News Is Recording Police Interactions a Felony?

[Mathnomalous]

Or my hometown.

If Officer Hirzel's service weapon was the exact same used to shoot and kill Pastor Scott, then Officer Hirzel should have been placed behind a desk until the matter was cleared. Still, one imbecile seems to have ruined it for the rest of the department.

Well, here would be my idea for a law:

For instances of interaction with a public employee during the normal course of work for that employee, recording shall be permitted if all private participants agree.​

That is to say, anytime a public employee (police officer, guy at DMV, town hall clerk, etc.) is doing their job, you only need to get the permission of the private citizens involved to get a legal recording.

EDIT: I was a victim of police abuse on two occasions. In one case a loaded gun was drawn on me by a street-clothes officer in a marked police cruiser (obviously, I figured it was some guy who stole a cop car) for loitering in a movie theater parking lot (i.e. waiting for my friend to get out of the movie).

The other time, I was pulled over by a Maine State Trooper who progressively increased my traffic violation until I finally stopped talking and said "thank you." I was speeding (70 in a 65), but every time I spoke, he raised it by 5mph. I finally shut up when get got near criminal speeding (85 in a 65). I tried to fight it in court, but it was my word against his, and I settled with a ticket for 83mph in a 65.

So, I apologize for the obvious bias here. It just sucks to think that if I had caught those instances on a camera and tried to use it as evidence in court, I would be charged with a felony.

I think it should be legal to videotape any public employee working in a public setting as long as the videotaping does not compromise lives, sensitive information, and/or hinders said public employee from performing assigned duties. No consent required.

If the police can videotape me, I should be able to videotape them back.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Ah yes, the natural conclusion. Guy without uniform steps out of a cop car - must be stollen.

You do know plainclothes police officers must identify themselves as police officers prior to performing their police duties, no? That usually means making their badge visible and making a verbal statement identifying them as police officers.

A guy in plain clothes stepping out of a cop car will raise suspicion almost every time.

 

[Char. Limit]

If Officer Hirzel's service weapon was the exact same used to shoot and kill Pastor Scott, then Officer Hirzel should have been placed behind a desk until the matter was cleared. Still, one imbecile seems to have ruined it for the rest of the department.

There was also the Otto Zehm incident, which ruined my former trust in the SPD.

 

[FlexGunship]

Ah yes, the natural conclusion. Guy without uniform steps out of a cop car - must be stollen.

Can't tell if you're serious or not. So here are three cases of that happening in the last two weeks:

A New Hampshire man is facing charges he stole a police cruiser and then led officers on a three-town chase in another vehicle.

Source: http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...n_charged_with_stealing_police_cruiser_chase/

Bernard slipped by and eased into the driver seat of her squad car with the keys still inside.

According to Department of Correction documents, Bernard has a long criminal history that includes kidnapping, robbery, and theft.

Source: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=7792197&rss=rss-wtvg-article-7792197

Police were searching for a man who stole a Southfield squad car this morning from a Northland Mall parking lot after three men were pulled over in a vehicle reported stolen.

Source: http://www.freep.com/article/20101123/NEWS03/101123030/1320/Southfield-cops-recover-stolen-police-cruiser

 

[JaredJames]

You do know plainclothes police officers must identify themselves as police officers prior to performing their police duties, no? That usually means making their badge visible and making a verbal statement identifying them as police officers.

Very much aware of it. Gun drawn for loitering? Hmm. Perhaps there's more to it? But that's off topic. I simply made an observation based on what I'd read.

A guy in plain clothes stepping out of a cop car will raise suspicion almost every time.

Wow you live in one paranoid society. Do people steal police cars that often?

EDIT: Flex answered that. Not so much paranoid, more criminal society.

I'm still waiting for a rational argument as to why people shouldn't be allowed to film the police. And as such, why would such laws be passed in the first place?

 

[Mathnomalous]

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sections/zehm/

Well, seems like the SPD has severe institutional problems. 7 officers beating up a mentally disabled man? Wow... Incidents like that show private citizens need to videotape police activities more often.

On March 18, 2006, Zehm — who worked as a janitor and did not own a car — had gone on foot to an ATM at his bank to withdraw money from his account. Two young women, who were in a car at the ATM when Zehm arrived, erroneously reported to police by phone that a man was attempting to steal money from the ATM. The women followed Zehm in their car while reporting additional information to the police dispatch by phone.[4]

Zehm next entered the convenience store that he routinely visited to buy a soft drink and fast food. Video from the convenience store security cameras show that within sixteen seconds of the first officer entering the store, the officer had run up to Zehm, whose back was initially turned to him, and batoned Zehm to the ground - the first of at least seven baton strikes used on Zehm. Within another sixteen seconds Zehm had also been tasered. In addition to the multiple beatings and taserings, Zehm was improperly hog-tied by police and placed on his stomach for more than sixteen minutes. Furthermore, the police requested a non-rebreather mask from paramedics at the scene and strapped it to Zehm's face. The non-rebreather mask was not attached to oxygen. Zehm stopped breathing three minutes after the mask was placed on his face. When ruled a homicide by the county coroner on May 30, 2006, the cause of death was reported as "lack of oxygen to the brain due to heart failure while being restrained on his stomach." No illegal drugs or alcohol were found in Zehm's system.

Had there been no cameras..?

edit: had there been no cameras:

Police alleged that Zehm had "lunged" at the original officer with a plastic soft drink bottle. However, video of the incident withheld by the police for three months after the incident contradicted this police claim. Then-acting police chief Jim Nicks subsequently stated that he misspoke in alleging Zehm "lunged" at the officer.

That must have been a 10 L plastic soft drink bottle...

 

[FlexGunship]

Wow you live in one paranoid society. Do people steal police cars that often?

http://www.tremcopoliceproducts.com/articlesdet.htm

This site has a record of recent police cruiser thefts. Didn't know it existed until now.

Very much aware of it. Gun drawn for loitering? Hmm. Perhaps there's more to it? But that's off topic.

Unfortunately you had to put in a personal jab there. My friend was at a movie that ended after the theater's lobby closed. When I knocked on the door and asked an attendant what time the movie ended, they called the cops thinking I was going to harm someone leaving the theater. I should stress I never raised my voice, never spoke of violence, and had no weapons.

EDIT: Oh, it was his birthday, so we were going out for drinks afterwards. It wasn't random.

DOUBLE EDIT: Also, that was the point of me calling it "police misconduct." Because normally guns are not drawn to deal with loitering.

 

[vela]

I'm still waiting for a rational argument as to why people shouldn't be allowed to film the police. And as such, why would such laws be passed in the first place?

The laws being used weren't passed explicitly to prohibit recording of the police. They are laws against secretly recording anyone. According to the article Evo linked to early in the thread, some of these laws were in response to abuses by private investigators wiretapping individuals.

Obviously, these laws weren't meant to prohibit recording what the police are doing in public, but the police are abusing the laws to cover their asses and conceal any abuse of power.

 

[mugaliens]

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.

Actually, provided one of the parties to a conversation is aware the conversation is being taped (audio, video, or both), it's legal in nearly all states. Federal wiretapping laws are designed primarily to prevent a third party from taping conversations between people when none of the parties involved in the conversation are aware they're being taped.

It's why law enforcement loves it when a member of the targeted group comes forward and is willing to turn evidence in exchange for immunity, as they're able to wire the individual and obtain incriminating evidence on the others.

 

[mugaliens]

Actually, provided one of the parties to a conversation is aware the conversation is being taped (audio, video, or both), it's legal in nearly all states. Federal wiretapping laws are designed primarily to prevent a third party from taping conversations between people when none of the parties involved in the conversation are aware they're being taped.

It's why law enforcement loves it when a member of the targeted group comes forward and is willing to turn evidence in exchange for immunity, as they're able to wire the individual and obtain incriminating evidence on the others.

ETA: I just purchased a Sony ICD-PX820, which includes USB, MP3 recording, and feeds to Dragon NaturallySpeaking. Should be a handy device as I'm almost always carrying. In it's highest res mode, it'll hold 22 hrs of audio in its 2 GB memory. Relax to the max, and it'll hold 535 hours.

As a freelance writer, however, it'll see its greatest use, particularly with its D-NS integration.

 

[JaredJames]

Should be a handy device as I'm almost always carrying.

So you can carry guns freely, but also feel the need to have a recorder into cover yourself.

I must say, this 'American Freedom' lark sounds bloody amazing.

^{(This isn't an attack on guns before anyone takes it that way.)}

Anyway, back on topic...

How does CCTV work then? If you were a cop breaking the rules whilst speaking to someone you just pulled over, and some local shop CCTV captured it, where does that leave the shop owner?

I see a number of problems with these laws which to me, make them simply about 'getting revenge' on a person who catches a cop doing something they shouldn't be.

 

[FlexGunship]

How does CCTV work then? If you were a cop breaking the rules whilst speaking to someone you just pulled over, and some local shop CCTV captured it, where does that leave the shop owner?

I don't know the answer to this. However, if you tried to use it as evidence in court, the shopkeeper would likely be charged with wiretapping. He would also likely be acquitted because he has signs everywhere indicating the presence of cameras.

Just a guess.

 

[Evo]

I don't know the answer to this. However, if you tried to use it as evidence in court, the shopkeeper would likely be charged with wiretapping. He would also likely be acquitted because he has signs everywhere indicating the presence of cameras.

Just a guess.

The shopkeeper is not intentionally taping the officer, the officer in this scenario has entered the view of a static security camera. Big difference.

 

[FlexGunship]

The shopkeeper is not intentionally taping the officer, the officer in this scenario has entered the view of a static security camera. Big difference.

Is it? The case in Portsmouth, NH was the same. The guy just had CCTV cameras around his rental properties when he caught a detective's misconduct (http://fnhp.com/thelist/Nashua-Gannon_Karlis.html ). He was charged, and the charges were dropped.

I would think the same thing would happen to the shopkeeper.

 

[JaredJames]

The shopkeeper is not intentionally taping the officer, the officer in this scenario has entered the view of a static security camera. Big difference.

And the difference between this and the OP?

The biker didn't go out and intentionally tape an officer (I've seen nothing claiming this, so no reason to believe he did so). The officer pulled him over and approached him. Unless you can prove the camera was there to deliberately film the officer, that defence won't hold as far as I'm concerned.

If the bloke went up to an officer with the camera, fair enough he clearly was doing it deliberately. However, the bloke was approached by the officer.

It's like me sueing someone for filming me when I was the one who walked in front of their camera whilst they filmed their kid on a swing.

 

[NobodySpecial]

I would think the same thing would happen to the shopkeeper.

It would if say the shopkeeper's CCTV recorded the police officer demanding protection money.

CCTV is legal when it's helping the police, it's only wiretapping when it shows the police doing something wrong.

 

[Al68]

The biker didn't go out and intentionally tape an officer (I've seen nothing claiming this, so no reason to believe he did so). The officer pulled him over and approached him. Unless you can prove the camera was there to deliberately film the officer, that defence won't hold as far as I'm concerned..

Good point, but what if it was deliberate? Should a police officer have a "right to privacy" regarding their official actions during a traffic stop? Was the officer pulling the motorist over to have a private conversation with him?

 

[zomgwtf]

Good point, but what if it was deliberate? Should a police officer have a "right to privacy" regarding their official actions during a traffic stop? Was the officer pulling the motorist over to have a private conversation with him?

Nothing an officer does in public while on duty should be considered 'private'.

 

[leroyjenkens]

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.

So no buildings can have security cameras?
If you're in public, you're subject to be filmed, whether you like it or not.

 

[drankin]

Good point, but what if it was deliberate? Should a police officer have a "right to privacy" regarding their official actions during a traffic stop? Was the officer pulling the motorist over to have a private conversation with him?

It seems to me that a "public" servant in a "public" environment has forfieted any right to visual privacy by being in "public" with the people that are ultimately paying his salary. The police are in public because that is their job. Is my memory of seeing the police violating his privacy? Is my testimony of a cop in public violating his privacy? Video is simply a record of what actually happened. This must be a state by state legal issue. I've never heard of videotaping being illegal in WA state.

 

[Evo]

Is it? The case in Portsmouth, NH was the same. The guy just had CCTV cameras around his rental properties when he caught a detective's misconduct (http://fnhp.com/thelist/Nashua-Gannon_Karlis.html ). He was charged, and the charges were dropped.

I would think the same thing would happen to the shopkeeper.

That's not the same thing. That was the guy's house and the officer was there to serve a warrant. And like you said, charges were dropped.

An innocent shopkeeper (and btw, jared is in the UK where they have the CCTV cameras everywhere) is not likley to be considered in a prejudiced position.

 

[FlexGunship]

I've never heard of videotaping being illegal in WA state.

Washington makes it a crime to intercept or record a private telephone call, in-person conversation, or electronic communication unless all parties to the communication consent.

Source: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/washington/washington-recording-law

 

[JaredJames]

and btw, jared is in the UK where they have the CCTV cameras everywhere

You have no idea. I can't remember the exact figure, but it's something like "a person in the UK (I'd assume a city) is caught on camera an average of 300 times per day".

We're a tad paranoid in that sense. But at the same time I don't see a problem. I'm doing nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide. The camera's, if anything, back that up if I'm ever accused.

Still excessive though.

 

[drankin]

Source: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/washington/washington-recording-law

Interesting, just a few weeks ago a cell phone videorecording of a cop punching a teenager was on the news. There wasn't any news of the person with the cell phone getting into trouble. I guess they only enforce it if they can get away with it. So, if you record something, post it as soon as possible.

Note the word "private". A public video may not apply to that clause.

 

[JaredJames]

Good point, but what if it was deliberate? Should a police officer have a "right to privacy" regarding their official actions during a traffic stop? Was the officer pulling the motorist over to have a private conversation with him?

My answer was in regards to the specifics of the OP.

So far as an officers right to privacy, I don't think they should be protected. Especially when they are in such a delicate position when it comes to use of force and potential for abuse of power.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I'd encourage filming the police, but in the UK an officer can use what ever force they like, providing they can justify it. Sounds fairly obvious, but people truly believe the police can't touch them. In a documentary the other day, an officer described how he would "break your nose" if that was the only way to remove the threat you posed to him. All he would need to do is explain how that is all he could do to get you under control and he's safe.
Video evidence in that sort of situation could be extremely helpful, whether in helping the officers case, or yours. If you watch any recent UK demonstrations, you'll see both police and protestors with cameras darting around filming everything.

I'd also add that people really should stop the whole "we pay their salary" crap.

 

[drankin]

I'd also add that people really should stop the whole "we pay their salary" crap.

I disagree. They work for the public. They are payed to serve and protect. If this isn't acknowledged then the potential for a loss of respect towards the law abiding citizen can lead to an abuse of authority. IMO. It puts things in the proper perspective.

 

[NobodySpecial]

but in the UK an officer can use what ever force they like, providing they can justify it.

Sometimes they don't even need to justify it - they just let official justice take it's course
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274

 

[JaredJames]

I disagree. They work for the public. They are payed to serve and protect. If this isn't acknowledged then the potential for a loss of respect towards the law abiding citizen can lead to an abuse of authority. IMO. It puts things in the proper perspective.

You do realize that by shopping in a super market we are paying the wages of the staff? We pay a lot of peoples salaries, if anything, we pay the employees of small businesses far more directly than we ever do the police.

And for the record, the police don't have to protect you:

In 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#United_States
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

 

[drankin]

You do realize that by shopping in a super market we are paying the wages of the staff? We pay a lot of peoples salaries, if anything, we pay the employees of small businesses far more directly than we ever do the police.

And for the record, the police don't have to protect you:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#United_States
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

The police are payed 100% by taxpayers. They are public employees. Everyone contributes to their salary. When society forgets that the government works for the purpose of protecting the rights of the people, tyranny is born (IMO).

Anyhow, I believe there is a distinction between public videotaping and private videotaping. Public not falling into the jurisdiction of wiretapping laws. There is some gray area there and this is why consent is often required for filmmakers or those who videotape the public for profit.

 

[JaredJames]

The police are payed 100% by taxpayers. They are public employees. Everyone contributes to their salary. When society forgets that the government works for the purpose of protecting the rights of the people, tyranny is born (IMO).

And the guy in my local corner shop is paid by some other means than "customers giving him money for a product"? The police are just that. A service provided to the public, paid for by the taxes. Anyway, this is really off topic.

Anyhow, I believe there is a distinction between public videotaping and private videotaping. Public not falling into the jurisdiction of wiretapping laws. There is some gray area there and this is why consent is often required for filmmakers or those who videotape the public for profit.

Agreed, although I think the grey area is in concealment of the recording device.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'd also add that people really should stop the whole "we pay their salary" crap.

I disagree strongly. This was a critical problem when Plato wrote The Republic. How can you give 100% power to enforce laws to a specific group of individuals and ensure that they, themselves, don't abuse that power? Plato's answer was the famous noble lie. In our society, the noble lie is a real truth.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The public does. We pay their salaries and if we give up the right to cut them off from their salaries for poor job performance, then we give up the right to stop abuse of power.

We're a tad paranoid in that sense. But at the same time I don't see a problem. I'm doing nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide.

Yikes. I actually hate the premise you're working on. It's the same idea as disclosing all of your purchases to the IRS for tax purposes. The IRS, during an audit, is legally empowered to review any purchase you made as it pertains to your taxes. Even if you have "nothing to hide" you have to understand what an invasion of privacy that is.

Step 1) Give up privacy.

That's where I lose faith in the system.

As far as your specific scenario, Jared, the cameras are a more "public watching the public" affair. Good for privacy? Not really. But it's not actually an invasion of privacy.

You do realize that by shopping in a super market we are paying the wages of the staff?

Absolutely! Have you ever been beaten up by a cashier for exact change only to complain to the manager and NOT HAVE THE CASHIER FIRED?! Jared, your analogy is PERFECT, but it's arguing against your point, not in favor of it.

A cashier doesn't usually have as many guns as a police officer, by the way.

 

[JaredJames]

I disagree strongly. This was a critical problem when Plato wrote The Republic. How can you give 100% power to enforce laws to a specific group of individuals and ensure that they, themselves, don't abuse that power? Plato's answer was the famous noble lie. In our society, the noble lie is a real truth.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The public does. We pay their salaries and if we give up the right to cut them off from their salaries for poor job performance, then we give up the right to stop abuse of power.

Absolutely! Have you ever been beaten up by a cashier for exact change only to complain to the manager and NOT HAVE THE CASHIER FIRED?!

Jared, your analogy is PERFECT, but it's arguing against your point, not in favor of it.

If the police use unjustified force, you complain to the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) in Britain and they take the matter up. Police can be fired for it or face penalty. They aren't above the law. The police can't simply beat someone up (unless the US has given so much 'freedom' they can). I don't know if you have an IPCC equivalent over in the states, if not, I'd say your bigger concern is why there isn't an independent authority for 'guarding the guardians'. To believe the police are above the law is ridiculous and they certainly shouldn't believe so. There needs to be a system in place that ensures they can't abuse their power.

It doesn't argue against me. The fact you are paying someones salary (not in the boss:worker sense) does not mean you have any power over them. Period.
Private businesses want to keep you spending with them and so do things to ensure that happens.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'd say your bigger concern is why there isn't an independent authority for 'guarding the guardians'. To believe the police are above the law is ridiculous and they certainly shouldn't believe so. There needs to be a system in place that ensures they can't abuse their power.

Yeah. Video cameras seem to work.

...oooohhhh...

 

[JaredJames]

Yeah. Video cameras seem to work.

...oooohhhh...

No ooh about it. There is a legal path people in the UK can take if they want to complain about the police, the IPCC.

The fact it would appear the states doesn't have an equivalent body and they make it illegal to film a cop is rather worrying. It's like they're trying to cover up what the police do.

 

[vela]

The "we pay their salary" argument is pretty weak, actually. Suppose the government used a lottery instead of taxing to fund the police department. Does that mean only people who buy lottery tickets should be immune from police abuse? Obviously not. It only matters that the police are, as part of the government, public servants.

 

[JaredJames]

The "we pay their salary" argument is pretty weak, actually. Suppose the government used a lottery instead of taxing to fund the police department. Does that mean only people who buy lottery tickets should be immune from police abuse? Obviously not. It only matters that the police are, as part of the government, public servants.

Forget lottery, what about those who don't pay tax?

 

[Char. Limit]

No ooh about it. There is a legal path people in the UK can take if they want to complain about the police, the IPCC.

The fact it would appear the states doesn't have an equivalent body and they make it illegal to film a cop is rather worrying. It's like they're trying to cover up what the police do.

Which is what I believe, and why I don't trust policemembers.

 

[Al68]

It seems to me that a "public" servant in a "public" environment has forfieted any right to visual privacy by being in "public"...

I agree, but would extend it to being in private, too. If a police officer enters private property as part of his job, he still has no right to privacy, and any video/audio recording by the property owner/resident should be fine.

 

[Mathnomalous]

I agree, but would extend it to being in private, too. If a police officer enters private property as part of his job, he still has no right to privacy, and any video/audio recording by the property owner/resident should be fine.

I think Dateline's To Catch a Predator uses a justification similar to what you just expressed. I cannot imagine a sexual predator agreeing to have his mugshot shown on national TV. I might be wrong.

 

[Proton Soup]

That's not the same thing. That was the guy's house and the officer was there to serve a warrant. And like you said, charges were dropped.

An innocent shopkeeper (and btw, jared is in the UK where they have the CCTV cameras everywhere) is not likley to be considered in a prejudiced position.

i don't see the point. an officer serving a warrant is always in a prejudiced position. the very fact that prejudice is involved is reason enough to make an unprejudiced record of the event.

 

[Proton Soup]

Forget lottery, what about those who don't pay tax?

in the US, those seem to be the people that have the most interaction with law enforcement.

 

[mugaliens]

So you can carry guns freely, but also feel the need to have a recorder into cover yourself.

Nope. I'm a writer, and got tired of both carrying around a notebook, writing it in, and laboriously typing up what I wrote. It's a lot easier to have Dragon simply convert the clips into searcheable text.

I simply figured as long as I'm carrying it around, why not have it running, just in case? As for encounters, I don't expect any adverse encounters here in Colorado, at least not with law enforcement. I know several of the officers assigned to the local division, less than a mile from where I live.

I must say, this 'American Freedom' lark sounds bloody amazing.

In what way?

^{(This isn't an attack on guns before anyone takes it that way.)}

No worries. :)

How does CCTV work then? If you were a cop breaking the rules whilst speaking to someone you just pulled over, and some local shop CCTV captured it, where does that leave the shop owner?

I see a number of problems with these laws which to me, make them simply about 'getting revenge' on a person who catches a cop doing something they shouldn't be.

Good points.

 

[JaredJames]

Nope. I'm a writer, and got tired of both carrying around a notebook, writing it in, and laboriously typing up what I wrote. It's a lot easier to have Dragon simply convert the clips into searcheable text.

I simply figured as long as I'm carrying it around, why not have it running, just in case? As for encounters, I don't expect any adverse encounters here in Colorado, at least not with law enforcement. I know several of the officers assigned to the local division, less than a mile from where I live.

Sorry, I misinterpretted 'carrying' as referring to guns not the recorder. Apologies.

In what way?

Well I see a country where people will sue for pretty much anything, and so people feel the need to cover themselves via such means as recording devices. (Unfortunately, this sueing culture is extending to Britain.)

 

[FlexGunship]

Well I see a country where people will sue for pretty much anything, and so people feel the need to cover themselves via such means as recording devices. (Unfortunately, this sueing culture is extending to Britain.)

I'll sue you for that!

 

[Evo]

Sorry, that was a highly biased source. You can repost with a mainstream news source that contains all information. Also, don't repost unless there is actually a charge for videotaping.

No one denies that police abuse their power or that in stressful situations make poor decisions. Those videos didn't show any wrong doing on the part of the officer and your link didn't show any charges for videotaping.

Also, California is a two party consent state.

Laws need to be changed, but our country allows states to make individual laws.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Sorry, that was a highly biased source. You can repost with a mainstream news source that contains all information.

It looks like most newspapers are just syndicating the LA Times story. Here's one that isn't:
http://citywatchla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4289

I haven't read it or the LA Times story (other than the first page).

 

[Proton Soup]

here's a site that reports on this sort of thing

http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248"

 

[FlexGunship]

Reviving this thread because of a newly released story!

Source: http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/2...-public-places-and-outside-federal-buildings/

There is a link to the actual settlement on that site (which is why I chose to include it instead of other news sources).

Officers should not seize the camera or its contents, and must be cautious not to give such ‘orders’ to a photographer to erase the contents of a camera, as this constitutes a seizure or detention.

(Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39623305/Federal-Courthouse-Photography-Settlement)

 

[Alfi]

from Stranger in a Strange Land by R.H.H
Stranger in a Strange Land is a 1961 science fiction novel by American author Robert A. Heinlein.
In this book the author introduces a concept. The Fair Witness.
Fair Witness is a fictional profession invented for the novel. A Fair Witness is an individual trained to observe events and report exactly what he or she sees and hears, making no extrapolations or assumptions. An eidetic memory is a prerequisite for the job, although this may be attainable with suitable training.

Having read this thread, I am surprised that no one mentioned this possibility. Cameras are a possible source for this profession, in that they can stream video to a secure site that are 'read only' and therefore could be offered in courts of law as irrefutable evidence. No manipulation possible being the key point. As Evo pointed out earlier. post #34
Fair Witnesses are prohibited from drawing conclusions about what they observe. Video does this.
It may not offer a complete story about the instance, but it is not subject to memory lose or bias.

Perhaps technology has caught up with Sci-Fi ... or soon will.

 

[JaredJames]

Video can be easily manipulated these days. This secure storage you speak of, someone must have access (even if only for maintenance) and therefore 'admin' rights on it. Nothing is full proof.

Video can be subject to problems of its own.

It may catch me and you interacting, but it may not see the specifics. Leaving things open to interpretation, and therefore a potential bias.