cameras and cops

[justashooter 430]

Are Cameras the New Guns?

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state's electronic surveillance law - aka recording a police encounter - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, "Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals…." (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)

The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.

Glik captured a police action on his cellphone to document what he considered to be excessive force. He was not only arrested, his phone was also seized.

On his website Drew wrote, "Myself and three other artists who documented my actions tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law. The police hesitated for two months because they knew it would mean a federal court case. With this felony charge they are trying to avoid this test and ruin me financially and stain my credibility."

Hyde used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the police. After doing so, he was criminally charged.

In short, recordings that are flattering to the police - an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog - will almost certainly not result in prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple dissent.

A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.

Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an explanation: "For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man."

When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.

Happily, even as the practice of arresting "shooters" expands, there are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested "shooter," the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.

As journalist Radley Balko declares, "State legislatures should consider passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law enforcement officials."

Wendy McElroy is the author of several books on anarchism and feminism. She maintains the iconoclastic website ifeminists.net as well as an active blog at wendymcelroy.com.

The author of this post can be contacted at tips@gizmodo.com

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

Edited August 22, 2010 by justashooter

[TBoneTX 43,157]

Si, man, and sigh, man. It's a shame when we have to research our own state's laws before we know whether we have the "right" to protect ourselves against sub-police.

[damulag 26]

I guess that I should contest the red light camera video (Illinois) because I did not consent!

[BobandXiaomei 14]

I'd like to see those laws challenged. Police are public servants and because we give them the authority to be armed and make arrests they should be held to the highest standards. I don't know if the brutality is more common or not, certainly the evidence of it is more common as most anyone with a cell phone has a camera that take photos or even videos.

[Fandango 1,439]

Wow, that's interesting, and something I didn't know...

[BobandXiaomei 14]

I guess that I should contest the red light camera video (Illinois) because I did not consent!

Your city council consented for you. Many of these are going out after being in. These are for the most part private for-profit ventures which are sold as a benefit to the cities to improve public safety. Much of the fines generated goes to the private companies.

BUT ... they do work for the purposes intended; previously bad areas with monitors usually do have better compliance. I mean running a red light is pretty serious with potentially deadly consequences.

Back to topic. I don't know how a police officer (aside from undercover) could possibly say they have a right to privacy in making an arrest. Maybe someone from law enforcement here can make a compelling arguement for it.

Edited August 23, 2010 by BobandXiaomei

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So let's get this straight.

Cops are watching you 24/7 in some cities, yet cops aren't allowed to be videotaped?

Gee, sounds ilke a Police State to me.

[justashooter 430]

So let's get this straight.

Cops are watching you 24/7 in some cities, yet cops aren't allowed to be videotaped?

Gee, sounds ilke a Police State to me.

the pennsylvania state supreme court ruled in 1999 that an individual can film a cop in the performance of his duties in pennsylvania. that doesn't stop cops in PA from locking people up for a few days till it gets sorted out.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I guess that I should contest the red light camera video (Illinois) because I did not consent!

Technically they give you notice that you are on video (by law there has to be a photo enforcement sign at the intersection)

Anyway yes this is horrible! This will only increase the divide between police and the general population. I would say that the average law abiding person is already teetering between thinking of the police as a "public servant" & the "enemy".

[BobandXiaomei 14]

the pennsylvania state supreme court ruled in 1999 that an individual can film a cop in the performance of his duties in pennsylvania. that doesn't stop cops in PA from locking people up for a few days till it gets sorted out.

Yep! They use 'interfering with police business' as the cause even though most of those people are far beyond the action.

Funny how they don't arrest the news reporters when they are on site.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

So let's get this straight.

Cops are watching you 24/7 in some cities, yet cops aren't allowed to be videotaped?

Gee, sounds ilke a Police State to me.

So they can film us with their dash-cams but we can't film them?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I suppose banning people from filming the cops is one way to "solve" the problem.

[Harsh_77 716]

I guess that I should contest the red light camera video (Illinois) because I did not consent!

I think you should be able to, if you have a good lawyer and a ACLU with you then I am sure you will win the case.

The only problem is on redlight camera if they only caught your lic plate, then you dont need the consent, but if they had your face and were particularly blaming you for running red light then I think yes you can contest.

[damulag 26]

I think you should be able to, if you have a good lawyer and a ACLU with you then I am sure you will win the case.

The only problem is on redlight camera if they only caught your lic plate, then you dont need the consent, but if they had your face and were particularly blaming you for running red light then I think yes you can contest.

I see your point, you could not see my and only the vehicle owner get the fine no matter who is driving the vehicle. On the other hand I am not really complaining about the ticket when I logged into the web site and inputed my license plate and violation number the video evidence was plain as day, I would have given myself a ticket with what I saw.

[Harsh_77 716]

I see your point, you could not see my and only the vehicle owner get the fine no matter who is driving the vehicle. On the other hand I am not really complaining about the ticket when I logged into the web site and inputed my license plate and violation number the video evidence was plain as day, I would have given myself a ticket with what I saw.

I know what you saying and honestly I totally dont agree with this bull ####### where one needs a consent to video tape anyone out on the street, be it any civilian or police officer.

Street or public park are public domain and anyone should be free to video tape or take pictures. It is just like once you put your trash on curb it comes in the public domain and police or anyone can go thru it they wish.