Court: Videotaping police is constitutional act

When the recording involves methods of a sensitive operation by say an EOD Tech. then the recording should be stopped, Siezed and destroyed by an authorized person other than the officer on site.
Click to expand...

I disagree. IF the action, no matter how "sensitive" it is is performed in view of the public, there is no moral justification (not certain about legal) for siezing and/or destroying recorded images, just as there can be no justification for arresting/incarcerating any witness.

Now, I would consider allowing a reporter to follow and film your "sensitive" actions, and then realizing you have let him see something you do not wish to become public as a different situation.

However, the fact is that a witness could describe your actions, spreading the infomation you wish to suppress. It's usually not as effective (or have the same visual impact), but if someone witnesses it, the information can be diseminated.

Acts performed in plain public view should be, and must be protected from supression. Claims of "security needs" are so much BS. Stealing personal property to cover up some lapse by an officer is just that, theft. Even with a court order, it merely becomes offically sanctioned theft. And it is particularly irksome when the only real lapse by the officer is allowing themself to be video taped.

After all, don't we constantly hear from them "if you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?"

There should be no double standard.
 
This case that I posted - the Mississippi teenagers who were videotaping from their own balcony...

It's not just a case of the police taking someone's camera away from them on the street, or arresting someone in public - on the sidewalk or whatever.

The police went into the mom's home, they "burst through their apartment door without a warrant"

Quite a bit different.

It's like looking out your window and video taping an arrest or something, a police officer doesn't like it so he comes into your house, arrests you and takes your camcorder.

I am guessing the mom didn't have her door locked, but I wonder if it would have made a difference.
 
44 AMP said:
Now, I would consider allowing a reporter to follow and film your "sensitive" actions, and then realizing you have let him see something you do not wish to become public as a different situation.
Click to expand...
I don't even agree there.

If the police agree to allowing an "embedded" reporter, they should not be allowed to after-the-fact cherry pick what the reporter is allowed to report. If the police don't wish to be videotaped engaging in egregious violations of civil (and human) rights, they shouldn't engage in egregious violations of civil (and human) rights.

And if they don't understand what the Constitution says, they should ask BEFORE they swear an oath to uphold it.
 
And if they don't understand what the Constitution says, they should ask BEFORE they swear an oath to uphold it.
Click to expand...

I can think of another even more important pair of parties that need to do this... and at least one more person..
 
[IIf the police agree to allowing an "embedded" reporter, they should not be allowed to after-the-fact cherry pick what the reporter is allowed to report. If the police don't wish to be videotaped engaging in egregious violations of civil (and human) rights, they shouldn't engage in egregious violations of civil (and human) rights.][/I]

I think what he means is not violations of rights, rather sensitive police info. Like how they go about disarming a bomb, or something that they don't want everybody to know. Like the face of a CI or undercover officer.
 
I think that it is best for citizens to be able to video tape a on duty police officer. If the police officer does his job correctly and acts in a professional manner then he has nothing to worry about.

I think in the video posted above by jimpeel. In my opinion the only thing the officer did wrong was in the beginning when he was telling the homeless guy that he was "going to **** him up". I think if the same exact situation happened and the same results happened, the actions against the officers would have been different if the officer was polite towards the homeless man. The homeless man should have stopped resisting, I don't blame the cops for holding him down and wrestling him trying to handcuff him, even though he was claiming that he was trying to put his hands behind his back. I have seen multiple videos where an officer listened to the BG and the officer lightened up and the BG took off running, pulled a weapon, or began fighting again.

If the officer acted in a more professional/polite manner then he probably would not be looking at any prison time.
 
I am actually surprised this topic continues. I had thought there had been several such cases already reaffirming the legality of recording police activities.

Notice I did not say "videotape." That term is quickly fading into oblivion as the technology has moved away from using tape as a storage medium.
 
Tape away, I am too. Just don't make yourself a target or interfere with police. No professional officer worries about people watching what they do.
 
Exactly

"if you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Same question that was being asked when they were looking for Jews hiding in attics.
Click to expand...

All that seems to vary is who is doing the looking, who/what they are looking for, and the level of violence used in their tactics. Do they ask, and if refused get a search warrant and return, or do they break in with fixed bayonets (or these days, suppressors...)?

For surely they all believe is the rightousness of their cause......

kings men with drawn swords hot on the trail of a bandit is one thing, crusaders and inquisitors seeking to find heretics, quite another....
 
It seems the consensus is that we the public are unwilling to allow the level of privacy to the police in the performance of their duties that we expect to be allowed ourselves in our own lives as they are lived in public.
 
It seems the consensus is that we the public are unwilling to allow the level of privacy to the police in the performance of their duties that we expect to be allowed ourselves in our own lives as they are lived in public.
Click to expand...

Nonsense! As police officers performing their job, they are paid by us and we should be able to record their activities to ensure they are performing their duties within the scope of the law we pay them to uphold. When they are off the clock, they have (and can expect) all the same levels of privacy as anyone else.
 
Nonsense, my foot. You realize the police are often called upon to make split-second decisions on what action to take and on which others may deliberate for hours deciding whether or not that action was correct and legal. You of course are equally subject to such second-guessing.
 
BlueTrain said:
It seems the consensus is that we the public are unwilling to allow the level of privacy to the police in the performance of their duties that we expect to be allowed ourselves in our own lives as they are lived in public.
Click to expand...
Nope. I was filmed by news agencies and private parties many times in my performance of my duties in industry in public settings and I never had an objection to it, as long as people didn't get so close that they were putting themselves in danger or interfering with the work being performed.

I never felt that I had any expectation of privacy while working within the public view. I feel it would be somewhat ludicrous to expect the public to avert their gazes, and that of their cameras, just because I'm working. But then, this isn't North Korea where the state aggressively controls what can be photographed and what can't, even though it's within public view.
 
Nonsense! As police officers performing their job, they are paid by us and we should be able to record their activities to ensure they are performing their duties within the scope of the law we pay them to uphold. When they are off the clock, they have (and can expect) all the same levels of privacy as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Further, in "public" courts have determined no real right to privacy, so police are at the same standard as Joe Shmo.
 
It seems the consensus is that we the public are unwilling to allow the level of privacy to the police in the performance of their duties that we expect to be allowed ourselves in our own lives as they are lived in public.

We are all filmed without consent in public places on a daily basis; from banks, to Micky-D's...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top