There was a time when police abuse existed and it was very difficult to prove because it came down to the officers' word against your own, which meant you lost. That was a dark time. In recent years, however, we've transitioned to everyone having cell phone cameras and point n' shoots available, and as a result there has been a pretty steady wave of videos posted online and used in courts depicting police officers abusing their authority. I perceived this to be a better time.
Unfortunately, we appear to be sliding back into the old ways. According to
this article:
In at least three states (Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland), it is now illegal to record an 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.
This isn't new, however. Furthermore, outside of it being illegal in certain states to record officers, it's also 'unofficially illegal' in most, aka officers intimidate the person into giving them the memory/camera if they see them recording. So why am I posting this now?
Because of
this Reddit post. The poster recorded on his phone a video of two police officers assaulting two men, and now he
doesn't know what to do:
I am absolutely serious and completely scared right now. I have no idea what to do because I might be in trouble myself for recording it in the first place. There are so many of these "news" I have no idea how to act. What if I get arrested as well? What if they come to my house and beat me too? I've been thinking about this story non-stop and sometimes wish I had never recorded it.
I don't even know what to bold within that quote. The entire thing is so tragic on so many levels. His quote could be seamlessly inserted into any of dozens of books about totalitarian government in dystopian universes. Are you guys as upset by his (quite reasonable/natural) reaction as I am?
I don't know how these sort of laws get passed, or, more specifically, why there isn't a huge drive to change legislation and make it explicitly clear that recording of police officers should always be okay. I can see absolutely no downside to such a law existing, as it seems like the only people who would be hurt by it are bad cops. What do you guys think? How do these laws get passed to begin with (like what's the rationale presented?) and why isn't there a bigger populace/media push toward changing these laws?
Posts
IANAL but I can't see why SCOTUS wouldn't overturn these laws if someone challenged them all the way up the system. I mean, I'm only a 2L in school and I can see several constitutional issues with laws like that on the books. I would hope that a SCOTUS justice would be able to see the precedent these laws set if they are enforced.
That isn't very reassuring. I guess it's cool if <1% of the population knows that they have the right to record, but that's not very meaningful on a large scale if most people fold to cop harassment and give them the videos and if cops think they can get away with this sort of harassment. What people believe to be the law can be just as dangerous as the actual law.
I'd recommend there be some sort of legislature that specifically states if a police officer tries to take your video away from you that it would be a very serious offense. It would have to be a serious offense since this would only be provable if there's a second camera recording the first making it quite hard to pull off, and the concept of making punishments partially proportional to the difficulty of catching the criminal isn't new.
Post 9/11, police authority has taken on a completely different feel. I no longer know what my rights are, to be honest, and I'm certain that the vast majority of the population doesn't either. So how many people are really that certain of the law that they're sure even if they don't give the police officer their memory card they won't be convicted of anything? And amongst that small percentage of the populace, how many think it's worth getting arrested and possibly going to court (even if they'd win) over a matter that doesn't directly concern them?
Can we also talk about how you're expected to always carry your identification with you, even if you're just out for a stroll around the neighborhood? I've been out walking in Denton, TX before and a cop stopped and asked for my ID. I don't look like a derelict or anything so I told him I'd left it at home. Then I got harassed and outright lied to -- told things like "It's illegal to be out in public without identification" -- and then "let off with a warning".
I'm sorry, I forgot I was in Berlin circa 1943 for a minute there!
And if you refuse, they'll probably just tase you and take it anyway.
I'm sure Scalia will find some way to say we have no rights.
"If the Founding Fathers wanted to protect citizens' rights to use cell phone cameras, they would have written it into the Constitution."
The public would probably back the cop. The public is dumb.
The problem with those people is they usually end up thinking laws like this are ok, because seriously fuck those hispanics/black people/homeless/poor people.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129553748&sc=fb&cc=fp
I used to rep a company that made dash cameras, and know a large majority of cops love them because they protect them from the frivolous "Man, he ABUSED me(as i was arrested for being drunk and disorderly)!" claims.
But there is also a growing majority that think Saudi Arabia has a swell model. I am of the opinion they should move there if they want that type of dictatorship.
I love it when something I think is a good idea turns out to actually exist.
In the UK, the National Union of Journalists have been pretty aggressive about pursuing the seizure of cameras through the IPCC and the courts.
It also means that the ACPO have had to take a position on the dodgy interpretations of existing law that are frequently used to justify it.
Now I just need to figure out how to verify shit like this when it happens because I'm not sure what the fuck to do. It was daytime and I don't know how I could have verified my light was out without the cop helping me, which I completely don't expect.
It's not too much of an issue in the US, but there's a reason police in Mexico wear masks to hide their identity.
Usually when you get ticketed for a broken light, you can go to the courthouse, show the bailiff or some other authorized personnel there that you fixed the problem and the ticket gets dismissed.
Well, that and great power comes with great responsibility.
While I probably agree this is true, do you want to be the guy to try it out? Lemme list some of the fun things involved in doing it:
-Have fun turning this into your full-time job, as you go from court appearance to court appearance.
-Have fun having your name smeared as the guy who "resisted arrest, assaulted a police officer, and engaged in wire-tapping"-- even if the charges are dropped it'll be the top 10 pages of google searches on you forever.
-Have fun trying to get a new job after that.
-Have fun spending your life savings on legal fees.
-And if, for whatever reason, you don't win the case? Have fun going to prison.
And the alternative? When you see a police officer beating the shit out of someone, just turn your head, walk away, and be thankful you're not getting beaten. It's depressing as hell, but the only way that legislation can get changed even a little bit to favor the people involves complete martyrdom and sacrificing the life one built for themselves. Not many folks like that around.
Tough.
Well I guess it's a good thing not everyone sees things that way or blacks would still be going to different schools from whites and it would still be perfectly fine for public schools to have manditory prayer.
comparing mexico, which is basically run by the drug cartels at this point, to other civilized nations is silly.
In a place where being a cop means you can killed for that reason alone 24/7, there's a benefit to concealing your identity.
In a place like america, there is no excuse.
Yes, having police officers and their families subject to gang hits and kidnappings certainly wouldn't have any negative effects on society! Again-see Mexico.
Does anyone actually have any data on enforcement of the laws in those three states? Jackass cops are going to be jackasses, law or no law, but it seems like it would be relevant to the discussion if those laws actually get enforced at all, or if it just gets tacked on to other charges.
It is now illegal to videotape pizza delivery boys!
I think saying there's no excuse for a cop in the US to want to conceal their identity is a little naive. The US is certainly no Mexico, but that doesn't mean cops and their families are never targeted by criminals here.
I have no idea what the justification was for the law in those three states--and I certainly don't think this is it. I'm just pointing out that there are situations where a cop would justifiably not be ok with someone video taping him while he arrests someone.
That's my initial reaction, but then I think how hostile of a populace we are toward law enforcement in general. I'm not just talking about the inner city, but as a whole. I live in a wealthy suburb of a large metro area, and people have vitriolic attitudes toward police like they were raised in the projects.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of any law that takes away accountability of people in power, I'm just wondering why they feel the need to have them in place, and what that says about our society.
If this is a problem, it should be handled in a way that does not infringe on civil liberties.
hitting hot metal with hammers
Which civil liberties would those be? That's kind of a big question if anyone is going to challenge these laws.
Freedom of the press is probably a stretch.
14th amendment substantive due process? What's the fundamental right being infringed? I don't think there is any acknowledged fundamental right under the 14th amendment that's implicated by the law. If that's the case, all the state has to do is show a rational basis for it. And note that a rational basis doesn't have to be the "best" or even a "good" reason for the law. It's a pretty low bar the state needs to clear.
I think a strong case could be made that it violates the 6th Amendment. I mean, the whole point is to hide the identity of the arresting officer? Well, he's going to show up to your public trial anyway and it won't be anonymously or else you don't get to confront your accuser.
So what's the point?
Free Speech.