Should recording the police be illegal?

[Tyche]

Though, of course, it's important to keep in mind that any recordings done without the knowledge or consent of the recorded parties is inadmissible as evidence, if it comes to it. No judge would let you show a recording (in court) of them beating someone if the police didn't even know they were being recorded. But that doesn't mean it won't cause a media shitstorm.

Fortunately, there are cameras in the police cruisers that are admissible as evidence against the police, since they know they're there and have probably consented to it in their employment contract.

Not true. Texas, for instance, only needs one consenting party (as in, the recorder).

[Tyche]

Actually, scratch that. Seems I was wrong. Need one consenting participating individual (so a phone conversation you have with another individual can be recorded by yourself and used in court without the consent of the other party), and the law applied to wiretapping. Regardless, the law is a bit tricky in regards to recordings.

[jmc]

where's our MA cop at?

Hi

I'm not really against video taping a officer, its only during certain times when I have a hard time dealing with it.

If i'm a drug control officer, and someone is video taping me or taking picture of me while i'm in plain clothes.... then theres a issue. As my safety would be at high risk once those photos hit the internet.

The only other time I don't like it, would be the latest lady that got arrested for video taping officers. Don't have a link, but it was the lady standing on her lawn behind the cop while they were searching a car. Nothing beats having some random person standing behind you, as your digging through a car and cannot defend your firearm if said person goes to grab it.

If you want to video tape me across the street, more power to you..... but if you get in my way or make me feel unsafe, then there is a issue.

[Senoska]

Hi

I'm not really against video taping a officer, its only during certain times when I have a hard time dealing with it.

If i'm a drug control officer, and someone is video taping me or taking picture of me while i'm in plain clothes.... then theres a issue. As my safety would be at high risk once those photos hit the internet.

The only other time I don't like it, would be the latest lady that got arrested for video taping officers. Don't have a link, but it was the lady standing on her lawn behind the cop while they were searching a car. Nothing beats having some random person standing behind you, as your digging through a car and cannot defend your firearm if said person goes to grab it.

If you want to video tape me across the street, more power to you..... but if you get in my way or make me feel unsafe, then there is a issue.

Edit again: I was going to give you a response that detailed why it is your internet activity is far more dangerous than anything anyone with a camera could do, but I don't have it in me to argue this point at all. In short, you chose your profession. Part of that profession may be dangerous, but you knew that when you accepted it. I'm taking specific issue with that last line there, but I'll pm you the details.

[aduidarnenye]

Welcome to the police state.

[Bingbong]

The big thing is a "reasonable right to privacy" depending on where you're at.
If you're on a public roadway, with all the lights going, I would think the reasonable right to privacy would be next to nothing... therefore video on!

[Eaglestrike]

Edit again: I was going to give you a response that detailed why it is your internet activity is far more dangerous than anything anyone with a camera could do, but I don't have it in me to argue this point at all. In short, you chose your profession. Part of that profession may be dangerous, but you knew that when you accepted it. I'm taking specific issue with that last line there, but I'll pm you the details.

Uhh, isn't he saying in that bold line that he doesn't want to be video taped while in a situation where he works undercover? It's pretty obvious why that's a risk and I think it's retarded to say "well that just comes with the job" as you're basically saying police can't do undercover work, lol.

[Acturus]

Edit again: I was going to give you a response that detailed why it is your internet activity is far more dangerous than anything anyone with a camera could do, but I don't have it in me to argue this point at all. In short, you chose your profession. Part of that profession may be dangerous, but you knew that when you accepted it. I'm taking specific issue with that last line there, but I'll pm you the details.

It's a dangerous game to play in this instance (plain clothes police and recording their likeness). There is less restriction on what is advertised on websites then, say, if a billboard had a plain clothes officer's likeness on it with some sort of warning, or if flyers were plastered on telephone poles. Website liability is very lax when it comes to those responsible for the content, to the point where it does present issues beyond what is reasonable for a private citizen conducting activities in public.

If the internet was policed in the same manner that IRL is, then there would be more weight to your argument.

Having said all of that, the act of filming anyone in public should not be a crime. The crime is committed based on what is done with that footage.

Of course, you can't fim doctors in hospitals, but I'm not sure I agree with that either. Unfortunately, that's typically bound up in the hospital's own rules, and it doesn't originate as a legal issue.

[Skyylya]

Though, of course, it's important to keep in mind that any recordings done without the knowledge or consent of the recorded parties is inadmissible as evidence, if it comes to it. No judge would let you show a recording (in court) of them beating someone if the police didn't even know they were being recorded. But that doesn't mean it won't cause a media shitstorm.

Fortunately, there are cameras in the police cruisers that are admissible as evidence against the police, since they know they're there and have probably consented to it in their employment contract.

Speaking of the cruiser camera's...if the suspect doesn't know the camera is there then why is it admissable then? That seems like quite the double standard.

[SephYuyX]

Speaking of the cruiser camera's...if the suspect doesn't know the camera is there then why is it admissable then? That seems like quite the double standard.

Because everyone knows that every police car has a camera?
That and "Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in the court of law"

[greenhills]

I voted no.

Though I don't really like the idea of everyone filming officers just to catch them slipping on the job (how would you feel if people always were recording you at work, waiting for you to make a bad judgment call?)

Alot of people that deal with the public at their jobs are under constant supervision.

If i'm a drug control officer, and someone is video taping me or taking picture of me while i'm in plain clothes.... then theres a issue. As my safety would be at high risk once those photos hit the internet.

agreeing with this statement depends on how effective you believe the current drug laws are. i personally believe that there are way too many instances where the police are hiding their identity, and it seems contrary to what their job should be.

[Skyylya]

Because everyone knows that every police car has a camera?
That and "Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in the court of law"

And I think that a cop knows that they are being filmed if they have the ability to break the camera's filming them and anything they do they should be held accountable for. I agree with the sentiment that if a cop is second guessing himself based on the fact that he's being recorded it's probably because he is in fact about to do something he's not supposed to.

That also said, I think that police should have a bit of leeway when dealing with certain situations. People make too big a deal when a cop does something out of the ordinary in an unpredictable situation. They put their lives on the line, not the people watching a video on youtube at home crying bloody murder whenever a cop is on video doing something.

[Kaludneisucks]

Police officers are public/government officials and therefor as a general rule IN MY OPINION not subject to the same privacy rules while at work. Anyone should be able to film police going about their everyday business free from harassment as long as neither officers nor filmer are endangered. Then we need to employ Samurai, who are above the law, to enforce that with beheadings for those who stray too far from the intended letter of the law. All questions legal and politic should be answered with Samurai Justice. No Troll. I really do believe this. Also for shits n giggles read the sections in The Social Contract about The Dictator. That Guy is the Man.

[Yuri-G]

it should definitely be legal. if they're not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.

of course, use that rationale to try and enter my home without a warrant and I'll tell you to go fuck yourself.

[aurik]

Unless there is a pressing safety issue (thus covering JMC's examples) then it should absolutely be legal to film the police in public places.

[Valisk]

Speaking of the cruiser camera's...if the suspect doesn't know the camera is there then why is it admissable then? That seems like quite the double standard.

Might be a syntax error but the discussion at hand (what you quoted) is filming police misconduct. If the police dash cam provides inculpatory evidence against the OFFICER, the suspect (prosecution witness) wants it to be provided and is admissable if the suspect (witness) agrees since the officer(s) already knew about the camera/signed waivers when hired/etc.

[aurik]

Those dash cam films have a history of going missing when they capture misconduct.

[Melena]

Edit again: I was going to give you a response that detailed why it is your internet activity is far more dangerous than anything anyone with a camera could do, but I don't have it in me to argue this point at all. In short, you chose your profession. Part of that profession may be dangerous, but you knew that when you accepted it. I'm taking specific issue with that last line there, but I'll pm you the details.

Ok, I knew you were dumb, but damn. The worst thing that can happen to an undercover narcotics officer is to be outed like that. Not only does it put the officer and there family at risk, getting outed like that means they most likely have to transfer to a different division and have someone new trained to take his place since it won't be safe to go back out like that. I know in your pot loving brain only stoners with a half gram get arrested, but in the real world when your part of busts that net 250k+ in cash, drugs, and weapons, gangs don't like that and won't hesitate to kill you if they find out your a cop.

[Mytiwar]

Those dash cam films have a history of going missing when they capture misconduct.

Oh... errrr.... the tape was full.

Oh... errrr... someone stole it.

Lol i'd just love to hear a policeman explain that.

[Kurokikaze]

As long as the person recording is not in any way hurting the investigation then this should not be illegal.