Is Recording Police Interactions a Felony?

[Evo]

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.

That's not the same thing. That was the guy's house and the officer was there to serve a warrant. And like you said, charges were dropped.

An innocent shopkeeper (and btw, jared is in the UK where they have the CCTV cameras everywhere) is not likley to be considered in a prejudiced position.

 

[FlexGunship]

I've never heard of videotaping being illegal in WA state.

Washington makes it a crime to intercept or record a private telephone call, in-person conversation, or electronic communication unless all parties to the communication consent.

Source: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/washington/washington-recording-law

 

[JaredJames]

and btw, jared is in the UK where they have the CCTV cameras everywhere

You have no idea. I can't remember the exact figure, but it's something like "a person in the UK (I'd assume a city) is caught on camera an average of 300 times per day".

We're a tad paranoid in that sense. But at the same time I don't see a problem. I'm doing nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide. The camera's, if anything, back that up if I'm ever accused.

Still excessive though.

 

[drankin]

Source: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/washington/washington-recording-law

Interesting, just a few weeks ago a cell phone videorecording of a cop punching a teenager was on the news. There wasn't any news of the person with the cell phone getting into trouble. I guess they only enforce it if they can get away with it. So, if you record something, post it as soon as possible.

Note the word "private". A public video may not apply to that clause.

 

[JaredJames]

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?

My answer was in regards to the specifics of the OP.

So far as an officers right to privacy, I don't think they should be protected. Especially when they are in such a delicate position when it comes to use of force and potential for abuse of power.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I'd encourage filming the police, but in the UK an officer can use what ever force they like, providing they can justify it. Sounds fairly obvious, but people truly believe the police can't touch them. In a documentary the other day, an officer described how he would "break your nose" if that was the only way to remove the threat you posed to him. All he would need to do is explain how that is all he could do to get you under control and he's safe.
Video evidence in that sort of situation could be extremely helpful, whether in helping the officers case, or yours. If you watch any recent UK demonstrations, you'll see both police and protestors with cameras darting around filming everything.

I'd also add that people really should stop the whole "we pay their salary" crap.

 

[drankin]

I'd also add that people really should stop the whole "we pay their salary" crap.

I disagree. They work for the public. They are payed to serve and protect. If this isn't acknowledged then the potential for a loss of respect towards the law abiding citizen can lead to an abuse of authority. IMO. It puts things in the proper perspective.

 

[NobodySpecial]

but in the UK an officer can use what ever force they like, providing they can justify it.

Sometimes they don't even need to justify it - they just let official justice take it's course
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274

 

[JaredJames]

I disagree. They work for the public. They are payed to serve and protect. If this isn't acknowledged then the potential for a loss of respect towards the law abiding citizen can lead to an abuse of authority. IMO. It puts things in the proper perspective.

You do realize that by shopping in a super market we are paying the wages of the staff? We pay a lot of peoples salaries, if anything, we pay the employees of small businesses far more directly than we ever do the police.

And for the record, the police don't have to protect you:

In 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#United_States
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

 

[drankin]

You do realize that by shopping in a super market we are paying the wages of the staff? We pay a lot of peoples salaries, if anything, we pay the employees of small businesses far more directly than we ever do the police.

And for the record, the police don't have to protect you:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#United_States
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

The police are payed 100% by taxpayers. They are public employees. Everyone contributes to their salary. When society forgets that the government works for the purpose of protecting the rights of the people, tyranny is born (IMO).

Anyhow, I believe there is a distinction between public videotaping and private videotaping. Public not falling into the jurisdiction of wiretapping laws. There is some gray area there and this is why consent is often required for filmmakers or those who videotape the public for profit.

 

[JaredJames]

The police are payed 100% by taxpayers. They are public employees. Everyone contributes to their salary. When society forgets that the government works for the purpose of protecting the rights of the people, tyranny is born (IMO).

And the guy in my local corner shop is paid by some other means than "customers giving him money for a product"? The police are just that. A service provided to the public, paid for by the taxes. Anyway, this is really off topic.

Anyhow, I believe there is a distinction between public videotaping and private videotaping. Public not falling into the jurisdiction of wiretapping laws. There is some gray area there and this is why consent is often required for filmmakers or those who videotape the public for profit.

Agreed, although I think the grey area is in concealment of the recording device.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'd also add that people really should stop the whole "we pay their salary" crap.

I disagree strongly. This was a critical problem when Plato wrote The Republic. How can you give 100% power to enforce laws to a specific group of individuals and ensure that they, themselves, don't abuse that power? Plato's answer was the famous noble lie. In our society, the noble lie is a real truth.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The public does. We pay their salaries and if we give up the right to cut them off from their salaries for poor job performance, then we give up the right to stop abuse of power.

We're a tad paranoid in that sense. But at the same time I don't see a problem. I'm doing nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide.

Yikes. I actually hate the premise you're working on. It's the same idea as disclosing all of your purchases to the IRS for tax purposes. The IRS, during an audit, is legally empowered to review any purchase you made as it pertains to your taxes. Even if you have "nothing to hide" you have to understand what an invasion of privacy that is.

Step 1) Give up privacy.

That's where I lose faith in the system.

As far as your specific scenario, Jared, the cameras are a more "public watching the public" affair. Good for privacy? Not really. But it's not actually an invasion of privacy.

You do realize that by shopping in a super market we are paying the wages of the staff?

Absolutely! Have you ever been beaten up by a cashier for exact change only to complain to the manager and NOT HAVE THE CASHIER FIRED?! Jared, your analogy is PERFECT, but it's arguing against your point, not in favor of it.

A cashier doesn't usually have as many guns as a police officer, by the way.

 

[JaredJames]

I disagree strongly. This was a critical problem when Plato wrote The Republic. How can you give 100% power to enforce laws to a specific group of individuals and ensure that they, themselves, don't abuse that power? Plato's answer was the famous noble lie. In our society, the noble lie is a real truth.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The public does. We pay their salaries and if we give up the right to cut them off from their salaries for poor job performance, then we give up the right to stop abuse of power.

Absolutely! Have you ever been beaten up by a cashier for exact change only to complain to the manager and NOT HAVE THE CASHIER FIRED?!

Jared, your analogy is PERFECT, but it's arguing against your point, not in favor of it.

If the police use unjustified force, you complain to the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) in Britain and they take the matter up. Police can be fired for it or face penalty. They aren't above the law. The police can't simply beat someone up (unless the US has given so much 'freedom' they can). I don't know if you have an IPCC equivalent over in the states, if not, I'd say your bigger concern is why there isn't an independent authority for 'guarding the guardians'. To believe the police are above the law is ridiculous and they certainly shouldn't believe so. There needs to be a system in place that ensures they can't abuse their power.

It doesn't argue against me. The fact you are paying someones salary (not in the boss:worker sense) does not mean you have any power over them. Period.
Private businesses want to keep you spending with them and so do things to ensure that happens.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'd say your bigger concern is why there isn't an independent authority for 'guarding the guardians'. To believe the police are above the law is ridiculous and they certainly shouldn't believe so. There needs to be a system in place that ensures they can't abuse their power.

Yeah. Video cameras seem to work.

...oooohhhh...

 

[JaredJames]

Yeah. Video cameras seem to work.

...oooohhhh...

No ooh about it. There is a legal path people in the UK can take if they want to complain about the police, the IPCC.

The fact it would appear the states doesn't have an equivalent body and they make it illegal to film a cop is rather worrying. It's like they're trying to cover up what the police do.

 

[vela]

The "we pay their salary" argument is pretty weak, actually. Suppose the government used a lottery instead of taxing to fund the police department. Does that mean only people who buy lottery tickets should be immune from police abuse? Obviously not. It only matters that the police are, as part of the government, public servants.

 

[JaredJames]

The "we pay their salary" argument is pretty weak, actually. Suppose the government used a lottery instead of taxing to fund the police department. Does that mean only people who buy lottery tickets should be immune from police abuse? Obviously not. It only matters that the police are, as part of the government, public servants.

Forget lottery, what about those who don't pay tax?

 

[Char. Limit]

No ooh about it. There is a legal path people in the UK can take if they want to complain about the police, the IPCC.

The fact it would appear the states doesn't have an equivalent body and they make it illegal to film a cop is rather worrying. It's like they're trying to cover up what the police do.

Which is what I believe, and why I don't trust policemembers.

 

[Al68]

It seems to me that a "public" servant in a "public" environment has forfieted any right to visual privacy by being in "public"...

I agree, but would extend it to being in private, too. If a police officer enters private property as part of his job, he still has no right to privacy, and any video/audio recording by the property owner/resident should be fine.

 

[Mathnomalous]

I agree, but would extend it to being in private, too. If a police officer enters private property as part of his job, he still has no right to privacy, and any video/audio recording by the property owner/resident should be fine.

I think Dateline's To Catch a Predator uses a justification similar to what you just expressed. I cannot imagine a sexual predator agreeing to have his mugshot shown on national TV. I might be wrong.

 

[Proton Soup]

That's not the same thing. That was the guy's house and the officer was there to serve a warrant. And like you said, charges were dropped.

An innocent shopkeeper (and btw, jared is in the UK where they have the CCTV cameras everywhere) is not likley to be considered in a prejudiced position.

i don't see the point. an officer serving a warrant is always in a prejudiced position. the very fact that prejudice is involved is reason enough to make an unprejudiced record of the event.

 

[Proton Soup]

Forget lottery, what about those who don't pay tax?

in the US, those seem to be the people that have the most interaction with law enforcement.

 

[mugaliens]

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

Nope. I'm a writer, and got tired of both carrying around a notebook, writing it in, and laboriously typing up what I wrote. It's a lot easier to have Dragon simply convert the clips into searcheable text.

I simply figured as long as I'm carrying it around, why not have it running, just in case? As for encounters, I don't expect any adverse encounters here in Colorado, at least not with law enforcement. I know several of the officers assigned to the local division, less than a mile from where I live.

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

In what way?

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

No worries. :)

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.

Good points.

 

[JaredJames]

Nope. I'm a writer, and got tired of both carrying around a notebook, writing it in, and laboriously typing up what I wrote. It's a lot easier to have Dragon simply convert the clips into searcheable text.

I simply figured as long as I'm carrying it around, why not have it running, just in case? As for encounters, I don't expect any adverse encounters here in Colorado, at least not with law enforcement. I know several of the officers assigned to the local division, less than a mile from where I live.

Sorry, I misinterpretted 'carrying' as referring to guns not the recorder. Apologies.

In what way?

Well I see a country where people will sue for pretty much anything, and so people feel the need to cover themselves via such means as recording devices. (Unfortunately, this sueing culture is extending to Britain.)

 

[FlexGunship]

Well I see a country where people will sue for pretty much anything, and so people feel the need to cover themselves via such means as recording devices. (Unfortunately, this sueing culture is extending to Britain.)

I'll sue you for that!

 

[Evo]

Sorry, that was a highly biased source. You can repost with a mainstream news source that contains all information. Also, don't repost unless there is actually a charge for videotaping.

No one denies that police abuse their power or that in stressful situations make poor decisions. Those videos didn't show any wrong doing on the part of the officer and your link didn't show any charges for videotaping.

Also, California is a two party consent state.

Laws need to be changed, but our country allows states to make individual laws.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Sorry, that was a highly biased source. You can repost with a mainstream news source that contains all information.

It looks like most newspapers are just syndicating the LA Times story. Here's one that isn't:
http://citywatchla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4289

I haven't read it or the LA Times story (other than the first page).

 

[Proton Soup]

here's a site that reports on this sort of thing

http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248"

 

[FlexGunship]

Reviving this thread because of a newly released story!

Source: http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/2...-public-places-and-outside-federal-buildings/

There is a link to the actual settlement on that site (which is why I chose to include it instead of other news sources).

Officers should not seize the camera or its contents, and must be cautious not to give such ‘orders’ to a photographer to erase the contents of a camera, as this constitutes a seizure or detention.

(Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39623305/Federal-Courthouse-Photography-Settlement)

 

[Alfi]

from Stranger in a Strange Land by R.H.H
Stranger in a Strange Land is a 1961 science fiction novel by American author Robert A. Heinlein.
In this book the author introduces a concept. The Fair Witness.
Fair Witness is a fictional profession invented for the novel. A Fair Witness is an individual trained to observe events and report exactly what he or she sees and hears, making no extrapolations or assumptions. An eidetic memory is a prerequisite for the job, although this may be attainable with suitable training.

Having read this thread, I am surprised that no one mentioned this possibility. Cameras are a possible source for this profession, in that they can stream video to a secure site that are 'read only' and therefore could be offered in courts of law as irrefutable evidence. No manipulation possible being the key point. As Evo pointed out earlier. post #34
Fair Witnesses are prohibited from drawing conclusions about what they observe. Video does this.
It may not offer a complete story about the instance, but it is not subject to memory lose or bias.

Perhaps technology has caught up with Sci-Fi ... or soon will.

 

[JaredJames]

Video can be easily manipulated these days. This secure storage you speak of, someone must have access (even if only for maintenance) and therefore 'admin' rights on it. Nothing is full proof.

Video can be subject to problems of its own.

It may catch me and you interacting, but it may not see the specifics. Leaving things open to interpretation, and therefore a potential bias.

 

[Proton Soup]

we've had a couple of officers here local going to trial for beating a guy who was unconscious. the Fair Witness in this case is the camera on the dash of the patrol car. if you want to see, just look for david wayne doran and barrett g. dewitt.

 

[nismaratwork]

It may not be proof, but it's a powerful to tool to reduce the natural asymmetry between the implicit trust placed in an officer's testimony, and the need for that to at least match observation.

Proof? No, but a very valuable data-point, and in practice, a means of inducing prosecution were it may not have otherwise been pursued.

 

[DanP]

It may not be proof, but it's a powerful to tool to reduce the natural assymetry between the implicit trust placed in an officer's testimony, and the need for that to at least match observation.

A judge's business is not to place implicit trust in anything. The testimony of an officer of the law is no more valuable than the testimony of your average Joe on the streets.

Law Enforcement is probably the profession most exposed to corruption from all the professions on this Earth. Some of the individuals which take part in it are not very different by the very man they are payed to hunt down.

 

[nismaratwork]

A judge's business is not to place implicit trust in anything. The testimony of an officer of the law is no more valuable than the testimony of your average Joe on the streets.

Law Enforcement is probably the profession most exposed to corruption from all the professions on this Earth. Some of the individuals which take part in it are not very different by the very man they are payed to hunt down.

Yet in practice, it is.

edit: Hence the asymmetry I was talking about correcting.

 

[mugaliens]

Video can be easily manipulated these days.

Not as easy as Hollywood may lead people to believe, and certainly very time-consuming to get things to the point where most people could no longer tell it'd been manipulated. The Matrix was shot in far less time than it took for it's post-production special effects.

This secure storage you speak of, someone must have access (even if only for maintenance) and therefore 'admin' rights on it. Nothing is full proof.

Nothing is fool proof, but video streamed live to a respected/trusted third-party storage company can be electronically "sealed" until such time as a specialist from that company can appear in trial and testify the date/time it was taken, when they received it, and whether or not anyone has accessed it since then. It's primary use would be to play it alongside the original recording from the camera to verify the original tape had remained free from tampering.

Video can be subject to problems of its own.

It may catch me and you interacting, but it may not see the specifics. Leaving things open to interpretation, and therefore a potential bias.

This is partially true. There was a recent case in Seattle (I think) where a law enforcement officer shot a whittling homeless man five times in the side of his chest. The dash cam shows the man crossing the street while whittling, passing to the right, out of the field of view, and the LEO chasing after him. It also recorded the LEO's audio. From what I recall, the LEO is suspended without pay, no badge/gun, and the case is pending further investigation.

The the LEO's dash cam were the only evidence, it wouldn't have gone down like this. As it turns out, there were two eyewitnesses who refused the LEO's testimony, and a few days later, another video angle from a nearby security camera told the rest of the story.

In the meantime, there are forensic videologists specifically trained to interpret what's being seen in a video, particularly when the quality or angle isn't quite right, and report the same in courts of law.