Is Recording Police Interactions a Felony?

[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.