Is Recording Police Interactions a Felony?

[FlexGunship]

There was an article in a magazine I read pointing out the trend (alarming or not) of police officers confiscating cameras, or prosecuting individuals who video tape police interactions with private citizens.

• In one case this year, a motorcyclist with a helmet video camera recorded a police officer drawing a gun on him during a traffic stop had his computers and cameras taken by police from his home for felony wiretapping for recording the incident.
  
  

  If you look at the video, the trooper steps out of an unmarked car, you can't see his badge and it is give seconds before he identifies himself as state police. But it's not the trooper who is in trouble; it's Graber.
  
  "He had been recording this trooper audibly without his consent," stated said one official.
  
  That kind of recording is against the law in Maryland. as a matter of fact, audibly recording somebody without their consent is a felony.
  
  "Police show up at my house today. They come in and they take four computers, two laptops and my camera and they were going to arrest me," shared Graber.

  (Source: ABC News affiliate http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0410/725740.html )​
• In another case a man with home surveillance video was arrested and charged with felony wiretapping when he showed the video to police of a detective forcing his way into his private residence.
  
  

  A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man’s sons.
  
  Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon’s wife, Janet Gannon, and police reports filed in Nashua District Court.

  
  

  “He was just very smart-mouthed. He put his foot in the door, and my husband said, ‘Excuse me, I did not invite you in, please leave,’ and he wouldn’t,” Janet Gannon said. “We did not invite him in, we asked him to leave, and he wouldn’t.”

  (Source: The Nashua Telegraph: http://fnhp.com/thelist/Nashua-Gannon_Karlis.html )​
• In another New Hampshire incident, a man was charged with felony wiretapping for videotaping the police response to an underage drinking party.
  
  

  A New Castle man arrested at a July 4 house party is charged with a count of wiretapping, alleging he used his cell phone to film the police response.

  (Source: Seacoast Online: http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20100706-NEWS-100709886)​
• In Maryland, a women was arrested and her cell phone taken for trying to record an instance of abuse of power by police.
  
  

  [Officer] Handy seized the cell phone, reviewed its camcorder content and "could hear my voice and the voices of the other subjects I was talking to," the officer wrote in the charging papers, and he questioned Shaw.
  
  "She did admit to recording our encounter on her cell phone," the corporal wrote, "for the purpose of trying to show the police are harassing people."
  
  Shaw said Tuesday that she recorded the incident to show the conduct of the law officers.
  
  "I honestly did not know that I was not able to do that," Shaw said. "He just snatched my phone from me and locked me up."

  (Source: Southern Maryland Newspapers: http://www.somdnews.com/stories/06162010/entetop162348_32195.shtml )​
• There's a case in Boston of a man being charged with felony wiretapping for recording police at an anti-war rally.
  
  

  Jeffrey Manzelli, 46, a Cambridge sound engineer, was convicted of illegal wiretapping and disorderly conduct for recording MBTA police at an antiwar rally on Boston Common in 2002.

  (Source: Boston.com Local News http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma.../12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/?page=3)​

I believe this is a problematic trend and shows a desire for police to not be held accountable for their actions. Does anyone have other stories or a differing opinion?

 

[Hepth]

What if you inform them that you're recording them as soon as they approach? Then they're no longer being recorded without their knowledge.

I've thought about this previously, as I had been hassled by police officers multiple times. (Basically I drove an old 91 Acclaim with the trunk covered in punk band stickers, and used to play a lot of video games at a friends house until 2 or 3 in the morning, then I'd drive home. I never drank or did anything illegal, but every time I could tell the officer was hoping I'd be drunk or have drugs or something. Only violation I ever received was a citation for my tail lights "Not being red enough" as they had sun faded a little.)

But as soon as I thought I should start recording these, I realized that its probably a violation of privacy to record someone without their knowledge. At least in Michigan I think the law is at least ONE of the party must know they are being recorded. This prohibits people from wiretapping others' phone lines.

But I believe the officer can record your encounter without your knowledge; why should they get a special privilege?

 

[FlexGunship]

What if you inform them that you're recording them as soon as they approach? Then they're no longer being recorded without their knowledge.

I was thinking about installing a dashboard video camera to record any traffic stops from now on and putting a clearly visible sticker on my rear windshield that says "Warning to law enforcement: interaction with the driver is recorded." But I feel like this would just instigate altercations.

Likely, the first thing they would say is: "turn off the camera." And I'll say: "Afraid of what it will see and hear?"

Which is another double standard... "You don't have permission to search my car." "Afraid of what I'll find?"

 

[Evo]

Okay, let's keep this on the topic of whether secret vs public video/audio taping violates the law, and let's drop the sensationalism please.

It seems the laws vary from place to place and the question of legality seems to center around public or hidden audio/video.

Here is a good article.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma.../12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/?page=1

 

[FlexGunship]

Okay, let's keep this on the topic of whether secret vs public video/audio taping violates the law, and let's drop the sensationalism please.

Well, actually, one of the goals of my post was to show that whether you (a) video tape a police officer entering your home without permission, or (b) video tape a police officer drawing a gun during a traffic stop on a highway (i.e. public or private), the reaction is the same: felony wiretapping.

In the case of the home entry, the resident had signs clearly stating that his home was under constant video surveillance (as per the link). The motorcyclist had a camera on his helmet in plain view.

The common thread seems not to be secretly videotaping someone. But rather that you've recorded a police faux pas. And instead of thanking the citizen for bringing forth the evidence of misconduct (arguable misconduct, of course), they are charged with a felony.

Here is a good article.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma.../12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/?page=1

Agreed. I selected a quote from it for my original post. I appreciate that you shared it with me.

 

[mugaliens]

What if you inform them that you're recording them as soon as they approach? Then they're no longer being recorded without their knowledge.

First, the very act of confiscating clearly indicates they have knowledge.

Second, in almost all instances, it's a case of police overstepping the bounds of their authority, as videotaping activities occurring in public is legal. There are very few locals where it's legislated as being illegal, and even then, the constitutionality of such laws is highly questionable.

In many more areas, the legality of personal video recorders used to record encounters with law enforcement and other citizens has been upheld as a legal, individual right with which the police cannot interfere. Indeed, cases where police have confiscated personal video recorders and returned them without the recorded encounter have been thrown out by judges who ruled that law enforcement had tampered with evidence. As a result, most law enforcement agencies these days are well-briefed to not interfere with or confiscate personal recording devices, and even if the individual is arrested, to have the individual turn off the unit during booking to ensure there's no question of police interference.

 

[Jasongreat]

Do the cops inform us that we are being recorded and video taped, since they all have dash cams, when they pull us over? As far as I recall, I have never been informed of that, usually all they ask is license and registration please.

I read a pretty good article on a similar topic, other policemen who whistle blow on bad cops or have tried to stop beatings are the ones who are punished, the beaters are the ones who get exonerated and have their careers advanced. I'll try to find it.

Imo, cops are above the law, because laws are written to protect cops at the expense of our rights.

Edit: Here is the promised http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/18/americas-most-successful-stop"

 

[arildno]

Imo, cops are above the law, because laws are written to protect cops at the expense of our rights.

Get used to it.

In their capacity as police officers, policemen DO have a stronger judicial status than the private citizen (including off-duty policemen).

For example, they have the right to apprehend, with the necessary level of applied force, ordinary citizens they think should be apprehended.

That doesn't make them "above the law" in general, but "above the laws regulating the private citizens' conduct"

 

[JaredJames]

I don't know about America, but in the UK you can record anything that is "in the public domain" without a problem.

You see a lot of police shows where cameramen follow the police and when the criminal complains they're told "tuff, it's in a public place and it's perfetly legal".

However, I'm not sure about hidden cameras. I know on private property you have to inform people if you intend to use the images, not sure about public areas.

 

[NobodySpecial]

I don't know about America, but in the UK you can record anything that is "in the public domain" without a problem..

Unless you are in a secret security zone - such as near an unmarked secret facility or near public transport or near any possible terrorist target, or in say london (section44)

Or the photograph of a policeman might identify them (section 76)

Or the police think your photo might be useful to terrorists (section 43)

 

[Evo]

I don't know about America, but in the UK you can record anything that is "in the public domain" without a problem.

You see a lot of police shows where cameramen follow the police and when the criminal complains they're told "tuff, it's in a public place and it's perfetly legal".

However, I'm not sure about hidden cameras. I know on private property you have to inform people if you intend to use the images, not sure about public areas.

The law in the US differs in each state, and even from town to town.

In some states it is illegal to make an adio/video tape without consent of both parties, in most states secret taping is illegal.

 

[Pythagorean]

Unless you are in a secret security zone - such as near an unmarked secret facility or near public transport or near any possible terrorist target, or in say london (section44)

Or the photograph of a policeman might identify them (section 76)

Or the police think your photo might be useful to terrorists (section 43)

Terrorism. The most convenient excuse for taking away our freedoms. We have the "Protect Ameica" act in the US. Which pretty much translates to the "Invade America's Privacy" act.

But if you try to "invade" law enforcement's privacy, you're possibly contributing to terrorism.

This is going in an excellent direction for my fascist regime.

 

[drankin]

The law in the uis differes in each state, and even from town to town.

In some states it is illegal to make an adio/video tape without consent of both parties, in most states secret taping is illegal.

I wonder if this will end up becoming a Constitutional issue in federal courts.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Terrorism. The most convenient excuse for taking away our freedoms.

Funnily enough we didn't need bans on cameras in Trafalgar square for the 30years that we did actually have terrorist bombs exploding in England.

 

[JaredJames]

Section 43 is regarding searching people. It is the power of the police to search people they deem may be a terrorist. So to use this they have to suspect you as a terrorist and pursue it as such. Better be some good evidence to back that up.

Section 76, as above is relating to terrorism. To stop you they have to prove the link between you and terrorism. So far it appears people have only been asked to explain why they are taking pictures of police/armed forces etc.

I point you to this quote here from Downing Street:

In a statement, Number 10 said that while there were no legal restrictions on taking pictures in public places, "the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else".

There are no restrictions on taking photos. If you arouse suspiscion then you will be questioned.

So far as public transport or otherwise, as above people have only been questioned as to why they are taking pictures, not stopped from what I've seen.

EDIT: I'd also point you to the fact that Section 44 has been restricted and you must be suspected of being a terrorist under Section 43. They can't just stop you.

 

[JaredJames]

Funnily enough we didn't need bans on cameras in Trafalgar square for the 30years that we did actually have terrorist bombs exploding in England.

I haven't heard of any ban on cameras in TS. Is it really in place?

 

[cristo]

I haven't heard of any ban on cameras in TS. Is it really in place?

He's being facetious. There is no ban on cameras, neither today, nor at the time when the country was under terrorist attack on a regular basis.

 

[NobodySpecial]

EDIT: I'd also point you to the fact that Section 44 has been restricted and you must be suspected of being a terrorist under Section 43. They can't just stop you.

The european court said that S44 is unreasonable - the police haven't stopped using it.

The only difference is that under S44 they can stop and search you without reason - under section 43 they merely have to have a suspicion you are committing acts useful to terrorism.
It doesn't say that their suspicion has to stand up in court.

Section 44 also defines special sensitive areas where you can be stopped and searched without suspicion, however these areas are themselves secret. Although the police have admitted that whole of the city London is one, as are all airports, stations and public transport. http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/special/1647621/special-report-foi-requests-extent-section-44

 

[JaredJames]

The european court said that S44 is unreasonable - the police haven't stopped using it.

The only difference is that under S44 they can stop and search you without reason - under section 43 they merely have to have a suspicion you are committing acts useful to terrorism.
It doesn't say that their suspicion has to stand up in court.

Section 44 also defines special sensitive areas where you can be stopped and searched without suspicion, however these areas are themselves secret. Although the police have admitted that whole of the city London is one, as are all airports, stations and public transport. http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/special/1647621/special-report-foi-requests-extent-section-44

Section 44 was first suspended and has now been re-instated with restrictions. The restrictions being that you can only search someone under the provisions of Section 43 (you are suspected of being a terrorist).

The court had ruled that Section 44 stop-and-search anti-terrorism powers are illegal, back in January.

Theresa May said yesterday: 'I will not allow the continued use of Section 44 in contravention of the European Court's ruling and, more importantly, in contravention of the civil liberties of every one of us.'

Officers will only be allowed to use Section 44 in relation to searches of vehicles.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_wary_after_terror_law_change_news_299959.html

Section 44 is no longer what it was when initially installed for police use.

Please not your article is referring to when the laws first came out - published in Deceber 2009. This isn't an accurate reflection of the current Section 44. You can no longer be searched without suspicion.

 

[cristo]

The US is a different country to the UK with (in some cases) very different laws. I don't see what these last few posts have to do with the OP.

 

[Proton Soup]

Get used to it.

In their capacity as police officers, policemen DO have a stronger judicial status than the private citizen (including off-duty policemen).

For example, they have the right to apprehend, with the necessary level of applied force, ordinary citizens they think should be apprehended.

That doesn't make them "above the law" in general, but "above the laws regulating the private citizens' conduct"

i think though, that the drive to intimidate people who do photograph or record them while carrying out their official public duties is an intent to act "above the law". they don't want to be held accountable in cases where they do actually violate someone's rights. and one might argue that by violating the freedom of press of ordinary citizens to publish these encounters on youtube, they are also eroding the checks and balances of government.

 

[CRGreathouse]

My view is that a law should be passed that explicitly makes it legal to videotape *any* uniformed police officer, or rather, anyone wearing a police uniform -- if they're impersonating a police officer, all the more important that they be videotaped. If the police are acting lawfully the video could save them from false accusations; if they're acting unlawfully then it is appropriate that their misdeeds be recorded.

 

[FlexGunship]

But if you try to "invade" law enforcement's privacy, you're possibly contributing to terrorism.

This is going in an excellent direction for my fascist regime.

Yeah, I guess I wasn't trying to go to such an extreme, but sensationalism aside, these cases seem to grant a strong precedent (and legal loophole) to prevent the disclosure of police misconduct. In fact, that can really only be the reason.

I can't speak for everyone, but I pay for my local cops and state troopers (and federal agents). As a group we give them special permission to act in our best interest. Our only means of checking that they are doing well is video tape (since judicial precedent shows that discrepancies between police record and victim accounts favor the police). There's actually no other way to show that you are being "harassed" by the police, or worse.

That one tool... video... is a felony.

If you recorded a heroic act performed by a police officer to save a child, do you think you would be charged with felony wiretapping for disclosing it?

 

[FlexGunship]

My view is that a law should be passed that explicitly makes it legal to videotape *any* uniformed police officer, or rather, anyone wearing a police uniform -- if they're impersonating a police officer, all the more important that they be videotaped. If the police are acting lawfully the video could save them from false accusations; if they're acting unlawfully then it is appropriate that their misdeeds be recorded.

I think that's absolutely true and I totally agree. Being videotaped requires no effort from the police officer so it can hardly be called an obstruction. Furthermore, my employer has a lot of security cameras in sensitive locations here at work. Aren't the police supposed to be working for us?

<non-sequitur>Last I heard they were public servants... you know... like Charlie Rangel.</non-sequitur>

 

[zomgwtf]

You can record the police here in Canada. Sometimes the cops might act bitchy about it but most of the time (99%) they are cool with it and just go about their job.

 

[FlexGunship]

Could you imagine if this were happening in China? How outraged we would all be?

 

[czelaya]

My view is that a law should be passed that explicitly makes it legal to videotape *any* uniformed police officer, or rather, anyone wearing a police uniform -- if they're impersonating a police officer, all the more important that they be videotaped. If the police are acting lawfully the video could save them from false accusations; if they're acting unlawfully then it is appropriate that their misdeeds be recorded.

Agreed. There is no false testimony with a recording device.

 

[Evo]

Agreed. There is no false testimony with a recording device.

Unless it's altered, which is super easy.

Could you imagine if this were happening in China? How outraged we would all be?

You've really lost me on that one. I would assume it is illegal. And why would we be outraged? On their list of problems, that's not even in the bottom of the barrel, it's under the barrel.

 

[Char. Limit]

My view is that a law should be passed that explicitly makes it legal to videotape *any* uniformed police officer, or rather, anyone wearing a police uniform -- if they're impersonating a police officer, all the more important that they be videotaped. If the police are acting lawfully the video could save them from false accusations; if they're acting unlawfully then it is appropriate that their misdeeds be recorded.

Agreed, me being the third person to say that. It's important that police be held accountable for their actions.

 

[NobodySpecial]

And why would we be outraged?

We used to get all high and mighty about the police cracking down on 'freedom' demonstrations in 3rd world countries.

Of course we also used to object to show trials, secret military tribunals and bundling people off to gulags on no evidence.