What are your thoughts on recording the police?

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=fBIVYMsID_k

If they can do it to you I have no problem doing it to them although some states have passed laws such as MA. where you can be arrested for it.

I think that LEO's now have to be aware of social media. So, to answer I dont like it but I dont let the little things bother me.

I think that LEO's now have to be aware of social media. So, to answer I dont like it but I dont let the little things bother me.

 

I do not understand your position. I am pro LEO and I belive most of them would never think of doing what is in these videos, but what is not to like about using video to hold EVERYONE accountable for their actions.

I do not understand your position. I am pro LEO and I belive most of them would never think of doing what is in these videos, but what is not to like about using video to hold EVERYONE accountable for their actions.

 

No, I dont like getting recorded. But it happens everyday and I dont let the little things worry me.

 

1. Because before it gets to court xyz website edits it to however they want it to look including the news.

2. Most "amateur" film makers start recording after an incident has escalated, not showing you the before.

3. I am not saying what these officers are doing is in anyway right. They are wrong. It is what it is.

No, I dont like getting recorded. But it happens everyday and I dont let the little things worry me.

 

1. Because before it gets to court xyz website edits it to however they want it to look including the news.

2. Most "amateur" film makers start recording after an incident has escalated, not showing you the before.

3. I am not saying what these officers are doing is in anyway right. They are wrong. It is what it is.

 

Judging from your response I assume you are a LEO. If so, I want to thank you for your service and your insight on this topic from another perspective.

Since the cops/feds/etc can record me in public without a warrant due to "No expectation of privacy" I should be able to do the same. Cops DO get away with stuff they shouldn't be doing. By allowing it to go unpunished does the entire LEO community a huge disservice.

 

Nearly everyone these days has an HD video camera in their pocket, stuff's going to get recorded.

Judging from your response I assume you are a LEO. If so, I want to thank you for your service and your insight on this topic from another perspective.

 

No problem. I dont like it, the same way if I was a celebrity I wouldnt like it but I understand that is the way it is now. I try and be respectful with everyone I encounter.

Entirely necessary. If something goes down, and it is your word vs. the police's word, people are going to believe the police. You have to have something to hold everyone accountable for. Unfortunately people who do things they shouldn't, don't like being recorded. There have been numerous incidents where people have been arrested for recording, assaulted for recording, had their camera taken/destroyed/footage erased. I have a program that uploads footage live to the Internet should something happen, and my phone/camera taken from me.

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASQPZ-cIpiw

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D7zdX6JNr8&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at1q3lIpK3c

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpeGUTfNspc&feature=related

 

But not just police, but court officials as well.

 

 

Watch 1:30-1:50.

Dont worry not people on this forum.

@Bonesinium, what's the app/program called to automatically upload video?

This may have been a state case, but I was thinking it was federal and the finding was that policeman have no expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties.

Qik

 

Qik.com, they have an app for the iPhone and I think maybe even android.

 

This may have been a state case, but I was thinking it was federal and the finding was that policeman have no expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties.

 

US 1st Circuit Appeals Court.

 

Glik v. Cunniffe

 

http://www.ca1.uscou...ON=10-1764P.01A

 

There is no expectation of privacy in a public space. In a number of states people have been arrested under state wiretapping laws for filming police, due to the audio recording portion of the statues. However to my knowledge, none were convicted, as there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

It's clearly a bad thing, since police abuse of authority and criminal activity has gone up about 10,000% since they started being routinely recorded

A Boston lawyer suing the city and police officers who arrested him for using his cell phone to record a drug arrest on the Common won a victory today when a federal appeals court said the officers could not claim "qualified immunity" because they were performing their job when they arrested him under a state law that bars audio recordings without the consent of both parties.

In its ruling, which lets Simon Glik continue his lawsuit, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said the way Glik was arrested and his phone seized under a state wiretapping law violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights:

 

"The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." ...

Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

 

The court noted that past decisions on police recording had involved fulltime reporters, but said the First Amendment does not apply just to professional news gatherers.

 

"Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status"

 

The court continued that while exercise of these rights do come with limits in certain circumstances, an arrest on the Boston Common, "the oldest city park in the United States and the apotheosis of a public forum," is not one of them.

 

Don't know if this made it any higher up the court chain but this would lead me to believe videoing is legal as long as you are in a public area.

Don't know if this made it any higher up the court chain but this would lead me to believe videoing is legal as long as you are in a public area.

 

No need to just believe it, that is indeed the case. In fact, that was the case before, but that doesn't stop people from getting arrested for it. See my numerous examples above.

absolutely nothing wrong with it. They are public servants in the public eye.

 

The reason most don't want it is because of liability issues surrounding many leo's lack of the very laws and procedures they are set to enforce.

 

film away....

 

I say this with several police/state troopers in the family. Follow the rules, know your job, don't abuse the shield, and act in a professional manner and you have nothing to worry about.

I pretty much act as if I am being recorded at all times. I don't worry about it but am aware of it. You can be 100 % right and still have it spun in a negative direction. The usuals here will say its necessary because all police abuse their power but that not true. I am sure if I started recording my dealings with people without them knowing about it they wouldnt be too happy. Maybe I will start doing that with a pen recorder since some members of the public love to lie about their encounters with police.

The usuals here will say its necessary because all police abuse their power..

 

That couldn't be further from the truth. It has nothing to do with thinking all police abuse their powers, and everything to do with the ones who don't! If you look at it the other way, and assume that police ALWAYS act correctly, how do you hold the ones accountable who in fact, do not? There are tons of examples of filming police with positive outcomes, where the officers acted correctly. There are tons of examples where filming the police served to defend them against unjust accusations. But there are also examples that showed the police acting incorrectly or illegally. Filming serves to protect EVERYONE involved. The only reason you wouldn't want to be filmed is if you knew you were doing something wrong. That is not exclusive to police.

 

I am sure if I started recording my dealings with people without them knowing about it they wouldnt be too happy. Maybe I will start doing that with a pen recorder since some members of the public love to lie about their encounters with police.

 

That seems like a fairly wise decision. You have every right to protect yourself against lies and made up accusations as anyone else and I'd encourage you to do so. It certainly goes both ways.

 

That reminds me of one of those court shows, in which a police officer was suing because of false complaints against him. He had recordings to back up what happened, and it showed that the person he was suing was mad because he wrote her a ticket and her bribe didn't work.

IMO............pretty pathetic on all accounts.

No expectation of privacy in public places, doesn't matter who you are whether the police or the President. I wouldn't like to be filmed in public going about my business, but I know I can't do anything about it either. In this day and age of technology, anyone who is a cop or is looking to be one I suppose just has to take it as part of the job.

 

For protection, I'm all for LE having small cams mounted on them at all times for use during interactions with the public. This way they can show the whole story, not just the edited bystander's version.

 

It bothers me seeing the vids of people getting harassed/arrested by LE simply because they are filming. The police are supposed to be enforcing the law and helping to protect people's rights, not infringing on them.

In some parts of Europe LE have recording devices on their uniforms as well as their vehicles and informs who ever they interact with of that fact from the beginning.It is also quite acceptable to record LE as long as both parties are aware of it. Keeps everyone more civil IMO simply because everyone is aware and there are back up systems.

Why would there be resistance if all parties act civilally and legally?

Record all you want..just stay the hell out of the way.