3 ms·

Except New York State law allows for that with no exceptions. From the article: > But there’s something far more local and specific that says the NYPD can’t d

Except New York State law allows for that with no exceptions. From the article: > But there’s something far more local and specific that says the NYPD can’t do this: state law. >> The Right to Record Acts allow for the recording of “law enforcement activity” and “police activities.” Defendant does not dispute that officers interacting with civilians in a police precinct are performing law enforcement or police activities. The Right to Record Acts do not carve out police precinct lobbies as places where individuals are not allowed to record and the Court declines to read that limitation into the Right to Record Acts. Citing to both Right toRecord Acts, the NYPD Legal Bureau Bulletin acknowledges that the right to record police activity “is codified in New York State and local law and extends to those individuals in both public places, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, as well as private property such as a building, lobby, workplace, or an individual’s own property.” NYPD Legal Bureau Bulletin at 3 (emphasis in original).

dghlsakjg 3y ago
Yes. It allows individuals to film police activity at all times. But there is also the restriction that he doesn’t have a right to be in restricted areas. So the solution is still the same, and still very simple. Allow people to make police reports in restricted areas, away from people filming, if they wish.
- pc86 3y ago
  The whole point is you can't do that because then de facto that police activity cannot be recorded in direct violation of state law. The solution is to clarify in state law that police activities in public can be recorded, and to specifically enumerate what police activities are allowed to occur outside of public eye, which should probably be limited to victim statements at the express request of the victim.
  - Pigalowda 3y ago
    What if they put a toilet and a sink in the room? Maybe they can report in that room without cameras
  - Zak 3y ago
    The text of the law[0] is definitely a bit vague with regard to whether inviting the victim of a crime into a private interview room and denying access to others would qualify as "interfering" with recording. I'm inclined to think that a judge considering the totality of the circumstances would conclude that it does not. [0] http://web.archive.org/web/20231012035050/https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S3253A http://web.archive.org/web/20231012035050/https://legislatio...
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > point is you can't do that because then de facto that police activity cannot be recorded in direct violation of state law This is an obviously absurd reading of the law. Police executing a search warrant doesn’t mean any rando can now enter that home and start recording. It means the people with access to that area have the right to record. In public, that’s anyone. In a restricted area that’s not.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    You’re making this harder than it needs to be. If you are in an area not open to the public, you can be told to leave regardless of whether you are filming. If you fail to leave, then you are trespassing. The fact of trespassing will override other rights. For example: you have the right of free speech. You don’t have the right to hold a protest inside of a Walmart. They can have the police remove you despite the fact that it infringes on your speech. They can’t stop you from filming, but they can stop you from going to private places where they don’t want you to film.
- tareqak 3y ago
  If a restricted area is in full view from a public area, then which area “loses”/gets demoted? In the case of a restricted area now becoming public because it is adjacent to a public area with no barriers, the participants and activities that requires whatever benefit afforded by the restriction lose e.g. privacy. In the case of a public area now adjacent to a restricted area in turn becoming restricted, then this method now becomes a way to close public areas and activities allowed in those areas on a whim e.g. the police playing copyrighted music when being recorded in an effort to get any uploads to YouTube being struck down by a DMCA copyright notice.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    This is already been ruled on in regards to the first amendment. If you can plainly see it from public, it’s considered public. For example if I can see into your living room from the public sidewalk, it is legal for me to look/record. There is a lot of nuance beyond that as well, but largely that is the way it works.

dghlsakjg 3y ago

Yes. It allows individuals to film police activity at all times. But there is also the restriction that he doesn’t have a right to be in restricted areas. So the solution is still the same, and still very simple. Allow people to make police reports in restricted areas, away from people filming, if they wish.

pc86 3y ago
The whole point is you can't do that because then de facto that police activity cannot be recorded in direct violation of state law. The solution is to clarify in state law that police activities in public can be recorded, and to specifically enumerate what police activities are allowed to occur outside of public eye, which should probably be limited to victim statements at the express request of the victim.
- Pigalowda 3y ago
  What if they put a toilet and a sink in the room? Maybe they can report in that room without cameras
- Zak 3y ago
  The text of the law[0] is definitely a bit vague with regard to whether inviting the victim of a crime into a private interview room and denying access to others would qualify as "interfering" with recording. I'm inclined to think that a judge considering the totality of the circumstances would conclude that it does not. [0] http://web.archive.org/web/20231012035050/https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S3253A http://web.archive.org/web/20231012035050/https://legislatio...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > point is you can't do that because then de facto that police activity cannot be recorded in direct violation of state law This is an obviously absurd reading of the law. Police executing a search warrant doesn’t mean any rando can now enter that home and start recording. It means the people with access to that area have the right to record. In public, that’s anyone. In a restricted area that’s not.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  You’re making this harder than it needs to be. If you are in an area not open to the public, you can be told to leave regardless of whether you are filming. If you fail to leave, then you are trespassing. The fact of trespassing will override other rights. For example: you have the right of free speech. You don’t have the right to hold a protest inside of a Walmart. They can have the police remove you despite the fact that it infringes on your speech. They can’t stop you from filming, but they can stop you from going to private places where they don’t want you to film.
tareqak 3y ago
If a restricted area is in full view from a public area, then which area “loses”/gets demoted? In the case of a restricted area now becoming public because it is adjacent to a public area with no barriers, the participants and activities that requires whatever benefit afforded by the restriction lose e.g. privacy. In the case of a public area now adjacent to a restricted area in turn becoming restricted, then this method now becomes a way to close public areas and activities allowed in those areas on a whim e.g. the police playing copyrighted music when being recorded in an effort to get any uploads to YouTube being struck down by a DMCA copyright notice.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  This is already been ruled on in regards to the first amendment. If you can plainly see it from public, it’s considered public. For example if I can see into your living room from the public sidewalk, it is legal for me to look/record. There is a lot of nuance beyond that as well, but largely that is the way it works.