Should recording the police be illegal?

[Khajit]

How does telling a person their Miranda rights excuse the cop from recording everyone else while making it illegal to film the cop. Rights don't switch off and on like a toggle.
The Miranda rights are logically STILL applying to the cop at all times and as such anything they say and do can be held against THEM in the court of law such as recordings.
How does this make a cop immune to being recorded? Why aren't security cameras illegal? If it's because of a sign saying they're recording you then why cant a citizen have the same?

[Melena]

Honestly this whole thing is dumb. Any cop who is worth a shit should have no issues being video taped. So long as the video taping is kept at a distance and not interfering with an arrest or investigation, it should not be illegal. Now if dumb idiot with a cellphone # 231526 gets into the officers face trying to video tape and is directly interfering, then yes he should be arrested and the video used against him since he is willingly interfering with an active investigation.

[Acevalefor]

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.

This is covered by The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. It's to protect the privacy of patients/doctors/nurses/support staff. Basically they don't want insurance companies to have access to medical records for good reason. There are very very few cases of medical misconduct when compared to, say, police misconduct. Recording a doctor is FAR more likely to net you a conversation about someone's private medical issues than a video of a doctor beating a black kid.

That being said, I do believe a police officer has some expectation of privacy and safety when on the job. Just like others have pointed out, there are several instances where the officer could be at risk because of the proximity of the person filming or because of the circumstances the officer is in. Filming the officer in question should be completely legal, but not if it compromises the officer's safety or his ability to do his job.

[Nephlite]

http://www.pixiq.com/article/dc-photographer-detained-twice-in-four-months-for-taking-pictures-of-cops

Not the exact article I was looking for but it'll hold you guys over till I find the actual language. Both of the cops in both articles on this page were fired.

[Dimmauk]

How does telling a person their Miranda rights excuse the cop from recording everyone else while making it illegal to film the cop. Rights don't switch off and on like a toggle.
The Miranda rights are logically STILL applying to the cop at all times and as such anything they say and do can be held against THEM in the court of law such as recordings.
How does this make a cop immune to being recorded? Why aren't security cameras illegal? If it's because of a sign saying they're recording you then why cant a citizen have the same?

I agree, The police dont tell you you are being recorded. They just to it. But they also dont post it on the internet without asking your permission.

[SephYuyX]

I agree, The police dont tell you you are being recorded. They just to it. But they also dont post it on the internet without asking your permission.

Again,
"Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in the court of law"


The whole "cops shouldnt be allowed to use recordings unless they mention it" is pretty BS. Thats like suing a paramedic for touching you inappropriately while theyre trying to save your life. It's a part of their job, and there to help with crimes, and there are plenty of instances where the cop is caught doing bad things on the camera as well.

[Darus Grey]

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.

Actually he's right. Police Departments haven't caught up yet with technology, but you guys are going to have to accept the fact that in the near future undercover police work is simply not going to be feasible. There will simply be too much information out there that prevents even a new cop from effectively doing their job.

The more advanced criminal organizations already keep databases of police officers, and the fact that more officers don't get their cover blown is simply the lack of due diligence on the part of the criminals, cause there is an incredibly high chance you've already been outed.

I mean, you realize that within 5~ years criminals are going to have easy access to the technology that will let them take a picture of you with a cell phone and it'll automatically identify you as a cop from their existing database, or cross-reference your face on the internet for proximity to any other known police officers?

If you or anyone you care about is in undercover work, tell them to GTFO. It's a dead profession.

[Dimmauk]

I think having dashboard cameras is a great idea, and it has been awesome TV. But why shouldn't citizens be allowed to film for their safety too?

[jmc]

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.

Well, it was a pretty bad example. As I have never worked plain clothes, nor plan on it in my career.

*not to quote you, just throwing this out there

Not all cruisers have dash cams, most towns in MA do not have them. Including my own department

[*Shinzon*]

Actually he's right. Police Departments haven't caught up yet with technology, but you guys are going to have to accept the fact that in the near future undercover police work is simply not going to be feasible. There will simply be too much information out there that prevents even a new cop from effectively doing their job.

The more advanced criminal organizations already keep databases of police officers, and the fact that more officers don't get their cover blown is simply the lack of due diligence on the part of the criminals, cause they're is an incredibly high chance you've already been outed.

I mean, you realize that within 5~ years criminals are going to have easy access to the technology that will let them take a picture of you with a cell phone and it'll automatically identify you as a cop from their existing database, or cross-reference your face on the internet for proximity to any other known police officers?

If you or anyone you care about is in undercover work, tell them to GTFO. It's a dead profession.

While your statement about the tech is absolutely correct, it's not entirely correct that undercover work is a dead profession/specialty. The reason I say that is because some, not all, undercover officers get recruited after they fail out of the academy or are passed up and just left in the pool of waiting civil servants. Those people never make it into pictures or even the department database because for all purposes they aren't officers. They basically assign you a badge number with no personal information. While that sounds all cloak and daggery, it happens and that's how some people earn their way onto the department after failing out. Doesn't happen often though because most people fail for psychological reasons anyway. It's not really even a stretch when you think about it because there are just some crimes that need undercover work.

Also my best friend is a cop and as long as you aren't in the officers face while they're doing a job you should have every right to video tape what they do. At any rate with the way technology is advancing and everyone recording everything they do, there's no way to realistically fight being recorded. The only issue is whether courts will accept this video evidence more often.

[Altariel]

Law enforcement recently won a decision giving them the right to put GPS tracking devices on people's cars while in the driveway because the courts ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in our own driveways. If citizens can't expect privacy on part of our own property how can police officers expect privacy on public roads? Seems like an incredible double standard.

[Darus Grey]

While your statement about the tech is absolutely correct, it's not entirely correct that undercover work is a dead profession/specialty. The reason I say that is because some, not all, undercover officers get recruited after they fail out of the academy or are passed up and just left in the pool of waiting civil servants. Those people never make it into pictures or even the department database because for all purposes they aren't officers. They basically assign you a badge number with no personal information. While that sounds all cloak and daggery, it happens and that's how some people earn their way onto the department after failing out. Doesn't happen often though because most people fail for psychological reasons anyway. It's not really even a stretch when you think about it because there are just some crimes that need undercover work.

Also my best friend is a cop and as long as you aren't in the officers face while they're doing a job you should have every right to video tape what they do. At any rate with the way technology is advancing and everyone recording everything they do, there's no way to realistically fight being recorded. The only issue is whether courts will accept this video evidence more often.

True, but with the prevalence of what I'm talking about, it won't be enough to simply not be officially a cop. You will have to make an active effort to NEVER ...be photographed in the proximity of police...EVER.

You can't go to social events, you can't have a friend from the department in your life at all, you probably can't even go to the station(because any smart organization is just going to film the entrance/exit for their facial recognition database). You have to cut all ties.

Granted, I'm sure there's people still willing to do it, but there's going to be a hell of a lot less of them when you combine the significant increase of risk with the significant decrease in advancement(because face it, if you can't ever connect with anyone in the department, you're not going to ever go anywhere in it, that's the simple reality of human enterprise).

What really worries me however, is that this tech is going to become prevalent soon and no one is going to be ready...and you're gonna have a year+ of high mortality rates on the job before the system adjusts to new realities.

[hey]

If they're not doing anything wrong they have nothing to worry about

Multiple people have said this, and...really? I hate the cops as much as the next guy, but seriously? There have been plenty of situations where a cop was being recorded, he shot someone/etc, in a situation which required him to do so, and then the media was OUTRAGED. The cop did nothing wrong. Maybe he could have avoided it shooting the guy, or maybe at least avoided killing him, but doing so was not unreasonable. Yet the media doesn't care. Maybe the video doesn't show the guy reaching for a gun. It is absolutely ridiculous to say they have nothing to worry about if they aren't doing anything wrong.

That being said, anyone who thinks it should be illegal is even more stupid than the people who think they don't have anything to worry about if they aren't doing anything wrong. I can understand them confiscating videos in some situations, but if a cop destroys evidence? Fuckers should be fired and locked up.

[*Shinzon*]

True, but with the prevalence of what I'm talking about, it won't be enough to simply not be officially a cop. You will have to make an active effort to NEVER ...be photographed in the proximity of police...EVER.

You can't go to social events, you can't have a friend from the department in your life at all, you probably can't even go to the station(because any smart organization is just going to film the entrance/exit for their facial recognition database). You have to cut all ties.

Granted, I'm sure there's people still willing to do it, but there's going to be a hell of a lot less of them when you combine the significant increase of risk with the significant decrease in advancement(because face it, if you can't ever connect with anyone in the department, you're not going to ever go anywhere in it, that's the simple reality of human enterprise).

What really worries me however, is that this tech is going to become prevalent soon and no one is going to be ready...and you're gonna have a year+ of high mortality rates on the job before the system adjusts to new realities.

Yeah I totally agree. The traditional definition of undercover work and those who can do it has to change quickly. Departments are always one step behind because of all the red tape though.

[quannum]

this will be a moot point in the future wont it? there will be no illusion of privacy for you or the cop, cctv will know who it's recording.

[Lucavi]

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

Agreed. If the person is actively obstructing the course of the investigation by getting in the way with a freakin' camera, then yes, the cops should be able to go wild and put a stop to it, but if its just a person a distance away recording and some cop sees it and chases the guy down to break his shit, that's just absurd.

[Mytiwar]

Law enforcement recently won a decision giving them the right to put GPS tracking devices on people's cars while in the driveway

Wow, rofl. That is such a complete violation of the constitution. GPS tracking with no warrant, in your own driveway.

Feels good living in Canada.

Just to make things clear, I am usually biased towards the police whenever there's a media outrage going on, and I have alot of faith in their discretionnary judgement; but we still have laws for them too for a reason. And being able to track any car, anywhere, without even needing a solid reason for it... yeah big brother is watching all right.

[Senoska]

Multiple people have said this, and...really? I hate the cops as much as the next guy, but seriously? There have been plenty of situations where a cop was being recorded, he shot someone/etc, in a situation which required him to do so, and then the media was OUTRAGED. The cop did nothing wrong. Maybe he could have avoided it shooting the guy, or maybe at least avoided killing him, but doing so was not unreasonable. Yet the media doesn't care. Maybe the video doesn't show the guy reaching for a gun. It is absolutely ridiculous to say they have nothing to worry about if they aren't doing anything wrong.

That being said, anyone who thinks it should be illegal is even more stupid than the people who think they don't have anything to worry about if they aren't doing anything wrong. I can understand them confiscating videos in some situations, but if a cop destroys evidence? Fuckers should be fired and locked up.

Find one example.

[hey]

Find one example.

Spoiler: show

Does Elliott Stabler count? I guess Mcgee doesn't count either, huh? Though that was a bit different, since the media wasn't involved, he just almost got arrested for killing a cop, but it was still a similar situation.

Perhaps i misspoke when i said plenty. It has surely happened though. If you looked beyond police officers i am sure you could find some examples yourself. When a situation is taken out of context, it is easy to assume someone did something wrong when they really didn't. For example, when i was in middle school, someone started a fight with me. It was in a crowded hallway, so i could not have run. The only choice i had was to fight back, to defend myself. However when a teacher came by, and saw the other kid on the ground with a bloody nose, he was assumed to be the victim, and i got a 10 day suspension. I did nothing wrong, however because what the other kid did was not seen, they had no way to know that.

Anyone with siblings has almost surely been in such a situation over 9000 times too. What actually happens is never really relevant. It's what is known to have happened that matters. The difference between the two cause varying amounts of consequences to innocent people every single day. Whether it's a kid getting 5 minutes of time out, someone getting life in prison for self defense, or a cop getting shit from the public because he was forced to kill someone, these things DO happen.gl

[Nephlite]

The more advanced criminal organizations already keep databases of police officers, and the fact that more officers don't get their cover blown is simply the lack of due diligence on the part of the criminals, cause there is an incredibly high chance you've already been outed.

I mean, you realize that within 5~ years criminals are going to have easy access to the technology that will let them take a picture of you with a cell phone and it'll automatically identify you as a cop from their existing database, or cross-reference your face on the internet for proximity to any other known police officers?

If you or anyone you care about is in undercover work, tell them to GTFO. It's a dead profession.

While I'd have to agree with you on all this, remember 90% of undercover work is about cleaning out small time offenders and the real big stuff you hear about the CIA or NYPD infiltrating an organized syndicate are maybe 1/1,000,000.

I've been working undercover VICE in DC for about 8 years now and it never gets easier. Technology is great and all but do you think the average street thug is going to have a cell phone with facial identifying software as an app? Undercover work is more about observation and intelligence rather than crime fighting. That one or two arrests you may or may not get once or twice a month took months and years of planning and observing to get that far. Not to mention the mountains of paperwork, the warrants filed to get what you need, the not so legal but legal stuff you did to get the intelligence you need, and then finding the person you want? Hell we have so many dead warrants circulating through the office it's not even funny.

That's the biggest problem with people nowadays is everything they know about everything came from someones fantasy world that was put up on TV and they think it's real. Even as advanced as you might think facial recognition software is, even that is still 5-10 years down the line before it's a point and click and instantly read who's who just by facial patterns. You sit someone for a facial recognition scan and you might if you're lucky get about 5000 matches to that facial pattern. Then you gotta have an expert sit through the results and compare frame by frame by frame each picture to who you're looking for. And even if you did hit a match? You still can't use that shit in court just based off that. You have to get fingerprints, DNA, a witness, a lineup, etc. etc. Nothing is ever that simple.

In VICE, we do 3 years of street plainclothes and 1 year of uniformed beat. That way you're constantly rotating fresh faces and you always work different sectors depending on the week/month/etc. 90% of the time you're gathering intelligence. Taking photo's, finding out who big players are by asking questions, selling a bit on the side to work informants and arresting the ones who don't want to play to use it against them so they cooperate. It's 90-95% legwork and only about 5% of real action. Most of our guys have gotten to the point where we don't even know the difference of being a cop and being a regular citizen. You see a lot of stuff on the streets and have to make decisions on weather or not to blow your cover just to hit someone. You might catch someone breaking in to an abandoned house and you MIGHT get a conviction, but is it work it to grab them and nail them? Or is it safer to wait to see where they hit, what times they hit, how many they hit, weather they have a drug problem or if they report to a higher up, and then when you find out, nail them for a big time conviction instead of running a crackhead in for stealing a toaster.

So you got your photograph taken. So what? You think by morning you'll be on the 5 o'clock news and suddenly the nation knows you? Pictures get taken of cops all the time, doesn't mean Joe Blow on the corner knows who I am. For every time a picture gets taken of a cop, maybe 1 in 10,000 gets distributed to mass media. And unless they keep that picture in their front pocket and memorize it, they won't know who I am. A plain dude in the streets looks far less recognizable than a uniformed cop. Unless it was Barack Obama walking down the street, you probably couldn't even tell if the guy is famous. Hell in D.C. there's celebs who come through all the time and I never know who they are. I did a protection detail once for Steven Tyler; didn't even know it was him till he started singing. And I love Aerosmith! So think about some of that stuff before you think undercover is dead because it definitely isn't.

Quick Edit:

True, but with the prevalence of what I'm talking about, it won't be enough to simply not be officially a cop. You will have to make an active effort to NEVER ...be photographed in the proximity of police...EVER.

You can't go to social events, you can't have a friend from the department in your life at all, you probably can't even go to the station(because any smart organization is just going to film the entrance/exit for their facial recognition database). You have to cut all ties.

Granted, I'm sure there's people still willing to do it, but there's going to be a hell of a lot less of them when you combine the significant increase of risk with the significant decrease in advancement(because face it, if you can't ever connect with anyone in the department, you're not going to ever go anywhere in it, that's the simple reality of human enterprise).

What really worries me however, is that this tech is going to become prevalent soon and no one is going to be ready...and you're gonna have a year+ of high mortality rates on the job before the system adjusts to new realities.

A lot of this stuff here is what they call "Deep Cover" and it only exists in one place: Detective novels. Stuff like this exists for the CIA or the FBI or international spies. People don't need all this advanced technology in the first place, people have been infiltrating the police departments and finding out people's undercover lives for years. All it takes is for you to fuck up your undercover background ONCE and suddenly a whole neighborhood knows you. So what then? Quit? Badguy sees you in plainclothes walk in to a station and he recognizes you cause you bought dope from him? Transfer to a different sector, go back to uniform, take a leave of absence for a few months, etc. There's ways my friend. The scenario you pointed out is for people who's whole lives revolve around undercover. The typical undercover you see around is a family man, probably worked undercover for 2 or 3 years, has a drinking problem, and has put away more badguys than the penal system can process in a month. Not James Bond.