5 ms·

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 fo

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 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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.
    - damoncali 15y ago
      That's not what I mean. Boil this down to it's logical conclusion. If a cop arrests anyone for something that is deemed after the fact unjustifiable, they should similarly be held liable for damages. I mean, why stop at taking pictures? Is it not just as much an inconvenience to be arbitrarily arrested for burglary? Throw in the culture of the police corps - and you could see a lot more "not my job" type behavior from the police. This sort of law could very well be interpreted as a slap by an ungrateful populace. I'm just saying there is a balance here. Us vs. them isn't likely to result in improvement. This law seems very knee-jerky to me.
      - rhizome 15y ago
        Don't change the subject, it's exactly what you mean. This law doesn't cover "anyone" for "something," it's covers photography, period.
        damoncali 15y ago
        You're missing the bigger point. Look at the message sent. It's bigger than some hippie taking pictures at an occupy berkeley event.
        rhizome 15y ago
        No, I'm not. I simply don't agree that there is a "bigger point" at all, nor that this is a slippery-slope that must be guarded.
  - drcube 15y ago
    You mean law enforcement officers might be required to actually learn what the law says and follow it, or else be held accountable?? I can't imagine how terrible that must be.
- kijin 15y ago
  > the officer's pockets will almost always be shallower than the municipality's That's why the law allows officers to be reimbursed by the department if they lose a lawsuit, provided that they were following appropriate guidelines. I think that's a very nice compromise, targeting both the officer and the municipality.
tonyjwang 15y ago
Even if you have a legal right to do something (e.g. taking a picture or standing on a street corner), you don't necessarily have a right to sue the police officer for a wrongful arrest. Police officers and other government employees enjoy considerable immunity from their acts in the course of their job, unless they act with a particular type of intent; the level of intent (purpose, knowledge, or recklessness), I believe, depends on the state jurisdiction. For Constitutional issues, I imagine it depends on whether you're suing the individual personally or the state agency, and lots of other things.
maratd 15y ago
> 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? Laws don't exist in a vacuum devoid of everything but reason. They are crafted to encourage or discourage the norm. If you point a camera at a cop, he will tell you to put it away. If you don't, you will likely be arrested. For what? For being disorderly, since you're not following his instruction. Now, is the prosecutor going to pursue it? No, because as you said, the law clearly states you can do that. But guess what? Your ass just spent the weekend in jail. And no, you won't be compensated for it. This law creates a strong dis-incentive for the police officer to do that to you. I only wish similar laws were introduced in my home state of New Jersey. Here is a fine example from my state: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/people_arrested_on_minor_charg.html http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/people_arrested_on_... Read a bit below the Supreme Court decision. This man was abused, arrested, strip searched, and thrown in jail ... because the police officer thought he didn't pay some fine, when he in fact paid it.
- artmageddon 15y ago
  Also a fellow New Jersian(not sure what the proper term is for this!), I hope we can get a law on the books in this state as well.
JackC 15y ago
What's going on here, as far as I can tell, is Connecticut is preemptively recognizing (by statute) a constitutional right that has been recognized in many courts around the country, but not yet in Connecticut. As really helpful context, take a quick look through Glik v. Cunniffe, which held that there's a First Amendment right to record police, and that police in the First Circuit are liable for money damages if they arrest someone for recording.[1] Seriously, take a look, it's a great statement of what the Constitution is all about -- the First Amendment stuff starts on page 8. The background is that police officers are ordinarily not liable for harm committed in the course of doing their job. This is called "qualified immunity," and without it you'd be crazy to be a police officer. But it's "qualified" because they are liable if they violate a "clearly established" right. Under Federal law, if they do that you can sue them for damages.[2] What Glik held is that the right to record police officers is a clearly established First Amendment right. That means anyone who gets arrested for recording police officers has their clearly established constitutional rights violated, and can sue. This is probably (hopefully) true anywhere in the country. But so far it's only been tested in the First Circuit and a handful of other courts. What Connecticut is doing here is basically preemptively recognizing the right without the need for a test case in their jurisdiction. It's a very cool move. (On the other hand, if they don't pass this law, that doesn't mean you can't sue police officers who arrest you for recording. Seriously, read Glik.) [1] http://www.righttorecord.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/10-1764P-01A.pdf http://www.righttorecord.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/10-1... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983#As_Later_Amended_and_Placed_in_U.S._Code_as_Section_1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983#As_Later_Amended_a...
- excuse-me 15y ago
  Yes - I realize this is either a cynical political game to make a politician look like a champion of freedom / a salutary reminder to the police about the constitution (delete as appropriate) Of course any police officer that can't think of a dozen things to arrest someone for - probably wouldn't be on the street anyway!

rohansingh 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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.
  - damoncali 15y ago
    That's not what I mean. Boil this down to it's logical conclusion. If a cop arrests anyone for something that is deemed after the fact unjustifiable, they should similarly be held liable for damages. I mean, why stop at taking pictures? Is it not just as much an inconvenience to be arbitrarily arrested for burglary? Throw in the culture of the police corps - and you could see a lot more "not my job" type behavior from the police. This sort of law could very well be interpreted as a slap by an ungrateful populace. I'm just saying there is a balance here. Us vs. them isn't likely to result in improvement. This law seems very knee-jerky to me.
    - rhizome 15y ago
      Don't change the subject, it's exactly what you mean. This law doesn't cover "anyone" for "something," it's covers photography, period.
      - damoncali 15y ago
        You're missing the bigger point. Look at the message sent. It's bigger than some hippie taking pictures at an occupy berkeley event.
        rhizome 15y ago
        No, I'm not. I simply don't agree that there is a "bigger point" at all, nor that this is a slippery-slope that must be guarded.
- drcube 15y ago
  You mean law enforcement officers might be required to actually learn what the law says and follow it, or else be held accountable?? I can't imagine how terrible that must be.
kijin 15y ago
> the officer's pockets will almost always be shallower than the municipality's That's why the law allows officers to be reimbursed by the department if they lose a lawsuit, provided that they were following appropriate guidelines. I think that's a very nice compromise, targeting both the officer and the municipality.

tonyjwang 15y ago

Even if you have a legal right to do something (e.g. taking a picture or standing on a street corner), you don't necessarily have a right to sue the police officer for a wrongful arrest. Police officers and other government employees enjoy considerable immunity from their acts in the course of their job, unless they act with a particular type of intent; the level of intent (purpose, knowledge, or recklessness), I believe, depends on the state jurisdiction. For Constitutional issues, I imagine it depends on whether you're suing the individual personally or the state agency, and lots of other things.

maratd 15y ago

> 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? Laws don't exist in a vacuum devoid of everything but reason. They are crafted to encourage or discourage the norm. If you point a camera at a cop, he will tell you to put it away. If you don't, you will likely be arrested. For what? For being disorderly, since you're not following his instruction. Now, is the prosecutor going to pursue it? No, because as you said, the law clearly states you can do that. But guess what? Your ass just spent the weekend in jail. And no, you won't be compensated for it. This law creates a strong dis-incentive for the police officer to do that to you. I only wish similar laws were introduced in my home state of New Jersey. Here is a fine example from my state: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/people_arrested_on_minor_charg.html http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/people_arrested_on_... Read a bit below the Supreme Court decision. This man was abused, arrested, strip searched, and thrown in jail ... because the police officer thought he didn't pay some fine, when he in fact paid it.

artmageddon 15y ago
Also a fellow New Jersian(not sure what the proper term is for this!), I hope we can get a law on the books in this state as well.

JackC 15y ago

What's going on here, as far as I can tell, is Connecticut is preemptively recognizing (by statute) a constitutional right that has been recognized in many courts around the country, but not yet in Connecticut. As really helpful context, take a quick look through Glik v. Cunniffe, which held that there's a First Amendment right to record police, and that police in the First Circuit are liable for money damages if they arrest someone for recording.[1] Seriously, take a look, it's a great statement of what the Constitution is all about -- the First Amendment stuff starts on page 8. The background is that police officers are ordinarily not liable for harm committed in the course of doing their job. This is called "qualified immunity," and without it you'd be crazy to be a police officer. But it's "qualified" because they are liable if they violate a "clearly established" right. Under Federal law, if they do that you can sue them for damages.[2] What Glik held is that the right to record police officers is a clearly established First Amendment right. That means anyone who gets arrested for recording police officers has their clearly established constitutional rights violated, and can sue. This is probably (hopefully) true anywhere in the country. But so far it's only been tested in the First Circuit and a handful of other courts. What Connecticut is doing here is basically preemptively recognizing the right without the need for a test case in their jurisdiction. It's a very cool move. (On the other hand, if they don't pass this law, that doesn't mean you can't sue police officers who arrest you for recording. Seriously, read Glik.) [1] http://www.righttorecord.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/10-1764P-01A.pdf http://www.righttorecord.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/10-1... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983#As_Later_Amended_and_Placed_in_U.S._Code_as_Section_1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983#As_Later_Amended_a...

excuse-me 15y ago
Yes - I realize this is either a cynical political game to make a politician look like a champion of freedom / a salutary reminder to the police about the constitution (delete as appropriate) Of course any police officer that can't think of a dozen things to arrest someone for - probably wouldn't be on the street anyway!