7 ms·

Cops Would Be Liable Arresting Citizens For Recording Under Approved Conn. Bill

83 points by cwan 14y ago

MartinCron 14y ago
Looney also noted that interfering with an officer is already a crime and would remain so. The thing that always bothers me about the anti-photo/video side uses the bogus argument that people taking photos or videos will interfere with police business. If the photographer is being a material interference, they are committing a crime with or without their camera. Otherwise, just let them be.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  > he anti-photo/video side uses the bogus argument that people taking photos or videos will interfere with police business. that is a common pattern in authoritarian regimes -- a slew of catch-all laws that can be applied selectively. there is "interfering with police business", "interfering with official business", and whole set of others that can always be used to at least get you to the police station.
GoodIntentions 14y ago
Per the article, LEO has immunity: "if they were acting within their scope of authority and the conduct was not willful, wanton, or reckless." I think this is pretty much the way it works everywhere in North America - sworn officers are ( rightfully ) immune to prosecution while in discharge of their duties. _unless_ their conduct qualifies as malfeasance. Arguably, ( in my mind at least ) arresting people for simply recording the public conduct of an officer already falls into this territory.
- rohansingh 14y ago
  The article does not say that they have immunity in that case. It says that can be repaid for any damages that they end up owing.
excuse-me 14y ago
I may be slightly confused here. If it is legal to do something - take a picture - then why do you need a specific bill to allow you to sue a police officer for arresting you for doing something that isn't a crime? Doesn't this get a bit infinite-set? Do you need a specific bill to allow you to sue a police officer who arrests you for doing anything else that is allowed in the Constitution?
- rohansingh 14y ago
  The difference is that here you are able to sue the police officer rather than the police department, as you usually would. The theory is that this will discourage officers from acting in a certain way, since they would be personally liable. However, one could also argue that this is bad for victims, since the officer's pockets will almost always be shallower than the municipality's. However, if this law were to pass, a smart attorney would probably file a suit against both the municipality and the officer.
  - damoncali 14y ago
    One could also argue that it's bad for victims of other crimes. If police are personally liable for everything, then I suspect the won't be particularly motivated to do anything. These ideas tend to come with unintended consequences.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      Oh please, the sky isn't falling. Rape is not going to go uninvestigated because a police officer can't tell someone to stop filming.
      - freehunter 14y ago
        Hopefully what it will mean is officers will have an incentive to actually learn the laws instead of guessing. This creates a disincentive to action without knowledge, and cops aren't going to want to do nothing.
      - 14y ago
Andrex 14y ago
Proud of my home state for once.
samstave 14y ago
Tangentially related personal anecdote: This morning on my walk into work, I passed two private security guards standing in front of Bank of America on Market Street [1]. I noticed they were standing on little rubber mats to reduce the strain of standing there all day - as I looked at one, I glanced to the other to see if he also had a mat and see if it was the same size as the others'. As I did so, the short asian guard said very intently at me, in a way he was trying to assert his authoritative role, and said gruffly "GOOD MORNING" and glared at me as I walked by - so I continued staring at him. I said back to him "What? Do you think I am not allowed to look at you now? What the fuck are you thinking" He glared at me with his hand on his gun. I wanted to go back and take his picture, but it would certainly aggravate this already moronic figure with an authority complex. [1]: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=one+market+sf+ca&hl=en&ll=37.793953,-122.395458&spn=0.001202,0.002642&sll=35.746512,-92.109375&sspn=129.750612,143.789063&hq=one+market+sf+ca&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.793921,-122.395497&panoid=4o82tBocunJTbJLY9EANww&cbp=12,104.59,,2,5.06 http://maps.google.com/maps?q=one+market+sf+ca&hl=en&#38...
- mc32 14y ago
  >As I did so, the short asian guard said very intently at me, in a way he was trying to assert his authoritative role, and said gruffly "GOOD MORNING" and glared at me as I walked by - so I continued staring at him. If that were my job -to guard a bank or whatever, I too would eye everyone with suspicion, as my default behavior. If I were a greeter, on the other hand, I would trust everyone as my default behavior. Maybe it's just me, but if I were getting paid to guard, I would at least try to do so. I don't mean I would be a dick to everyone, but I would certainly "watch" as many people as walked into my field of vision. I'm not sure acting relaxed and friendly and being off-guard would serve me in the capacity of being a guard. (Altho' I'm open to being corrected, if this assumption is incorrect).
  - samstave 14y ago
    If being looked at by a well dressed business man sets off your alarms as though you believe you are being cased, to the point where you feel you need to have your weapon hand at the ready - then screw that. Screw this guard and every single mentality that supports him and people like him. I am not a fan of the police state - and the last person I have any respect for is an armed civilian who believes himself to be some arm of the law. Simply put, he is a hired thug for the bank. I give him no greater mind, or respect because he is wearing military like clothing. Here I went back and took this picture of him: http://i.imgur.com/E0rjw.jpg http://i.imgur.com/E0rjw.jpg edit: and to be clear, if I were casing him - he would never know it. If I had bad intentions for him - clearly I would have used a moment like this where he was texting on his phone and oblivious to those around him to spring Operation Currency Liberation.
LyleK 14y ago
Does this mean you no longer need a permit to film in Connecticut? Ought to bolster the movie industry there.
- loumf 14y ago
  If you are making a documentary about the police doing their jobs, then I think you can go ahead. Not sure if you need permission from documentary subjects to show the film, but you can film it.
javajosh 14y ago
Does anyone have stats on how many people are arrested for recording police? Why (and why) did police begin to think that they could arrest people for taking pictures anyway?
- camiller 14y ago
  No idea on the stats, but there have been a few high profile incidents in the news in the last several years. For awhile police officers have been attempting to apply a personal right to privacy to their on-duty activities.
  - javajosh 14y ago
    Yes, those high profile cases always get my blood boiling - far more than the general public's blood, apparently. My question was supposed to be "When (and why) did police start arresting people for photographing them?" and while I don't have data to support this, I think it was a combination of a) Rodney King, and b) 9/11. The former incident demonstrated the power of personal video recording in creating problems for police. The latter incident gave police more confidence in an broader range of powers, including the tangentially related issue of enforcing ban on the photography of sensitive places (which is, of course, a rather stupid policy, but I digress). So, greater awareness of risk plus enhanced power yielded the application of that enhanced power to reducing that risk. Could there be anything more reasonable, more human, and more evil?
- rhizome 14y ago
  Why (and why) did police begin to think that they could arrest people for taking pictures anyway? Because they didn't want their pictures taken.
Spoom 14y ago
"...Under the bill, officers cannot be found liable if they reasonably believed that the interference was necessary to (1) lawfully enforce a criminal law or municipal ordinance; ..." Is there anything that would prevent a police department from convincing their municipality to enact an ordinance stating that recording of police officers was illegal?
- camiller 14y ago
  I didn't see a specific supremacy clause in the text of the bill, so probably that will happen, then the state will have to go back in a couple years and amend this to say that the state law overrides any municipal law.
- dhugiaskmak 14y ago
  There's no need because the next exception, (2) protect public safety;, is so vague that it makes the law essentially unenforceable.
ChrisNorstrom 14y ago
The more power you give someone, the more you have to keep an eye on them so they don't abuse that power. So I hope this spreads to the other states. It should be a federal law. All citizens should have the right to record police officers in public. We pay for them. They're job is to protect us. They are given a lot of freedom and power. And if they step over a line they should be punished the same way we would if we step over a line. Besides, photographing or recording people in public is perfectly legal. I always thought it was stupid how Britney Spears can be hounded day and night by paparazzi or the news can play your frantic 911 call, violating your privacy when you most expect and need it, yet in Illinois you record one officer while he's giving you a ticket and you get sent to jail with rapists, robbers, and crack heads.
tonystree123 14y ago
Your all a bunch of morons. Since when in a civilized society to you think it is okay to belittle a guy for doing his job? By your description, he was simply looking at you and did not say anything. You are both allowed to look at each other. Your interpretation of his look is just your opinion but it sounds to me that you were the confrontational one. In what world is it okay for you to challenge anyone about meer look and reply with obscenities "What the fuck are you thinking?" I would have to say that this security guards suspicion about you was dead on. Get a life please and do not waste anyone's time again with your stupidity. I'm sorry I took the time to read your post and am now dumber myself for it.

83 points by cwan 14y ago

Looney also noted that interfering with an officer is already a crime and would remain so. The thing that always bothers me about the anti-photo/video side uses the bogus argument that people taking photos or videos will interfere with police business. If the photographer is being a material interference, they are committing a crime with or without their camera. Otherwise, just let them be.

rdtsc 14y ago
> he anti-photo/video side uses the bogus argument that people taking photos or videos will interfere with police business. that is a common pattern in authoritarian regimes -- a slew of catch-all laws that can be applied selectively. there is "interfering with police business", "interfering with official business", and whole set of others that can always be used to at least get you to the police station.

GoodIntentions 14y ago

Per the article, LEO has immunity: "if they were acting within their scope of authority and the conduct was not willful, wanton, or reckless." I think this is pretty much the way it works everywhere in North America - sworn officers are ( rightfully ) immune to prosecution while in discharge of their duties. _unless_ their conduct qualifies as malfeasance. Arguably, ( in my mind at least ) arresting people for simply recording the public conduct of an officer already falls into this territory.

rohansingh 14y ago
The article does not say that they have immunity in that case. It says that can be repaid for any damages that they end up owing.

excuse-me 14y ago

I may be slightly confused here. If it is legal to do something - take a picture - then why do you need a specific bill to allow you to sue a police officer for arresting you for doing something that isn't a crime? Doesn't this get a bit infinite-set? Do you need a specific bill to allow you to sue a police officer who arrests you for doing anything else that is allowed in the Constitution?

rohansingh 14y ago
The difference is that here you are able to sue the police officer rather than the police department, as you usually would. The theory is that this will discourage officers from acting in a certain way, since they would be personally liable. However, one could also argue that this is bad for victims, since the officer's pockets will almost always be shallower than the municipality's. However, if this law were to pass, a smart attorney would probably file a suit against both the municipality and the officer.
- damoncali 14y ago
  One could also argue that it's bad for victims of other crimes. If police are personally liable for everything, then I suspect the won't be particularly motivated to do anything. These ideas tend to come with unintended consequences.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Oh please, the sky isn't falling. Rape is not going to go uninvestigated because a police officer can't tell someone to stop filming.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      Hopefully what it will mean is officers will have an incentive to actually learn the laws instead of guessing. This creates a disincentive to action without knowledge, and cops aren't going to want to do nothing.
    - 14y ago

Andrex 14y ago

Proud of my home state for once.

samstave 14y ago

Tangentially related personal anecdote: This morning on my walk into work, I passed two private security guards standing in front of Bank of America on Market Street [1]. I noticed they were standing on little rubber mats to reduce the strain of standing there all day - as I looked at one, I glanced to the other to see if he also had a mat and see if it was the same size as the others'. As I did so, the short asian guard said very intently at me, in a way he was trying to assert his authoritative role, and said gruffly "GOOD MORNING" and glared at me as I walked by - so I continued staring at him. I said back to him "What? Do you think I am not allowed to look at you now? What the fuck are you thinking" He glared at me with his hand on his gun. I wanted to go back and take his picture, but it would certainly aggravate this already moronic figure with an authority complex. [1]: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=one+market+sf+ca&hl=en&ll=37.793953,-122.395458&spn=0.001202,0.002642&sll=35.746512,-92.109375&sspn=129.750612,143.789063&hq=one+market+sf+ca&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.793921,-122.395497&panoid=4o82tBocunJTbJLY9EANww&cbp=12,104.59,,2,5.06 http://maps.google.com/maps?q=one+market+sf+ca&hl=en&#38...

mc32 14y ago
>As I did so, the short asian guard said very intently at me, in a way he was trying to assert his authoritative role, and said gruffly "GOOD MORNING" and glared at me as I walked by - so I continued staring at him. If that were my job -to guard a bank or whatever, I too would eye everyone with suspicion, as my default behavior. If I were a greeter, on the other hand, I would trust everyone as my default behavior. Maybe it's just me, but if I were getting paid to guard, I would at least try to do so. I don't mean I would be a dick to everyone, but I would certainly "watch" as many people as walked into my field of vision. I'm not sure acting relaxed and friendly and being off-guard would serve me in the capacity of being a guard. (Altho' I'm open to being corrected, if this assumption is incorrect).
- samstave 14y ago
  If being looked at by a well dressed business man sets off your alarms as though you believe you are being cased, to the point where you feel you need to have your weapon hand at the ready - then screw that. Screw this guard and every single mentality that supports him and people like him. I am not a fan of the police state - and the last person I have any respect for is an armed civilian who believes himself to be some arm of the law. Simply put, he is a hired thug for the bank. I give him no greater mind, or respect because he is wearing military like clothing. Here I went back and took this picture of him: http://i.imgur.com/E0rjw.jpg http://i.imgur.com/E0rjw.jpg edit: and to be clear, if I were casing him - he would never know it. If I had bad intentions for him - clearly I would have used a moment like this where he was texting on his phone and oblivious to those around him to spring Operation Currency Liberation.

LyleK 14y ago

Does this mean you no longer need a permit to film in Connecticut? Ought to bolster the movie industry there.

loumf 14y ago
If you are making a documentary about the police doing their jobs, then I think you can go ahead. Not sure if you need permission from documentary subjects to show the film, but you can film it.

javajosh 14y ago

Does anyone have stats on how many people are arrested for recording police? Why (and why) did police begin to think that they could arrest people for taking pictures anyway?

camiller 14y ago
No idea on the stats, but there have been a few high profile incidents in the news in the last several years. For awhile police officers have been attempting to apply a personal right to privacy to their on-duty activities.
- javajosh 14y ago
  Yes, those high profile cases always get my blood boiling - far more than the general public's blood, apparently. My question was supposed to be "When (and why) did police start arresting people for photographing them?" and while I don't have data to support this, I think it was a combination of a) Rodney King, and b) 9/11. The former incident demonstrated the power of personal video recording in creating problems for police. The latter incident gave police more confidence in an broader range of powers, including the tangentially related issue of enforcing ban on the photography of sensitive places (which is, of course, a rather stupid policy, but I digress). So, greater awareness of risk plus enhanced power yielded the application of that enhanced power to reducing that risk. Could there be anything more reasonable, more human, and more evil?
rhizome 14y ago
Why (and why) did police begin to think that they could arrest people for taking pictures anyway? Because they didn't want their pictures taken.

Spoom 14y ago

"...Under the bill, officers cannot be found liable if they reasonably believed that the interference was necessary to (1) lawfully enforce a criminal law or municipal ordinance; ..." Is there anything that would prevent a police department from convincing their municipality to enact an ordinance stating that recording of police officers was illegal?

camiller 14y ago
I didn't see a specific supremacy clause in the text of the bill, so probably that will happen, then the state will have to go back in a couple years and amend this to say that the state law overrides any municipal law.
dhugiaskmak 14y ago
There's no need because the next exception, (2) protect public safety;, is so vague that it makes the law essentially unenforceable.

ChrisNorstrom 14y ago

The more power you give someone, the more you have to keep an eye on them so they don't abuse that power. So I hope this spreads to the other states. It should be a federal law. All citizens should have the right to record police officers in public. We pay for them. They're job is to protect us. They are given a lot of freedom and power. And if they step over a line they should be punished the same way we would if we step over a line. Besides, photographing or recording people in public is perfectly legal. I always thought it was stupid how Britney Spears can be hounded day and night by paparazzi or the news can play your frantic 911 call, violating your privacy when you most expect and need it, yet in Illinois you record one officer while he's giving you a ticket and you get sent to jail with rapists, robbers, and crack heads.

tonystree123 14y ago

Your all a bunch of morons. Since when in a civilized society to you think it is okay to belittle a guy for doing his job? By your description, he was simply looking at you and did not say anything. You are both allowed to look at each other. Your interpretation of his look is just your opinion but it sounds to me that you were the confrontational one. In what world is it okay for you to challenge anyone about meer look and reply with obscenities "What the fuck are you thinking?" I would have to say that this security guards suspicion about you was dead on. Get a life please and do not waste anyone's time again with your stupidity. I'm sorry I took the time to read your post and am now dumber myself for it.