But what also emerges from these things is the fact that the guy is not breaking any laws and the cops often resort to bullying him, threatening him with arrest (though as he points out, they have no valid charge to arrest him on) and typically make up shit to scare him into stopping.
Occasionally, though, they will be polite to him, and persistently ask him nicely to go away. After a few minutes of pleasant conversation about how he has every right in the world to do what he’s doing (“Yes, sir, you certainly do, but I would take a personal kindness if you would please stop filming here…)” THEN he agrees and stops filming.
The point of this, I think, is to show cops as bullies, blowhards, dicks and phonies. Based on his videos I can’t really disagree with that conclusion.
Even in stop and ID states, the police need reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place to demand ID. So, even in those states, an officer that doesn’t like the color of your shirt (or more commonly, doesn’t like that you are recording an interaction between the officer and another person) cannot demand ID. This also comes up when the police try to identify a passenger in a car pulled over for traffic violations.
Public filming of mundane situations has resulted in case law protecting the right to film in critical situations. See Turner v. Driver.
Admittedly, in many cases the person doing the filming is looking for attention and uses less than polite tactics, but at the end of the day, if no laws are being broken, officers need to be professional. If they do, the videos are boring and the person doing the filming simply moves along.
Yes, it takes a special type of person to get in police officers’ faces deliberately to make a point. I wouldn’t do it because I’d feel very uncomfortable confronting a heavily armed man who is angry at me, but I’m kind of glad that this guy is making his point (about the bullying cops routinely people do, and their sense of entitlement in ordering people not to do things that they have every legal to do) for me.
It’s interesting that you keep referring to a single person. Two quick questions, who are you talking about, and you know there are dozens, if not hundreds of First Amendment Audit channels, right?
I definitely agree, that by and large, it’s a very good thing that there are people that are pushing this right, even if they aren’t always very cordial about it. There have been a few that have been shown to call 911 on themselves, just to get a police response. That to me is pushing it too far and I think they do more harm than good.
Who decides what is a public place? Government agencies will often not let you film your interactions with them in a lobby but ISTM that part of Americans holding their government accountable that should be public … but is it?
The law is generally clear on the definition between public and private spaces, and it’s generally defined as any space the general public is allowed entry.
The exact interpretation of the law depends on the agency and location you’re talking about. Suffice to say that being publicly owned and funded doesn’t automatically imply that citizens can freely roam and record. There have to be limits on what citizens are allowed to snoop on. You can’t show up at the CIA office and start taking photos, you can’t just walk into the Capitol uninvited while the electoral votes are being counted.
I agree it seems like you ought to be able to record goings-on at the DMV or tax office or what have you. But I feel like the employees there are also people with a right to privacy, and they don’t surrender it simply by taking a government job. Recordings of government individuals could also be weaponized against that person for personal reasons unrelated to their job, so they should be entitled to some reasonable expectation of privacy.
Isn’t that the same reasoning cops give when you record them beating someone next to their car? Or the reason Karen gives when having a blowup in the WalMart?
Talking to the DMV person in front of everybody . . . I don’t see how there is an expectation of privacy there.
Perhaps, but it doesn’t matter given that courts have ruled that this reasoning doesn’t override that there’s no expectation of privacy in the streets.
It would be up to the applicable law. I don’t know what that is for the DMV in my state, or any state for that matter. I am just saying what seems reasonable to me, weighing the individual’s need for privacy vs. the need for accountability. A cop could unjustly kill someone, so there’s a strong public need for accountability that outweighs their need to be private. The worst a DMV clerk is going to do is hurt your feelings and waste your time, so I don’t really think that justifies them doing their job with a citizen pointing a camera in their face.
[ checks forum name ] yep, it appears we’re in the right forum for it. Keep up that eagle-eyed vigilance though!
Assuming the law is constitutional. Some jurisdictions have made it illegal to film cops in public performing their duty but I believe those have been thrown out as unconstitutional.
But the rule for expectation of privacy has nothing to do with what they want. It’s about where they are. Like the Karen having a blowup at the WalMart then telling the person recording them, “I do not consent!! Stop recording meeeeeee!!!” Doesn’t matter if they consent or not (in the US, European law is different), they are in public.
I’m not saying that their preferences enter into it. I’m speaking to the general legal rationale of when and why a generic person’s need privacy gets overridden by the public’s right to know.
You asked “who decides what’s public”, I’m answering that the law decides, and the law weighs different factors in that determination.
OK. My feelings are that no one’s feelings are relevant where the law is perfectly clear. Public employees may be recorded performing their duties, however much that hurts your fee-fees.
I have a government job, and you can read my work related emails by filing a freedom of information request with the state. I do have a right to privacy, but that is balanced with the public’s right to know what their government is doing.
So you want to see my emails related to my official duties? I don’t know why you would, but that’s not for me or my bosses to decide. You want to see personal emails that happen to be on my work account? Nope, you don’t get those. Somebody has to sort those out, which is why the FOI request might cost you money.
The ability and right to record police is particularly important, as the police are the branch of the government empowered to use violence to enforce the government’s will on the public. With those greater powers should come much greater levels of oversight.
As much as I may joke about a clue \times 4, I’m not allowed to beat users into complying with IT security policy.
Which law are you talking about, pertaining to which location and context? I get that you’re excited about stepping on some fee-fees, but if that’s the route you want to go, you ought to supply some facts.
Who gets to decide when it’s OK to record people? The law.
Why do they decide that? They balance the public’s right to know against the fact that not every government facility is considered “public,” and that government workers are people with their own needs.
Does that mean you can shove a camera in the face of a DMV worker when you get your license renewed? I don’t know the specific legislation or case law that would address that, and I don’t think you do either, but I can give my rationale why the answer might be no.
Burden of proof, pal. You need to show me the legislation that forbids it, or the case law. Anything not prohibited is legal and I don’t know of any law against it.