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."

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

Wow, I had no idea the gross absurdity of how bad this was. Shouldn't video record police be the same as photographing/recording any other civilian in public places? I could understand on private property, but how can the states override federal law in these cases? Mass/Ill/Maryland need to get their heads out of their asses, they obviously have somebody persuading their politicians into deciding in favor of the police forces.

I could understand the other side of the argument, how footage could be shown to depict things out of context to make the officers look bad; however, the news companies already do this with every other organization in the world (FoxNews), so why should one entity of the government be any different?

This reminds me of the censorship of when Bush and Cheney wouldn't allow the photographing or video of fallen soldier's caskets.

Pitiful.

Agreed. This is a serious issue. Public officials should be held accountable for their actions. It's all for the sake of covering the bad cops' asses.

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.

This is incredibly disturbing. The guy was protesting the requirement for a peddler's license basically, as stated later in the article. They dropped the misdemeanor and are prosecuting him of a felony. 4 to 15 years in prison, for recording the arrest? If you tell cops that they can confiscate and destroy any recording of them, and arrest the people recording them, you're giving them power beyond what they should have. And a lot of them abuse that.

As a fan of Power Rangers, I am very disappointed in these officers. To abuse the job as an officer of the law makes them twice as bad as the criminals they're supposed to bust.

They undermine all of the good cops and all of the incredible work they do. Most cops are dicks, but there are some good ones out there that truly want to serve and protect. The others just serve themselves and their own personal agendas. They make all cops look bad, unfortunately.

This is incredibly disturbing. The guy was protesting the requirement for a peddler's license basically, as stated later in the article. They dropped the misdemeanor and are prosecuting him of a felony. 4 to 15 years in prison, for recording the arrest? If you tell cops that they can confiscate and destroy any recording of them, and arrest the people recording them, you're giving them power beyond what they should have. And a lot of them abuse that.

There are hundreds of instances of where this can put completely innocent people into jail. As this may be the beginning of it, what happens when a tourist in Orlando, FL has their camera rolling and an officer is arresting somebody in the background shot of their video, and the police are going to arrest them as well? I'm suprised this hasn't been discussed on national media, oh wait, no i'm not.

If this takes a hypothetical turn for the worst, this is the beginning of the minority report? I guess we should've seen this coming after the patriot act was enabled by our government.

Cop punches 17 year old girl.

I'm impartial on this incident. She shouldn't have gotten involved first off, you subject yourself to getting slammed/kicked/tazed/maced whenever you interrupt an arrest; however, he shouldn't have thrown a punch. He should've just tazed her, bro.

Never hit a girl. Unless she has a knife.

I'm impartial on this incident. She shouldn't have gotten involved first off, you subject yourself to getting slammed/kicked/tazed/maced whenever you interrupt an arrest; however, he shouldn't have thrown a punch. He should've just tazed her, bro.

Ya I'm sorry ladies, but If I gotta put up with equal rights political correct bullshit with women, then they open themselves up to the same physical means of being subdued as does a man. The only thing that ought to be taken into consideration is the size of the woman, as it should be with any person. The same force needed to subdue a 250 lb person would not be the same as to subdue someone who is 120 lb. Since in general the weights of women are less than men, then this would obviously lend them to being subdued by less physical means (again, in general). In this case it seems fine. Notice after he did punch her, he didn't continue to hit her or anything, he simply did what he was trying to do in the first place.

Yeah, it isn't as if he had her on the ground beating the shit out of her. She interfered with a police officer doing his job, and he used a very swift and efficient punch to deal with her rather than start fighting with her like he was fighting with her friend. He was just doing his job, IMO. Anyone stupid enough to try to help their friend that is being arrested/dealt with by a cop by getting between said friend and said cop deserves a punch to the face.

I guess this could technically fall into this thread.

Remember a little while back of that leaked video showing the military chopper gunning down civilians? Yeah, well the soldier that was involved in leaking the video is now going to be charged.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/06...-video/?hpt=T1

The U.S. military said Tuesday it is pressing criminal charges against Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, 22, for allegedly transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. Manning of Potomac, Maryland, is suspected of leaking a classified 2007 video of an Apache helicopter strike that killed 12 civilians in Baghdad, including two journalists from the Reuters wire service, the military said. Manning was deployed with the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, in Baghdad, Iraq, according to the military. According to Wired.com, Manning leaked the video to the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks.com, which posted the video in April. Wired.com reported that Manning confessed to the leak in a series of online chats with a former computer hacker. He allegedly owned up to leaking other items to WikiLeaks, including a classified Army document assessing the threat level of the website, according to the article, as well as State Department cables.

Exposing the truth? How dare you! We press charges!
Damn those Lawful Evils. That's as bad as it gets, is Lawful Evil.

Here's a scary read today.

Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars

Law enforcement officers may secretly place a GPS device on a person's car without seeking a warrant from a judge, according to a recent federal appeals court ruling in California. Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Oregon in 2007 surreptitiously attached a GPS to the silver Jeep owned by Juan Pineda-Moreno, whom they suspected of growing marijuana, according to court papers. When Pineda-Moreno was arrested and charged, one piece of evidence was the GPS data, including the longitude and latitude of where the Jeep was driven, and how long it stayed. Prosecutors asserted the Jeep had been driven several times to remote rural locations where agents discovered marijuana being grown, court documents show.

This is horrible. This is not a good thing whatsoever.They may as well implant chips into our bodies at birth.

It's not so secret, if the news gets out.
That's like saying "D3V, I'm going to +rep your next comment, but you don't know that".

Certain personalities seek out certain types of jobs most of the time. Cops are either people who want to help people or people who want to control people imo. I'm not always sure the former is more common than the latter.

That's why we need Power Rangers.

Isn't there a certain thread this belongs in that isn't this one?

Summary of what he's most likely to say: I hate cops because I'm too stuck up and full of my own dick juice to listen to authority because I'm so much better than everyone else with my extra 100 pounds of mass and missing teeth. That's why you should be just like me: pull out your own teeth and get fat, then make sure not to listen to anyone but me.

/truth
Also, 20 hour long videos. I'm SO awesome, aren't I??????????? Who needs a job!
/truth