I’ve seen several videos on Youtube of people using cameras to film police doing routine, police-y things. The police seem to be rather annoyed by it (at best), and sometimes react a little more… aggressively. However, the videos where the cops don’t do anything at all and go about their business don’t make Youtube, so there’s that.
Anyway, without getting into whether or not this is a good thing to do, I’m curious as to whether or not it’s legal. Searching on google and yahoo doesn’t yield conclusive results.
IIRC, there was a case where the videotaper was charged with wiretapping (recording a private conversation) for filming police in public. Again, the ACLU got a lot of money for him out of that case.
I generally support the first amendment angle, but I could see an argument for officer safety. If I am pulled over for speeding, the cop would be testy if I was reaching around and pointing stuff at him. One person reaching for a camera is another person reaching for a gun.
Plus, the cop might have suspicions that you are under the influence or whatnot. How can he investigate if you aren’t listening to him and shoving a camera in his face?
It could still be the same. The cop is questioning a suspect and in his peripheral vision he sees a person pointing a black object at his face. Okay, a quick glance confirms it is a cell phone camera, but cops are trained to always be aware, and now he sort of lets his guard down.
I’ve always thought (not seriously thought, but just one of those dumb hypos) that if you were of a mind to shoot a police officer, pretending to film him first would be a great way to do it. He is involved with the initial suspect and becomes used to you holding an object in your hand pointed at him. When he looks away for a second, pull out your gun and blam!
If you look at my other posts, you will see that I am usually against police officers and their “for my safety” complaints. No, I shouldn’t have to lay down face first on frozen pavement because I’m pulled over for speeding. Just because some people shoot police officers doesn’t meant that every citizen has to be treated like he might.
This camera thing, however, I can see actually being important. I’ve got no problem with cops telling anyone not involved with the situation at hand to get lost and for people in the traffic stop to remain still and not be pointing stuff.
A hands-free device mounted inside your vehicle? I’m all for it.
Slight hijack – or maybe not – but the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE series took this a step further, with our heroes building a gun into a clunky '60s-style camera so as to line up perfect through-the-viewfinder marksmanship without even needing to switch between pointing Object A and Object B at the guy who of course obligingly holds still.
Illegal in Illinois, at least if there’s sound. Illinois statute forbids recording any conversation without the consent of all parties. Two state trial judges have ruled that the law is unconstitutional but it is still on the books, and the decisions are being appealed. The law is also being reviewed by the 7th Circuit. It has been announced that it will not be enforced during the upcoming NATO summit and related protest marches.
Massachusetts and Maryland are said to have similar laws.
Also, I’d love to see some officers fired and jailed for false arrest in these cases. This isn’t Soviet Russia. Cops need to be reminded of that, from time to time.
There was a case where a motorcyclist was pulled over, and had a helmet-mounted camera that recorded the whole stop. The cop was very aggressive although the guy had been going pretty damn fast. He posted it on YouTube and was later arrested for under a wiretapping law. It wasn’t illegal to make a video, but they got him on a technicality for recording the sound. I don’t remember the outcome.
It is alsolegal to photograph and videotape the security area at an airport but many TSA agents will tell you it’s not. Once my wife was taken to secondary screening because of a bracelet she was wearing and I took her picture because I thought it was kind of amusing. An agent waved at me that photos were not allowed. I wish I’d known at the time he was wrong.
Depends, I guess, on whether spending hue amounts of money on lawyers, missing your flight, and ending up on the no flylist, is worth the value of asserting your rights and winning a couple of years down the road. Heck, there was the case of a guy who was told by the stewardess he could not go to the washroom until they landed. He had to go so badly, he went (under a blanket) into the barf bag. The stewardess had him arrested when the landed just becuase she was pissed. (like him) Fortunately, the TSA did not find any grounds to charge him and let him go… 10 hours later.
Never underestimate the power of the police state you have created. Those rights are probably not coming back.
Note the Freedom of speechclause, constitution. You have the right to collect information that is freely available to you in public.
Well, I’d say this would fall under 1st amendment rights.
And if it doesn’t, we need a 27th amendment immediately. Specifically, the “pro-videotaping-police and mandatory-jail-time-for-false-arrest” amendment.
It is a police state these days. Of course, during the 50s and 60s, in the aftermath of WWII, things were pretty police-state-y as well, especially with the media being the government’s lap dog.
Last August, the First Circuit ruled that officers arresting people for “wiretapping” are not immune from prosecution.
Note also that the subject of such recordings must be able to know about the recording. They don’t have to consent to it. So holding up a camera or cellphone is all the notification they require.
Huh? You annoy a stewardess and she can make an unfounded allegation against you that results in 10 hours’ detention? Theoretically it should have taken 10 minutes, tops. So, yes, police state.
An example that when TBTB decide to throw their weight around, with or without justification, you are helpless.
