Is Recording Police Interactions a Felony?

[FlexGunship]

As I said, if he wants to extend the topic to other countries instead of focusing on the US, fine, then post facts about the laws on filming police in those countries. Now I see the OP has changed the topic from filming police to international human rights.

The one measure by which citizens can decrease police misconduct is by holding police accountable for their actions. Since police are given preferable treatment in the judicial system, the only means to do this is by video recording (or audio recording) the actions of the police.

This is a felony.

Forgive me for being so abstruse, although, I actually thought I had tied the topics together in a fairly significant way by establishing:

First: That police misconduct is a human rights offence (i.e. not trivial)
Second: That the manner in which to curb police misconduct is by recording their actions
Third: That recording police action is a felony​

 

[FlexGunship]

Have we switched topics now? I don't see anything about someone being arrested for filming.

There's an intermediate link in the chain. Arresting someone for filming is not the violation (well, arguably). But filming is the means for moderating the violations. The means for moderation is a felony.

 

[Evo]

Wouldn't a more constructive discussion be around what should be done as in the article I linked to?

“Police are not used to ceding power, and these tools are forcing them to cede power,’’ said David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

Ardia said the proliferation of cellphone and other technology has equipped people to record actions in public. “As a society, we should be asking ourselves whether we want to make that into a criminal activity,’’ he said.

In Pennsylvania, another two-party state, individuals using cellphones to record police activities have also ended up in police custody.

But one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed individuals’ right to videotape in public. Police in Spring City and East Vincent Township agreed to adopt a written policy confirming the legality of videotaping police while on duty. The policy was hammered out as part of a settlement between authorities and ACLU attorneys representing a Spring City man who had been arrested several times last year for following police and taping them.

 

[Char. Limit]

Wouldn't a more constructive discussion be around what should be done as in the article I linked to?

Police should get used to ceding power, because they have too much. Videotaping someone in public should never be a felony. Videotaping a government worker in his profession should also never be a felony.

 

[Evo]

Police should get used to ceding power, because they have too much. Videotaping someone in public should never be a felony. Videotaping a government worker in his profession should also never be a felony.

So do you think the solution in the link I posted is a good one?

Of course there do need to be some restrictions, as in not interfering while taping, and non-public figures have a right to privacy, the use of "public vs secret" is whether the camera and microphone are visibly out in the open or hidden, not necessarily in a public place.

 

[Char. Limit]

So do you think the solution in the link I posted is a good one?

If by "the solution" you mean this:

But one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed individuals’ right to videotape in public. Police in Spring City and East Vincent Township agreed to adopt a written policy confirming the legality of videotaping police while on duty. The policy was hammered out as part of a settlement between authorities and ACLU attorneys representing a Spring City man who had been arrested several times last year for following police and taping them.

Then yes, it seems a good solution. I would support it.

Of course there do need to be some restrictions, as in not interfering while taping, and non-public figures have a right to privacy, theu use of "public vs secret" is whether the camera and microphone are visibly out in the open or hidden, not necessarily in a public place.

I don't believe that it really matters if the camera is open or hidden. It's public anyway, so don't do something that'll embarrass yourself if it was recorded.

 

[Jack21222]

So do you think the solution in the link I posted is a good one?

Of course there do need to be some restrictions, as in not interfering while taping, and non-public figures have a right to privacy, theu use of "public vs secret" is whether the camera and microphone are visibly out in the open or hidden, not necessarily in a public place.

Non-public figures have no right to privacy out in public. That's why movie stars (and the people who are friends with them) get harassed by paparazzi all the time.

 

[JaredJames]

the use of "public vs secret" is whether the camera and microphone are visibly out in the open or hidden, not necessarily in a public place.

That is what I've been looking for.

Now, if you had a 'bent' cop who was taking bribes and you filmed his actions with a hidden camera to report him, would this be considered a felony?

Where do they draw the line? You are trying to prevent a crime by committing one. Seems like a tricky ground.

 

[Evo]

Non-public figures have no right to privacy out in public.

It is illegal without consent in a number of states, under certain conditions, such as making the video publicly viewable. Do you notice when you see a tv video in public and some people's faces are blurred out? That's because those people did not consent.

 

[Jack21222]

It is illegal without consent in a number of states.

I meant privacy in general, not referring to any specific existing laws banning any specific actions. You mentioned that there needs to be restrictions. Not interfering while taping is a reasonable restriction. A right to privacy in public is not a reasonable restriction in my opinion.

 

[Evo]

That is what I've been looking for.

Now, if you had a 'bent' cop who was taking bribes and you filmed his actions with a hidden camera to report him, would this be considered a felony?

Where do they draw the line? You are trying to prevent a crime by committing one. Seems like a tricky ground.

A legal wiretap is secretive audio and/or video that has been approved by a warrant. As far as your scenario, it would be up to a judge, would be my guess. I tried getting a single definition, but as I mentioned, in the US, we allow states and towns to make their own laws, so there is no one right answer.

 

[Mathnomalous]

The Spring City, PA and East Vincent Township, PA policy seems reasonable. In a public setting, videotaping police activities should be legal, even when a hidden camera is used, as long as the videotaping does not interfere with those police activities.

Police who are responsible and honest have little to be concerned about; police who engage in questionable, but not necessarily illegal activities, may be cleared by comparing the official video (e.g. dash cam) and the video taped by the private citizen; police who are "crooked" are the ones who will probably oppose being videotaped by private citizens.

Keep in mind, the people most interested in getting rid of crooked police officers (who get caught) are honest police officers. It only takes one dishonest police officer to cast a shadow of doubt over an entire police department. For example, LAPD after Rodney King incident.

 

[Char. Limit]

The Spring City, PA and East Vincent Township, PA policy seems reasonable. In a public setting, videotaping police activities should be legal, even when a hidden camera is used, as long as the videotaping does not interfere with those police activities.

Police who are responsible and honest have little to be concerned about; police who engage in questionable, but not necessarily illegal activities, may be cleared by comparing the official video (e.g. dash cam) and the video taped by the private citizen; police who are "crooked" are the ones who will probably oppose being videotaped by private citizens.

Keep in mind, the people most interested in getting rid of crooked police officers (who get caught) are honest police officers. It only takes one dishonest police officer to cast a shadow of doubt over an entire police department. For example, LAPD after Rodney King incident.

Or my hometown.

 

[FlexGunship]

Well, here would be my idea for a law:

For instances of interaction with a public employee during the normal course of work for that employee, recording shall be permitted if all private participants agree.​

That is to say, anytime a public employee (police officer, guy at DMV, town hall clerk, etc.) is doing their job, you only need to get the permission of the private citizens involved to get a legal recording.

EDIT: I was a victim of police abuse on two occasions. In one case a loaded gun was drawn on me by a street-clothes officer in a marked police cruiser (obviously, I figured it was some guy who stole a cop car) for loitering in a movie theater parking lot (i.e. waiting for my friend to get out of the movie).

The other time, I was pulled over by a Maine State Trooper who progressively increased my traffic violation until I finally stopped talking and said "thank you." I was speeding (70 in a 65), but every time I spoke, he raised it by 5mph. I finally shut up when get got near criminal speeding (85 in a 65). I tried to fight it in court, but it was my word against his, and I settled with a ticket for 83mph in a 65.

So, I apologize for the obvious bias here. It just sucks to think that if I had caught those instances on a camera and tried to use it as evidence in court, I would be charged with a felony.

 

[JaredJames]

EDIT: I was a victim of police abuse on two occasions. In one case a loaded gun was drawn on me by a street-clothes officer in a marked police cruiser (obviously, I figured it was some guy who stole a cop car) for loitering in a movie theater parking lot (i.e. waiting for my friend to get out of the movie).

Ah yes, the natural conclusion. Guy without uniform steps out of a cop car - must be stollen.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Or my hometown.

If Officer Hirzel's service weapon was the exact same used to shoot and kill Pastor Scott, then Officer Hirzel should have been placed behind a desk until the matter was cleared. Still, one imbecile seems to have ruined it for the rest of the department.

Well, here would be my idea for a law:

For instances of interaction with a public employee during the normal course of work for that employee, recording shall be permitted if all private participants agree.​

That is to say, anytime a public employee (police officer, guy at DMV, town hall clerk, etc.) is doing their job, you only need to get the permission of the private citizens involved to get a legal recording.

EDIT: I was a victim of police abuse on two occasions. In one case a loaded gun was drawn on me by a street-clothes officer in a marked police cruiser (obviously, I figured it was some guy who stole a cop car) for loitering in a movie theater parking lot (i.e. waiting for my friend to get out of the movie).

The other time, I was pulled over by a Maine State Trooper who progressively increased my traffic violation until I finally stopped talking and said "thank you." I was speeding (70 in a 65), but every time I spoke, he raised it by 5mph. I finally shut up when get got near criminal speeding (85 in a 65). I tried to fight it in court, but it was my word against his, and I settled with a ticket for 83mph in a 65.

So, I apologize for the obvious bias here. It just sucks to think that if I had caught those instances on a camera and tried to use it as evidence in court, I would be charged with a felony.

I think it should be legal to videotape any public employee working in a public setting as long as the videotaping does not compromise lives, sensitive information, and/or hinders said public employee from performing assigned duties. No consent required.

If the police can videotape me, I should be able to videotape them back.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Ah yes, the natural conclusion. Guy without uniform steps out of a cop car - must be stollen.

You do know plainclothes police officers must identify themselves as police officers prior to performing their police duties, no? That usually means making their badge visible and making a verbal statement identifying them as police officers.

A guy in plain clothes stepping out of a cop car will raise suspicion almost every time.

 

[Char. Limit]

If Officer Hirzel's service weapon was the exact same used to shoot and kill Pastor Scott, then Officer Hirzel should have been placed behind a desk until the matter was cleared. Still, one imbecile seems to have ruined it for the rest of the department.

There was also the Otto Zehm incident, which ruined my former trust in the SPD.

 

[FlexGunship]

Ah yes, the natural conclusion. Guy without uniform steps out of a cop car - must be stollen.

Can't tell if you're serious or not. So here are three cases of that happening in the last two weeks:

A New Hampshire man is facing charges he stole a police cruiser and then led officers on a three-town chase in another vehicle.

Source: http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...n_charged_with_stealing_police_cruiser_chase/

Bernard slipped by and eased into the driver seat of her squad car with the keys still inside.

According to Department of Correction documents, Bernard has a long criminal history that includes kidnapping, robbery, and theft.

Source: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=7792197&rss=rss-wtvg-article-7792197

Police were searching for a man who stole a Southfield squad car this morning from a Northland Mall parking lot after three men were pulled over in a vehicle reported stolen.

Source: http://www.freep.com/article/20101123/NEWS03/101123030/1320/Southfield-cops-recover-stolen-police-cruiser

 

[JaredJames]

You do know plainclothes police officers must identify themselves as police officers prior to performing their police duties, no? That usually means making their badge visible and making a verbal statement identifying them as police officers.

Very much aware of it. Gun drawn for loitering? Hmm. Perhaps there's more to it? But that's off topic. I simply made an observation based on what I'd read.

A guy in plain clothes stepping out of a cop car will raise suspicion almost every time.

Wow you live in one paranoid society. Do people steal police cars that often?

EDIT: Flex answered that. Not so much paranoid, more criminal society.

I'm still waiting for a rational argument as to why people shouldn't be allowed to film the police. And as such, why would such laws be passed in the first place?

 

[Mathnomalous]

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sections/zehm/

Well, seems like the SPD has severe institutional problems. 7 officers beating up a mentally disabled man? Wow... Incidents like that show private citizens need to videotape police activities more often.

On March 18, 2006, Zehm — who worked as a janitor and did not own a car — had gone on foot to an ATM at his bank to withdraw money from his account. Two young women, who were in a car at the ATM when Zehm arrived, erroneously reported to police by phone that a man was attempting to steal money from the ATM. The women followed Zehm in their car while reporting additional information to the police dispatch by phone.[4]

Zehm next entered the convenience store that he routinely visited to buy a soft drink and fast food. Video from the convenience store security cameras show that within sixteen seconds of the first officer entering the store, the officer had run up to Zehm, whose back was initially turned to him, and batoned Zehm to the ground - the first of at least seven baton strikes used on Zehm. Within another sixteen seconds Zehm had also been tasered. In addition to the multiple beatings and taserings, Zehm was improperly hog-tied by police and placed on his stomach for more than sixteen minutes. Furthermore, the police requested a non-rebreather mask from paramedics at the scene and strapped it to Zehm's face. The non-rebreather mask was not attached to oxygen. Zehm stopped breathing three minutes after the mask was placed on his face. When ruled a homicide by the county coroner on May 30, 2006, the cause of death was reported as "lack of oxygen to the brain due to heart failure while being restrained on his stomach." No illegal drugs or alcohol were found in Zehm's system.

Had there been no cameras..?

edit: had there been no cameras:

Police alleged that Zehm had "lunged" at the original officer with a plastic soft drink bottle. However, video of the incident withheld by the police for three months after the incident contradicted this police claim. Then-acting police chief Jim Nicks subsequently stated that he misspoke in alleging Zehm "lunged" at the officer.

That must have been a 10 L plastic soft drink bottle...

 

[FlexGunship]

Wow you live in one paranoid society. Do people steal police cars that often?

http://www.tremcopoliceproducts.com/articlesdet.htm

This site has a record of recent police cruiser thefts. Didn't know it existed until now.

Very much aware of it. Gun drawn for loitering? Hmm. Perhaps there's more to it? But that's off topic.

Unfortunately you had to put in a personal jab there. My friend was at a movie that ended after the theater's lobby closed. When I knocked on the door and asked an attendant what time the movie ended, they called the cops thinking I was going to harm someone leaving the theater. I should stress I never raised my voice, never spoke of violence, and had no weapons.

EDIT: Oh, it was his birthday, so we were going out for drinks afterwards. It wasn't random.

DOUBLE EDIT: Also, that was the point of me calling it "police misconduct." Because normally guns are not drawn to deal with loitering.

 

[vela]

I'm still waiting for a rational argument as to why people shouldn't be allowed to film the police. And as such, why would such laws be passed in the first place?

The laws being used weren't passed explicitly to prohibit recording of the police. They are laws against secretly recording anyone. According to the article Evo linked to early in the thread, some of these laws were in response to abuses by private investigators wiretapping individuals.

Obviously, these laws weren't meant to prohibit recording what the police are doing in public, but the police are abusing the laws to cover their asses and conceal any abuse of power.

 

[mugaliens]

The law in the US differs in each state, and even from town to town.

In some states it is illegal to make an adio/video tape without consent of both parties, in most states secret taping is illegal.

Actually, provided one of the parties to a conversation is aware the conversation is being taped (audio, video, or both), it's legal in nearly all states. Federal wiretapping laws are designed primarily to prevent a third party from taping conversations between people when none of the parties involved in the conversation are aware they're being taped.

It's why law enforcement loves it when a member of the targeted group comes forward and is willing to turn evidence in exchange for immunity, as they're able to wire the individual and obtain incriminating evidence on the others.

 

[mugaliens]

Actually, provided one of the parties to a conversation is aware the conversation is being taped (audio, video, or both), it's legal in nearly all states. Federal wiretapping laws are designed primarily to prevent a third party from taping conversations between people when none of the parties involved in the conversation are aware they're being taped.

It's why law enforcement loves it when a member of the targeted group comes forward and is willing to turn evidence in exchange for immunity, as they're able to wire the individual and obtain incriminating evidence on the others.

ETA: I just purchased a Sony ICD-PX820, which includes USB, MP3 recording, and feeds to Dragon NaturallySpeaking. Should be a handy device as I'm almost always carrying. In it's highest res mode, it'll hold 22 hrs of audio in its 2 GB memory. Relax to the max, and it'll hold 535 hours.

As a freelance writer, however, it'll see its greatest use, particularly with its D-NS integration.

 

[JaredJames]

Should be a handy device as I'm almost always carrying.

So you can carry guns freely, but also feel the need to have a recorder into cover yourself.

I must say, this 'American Freedom' lark sounds bloody amazing.

^{(This isn't an attack on guns before anyone takes it that way.)}

Anyway, back on topic...

How does CCTV work then? If you were a cop breaking the rules whilst speaking to someone you just pulled over, and some local shop CCTV captured it, where does that leave the shop owner?

I see a number of problems with these laws which to me, make them simply about 'getting revenge' on a person who catches a cop doing something they shouldn't be.

 

[FlexGunship]

How does CCTV work then? If you were a cop breaking the rules whilst speaking to someone you just pulled over, and some local shop CCTV captured it, where does that leave the shop owner?

I don't know the answer to this. However, if you tried to use it as evidence in court, the shopkeeper would likely be charged with wiretapping. He would also likely be acquitted because he has signs everywhere indicating the presence of cameras.

Just a guess.

 

[Evo]

I don't know the answer to this. However, if you tried to use it as evidence in court, the shopkeeper would likely be charged with wiretapping. He would also likely be acquitted because he has signs everywhere indicating the presence of cameras.

Just a guess.

The shopkeeper is not intentionally taping the officer, the officer in this scenario has entered the view of a static security camera. Big difference.

 

[FlexGunship]

The shopkeeper is not intentionally taping the officer, the officer in this scenario has entered the view of a static security camera. Big difference.

Is it? The case in Portsmouth, NH was the same. The guy just had CCTV cameras around his rental properties when he caught a detective's misconduct (http://fnhp.com/thelist/Nashua-Gannon_Karlis.html ). He was charged, and the charges were dropped.

I would think the same thing would happen to the shopkeeper.

 

[JaredJames]

The shopkeeper is not intentionally taping the officer, the officer in this scenario has entered the view of a static security camera. Big difference.

And the difference between this and the OP?

The biker didn't go out and intentionally tape an officer (I've seen nothing claiming this, so no reason to believe he did so). The officer pulled him over and approached him. Unless you can prove the camera was there to deliberately film the officer, that defence won't hold as far as I'm concerned.

If the bloke went up to an officer with the camera, fair enough he clearly was doing it deliberately. However, the bloke was approached by the officer.

It's like me sueing someone for filming me when I was the one who walked in front of their camera whilst they filmed their kid on a swing.

 

[NobodySpecial]

I would think the same thing would happen to the shopkeeper.

It would if say the shopkeeper's CCTV recorded the police officer demanding protection money.

CCTV is legal when it's helping the police, it's only wiretapping when it shows the police doing something wrong.

 

[Al68]

The biker didn't go out and intentionally tape an officer (I've seen nothing claiming this, so no reason to believe he did so). The officer pulled him over and approached him. Unless you can prove the camera was there to deliberately film the officer, that defence won't hold as far as I'm concerned..

Good point, but what if it was deliberate? Should a police officer have a "right to privacy" regarding their official actions during a traffic stop? Was the officer pulling the motorist over to have a private conversation with him?

 

[zomgwtf]

Good point, but what if it was deliberate? Should a police officer have a "right to privacy" regarding their official actions during a traffic stop? Was the officer pulling the motorist over to have a private conversation with him?

Nothing an officer does in public while on duty should be considered 'private'.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The law in the US differs in each state, and even from town to town.

In some states it is illegal to make an adio/video tape without consent of both parties, in most states secret taping is illegal.

So no buildings can have security cameras?
If you're in public, you're subject to be filmed, whether you like it or not.

 

[drankin]

Good point, but what if it was deliberate? Should a police officer have a "right to privacy" regarding their official actions during a traffic stop? Was the officer pulling the motorist over to have a private conversation with him?

It seems to me that a "public" servant in a "public" environment has forfieted any right to visual privacy by being in "public" with the people that are ultimately paying his salary. The police are in public because that is their job. Is my memory of seeing the police violating his privacy? Is my testimony of a cop in public violating his privacy? Video is simply a record of what actually happened. This must be a state by state legal issue. I've never heard of videotaping being illegal in WA state.