This is the latest incident, a guy’s dog got shot and killed by police as they tried to arrest the owner for filming them.
It’s not the shooting I’m concerned with (it was a rottweiler, I would have shot it too if it was attacking me), it’s the police again arresting someone for pointing a camera at them. Is it actually illegal to film them without permission? Does it vary from state to state? If it isn’t illegal how come they keep arresting people for it? I’m genuinely puzzled.
Here in the UK there have been any number of occasions where the police have arrested people and confiscated their kit for filming them in action. In almost every case they have acted unlawfully.
The current advice to the police from their own chiefs is:
There are no federal laws about it.
Technically, it varies from state to state. But in practice, it’s legal to film police while they are on duty.
The laws on filming people with or without their consent vary from state to state. In some states, you only need the consent of one party, so the person with the camera can give that consent.
In other states, all parties must consent. Such states usually have exceptions for expectations of privacy. In public areas, you have no expectation of privacy, so consent is not really needed, especially for uniformed police officers, who are almost always working in public. But Massachusetts and Illinois have no such exceptions, meaning you need the consent of the filmed. This led to people being arrested in those states.
That led to some court cases up to their respective Federal Appeals Courts that ruled that there is a legitimate 1st Amendment argument for allowing the filming of on-duty police.
The State of Illinois tried to appeal up to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Appeals Court ruling by deciding not to hear the appeal.
That said, people are still being arrested for it. Why? Who can say for certain, but I usually attribute most cases to ignorance rather than malice.
Gut feeling, but there probably are cops out there who actually do maliciously persecute people who film them, but I doubt the majority of them do. The minority who are malicious will, of course, receive the majority of the attention. The majority are regular Joes just doing their jobs like the rest of us. Unfortunately, regular Joes tend not to be the brightest bulbs, either, so they may arrest out of ignorance, rather than malice. Lawyers can’t keep every law straight, and there’s no reason to believe a regular police officer is trained in every single law, either.
Oh, and to clarify a bit, the police in the California incident arrested the filmer for obstruction of justice rather than for filming the police.
That’s a neat trick to play, but we’ll see how it holds up in court.
And the obstruction was, on paper, unrelated to the filming. I won’t claim it wasn’t an unofficial factor but other people were filming and weren’t arrested.
Photography is a 1st Amendment issue. Freedom of speech includes the right to take pictures. There is no right of privacy if you’re in a public place, and you don’t need anyone’s consent to film or photograph people when they’re in public. That includes police.
Of course, no right is absolute, including freedom of speech. You can’t interfere with what the police are doing, in order to take pictures. On the other hand, if the police arrest someone, just for taking their picture, they’re violating the constitution.
FWIW, in this particular case, they said they were arresting the man because his radio was too loud, not because he was filming them.
As has been pointed out in the pit thread on this incident, the guy was arrested for obstruction because he was being a jackass at the crime scene, not for filming the police. Several other people at the scene were filming the police and were not arrested.
It is apparently illegal to stand on an overpass over the Jersey Turnpike and photograph it. They apparently do enforce it. Although in these days of cell-phone cameras, it is hard to know when someone is photographing.
We also discussed in the pit thread that this guy has no less than six complaints filed against the police and an active lawsuit against them.
He pulled up to a huge number of cops investigating an armed robbery and goaded them with his violent dog and loud music and, yes, recording them.
He was doing everything he could to attract their attention.
They walked up and arrested him immediately on the tape. I’m sure they know exactly who this clown is.
As a side issue, wouldn’t this make taking a video in public pretty much always illegal in Massachusetts? Take a video of your party at the local Olive Garden with a cell phone and you’re bound to be recording the conversations of those people around you. Seems like this is a law that’s in direct conflict with the current level of technology.
Not really sure how this is relevant.
It would also mean all those surveillance cameras in shops and stores are illegal, as well as stop light cameras and dash cams in police cars.
Both the 7th and 1st Circuits have UPHELD a citizen’s right to film police.
Yeah, which is basically what I wrote (in particular, the missing sentence between the two you quoted).
No law against it in Ohio. Some cops just don’t like being filmed or photographed, though, and will unfortunately act on the basis of “I asked him to stop and he didn’t, so now I’m gonna arrest him.” It will probably take some big lawsuit settlements and widespread retraining of police before this changes.
There’s almost nothing that make me angrier that police harassing a bystander with a camera. I think its just a matter of time before this issue blows up with some tragedy or another, like the death of a harassing policeman or bystander.
Really?
Really. It’s either legal or it isn’t; it doesn’t depend on whether the person is suing the police or has filed complaints in the past.
Criminal action has two necessary components (with a few exceptions):
actus reus and mens rea
The illegality of the act is defined by the actus reus - an action, as you stated, is either covered by a law or it isn’t.
The other, frankly more important part, is the mens rea - the state of mind of the person performing the act. This state of mind can transform legal acts into illegal ones and transform illegal acts into legal ones. It can even result in very different crimes for the same exact action.
To state that understanding the history of an individual’s activities can offer no insight into the state of mind of a person, to me, is incorrect.
It’s a good thing I didn’t say that, then. What I said is that a person’s history of interaction with the police offers us no relevant information about whether they commit a crime by interacting with police officers. The fact that one may have had complaints about the law in the past is utterly irrelevant to the crime charged here. If anything, it simply reinforces the assertion that the police needed to be filmed for public safety purposes. The state cannot use the exercise of one’s rights- to file a civil action or a law enforcement complaint- as evidence of animus to satisfy the mens rea requirement. Quite apart from anything else, it’s inadmissible hearsay.