Is Recording Police Interactions a Felony?

[Evo]

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.

I don't get why he's bringing up China *and* without stating any facts, just a sweeping remark.

Does he want to discuss the US, or the entire world? If he wants to discuss other countries, he then needs to post the laws in those countries. I'm still waiting for a list of laws for the US. As I pointed out, it varies all over the country. I posted an article which discussed one municipality that worked up a document that gave "consent" for the police to be videotaped. Without discussing laws and specifics, the thread is just a rant.

 

[FlexGunship]

I don't get why he's bringing up China *and* without stating any facts, just a sweeping remark.

It's not unreasonable to pose a question which may incite a reader to consider other comparisons. I apologize that it didn't have that effect on you.

I posted four links at the start of the thread all of which detail at least one case (sometimes more) in which a person was arrested and charged with a felony for videotaping police misconduct. They were all reputable journalistic institutions from mainstream sources. I hope we can accept this as a fact moving forward without the need to re-establish it.

Amnesty International considers police brutality and misconduct a form of human rights abuse and has stated so repeatedly:

On 27 May, a thirty-day state of emergency was declared in Peru, under which
certain Constitutional rights have been suspended. Amnesty International is
concerned that this could result in the security forces using excessive force
against demonstrators. The organization is also concerned that this might mark
the beginning of further human rights violations.

Source: (http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR460102003?open&of=ENG-2AM )

A 10-year police modernization plan has seen human rights training become part of the police training curriculum. However, Amnesty International continues to learn of police brutality and impunity.

Source: (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/reports/above-the-law-police-brutality-in-angola-20070912)

And their 2007 report (entire report available here: http://archive.amnesty.org/report2007/eng/Freedom-from-fear/default.htm )

[The Amnesty International 2007 report on human rights] also documents widespread police misconduct in many other countries, especially countries with authoritarian regimes.[2]

Source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality#cite_note-Amnesty_2007-1)

More recently, Amnesty International has acknowledged similar problems in the Unites States of America:

barbaric treatment of citizens by U.S. police is allegedly rife. Again according to Amnesty, U.S. police and custody officials “are rarely prosecuted for abuses,”

Source: (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/04/united-nations-human-rights-council/print)

I hope we can accept, as a fact, that police misconduct (especially police brutality), is human rights abuse.

My question was posed to cause the reader to think: "What if I read about this happening in China... would be more upset, less upset, or equally upset?" I chose China, specifically, because of their generally accepted status as a human rights offender.

The one measure by which citizens can decrease police misconduct is by holding police accountable for their actions. Since police are given preferable treatment in the judicial system, the only means to do this is by video recording (or audio recording) the actions of the police.

This is a felony.

 

[zomgwtf]

Evo he's saying if this happened in China America would be looking down on it saying NO! You CAN NOT! They tend to talk a lot of **** abuot the rest of the world when their own social structure etc. is far from being close to the best. That's the point he's making, not particularly hard to understand and it's an opinion so as per forum guidelines he doesn't have to back it up no?

The thread is not a rant it's just a discussion about very real situations that occurred, if you don't lik the discussion then why bother taking part? Just to point out how bad of a thread it is? I don't get it.

As well I would love to see you alter a recording and present it as evidence without it being torn apart, I mean it is easy right?

 

[Evo]

Evo he's saying if this happened in China America would be looking down on it saying NO! You CAN NOT! They tend to talk a lot of **** abuot the rest of the world when their own social structure etc. is far from being close to the best. That's the point he's making, not particularly hard to understand and it's an opinion so as per forum guidelines he doesn't have to back it up no?

The thread is not a rant it's just a discussion about very real situations that occurred, if you don't lik the discussion then why bother taking part? Just to point out how bad of a thread it is? I don't get it.

As well I would love to see you alter a recording and present it as evidence without it being torn apart, I mean it is easy right?

I had hopes that it could be a worthwhile discussion and not a rant, but I see that some people just want to rant and not actually know facts. It *is* my function to try to keep discussions here from being *rants*, to try and raise the bar on the level of discussion with useful information, not sensationalism. Shall we turn on the applause meter and shout out names of countries? *China*, *Somalia*, *Iran*.

As I said, if he wants to extend the topic to other countries instead of focusing on the US, fine, then post facts about the laws on filming police in those countries. Now I see the OP has changed the topic from filming police to international human rights.

Video altered by someone that knows how to do it is hard to detect, that's why *experts* have to try to determine if something's been altered. I don't remember saying I would be doing it.

 

[Evo]

It's not unreasonable to pose a question which may incite a reader to consider other comparisons.

It is when it's meant to be sensationalist and just cause a knee jerk reaction.

Amnesty International considers police brutality and misconduct a form of human rights abuse and has stated so repeatedly:

Have we switched topics now? I don't see anything about someone being arrested for filming.

 

[FlexGunship]

As I said, if he wants to extend the topic to other countries instead of focusing on the US, fine, then post facts about the laws on filming police in those countries. Now I see the OP has changed the topic from filming police to international human rights.

The one measure by which citizens can decrease police misconduct is by holding police accountable for their actions. Since police are given preferable treatment in the judicial system, the only means to do this is by video recording (or audio recording) the actions of the police.

This is a felony.

Forgive me for being so abstruse, although, I actually thought I had tied the topics together in a fairly significant way by establishing:

First: That police misconduct is a human rights offence (i.e. not trivial)
Second: That the manner in which to curb police misconduct is by recording their actions
Third: That recording police action is a felony​

 

[FlexGunship]

Have we switched topics now? I don't see anything about someone being arrested for filming.

There's an intermediate link in the chain. Arresting someone for filming is not the violation (well, arguably). But filming is the means for moderating the violations. The means for moderation is a felony.

 

[Evo]

Wouldn't a more constructive discussion be around what should be done as in the article I linked to?

“Police are not used to ceding power, and these tools are forcing them to cede power,’’ said David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

Ardia said the proliferation of cellphone and other technology has equipped people to record actions in public. “As a society, we should be asking ourselves whether we want to make that into a criminal activity,’’ he said.

In Pennsylvania, another two-party state, individuals using cellphones to record police activities have also ended up in police custody.

But one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed individuals’ right to videotape in public. Police in Spring City and East Vincent Township agreed to adopt a written policy confirming the legality of videotaping police while on duty. The policy was hammered out as part of a settlement between authorities and ACLU attorneys representing a Spring City man who had been arrested several times last year for following police and taping them.

 

[Char. Limit]

Wouldn't a more constructive discussion be around what should be done as in the article I linked to?

Police should get used to ceding power, because they have too much. Videotaping someone in public should never be a felony. Videotaping a government worker in his profession should also never be a felony.

 

[Evo]

Police should get used to ceding power, because they have too much. Videotaping someone in public should never be a felony. Videotaping a government worker in his profession should also never be a felony.

So do you think the solution in the link I posted is a good one?

Of course there do need to be some restrictions, as in not interfering while taping, and non-public figures have a right to privacy, the use of "public vs secret" is whether the camera and microphone are visibly out in the open or hidden, not necessarily in a public place.

 

[Char. Limit]

So do you think the solution in the link I posted is a good one?

If by "the solution" you mean this:

But one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed individuals’ right to videotape in public. Police in Spring City and East Vincent Township agreed to adopt a written policy confirming the legality of videotaping police while on duty. The policy was hammered out as part of a settlement between authorities and ACLU attorneys representing a Spring City man who had been arrested several times last year for following police and taping them.

Then yes, it seems a good solution. I would support it.

Of course there do need to be some restrictions, as in not interfering while taping, and non-public figures have a right to privacy, theu use of "public vs secret" is whether the camera and microphone are visibly out in the open or hidden, not necessarily in a public place.

I don't believe that it really matters if the camera is open or hidden. It's public anyway, so don't do something that'll embarrass yourself if it was recorded.

 

[Jack21222]

So do you think the solution in the link I posted is a good one?

Of course there do need to be some restrictions, as in not interfering while taping, and non-public figures have a right to privacy, theu use of "public vs secret" is whether the camera and microphone are visibly out in the open or hidden, not necessarily in a public place.

Non-public figures have no right to privacy out in public. That's why movie stars (and the people who are friends with them) get harassed by paparazzi all the time.

 

[JaredJames]

the use of "public vs secret" is whether the camera and microphone are visibly out in the open or hidden, not necessarily in a public place.

That is what I've been looking for.

Now, if you had a 'bent' cop who was taking bribes and you filmed his actions with a hidden camera to report him, would this be considered a felony?

Where do they draw the line? You are trying to prevent a crime by committing one. Seems like a tricky ground.

 

[Evo]

Non-public figures have no right to privacy out in public.

It is illegal without consent in a number of states, under certain conditions, such as making the video publicly viewable. Do you notice when you see a tv video in public and some people's faces are blurred out? That's because those people did not consent.

 

[Jack21222]

It is illegal without consent in a number of states.

I meant privacy in general, not referring to any specific existing laws banning any specific actions. You mentioned that there needs to be restrictions. Not interfering while taping is a reasonable restriction. A right to privacy in public is not a reasonable restriction in my opinion.

 

[Evo]

That is what I've been looking for.

Now, if you had a 'bent' cop who was taking bribes and you filmed his actions with a hidden camera to report him, would this be considered a felony?

Where do they draw the line? You are trying to prevent a crime by committing one. Seems like a tricky ground.

A legal wiretap is secretive audio and/or video that has been approved by a warrant. As far as your scenario, it would be up to a judge, would be my guess. I tried getting a single definition, but as I mentioned, in the US, we allow states and towns to make their own laws, so there is no one right answer.

 

[Mathnomalous]

The Spring City, PA and East Vincent Township, PA policy seems reasonable. In a public setting, videotaping police activities should be legal, even when a hidden camera is used, as long as the videotaping does not interfere with those police activities.

Police who are responsible and honest have little to be concerned about; police who engage in questionable, but not necessarily illegal activities, may be cleared by comparing the official video (e.g. dash cam) and the video taped by the private citizen; police who are "crooked" are the ones who will probably oppose being videotaped by private citizens.

Keep in mind, the people most interested in getting rid of crooked police officers (who get caught) are honest police officers. It only takes one dishonest police officer to cast a shadow of doubt over an entire police department. For example, LAPD after Rodney King incident.

 

[Char. Limit]

The Spring City, PA and East Vincent Township, PA policy seems reasonable. In a public setting, videotaping police activities should be legal, even when a hidden camera is used, as long as the videotaping does not interfere with those police activities.

Police who are responsible and honest have little to be concerned about; police who engage in questionable, but not necessarily illegal activities, may be cleared by comparing the official video (e.g. dash cam) and the video taped by the private citizen; police who are "crooked" are the ones who will probably oppose being videotaped by private citizens.

Keep in mind, the people most interested in getting rid of crooked police officers (who get caught) are honest police officers. It only takes one dishonest police officer to cast a shadow of doubt over an entire police department. For example, LAPD after Rodney King incident.

Or my hometown.

 

[FlexGunship]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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).

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

 

[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.