Police Question Videographer, Sorry I do not answer questions

JERRYS. said:
so what are the outcomes of these criminal cases and subsequent civil suits?
Click to expand...
The one that springs immediately to mind was a couple or three years ago. Local police arrested a Roman Catholic priest for making a video of two officers shaking down a Latino-owned mini-market. The two cops arrested the priest and charged him with "disorderly conduct" and "interfering with an officer." The arresting officer claimed he didn't know what the priest had in his hand, and he (the officer) "feared for his life" because he thought it was a gun. However, the video (which miraculously survived) clearly showed that the first words out of the officer's mouth when he noticed the priest were, "Sir, why are you video recording me?" So the officer was a liar ... on camera.

The charges against the priest were subsequently dropped. The arresting officer had, by then, revised his arrest report TWENTY-SEVEN times, trying to find the exact right combination of words to portray the priest in as negative a light as possible.

I don't recall if there was a civil suit. On the criminal side, however ...

The arresting officer was sentenced to 30 months hard time, followed by some period of probation. The partner was sentenced to five years in prison (he had some other questionable actions on his record). Their supervisor and another senior officer pled guilty to reduced charges and were allowed to retire with their pensions intact. The chief is gone, and the department now operates under a consent agreement with the FBI as oversight.

That's just one department in one small town nearby.
 
Last edited:
Here is an interesting article on Policing the police and filming officers in the line of duty by a Texas group called Open Carry Cop Watch.

If the name "open Carry" rings a bell it should, this is none other than Kory Watkins of Open Carry Texas Tarrant County.

These guys are not only filming Law enforcement, they are doing it with long guns. This should go over real big the the Legislators in Texas trying to put together a Open Carry Bill.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...k-panthers-tactic.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page
 
These guys are not only filming Law enforcement, they are doing it with long guns. This should go over real big the the Legislators in Texas trying to put together a Open Carry Bill.
Click to expand...
There are deeper issues as well.

They're not activists. They're bored suburban kids with nothing better to do than prank authority figures. The problem is, they drape themselves in our colors when it suits them, and we get the blowback.
 
They're allowed to ask for anyone's identification.
Click to expand...

In the State of New Mexico, you are required by law, to provide identification to the police if asked.

This does not mean a driver's license or other government issued identification (although you can voluntarily provide that)- it requires you answer their question by giving them your name (identity). You do not have to provide an address or any other information - which you would give them if you gave them your driver's license as an ID.


30-22-3. Concealing identity. (1963)

Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.

Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Click to expand...
 
I'm pretty sure from watching the video provided that he didn't initiate, nor continue to pursue talking to them, but maybe we watched different video's. I also didn't see any "bashing" going, but maybe we live in different realities.
Click to expand...

Well from the post he is accusing the police of a fishing expedition when he is on one himself. Yes I do believe the purpose is plainly to bash the police. On the video description this is not the first interaction he has had with these officers he knows them by name. He has followed them and filmed them on more than one occasion. This would not be kosher to do to anyone else so I would have to say its not ok to do to the police. If I were one of the officers I would file a restraining order against him.
 
The nice officer wants your name so he can put it down in his book, so he can run a background check on you, so he can put you in jail if you're wanted for a crime and so your name can be recorded for all posterity. In these modern times, that name is going to go into a database, searchable by other cops, and forever more you'll be 'someone the police have had an interaction with'.
Click to expand...
Yep. Lots of examples of an outstanding warrant turning up. I also know of an armed robbery and burglary that was solved because a beat officer recognized the guy on a surveillance video and had a "contact report" on him from a week earlier listing his name and address.

Me? I would answer a few legitimate questions because the vast majority of police officers are good people trying to do a difficult job.
 
Speaking as a one time professional photographer I have run into situations that put "getting the pictures" (my job) into conflict with LEO's who don't want their job impacted by my doing so.

I'm specifically talking about taking photographs legally, not some kind of vigilantly video-journalism here.

This was the advice given to all the staff photographers at the publishing company by the staff attorney.

"These are your rights. Firmly, but politely ensure you do not contribute to violating them. Remain polite at all times as LEO's are doing their job, the same as you are."

You have the right to remain silent when questioned.

Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.

If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?
Click to expand...

Say:
" I WANT AN ATTORNEY PRESENT DURING QUESTIONING" & THEN BE SILENT UNTIL ONE ARRIVES.
 
Police certainly have a job to do, and I have zero problem with police asking bystanders to stay out of the way while they work. If a bystander does wander into the area of operation, however, an officer can certainly ask him/her to move to a safe distance away without needing to see ID or write down name and date of birth.

Someone recording video from across the street (and/or outside of the yellow tape, if there is any) is not interfering with the officers and isn't violating any law, so there is no reason or excuse for an officer to approach a videographer and ask for anything more than the time of day. In the case of the priest I referred to above in response to a question, I've seen the video. It was shot inside the store. The store owner (or employee) was spread-eagled against a far wall. There was a long display rack between the videographer and the arresting officer, which the videographer as shooting over. The priest was definitely not in anyone's way. The initial conversation took place over the display rack once the officer noticed the camera. Then the officer came around the rack and the video was suddenly cut off. (I couldn't see what happened, but it appeared that the officer either grabbed the camera or knocked it out of the priest's hands.)

If you are fortunate enough to live in a jurisdiction where police are polite and behave like the civil servants they are supposed to be, offer a prayer of thanks to the deity of your choice. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to walk on eggshells because, contrary to what members of the "thin blue line" keep telling us, there ARE a lot of jack-booted thugs out there, and their brethren in uniform always stick up for them instead of helping to clean the ranks from within.
 
buckhorn_cortez said:
In the State of New Mexico, you are required by law, to provide identification to the police if asked.

This does not mean a driver's license or other government issued identification (although you can voluntarily provide that)- it requires you answer their question by giving them your name (identity). You do not have to provide an address or any other information - which you would give them if you gave them your driver's license as an ID.


30-22-3. Concealing identity. (1963)

Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Please see page 1 of this official state document from the NM DPS which says only giving a name may not satisfy the requirements of the statute.
Please also note the phrase "... in the performance of his duties". There must be a reason to detain somebody.

For example, a Lovington, NM police officer was waiting for a man with outstanding felony warrants to return home. The officer found another man parked in front of the house, and asked to see his identification. A check of the license produced outstanding warrants, and that led to a successful search for drugs.

The state lost in the high court because while the guy arguably should have been detained, he couldn’t be detained for parking on a public street.

Officer Friendly coming up to random people walking down the road and demanding ID for which they refuse to provide does not make for a violation of 30-22-3.
 
In my opinion the people / groups that make most of these films have the best intrest of the citizenry in mind , Im sure some want to use them to make the Police look bad and do things to make sure they are challenged on camera . I also think all Police Departments need to make sure thier officers are trained how to deal with being filmed . I know a couple of Officers that may have escalated this situation until they played into making this a Cop bashing . Im not any kind of officer but do deal with the public and if the situation seems to be escalating I act like everything I do or say is being caught on tape . It protects me and the Company I work for from the Lawyers .
 
Many states (like New York) do have a law against "filming an officer in the conduct of his duties".
I was specifically excluding things like this from the post. If you break the law you get questioned because you broke the law, not because the officer is going badge heavy.

You do still have those rights though, its just a different situation if you're intentionally violating a law.
 
I have to wonder what that law could help , recent events may prove a Officer should be filmed to prove they were within the bounds of thier athority . Also in certain situations is there not a law that states you have to let anyone being recorded know they are being recorded ?
 
Also in certain situations is there not a law that states you have to let anyone being recorded know they are being recorded ?
Click to expand...
Some states are two-party consent states, in which the person being recorded has to be aware and willing. This applies to all people, not just law enforcement.
 
The Digital Media Law Project has an excellent summary of federal and state laws regarding recording police officers in public.

They also have a legal guide to the general recording of phone calls and conversations. According to their guide, 11 states have "two party" consent laws, while under the federal law and the laws of the other states, only one party must consent to the recording; the person who is doing the recording can be the consenting party.
 
only one party must consent to the recording; the person who is doing the recording can be the consenting party.
Click to expand...

In North Central Texas, we had a major issue around this a couple of decades ago.
The consenting party MUST be part of the conversation if the phone is involved.
A third party conducting a "wire tap" is not considered a consenting party.
 
Some states are two-party consent states, in which the person being recorded has to be aware and willing. This applies to all people, not just law enforcement.
Click to expand...
For consent to be required, there has to be a presumption or expectation of privacy . . . of which the police, in public, and in their official duties, have NONE.

Neither do citizens in such a public place. Surveillance cameras and microphones can be lawfully deployed nearly anywhere in public where no expectation or presumption of privacy exists. And what of dash cams that record everything and even in view? Consent laws are not applicable in the context and circumstance of this thread.

(ETA: Tom Servo is no doubt aware if this. That wasn't a rebuttal, just a clarification)
 
In North Central Texas, we had a major issue around this a couple of decades ago.
The consenting party MUST be part of the conversation if the phone is involved.
A third party conducting a "wire tap" is not considered a consenting party.
Click to expand...
Very true; I thought it was clear that the person doing the recording has to be taking part in the conversation in order to be a party to it.

And maestro's point is well taken -- none of this is applicable where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
pslam7 said:
I have to wonder what that law could help , recent events may prove a Officer should be filmed to prove they were within the bounds of thier athority . Also in certain situations is there not a law that states you have to let anyone being recorded know they are being recorded ?
Click to expand...
That generally falls under the protection of "wiretap" type laws, and those don't cover all situations. For example,depending on jurisdiction, the law might apply to intercepting (recording) a conversation between two people in a private room, but would not apply to the same two people having the same conversation while walking down the sidewalk in a city. That aspect has to do with "expectation of privacy."

Other cases have established that even where you can't record what a police officer is saying while carrying out his duties, it isn't against the law (again, depending on jurisdiction) to take video -- without audio.

It's complicated, and there is no one-size-fits-all answer. That said, I think it's fair to say that in general courts are tending to support the view that police operating in public view are not protected from being recorded in the performance of their duties.
 
I am curious how many members on here give up their 5th A Right, and answer questions when police talk to them? IMHO it is never a good idea to answer questions when someone is on a "fishing expedition"
Click to expand...
Considering I don't have an axe to grind against law enforcement, and that I do not engage in unlawful activities, I am always happy to answer their questions. It is not about 'giving up rights'. Its about being a useful member of my community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top