Taping the Police

Curious to hear what Orgahs think of this. Several states and municipalities have been passing laws to the effect that taping police in public is a crime. I think this is maybe the worst idea ever. Being a police officer is a privilege, a public trust. You are authorized to use force on your fellow citizens, a right almost no other citizen has (all I can think of offhand is correctional officers). Why on earth should it be a crime to be videotaped in public when doing the public's duty?

Here's a reference. And another. Is there anyone who can defend these laws? Anybody who thinks it's a great idea?

So does that mean an end to the venerable tradition of silly car chase shows with frequently bad drivers (on both sides) in often worse cars? Will we have to go back to British youth pelting plod in Astra's?

Utterly wrong. Police are public servants. When on duty they are in the public domain.

In the UK there have been episodes of "The person fell down, and we tried to help them" became - after video footage was released - "Oh, an officer hit the person in the head as he happened to be walking past, did nothing to help and stopped passers by and an ambulance getting to the person".

Anyone who has malign intent will get the footage using a zoomed lens. My camera was not that expensive and has 16x with effective shake reduction. If you're serious about this, you'd get one with 20-30x zoom and a decent tripod.

The police don't want people providing contemporary footage of what they do as it makes their actions harder to justify. If there are uniformed officers that can't deal with the reality they are in the public eye - change jobs!


~:smoking:

Not that I'm going to but it can be defended, they could be personally recognised on the tape which could get their family into trouble. Also, imagine someone you love getting pulled out of a wrecked car becomming a youtube hit.

Niehter fo Frags concerns trumps my civil liberties.

There are very few documented caes of retaliation against police officers. What's more, is that their names are public records in the criminal cases that are public records and can be obtained for free from most county/coity clerks

Also, I believe a district court already rulds that such no-tape ordinances are unconstitutional. I believe the ruling was somewhere around September

hoho not my concerns, but I can imagine how it can make their job more difficult as a cop on duty is not a private person. he is there as the police

... Well not really. I imagine someone taking the camera up close can be an impediment if there's actual, you know, first aid to be done. But taping a few police officers having lunch? Total waste, yes, but that's the sort of thing that lands you a spot in the police abuse thread in the USA apparently.

One of the eastern districts I think. I was surprised the 9th circuit court didn't beat them to it.

Biggest concerns I've ever heard were over eager recorders getting in the way and putting themselves in danger (and there are already multiple laws that can deal with that issue) and the "creative editing" that goes into a lot of the recordings before being put on youtube.

Currently in my neck of the woods my understanding is that police have the same rights as far as being recorded as any other citizen, which means it's only illegal if they're recording sound. I expect that to change at some point. Even still, the safe assumption is to always expect to be recorded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Also, I believe a district court already rulds that such no-tape ordinances are unconstitutional. I believe the ruling was somewhere around September

---

@TA I'm not agreeing with myself, they should suck it up imho, just trying to look from their perspective. When I think of it them not being a private person there is not that rediculous. And nobody tapes a street where nothing happens, so they would be taped all the time. If I worked for the police I could feel intruded personally. But I don't

I would suggest that if you cannot tolerate public scrutiny while doing your job, you are not really suited for being a cop. Go do something else with your life.

Who is this addressed to? It seems pretty hostile considering so far everyone seems to pretty much agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I would suggest that if you cannot tolerate public scrutiny while doing your job, you are not really suited for being a cop. Go do something else with your life.

---

Not being able to video record police officers is absurd. Anyone with malicious intent will surreptitiously do it and a squared away police force should welcome it.

I would really like to see a big picture analysis of this. States like Maryland are adamantly against it and they have some of the most abusive and unprofessional police and government practices in the country. I'm inclined to think states that ban taping have similar characteristics.

If they aren't doing anything wrong. what do they have to hide? ~;)

I'd like to see what percentage of police are actually against it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I'd like to see what percentage of police are actually against it...

---

I suspect the majority are against it for various reasons. Why would they be for it?

If only I could get someone to tape me when I worked at a drive thru in college. I might have been able to trick myself into thinking it meant I was doing something interesting. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

If they aren't doing anything wrong. what do they have to hide? ~;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Who is this addressed to? It seems pretty hostile considering so far everyone seems to pretty much agree with you.

---

Didn't mean it to sound hostile, just a general thought for Fragony's hypothetical officer-who-wants-his-privacy.

Some jobs involve public scrutiny. Working at checkout for a retailer means you are looked at, talked to and interacted with by many people. If you don't like that, it's the wrong job for you. Likewise, being a model means being examined and judged on a daily basis by strangers. Don't like it? Don't be a model.

To my mind, this applies to the police. You (usually) put on an identifying uniform, go out in public and are authorized to use force on your fellow citizens. It's a unique job with pressures, dangers and privileges unlike any other. If a policeman were to say, as in Frags' hypothetical, that he does not like public scrutiny, then he should find a different line of work. Lots of people want to be a cop. No need to gum up the gears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not that I'm going to but it can be defended, they could be personally recognised on the tape which could get their family into trouble. Also, imagine someone you love getting pulled out of a wrecked car becomming a youtube hit.

---

In the Netherlands, in cases where privacy is concerned there's made a strict distinction between taping or recording something on one hand and publishing or showing it on the other hand. To me, it seems the same reasoning should be applied here - recording what a policeman should be allowed, or at least under most circumstances.

Maybe the reasons you've outlined could justify that a person can't make the material available for everyone to see, under certain circumstances. A simple ban on recording them while on the job is wrong - and I suspect that privacy wasn't the reason for those states to ban it, anyway.

[quote=Lemur]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Didn't mean it to sound hostile, just a general thought for Fragony's hypothetical officer-who-wants-his-privacy.

Some jobs involve public scrutiny. Working at checkout for a retailer means you are looked at, talked to and interacted with by many people. If you don't like that, it's the wrong job for you. Likewise, being a model means being examined and judged on a daily basis by strangers. Don't like it? Don't be a model.

To my mind, this applies to the police. You (usually) put on an identifying uniform, go out in public and are authorized to use force on your fellow citizens. It's a unique job with pressures, dangers and privileges unlike any other. If a policeman were to say, as in Frags' hypothetical, that he does not like public scrutiny, then he should find a different line of work. Lots of people want to be a cop. No need to gum up the gears.

---

It doesn't take much to imagine a situation where it would be a legitimate concern. For example, suppose you catch cops, with their faces recognisable, on tape while they arrest some mafia boss or something like that.

My mistake. I had gotten a bit of an angry vibe from the post but on a second reading it was just straightforward. I think I've had trainers who have said much the same thing (in the same words).

To try to address Sasaki's question I have no idea what a country wide poll would come up for that, although I suspect some major variations by region or even department. Remember, the popo are not even remotely close to being unified group with anything like similar standards. Even their legal status and what constitutes a peace officer varies widely and encompasses $80,000 or more entry pay with high educational requirements and months upon months of academy training to minimum wage jobs in parts of the South.

That said, where I work while I suspect most people are at least a little nervous at the thought of being recorded, the general belief is that video tapes will save your job when spurious accusations are made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Didn't mean it to sound hostile, just a general thought for Fragony's hypothetical officer-who-wants-his-privacy.

Some jobs involve public scrutiny. Working at checkout for a retailer means you are looked at, talked to and interacted with by many people. If you don't like that, it's the wrong job for you. Likewise, being a model means being examined and judged on a daily basis by strangers. Don't like it? Don't be a model.

To my mind, this applies to the police. You (usually) put on an identifying uniform, go out in public and are authorized to use force on your fellow citizens. It's a unique job with pressures, dangers and privileges unlike any other. If a policeman were to say, as in Frags' hypothetical, that he does not like public scrutiny, then he should find a different line of work. Lots of people want to be a cop. No need to gum up the gears.

---

' It doesn't take much to imagine a situation where it would be a legitimate concern.'

aye

Would this law extend to cops in maybe particularly sensitive roles, such as counter-terrorism/plainclothes/etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I suspect the majority are against it for various reasons. Why would they be for it?

---

Because despite what the 'Police Abuse' thread screams at us, not all cops are terrible corrupt bullies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Because despite what the 'Police Abuse' thread screams at us, not all cops are terrible corrupt bullies.

---

And yet, the vast majority would rather support the sociopaths among them than cross the thin blue line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

And yet, the vast majority would rather support the sociopaths among them than cross the thin blue line.

---

This is not as detestable as it seems when you put it like that. These men are putting their life on the line every day together. Sure, there really isn't that much danger is suburban america, but a camaraderie grows between officers who experience the same danger, the same chaos together. No one knows what the next traffic stop will bring about.

This is not to excuse their defense of the abusers within the police force, but if we don't keep in mind the bond that police work forms between those who wear the badge, we are not getting the full picture. We might as well be asking a man to condemn his brother. The bonds are strong and they muddle with logic. Humans are flawed like that, and it is important not to attribute malice to actions that stem from such flaws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

This is not as detestable as it seems when you put it like that. These men are putting their life on the line every day together. Sure, there really isn't that much danger is suburban america, but a camaraderie grows between officers who experience the same danger, the same chaos together. No one knows what the next traffic stop will bring about.

This is not to excuse their defense of the abusers within the police force, but if we don't keep in mind the bond that police work forms between those who wear the badge, we are not getting the full picture. We might as well be asking a man to condemn his brother. The bonds are strong and they muddle with logic. Humans are flawed like that, and it is important not to attribute malice to actions that stem from such flaws.

---

Call me a cynic, but I wonder how much of this line of reasoning is true and how much of it is romanticism. And yes, humans are flawed like that, and it should be expected that every now and then there's the odd case of someone covering up for his collegue. I gather though that the outrage is largely because it appears to be systemic (though I admit, I rarely read the police abuse thread)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob Applebaum

99 percent of the police make the rest of them look bad.

---

In the context of state surveillance/state terrorism (and censorship). At 55:49 into this talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX46Qv_b7F4

(Worth watching in its entirety.)

From: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...police-officer

Quote:

---

Aides to Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez opposed the legislation, saying the issue still needs to play out in the courts. The Illinois Fraternal Order of Police warned the bill could scare witnesses who fear their conversations at a crime scene would be monitored by organized crime.

Even so, Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy recently told the Tribune he supports letting people record the police and vice versa.

---

From:http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/forest...ouse-committee

Quote:

---

Patrick Coughlin, deputy chief of the narcotics bureau in the Cook County state’s attorney’s office, disagreed.

“Because of the Illinois eavesdropping statute, officers cannot record that conversation without a court order. This is not leveling the playing field,” Coughlin said. “This is giving more rights to private citizens to collect evidence of a crime than officers have.”

One concern of law enforcement groups is that the legislation would allow criminals and gang members to record the police’s interactions with potential witnesses and informants.

“It may have a chilling effect on victims coming forward if they know that a person that’s not a member to that conversation can come up and record whatever they say to the police,” Coughlin said.

In the past five years, only 10 people have been convicted of recording police officers without their consent in Cook County, and only two of the incidents occurred in public places, he said.

---

CR

Hmm, that's a reasonable point about the witnesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Hmm, that's a reasonable point about the witnesses.

---

No it's not. Take the person inside, around the corner, inside the car, or wherever. We're not talking about stalking cops on patrol but recording actions during an incident.

A couple of what-ifs does not justify a total abridgement of our civil rights. There are still a significant amount of police departments in small towns and suburbs that do not even employ dash cams. There is no excuse for this. No one made them be a cop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You can't fix this problem by changing the rules. The cops have to have the ability to enforce the peace, and it should not be compromised because of a few bad apples.

The solution is in the training, and actual culture of the police. Instead of hiring people who are trigger-happy reactionaries (seemingly the only kind they hire here in Eugene, which is ironic since Eugene is a liberal hotbed) perhaps the largest value when selecting new officers should be a good attitude and a willingness to put the citzenry first no matter what.

The moment a cop thinks his life is more important than even the criminals he is apprehending, he's gone down the wrong track and is no longer really fit for the job. Cops should be paragons of selfless virtue, and we as citizens should demand nothing less. The trend, in some departments at least, of turning the Police into the last bastion of far-right sentiment (which is exactly what they are here) only serves to create cops that feel hostile and even hateful towards the ones they are supposed to be protecting.

Just do a quick google search of Eugene, OR Police Abuses or anything similar, and you'll see a disproportionately large amount of incidents for the relatively small size of the city (about 250,000 people). I refuse to believe this is an isolated case, but it might be. Texas State Troopers have always been very pleasant in my experience, so I'm not trying to paint all cops a certain color, but I do believe the trend of hostility is a true one and the most appropriate way to deal with it is by trying to change the culture of the police. Anything else will only be treating the symptoms.

---

The solution isn't training, it's a complete and total re-write of the mindset of the police force. American cops generally have egos and tend to go on power trips when their "authority" is challenged. Anyone who says otherwise can go look at CR's police abuse thread for a very small sample of the bigger problem. I've never been arrested, handcuffed, questioned, put in the back of a cop car, or anything like that, am a 30ish tax-paying law-abiding citizen of the US... and I utterly detest cops. Many would argue that the perception of police has been compromised over the years by things such as "gangsta rap" and it's demonizing of the police. I firmly believe it's entirely their own fault for how they conduct themselves, again CR's thread is just a small piece of the pie. Consequently, with very low public opinion and support, cops are going to harden and train themselves for the worst, and push for legislation that essentially legalizes their abilities to abuse civil rights with impunity.

Your middle point hit the nail on the head. The police mentality needs to be swung firmly back towards the mindset of public service. Hence the damn motto, To Protect and to Serve. Stop treating every person they interact with like a damn criminal. Stop beating people senseless for no reason whatsoever. Strongly enforce accountability, I think this is the biggest one. Too often when cops cross the line, the state will do whatever to protect them, and I think that's probably the biggest single contributor to their increasingly negative public image. When someone is put in a position of trust such as that where the potential for abusing someone's civil rights and liberties, even taking their life under the right circumstances, needs to be held to the absolute, utmost rigid scrutiny and accountability. Cops should always understand that IF they cross certain lines they WILL be held accountable fully, all the way up to hard extensive jail time and even the death penalty. (that cop who killed the guy in Cali when he was already fully restrained on the ground and not resisting comes to mind) The so-called blue wall of silence needs to be permanently and utterly destroyed.

I've seen plenty of videos of western European cops handling grown people throwing fits like they are 3 year olds. People stomping, cursing, screaming, etc with the police in near total serenity and relaxation, eventually diffusing the situation safely for everyone involved without any tazings, beatings, or shootings. When cops in the US can get back to doing that, acting as true public servants and handling themselves and others with dignity and respect, then our faith in them and their image will be restored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

No it's not. Take the person inside, around the corner, inside the car, or wherever. We're not talking about stalking cops on patrol but recording actions during an incident.

---

What did you think I meant by "reasonable point"? I couldn't figure out what CR was trying to say by posting it since he usually takes an anti-police line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

I've seen plenty of videos of western European cops handling grown people throwing fits like they are 3 year olds. People stomping, cursing, screaming, etc with the police in near total serenity and relaxation, eventually diffusing the situation safely for everyone involved without any tazings, beatings, or shootings. When cops in the US can get back to doing that, acting as true public servants and handling themselves and others with dignity and respect, then our faith in them and their image will be restored.

---

Maybe we could get you to testify before congress with that kind of expertise. "You see, I've watched youtube videos...dozens of them! And so I firmly believe it's entirely their fault"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNNz5kl4w-A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Hmm, that's a reasonable point about the witnesses.

---

It's quite a low probabillity. To record, you'll need to be quite close and obviously listening in anyway. Maybe with proffessional suvelience gear, but that's special case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Call me a cynic, but I wonder how much of this line of reasoning is true and how much of it is romanticism. And yes, humans are flawed like that, and it should be expected that every now and then there's the odd case of someone covering up for his collegue. I gather though that the outrage is largely because it appears to be systemic (though I admit, I rarely read the police abuse thread)

---

Well, I gather we would have a lot more information on the matter if someone on the org was an actual cop. Unfortunately, the police abuse thread may have scared off anyone who was a cop, when on the first page CR is posting in 20 point font about how all cops are evil.

In NY State, all public conversations can have the audio or video recorded in an unobtrusive way. Public servants act in the public light when not in personal meetings or in the bathroom (or things like that), so it isn't an issue here. Of course it is crap to prosecute for this stuff, cops want to get away with breaking the law. I'd argue that it is why a large number of police are police in the first place. Not the majority, but the allure to abuse excessive authority is compelling for quite a few people.

I posted the links I did to show people who were arguing against being able to tape the police. I believe their excuses hold no water.

In Baltimore, less than a day after police are given an order saying people have an absolute right to record cops, some cops threaten to arrest a man recording them - for 'loitering'.

Quote:

---

The police union says the officers acted appropriately and professionally; the ACLU says it shows there's more work to be done.

---

There's a lot of work to be done in forcing cops everywhere to accept that they can be recorded.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I posted the links I did to show people who were arguing against being able to tape the police. I believe their excuses hold no water.

In Baltimore, less than a day after police are given an order saying people have an absolute right to record cops, some cops threaten to arrest a man recording them - for 'loitering'.



There's a lot of work to be done in forcing cops everywhere to accept that they can be recorded.

CR

---

Maryland cops are really touchy about that. Maybe the governor should just tax all video recordings. He wants to tax everything else.

We need to tape cops, because an alarming amount of them are frustrated little men, who like a predator go into a feeding frenzy when finally confronted with a completely vulnerable victim. They love the absolute power. It is dangerous to be a drug addict, or to be dirt poor, or to be severely physically handicapped. The police and the justice system prey on you, both are full of nasty little men who will go berserk when they discover they can have absolute power over you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

We need to tape cops, because an alarming amount of them are frustrated little men, who like a predator go into a feeding frenzy when finally confronted with a completely vulnerable victim. They love the absolute power. It is dangerous to be a drug addict, or to be dirt poor, or to be severely physically handicapped. The police and the justice system prey on you, both are full of nasty little men who will go berserk when they discover they can have absolute power over you.

---

Sure, but you will get better people if you pay them more. I think any idealism that they may have had will perish very very fast

A positive update for once: The justice department gets something right.

The U.S. Department of Justice is coming down hard on the Baltimore Police Department as it prepares to issue a settlement to a man whose footage they deleted after he recorded them making an arrest.

The settlement stems from a 2010 incident at the Preakness Stakes, which prompted the Department of Justice in January to send a statement of interest to the judge presiding over the resulting civil suit, advising him that such blatant action violates the Constitution and should not be tolerated.

That letter provoked the police department into issuing a 7-page General Order to its officers February stating that citizens have the “absolute right” to record cops in public as long as they did not "violate any section of any law, ordinance, code or criminal article."

Baltimore cops simply expanded existing laws to allow them to continue cracking down on camera-wielding citizens, including threatening to arrest a man for loitering.

On Monday, the Department of Justice slapped the Baltimore Police Department with another letter, condemning it for writing such a vague general order and for allowing the harassment to continue.

It is a very impressive read. Eleven pages of case citations and Constitutional clarifications. One of the most solid efforts from the federal government in protecting the rights of citizens to record police.

For those of you unawares, Tulsa recently has been going through an enormous police corruption scandal that goes back a decade and involves city, state and federal police. Most involved have resigned, some have been fired, some in jail. The charges were run-of-the-mill dirty cop crap: non-existent informants, pocketing drugs and money, protection rackets....

Now, as a PI I was well aware that Tulsa County did not have its court records online, which many of us thought had more to do with stifling the free flow of info than budgetry concerns, seeing as how the only non-online communities were rural, dirt-poor areas and Tulsa was the second largest metro in the state. The Man didn't want it, in short.

Well the other day I found out (this is the point of this rant) that Tulsa is just now getting dash cams. Prior to this year, something like 10% of their cars had working cameras.

No cams=terrible police corruption.

Coincidence?

How did you become a PI?

You get licensed by the states you plan to work in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

You get licensed by the states you plan to work in

---

What are the requirements to get a license?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

What are the requirements to get a license?

---

Glasses, a gun, and a pot belly.

How did you get pictures of me?

To those asking questions, I sense a trollolol

If you are serious, your states law enforcement licensing authority should have a webpage, thats a better source of info than I am. Each state has different privacy laws and fraud torts. For example, I won't take cases that originate in california or oregan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

What are the requirements to get a license?

---

You have to watch all the episodes of Monk, Diagnosis Murder, and Murder She Wrote, then take a test on them.

Then you have to watch all the episodes of Law and order SVU and take notes from it on how not to do it.