Discuss photographing/videoing of LEO.

General General Discussion
1

Let’s try not to have this go South in a fiery ball of flames right out of the gate. Intelligent debate, advice and comments are all welcome with respect to the given topic. A friend of mine recently had a bit of a “debate” with an Officer and I was curious as to what other people’s opinions were, LEO or private citizen.

In no way is this a thread to slander, bash, insult or denegrate LEOs for their actions. This is a thread to discuss the legality of videotaping or photographing LEOs in their work capacity, the ramifications of it and if it should be legal or not?

Myself personally I feel that as long as someone’s not interfering in the performance of the LEOs duties than there’s nothing wrong with taping them. There are already dashboard cams and audio recordings so what’s the difference in a private citizen taping an incident?

Here’s one incident using a really quick search.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu8Ye2hIfn8

2

Unless the officer is doing something wrong, they shouldn’t mind being video taped. If anything, officers should look at a citizen putting them on Video as evidence of doing their job well!

Plus, if the officer is allowed to tape citizens (VIA Dashboard cam or otherwise), then the citizen should be allowed to tape the officer.

On a side note about the video, there is no way I would turn the video camera off if the officer approached me like that. I’ll admit, I don’t know why he was stopping those guys. But he seemed way to aggressive, and there’s no way I’d give up my only evidence if something went wrong. :slight_smile:

3

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8027854162700568157&q=ktla#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KM1ukwBGv4

4

Police don’t have any more of an expectation of privacy out in public than anyone else does. Now that’s not to say you can hop into the middle of an arrest and stick a camera in their face, but if you’re not obstructing the performance of their duties then there shouldn’t be a problem.

5

It doesnt bother me as long as they arent getting inthe way or trying to rile up the person my partner and I are dealing with.

6

Thanks for voicing your opinion NCP. Are there specific laws dealing with this in NC and are the laws different in various states?

7

I don’t have a problem with being filmed per se, but in order for the person to do the filming they often do not obey commands.

Examples:

  1. At night they may use a light to illuminate the officer for the video. The only person illuminated at night is the contact/suspect and it will not be tolerated as it puts the officer in danger.

  2. Hands of the contact are to be in controlled positions such as on the hood/trunk, or flat on the ground.

  3. During a contact, the officer controls the position of everyone involved. Someone filming often moves around for better shots, and will directly disobey the officer.

  4. Camera operators often start trying to interrogate the officer, or question commands as they get a “power” boost from the camera. Once the officer gives out a lawful command and it is not obeyed, the officer is bound to uphold the command in three steps. Ask, tell, make. With a power tripping camera operator, the officer must often take the 3rd step to “make”…in order to have his commands obeyed. The “make” part is the physical part which the operator will recoil after being touched and begin resisting…this is often how the youtube videos come about.

  5. When making a contact, all objects and devices are to be out of the hands of those contacted. Continuing to allow someone to hold a device can be a recipe for disaster. Camera and cellphone guns have been confiscated in the past.

Just to emphasize, I have no problem with having my contacts filmed. What I have a problem with is the issues above that can cause the escalation of force in order to maintain a controlled contact, and camera operators tend to believe that because they have a camera that they are not bound to obey commands that keep the officer in a position of advantage over the contacts, and puts the contacts in positions of disadvantage.

Officers in POA, contacts in POD…“ask, tell, make” so that that goal is accomplished. That is how we do business.

8

I have been an officer for over 25 years. Do I like people video taping me, No. Because I am wondering what is their motive!! But I have never tried to stop someone from doing it.

However, law enforcement has no rights to privacy in a public setting. As long as the person video taping is not interfering or agitating the situation, they are not doing anything illegal. There have been cases where officers have arrested people for video taping and most get tossed. There is some case law and it all goes in favor of the person videoing unless they interfered.

Here is a case not involving the police but a town council meeting.

A New Jersey man was arrested for videotaping a municipal council meeting. He was acquitted and sued in federal court. The District Court rejected his federal claims and declined to review his state law claims. A three-judge appellate panel affirmed. Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, #03-3100, 105 Fed. Appx. 357, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 14597 (Unpub. 3rd Cir. 2004). They concluded that a police chief could reasonably believe that he had probable cause to arrest a man for disorderly conduct when he refused requests to cease videotaping a borough council meeting or move his video equipment, and thereby “disrupting” the meeting. After the District Court decision, the plaintiff filed a parallel complaint in state court, raising his state law claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. He lost again in the trial court and in the intermediate appellate court. He ultimately prevailed. The New Jersey Supreme Court wrote: “Openness is a hallmark of democracy–a sacred maxim of our government–and video is but a modern instrument in that evolving pursuit. The Mayor and Borough ran afoul of that principle and violated the common law right to videotape by imposing unreasonable ad hoc restrictions. … The use of modern technology to record and review the activities of public bodies should marshal pride in our open system of government, not muster suspicion against citizens who conduct the recording.”
Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497, 916 A.2d 1036 (2007).

Here is a LE case:

In Georgia, a married couple filed a civil rights suit against the tiny city of Cumming (pop. 4,220) and its police chief, alleging that the police prevented them from videotaping police actions in violation of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The District Court rejected that claim, but the 11th Circuit reversed. The three-judge panel wrote: “As to the First Amendment claim under Section 1983, we agree with the Smiths that they had a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct. The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.”
Smith v. City of Cumming, #99-8199, 212 F.3d 1332 (2000).
• Cases will succeed or fail on the facts unique to the event.

Now some states have laws that unless both parties agree to audio recordings, recording of a situation by audio is illegal. Some states have their laws read that only one person has to agree.

Lynn

9

It should be something of a duty for citizens.

I’m in no way anti-LE, but there’s been enough instances where videotape showed illegal actions that very likely would have ended up hidden behind the blue line.

The Critical Mass assault in NYC is a good example: Gothamist.com. A bicyclist was arrested and held 26 hrs. for attempted assault and resisting arrest. The charges were dropped when amateur video showed the cop lunging from the side of the road to basically sucker hit the bicyclist. This is just one relatively minor example, but the 'net’s full of many others.

There’s also many instances where people have been arrested for videotaping police, and it’s not hard to tell why. They didn’t respect their authorit-i. It basically goes like: cop sees camera, tells the person to stop. The person doesn’t stop, because they’re doing nothing illegal, so cop arrests them for something like illegal eavesdropping or whatever else law might fit. Even if the photographer was doing nothing wrong and the charges end up dropped, they still have to deal with the arrest and booking and whatnot.

Again, I am not anti-LE in any way, but I think it’s in everybody’s best interests that the bad apples get weeded from the bunch. LEOs have a hard enough job without some jackasses on the force creating ill will with the citizens because they can’t keep themselves from going over the line. And just as much as we have to keep our politicians in check in regards to our rights, we must do the same to ensure that those sworn to protect us aren’t running roughshod over the very principles that make this the great country that it is.

10

Seriously?!? :eek:

11

I can’t comment on the actions of other officers, but should it be in the officer’s discretion he can arrest on any misdemeanor offense committed in his presence. For example, if a police officer stops a vehicle and smells burnt marijuana coming from the car, he now has probable cause to believe that anyone in the car could be in possession of a controlled substance. The officer may now conduct a search of the car and the clothing of all those who were in the car. This means that the officer can now articulate additional means of control of those involved(even handcuffs). The suspects have a right to film the contact, but they have no right to operate the camera if it interfers with the officers commands of situation control. A reasonable charge in this situation would be interferance with agency function, disobeying a lawful order, and or disorderly conduct. So the filming was not the illegal action, it was the action of holding the camera to record. Get it?

So anyone on the street can film an officer. However if the officer is approaching someone to conduct an investigation of the person, that person cannot just whip out a camera and begin recording the incident unless it can do so independent of the person’s control. The officer has the authority to control all objects and aspects of the person’s physical self during an investigation.

12

When I thought of this thread I hadn’t envisioned discussing the subject as being the person taping. If you’re under legitimate suspicion and are being lawfully detained than I think it’s obvious that the person would have to relinquish physical control of the camera. The thing I’ve seen most often is a bystander taping and being threatened or having their camera/tape confiscated or erased.

13

Kind of like an Article 92 in the UCMJ. An investigation, in the current context, sounds like a catch all to be used at their discretion in order for them to circumnavigate the rights of the citizen. Don’t be offended, and I may be misinterpreting what you’re saying, but it sounds like a convenient excuse to me when it comes to not being taped.

14

Don’t get in the way. Verbally or physically. Beyond those 2 very small things, have at it.

15

If the officer has observed, or has the suspicion that a petty offense, misdemeanor, or felony has occured then he has the authority to conduct an investigatory detention. That means that the contact is not free to leave and is bound to obey lawful commands made by the officer. The subject of a detention can be ordered to put down the camera in order for the officer to control the person, but it probably would not hold up in court to order the subject to turn OFF the camera.

If you’re implying that an officer will see a guy filming him, and then use that as probably cause to begin an investigatory detention of the camera man, that is not legal. However, if the officer observes something illegal in plain sight(smells marijuana) during a voluntary contact(“hello, how are you doing?”) then the officer may legally detain for investigation. If the camera man has nothing about him draw reasonable suspicion or probably cause from the officer, then the encounter is over.

16

Has there ever been cases of LEO being filmed by criminal elements either to gather information or to document an attack?

I my world, getting filmed is a threat indicator. Either we are about to get hit, or more likely someone is trying to document our tactics and team structure. I have seen young kids who should not normally have cell phones film us at various choke points, such as intersections.

I remember a story from a colleague about an ambush he survived back in 2004 in Baghdad. His PSD team was moving through a certain Iraqi city, and noticed a camera crew set up on the sidewalk. The camera crew appeared to be Western. As they spotted them, small arms fire broke out from the same side the crew was on. The lead vehicle turned up onto the sidewalk to avoid the fire and the traffic to the front. Racing to get off the X, the vehicle took out the film crew during the evasive maneuvers. I think they never filed their story. They were working with the insurgents who probably promised them a good story.

Back in the States, you all live in the YouTube.com world and people with cell phones/recorders. I expect that we will have to learn to live with it.

17

Fully my feelings, as well.

18

All the time with Border Patrol, Port Police, and other smuggling areas. There are thousands of cases where a criminal enterprise of many, or just one person has collected intelligence on police officer’s family and routines. However, an officer being filmed in a public setting during the performance of his official duties is quite different from his family being filmed. An officer being filmed off duty, or his family being filmed is something that would likely be punishable in court.

If it can be articulated that the purpose of someone filming an officer in the performance of his duties was to obtain sensitive information such as patrol routes, shifts, bank runs, and other such things that it can also be punishable in court and an officer can order someone to stop filming.

19

That is a well thought out answer.

Unfortunately, I have nothing more to add. It does cause me to worry about how the tape is going to be used. But, there is nothing here that can be done about it, as long as the viteotaper is adhering to local ordinances as far as walking in the streets or obstructing sidewalks. And as long as they are not becoming part of the problem.

20

Good post.