Should recording the police be illegal?

[Kuya]

I've been hearing every now and then news about people being arrested and having their cameras destroyed for recording the police. Now, being a lefty, this pretty muchs screams wrong to me, but i wanted to see how prevalent that sentiment is in here.

Here's some kuya bias for you

A picture may be worth 1,000 words, but Narces Benoit's decision to videotape a shooting by Miami police landed him in jail after officers smashed his cell-phone camera.

It was 4am on May 30 when Benoit and his girlfriend Erika Davis saw officers firing dozens of bullets into a car driven by Raymond Herisse, a suspect who hit a police officer and other vehicles while driving recklessly. Herisse died in the hail of lead, and four bystanders also suffered gunshot wounds, the Miami Herald newspaper reported.

Police noticed the man filming the shooting and an officer jumped into his truck, and put a pistol to his head, Benoit said. The video shows officers crowding around Herisse's vehicle before opening fire, followed by indistinguishable yelling at onlookers, including Benoit, to stop filming.

The cop yelled: "Wanna be a [expletive] paparazzi?" Benoit recounted in a TV interview.

"My phone was smashed, he stepped on it, handcuffed me," the 35-year-old car stereo technician told CNN.
Despite his phone being destroyed, Benoit was able to save the footage by taking the memory card out of the device and putting it in his mouth before handing it over to police, he said, adding that officers smashed several other cameras in the chaos which followed the shooting.

The impact of citizen recording of police brutality, or activity in general goes back at least 20 years to the LA riots," said James Hughes, executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, a research organisation. "It [video recording] increasingly raises questions about surveillance; whether surveillance from citizens can put a check on power," he told Al Jazeera.

Sparked by video of police beating Rodney King, in what many saw as an example of institutionalised racism, the 1992 Los Angeles riots left more than 50 people dead and caused about $1bn in property damage.

"As almost everyone in the US has a cameraphone at this point, it's very common to have any kind of police activity in a crowded setting recorded by citizens, usually from multiple angles," said Jamais Cascio, a research fellow at the Institute for the Future. "These kinds of events are unusual and people will want to show friends and family, and, increasingly, because people are learning that it can be important to have evidence of police misconduct."

And, with the spread of easily accessible recording technology, US security forces are being joined by counter-parts around the globe in being concerned about mobile technologies.

"Echoes of Rodney King in Karachi and Miami", was the headline of a New York Times blog, analysing a recent case from Pakistan, where a television journalist recorded security forces killing Sarfraz Shah, an apparently unarmed teenager. The video sparked protests across the country.

While visual evidence, through government surveillance cameras and individuals' phones, can help make prosecutions, police unions and likeminded groups argue that police officers might second-guess themselves if they know they are being recorded and delay making necessary decisions. There are also arguments about privacy; mainly that conversations between private individuals and security forces should not be recorded by third parties.

"In the United States, the laws about the recording of police activity vary considerably from state to state. In Massachusetts, for example, existing laws that forbid recording someone without their permission have been extended to prohibit the recording of police. In Illinois, the law now explicitly bans the recording of police," Cascio told Al Jazeera. "I believe that citizens should have the right to record the actions of officials on duty; Citizens can't really fight back when they see police misconduct, their only tool is the ability to document the misbehaviour."

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...131825860.html

My problem with this basically is: if you allow cops to destroy video recording devices and arrest people for recording, how do you know they aren't just doing it to cover up police misconduct? Not to mention how impractical it might be to enforce such laws.

[Demosthenes11]

I have a hard time believing there are people that think this should be illegal.

[Kuya]

Me too, which is why i'm wondering why it hasn't been getting many hits on tv media.

[archibaldcrane]

I had never heard of actual laws barring video recording police - I figured any cop going out of his way to harass or arrest a recorder was doing it to cover his ass illegally.

I think it's a fucking ridiculous outrage - if a cop has to think twice about doing his job because he's afraid he might do something wrong...he's probably about to do something wrong.

[Restrat]

It is illegal is Illinois and Massachusetts only, I believe

[Tyche]

UK laws, but pretty much how it should be in the U.S. too. This is a camera lens cloth, neat idea.

[Lucavi]

Is this getting coverage because it actually has a chance at passing as a law, or is this getting coverage because Fox News wants to rile up the right again? I mean, shit, wouldn't passing a law on this piss OFF the Right? They hate cops and they hate government (so long as its not related to abortions), so I can't see the left or the right supporting this outside of maybe the Tea Party (because Glenn Beck would support it, clearly).

[archibaldcrane]

It is illegal is Illinois and Massachusetts only, I believe

where's our MA cop at?

[Kuya]

Here's another article

When police arrested Anthony Graber for speeding on his motorbike, the 25-year-old probably did not see himself as an advocate for police accountability in the age of new media.

But Graber, a sergeant with the Maryland Air National Guard, is now facing 16 years in prison, not for dangerous driving, but for a Youtube video he posted after receiving a speeding ticket.

The video, filmed with a camera mounted on Graber's motorcycle helmet designed to record biking stunts rather than police abuse, shows a plain clothes officer jumping out of an unmarked car and flashing his pistol.

It does not portray the policeman in a positive light.

After he posted the video on Youtube, police raided Graber's home, seized computers and put him in jail.

Even though he had never been arrested before, Graber is being charged with illegal wiretapping and could face 16 years in jail.

Other US states, including Florida, Illinois and Massachusetts, have used similar laws against citizen journalists.

In 2007, police in Florida arrested Carlos Miller, after the journalist photographed the arrest of a woman.

"They [police] told me to leave the area, saying it was a 'private matter' and I said 'this is a public road'. They escorted me across the street and told me to keep moving. I had the right to be there and kept taking photos. They arrested me," Miller said.

He was charged with a series of misdemeanors and like many Americans arrested for filming police, Miller was eventually acquitted in court.

"The whole reason for these laws is to intimidate people from filming," Rendall said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2...554232983.html

[Omniyoji]

Should recording the police be illegal?

Nope. When you step outside your house you're taking the same risks as everyone else. If they're doing their job right then they don't have to worry about any accusations no matter how suggestive/edited the footage is.

[Cleverness]

Shouldn't be illegal. While there are some stories that involve a cop doing the right thing(the one cop who punched an uncooperative black chick comes to mind) and then getting blasted by the media for it, there tends to be alot more videos of police misconduct recently, and if they remove any evidence of how the event transpired, whose to say what really happened besides them?

[Xno Kappa]

Even if it passed the shit would eventually be ruled as unconstitutional by any judge worth their salt. Niggas can record me all they want, just get my good side.

[Darus Grey]

I've never met anyone who thinks it should be illegal who wasn't some hardcore pro-goverment whackjob to begin with, and thankfully they're the vast minority. There's really no sane reasons to be against this on either side.

[Byrthnoth]

Argument 1: Police should have approximately the same privacy rights that private citizens can expect. Police aren't allowed to video tape people doing shit without authorization, so private citizens shouldn't be able to tape them doing shit.

Argument 2: You're doing shit in the public domain on public property and you're paid with public money. Your performance should be assessed by the public, and video taping is fair game.

Argument 3: Being afraid of being video taped will make officers hesitant and lead to an unsafe work environment. Maybe you really do need to slap the bitch in the face, shoot the guy in the back, etc., or you risk them pulling a knife on you. Maybe the moment of hesitation that "oh man, I bet someone has a cellphone camera" gives you will let the other guy get the first shot off.

Argument 4: If you're afraid that something you're doing will undergo public scrutiny and be found lacking, maybe you shouldn't be doing it.

[guartz]

You forgot the ever elusive Arguement 5: Fuck da poooliiice

[Lucavi]

Wait, these cops are trying to lump this in with illegal wiretapping? And some judge actually agreed to that and sentenced a man to jail time? Seriously?

Why hasn't THAT story blown up yet?

[Khamsin]

No reason for public filming or photography to be illegal. 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?). Not really our job to keep them in line, and it's sort of borderline vigilantism with some people probably making a point of always recording the police, as if it were their responsibility to keep them in check.

But in terms of seeing something exciting going on and whipping out your camera, the police shouldn't really get pissed about that. No one's going to pass up a youtube moment.

Ideally, the department would keep their own in check, and we'd keep on keeping on without a conscious intent on filming police, but if we happen to record something interesting because it caught our eye, so be it.

Wait, these cops are trying to lump this in with illegal wiretapping? And some judge actually agreed to that and sentenced a man to jail time? Seriously?

Why hasn't THAT story blown up yet?

I'm wondering how good his lawyer was, if he couldn't convince the jury that he was innocent of wiretapping.

[wyrmtung]

We have the constitutional right to a public trial. Although we don't have that same explicit right when it comes to the police, I think we should be able to record anything we witness with our own two eyes.

[Khamsin]

We have the constitutional right to a public trial. Although we don't have that same explicit right when it comes to the police, I think we should be able to record anything we witness with our own two eyes.

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.

[Nephlite]

I think there was a recent ruling on this. Gonna try to find it but basically police, who are agents of the government, do not have rights to privacy as a normal citizen as police are figureheads of the citizens they represent. Therefore, a police officer cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy unless circumstances provided they are in an area where a normal citizen may have their right to privacy (i.e. a phone booth or a bathroom). In D.C. I know in our criminal code you can't videotape or record the image of a person without their express permission. It's written in the DC Metropolitan Police Department General Orders that we can't arrest someone for merely videotaping or recording us, unless it impedes an investigation and/or the person video taping the police are capturing the likeness of a person who under the circumstances would normally request privacy for said incident (i.e. a Journalist trying to videotape a kid being worked on by EMT's during a car crash. Shit just doesn't fly well, especially if they're trying to jump in the middle of the scene while you're trying to save someone's life).