotes?

JohnFen 3y ago
> I'm glad it's legal to film, particularly when you want to protect yourself when reporting a crime and you fear police reprisal for some reason. I am not glad it's legal to film, because of the risk of reprisal from criminals you may be going in to the police department to talk about.
pixxel 3y ago
> EDIT: IDGAF, just curious, why the downvotes?
gqcwwjtg 3y ago
The downvotes, I guess, are because this is kind of a silly concern. Steamers do rude things all the time, but that’s not a good reason to change the law to prevent everyone from doing the thing that seems rude in that case.

iandanforth 3y ago

The line between 'annoying ego-trip' and 'act essential for the preservation of freedom and democracy' is surprisingly thin. In many cases it boils down the manners and this guy seems to at least try to be polite in his videos.

intrasight 3y ago
Is thin or non-existent. But still VERY glad that these individuals do what they do. It's just one example of what can be done, besides voting, to uphold civil rights.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bdcravens 3y ago
they needn't be mutually exclusive
tehwebguy 3y ago
It’s vital and we need people who have the resources to be professionally annoying so that regular people don’t get caught up in this.

austin-cheney 3y ago

In most US jurisdictions it is still illegal to film within the confines of a courthouse, unless prior authorized, due to potential privacy violations, but anybody can film on the courthouse steps. These privacy violations may compromise persons charged with crimes, witnesses, jury members, court staff, or plaintiffs. Since the conduct and presence of many people at a courthouse is often involuntarily and yet not part of the public record their privacy concerns, and even potential safety concerns, exceed third-party expression concerns.

CobrastanJorji 3y ago
> due to potential privacy violations This may be a thing people say, but it doesn't make any sense to me. The whole premise of the legal system is that it's public. Closed door procedures are the exception. You can generally walk in to nearly any courtroom, observe the whole thing, write down what everybody said, and publish it, and that's 100% legal. So the "no cameras because it might violate privacy" argument always felt weird to me.
- thfuran 3y ago
  But you can't walk in and demand to see the jurors' IDs.
  - CobrastanJorji 3y ago
    But if it was somehow important to privacy, for example because maybe you could ID jurors, than they would never allow cameras in there, but many judges do allow cameras. Why is it up to the judges if there's an important reason for it?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I see a really huge difference between being able to observe something and being able to record the thing. The latter is so much more intrusive than the former that different standards should apply.
  - 3y ago

notacoward 3y ago

Cue the copyrighted music playing 24/7 in NYPD stations in 3, 2, 1, ... No, I'm not joking. This is a real thing that has happened elsewhere, using copyright law to take down evidence of police misbehavior. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/15/california-police-disney-music-investigation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/15/california-p...

chimeracoder 3y ago

It's a good ruling, but the NYPD will almost certainly ignore it. The worst part is that any restitution will come in the form of fines, which are paid not by police officers, but by taxpayers. NYPD officers can break the law with complete impunity, because a third party (the taxpayers) is paying for both their legal fees and any punitive fines.

LegitShady 3y ago
The activist that fought this in court and won will come back and do it again.

yieldcrv 3y ago

the public needs something on par with Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) (for the uninitiated, many state corporations and agencies have judges on staff and inhouse that can hear an agency’s case the same day, getting emergency injunctions done at a moment’s notice.) it would be cool if this was like a perk with unions or something that wouldnt get too bogged down by the general public immediately, but for the general public.

sys_64738 3y ago

NYPD will take you down violently if you show them any lip. No silly regulations will get in their way of running your ID if you catch their gaze.

Mobil1 3y ago

[dead]