Is it illegal to video a teacher? a nurse? a fireman? a lawyer?
With the current size of cameras and possibly smaller ones in the future, one can potentially video anyone without them necessarily knowing.
On one hand, probably no one wants random people video-ing them doing their jobs. Given that not everyone has sterling motives in this world, there could be a lot of abuse.
I see this as everyone’s basic privacy rights vs. the right of citizens to video abusive behavior by people in authority.
I don’t buy that, and I don’t think SCOTUS will either. Wiretapping involves a conversation between two parties with an expectation of privacy. Videoing a police officer performing his public duty is the diametric opposite; the public has a right to know that the police are enforcing the law according to the rules, and the press has a right to be the eyes and ears of the public reporting such events. Police have no reasonable expectation of privacy when performing their public duty.
That’s your definition. Individual states can define it however they want. Check out the Illinois law I linked. Expectation of privacy isn’t mentioned.
I agree, but in the absence of a specific exemption, audio recordings of police officers can violate the wiretapping laws in some states.
ETA: And you still haven’t explained why SCOTUS should care. Are you arguing that non-consensual audio recordings are necessary to maintain freedom of the press?
Hopefully, “Welcome to 2010” and dismiss the case.
That could be then entire text of the Supreme court decision.
When such laws are stretched to exclude the recording of video in a public place just because the subject is a police officer, I believe those laws will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
In a word, yes.
When a police officer is performing his official duty in a public space where no expectation of privacy is attached, he has no authority to deny consent to the recording of such video. The press has no right to invade the non-public space of a police station, court or jail without consent; but when the police are enforcing the law in a public place, where no other restrictions on the public are in force, I see no basis for withholding consent for purpose of video recording by the press or any other citizen who wishes to observe and document law enforcement in action.
Back in the heyday of Operation Rescue, people would tape cops banging on protesters/clinic blockers, and when those people got their cameras back after their short lockup, the tape would be black and the audio would sound a hell of a lot like the inside of a police station.
There are already laws against interfering with or obstructing government operation. In Texas, the offense is called “Interference with Public Duties”. If the camera operators are interfering with the arrest, they should be prosecuted under those sections.
There should be some public purpose or utility behind any proposed new law. I just don’t see the purpose of a new law that prohibits filming in itself, because I don’t see how the act of filming alone interferes with the officer doing his job (assuming on duty, public place, and all that).
I believe the argument is that (potential) observation changes the behavior of the [officers | onlookers | perpetrators] in such a way that it does interfere with the job. For instance, officers will be more hesitant to act decisively (thus putting them in danger), onlookers might jockey for filming position (thus complicating an already complicated situation), perpetrators might get all “tough-guy” or even actively seek out altercations with police (thus increasing both frequency and severity of incidents).
I think all of these are stupid arguments and I can’t really defend them, but you asked.
This is, of course, unconscionable and enraging, but not all that surprising, considering the fact that it is goddamn cops we’re talking about here.
As usual: Fuck 'em.
Since when do public officials in a public place in furtherance of their public duties have any expectation of privacy?
Maybe this was just for California, but my high school criminal justice teacher taught us that people in public had no expectation of privacy.
The web articles I’ve read said that the current laws about such things were often made before there was any decent way to make an inconspicuous audio recording, and it was just overlooked. The laws were much more for phone recording.
The idea that cops can’t be recorded is a fundamental of the police state. If the cops have no expectation that their actions will be criticized, then the portion of them that joined to feel important and powerful will have no check on their behavior.
Go on Google and find the audio recordings of people asking for a complaint form in a police station. Some desk officers pretty much refuse to give a free government document without being told why it was wanted.
I read about these and without evening viewing the video in the MD case fired off letters to my State legislators and the governor. A week or so later my phone at work, which I don’t recall giving out, rings and it’s a State Police Barracks Commander on the line, calling me to respond to my letter to the governor and tell me his version of the MD incident.
According to him, in the Maryland incident, the kid in question had been tormenting the State Police who have a no chase policy for anything but felony crimes. According to the police this kid had been tucking the tag on his bike up under the seat and provoking the police by doing wheelies and fleeing while filming it with his helmet cam then posting them on YouTube. When they found the arrest video there, they consulted with the states attorney and were given the green light to arrest him.
I was interrupted by a co-worked while on the phone but the gist of the story I heard was that there happened to be an unmarked car in the area the time he was finally caught and they were able somehow to slow him or block him so he was forced to stop. I have no idea why a gun was drawn but the police claim they asked him if he was recording after he was stopped and he denied it. That should be easily determined as they police now have the camera and the kid’s computer.
Under the MD wiretap laws you have to have permission to record a conversation. Obviously these laws did not contemplate video cameras where consent is implicit when its visible. I still think it should be legal to video tape a police officer as long as its not interfering with his performance. However, this kid was endangering innocent people to make stupid videos and for self-aggrandizement. I don’t really care if he’s prosecuted under traffic and wiretap laws as it’s still the law for now, if the State Police’s version of this story is true.
I don’t think those are stupid arguments but I don’t think they should superscede certain civil liberties. Another unadvertised problem might be the cost of dealing with lawsuits.
In a pit thread discussing just such a video you see several people video taping an officer struggling with two young ladies. Several times the officer tells the main videographer to step back. I would say cell phone vdeos that bring the person and phone too close can be a serious problem. I could see establishing a distance.
Seems to me that his motive for breaking the law (making stupid videos) is irrelevant. That’s like outlawing money to prevent bank robberies.
Remember that just because something is inadmissable as evidence, doesn’t mean it can’t be useful. So what if they can’t use the evidence, perhaps that inadmissable evidence will lead to other evidence that CAN be used.
Remember once something gets into the public people will see it and that’s that.
There’s an easy solution to being filmed causing them to act differently: film all the time. Then you’ll get used to being on camera.
As for the bad guy–if knowing the police are filming him makes him not do bad things, so much the better.
UPDATE: The charges in the Maryland case were dismissed.
That’s absurd. This makes me angry.
It makes you angry that the court said that police have no expectation of privacy while on the job? Why?