Controlled access to evidence, once again. It's critical with certain police investigations, for a variety of reasons, that some information not be made public. The same can be true of police investigations. That's why if they ask you to stop, you should comply. You're fine until then.
I'm happy to agree to disagree so that we don't end up going in circles. The right to document should be uninstallable. The right to publish is another story. If by publishing during an investigation will interfere with it then I agree it should not be published, but once the investigation is completed its fair game. The conduct of the officers during that investigation should be available to the public.
Filming an investigation is no different from watching the investigation from the other side of the crime scene tape, the only difference is that you have provided a potentially impartial and permanent record. No agency should be able to tell you to stop.
but the basic right to document should not be infringed.
You don't have a basic right to document police proceedings. However, recording non-sensitive information should be legal. That's fine.
The line is trickier when there's shit going down.
In at least 3 states you now have the implicit right to do so. In at least 3 states they are now saying its illegal, but not because of the act of filming the cops, but for the act of not notifying one of the participants. (a legalize bullshit method).
The implicit right to film should be legal in all states and it shouldn't take a law for it to be so.
Filming an investigation is no different from watching the investigation from the other side of the crime scene tape, the only difference is that you have provided a potentially impartial and permanent record. No agency should be able to tell you to stop.
This! Consider another angle. Eyewitness accounts are some of the most unreliable evidence in the world. I would much rather have a jackass with a camera filming my encounter with the police than the same said jackass recounting the encounter from his memory.
No one should ever be faulted for, without trespassing, recording the facts of a patently observable situation.
No one should ever be faulted for, without trespassing, recording the facts of a patently observable situation.
I agree for the most part.
I know that eyewitness accounts are unreliable. That's part of the reason that cops may ask you to move along when they're doing something. Your imperfect eyewitness account could jeopardize their perfectly legitimate investigation. Similarly, if you only get to record part of a police investigation, that's potentially skewing evidence that can make things a lot more difficult.
I think my basic issue here is that we have dueling blanket statements: nobody can record any cops, or everyone can record all cops. The former is a totalitarian ruling, and the latter can create problems in legal proceedings. What I want is a set of laws that addresses video recording specifically, as it is sufficiently different from passive observation, and has to be handled in a different way.
No one should ever be faulted for, without trespassing, recording the facts of a patently observable situation.
The problem is that you as the observer do not have all the facts. Let's say you record a bust around the corner, and you watch the cops tackle a dude and beat him down. What you don't see is that 25 seconds ago, he shot the cop's buddy and dropped the gun. The cop beat him down to subdue a dangerous suspect. Your recording is only impartial if it gets everything that happened.
Now, of course, that recording can still be a useful piece of evidence. However, it also has the power to unduly influence a trial. That's what I mean by control of evidence. If there's a video out there of this bust, you can unduly influence a jury with your imperfect recording before they get to hear all the facts. Of course, there are separate issues with the whole jury trial thing, but that's a different discussion.
If you record a police proceeding and intend to publish it in any capacity, you really need to work with the cops to ensure that you're not interfering with the investigation.
Valid points, and all the more reason for the police to film themselves, and not just from their dash cams.
The blanket statement should be that the police may not tell you to stop filming as long as you were not actively interfering with an investigation. Doing so should be subject to a civilian review panel. If this was the case then I would be willing to put my camera down when asked (knowing that if it wasn't a legitimate request that the officer would be in serious trouble).
I really think it boils down to what you do with the footage, not with the act of filming itself.
No one should ever be faulted for, without trespassing, recording the facts of a patently observable situation.
The problem is that you as the observer do not have all the facts. Let's say you record a bust around the corner, and you watch the cops tackle a dude and beat him down. What you don't see is that 25 seconds ago, he shot the cop's buddy and dropped the gun. The cop beat him down to subdue a dangerous suspect. Your recording is only impartial if it gets everything that happened.
It's somewhat uncomfortable knowing that there are police officers in some states that can force passive observers to stop filming. Getting the whole story shouldn't be the reason why people film police officers. The officers should know that their actions can be legally recorded and they will then act accordingly. Taking away that right may allow some officers to do things that they may think twice about it if a camera was pointed at them.
Granted that the film may be biased but I think that we can take that chance. In court, if the film is entered as evidence, a police officer can always say "We were filmed 10 minutes into the bust" and then whatever we see on film will be taken with a grain of salt. Taking away the privilege of filming is a bit scary.
a police officer can always say "We were filmed 10 minutes into the bust" and then whatever we see on film will be taken with a grain of salt.
Yeah, that doesn't really happen. The problem is that everyone thinks that film is impartial, so a visual record makes a far greater impact than spoken testimony. If you watch footage of a cop kicking a suspect in the ribs in order to subdue him, you might very well think it's police brutality no matter what the cop says. Doesn't matter that he was fighting back or that he had just shot the officer; the actual visuals of the police action create an intense bias.
Getting the whole story shouldn't be the reason why people film police officers.
For filming, no, but if you at all intend to publish that film, you better goddamn well sure you know what your agenda is. Publishing half the story and then washing your hands of the affair is reckless, especially in this age of near-pervasive information. Your half-story will get the attention of millions of people, and has the power to sway public opinion and influence legal proceedings.
Information is extremely powerful. You need to exercise care when distributing it, because the consequences may reach far beyond what you can imagine. That's why we need to figure out when it's appropriate for an officer to cut-off public filming of certain police actions.
I do agree that the act of filming, in and of itself, is not necessarily problematic. I can understand the intent of these laws, but they're going about it all wrong. I think this is the sort of thing that is going to rely on a series of court rulings to become properly established.
I may take flack for this, but Rodney King is a good example of not seeing the whole video. The reason the cops were acquitted on all charges was because the jury saw the whole video. They saw King's actions before the beat down started.
It is true that only seeing part of the video can cause major problems for the cops involved. I think its worth it in the long run, accepting some danger of misrepresentation of events in favour of the documentation of misdeeds. Again, if the officers all carried personal cameras they could always go back and show their side of the story.
Again, if the officers all carried personal cameras they could always go back and show their side of the story.
Yes! A thousand time yes! Then, a citizen's camera isn't a threat, but simply an additional camera angle to better interpret what actually happened.
Police self-surveillance should be an immediate goal. It solves the problem entirely, and a police officer who doesn't want to monitor himself in this way is probably a dangerous liability who does things he shouldn't be doing.
Again, if the officers all carried personal cameras they could always go back and show their side of the story.
Yes I suppose that's where that cop cam that Rym and Scott talked about would come in handy. What was it called..? something-Scam?? But yes, I agree that if the cops and the citizens all had cams running this would be a non issue. It's possible that the last thing that the police force wants is constant filming, hence no cameras on cops.
Again, if the officers all carried personal cameras they could always go back and show their side of the story.
Yes I suppose that's where that cop cam that Rym and Scott talked about would come in handy. What was it called..? something-Scam?? But yes, I agree that if the cops and the citizens all had cams running this would be a non issue. It's possible that the last thing that the police force wants is constant filming, hence no cameras on cops.
There are quite a number of agencies experimenting with personal cameras that cops wear, in addition to the cameras in the patrol vehicles. I would be willing to bet that all major urban departments will have cameras on cops within the next 5 years, if for no other reason than to flight false use of force lawsuits. Rym is quite correct, no good cop would be unwilling to wear a camera.
One caveat though, use of force complaints must go through people trained in the force continuum and knowledgeable in the methods that police are trained in. There are many studies that show the general public has seriosu misconceptions about what is both legal and required to stay safe in use of force incidents (for example, most studies show that the gereal public when represented with a shoot/no shoot scenario chooses to shoot more often than police are trained to engage).
It's possible that the last thing that the police force wants is constant filming, hence no cameras on cops.
There can be no motive there but fear of public scrutiny of their practices.
I wouldn't mind giving them the benefit of the doubt but I simply can't think of any reason why the force wouldn't do everything in their power to protect themselves.
One caveat though, use of force complaints must go through people trained in the force continuum and knowledgeable in the methods that police are trained in. There are many studies that show the general public has seriosu misconceptions about what is both legal and required to stay safe in use of force incidents (for example, most studies show that the gereal public when represented with a shoot/no shoot scenario chooses to shoot more often than police are trained to engage).
If I remember right (this is from high school, so I'm only about a half a step better than making shit up) you're allowed to go one step above what the other person has, right? Like, if they try to punch you, you're allowed to use a nightstick. Is that not true?
Also, the general public probably chooses to shoot more often because of the misconception that you can easily shoot to injure rather than kill.
(for example, most studies show that the gereal public when represented with a shoot/no shoot scenario chooses to shoot more often than police are trained to engage).
I believe it. I read a story recently about a guy who tried to shoot out the tires on an escaping robber, and was arrested and convicted on firearms and endangerment charges.
If I remember right (this is from high school, so I'm only about a half a step better than making shit up) you're allowed to go one step above what the other person has, right? Like, if they try to punch you, you're allowed to use a nightstick. Is that not true?
Also, the general public probably chooses to shoot more often because of the misconception that you can easily shoot to injure rather than kill.
I can't give a definitive answer that covers all police in all states, however in general there is no rule saying you must use a level of force one level (and only one level) higher. The rules for police are also not the same as the rules for civilians so lets not mix those up. You must use appropriate force for the situation. (what does that mean? Good question)
Police usually have tools at their disposal, firearms, tazers, pepper spray, batons, but you won't find a cop getting in trouble for shooting someone and not tazing them if they aren't issued tazers. Its complicated.
The general public has crazy notions about shooting to wound, shooting the gun out of someones hand, etc etc, its ludicris.
I may take flack for this, but Rodney King is a good example of not seeing the whole video. The reason the cops were acquitted on all charges was because the jury saw the whole video. They saw King's actions before the beat down started.
I was actually going to bring that up, but decided not to. Good on you for taking the flack for me. :P
Police self-surveillance should be an immediate goal. It solves the problem entirely, and a police officer who doesn't want to monitor himself in this way is probably a dangerous liability who does things he shouldn't be doing.
This is a very good idea. Make the information on those cameras FOIA-ble at the very least.
If I remember right (this is from high school, so I'm only about a half a step better than making shit up) you're allowed to go one step above what the other person has, right? Like, if they try to punch you, you're allowed to use a nightstick. Is that not true?
It's more complicated than that, and it depends on the state and the situation at hand. In New York, for example, you can use any force up to and including deadly force if a reasonably prudent person in your situation would have believe that their life was in imminent danger. I'm paraphrasing the law a touch, but that's the spirit of the deadly force requirement. Everything up to deadly force is fine in most cases.
This is a very good idea. Make the information on those cameras FOIA-ble at the very least.
Precisely. All 911 calls are made public. That's why we always get to hear hilarious recordings of stupid calls. Should be the same for everything else.
Well, actually, until a suspect's trial is over, you should probably blur their face or something, as they do on those reality cop shows. Of course, I dislike the idea of the cops being able to edit the footage on said cameras. Perhaps some separate agency independent of any police bureau whose sole job is to manage the footage from said cameras?
The Mythbusters actually took this one on. It was rated "Plausible" from a few angles, but some it would just break your finger.
I haven't seen that episode, but I can tell you from experience that when your being shot at the last thing your thinking about is shooting the gun out of someones hand. I can also say that when your getting ready to shoot someone, if you don't shoot for the center of available mass, your probably going to miss. You may also shit your pants. Your adrenaline will dump so hard that time will slow down, you may not even be able to eat your breakfast 2 hours later due to the food shaking off your fork.
The most likely result of trying to disarm a suspect is hitting someone else.
(I didn't shit MY pants, but I saw it happen, I was unable to eat breakfast)
edit: sorry for the melodrama, but the idea of disarming an armed suspect is a pet peeve of mine,
Well, actually, until a suspect's trial is over, you should probably blur their face or something, as they do on those reality cop shows. Of course, I dislike the idea of the cops being able to edit the footage on said cameras. Perhaps some separate agency independent of any police bureau whose sole job is to manage the footage from said cameras?
I don't know how easy it is to edit video without leaving some sort of fingerprint on it. I wouldn't know though.
If the police are filming themselves as a form of protection from lawsuit then it will be in thier interest to always film and develop systems to protect the data from tampering so that they can win lawsuits.
Once the police are filming themselves then there will be no reason to prevent anyone else from filming them! We can all live documented lives!
Now see, that's some goddamn bullshit right there. It's one thing if you want to restrict active recording around an active crime scene, because that's no longer a public event. In this case, though, the cop is the interloper, never mind the lack of markings.
Unmarked cops should have very specific uses, and traffic stops should not be one of those.
Unmarked cops should have very specific uses, and traffic stops should not be one of those.
I'm ok, with unmarked cars (well actually I hate them, but legally speaking I can roll with it) as long as there is a uniformed officer in it. There's actually a law in Indiana that makes just this sort of thing illegal.
Comments
Filming an investigation is no different from watching the investigation from the other side of the crime scene tape, the only difference is that you have provided a potentially impartial and permanent record. No agency should be able to tell you to stop.
The implicit right to film should be legal in all states and it shouldn't take a law for it to be so.
No one should ever be faulted for, without trespassing, recording the facts of a patently observable situation.
I know that eyewitness accounts are unreliable. That's part of the reason that cops may ask you to move along when they're doing something. Your imperfect eyewitness account could jeopardize their perfectly legitimate investigation. Similarly, if you only get to record part of a police investigation, that's potentially skewing evidence that can make things a lot more difficult.
I think my basic issue here is that we have dueling blanket statements: nobody can record any cops, or everyone can record all cops. The former is a totalitarian ruling, and the latter can create problems in legal proceedings. What I want is a set of laws that addresses video recording specifically, as it is sufficiently different from passive observation, and has to be handled in a different way. The problem is that you as the observer do not have all the facts. Let's say you record a bust around the corner, and you watch the cops tackle a dude and beat him down. What you don't see is that 25 seconds ago, he shot the cop's buddy and dropped the gun. The cop beat him down to subdue a dangerous suspect. Your recording is only impartial if it gets everything that happened.
Now, of course, that recording can still be a useful piece of evidence. However, it also has the power to unduly influence a trial. That's what I mean by control of evidence. If there's a video out there of this bust, you can unduly influence a jury with your imperfect recording before they get to hear all the facts. Of course, there are separate issues with the whole jury trial thing, but that's a different discussion.
If you record a police proceeding and intend to publish it in any capacity, you really need to work with the cops to ensure that you're not interfering with the investigation.
The blanket statement should be that the police may not tell you to stop filming as long as you were not actively interfering with an investigation. Doing so should be subject to a civilian review panel. If this was the case then I would be willing to put my camera down when asked (knowing that if it wasn't a legitimate request that the officer would be in serious trouble).
I really think it boils down to what you do with the footage, not with the act of filming itself.
Granted that the film may be biased but I think that we can take that chance. In court, if the film is entered as evidence, a police officer can always say "We were filmed 10 minutes into the bust" and then whatever we see on film will be taken with a grain of salt. Taking away the privilege of filming is a bit scary.
Information is extremely powerful. You need to exercise care when distributing it, because the consequences may reach far beyond what you can imagine. That's why we need to figure out when it's appropriate for an officer to cut-off public filming of certain police actions.
I do agree that the act of filming, in and of itself, is not necessarily problematic. I can understand the intent of these laws, but they're going about it all wrong. I think this is the sort of thing that is going to rely on a series of court rulings to become properly established.
It is true that only seeing part of the video can cause major problems for the cops involved. I think its worth it in the long run, accepting some danger of misrepresentation of events in favour of the documentation of misdeeds. Again, if the officers all carried personal cameras they could always go back and show their side of the story.
Police self-surveillance should be an immediate goal. It solves the problem entirely, and a police officer who doesn't want to monitor himself in this way is probably a dangerous liability who does things he shouldn't be doing.
One caveat though, use of force complaints must go through people trained in the force continuum and knowledgeable in the methods that police are trained in. There are many studies that show the general public has seriosu misconceptions about what is both legal and required to stay safe in use of force incidents (for example, most studies show that the gereal public when represented with a shoot/no shoot scenario chooses to shoot more often than police are trained to engage).
Also, the general public probably chooses to shoot more often because of the misconception that you can easily shoot to injure rather than kill.
Police usually have tools at their disposal, firearms, tazers, pepper spray, batons, but you won't find a cop getting in trouble for shooting someone and not tazing them if they aren't issued tazers. Its complicated.
The general public has crazy notions about shooting to wound, shooting the gun out of someones hand, etc etc, its ludicris.
The most likely result of trying to disarm a suspect is hitting someone else.
(I didn't shit MY pants, but I saw it happen, I was unable to eat breakfast)
edit: sorry for the melodrama, but the idea of disarming an armed suspect is a pet peeve of mine,
Once the police are filming themselves then there will be no reason to prevent anyone else from filming them! We can all live documented lives!
OMG SOME GUY IS COMING AT ME, YELLING, AND HOLDING A GUN.
Unmarked cops should have very specific uses, and traffic stops should not be one of those.