9 ms·
NY Federal Court: There's a Right to Record Police, Also Inside Station Lobbies
- robbywashere_ 3y agoSure, but whats stopping the police from saying, "If you don't stop filming me i'm going to shoot you"
- cool_dude85 3y agoTheoretically, the same thing that stops you from saying it: you'll be charged with assault. Practically, the same thing that stops the police from shooting him: nothing.
- noodlesUK 3y agoHopefully the same thing that stops them from saying “if you don’t pay me a bribe I’m going to shoot you” or any other illegal order. The rule of law is important and whilst some of these auditors do unlikeable or distasteful things, if they are trying to stay within the law, they do provide a useful function of highlighting inconsistency between the rules as written and how they tend to operate in practice.
- tokai 3y agoYou know they keep shooting people and getting away with it right?
- zmgsabst 3y agoNo, not really: Of 10,000,000+ arrests per year, only around 1,000 end in death of which 20-50 had unarmed deceased. You’re more likely to die of a traffic accident this year (1 in 10,000) than die from police while being arrested unarmed (under 1 in 100,000). https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...
- tokai 3y agoOh yeah? And 99% of terminal cancer patients die too. So traffic deaths are irrelevant following your logic. A frequency argument is useless here. It happens that people get shot by police when it is uncalled for, with no consequences for the murder other than some paid vacation time. It is documented. This is not a discussion of what is most deadly or if it is common.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Sirizarry 3y agoAn traffic accident and a conscious decision to kill by an officer of the law is NOT equivalent. You can’t allay peoples legitimate fears of authority with a statistic are you mad?
- stonogo 3y agoAnd how many of them were punished for shooting someone? You've come up with evidence unrelated to the accusation. The accusation was that cops keep shooting people and getting away with it. The proper counterargument is to demonstrate that cops either don't shoot people or don't get away with it, not that they only kill a thousand people a year. Plus, I don't like this implication that anyone armed deserves to die. Being armed is a constitutional right, not a murder justification.
- codedokode 3y agoYou can avoid cars, do not jaywalk, be extra careful and look around when crossing the street to reduce this probability though.
- alex_lav 3y agoIt's funny to suggest that an 20-50 people dead while unarmed by people employed very literally to Protect and Serve is somehow not a problem.
- empath-nirvana 3y agothe getting away with it part is the relevant bit.
- tremon 3y agoThe law?
- ceejayoz 3y agolol https://www.propublica.org/article/new-jersey-law-says-criminal-cops-should-go-to-jail-records-reveal-they-often-dont https://www.propublica.org/article/new-jersey-law-says-crimi... https://www.propublica.org/article/what-police-impunity-looks-like-there-was-no-discipline-as-no-wrongdoing-was-found https://www.propublica.org/article/what-police-impunity-look... https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/fired-cops-routinely-rehired-dc-california-2022-11-07/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/fired-cops-routinel... Examples abound of police escaping punishment and accountability despite clear violations of the law.
- tremon 3y agoThat doesn't prove my statement wrong. Got any examples of something other than the law stopping police officers from doing bad?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- julienreszka 3y agoWhat is the second amendment
- hiatus 3y agoThe guy behind this, Sean Paul Reyes, has a youtube channel where he audits police activity called "Long Island Audit": https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe1IA5kmY578O_Qo7Skr-TQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe1IA5kmY578O_Qo7Skr-TQ
- underseacables 3y agoI think recording of police officers in public is absolutely allowed, but standing around the lobby of a precinct recording, that feels like a step too far. The article described the person doing the filming as an agitator, and I get why they are doing it, but the confrontational nature of the filming just seems like the wrong way to go. As the article discusses, I agree that a victim reporting a crime may feel very uncomfortable standing in the lobby of a police precinct while being recorded by someone.
- jawns 3y agoIt describes him as an agitator, but if you watch his videos, you'll see that he is not obnoxious or confrontational in his approach. He attempts to film in the least disruptive, respectful way possible. Yes, when police officers attempt to illegally restrict his right to record, he sometimes becomes indignant and calls them tyrants, but apart from that, he does not conduct himself in a way that would be characterized as provocative or goading.
- JohnFen 3y agoI think "agitator" is a reasonably accurate and polite way of describing him. > he does not conduct himself in a way that would be characterized as provocative or goading. Recording in a police lobby where there are citizens that are already in a vulnerable position and don't want their private business recorded and probably put up on YouTube or something is, in itself, provocative and goading. It doesn't matter how polite the person doing the recording is. That person is invading others in a way that is extremely objectionable. This isn't about the cops. It's about the other regular people who are there.
- jawns 3y agoI have sympathy for vulnerable people who might find themselves in a police precinct to either report a crime or seek other assistance. But preventing a person like Reyes from recording does nothing to resolve the privacy issue. Anyone who is willing to go through the trouble can request security camera footage. I think we also need to recognize that in a public place like a police precinct lobby, there are going to be some people who desire not to be recorded as a way of protecting their privacy, but other people who desire to record as a way of protecting themselves from police misconduct. Both have legitimate but competing interests. But the law explicitly protects the latter.
- jawns 3y agoOne of the key points this analysis fails to mention is that Reyes is an independent journalist, publishing content of public interest about government transparency, so the First Amendment implications extend not only to freedom of speech/expression but also freedom of press. Why does that matter? "That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society," wrote Justice Potter Stewart in Houchins v. KQED, Inc. (1978) In that ruling, the court noted that journalists do not enjoy privileged access -- that is, they don't enjoy _greater_ access to government-run spaces than the general public. But neither do they enjoy _less_ access. So if it is permitted for a member of the public to be in a particular location, then it is permitted for a member of the press to be in that location as well. All of the concerns raised about privacy implications, such as Reyes' potentially recording the location of security cameras in the lobby, are a red herring. A person with nefarious intent could very easily surreptitiously record that information without detection, or could merely jot down the details on a notepad and then disseminate them. But Reyes films conspicuously to highlight the absurdity of these supposed privacy violations. The Supreme Court has held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, and the government has a duty to _create_ privacy for private information, such as keeping sensitive documents outside of public view, or blocking the public's view of restricted areas, since merely viewing a restricted area from a publicly accessible area is legal, for as the law says, "the eye cannot trespass."
- voxic11 3y agoI always thought "the press" referred to the printing press and in a modern setting is taken to mean that the first amendment covers not only the spoken word (freedom of speech) but also the creation and distribution of media (freedom of the press).
- jagged-chisel 3y agoThat’s correct. But it’s not at odds with considering “the press” as “journalists and their publishers.”
- 3y ago
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> * Despite a pretty much affirmed right to record officers (under the First Amendment), policy directives reminding officers of this fact, and — much more importantly — a state law codifying this right, the NYPD still pretends it can control when and where it can be recorded.* Reasons include: Reprimand chances reduced by unions and internal culture, post-violation support by the same, ability to greatly intimidate most citizens without much consequence, lawsuit payouts get covered by taxpayers and more lenience from judges and prosecutors. If discipline leads to exiting a force, officers find uneven or no tracking of bad LEO behavior and plenty of other departments willing to pick them up. All of this is mitigated by the quality of a police chief and tons of random stuff out of the officer's control.
- sandworm101 3y agoWhile I support freedom of speech, I cannot bring myself to support these auditors. They all act like entitled jerks bent on provoking confrontation to generate clicks. I'm ashamed that these jerks are at the forefront of anything. In the past it was Hustler magazine fighting against a religious-political system styming freedom of speech. Today it is losers with cellphones fighting over their right to shout at people in libraries.
- ceejayoz 3y agoLarry Flynt was definitely a jerk bent on provoking confrontation. Cops who can't handle a jerk without committing a clear violation of the Constitution shouldn't be cops.
- sandworm101 3y agoFlynt confronted those in power, politicians and religious leaders. First amendment auditors provoke the meek, publicly-facing employees lacking any power beyond their ability to telephone police.
- ceejayoz 3y ago"Meek, lacking any power" does not describe the NYPD.
- sandworm101 3y agoI think it does. Street-level cops have no power over policy or politics. They can certainly seem very powerful on a person-to-person level, but in terms of government policy or national culture they are very small. Flynt instigated fights with far bigger things than local cops.
- ceejayoz 3y ago> Street-level cops have no power over policy or politics. Sure they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrolmen%27s_Benevolent_Association_Riot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrolmen%27s_Benevolent_Assoc... San Francisco's cops bombed the mayor's house in 1975. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Police_Department#1975_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Police_Departmen... These are big incidents, but their political power is quite clear on a regular basis. NY's police union head even spoke at the RNC in the last presidential election. https://nypost.com/2020/08/27/rnc-2020-nypd-union-head-says-democrats-have-surrendered-our-streets/ https://nypost.com/2020/08/27/rnc-2020-nypd-union-head-says-... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapolis-kroll.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapo... > They aggressively protect the rights of members accused of misconduct, often in arbitration hearings that they have battled to keep behind closed doors. And they have also been remarkably effective at fending off broader change, using their political clout and influence to derail efforts to increase accountability. > When liberal politicians do try to advance reform proposals, union officials have resorted to highly provocative rhetoric and hard-boiled campaign tactics to lash out at them. This past week, the head of the sergeants’ union in New York posted a police report on Twitter revealing personal information about the daughter of Mr. de Blasio, who had been arrested during a protest.
- xbar 3y agoWhat if we removed selective police immunity for First Ammendment violations? How well informed about enforcing the law would they become?
- Clubber 3y agoThere's a movement to remove qualified immunity and it's slowly gaining traction. These four states have abolished it: Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico. https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/frequently-asked-questions-about-ending-qualified-immunity https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability... >How well informed about enforcing the law would they become? I would say it would help. The reason bad cops misbehave is they have no accountability for doing so. It's not unlike refusing to punishing a biting child. Qualified Immunity is a good example of legislating from the bench.