# Can police force you to stop filming?



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

I had wondered this before, but this post jogged my memory:
http://www.preparedsociety.com/foru...ing-major-crisis-2914/index16.html#post176232

Most all of us have seen footage where a very irate officer is yelling at someone to "stop filming". Can they really force you to stop? Short answer: no.

I did a little searching:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120211030741AAqWeA1
"If you were just a third party at a scene and had nothing to do with what was happening you would be fine. However if you were a party to nature of the call then you could be asked to put the camera down. Most photographers that are arrested in these scenarios are usually being stupid and crossing police lines or willfully harassing the police. If you are out of the way most police officers could not care less and some are even glad to have you."

http://andrewkantor.com/legalrights/Legal Rights of Photographers2.pdf

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/you-have-every-right-photograph-cop

You Have Every Right to Photograph That Cop
September 7, 2011
Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, Speech, Privacy and Technology Project

Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right - and that includes the outside of federal buildings, as well as transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.

However, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs or video in public places, and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply. The ACLU, photographer's groups, and others have been complaining about such incidents for years - and consistently winning in court. Yet, a continuing stream of incidents of illegal harassment of photographers and videographers makes it clear that the problem is not going away. In the spring of 2011 alone, the list of incidents included these cases:

A woman in Rochester New York was unlawfully arrested in May 2011 for videotaping a traffic stop in front of her house - while standing in her own front yard.
A man was unlawfully detained in March 2011 for taking photographs of Baltimore's light rail train system - despite the fact that the Maryland Transit Administration had previously pledged to cease harassment of photographers, in response to complaints by the ACLU of Maryland starting in 2006.
That same month a photographer taking video of police using a taser on a participant in a New Orleans parade had his phone violently knocked out of his hands by a police officer. In response to this and other repeated incidents, the ACLU of Louisiana has filed an open records request for documents pertaining to the First Amendment training of New Orleans police officers.
In February 2011, uniformed Secret Service officers on patrol in front of the White House detained a man for taking photographs of them in a public plaza swarming with tourists, journalists and cameras of all kinds. They demanded his identification, and told him, "Since you took a picture of us we're going to take a picture of you for our records," taking down his identification and photographing him. It is unclear what was done with that information.
Two journalists were arrested at a June 2011 public meeting of the Washington, DC Taxi Commission. According to reports and a partial video of the incident, one man was arrested for taking a still photograph of the meeting, while another was arrested for filming the arrest of the first journalist.
A high school honors student in Newark, New Jersey was arrested in March 2011 for taking cell phone video of officers responding to an incident on a New Jersey Transit bus. We would link to the student's video but cannot do so because officers also carried out an illegal search and seizure of her phone and erased the video she took. The ACLU of New Jersey filed suit in the case.

Examples of these kinds of abuses, which continue to be reported weekly, are chronicled on web pages such as Photography is Not a Crime. And for more information on the ways in which law enforcement is spying on Americans today, visit our report on "Spying on First Amendment Activity."

A Crucial Check on Power

The right of citizens to record the police is a critical check and balance. It creates an independent record of what took place in a particular incident, free from accusations of bias, lying or faulty memory. It is no accident that some of the most high-profile cases of police misconduct have involved video and audio records.

Of course, photography is not necessarily "objective" and it is always possible in a particular case that there can be circumstances at work outside a photographic record. Overall, however, the incidents above make it abundantly clear that respect for the right to photograph and record is not well-established within the law enforcement profession.

Many of those involved in these incidents appear to be activists who know their rights and are willing to stand up for them. But not everyone is able to stand up to police officers when harassed; we don't know how many other Americans comply with baseless orders to stop photographing or recording because they are uncertain of their rights or too afraid to stand up for them.

Photography as a Precursor to Terrorism

A big part of the problem here is "suspicious activity reporting" - the construction of a national system for the collection and distribution of information. Under this system (as we discuss on this page and in this report), law enforcement leaders at the federal, state and local level push officers on the ground to investigate and report a broad spectrum of legitimate, everyday activity as potentially "suspicious" - including photography. In fact, many such programs actually suggest that photography is a "precursor behavior" to terrorism, and direct the police to react accordingly. This notion has been dismissed as "nonsense" by security experts - but appears to be disturbingly robust.

A serious question for photographers and videographers who are harassed is whether they are being entered in government suspicious activity databases or watch lists, and whether and how such a listing might come back to haunt them. An investigation of Suspicious Activity Reports by NPR and the Center for Investigative Reporting, for example, found numerous individuals were reported to the FBI for taking photographs or video in the Mall of America.

A Problem From the Top

Another disturbing trend is police officers and prosecutors using wiretapping statutes in certain states (such as Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania) to arrest and prosecute those who attempt to record police activities using videocameras that include audio. (Unlike photography and silent video, there is no general right to record audio; many state wiretap laws prohibit recording conversations if the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy - which is never true for a police officer carrying out his or her duties in public.)

Word appears to have circulated within law enforcement circles somehow that using wiretapping statutes is a strategy for preventing public oversight, with some taking the concept to ridiculous extremes.

In contrast, it appears to be stubbornly difficult to spread word within those same circles of the fact that photography and videotaping in public places is a constitutional right. And earlier this year, following a lawsuit by the New York branch of the ACLU, DHS agreed to issued a directive to members of the Federal Protective Service making it clear that photographing federal buildings is permitted. Yet arrests by Federal Protective Service officers appear to be continuing. You would think that police chiefs and other supervisors could easily instruct and enforce an understanding of photographers' rights among their officers. Still, for some reason, all too often that is not happening. In New Orleans, for example, in response to its public records request, the local ACLU found the police department's policy which clearly instructs officers that people have the right to photograph. Yet officers there routinely violate the stated policy.

(British Websites)
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

http://netpol.org/2012/07/27/a-rough-guide-to-filming-the-police-during-a-stop-search/

A Rough Guide to Filming the Police during a Stop & Search

Nowadays with most of us having a camera on our mobile phones, more and more people are able to film the actions of the police during a stop and search and are choosing to do so.

However, there are a few basic suggestions that may help you to be better prepared, can ensure that deciding to film the police makes a difference and can mean any footage has genuine value as possible evidence.

*Why stop and film?*

Ordinary people stopping and filming the police can mean that officers behave differently than they would if no-one was watching and recording their actions. This might make the experience for the person who has been stopped far less intimidating or threatening.

The more often the police are filmed stopping people, the more officers may come to expect that they may be filmed in the future, which can influence the way they generally treat people and whether stop & search powers are routinely used indiscriminately.

If police officers have acted unlawfully, filming them can help provide evidence if there is a formal complaint or if someone is arrested.

*Can I legally film the police?*

There is no law stopping anyone filming in a public place, so if you are on the streets you can film without asking permission - the Metropolitan Police's own guidelines (adopted by all police forces in Britain) make clear that "police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel".

There is a law - Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 - that says police officers can stop you filming them if they believe that the video will be used for purposes of terrorism. However, police guidelines state that:

"it would ordinarily be unlawful to use section 58A to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities&#8230; An arrest would only be lawful if an arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion that the photographs were being taken in order to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

This does not apply when you stop to film the police stopping and searching people.

What to remember when filming

A stop & search is already a humiliating experience for the person who has been stopped, so it is worthwhile asking them if it's OK to film and assuring them you are just filming the actions of the police. Sometimes the police will try and stop you filming by saying it 'breaches the privacy' of the person being searched. You can get round this simply by asking the person who has been stopped, "I'm here to make sure the police don't do anything to you they are not supposed to. Is it OK if I film what the police are doing?"

If there are two people with cameras, it is worthwhile both of you filming. Either both film the officers conducting the stop & search, or one person can focus on filming the other person with a camera if the police are harassing them.

Remember, police officers don't want incriminating footage of them if they are acting unlawfully. This can sometimes leave you as a target so be mindful of what this when you are recording in case they try to arrest you.

Keep calm and focus on recording what you see, rather than getting involved in what you are filming.

If police officers try and say you are obstructing them in their duties, simply step back but hold your ground and carry on filming. Remember that legally they have no power to stop you from doing so.

Focus on the actions of the officers. Your priority is to collect evidence. Make sure you record police abuse, threats or orders. If nothing interesting is happening, it might still be important to keep the camera rolling, but keep it focused on the police.

Film the officers' numbers: police officers are supposed to wear numbers, which are usually on their shoulders and will help identify to them. As well as filming their numbers, you can also read out their numbers on camera, which can help pin officers down later.

Don't film the person being stopped & searched unless it is absolutely necessary to show what officers are doing to them. You want to avoid becoming a police evidence-gatherer, even inadvertently. Even if the person being stopped & searched is happy for you to film them, it is best not to film their face or any identifiable clothing. It may not be in that person's interest to be identified on YouTube undergoing a stop & search.

Don't film/upload anything that the police can use against the person being searched, such as swearing.

It's important to try and film some sort of landmark, such as a street sign or major building after the event but before turning off the camera. This will prevent the police from saying that your video is of a different event.

These are some really basic tips to remember that will help you capture better video footage:

Keep the camera still! Don't move it around all the time, you need a clear and steady shot of important events. If you are having problems with this try focusing your eye on something in the top corner of the screen, this should help.

Don't zoom in and out all the time. However when you have filmed something important (like police numbers) make sure you zoom out afterwards and film landmarks around the incident, this will help prove exactly where the incident took place.

*After you've finished filming*

Keep the footage safe and back it up as soon as you can.

When the person who has been stopped & searched is hopefully let go by the police, it's worthwhile asking if they want to swap details so you can pass them the footage if they need it.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

Internet research is like internet photos, some are credible but a lot are BS disguised as credible. And this very issue is so full of possibilities and potentials of when it is and is not permissible that this thread could be 100's of posts long and still not cover them all. There are a number of reasons why the police can stop you from filming and a number of laws that protect LEO's, crime scenes, victims, etc. This also depends greatly on where you live (laws vary wildly from state to state) and what you are filming. Most states have a "interfering with an LEO in the performance of his/her duties" law on the books which is often used to stop people from video taping depending on the circumstances. If the LEO believe the video recording device contains evidence it can be detained along with its owner pending a warrant. I have even stood in front of someone taping and blocked their view (which is also legal). I am sure an internet lawyer will come along and rebuke all of that, but I have stood in front of many a court and had them concur with my actions and/or interpretations. I personally don't mind being video taped but the victims of crime (as one example) deserve more consideration and respect than to have some dumb ass run up with a phone or a camera and start recording.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

We had all the fallout from the Rodney King arrest where he was beaten because he refused to stop resisting. I can understand why police don't want half of some event being filmed and have what they did taken out of context. At the same time, it should be legal to film the police from a distance close enough to film what's going on without interfering with what they're doing. There have been a number of laws introduced to make it illegal to film the police. That should be a big concern to anybody concerned with our freedoms.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Sentry18 said:


> Internet research is like internet photos, some are credible but a lot are BS disguised as credible. And this very issue is so full of possibilities and potentials of when it is and is not permissible that this thread could be 100's of posts long and still not cover them all. There are a number of reasons why the police can stop you from filming and a number of laws that protect LEO's, crime scenes, victims, etc. This also depends greatly on where you live (laws vary wildly from state to state) and what you are filming. Most states have a "interfering with an LEO in the performance of his/her duties" law on the books which is often used to stop people from video taping depending on the circumstances. If the LEO believe the video recording device contains evidence it can be detained along with its owner pending a warrant. I have even stood in front of someone taping and blocked their view (which is also legal). I am sure an internet lawyer will come along and rebuke all of that, but I have stood in front of many a court and had them concur with my actions and/or interpretations. I personally don't mind being video taped but the victims of crime (as one example) deserve more consideration and respect than to have some dumb ass run up with a phone or a camera and start recording.


And do police extend the same courtesy to people that they stop but film with their dashboard cameras? How about red light cameras? How about private organizations putting security cameras on the street.

The police has a very weak rationale here. If a victim is in public then they have no more of a privilege of privacy than does anyone else who is in the public sphere.

Police officers have no expectation of privacy when they are on duty and in public spaces.


----------



## Jezcruzen (Oct 21, 2008)

You have a constitutional right to video any public official who is on public property. If a cop is out in public, such as a traffic accident or traffic stop, and you, John Q. Public decide to video from a public area of from you own property or property that you rent or lease, then it is not illegal to do so.

An irate cop can run up and tell you anything, and they often do. The rely on the uniform, the gun, and taking a loud and aggressive posture to cower a citizen from videoing. They might even assault and arrest you if you do not stop, but it would be an illegal arrest.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Bobbbb asks some very good questions. I think most people wish the "dash cams" did not exist. 


Three very good points need to be considered carefully:

1) This applies to public property. You have no guarantee to film on private property unless the owner grants permission. They may ask you to, and that is acceptable. 

2) Absolutely, under no circumstances, physically interfere with the officer(s). Give them some space.

3) Be considerate of the other party... I can only suppose someone being filmed during an embarrassing arrest may be able to take legal action against you for filming the event; but I would not know for sure if that is possible, or a lot of celebs would be able to take legal action against the paparazzi.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

> You have a constitutional right to video any public official who is on public property.


I didn't even know that our founding father's had video cameras when they wrote the constitution. I guess you learn something knew every day.



> And do police extend the same courtesy to people that they stop but film with their dashboard cameras?


My dash cameras belongs to the public and the footage of same is public property readily available by anyone who has a legal right to request it.



> If a victim is in public then they have no more of a privilege of privacy than does anyone else who is in the public sphere.


You're confusing my comment about what is in good taste and part of any reasonable persons code of conduct with the legalese of the right to privacy.



> Police officers have no expectation of privacy when they are on duty and in public spaces.


Maybe, maybe not. But certain police practices and procedures are protected. Undercover officers for example must keep their identities concealed or face serious risk, the courts have agreed with this many times. That is only one example.

*LincTex:* You make some good points there. I will also point out that my officers wear cameras on their person at all times as well as having cameras in their cars. We did not put cameras on them to catch bad guys, we put cameras in to disprove false complaints and to review performance internally. The secondary benefit of using the footage for evidence is just icing on the cake.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Sentry18 said:


> I guess you learn something knew every day.


I'm glad that I could help you in this regard.

It's nonsensical to believe that one can keep oneself in a privacy bubble when one is out in public for to do so would completely gut the entire notion of public space. I can stand on a sidewalk and snap pictures of people, cars driving by, buildings, birds flying around, etc. If someone desires privacy then the way to achieve that is to avoid going out in public, kind of like if one wants to keep a secret then one shouldn't tell everyone they meet the details of the secret and still expect the details to remain secret.

Courts have settled this issue long ago. If you're walking down the street and someone snaps your photo you have no expectation of privacy. If you want privacy, then don't leave private spaces.



> *LincTex:* You make some good points there. I will also point out that my officers wear cameras on their person at all times as well as having cameras in their cars. We did not put cameras on them to catch bad guys, we put cameras in to disprove false complaints and to review performance internally. The secondary benefit of using the footage for evidence is just icing on the cake.


Dash cams are good. If I ever get pulled over by a cop who wants to walk his dog around my car I'll be sure to voice my objection about the officer stopping the walk around as he approaches the front of my car with his dog, outside the view of his dashboard cam, until he orients his dash cam so that it now faces the front of my car. Surprisingly, dogs seem to signal quite a bit when they are out of camera view.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Sentry18 said:


> My dash cameras belongs to the public and the footage of same is public property readily available by anyone who has a legal right to request it.


That would be the caveat - it isn't public information: that would mean anyone is free to view the footage. Not "anyone" has the ability to view the footage, they must first have a legal reason to do so. To alleviate any doubts about who controls and stores the footage and who can release it (and to whom), it almost needs to be monitored and stored by a third party. But I digress; I would personally prefer the dash cams not be present. Law enforcement has been effective and functional for far many years before the cams than with them.



Sentry18 said:


> We did not put cameras on them to catch bad guys, we put cameras in to disprove false complaints and to review performance internally. The secondary benefit of using the footage for evidence is just icing on the cake.


I believe that if you conducted a "Jay Walk" (Jay Leno) type of general public opinion gathering, the *vast* majority would state said "icing" was the primary purpose for the expenditure of tax dollars.

Even if directly asked what other purposes the cameras would serve, most people would also fail to generate the thought that the cameras were there to monitor officer performance.


----------



## truecarnage (Apr 25, 2010)

If you would like to go to jail for the afternoon then keep filming after a cop tells you to stop
The law states they can't but in most cases if they tell you to stop you better for your own safety
Like the man said do you want to go through all the problems that come with an arrest just to prove you where doing something legal.


----------



## zombieresponder (Aug 20, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> And do police extend the same courtesy to people that they stop but film with their dashboard cameras? How about red light cameras? How about private organizations putting security cameras on the street.
> 
> The police has a very weak rationale here. If a victim is in public then they have no more of a privilege of privacy than does anyone else who is in the public sphere.
> 
> Police officers have no expectation of privacy when they are on duty and in public spaces.


Nobody has any expectation of privacy in a public space.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

truecarnage said:


> If you would like to go to jail for the afternoon then keep filming after a cop tells you to stop
> The law states they can't but in most cases if they tell you to stop you better for your own safety
> Like the man said do you want to go through all the problems that come with an arrest just to prove you where doing something legal.


By complying with illegal directives you perpetuate the illegal activity. I'm glad that many of the great epeople in the past were great simply because they put themselves at risk to oppose tyranny.

I'm also very proud of those who thought personal safety was the enemy of the public good. That includes everyone from the founding fathers to Rosa Parks.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

> That would be the caveat - it isn't public information: that would mean anyone is free to view the footage. Not "anyone" has the ability to view the footage, they must first have a legal reason to do so. To alleviate any doubts about who controls and stores the footage and who can release it (and to whom), it almost needs to be monitored and stored by a third party.


If you are on the tape, you have the legal right to see it. If you are not on the tape and were not involved why do you think you should be able to see it? Anything used in any criminal prosecution becomes public record and can viewed by anyone. Before that you have to consider privacy rights and confidentiality laws. As an example; would you want me to hand over a video of your traffic stop to your Ex wife? Why would she need to see it? It's not a caveat, it's common sense.



> I believe that if you conducted a "Jay Walk" (Jay Leno) type of general public opinion gathering, the vast majority would state said "icing" was the primary purpose for the expenditure of tax dollars.
> 
> Even if directly asked what other purposes the cameras would serve, most people would also fail to generate the thought that the cameras were there to monitor officer performance.


I cannot be responsible for the lack of intelligence of the average person. I have seen some of those Jay Leno spots and most of the people he talks to don't know who the president is or what color grass is supposed to be. The grant application I wrote asking the gov't for funds for the cameras is a matter of public record and their use monitored by the DOJ and the AG's office. Neither of whom have ever shown any interest in creating a thin blue line of protection over us.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

Sentry18 said:


> My dash cameras belongs to the public and the footage of same is public property readily available by anyone who has a legal right to request it.


And way way too often, courts have looked the other way when dash cameras suddenly stop working right when an alleged issue takes place. LEO word trumps the suddenly missing section of tape.



truecarnage said:


> If you would like to go to jail for the afternoon then keep filming after a cop tells you to stop
> The law states they can't but in most cases if they tell you to stop you better for your own safety
> Like the man said do you want to go through all the problems that come with an arrest just to prove you where doing something legal.


This really really scares me.

That whole quote attributed to Jews in Germany comes to mind.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Sentry18 said:


> If you are on the tape, you have the legal right to see it. If you are not on the tape and were not involved why do you think you should be able to see it? Anything used in any criminal prosecution becomes public record and can viewed by anyone. Before that you have to consider privacy rights and confidentiality laws.


This is an interesting situation. Do police ask for consent to record in two party consent states? Even in one party consent states, what do you do when someone expressly denies you permission to record and to store the video? What happens to their privacy when any police officer following internal procedures can view the recording? The citizens might feel that the interaction with the cop on the side of the street is a private affair in regards to the actual back and forth but if that back and forth is recorded then the citizen's privacy is stolen from him.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

I don't live in a two party consent state so I don't know. I wonder how any video surveillance works in a two party consent state. In a one party consent state as long as the LEO consents the video tape will not be stopped. If you don't realize the officer is recording you with a camera mounted on his chest or shoulder, you are probably not the kind of person concerned with stolen privacy. Internally (at my agency) only the officers involved, IA and ranking supervisors can review the video and a record is generated as to who watched it and when. One officer cannot watch another officers video unless named in the report. No one below the rank of Lieutenant can delete a video and then only after generating a message to the higher brass that he did so. And only for videos not attached to memorandums of arrest or open investigations. Even then the brass can recover that video if need be up to several days later. No one can edit video.



> By complying with illegal directives you perpetuate the illegal activity.


That is presuming the directive is illegal. Again, regardless of what people think and claim, there are many times, situations and scenarios in which an LEO can make you stop recording. In those times when the officer is in the right, you would be violating the law and not refusing to comply with an illegal directive. I am a stern defender of freedom myself, but you have to know the law where you live. As we say many times a day, ignorance of the law is no excuse. And make no mistake, my wife and kids are well versed in what to do if the police stop them or show up at our house.



> LEO word trumps the suddenly missing section of tape.


I need to move to your community (J/K). I have heard our Senior Judge say 100's of times that no officer is any more credible than any citizen of the country. That we are all on an even keel until credibility is earned (or lost) or supported by evidence. And his rulings have verified that many many times. Of course good honest police work makes that all moot.


----------



## Jezcruzen (Oct 21, 2008)

I think this issue connects with much more serious issues regarding the behavior of police and the interaction with the public.

I think that we can all agree that the days of "Officer Friendly" are long gone. At least thats true in most places.

I have watched as LEOs in my area have become much more militaristic, aloof, and occasionally displaying an arrogant attitude to those they are supposed to be serving. Thats right... SERVING. Not the reverse, as is too often an expectation demonstrated on streets all over this country by patrolling LEOs. We are not their servants, nor are we scum, automatic criminals, suspects, or insignificant peons to be bossed around and intimidated.

Its not my intent to disparaged those of you in LE who conscientiously try and do a thankless job everyday. But the bad seeds in your midst, those who so freely allow themselves to be sucked up into the tyrannical methods and mindset of an out of control federal government that views ordinary Americans as "potential domestic terrorists", I have this to say - you are alienating the only real support you will ever have - the American public.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

> We are not their servants, nor are we scum, automatic criminals, suspects, or insignificant peons to be bossed around and intimidated.


Agreed.

I have noticed a trend of LE agencies lowering their hiring standards because the MTV generation is not smart or brave enough to put on a badge. Of course this is also happening because of constant liability issues and officers getting sued over everything. In my community the local PD starts out at the same wage as one of the local factorys. Only the factory workers get every weekend off and never have to work nights or holidays or in the snow or.... When you lower the bar and lower the budget you have to expect that the quality of policing and police officers are going to suffer. No matter how good of trainer and supervisor I am, I cannot make a so-so person a top notch LEO. And sometimes so-so is all you get after 2-3 hiring rotations (in some departments).

And for the record the only things I hate worse than bad cops, are lazy cops.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Sentry18 said:


> In a one party consent state as long as the LEO consents the video tape will not be stopped.


And I have no problem with this so long as I can whip out my cell phone and also record every single transaction I have with the police. My consent to record, in a one party consent state, is implied by my action of recording. If I have absolutely no basis upon which to stop the police from recording our interaction, then the same should apply to the police.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Sentry18 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I have noticed a trend of LE agencies lowering their hiring standards because the MTV generation is not smart or brave enough to put on a badge.


I'm honestly interested by what you mean with respect to bravery. As to the matter of lowered standards, I'm with you on that being a problem but let's be honest, the principle dynamic in play here are the disparate impact lawsuits which arise from fair hiring standards which result in fewer minority candidates meeting the fair standard. The only possible way to boost the qualification rates for underrepresented minorities is to lower the standards so that more can pass over the proficiency line.

Give a calculus test to 5th graders and 100% of them will fail.
Give a test on fractions to the same class and 30% will fail.
Give them a test where they must simply write their name and 0% will fail.

Standards that are too high will produce too few candidates. 
Standards which are set to produce the required number of candidates to insure full hiring will result in underrepresentation of minorities.
To get a full representation of minority candidates from which pool one can hire requires a dumbing down of the qualification tests.

ETA: Example of the above:

*The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits. It's a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam.*

Dayton is in desperate need of officers to replace dozens of retirees. The hiring process was postponed for months because the D.O.J. rejected the original scores provided by the Dayton Civil Service Board, which administers the test.

Under the previous requirements, candidates had to get a 66% on part one of the exam and a 72% on part two.

The D.O.J. approved new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%. That's the equivalent of an 'F' and a 'D'.​


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

Sentry18 said:


> I need to move to your community (J/K). I have heard our Senior Judge say 100's of times that no officer is any more credible than any citizen of the country. That we are all on an even keel until credibility is earned (or lost) or supported by evidence. And his rulings have verified that many many times. Of course good honest police work makes that all moot.


It's actually pretty sad. Granted I was only seeing the press published side of the story, but the entire arrest was the ONLY thing missing on the tape, and the judge took the LEO's word over the civilian's word. IRC it was thrown out at the appeals level, and he won the civil lawsuit against the dept... who removed all the cameras from their cars.

I also had a completely off topic discussion with an past neighbor and sgt of the police dept. He believed that us mere mortals should not be allowed to own firearms. He also believed that no business in our small town should be allowed to serve alcohol. This stuff scares me, especially when one of our officer's was marking tires in the parking lot at a local bar and sitting down the road and tagging cars with marked tires. The officer won an award from MADD, and received kudo's from city council for his outstanding work... all illegal behavior according to the state. I actually had a discussion with the chief on this topic, and I quote, "I can not control what my officers do". The irony, by closing down two of the most popular establishments in the city, the city lost a LOT of shared revenue, which has greatly impacted LEO coverage in the city.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Jezcruzen said:


> You have a constitutional right to video any public official who is on public property. If a cop is out in public, such as a traffic accident or traffic stop, and you, John Q. Public decide to video from a public area of from you own property or property that you rent or lease, then it is not illegal to do so.
> 
> An irate cop can run up and tell you anything, and they often do. The rely on the uniform, the gun, and taking a loud and aggressive posture to cower a citizen from videoing. They might even assault and arrest you if you do not stop, but it would be an illegal arrest.


This is 100% not correct. If you are in my jurisdiction and filming, according to federal law, I can order you to stop. We have signs posted all over the place telling people exactly that. If someone were to attempt to continue to film, I certainly could arrest them, and for good reason which should be abundantly obvious to all of us: OPSEC.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Bobbb said:


> I'm honestly interested by what you mean with respect to bravery. As to the matter of lowered standards, I'm with you on that being a problem but let's be honest, the principle dynamic in play here are the disparate impact lawsuits which arise from fair hiring standards which result in fewer minority candidates meeting the fair standard. The only possible way to boost the qualification rates for underrepresented minorities is to lower the standards so that more can pass over the proficiency line.
> 
> Give a calculus test to 5th graders and 100% of them will fail.
> Give a test on fractions to the same class and 30% will fail.
> ...


Ever notice how many of these stories take place in Ohio? Just saying.

I'm curious where you found that particular statistic, because any LEO under the DoJ has to graduate from FLETC, which requires the recruit to pass five written tests with scores of 85% or higher, among other practical exams.

As much as I make fun of Ohio, they actually have one of the toughest police certification programs in the country. I can't see this being true.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

> I'm honestly interested by what you mean with respect to bravery.


I am referring to the overall pussification of America. In the last 7 years we have had several officers resign or be let go with in their first year of service because of the most chicken-shit things. For example, two people washed themselves out of training because they refused to get tazed. One of them was shaking and crying waiting for them to fire the taser then just screamed stop and walked out the door never to return. We had another who had to be hospitalized after being sprayed with OC in training and tried to go on disability even though the Doc said he was perfectly fine. We have had candidates quit during ground fighting training after taking one hit. We even had a certified officer quit after he got a minor injury during a simunitions drill. Then you have the too scared to go on people who go through a year of training and several months of FTO only to resign after they encounter the very first scary situation out on patrol. And in the entire history of my department NONE of the aforementioned incidents (or anything even close) ever happened prior to approx. 2005. Not once in a very long history. You can look over the sea of recruits, rookies and young officers and tell that they were not made from the same stuff as a lot of the classes before them. There are exceptions of course, but they are getting few and far between.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

> I'm curious where you found that particular statistic, because any LEO under the DoJ has to graduate from FLETC, which requires the recruit to pass five written tests with scores of 85% or higher, among other practical exams.


Ours have to pass 14 written exams with a score of 80% or higher and numerous skills tests.

But Bobbb, I was talking common sense smart not book smart. I was referring to people who you have to teach things to like why talking louder does not help someone who doesn't speak english understand you.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Sentry18 said:


> Ours have to pass 14 written exams with a score of 80% or higher and numerous skills tests.


Yeah, we have a few other tests that are particular to each agency. The final two at my agency require a 95% to pass. The rest are all 85%.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Turtle said:


> Ever notice how many of these stories take place in Ohio? Just saying.
> 
> I'm curious where you found that particular statistic, because any LEO under the DoJ has to graduate from FLETC, *which requires the recruit to pass five written tests with scores of 85%* or higher, among other practical exams.
> 
> As much as I make fun of Ohio, they actually have one of the toughest police certification programs in the country. I can't see this being true.


I could devise a test for law enforcement candidates which insured a 100% pass rate. Don't be fooled by the higher pass rate, it's the substance of the test that is key.

It's not just Ohio.

Here's Corpus Christie, Tx.

There was nothing discriminatory about the test on its face but the results. The statistics showed that from 2005 to 2009, there was a statistically significant difference in pass rates between male and female applicants --19% for females and *63% for males.*

In 2011 the city changed the cut-off score, but the results were the same -- now 33% pass rate for females, *82% pass rate* for males, also statistically significant. In both cases women passed at a rate less than 80% the rate of men.

A proposed consent decree would require the city to scrap the physical abilities test and to develop a new selection procedure that is compliant with Title VII, as well as require the city to pay $700,000 as back pay to eligible female applicants who failed the challenged physical abilities test between 2005 and 2011.​
Notice what happens to the pass rate as the test is made easier? It's quite easy to devise a test where men and women have the same pass rate on a physical exam, simply test if the candidate can lift 5 lbs. Bingo, men and women pass at 100% rates.

Here's Baltimore:

A Baltimore man who was passed over for a job as a Howard County police officer has filed a class-action lawsuit against the county for allegedly discriminating against white males in its hiring practices.

The suit notes a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission finding that there is "reasonable cause to believe that [Howard County] has engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against white males as a class with respect to making selection decisions for police officer positions."

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore by Michael S. Matthews, 47. He claims he and other white male applicants have been denied "a full and fair opportunity to compete" for jobs within the county's Police Department.

Matthews, who applied for a job with the department in 1995, said in court filings that *the county discriminates against whites by setting different, easier standards for women and minority applicants.*​


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Bobbb said:


> I could devise a test for law enforcement candidates which insured a 100% pass rate. Don't be fooled by the higher pass rate, it's the substance of the test that is key.
> 
> It's not just Ohio.
> 
> ...


None of this would be an issue if the women would just stay in the damned kitchen.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Howard County is notoriously difficult to get in to; they have the very best retirement package around and a fairly low crime rate. Oddly, I went through training with a girl who was not selected by HoCo, but DID pass our standards, which are higher.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Sentry18 said:


> Internet research is like internet photos, some are credible but a lot are BS disguised as credible. And this very issue is so full of possibilities and potentials of when it is and is not permissible that this thread could be 100's of posts long and still not cover them all. There are a number of reasons why the police can stop you from filming and a number of laws that protect LEO's, crime scenes, victims, etc.


Actually Sentry, not, that's not true, and unless the Supreme court overrules the first Circuit's Glik ruling, or some other circuit disputes it the CURRENT LAW OF THE LAND is that the FIRST AMENDMENT protects OVERT video/audi recording of PUBLIC OFFICIALS in PUBLIC PLACES. (You can read Glik here)

In August of 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Glik's claim that the Police were not entitled to qualified immunity for violating his 1st and 4th amendment rights. They say: "Glik was exercising clearly established
First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a
public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment
rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause."

You should know this because as a police officer (I believe) you too will be denied sovereign immunity if you try to arrest someone for videotaping you OVERTLY on a PUBLIC STREET. You can create a crime scene excluding video tapers, but if you keep (detain) a "suspect" within that crime scene they retain their 1st amendment rights to videotape unless you arrest (which means stop) them, but if you do you better have some valid reason to arrest them because of probable cause for a crime.


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

Turtle said:


> None of this would be an issue if the women would just stay in the damned kitchen.


ruh roh, Raggy, you'd better add some smileys :eyebulge:


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

The_Blob said:


> ruh roh, Raggy, you'd better add some smileys :eyebulge:


Hahaha, good point!

But seriously, where's my sammich?


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Sentry18 said:


> I didn't even know that our founding father's had video cameras when they wrote the constitution. I guess you learn something knew every day.


No, they had a third branch of Government called the Judiciary. Be careful you are starting to sound like that 5% of police who you claim give the rest of you a bad name.



> My dash cameras belongs to the public and the footage of same is public property readily available by anyone who has a legal right to request it.


Unless it's "lost." If you are recording why shouldn't I, how can two camera angles be worse than one?



> Maybe, maybe not. But certain police practices and procedures are protected. Undercover officers for example must keep their identities concealed or face serious risk, the courts have agreed with this many times. That is only one example.


We are not talking about outing undercover cops, we are talking about recording cops identified as cops on a public street. Distinctions matter.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Turtle said:


> This is 100% not correct. If you are in my jurisdiction and filming, according to federal law, I can order you to stop. We have signs posted all over the place telling people exactly that. If someone were to attempt to continue to film, I certainly could arrest them, and for good reason which should be abundantly obvious to all of us: OPSEC.


Actually Turtle, you are wrong. There is a legal distinction between public property and government property. It sounds like you are talking about some sort of government installation, which is GOVERNMENT property owned by the PEOPLE but not open to the PUBLIC.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Turtle said:


> Howard County is notoriously difficult to get in to; they have the very best retirement package around and a fairly low crime rate. Oddly, I went through training with a girl who was not selected by HoCo, but DID pass our standards, which are higher.


How are you defining higher standards? By pass rate threshold?

Here's what transpired in Nassau County, NY:

The Nassau County Police Department had been sued by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1977 for employment discrimination, and its subsequent recruiting and hiring was governed by a long series of consent decrees. The 1994 exam had been developed pursuant to a 1990 consent decree. That decree specified that Nassau County and the Justice Department agreed to jointly "develop a new exam that either does not have adverse impact upon blacks, Hispanics and females, or has been validated [shown to be job-related]" (U.S. v. Nassau, 1995a, p. 2).* The new test's 1983 and 1987 predecessors, also developed under consent decrees, had both been litigated because they had substantial disparate impact. In contrast, the 1994 exam had no disparate impact on Hispanics and women and relatively little on blacks.* It therefore seemed to promise that the county could finally end two decades of litigation. . . . .

Those evaluations were all highly critical of the report and the test it described.* The unanimous opinion was that the concern for hiring more protected minorities had overridden any concern with measuring essential skills.* As explained below, the new test may be at best only marginally better than tossing a coin to select police officers--which would explain the mix of both good and bad candidates among the top scorers.

*The most distinctive thing about the test is what it omitted--virtually any measurement of cognitive (mental) skills. Although the project's careful job analysis had shown that "reasoning, judgment, and inferential thinking" were the most critical skills for good police work, the final "implementation" version of the exam (the one used to rank applicants) retained only personality ("non-cognitive") scales such as "Achievement Motivation," "Openness to Experience," and "Emotional Stability." The reading component of the "experimental" test battery (the version actually administered to applicants the year before) was regraded pass-fail; to pass that test, applicants only had to read as well as the worst one percent of readers in the research sample of incumbent police officers. Nor did failing the reading component disqualify an applicant, because the final exam score was determined by combining the scores from all nine tests. Not mincing words, Frank Schmidt (1996a, b) predicted that the test would be "a disaster" for any police force that used it.
*
The three commentators' suspicion that the test had been shaped more by Justice's expectations than professional considerations was confirmed by one of Aon's own vice presidents (quoted in Zelnick, 1996, pp. 110-111):

"Through 18 years and four presidents the message from the Justice Department was clearly that there was no way in Hell they would ever sign onto an exam that had an adverse impact on blacks and Hispanics. What we finally came up with was more than satisfactory if you assume a cop will never have to write a coherent sentence or interpret what someone else has written. But I don't think anyone who lives in Washington [DC] could ever make that assumption"​


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Padre said:


> Actually Turtle, you are wrong. There is a legal distinction between public property and government property. It sounds like you are talking about some sort of government installation, which is GOVERNMENT property owned by the PEOPLE but not open to the PUBLIC.


No, sir, YOU are wrong. It is illegal to film in the direction of my jurisdiction without permission. So, even if you are standing on the shoulder of the highway (which is certainly public), you may not film.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Turtle said:


> No, sir, YOU are wrong. It is illegal to film in the direction of my jurisdiction without permission. So, even if you are standing on the shoulder of the highway (which is certainly public), you may not film.


I have provided the most recent legal precedent: ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf

What are you standing on?

Technically, I will grant you, the first circuits decision is not binding on other districts, BUT as the court in GliK is pretty EXPLICIT that this is a clear first amendment right, I doubt a district court would contradict, and then the case would need to be ironed out by the SUPREME COURT.

"With regard to the former, the court noted that the fact that the 'officers were unhappy they were being recorded during an arrest . . . does not make a lawful exercise of a First Amendment right a crime.'" Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Turtle said:


> No, sir, YOU are wrong. It is illegal to film in the direction of my jurisdiction without permission. So, even if you are standing on the shoulder of the highway (which is certainly public), you may not film.


Has this distinction ever been litigated?


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Bobbb said:


> How are you defining higher standards? By pass rate threshold?


I am defining it by the minimum standards required to qualify for employment. My agency has higher standards than the county, so obviously she was _qualified_ to be a county officer, but was not _selected_ for some reason.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

Sentry18 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I have noticed a trend of LE agencies lowering their hiring standards because the MTV generation is not smart or brave enough to put on a badge..... In my community the local PD starts out at the same wage as one of the local factorys. Only the factory workers get every weekend off and never have to work nights or holidays or in the snow or....


It's not just the PDs, it's the factories too.
I was on the hiring team at the factory (one that pays top wages in the county) and we had to extend the testing times for both parts (math & reading) in order to get enough folks to pass. The tests were 10th grade reading comprehension and math tests. One of the requirements for applicants was a HS diploma/GED. So it wasn't like these were really difficult tests, but 75% still failed one or both parts.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Bobbb said:


> Has this distinction ever been litigated?


Yep. Unsuccessfully.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Padre said:


> I have provided the most recent legal precedent: ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf
> 
> What are you standing on?
> 
> Technically, I will grant you, the first circuits decision is not binding on other districts, BUT as the court in GliK is pretty EXPLICIT that this is a clear first amendment right, I doubt a district court would contradict, and then the case would need to be ironed out by the SUPREME COURT.


At the moment, I am sitting. However, when I am standing, it is generally upon my feet.

Executive orders. Old ones. And before you ask: No, I will not cite them, as that would disclose for whom I work.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Turtle said:


> At the moment, I am sitting. However, when I am standing, it is generally upon my feet.
> 
> Executive orders. Old ones. And before you ask: No, I will not cite them, as that would disclose for whom I work.


Executive orders A) ARE NOT LAWS, B) CAN NOT OVER RULE THE CONSTITUTION , C) only can have (essentially) the force of law with federal employees on federal properties. Go ahead arrest someone on a PUBLIC, not FEDERAL, property for filming.

You my dear sir, are the LEO problem, you took an oath, to the Constitution, not any stinking executive order. I took the same one, and meant it.



Turtle said:


> No, I will not cite them, as that would disclose for whom I work.


Exit 10 anyone? Don't film there, the guys filming us all from space are very sensitive.

BTW--The OP was about local LEOs not Federales (who also think their stuff don't stink).


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Marcus said:


> It's not just the PDs, it's the factories too.
> I was on the hiring team at the factory (one that pays top wages in the county) and we had to extend the testing times for both parts (math & reading) in order to get enough folks to pass. The tests were 10th grade reading comprehension and math tests. One of the requirements for applicants was a HS diploma/GED. So it wasn't like these were really difficult tests, but 75% still failed one or both parts.


The typical high school graduate of 1970 is about as intelligent as the typical college graduate of 2010.

So a HS diploma suffers from the same dynamic as those police, fire and civil service exams I'm referring to - difficulty standards are lowered so that more students can pass.

Look at what happens when an objective test is introduced as a graduation requirement:

*With a 3.0 grade point average anchoring a solid academic record*, Robyn Collins, 18, has big plans once she graduates from Reed High School in Sparks, Nev. She intends to spend several months in National Guard boot camp before taking advantage of a* state scholarship to go on to college.*

The only problem is that she might not graduate from high school.

Collins is among 2,195 students -- *12 percent of the state's senior class -- who have completed all their course work requirements but will not receive high school diplomas this spring because they have not passed the math portion of Nevada's high school graduation test.* Instead, they will be awarded certificates of attendance, which often are not recognized by employers or four-year colleges.

Instituted as part of the reforms designed to shore up sagging confidence in public education, *the latest generation of high school exit exams is stirring a backlash across the country. Legislators and educators in a growing number of states, including Nevada, Florida, Massachusetts, California, North Carolina and Florida, are facing pressure to delay or scrap the tests because of the number of students who are failing them.* . . . .

"I've cried so much about this test," said Collins, who learned in late May that she had f*ailed the exam for at least the fifth time.* "I'm not a stupid kid. ... It is just that in my opinion, the stuff on the test doesn't equate to anything that I've learned in school."​


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

My brother was once arrested and interrogated back in the 70s for filming a government building from a public street...










Of course that was KGB headquarters in a soviet satellite country.

*Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. *BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

> Actually Sentry, not, that's not true, and unless the Supreme court overrules the first Circuit's Glik ruling


Like I said way back in the beginning; internet lawyers. I am not just chatting on the internet about theories and they way things should or should not be. I have stopped people from recording and I have had the circuit court and appeals court uphold my actions. Like Turtle parts of my jurisdiction are gov't owner properties where video & photography is prohibited, in other situations I simply blocked the person from recording and in others I confiscated cameras that I articulated had evidentiary value. Those all happened, were done within the policies & procedures of my agency, were upheld by the courts and I lived to go out policing another day.

I agree that *Turtle* is part of the problem however. How dare you follow the reasonable orders and directives of your administration? Doesn't your policy and procedures manual have the entire constitution and every supreme court decision in it? You swore an oath! I have found you guilty and sentenced you to 3 beers and a sandwich. Effective immediately!


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Sentry18 said:


> I am referring to the overall pussification of America. In the last 7 years we have had several officers resign or be let go with in their first year of service because of the most chicken-shit things. For example, two people washed themselves out of training because they refused to get tazed. One of them was shaking and crying waiting for them to fire the taser then just screamed stop and walked out the door never to return. We had another who had to be hospitalized after being sprayed with OC in training and tried to go on disability even though the Doc said he was perfectly fine. We have had candidates quit during ground fighting training after taking one hit. We even had a certified officer quit after he got a minor injury during a simunitions drill. Then you have the too scared to go on people who go through a year of training and several months of FTO only to resign after they encounter the very first scary situation out on patrol. And in the entire history of my department NONE of the aforementioned incidents (or anything even close) ever happened prior to approx. 2005. Not once in a very long history. You can look over the sea of recruits, rookies and young officers and tell that they were not made from the same stuff as a lot of the classes before them. There are exceptions of course, but they are getting few and far between.


That's depressing to read. I notice that you took great care to strip out as many references to gender as you possibly could and still present a coherent paragraph so I'll ask point blank, how much of this pussification is arising with the increased presence of women on the force? Clearly one instance you report involved a man, did all of them?

The answer to why this is happening can be only one of three things - there is a pussification of America taking place and its effects have rippled throughout society, or the pussification factor is not that strong but your selection procedures are doing a worse job of weeding out these weak candidates than was the case in earlier times, or the culture in the department has changed to accommodate a more female friendly view and thus the male peer pressure which guided acceptable behavior has been modified enough so that what was once unthinkable now actually becomes acceptable behavior.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Sentry18 said:


> But Bobbb, I was talking common sense smart not book smart. I was referring to people who you have to teach things to like why talking louder does not help someone who doesn't speak english understand you.


The qualification tests were never really highly loaded on book smarts and instead focused on intelligence. Smarter people show better work performance on a number of metrics which don't have anything to do with book smarts. In the Army, the higher you score on the ASVAB the better your performance as a tank gunner. It's not book smarts which help you shoot straight.

Higher intelligence for a police officer means, as I'm sure you know, a better ability to investigate and to diffuse situations. Thinking on your feet and reaching good conclusions.

The problem is that this desired quality in police work creates racial disparate impact and so it must be minimized in importance in order to achieve better racial representation on police forces.

The movement to dumb down civil service exams is a political decision not one that works to insure better candidates are hired for the positions.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> "I've cried so much about this test," said Collins, who learned in late May that she had *failed the exam for at least the fifth time.* "I'm not a stupid kid. ... It is just that in my opinion, the stuff on the test doesn't equate to anything that I've learned in school."[/INDENT]


Nowhere does she state that she actually studied to prepare. [sarcasm]Gee whiz, I failed the test 2,3,4 times and never studied for it. I wonder if just maybe I should try studying......[/sarcasm]

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." 
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
Both quotes are from Albert Einstein


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Sentry18 said:


> Like I said way back in the beginning; internet lawyers. I am not just chatting on the internet about theories and they way things should or should not be. I have stopped people from recording and I have had the circuit court and appeals court uphold my actions. Like Turtle parts of my jurisdiction are gov't owner properties where video & photography is prohibited, in other situations I simply blocked the person from recording and in others I confiscated cameras that I articulated had evidentiary value. Those all happened, were done within the policies & procedures of my agency, were upheld by the courts and I lived to go out policing another day.


So, which circuit Federal Court of Appeals, and what's the case number. That way we all know its a legit precedent? I am not a practicing civil lawyer, perhaps I haven't heard of it? Part of the problem is that the court will not rule on the issue unless a party with standing has the wherewithal (=$$) to afford to pursue a case against you in federal court. The ACLU picked up the tab in GliK, probably because Glik was yuppy college kid.



> I confiscated cameras that I articulated had evidentiary value.


So, you were investigating a crime, someone was videotaping you, and that tape had evidentiary value? Were they videotaping through a worm-hole back in time to the moment of the crime, or were they evidentiary because you were committing a crime which they were recording? You guys have such big budgets can't you just go out an buy your own cameras and record the same stuff?



> I agree that *Turtle* is part of the problem however. How dare you follow the reasonable orders and directives of your administration? Doesn't your policy and procedures manual have the entire constitution and every supreme court decision in it? You swore an oath! I have found you guilty and sentenced you to 3 beers and a sandwich. Effective immediately!


Yes I was just following orders, that always works well. Follow the REASONABLE ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES of un-elected bureaucrats not the LAW OF THE LAND, that you SWORE to uphold as the supreme law of the land.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances*."

We conclude, based on the facts alleged, that Glik was exercising clearly established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause.-The second highest Court of the CO-EQUAL Judaical Branch of Government.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Marcus said:


> Nowhere does she state that she actually studied to prepare. [sarcasm]Gee whiz, I failed the test 2,3,4 times and never studied for it. I wonder if just maybe I should try studying......[/sarcasm]
> 
> "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
> "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
> Both quotes are from Albert Einstein


Good catch, but you know what, these exams are a walk in the park because they rehash 10th grade material and this young lady was a 3.0 GPA student who won a scholarship to university.

The scandal is not that she failed 5 times it's that she earned a 3.0 and a scholarship when she can't even pass a simple test given to all high schoolers.

Here's some released questions from the California test:

7. One hundred is multiplied by a number between 0 and 1. The answer has to be-
A less than 0.
B between 0 and 50 but not 25.
C between 0 and 100 but not 50.
D between 0 and 100.

8. John uses 2/3 of a cup of oats per serving to make oatmeal. How many cups of oats does he need to make 6 servings?
A 2 2/3
B 4
C 5 1/3
D 9​


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Guys, I love all you LEOs. But you are here to serve us, and you serve us poorly if you are more concerned for your job and the approval of your bosses than protecting our rights. If its ESSENTIAL for you to film me (to CYA) then its ESSENTIAL for me to protect myself by filming you! Moreover TODAY, video is speech, video is press, and video is sometimes the only way for us to petition for redress of grievances. Be careful, when people FEEL (and rightly so) that you have little regard for the rule of law, they will slowly come to view you as adversaries (as many already do), and that will DEFINITELY place your safety in danger both in general and particularly if the SHTF.

SO, my final answer to this question is that the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has said YES you can record the Police, OVERTLY, in PUBLIC PLACES (not federal installations). 

Until the Supreme Court over rules them, in the First Circuit this is settled case law, in all other circuits the first circuits ruling stands over and above district court rulings, until and unless your circuit's appeals court disagrees with Glik (which to my knowledge no court has). Does that mean LEOs will obey the law they swore to support and defend? NOPE, we have two here who see no problem with following orders that contradict the US constitution and Constitutional Law, because their superiors and protocols tell them to.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

> NOPE, we have two here who see no problem with following orders that contradict the US constitution and Constitutional Law, because their superiors and protocols tell them to


Just to clarify that should have read...NOPE, we have two here who see no problem with following orders that _MAY_ contradict some interpretations of the US Constitutional Law, because their superiors, protocols, prosecutors, judges, courts and elected officials tell them too.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Quod Scripsi Scripsi



> Does that mean LEOs will obey the law they swore to support and defend? NOPE, we have two here who see no problem with following orders that contradict the US constitution and Constitutional Law, because their superiors and protocols tell them to.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

Veritas vos liberabit



> Just to clarify that should have read...NOPE, we have two here who see no problem with following orders that MAY contradict some interpretations of the US Constitutional Law, because their superiors, protocols, prosecutors, judges, courts and elected officials tell them too.


Of course now I am just messing with you.


----------



## Jezcruzen (Oct 21, 2008)

Turtle said:


> This is 100% not correct. If you are in my jurisdiction and filming, according to federal law, I can order you to stop. We have signs posted all over the place telling people exactly that. If someone were to attempt to continue to film, I certainly could arrest them, and for good reason which should be abundantly obvious to all of us: OPSEC.


I'm not familiar with what sort of signage you feds might have in place at a federal facility or why. Maybe you could explain. However, I am not incorrect with regards to my statement.

Another issue is that there is really no means to stop any LE agency, even a federal agency, from enforcing unconstitutional rules, laws, or temporary restrictions such as within areas demarcated on the whims of federal authorities to make it a frigging felony to demonstrate against anyone "under the protection of the Secret Service".


----------



## Jezcruzen (Oct 21, 2008)

Turtle said:


> No, sir, YOU are wrong. It is illegal to film in the direction of my jurisdiction without permission. So, even if you are standing on the shoulder of the highway (which is certainly public), you may not film.


Hence my comment regarding acting unconstitutionally. Any LE agency can behave any way they like until something, usually a court decision, stops them. Its just like those idiots in TSA trashing your individual Fourth Amendment rights by their unconstitutional searches at airports.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

EOs are not laws. However, they do pave the way for laws to be enacted which support said EOs. 

If I tell someone to stop filming because it violates a federal law, and they continue to do so, they could be charged with "Failure to follow the lawful orders of a federal officer." If that individual proceeds to escalate the situation, they could be arrested. Note that at any point in time, the individual could have chosen to cease their illegal activities and avoid further action. It is the willful disobedience which leads to legal consequences, not a decision on the part of the officer (who at this point has made two attempts to correct the individual's illegal behavior).

Want to know why you can't film it? Photographs of sensitive locations could reveal weaknesses in defense or simply patterns of patrols. Eventually it will get around to the wrong people, via the internet, a friend of a friend, etcetera. The bad guys use your picture, whether it was an innocent memory of sightseeing or some dirtbag with a chip on his shoulder who thinks he has something to prove, and suddenly a terrorist attacks. Dozens, hundreds, thousands of people are dead, critical infrastructure is destroyed, this nation's ability to defend itself is decreased, and the bad guys have a "win"... all because some moron wants to snap a picture. Yeah, that's totally worth it. 

Do you have rights? Absolutely. Myself, Sentry, and others are here to protect those rights. But when your "rights" could hurt other people by your actions, we cannot allow that. Do you have the right to own a gun? Yup. Do you have a right to pull the trigger? Yup. Do you have a right to point that gun at someone else's head and pull the trigger? Nope; that is where your right ends. Sure, it may misfire and fail to kill the other person, but you don't know that at the time. Same with your photo.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Turtle said:


> This is 100% not correct. If you are in my jurisdiction and filming, according to federal law, I can order you to stop. We have signs posted all over the place telling people exactly that.... obvious to all of us: OPSEC.


I work at an aerospace facility which builds/modifies and maintains top secret military aircraft. This is indeed far different than "public", and no one has the right to photograph anything through the fence, and there oftentimes are people that get run off, detained and have equipment confiscated for violating the obvious signage around the perimeter prohibiting such activities.

But the facility is not PUBLIC. It is private, both inside the fence and a fair distance outside the fence as well. But I see NO reason for a police officer to force you to stop filming when in PUBLIC. There is NO "federal law" that guarantees an officer the authority to stop someone from filming them in public. Regional or local statutes that allow such action (in public) are clearly in violation of first amendment freedoms, and need to be challenged in a court of law.



Sentry18 said:


> NOPE, we have two here who see no problem with following orders that _MAY_ contradict some interpretations of the US Constitutional Law, *because their superiors*, protocols, prosecutors, judges, courts and elected officials* tell them to*.


This is what is scary. Why are LEO's ever even put into this position, to be forced to choose? Laws and sub-laws are supposed to SUPPORT the cornerstone, the Constitution, and there should never be any contradictory interpretations, ever! In addition, any officer that feels a law is contradictory has the right (by the 1st amendment) to protest it as such. In FACT, it would be their SWORN DUTY to protest any contradictory laws!



Jezcruzen said:


> I'm not familiar with what sort of signage you feds might have in place at a federal facility or why. Maybe you could explain. However, I am not incorrect with regards to my statement.
> Another issue is that *there is really no means to stop* any LE agency, even a federal agency, from enforcing unconstitutional rules, laws, or temporary restrictions


There is, but it has to be taken to court. I feel a LOT of law enforcement agencies, be it local PD, State Troopers, BATF, etc. get away with a LOT by hiding behind the badge when it serves their own self interest, especially at a "time of need".

If a LEO pulls over someone for speeding, and the entire exchange of info and dialogue is non-confrontational and professional, of course they would not mind you filming because the entire situation was polite and went well. A film released of such an encounter would show the LEO to be in a positive light. However, a motorist (or other suspect) that is belligerent and confrontational and making the LEO's job as difficult as possible can't always be dealt with so politely, and it is at those times when the officer feels the current "time of need" is minus the distraction of a cameraman.

Regardless - - - - Even if there is the distraction, that doesn't mean you can just Carte blanche overrule the first amendment because it suits you at that time, and that is what the argument is here.


----------



## Jezcruzen (Oct 21, 2008)

You and I will simply have to agree to disagree, Turtle.

LEOs do not protect my rights. The Judicial Branch protects my rights. LE does as the name implies - they enforce the law. Just because a law exists does not mean the law is constitutional, hence the protection of rights by the judiciary. Unfortunately for all of us, LEOs included, is that the judicial protection seems to be on a bit of shaky ground lately due to politically active judges, including on the SCOTUS.

I don't know why anyone would want to stand outside your facility and take photos or video except out of ignorance unless, or course, they have nefarious intent as you mentioned. If signage was visible, or, as you stated, I am approached by a federal officer and told to cease videoing, you can bet I would! That is not the time to argue who is right and who is wrong.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

> This is what is scary. Why are LEO's ever even put into this position, to be forced to choose? Laws and sub-laws are supposed to SUPPORT the cornerstone, the Constitution, and there should never be any contradictory interpretations, ever! In addition, any officer that feels a law is contradictory has the right (by the 1st amendment) to protest it as such. In FACT, it would be their SWORN DUTY to protest any contradictory laws!


But how is this any different than say the 2nd Amendment? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But there are many laws that infringe that right, some states being far worse than others. The constitution doesn't say you must have a permit to carry a gun, but the law does. And my oath was to both enforce the law AND defend the constitution. So when I arrest someone for carrying a firearm without a permit I am enforcing the law but not defending the constitution. It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world without contradiction, but we don't.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Well, it's just like the Draconian gun laws in Illinois. 
They are *indeed* unconstitutional, but the challenges against them must be brought forth and judged (by someone with initiative) or the law never gets (rightly) challenged.

Honestly, if legislators did their job properly, the idiotic laws would have never been written and then passed in the first place.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

WRT to filming on a public street

anybody hear of the 1st amendment? Ever wonder why it's the 1st?


----------



## trooper0366 (Sep 27, 2012)

One reason that officers do not like to be filmed is that in some instances the film does not show all of the events that are occurring. Several years ago officers had a suspect handcuffed in custody, lying across the trunk of the patrol vehicle. The film showed this; the next thing shown was an officer striking the subject. The film did NOT show that the suspect had grabbed the officer's testicles and attempted to injure the officer immediatly before being struck. On the surface it looked like a clear case of brutality, but in reality was a justifable use of force. When events like this are shown, a portion of the public reacts without having all the facts and lawless acts are committed. Unfortunatly in this day and time not all of the media is responsible enough to obtain and present all the facts of an event.

Another reason is that, in the days of social media, being filmed can endanger the officer's personal safety and/or the safety of his/her family as an act of retaliation, even when the officer does nothing wrong.

I have told people to stop filming at the scene of a fatal motor vehicle crash. They were filming the bloody, dismembered bodies of the deceased and injuried persons. Did I violate their right to film? Probably. Was I doing it out of desire to protect the privacy of the parties and their loved ones? Definatly. Would I do it again? Most assuredly. No one has an absolute right to do anything any time just because the want to, there are boundries.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

trooper0366 said:


> One reason that officers do not like to be filmed is that in some instances the film does not show all of the events that are occurring.


Do you think that dashboard cameras are capturing all of the events that transpire between an officer and the person that they're dealing with?



> Several years ago officers had a suspect handcuffed in custody, lying across the trunk of the patrol vehicle. The film showed this; the next thing shown was an officer striking the subject. The film did NOT show that the suspect had grabbed the officer's testicles and attempted to injure the officer immediatly before being struck.


Similarly, there was a case reported a while back about police abuse which began with an officer pulling over a driver, no ticket was issued, the officer asked if he could search the car, the driver refused, then the officer developed some reason to bring out the dog to walk around the car, all this caught on the dashboard camera, no signs from the dog until the officer was at the front of the car, with the car working to block the view of his dashboard camera, and lo and behold, the dog "reacts" thus giving the police officer probable cause to search the vehicle. No drugs found, no smell of drugs in the vehicle, nothing illegal in the car but the officer did confiscate the man's $17,000 in cash that we was going to use to buy a car and the last I heard that man still doesn't have his money.

So, cameras not catching everything works both ways. Having police dogs react when they are out of camera range sure is lucky for cops like the above.



> Another reason is that, in the days of social media, being filmed can endanger the officer's personal safety and/or the safety of his/her family as an act of retaliation, even when the officer does nothing wrong.


Any cop who thinks like that is probably in the wrong line of work. Prosecutors piss people off, so do judges, so do businessmen who fairly or unfairly get the better of competitors, and so on. Their desire to feel a tad safer doesn't impose on me the requirement to curtail my rights.



> I have told people to stop filming at the scene of a fatal motor vehicle crash. They were filming the bloody, dismembered bodies of the deceased and injuried persons. * Did I violate their right to film? Probably. Was I doing it out of desire to protect the privacy of the parties and their loved ones? Definatly. * Would I do it again? Most assuredly. No one has an absolute right to do anything any time just because the want to, there are boundries.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The better way to deal with these situations is not to get into the habit of trampling on people's rights in the furtherance of some good deed but to shame and ostracize the people who film these gruesome scenes. With freedom comes responsibility, so if someone is filming an accident scene, then do your best to turn the spotlight on them and direct derision, shame and chastisement upon them so that others learn the lesson.


----------



## trooper0366 (Sep 27, 2012)

Didn't have a camera.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Turtle said:


> EOs are not laws. However, they do pave the way for laws to be enacted which support said EOs.


Actually no, they don't there are thousands of EOs many of dubious legalities, few that are ever codified, and if anything they usually pave the way to law suits. This is because Congressmen write laws, not the Executive; and BTW a "law" that is unconstitutional is not a law and you have a duty to disobey it if you realize that it is an unlawful order.



> If I tell someone to stop filming because it violates a federal law, and they continue to do so, they could be charged with "Failure to follow the lawful orders of a federal officer."














> Do you have rights? Absolutely. Myself, Sentry, and others are here to protect those rights. But when your "rights" could hurt other people by your actions, we cannot allow that.


What sort of CRACK does the DEA feed you guys. Do realize what a tyrant you sound like? My "rights" I don't have "rights" I have RIGHTS (no scare-quotes needed), that corrispond with my duties, and are a gift from my GOD, they are UNALIENABLE, that means I can't give them away and you can't take then away. They do not CEASE because they COULD "hurt" people, they can only be curtailed (aka ARRESTED) if I DO hurt someone, and when it comes to documenting the actions of my government (the PRESS) I can't see how reporting about any interaction between Law ENFORCEMENT (aka civil servants) on a PUBLIC street could be construed damaging, unless you have decided that my "rights" are a threat, and "we cannot allow that."



> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


I am fine talking about this till I am blue in the face, because the more we talk about it the more the BAD RAT (poor reason ala 1984) is clearly seen. But I really hope you guys take a deep breath and really think about the things you are writing. I am not hear to hurt you or to score points on you, I am here to point out how as Acton said, power has corrupted your thinking. Violence should be a last resort (that includes the coercive power of the state) and unless a person is violating a just law, a law that corresponds with reason, natural law, and comes from legitimate authority (i.e. not your commander but the constitution to which you and all your superiors swore allegiance), and in the act of doing violence, you have a duty to use the least amount of force possible, out of respect for the dignity of the human person.

You know that is one of the things I found funny about the Martin case in Florida. The cops acted reasonably and were pumled in the press for it. They didn't arrest Zimmerman the night of, either because they believed his story or because they realize he was not a threat to the peace. They waited, investigated, and then (after political pressure) swore out an arrest warrant. We have these things (arrest warrants) for suspects of a crime who there was no REASON to arrest at the scene because there was no DANGER to the peace. Warrantless arrests used to be only for those who were ARRESTED (stopped) in the act of violence. Is it really so threatening to you cops, so DANGEROUS, that you need to arrest a man for filming you? What are you so afraid of. Or is it the PRINCIPLE, that I MUST BE OBEYED



> "Failure to follow the lawful orders of a federal officer."


What's lawful about it? That your boses told you to do it? Even if the courts told you to do it, you have reason and you will be judged by your use of that faculty. Don't let anyone tell you that you are not qualified to read the Constitution and apply the SELF-EVIDENT rights to laws. Don't be afraid to defy authority, even if it comes at a dreadful cost.

Its funny, I usually hate deferring to the court, to precedent, because the court is only as good as the reason and moral character of the men who serve on it, and that has not been a good thing in the past 100 years. Ever since the civil war, when the Court bowed to pressure from the executive about Habeas, we have been a nation under siege, ALL our freedoms under attack, as a result of the war that sought to set black men free. Habeas and the first ammendment, during the civil war, then reconstruction, the expansion of the comerce clause, then the NFA, price controls, gold confiscations, concentration camps, religion and prayer bans in schools, forced desegrigation, the holocaust of murdered children since Roe, machine gun bans, taxes and taxes and more taxes, now Obama Care. The court doesn't have a very good record defending the Constitution. Those who wrote the document wouldn't recognize the monstrosity you guys work for, and yet in this one small matter they are, at least for a brief moment on the side of right.

If you got an EO denying Habeas, would you obey?
How about an EO interring an entire ethnic group into concentration camps?
How about an order to test expirimental drugs on US GIs without their knowledge?
How about an order to confiscate fire arms?

These are just a few HISTORICAL examples of orders that you folks have obeyed, which any moral person knows are wrong, no matter what the Supreme Court says. If you can't see how FREE citizens have a natural right to record PUBLIC SERVANTS in public settings and report about how well or poorly they (usually poorly) are treated during that encounter, particularly given the fact that cops (granted like all people today) are so willing to lie (to CYA). Thank Bill Clinton, but we are no longer the most honest society in the world, and film is today what the written word was in 76 (I suppose that's what you guys are afraid of).


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Padre said:


> If you got an EO denying Habeas, would you obey?
> How about an EO interring an entire ethnic group into concentration camps?
> How about an order to test experimental drugs on US GI's without their knowledge?
> How about an order to confiscate fire arms?
> ...


Good examples.... and we need to be reminded of them from time to time.

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

trooper0366 said:


> I have told people to stop filming at the scene of a fatal motor vehicle crash. They were filming the bloody, dismembered bodies of the deceased and injuried persons. Did I violate their right to film? Probably. Was I doing it out of desire to protect the privacy of the parties and their loved ones? Definatly. Would I do it again? Most assuredly. No one has an absolute right to do anything any time just because the want to, there are boundries.


If I understand your correctly, you are ok with issuing an illegal order because a family member might be upset?

Sorry, while I think it's wrong to violate the family's remembrance of the deceased, it's not illegal. I'm more worried about rationalizing illegal behavior by LEO.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

Interesting, and topical:
*Spain Proposes Law Prohibiting Recording And Capturing Of Local Cops In Action*

El Pais reports that "authorities are studying the possibility *that the next update to the Public Security Law could include an article prohibiting the recording, processing or circulation on the internet of police officers performing their duties, if doing so would endanger them or the operation in which they were engaged*."

Who exactly would judge "* if doing so would endanger them or the operation in which they were engaged*."? In theory this could apply to any filming of any police action, because someone may just decide to take some kind of retribution.


----------



## JayJay (Nov 23, 2010)

The Illinois law making it a felony to record police without their permission has been declared unconstitutional by a Cook County judge on the grounds the law is too broad in scope. It's a small victory for advocates who have been fighting the eroding personal rights issue nationwide.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1677394


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

Is there really anything that the police can not stop you from doing? At least for awhile.


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

hiwall said:


> Is there really anything that the police can not stop you from doing? At least for awhile.


Nope.

They can unholster their sidearm and tell you to stop. Then you weight your options.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

trooper0366 said:


> One reason that officers do not like to be filmed is that in some instances the film does not show all of the events that are occurring. Several years ago officers had a suspect handcuffed in custody, lying across the trunk of the patrol vehicle. The film showed this; the next thing shown was an officer striking the subject. The film did NOT show that the suspect had grabbed the officer's testicles and attempted to injure the officer immediatly before being struck. On the surface it looked like a clear case of brutality, but in reality was a justifable use of force. When events like this are shown, a portion of the public reacts without having all the facts and lawless acts are committed. Unfortunatly in this day and time not all of the media is responsible enough to obtain and present all the facts of an event.


The same of course could be said of the cop cams in your cars and on your person.



> Another reason is that, in the days of social media, being filmed can endanger the officer's personal safety and/or the safety of his/her family as an act of retaliation, even when the officer does nothing wrong.


Yep public service is a sacrifice, and when you do it humbly and in a law abiding manner there is rightly nothing a law abiding citizen will do to help you out...



> I have told people to stop filming at the scene of a fatal motor vehicle crash. They were filming the bloody, dismembered bodies of the deceased and injuried persons. Did I violate their right to film? Probably. Was I doing it out of desire to protect the privacy of the parties and their loved ones? Definatly. Would I do it again? Most assuredly. No one has an absolute right to do anything any time just because the want to, there are boundries.


...so why not ask politely? We are not slaves, or children. You just admitted that you probably violated their first amendment right to speech, at least you are honest about it, but didn't you take a solemn oath to uphold the first and all the other amendments. If you the so-called law enforcement officer break the law then there is no law only violence and what people can get away with! That's a dangerous world, particularly for you, that you are creating.

Actions and the ideas they communicate have power, they may not dwell on this philosophical principle in the police academy, but the CIA learned this principle the hard way, they call it blowback.

Treat a man like a slave and he will treat you 100% of the time like an unjust aggressor, treat him like an equal and he might pull something over on you 10, 20, 30% of the time, but most of us will return the favor and give you the respect those who are truly peace officers deserve.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

TheLazyL said:


> They can unholster their sidearm and tell you to stop. Then you weigh your options.


I know of very few officers that cross that line very quickly.



Padre said:


> ...so why not ask politely? We are not slaves, or children.


Agreed. "Abuse of power" gives all cops a bad name.


----------



## k0xxx (Oct 27, 2011)

Police can basically do ANYTHING they want. It doesn't mean that it's legal, correct, or morally right, just that if you resist an order by an officer then you risk being arrested, booked and spending some time in jail. Even if you are eventually exonerated, you will have lost time and money in the process, with no recourse to recoup your losses.

Sentry18, I appreciate your service to your community and your input on the forum, but there are a lot of things that the Founding Fathers didn't have or couldn't even imagine back in their day. That doesn't mean that those things are not covered by the constitution.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Well, first Glik, then ACLU v Alvarez, now the Supreme court. Seems like the court's opinion is pretty settled...

Yesterday, Monday, Nov 26, 2012, the Supreme court refused to grant certiorari and review the most recent circuit court case affirming the fact that in general in public you do have the right to record police. Despite the LAW however, cops continue to arrest people for exercising their rights.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...to_Citizens_Who_Record_Police_Amidst_Reports/


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

Padre said:


> Well, first Glik, then ACLU v Alvarez, now the Supreme court. Seems like the court's opinion is pretty settled...
> 
> Yesterday, Monday, Nov 26, 2012, the Supreme court refused to grant certiorari and review the most recent circuit court case affirming the fact that in general in public you do have the right to record police. Despite the LAW however, cops continue to arrest people for exercising their rights.
> 
> http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...to_Citizens_Who_Record_Police_Amidst_Reports/


and it begins


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Turtle said:


> Want to know why you can't film it? Photographs of sensitive locations could reveal weaknesses in defense or simply patterns of patrols. .


I dont remember Padre or Bobb claiming one can photograph and/or film restrcited gov't property.

I think we all understand its off limits and laws exist with regards such.

This entire thread is about filiming/photography in the public space.
Which is guranteed.
Exceptions such as the one you correctly pointed out, exist but IMHO are not germane to the substance of this discussion.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

BlueZ said:


> I dont remember Padre or Bobb claiming one can photograph and/or film restrcited gov't property.
> 
> I think we all understand its off limits and laws exist with regards such.
> 
> ...


"The God damned Germans ain't got nothin' to DO with it!"

(Sorry, I couldn't resist the "Smokey and The Bandit" reference)

Anyhow, my point was that photos could be taken from "public property" in the direction of sensitive locations which would still be illegal. It's dangerous to make blanket statements when there are exceptions.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Are you kidding? I can't say "*******" on here?

How about "God damned"?

HAHAHA! SUCCESS!


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Turtle said:


> Anyhow, my point was that photos could be taken from "public property" in the direction of sensitive locations which would still be illegal.


I don't think this is correct at all. 
I work at an aerospace facility that handles aircraft of "various" secure nature (read between the lines, there). If it's outside, there's NOTHING illegal about taking pictures. Do you really think no one is using spy satellites anymore??? In fact, the LEAST of our worries is someone taking pictures through the chain link fence!! Satellites can dang near get better images!

You have to ASSUME that someone has a camera somewhere. Aircraft stay in locked hangars and only move at night when all of the lights in the area are off, and under no moonlight.

People that need to keep info secure, have to secure it themselves. If you can get close enough to it to successfully photograph it, then it obviously isn't that important.

If it **IS** that important, trust me - - someone (not the police) will be stopping by to ask you to leave - after taking your camera. I have seen it done.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)




----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

Hilarious!!!


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

They can still beat holy hell out of you and stomp your camera.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

I'm pretty sure that horse _had_ a camera.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

The stormtrooper lego pic reminded me of the Star Wars Cops spoof! 

Have you guys ever seen this? 




All Suspects are GUILTY. PERIOD. Or else they wouldn't be suspects! LOL!


----------



## BullDozer (Jan 1, 2013)

Dakine said:


> The stormtrooper lego pic reminded me of the Star Wars Cops spoof!
> 
> Have you guys ever seen this?
> 
> ...


This is the funniest video i saw Pre-high school. Lol, the part with the Jawas...


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

I know, necro thread post 



> According to the complaint filed by Dominic Holden (the editor who was harassed), Deputy Saulet became "agitated and confrontational" when he noticed Holden taking pictures of an arrest that occurred on a public street. An internal investigation found that Saulet "recast" the confrontation to put it in a more favorable light, deliberately obscuring the fact that he threatened to arrest Holden for (basically) performing his job and "misidentifying" public property as private property. Another deputy, John Marion, was suspended for a day (without pay) over the same incident, after it came to light that he threatened to harass Holden at his workplace.
> 
> So far, so good. Rather than letting this slide, the sheriff fired the deputy. Surprisingly, the strongest words used against Saulet came from the letter accompanying his pink slip -- written by his former boss, Sheriff Urquhart.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zeev_Zwaard (Jan 27, 2010)

Anyone who still thinks that what the SS storm troopers (in the past known as LEOs) do has anything to do with rights is sadly mistaken.

This is not the USA anymore. Now it’s the USSA. And the purpose of the SS storm troopers as that of their predecessors in 1940’s germany is to terrorize the population and to keep the good guys under the proper governmental control.

Add to that a good measure of the boredom of the sadist and you have the current situation.

All powerful, no accountability, the knowledge that the whole system is on their side, the fact that the DA will jump to their assistance and the Grand Jury will clap like seals at anything they say does brings out the “best” in our current cops. What incentive do they have to be even barely decent?

One wonders, who do you call when the criminal is the cop? Ghostbusters?


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)




----------



## Zeev_Zwaard (Jan 27, 2010)

Sentry18 said:


>


Never worry. Some of us are quite willing to keep at it until it STOPS.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

Well it's been a few thousand years of "us versus them" with no progress other than collapsed society after collapsed society. Expecting change anytime soon?


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Can Police*

The police can stop you from filming if they are investigating a crime involving a minor if the identity of the minor may be revealed. It makes no difference whether the minor is a victim or the perpetrator.

Kentucky law is very strict in regard to protecting minors . We were not even allowed to put the name of a minor on the citation when we arrested them.

We had to write Juvenile in the space where their name would go and put their name and SS# on a post it note attached to the citation for the judge.


----------



## moondancer (Dec 21, 2013)

Collapses in history are always from the rulers going to far with there control over the common people . Or getting rid of other races like my people. We are so scattered there is no unity and total confusion . That is what has happened with our gov now . They keep a leash on the ppl and beat us like dogs using good ppl like sentry that don't realize that he is part of the machine ( and yes I think your a good maybe even great person sentry ) but a symptom 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...list-taking-photos-arrest-public-street.shtml



> Saulet has been a problem for a long time. That the Sheriff is unwilling to let this last one slide isn't really a victory -- it's simply the end result of an ugly history that could no longer be ignored.
> 
> An action like this should have been taken long before Saulet racked up his 21st sustained complaint.


----------



## millertimedoneright (May 13, 2013)

I have seen Leo's talk about how sometimes the local laws and procedures aren't in line with the U.S. Constitution. My question is when this happens why do you choose local laws or policies over the constitution? Why would you purposely violate someone's constitutional rights in order to satisfy some local laws or policies especially if they have been already ruled against in higher courts?


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## moondancer (Dec 21, 2013)

It's my understanding states can add to there own laws to go above and beyond fed laws but not less than. So if the fed says it's against the law to have red apples the state can take it further and outlaw all apples . If the constitution says you have the right to bare arms ie have a gun the state can say ok you can have it but you have to go threw our little class first and that will cost you 300.00 then you have to pay 65.00 for you permit and another 200.00 for your background check and so forth till most ppl can't afford it ( but you can still have it it's your choice ) 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Sentry18 said:


> Well it's been a few thousand years of "us versus them" with no progress other than collapsed society after collapsed society. Expecting change anytime soon?


Actually, police in their modern form have only existed for about 100 years and photography is well under 200 years old. 

As for change, I think after Obama's "Change", I don't think I can handle any more.


----------



## millertimedoneright (May 13, 2013)

What we need is more Leo's who are willing to stand up or the citizens rights and less that are inclined to only follow orders. I'm sorry but if you know something is wrong and you still act on it then in my book you are no better than the politicians who seek to rid us of our rights. 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

moondancer said:


> It's my understanding states can add to there own laws to go above and beyond fed laws but not less than. So if the fed says it's against the law to have red apples the state can take it further and outlaw all apples . If the constitution says you have the right to bare arms ie have a gun the state can say ok you can have it but you have to go threw our little class first and that will cost you 300.00 then you have to pay 65.00 for you permit and another 200.00 for your background check and so forth till most ppl can't afford it ( but you can still have it it's your choice )


It depends if you take an incorporated or unincorporated legal philosophy...however I would argue that because of the nature of what a right is, i.e. a privilege granted to you by God so that you might fulfill a duty, it makes no philosophical sense to talk about unincorporated rights. So if you have a right to keep and bear arms, that right is a natural right not a concession of law, and the "shall not be infringed" applies equally to the state and locality as it does to the Congress. Thus the right can be regulated but not infringed, and regulated, speaking of a militia which by law and historical context means all able bodied males, means to promote combat effectiveness, not to diminish combat readiness, which of course would be infringement.

So no, if you have a federal RIGHT to record, that stems from your free speech right to a press, then local and state law could only govern situations in which this right does not apply--i.e. on restricted, non-public, property.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

> Rather than letting this slide, the sheriff fired the deputy. Surprisingly, the strongest words used against Saulet came from the letter accompanying his pink slip -- written by his former boss, Sheriff Urquhart:
> 
> *"Your ill-advised actions also play to some of the most basic fears among some citizens, which is that a police officer may indiscriminately exercise his or her power in violation of their rights, because in the event of a complaint, the officer will just deny the allegation and 'circle the wagons' with his or her fellow officers on the expectation they will take care of their own."*
> 
> ...


Finally a LEO who understands what I have been saying here and elsewhere for so long. I am not anti-LEO, I am pro rule of law.



millertimedoneright said:


> What we need is more Leo's who are willing to stand up or the citizens rights and less that are inclined to only follow orders. I'm sorry but if you know something is wrong and you still act on it then in my book you are no better than the politicians who seek to rid us of our rights.


What we need is more LEOs courageous enough to admit there is a problem, once we admit that, and that its not just the bad 10% but also the enabling 90%, then we can work on fixing it.


----------



## moondancer (Dec 21, 2013)

So the have fine print is that what your saying 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Padre said:


> Finally a LEO who understands what I have been saying here and elsewhere for so long. I am not anti-LEO, I am pro rule of law.
> 
> What we need is more LEOs courageous enough to admit there is a problem, once we admit that, and that its not just the bad 10% but also the enabling 90%, then we can work on fixing it.


This is excellent.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

Geek999 said:


> Actually, police in their modern form have only existed for about 100 years and photography is well under 200 years old.
> 
> As for change, I think after Obama's "Change", I don't think I can handle any more.


Actually policing by government employed armed and uniformed personnel has existed for thousands of years. Ancient China had law-enforcement officers. Roman guards served as is police officers, corrections officers, bailiffs, investigators, etc. Modern centralized policing, similar to what we have today, was started by King Louis in the 1600's. Supposedly political neutral policing was created by Sir Walter Peel in the 1800s.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Sentry18 said:


> Actually policing by government employed armed and uniformed personnel has existed for thousands of years. Ancient China had law-enforcement officers. Roman guards served as is police officers, corrections officers, bailiffs, investigators, etc. Modern centralized policing, similar to what we have today, was started by King Louis in the 1600's. Supposedly political neutral policing was created by Sir Walter Peel in the 1800s.


The examples you cite do not include the distinction between military and police functions that we expect today, and certainly did not include an expectation of rights that we had in this country 50-60 years ago. As we slide downhill, I think the mid-20th century will be seen as the height of freedom in this country.

BTW: We have now dropped to 46th in the world in a measure of press freedom.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

You're mistaken, even in ancient China and in medieval Spain they were specifically civilian based. They certainly can't have an expectation of rights in countries where the Constitution does not exist before the Constitution was even founded. But the Chinese prefects and other law-enforcement over the last thousand plus years we're very much so dedicated to their communities and the protection of the citizenry, as well as the enforcement of laws and the investigation of crimes. These are not theories are personally held beliefs, this is history. It has been a while since I went to college for criminal justice/public safety administration/sociology, but I did several research papers and took more than one class on the history of law enforcement.


----------



## Coastal (Jun 27, 2013)

I think it's important for civilians to keep tabs on police altercations, with the slew of bad cop videos since the cell phone video camera era, there are a lot of things that would have been the "respectable officer" vs this "low life defendant" where the cops word would always be taken as gospel. I think it keeps things fair and maybe makes some bad officers accountable.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

We had a period where police did not expect to outgun civilians, did not break down doors of people who were only suspects, and who actually engaged with the folks they are supposed to be serving, what you have referred to as Mayberry. That period in my mind was a golden age of law enforcement here. It was here for a short time and is now gone for most of us.

As I consider your comments I am forced to agree that law enforcement today is much like ancient Rome.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

It might be gone for most of you living in major coastal areas but it's alive and well throughout a large part of this country.

But when I refer to Mayberry I am referring to the fictional type of law enforcement that has never existed and never will exist, outside of ones imagination and television programming. I am 3rd generation law enforcement; the same things you complain about daily my Papa said people complained about when he was on the job and my Dad said people complained about when he was on the job. I strongly suspect if one of my children go into law-enforcement they will hear the same exact complaints 30+ years from now. I have no doubt the Roman soldiers heard the same complaints, the Chinese prefects heard same complaints and the Sheriff of Dodge City heard the same complaints. Not from everyone of course, but from that small subset of society that are highly disgruntled with law-enforcement or anyone in a position of authority.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Sentry18 said:


> It might be gone for most of you living in major coastal areas but it's alive and well throughout a large part of this country.
> 
> But when I refer to Mayberry I am referring to the fictional type of law enforcement that has never existed and never will exist, outside of ones imagination and television programming. I am 3rd generation law enforcement; the same things you complain about daily my Papa said people complained about when he was on the job and my Dad said people complained about when he was on the job. I strongly suspect if one of my children go into law-enforcement they will hear the same exact complaints 30+ years from now. I have no doubt the Roman soldiers heard the same complaints, the Chinese prefects heard same complaints and the Sheriff of Dodge City heard the same complaints. Not from everyone of course, but from that small subset of society that are highly disgruntled with law-enforcement or anyone in a position of authority.


Things may be different on the coasts, but that should scare the pants off the folks in the middle of the country because trends, good or bad, tend to start on the coasts.

When I was younger I trusted cops. I don't now. Things are different and not for the better.

As for authority, that is forfeit the moment a cop violates someone's rights. At that point authority is replaced by tyranny.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Sentry18 said:


> But when I refer to Mayberry I am referring to the fictional type of law enforcement that has never existed and never will exist, outside of ones imagination and television programming.


It wasn't fictional (so much) in the rural areas of North Dakota where I grew up. Cops then used their heads and could DISCERN with pretty good accuracy how severe an act was when being committed. Catching minors with beer meant standing there while they poured it out on the ground... and then talking to their folks. *THAT* had an effect!

Now they just book you like any criminal.....


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

The bottom line is that the police have no legal right to prevent you from filming them as long as you're not interfering with their ability to do their job. But in more and more cases in the real world, it doesn't matter what the law is or what someone's rights are. Just make sure you don't have your dog with you so they don't shoot it in the process of robbing you of your camera.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

LincTex said:


> It wasn't fictional (so much) in the rural areas of North Dakota where I grew up. Cops then used their heads and could DISCERN with pretty good accuracy how severe an act was when being committed. *Catching minors with beer meant standing there while they poured it out on the ground... and then talking to their folks. THAT had an effect!*
> 
> Now they just book you like any criminal.....


I don't like when cops do that. Their job is to enforce the law, not decide on an arbitrary basis who gets arrested and who doesn't. A minor in possession of alcohol IS a criminal in the legal sense of the word. It's not going to affect someone's adult life though. I can't imagine someone being tried as an adult on an alcohol possession charge.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

Minor in possession of alcohol may or may not be a criminal offense based on the code. In some states it is merely a civil offense. In either case it is almost always a low level misdemeanor which is always up to the discretion of the officer. Have LEO's with no discretion and an arrest for every offense policy would create a system hated way beyond what is currently in place.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

LincTex said:


> It wasn't fictional (so much) in the rural areas of North Dakota where I grew up. Cops then used their heads and could DISCERN with pretty good accuracy how severe an act was when being committed. Catching minors with beer meant standing there while they poured it out on the ground... and then talking to their folks. *THAT* had an effect!
> 
> Now they just book you like any criminal.....


I don't know what is or is not considered rural in North Dakota, but my Uncle was Fargo PD when he started out after attending the local university. He does not share you Mayberry like memories. He hated it there and said that he received constant frivolous complaints. He moved over to Minneapolis PD in Minnesota and loved it, retired from there several years ago. My guess is what he was in ND in the early 70's.



> Cops then use[d] their heads and could DISCERN with pretty good accuracy how severe an act was when being committed.


That describes every cop I know.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Your rights*

Way back in the 90's when I was a deputy sheriff, the quickest way to lose your job in law enforcement was to violate the Constitutional rights of a suspect or title seven of the civil rights act.

Sworn officers enjoy sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity protects the individual officer from law suit by a suspect. This protection is necessary for an officer to do his job without suffering a law suit for every arrest he makes.

However if he violates your constitutional rights or title seven of the civil rights act, he loses the protection of sovereign immunity and is laid bare to being personally sued.

Any superior officer that ordered him to violate your rights would also be subject to law suit.

Now you are as a citizen , are armed but only if you know your rights and understand what he can and cannot do.

Knowledge is power!


----------



## prep4life (Jul 16, 2010)

To answer the question posed in the title of this thread -- the men with the guns can force those without guns to do whatever they want to.


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

Sentry18 said:


> ...Have LEO's with no discretion and an arrest for every offense policy would create a system hated way beyond what is currently in place.


I agree.

No discreation would be like the zero tolerance that schools have for weapons. Two 6 year olds points finger guns, expelled. Bite a pop tart into a shape that resembles a gun, expelled.

TSA finds a 1/2" toy gun in Woody's holster, seized.


----------



## airdrop (Jan 6, 2012)

*Isn't that a great idea*



BillS said:


> We had all the fallout from the Rodney King arrest where he was beaten because he refused to stop resisting. I can understand why police don't want half of some event being filmed and have what they did taken out of context. At the same time, it should be legal to film the police from a distance close enough to film what's going on without interfering with what they're doing. There have been a number of laws introduced to make it illegal to film the police. That should be a big concern to anybody concerned with our freedoms.


if thier not hideing anything why can't you film them. When the law makers go along with this kind of law we're getting screwed. When we the people can't witness abuse and take note how are you going to fight bad cops or bad law makers. Evil looks after it's own I guess. Hiel Hitler


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

airdrop said:


> Hiel Hitler


How sad for those people who were tortured and died in WWII to have that a term used in such an ignorant way. Very disrespectful.


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

Sentry18 said:


> How sad for those people who were tortured and died in WWII to have that a term used in such an ignorant way. Very disrespectful.


Ignorance and disrespect seems to be part and parcel for many today, just remember, when some one points a finger at you there are four more pointing back at them.


----------



## ContinualHarvest (Feb 19, 2012)

They can force you to stop but it's not legal. As long as you are not interfering with their work and not violating loitering laws, you are within your right. Your best bet is to be polite and move to a safe distance.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

This topic really falls into two categories; the law and the principle. Laws vary so greatly from state to state, county to county, city to city, etc. that it's absolutely impossible to have a conversation about the legalities of filming police or the legalities of police stopping you from recording them unless we're talking about a very specific community on a very specific date past or present. Laws change constantly, judicial decision (precedent) changes constantly, LEA policy changes constantly, etc. so like I said unless we decide that we're talking about Dallas, Texas in 1997 and then conduct the appropriate research it's impossible for us to debate the legality of recording police with a video recording device. The principle is a whole other matter. However, debating and conversing about the principle is just a continual rehashing of Pro v. Con that is generally for entertainment purposes only. Not that it isn't interesting. I would suggest if this particular topic is of personal concern to you, conduct the research in your community, county and state to determine what the applicable laws are, if there have been any legal precedents set and what the liability is for violating the law (if one exists). Then you can take the appropriate and legal steps to protect yourself.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

ContinualHarvest said:


> They can force you to stop but it's not legal. As long as you are not interfering with their work and not violating loitering laws, you are within your right. Your best bet is to be polite and move to a safe distance.


This isn't exactly true. As Sentry referenced and I believe I have pointed out in the past, the original question depends upon a lot of different variables. There are places where Federal law states that I may order someone to stop filming and confiscate the device. Take ten steps back..... And I cannot.

However, "can", and, "should", are two very different questions. I have been filmed before, and it doesn't bother me because I was acting professionally and within the scope of my powers. I'm a handsome guy, of COURSE they want to film me!

On the flip side of this, however... My department had a guy photograph an officer who arrested him and his buddy, showed the picture to a bunch of friends until they found someone who knew him, and then drove to the officer's house and threatened him and his family. That isn't fair and it isn't right.

If someone wants to film me giving them a ticket? Fine. Go for it. I know when I am right. If they are doing it to try to provoke a reaction to collect views on YouTube? Bugger off. I don't have time for shenanigans. If someone wants to track me down from a photo so they can endanger my family? Well, they had better have their affairs in order.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## millertimedoneright (May 13, 2013)

The way I see it is install hidden cameras inside and out on your vehicle. If your rights are violated then use the video. If it is "legal" in the location of the incident give a copy of the video to the right authorities. If it is "illegal" then send the footage to the local media. Either way will get you justice. If they wanna play the "legality" game their is always other ways to get justice. In my opinion their is absolutely no excuse for a citizen to not be allowed to video a public servant. Like Leo's like to say to citizens "dont do anything illegal and you have nothing to worry about". 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Sentry18 said:


> This topic really falls into two categories; the law and the principle. Laws vary so greatly from state to state, county to county, city to city, etc. that it's absolutely impossible to have a conversation about the legalities of filming police or the legalities of police stopping you from recording them unless we're talking about a very specific community on a very specific date past or present...


Right now, in the US, the case law is clear, you can film public servants in public doing their public services.

They can stop you, by arresting you, but they better have a clearly thought out reason for doing so....

In terms of laws changing I don't get my rights from LEOs, Politicians, or Judges. My rights come from nature and nature's God; this includes the right of the people to a free press, which simply means the ability to document and speak to others about issues of public interest concerning the common good, in order to seek a redress of grievances, this is a natural right. Although some might need a court case to clarify that x new technology that communicates to others really is a tool of the press, those of average intelligence do not.



millertimedoneright said:


> The way I see it is install hidden cameras inside and out on your vehicle. If your rights are violated then use the video. If it is "legal" in the location of the incident give a copy of the video to the right authorities. If it is "illegal" then send the footage to the local media. Either way will get you justice. If they wanna play the "legality" game their is always other ways to get justice. In my opinion their is absolutely no excuse for a citizen to not be allowed to video a public servant. Like Leo's like to say to citizens "dont do anything illegal and you have nothing to worry about".


All that being said, Miller is correct, the real solution is to be covert and be ubiquitous. Every cop car has recording devices, and they have come down so much in cost, the solution is for every car to have recording devices, and for individuals to have programs on their phones that covertly record and upload encounters with the police for the protection of the rights of all parties involved.

I don't know why you LEOs are so afraid of cameras personally. Granted you many not all be as handsome as Turtle, but if you are all good guys, or 90% good guys then the cameras will show that.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

The issue that you apparently find to be so clear is certainly not clear based on this very thread alone. While we all get our rights from the Constitution, ignoring the involvement of the judicial and law-enforcement branches of the criminal justice system as it applies to what you can and cannot do will put you on the wrong side of the cell door more often than not. I'm fairly certain the "my interpretation of the Constitution" defense and God and God only justification will not help your case. So once again if anyone is actually interested in getting good information about this topic research it based on current decisions, laws, ordinances, etc. in your current jurisdiction.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Sentry18 said:


> The issue that you apparently find to be so clear is certainly not clear based on this very thread alone.


It may not be settled for the LEOs on this site, but sir I suggest the LEOs try reading the case law before trying to enforce their opinion.

Based on the court cases it is pretty settled... thankfully in this one area of legal precedent every case has come down in favor of liberty.

FYI here is the case law, which just last year the US supreme court refused to review primarily because NO US appeals court has ever come down on your side of this argument. So to SCOTUS, this is pretty settled!



> So once again if anyone is actually interested in getting good information about this topic research it based on current decisions, laws, ordinances, etc. in your current jurisdiction.


U.S. Courts of Appeals have recognized the First Amendment right to record the police and/or other public officials:

First Circuit*(with jurisdiction over* Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island): see*Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011) ("[A] citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.");*Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1999) (police lacked authority to prohibit citizen from recording commissioners in town hall "because [the citizen's] activities were peaceful, not performed in derogation of any law, and done in the exercise of his First Amendment rights[.]").

Seventh Circuit*(with jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin): see*ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012) ("The act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment's guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording.").

Ninth Circuit*(with jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington): see*Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995) (assuming a First Amendment right to record the police); see also*Adkins v. Limtiaco,**_ Fed. App'x _, No.*11-17543,*2013 WL 4046720 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2013) (recognizing*First Amendment right to photograph police, citing*Fordyce).

Eleventh Circuit*(with jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida and Georgia): see*Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) ("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.").

AND YES--these cases incorporate state laws under equal protection, so the first Amendment protection does trump all state and local laws.



> While we all get our rights from the Constitution,


I don't. I know the framers rejected the idea that law could create rights. I do too.

Sent from my XT1080 using Survival Forum mobile app


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Sentry18 said:


> I'm fairly certain the "my interpretation of the Constitution" defense and God and God only justification will not help your case.


Ultimately a man needs to stand up for what is right. Lots of LEOs in many lands have thrown people in jail for exercising their God given rights. I may end up there too, but when I do I will have a clear conscience that I have done my duty to God and Country!!!

Rights aren't about pissing you off sentry. We have rights because we have duties and obligations--ultimately to almighty God.

Recording police when they are acting like outlaws is a moral duty, its not just about CYA or mocking LEOs on youtube. Its a moral duty because once shooting police with cameras is off the table there are very few peaceful ways to redress grievances--since the system sides with LEOs 99% of the time unless there are witnesses. The video camera is the ultimate witness--that admits no lie.

Sent from my XT1080 using Survival Forum mobile app


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*If you think*

If you think an officer is violating your rights, why would you want him to know you were filming or recording him?

If you want him to know, aren't you actually trying to prevent him from violating your rights, or are you trying to provoke him into violating your rights?

Just wondering ?


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

> are you trying to provoke him into violating your rights?


This should be impossible.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*What happens*



hiwall said:


> This should be impossible.


What happens when an officer is investigating a complaint where a woman has been beaten up by her boy friend , (gang member) and his buddies want to film the interview of the victim so they can share whatever she tells the officer with the rest of the gang.

Do you think this might be an intimidation tactic to shut her up?

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty , right?

You get arrested while driving the company vehicle for a DUI and your friend films the whole arrest.

You later beat this DUI in court but because your buddy filmed the whole arrest and put it on U tube, you lose your job when your employer sees it.

What about when the police arrest a child molester or a rapist and the arrest is in a location that identifies the victim and where they live.

It is against the law for news media to identify rape victims or juveniles who are victims or perpetrators .

Sometimes filming the police is appropriate and sometimes it is very harmful to innocent victims.


----------



## forluvofsmoke (Jan 27, 2012)

BillM said:


> If you think an officer is violating your rights, why would you want him to know you were filming or recording him?
> 
> If you want him to know, aren't you actually trying to prevent him from violating your rights, or are you trying to provoke him into violating your rights?
> 
> Just wondering ?


If an officer's actions directly reflect law enforcement or investigative activities, and are done so in a manner which does not infringe one's constitutional rights, the LEO's actions should not be effected by any recording of his/her actions, provided the recording is done so in a manner which does not interfere with the LEO's activity or cause a safety issue for any parties on scene, or passers-by.

As for provoking the LEO by recording, or conversely, preventing him/her from violating your rights by knowing they are on camera, ultimately, their actions will be reflected by their true character.

The reality is, in more and more urban and suburban areas, fixed video devices on corner light poles and traffic control system installations, etc, for the purpose of surveillance and monitoring (as well as other things), are becoming quite common. Police cruisers in many jurisdictions are equipped with on-board video/audio. I would think that LEOs realize they could be, and will likely be, recorded by a potential suspect or bystander as well. If this knowledge sways their actions in any way, it yet again reflects their true character. If they wish to perform their duties in a way which does not infringe one's rights, then being recorded while performing their duties should not matter.

In the end, there will be those times when a LEO does not make the right decision...they go through a crap-load of training, but training will NEVER cover every situation when dealing with the infinite amount of human factors during a contact, so they have to make decisions on the fly. Right or wrong, a decision has been made, and not every action will cause a desirable outcome. Chalk these up as a mistake...they are, after all, human, just like the rest of us. As with any situation gone bad, regardless of who is involved, if a mistake was made, the responsible party (and any applicable governing bodies) should take responsibility for it, as all adults are expected to be responsible...simple as that...make a mistake, take responsibility for it, learn from it, and most importantly, do what's right and take any necessary corrective actions to prevent it in the future. Damn, that would be asking for all of us (from the flat-broke, non-working and homeless, to the wealthy, and, from the civilian to the highest ranking appointed officials) to simply be responsible and do what's right to the best of our abilities...can we handle it? It's a simple choice...and one that will reflect each and every individual's true character.

I digressed, sorry, but after following this thread for so long, and reading a few recent posts that sparked a fire in me, and now, after reading my own response, I've come to realize that much of what is being hashed here is a direct reflection of what our society has turned towards in respect to what is a total lack of responsibility for one's actions, on multiple levels, on a broad area, specifically, most everywhere. Accountability has been swept under the rug for so long, and denial and cover-ups have replaced it. It seems to be the normal reaction when ever a mistake is made, from the local level, all the way to the highest governing bodies. If I dare say, we are in for a long and difficult process to correct this widespread problem, but fear the worse is imminent. It will get much worse before it gets any better, although being pro-active is the only course of action that will make a positive difference. Just remember, this will take a long time to correct, regardless of how change happens. Keep on preppin' for the day when it all falls apart and we can start over from scratch...'cuz that's probably the only way it's gonna get fixed at this point...this train's on a long steep down-grade, and the brakes failed long ago. I feel we are beyond the point of no return.


----------



## forluvofsmoke (Jan 27, 2012)

BillM said:


> What happens when an officer is investigating a complaint where a woman has been beaten up by her boy friend , (gang member) and his buddies want to film the interview of the victim so they can share whatever she tells the officer with the rest of the gang.
> 
> Do you think this might be an intimidation tactic to shut her up?
> 
> ...


Valid points, and I have to agree. One needs to think about what recorded video could be used for later, and what the results could be. As I stated above, be responsible for your actions.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

I stand by what I said above. There should be no action I or anyone can do that will lead an officer to break the law.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

Sentry18 said:


> This topic really falls into two categories; the law and the principle. Laws vary so greatly from state to state, county to county, city to city, etc. that it's absolutely impossible to have a conversation about the legalities of filming police or the legalities of police stopping you from recording them unless we're talking about a very specific community on a very specific date past or present. Laws change constantly, judicial decision (precedent) changes constantly, LEA policy changes constantly, etc. so like I said unless we decide that we're talking about Dallas, Texas in 1997 and then conduct the appropriate research it's impossible for us to debate the legality of recording police with a video recording device. The principle is a whole other matter. However, *debating and conversing about the principle is just a continual rehashing of Pro v. Con that is generally for entertainment purposes only.* Not that it isn't interesting. I would suggest if this particular topic is of personal concern to you, conduct the research in your community, county and state to determine what the applicable laws are, if there have been any legal precedents set and what the liability is for violating the law (if one exists). Then you can take the appropriate and legal steps to protect yourself.


Apparently this is just about the section in bold and not about the true legal application or how it actually applies to people. Even the people trying to quote and make it about the legalities have oversimplified and narrowed it to try to make it seem like it's really that cut and dry. Have fun. My last 2 sentences remain true.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

BillM said:


> What happens when an officer is investigating a complaint where a woman has been beaten up by her boy friend , (gang member) and his buddies want to film the interview of the victim so they can share whatever she tells the officer with the rest of the gang.
> 
> Do you think this might be an intimidation tactic to shut her up?
> 
> ...


Time and place, all of these situations can be dealt with legally by removing them from the public square. All the legal precedents that I pointed out refer only to public places, you record a cop in a restricted area or inside a private home other than your own and you will likely be violating wiretapping laws.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*The point*



Padre said:


> Time and place, all of these situations can be dealt with legally by removing them from the public square. All the legal precedents that I pointed out refer only to public places, you record a cop in a restricted area or inside a private home other than your own and you will likely be violating wiretapping laws.


The point I am making is that filming a law enforcement officer while he is conducting an investigation may put him, his family and / or victims in grave jeopardy. It may cause a victim or a suspect to lose their reputation or employment. It may cause irreparable harm to juveniles .

Conversely, it may capture the unethical or illegal actions of an officer and prevent someone from being unfairly convicted of a crime.

It may be your right but what is a right , isn't always right and sometimes isn't legal.

This question isn't as cut and dried as some would believe it to be!


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

I think that part of the dissension in our ranks is coming from basic points of view: 

Those of us that have worn a badge are confident that our actions are legal, and as such, have nothing to hide. We are more concerned with how that footage could be twisted to hurt innocents, such as in BillM's illustration of accidental disclosure of a victim's identity, or I my example where an officer's family was threatened. I also have mentioned in the past that there are verifiable instances where gang members will film police responses to learn the tactics that will be used against them. 

At the root of all of our concerns, lies the fear that unnecessary, irresponsible, or misguided filming could lead to putting innocents in harm's way. 

On the flip side of the argument, those who are suspicious of police activity, for whatever reason, see the need for evidence against the police. I can't say that this is unreasonable; when we, as law enforcement officers, suspect wrong-doing, we look for evidence. 

The difference is, we deal with things on a daily basis which we have been called to resolve, with the knowledge that something has transpired which must be investigated. The difference is that you are talking about a private citizen continually rolling tape on any interaction you ever have with any police officer on the incredibly slim chance that the officer will in some way infringe upon your rights or blatantly break the law. This would be akin to routinely sending a sample of any meal you get from anywhere other than your home out to a lab, on the off chance that you get food poisoning and need to prove the source. 

I once had a woman fly off her rocker at me because I pulled her over for running a red light, making an illegal u-turn in the MIDDLE of an intersection, driving up over a curb, almost hitting another vehicle and causing an accident, and cutting off another vehicle. I was very polite and professional the whole time, and she informed me that "y'all take yourselves too seriously, what with your flashing lights and whatnot. It ain't that serious. If I don't think it's that serious, I do what I want. Do you know who I am? I'm friends with Oprah." She then took out her phone, took my picture, and said, "how you feel about that? I'm gonna have your job, and then I'm gonna take you to court!" I told her that I would be happy to see her in court. 

She was found guilty on all charges. 

I genuinely don't care if someone wants to take my picture. I am a public figure, operating out in the open. I operate according to the law at all times, keeping myself above reproach. That is something which I always impress upon my Officers I Training: you are always under scrutiny, and their first instinct is all too often that you may have done something wrong. You cannot allow a shred of doubt as to your integrity, because any doubt will undermine the public's confidence in you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Turtle said:


> I think that part of the dissension in our ranks is coming from basic points of view:
> 
> Those of us that have worn a badge are confident that our actions are legal, and as such, have nothing to hide. We are more concerned with how that footage could be twisted to hurt innocents, such as in BillM's illustration of accidental disclosure of a victim's identity, or I my example where an officer's family was threatened. I also have mentioned in the past that there are verifiable instances where gang members will film police responses to learn the tactics that will be used against them.
> 
> ...


There is a difference between knowing your personal actions are legal, which I'll accept and the claims we get here from the LEO side of these discussions that all actions by LEOs are legal all the time, which most of us don't buy or the even bigger stretch, or that certain trends in law enforcement, like the constantly increasing use of SWAT is onsistent with a free society.

When the LEOs here cross the line from claiming their own actions are legal or explaining proper procedures to defending clearly abhorrent actions on the part of police, which has happened in most of these threads, then you (by you I meanthe LEO side, not you personally) lose all credibility because of the consistent appearance of police cover up.


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

Geek999 said:


> There is a difference between knowing your personal actions are legal, which I'll accept and the claims we get here from the LEO side of these discussions that all actions by LEOs are legal all the time, which most of us don't buy or the even bigger stretch, or that certain trends in law enforcement, like the constantly increasing use of SWAT is onsistent with a free society.
> 
> When the LEOs here cross the line from claiming their own actions are legal or explaining proper procedures to defending clearly abhorrent actions on the part of police, which has happened in most of these threads, then you (by you I meanthe LEO side, not you personally) lose all credibility because of the consistent appearance of police cover up.


Geek 999 I have kept a pretty close watch on these threads without commenting much, and what I have found is that no one has claimed that all actions are legal all the time, on the contrary what I have found is an acknowledgment that there are stupid people who do stupid things some times. This, as I see it is not a cover up. You, and others, though consistently continue to spew hate at well regarded Officers based on unreasoning ignorance, half truths, and what you see on you tube. We, on the other hand, have consistently admonished not to believe every thing you see on you tube, what you hear or read from the lame stream media, and don't rush to judgment, which you and others have consistently done. As far as your SWAT issue goes, do you recall the shoot out in California between the two heavily armed and armored bank robbers? There were no SWAT teams then and the incident illustrated that LE had to evolve with the times in order to compete with the criminal element, just like the fire dept. has had to keep pace with our constantly changing environment we live in today. Can you imagine trying to enter a burning building with out SCBA, or putting out certain fires with out the aid of a foaming agent. I suggest that you and others put aside your personal angst for a while, and stop beating folks over the head, and discuss the issue in a calm, reasonable fashion with out name calling, finger pointing, and realizing that there is often more to the story than you know, and that even a clock that is stopped is right twice a day.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

I don't have a problem with the police stopping the filming of police work to prevent witnesses from being targeted by criminals. I can't imagine anybody except for the ACLU being in favor of that.

What bothers me is police who are violating the law and violating the rights of others. They want to prevent their crimes from being proven and reported.

The other thing that bothers me is the arrogance and condescension that comes from some of the LEO's here. They seem unwilling to believe that any police officer anywhere would ever do anything wrong. There are some people that I refuse to read what they write anymore because it's so off the wall.


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

BillS said:


> I don't have a problem with the police stopping the filming of police work to prevent witnesses from being targeted by criminals. I can't imagine anybody except for the ACLU being in favor of that.
> 
> What bothers me is police who are violating the law and violating the rights of others. They want to prevent their crimes from being proven and reported.
> 
> The other thing that bothers me is the arrogance and condescension that comes from some of the LEO's here. They seem unwilling to believe that any police officer anywhere would ever do anything wrong. There are some people that I refuse to read what they write anymore because it's so off the wall.


BillS I agree with you that filming should be stopped if it could be used by criminals to target victims or witnesses, however LE here in Missouri are routinely filmed by everyone and their Grandmother and as far as I know there has never been a problem. As far as LE violating the law or the rights of others, I personally know of one Deputy that was fired for breaking the law and violating a persons rights, one who was fired for breaking the law, two who were fired for the use of excessive force, and one for conduct unbecoming a LEO. I also would be willing to bet that every LEO on this forum could relate similar stories. This indicates to me that there is no cover up, it's that the idiots committing these crimes haven't been caught. In the mean time they make us all look bad, but that doesn't make us bad, and reasonable, thinking people, who avoid allowing you tube to think for them should know the difference. As far as the later portion of your comment about LEO's here being unwilling to believe that no Officer anywhere could do anything wrong, I don't see that, and therefore have to disagree, again I reiterate that LEO's here have stated on a consistent basis that there are idiots in LE, just like in every other profession, and have consistently admonished to avoid a hateful, unreasonable, knee jerk response to the stories that are posted on you tube and from the Lame stream media, as they consistently only give part of the story, that part which increases the drama and thus increases their ratings. As far as not reading some posts, I read 'em all, as I try to learn from every one, but that is your decision.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

BillM said:


> The point I am making is that filming a law enforcement officer while he is conducting an investigation may put him, his family and / or victims in grave jeopardy. It may cause a victim or a suspect to lose their reputation or employment. It may cause irreparable harm to juveniles .
> 
> Conversely, it may capture the unethical or illegal actions of an officer and prevent someone from being unfairly convicted of a crime.
> 
> ...


Bill and Turtle are right filming can cause harm to others, and it might not always be morally right to film, however I would suggest that this is possible when exercising any right!!!

Its possible that like it's extension filming, the press could reveal details about a situation that causes harm. However with the exception of perjury and libel we really are very cautious about limiting speech, because it is a natural right!

Similarly, its possible that the keeping and bearing of arms might result in harm, however again with the exception of a few gun free zones we are very cautious as a people to limit that right.

Some cops might feel "hey this is a danger so I am going to deprive them of that right" but to do so without legal reason, habeus corpus!, should land you in a world of hurt.

Filming might pose a danger but as Americans we don't trade freedom for security. Filming is limited, mostly in the same places that guns are, but not in public, because the human right is more important than the risk of abuse.

Sent from my XT1080 using Survival Forum mobile app


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

Padre said:


> Bill and Turtle are right filming can cause harm to others, and it might not always be morally right to film, however I would suggest that this is possible when exercising any right!!!
> 
> Its possible that like it's extension filming, the press could reveal details about a situation that causes harm. However with the exception of perjury and libel we really are very cautious about limiting speech, because it is a natural right!
> 
> ...


I agree with you Padre, but like I said before, Missouri LE has been filmed for years, and as far as I know there has never been a problem. I can't see that it is really an issue unless the person doing the filming is interfering in some way. If the person doing the filming was convinced that the Officer was doing some thing illegal, then why not submit the evidence to his/her superiors, rather than post it on you tube. The only reason I can see is that the person is only concerned with the sensationalism, and isn't really concerned about others rights.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

BillS said:


> I don't have a problem with the police stopping the filming of police work to prevent witnesses from being targeted by criminals. I can't imagine anybody except for the ACLU being in favor of that.
> 
> What bothers me is police who are violating the law and violating the rights of others. They want to prevent their crimes from being proven and reported.
> 
> The other thing that bothers me is the arrogance and condescension that comes from some of the LEO's here. They seem unwilling to believe that any police officer anywhere would ever do anything wrong. There are some people that I refuse to read what they write anymore because it's so off the wall.


BillS, I cannot argue with your first point.

Your second point, well, I would argue that the same thing goes on in every profession and this is why it is do common for companies to install cameras to hold their people accountable for their misdeeds and provide evidence. This is also part of the reason that so many police vehicles have dash cams. I wish ours did, it would make life a lot easier.

As to your last point, I can only assume that you are referencing me in your last sentence. Honestly, I have considered blocking your posts in the past because I find most of your arguments to be baseless and/or hypocritical, but I have not. I cannot make an informed decision about the topics being discussed unless I am operating with all of the available information, to include the opinions of those with whom I often disagree. Sometimes, you have valid points and concerns, as I mentioned above.

With all of that said, and with that in mind, I respectfully request that you go back and read the entire thread. I believe that you will find that at no time have any of the LEOs on this site acted in an arrogant or condescending manner.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

camo2460 said:


> Geek 999 I have kept a pretty close watch on these threads without commenting much, and what I have found is that no one has claimed that all actions are legal all the time, on the contrary what I have found is an acknowledgment that there are stupid people who do stupid things some times. This, as I see it is not a cover up. You, and others, though consistently continue to spew hate at well regarded Officers based on unreasoning ignorance, half truths, and what you see on you tube. We, on the other hand, have consistently admonished not to believe every thing you see on you tube, what you hear or read from the lame stream media, and don't rush to judgment, which you and others have consistently done. As far as your SWAT issue goes, do you recall the shoot out in California between the two heavily armed and armored bank robbers? There were no SWAT teams then and the incident illustrated that LE had to evolve with the times in order to compete with the criminal element, just like the fire dept. has had to keep pace with our constantly changing environment we live in today. Can you imagine trying to enter a burning building with out SCBA, or putting out certain fires with out the aid of a foaming agent. I suggest that you and others put aside your personal angst for a while, and stop beating folks over the head, and discuss the issue in a calm, reasonable fashion with out name calling, finger pointing, and realizing that there is often more to the story than you know, and that even a clock that is stopped is right twice a day.


I do not believe I have "spewed hate" in anywhere near the degree it has been "spewed" at me personally on this forum. BTW: this kind of personal attack is an ineffective way to get one to change one's views. In fact it tends to confirm the view that cops will cover for each other. I have not aware of any untrue statement. If you feel I have made an untrue statement then you should respond with what you consider correct in the thread involved.

I recall the CA shootout and how it fits in the history of SWAT. A situation like that would be an appropriate use of SWAT. In any given year we have fewer such incidents than you can count on one hand but we have 60,000 SWAT raids.

I have in no way impugned acts of bravery by firefighters, cops or civilians.

I have freely admitted that my views are affected by my personal experiences, which have included an illegal entry of my home by a local LEO and a refusal by the local force to investigate. Instead of recognizing that a breach of trust of this nature would cause almost anyone to distrust cops from that point forward, the response from LEOs has basically to call me a liar.

Trust goes two ways. I suggest you reread your own post and look at the way you are talking to and about me and consider which of us is the one "spweing hate".


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

Geek999 said:


> I do not believe I have "spewed hate" in anywhere near the degree it has been "spewed" at me personally on this forum. BTW: this kind of personal attack is an ineffective way to get one to change one's views. In fact it tends to confirm the view that cops will cover for each other. I have not aware of any untrue statement. If you feel I have made an untrue statement then you should respond with what you consider correct in the thread involved.
> 
> I recall the CA shootout and how it fits in the history of SWAT. A situation like that would be an appropriate use of SWAT. In any given year we have fewer such incidents than you can count on one hand but we have 60,000 SWAT raids.
> 
> ...


Geek this is exactly the response I expected, however if you took my post to be a hateful personal attack, then I apologize, it was not meant to be. I only was trying to point out the situation as I see it. I was not trying to change your view point, as much as I was trying to get you to consider other view points as valid, which in no way confirms that all cops will cover for each other. On the contrary, my experience is that when it comes to disgracing the badge, violating the law, or violating the rights of others, a cop will be the first to hammer the hell out of another cop. I also said nothing about your statements being untrue, I don't know were that came from, so I can't address that point. As far as LE entering your home, I believe you, however I also believe that there is more to the story, perhaps exigent circumstances, that you have unknowingly left out, or perhaps circumstances that you were unaware of at the time. Illegal entry to your home is indeed a violation of you civil rights, no one disputes that, but violating a persons constitutional or civil rights is a very serious matter, which in my experience, is not taken lightly by LE.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

camo2460 said:


> Geek this is exactly the response I expected, however if you took my post to be a hateful personal attack, then I apologize, it was not meant to be. I only was trying to point out the situation as I see it. I was not trying to change your view point, as much as I was trying to get you to consider other view points as valid, which in no way confirms that all cops will cover for each other. On the contrary, my experience is that when it comes to disgracing the badge, violating the law, or violating the rights of others, a cop will be the first to hammer the hell out of another cop. I also said nothing about your statements being untrue, I don't know were that came from, so I can't address that point. As far as LE entering your home, I believe you, however I also believe that there is more to the story, perhaps exigent circumstances, that you have unknowingly left out, or perhaps circumstances that you were unaware of at the time. Illegal entry to your home is indeed a violation of you civil rights, no one disputes that, but violating a persons constitutional or civil rights is a very serious matter, which in my experience, is not taken lightly by LE.


Thank you. Let's move on with no hard feelings and open minds.


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

I agree my friend


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Arrested for "filming", one night in jail = likely settlement (too bad they don't take half of it out of the officers pay.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/02/20/recording-traffic-stop-lands-davie-woman-in-jail/



> Barry Butin with the Broward American Civil Liberties Union told the paper there's was good chance that the law will be on Berning's side.
> 
> "Finding they're liable for what they did, using what we think was excessive force just because she was recording him on her phone, that would drive home the point that police officers can't do this," said Eric Rudenberg, one of Berning's attorneys told the paper.


Sent from my XT1080 using Survival Forum mobile app


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

Padre said:


> Arrested for "filming", one night in jail = likely settlement (too bad they don't take half of it out of the officers pay.
> 
> http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/02/20/recording-traffic-stop-lands-davie-woman-in-jail/
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Survival Forum mobile app


I think that, that particular incident could have, and should have been handled differently. I would have just ignored the CP, and either issued a warning or summons, and said have a nice day. This illustrates that there are bone heads in every profession and they make us all look bad, but not all of us are bad. Also, the fact that some Officers make bone headed mistakes, doesn't justify subjecting an Officer to bad manners, disrespect, sarcasm, or verbal or physical abuse. Grace, tact, and good manners on both sides go a long way towards avoiding or defusing unpleasant circumstances.


----------



## musketjim (Dec 7, 2011)

You can do whatever you want as long as you're tough enough to take the beating that will follow.


----------



## Dude111 (Dec 28, 2012)

LincTex said:


> Can police force you to stop filming?


Sadly they can...... THEY THINK THEY CAN DO ANYTHING!!


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Dude111 said:


> Sadly they can...... THEY THINK THEY CAN DO ANYTHING!!


It is true. Were it not for physics, I would be invincible.

:/

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

BillS said:


> What bothers me is police who are violating the law and violating the rights of others. They want to prevent their crimes from being proven and reported.
> 
> The other thing that bothers me is the arrogance and condescension that comes from some of the LEO's here. They seem unwilling to believe that any police officer anywhere would ever do anything wrong.


We had another incident in MI where an innocent citizen was taken down while walking down the street. He had video running on his cell phone, which was mysteriously deleted. Surprisingly, the officers dash cam video was not deleted. Yet another city earning a LARGE civil rights law suit.

His violation, contempt of cop for refusing to produce an ID while open carrying. This is a completely legal activity, and MI is NOT a must ID state.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Dash Cams*



partdeux said:


> We had another incident in MI where an innocent citizen was taken down while walking down the street. He had video running on his cell phone, which was mysteriously deleted. Surprisingly, the officers dash cam video was not deleted. Yet another city earning a LARGE civil rights law suit.
> 
> His violation, contempt of cop for refusing to produce an ID while open carrying. This is a completely legal activity, and MI is NOT a must ID state.


I am not surprised that the officers dash cam was not deleted.

The officers dash cam runs anytime his blue lights are on.

He doesn't have access to the storage device.

It is locked in a sealed compartment in his trunk.

The officers supervisor is the only one with keys, that can access the storage device.

A lot of cases are made against officers who step over the line with their own dash cam.

More officers are cleared of charges by the dash cam recording.

These recordings are "water marked" so they are admissible in court.

If the recording is edited in any way, the water mark disappears and the court will not admit the evidence.

Anyone who deletes or destroys a dash cam recording, can be charged with tampering with evidence.

The reason so many officers forget about the recording at the time of an incident is because they have not purposely turned it on,. It just records automatically.

I just assume that I am being recorded any time I go out in public.

Video is everywhere.

I am not an officer now but when I was, I never tolerated illegal or unethical practices by another officer and would not want to work with anyone who did.

We did not have dash cams when I worked in the 1990s but God was always watching and that was good enough for me and my partner to behave ourselves.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Its a little long but I LOVE the last cop, I wish we could photocopy him, because he shows exactly what a constitutional encounter with police looks like!!!

Note that these people are not cop blockers, they are protesting, not sure what (the war?), and filming to guarantee their rights are observed, they poost lots of negative encounters but also positive ones like the one at the end of the tape, sadly 90% are negative. I am sure some of the the other cops have good intentions but as they say, "the road to hell...."

One Good Cop


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

BillM said:


> I am not surprised that the officers dash cam was not deleted.


Departments repeatidly discover dash cam video did not record an encounter that may land them a big lawsuit. oops, our bad, camera and/or recorder was broken, no evidence to support your allegation, and since police officers never lie under oath...


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

partdeux said:


> Departments repeatidly discover dash cam video did not record an encounter that may land them a big lawsuit......


Links and/or references to back that statement?


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Looks like we have a case on just this issue starting up in Towson, MD


----------



## bbrider (Sep 27, 2013)

TheLazyL said:


> Links and/or references to back that statement?


Google Seattle PD car camera videos missing. 
Apparently I am tech challenged and cannot copy and paste with my phone.

Sent from my C811 4G using Survival Forum mobile app


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

TheLazyL said:


> Links and/or references to back that statement?


Try a google search and see how many hits you get?

In my own neck of the woods, it was about 10 years ago, police were involved in a suspicious shooting, dash cam video was unavailable due to equipment failure.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

It's about time:

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/03/12/landmark-settlement-reached-in-preakness-arrest-case/

Landmark Settlement Reached In Preakness Arrest Case

BALTIMORE (WJZ) - A Baltimore City lawsuit settlement sparks major police policy and training reforms that affect everyone with a cell phone camera.
Derek Valcourt has details on the change and what it means to you.
The police department is putting it into writing so their officers fully understand. You can record them and they can't do anything about it. First Amendment advocates call it a major victory.
When police made an arrest at Pimlico four years ago, Christopher Sharp was one of several recording. Officers didn't like it.
"Do me a favor and turn that off. It's illegal to record anybody's voice or anything else," an officer told Sharp.

But that's not true.
Sharp says the officers took his phone and deleted videos, including family videos.
"I still am disturbed about what happened," Sharp said.
Now, four years and an ACLU-backed lawsuit later, city police agreed to a sweeping settlement: money to Sharp and his attorneys, a formal written apology from the police commissioner and, most importantly, a new department policy spelling out expectations of city officers being recorded.
"I think it's pretty clear people have the right to film what we do. You guys are doing it right now so it should be a norm for this organization," Police Commissioner Anthony Batts said.
As part of the new policy, all officers going through training will be taught that they can never tell you to stop recording as long as you're somewhere where you have a right to be and no officer can confiscate your phone just because you have video that they don't want you to see.
"This policy and training program that's going to be put into place are a model for the nation," said ACLU Legal Director Deborah Jeon.
ACLU attorneys show the need by pointing to February video of a Baltimore County officer attempting to stop a student recording another arrest. The Baltimore County police department quickly disapproved of that officer's behavior.
Sharp believes that might not have happened a few years ago.
"I was actually proud of that moment," Sharp said.
The city has agreed to pay Sharp $25,000 for his trouble, but they will also pay his legal bills-to the tune of $220,000. Those payments were approved by the city Board of Estimates Wednesday morning.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...recording-settlement-20140312,0,5533451.story

New city police policy says public has right to film officers

The Baltimore Police Department has instituted a new policy that prohibits officers from stopping people from taping or photographing police actions, the agency said Wednesday.
The new rules were unveiled as the city agreed to pay $250,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a man who says police seized his cellphone and deleted the video of an arrest at the Preakness Stakes in 2010.
"Four years ago, if we had taken the complaint seriously and addressed it in a very rapid manner, we may not be sitting here today," Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts said Wednesday. "What I've been brought here to do is do reform of this organization. It's not an easy job. It's a tough job, because we're changing the culture in the Police Department as a whole."
Related

Claim: Woman arrested, camera destroyed after recording Baltimore police

The agency instituted rules on the public's right to film officers in 2012, but lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland said they didn't go far enough. The new Baltimore Police Department policy states that "members of the general public have a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and/or audio record BPD members while BPD members are conducting official business ... unless such recordings interfere with police activity."
The new policy also states that officers "shall allow all persons the same access for photography and recording as is given to the news media."
*The case centered on officers' actions on May 15, 2010, at the Pimlico Race Course. There, Christopher Sharp said, officers violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights when they took his phone after the "arrest and beating" of his female friend.*
Sharp, who was represented by the ACLU, sued the city, saying officers deleted videos on his phone.
"It took a long time, but ... the Baltimore Police Department became very serious about resolving this case," Sharp said. "What happened was wrong, but the Police Department is not my enemy. They have made great strides to correct this."
*Last year, a federal judge rebuked police for engaging in a "veritable witch hunt" of Sharp and ordered the department to pay $1,000 for a "not so subtle attempt to intimidate the plaintiff." According to court documents, the department contacted Sharp's ex-wife and former employers for information on his personal life in an attempt to determine whether he "is a drug addict."*
Sharp said Wednesday he was still troubled by those actions. "I was really disturbed at the time - still am - about what happened."
The First Amendment right to record police officers in public places has been in the news several times lately. Baltimore County Police Chief James Johnson spoke out against officers' actions last month when they clashed with a 21-year-old college student filming an arrest outside a Towson bar.
"The words and demands to cease filming by sworn personnel and citizen volunteer auxiliary officers were incorrect, inappropriate and unnecessary," Johnson said.
Also last month, a Baltimore Sun photographer was pushed away while taking pictures at a crime scene at the intersection of Centre Street and Guilford Avenue in Baltimore. Baltimore police have launched an internal investigation, Batts said. "There's always two sides to each story, so I will not take a position on that," he said.
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake weighed in on the issue Wednesday after the city's Board of Estimates voted to approve the $250,000 payment.
"We've been clear that the public has a right to film," she said.
Under the settlement agreement, Sharp will be paid $25,000. The rest will go to cover attorney fees accrued during the nearly four-year case.
"Originally, I asked for an apology. That was it," he said.
He now has one. Sharp received a framed copy of an apology from Batts. "We would like to personally assure you that we are working tirelessly to regain your trust," the letter says.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, the police have no legal expectation of privacy while they do their jobs.

What happened in Baltimore has been happening more and more around the country as the police abuse their powers more and more.

It's about time somebody somewhere put a stop to it.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

BillS said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Clearly, the police have no legal expectation of privacy while they do their jobs.
> 
> What happened in Baltimore has been happening more and more around the country as the police abuse their powers more and more.
> ...


I think that it is less about willful abuse of power than it is about an unclear law.

Years ago, there was a traffic stop in maryland of a guy on a motorcycle who had a "go pro"- style of camera recording his ride. He published the video of the traffic stop on the Internet and was later brought up on charges, as it is (or was at that time, at least) illegal to record someone in Maryland without their knowledge and consent. I believe that this was originally intended to prevent unauthorized wiretaps, but it was vague enough that it was used to charge this individual.

I believe that, at least in Maryland, that case was the source behind a lot of the confusion.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## ContinualHarvest (Feb 19, 2012)

Turtle said:


> I think that it is less about willful abuse of power than it is about an unclear law.
> 
> Years ago, there was a traffic stop in maryland of a guy on a motorcycle who had a "go pro"- style of camera recording his ride. He published the video of the traffic stop on the Internet and was later brought up on charges, as it is (or was at that time, at least) illegal to record someone in Maryland without their knowledge and consent. I believe that this was originally intended to prevent unauthorized wiretaps, but it was vague enough that it was used to charge this individual.
> 
> ...


It's arguable that the law was unclear. The justification the police use for their traffic and surveillance cameras in MD is that while in public, we have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Whys should they [police] expect privacy? I do agree, however, that law has not been clearly defined up to this point as to whether citizens have the right to film their government. It's kind of like a "I'm watching you watching me" situation and that makes authoritarian personality types uneasy. 
The days of Mayberry style policing are long gone.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

ContinualHarvest said:


> I do agree, however, that law has not been clearly defined up to this point


Constitution doesn't state you're only allowed to do what's allowed by law.

Unless the law prohibits something, then you're allowed to do it. Stop looking for the state to define allowed activities.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Turtle said:


> I think that it is less about willful abuse of power than it is about an unclear law.
> 
> Years ago, there was a traffic stop in maryland of a guy on a motorcycle who had a "go pro"- style of camera recording his ride. He published the video of the traffic stop on the Internet and was later brought up on charges, as it is (or was at that time, at least) illegal to record someone in Maryland without their knowledge and consent. I believe that this was originally intended to prevent unauthorized wiretaps, but it was vague enough that it was used to charge this individual.
> 
> ...


By that logic every security camera in the state is illegal.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Geek999 said:


> By that logic every security camera in the state is illegal.


Exactly. It was an antiquated law that was being applied to something that only vaguely fit its original wording and almost certainly not its original intent. Therein lay the confusion.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Turtle said:


> Exactly. It was an antiquated law that was being applied to something that only vaguely fit its original wording and almost certainly not its original intent. Therein lay the confusion.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


So how well educated are MD LEOs on this today? I can easily imagine a change in Baltimore not being known about around the state.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Geek999 said:


> So how well educated are MD LEOs on this today? I can easily imagine a change in Baltimore not being known about around the state.


Actually, it's funny that you should mention that: I got an email from my chief yesterday with a copy of the article from what happened in Baltimore and an attachment of our agency policy regarding filming and the laws governing response to such.

I cannot speak to the rest of Maryland law enforcement, but I know that our agency is really good about staying on top of this sort of thing. We are very careful not to tread too closely to any line where there could be so much as the perception of wrongdoing on the part of the police.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Turtle said:


> Actually, it's funny that you should mention that: I got an email from my chief yesterday with a copy of the article from what happened in Baltimore and an attachment of our agency policy regarding filming and the laws governing response to such.
> 
> I cannot speak to the rest of Maryland law enforcement, but I know that our agency is really good about staying on top of this sort of thing. We are very careful not to tread too closely to any line where there could be so much as the perception of wrongdoing on the part of the police.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


As I recall your agency is Federal. I'm more concerned with your typical local cops, in say, Prince George's County. (Yes. I picked that location as a known problem area.)


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Geek999 said:


> As I recall your agency is Federal. I'm more concerned with your typical local cops, in say, Prince George's County. (Yes. I picked that location as a known problem area.)


My brother-in-law is actually a PG County detective. I will ask him.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Turtle said:


> My brother-in-law is actually a PG County detective. I will ask him.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


Fascinating. LOL


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Geek999 said:


> Fascinating. LOL


One does one's best. 

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

I just saw a report that in Rockville, MD there was a roadblock on a major highway and every car was searched without a warrant at gunpoint.

Has it occurred to any of the LEOs in Montgomery County that this was unconstitutional?


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Turtle said:


> I think that it is less about willful abuse of power than it is about an unclear law.
> 
> Years ago, there was a traffic stop in maryland of a guy on a motorcycle who had a "go pro"- style of camera recording his ride. He published the video of the traffic stop on the Internet and was later brought up on charges, as it is (or was at that time, at least) illegal to record someone in Maryland without their knowledge and consent. I believe that this was originally intended to prevent unauthorized wiretaps, but it was vague enough that it was used to charge this individual.
> 
> ...


The Maryland law applied to video taping in public does not pass Constitutional scrutiny plain and simple!

As noted before applying it this way would a) criminalize security cameras b) criminalize the police dash camera, c) criminalize news outlets (and private media) video taping pretty much anything, d) criminalize Google (maps/earth).

Here are a few great quotes from the Glik case:

"_s 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."

"Glik filmed the defendant police officers in the Boston Common, the oldest city park in the United States and the apotheosis of a public forum.* In such traditional public spaces, the rights of the state to limit the exercise of First Amendment activity are 'sharply circumscribed.'"

"[A] citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment."

"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.'"

Sent from my XT1080 using Survival Forum mobile app_


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 29, 2014)

Any update on the guy that filmed the NYPD Gang killing of the guy accused of selling one single cigarette? 

One of the gang leaders is now saying that it wasn't a choke hold!

The guy who videoed that scene has now been arrested on an unrelated charge, the civilian reporter claims he was set up by the NYPD. 

I would video any LEO where I felt he/she was out of line, I'd do the same thing if it were the bad guy to protect the LEO. 

Most likely no one there will know I'm running film, I have covert cameras, remote transmitter that fits in my pocket and broadcasts about 300 feet. 

I did investigations for awhile, the general rule with audio is where ever there or more gather, there is no expectation of privacy, unless two of them are family, takes 3 unrelated parties. However, taking audio can present issues and as evidence it's not necessary, so I don't or didn't shoot with audio, video is enough and you can testify as to what you heard. 

I'd suggest stay far away and use the zoom. If it were my phone camera I'd act like I was talking on it, at times swing away and back on the shot, I wouldn't be holding my phone out pointed at the subjects of the photography. I'd be more covert about it just to avoid any confrontation. 

The world is full of cameras, there is no place you can go and be 100% sure you're not being captured on "tape" in public places, yes, pervs have cameras in restrooms and tanning dressing rooms, you never know. I have hidden security cameras at home and in the woods, in the city someone usually has eyes on you from somewhere.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Ozarker said:


> Any update on the guy that filmed the NYPD Gang killing of the guy accused of selling one single cigarette?
> 
> One of the gang leaders is now saying that it wasn't a choke hold!
> 
> ...


It has been ruled a homicide by the coroner.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 29, 2014)

Yes, and the PD is now claiming it wasn't a choke hold and that the corner is a political rival. That officer (and others) is 
(are) on "desk duty".


----------



## nightwing (Jul 26, 2014)

after they smack you in the head with a nightstick they can pretty well do 
what the hell they want as well as LOOSE your camera or phone for you and 
then try to help you find it.
By kicking you to the last place you thought you saw it.
Technique is everything :ignore:


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Filming*

Filming a police officer acting in the line of duty is perfectly legal with exceptions. You may not cross over crime scene barriers to film officers or victims. Police place these barriers up to ensure victim privacy and to preserve specific details from becoming public knowledge. This allows officers to eliminate subjects or include subjects who may have knowledge of the crime as suspects. Protecting the identity of juvenile victims or offenders is important. Also protecting the identity of witnesses or victims of sexual assault may be a valid reason for requiring the public to stop filming at a crime scene.
Last but not least is where fatal or horrific accidents have occurred. You would not want to find out your child was killed in a traffic accident on U tube.


----------



## nightwing (Jul 26, 2014)

BillM said:


> Filming a police officer acting in the line of duty is perfectly legal with exceptions. You may not cross over crime scene barriers to film officers or victims. Police place these barriers up to ensure victim privacy and to preserve specific details from becoming public knowledge. This allows officers to eliminate subjects or include subjects who may have knowledge of the crime as suspects. Protecting the identity of juvenile victims or offenders is important. Also protecting the identity of witnesses or victims of sexual assault may be a valid reason for requiring the public to stop filming at a crime scene.
> Last but not least is where fatal or horrific accidents have occurred. You would not want to find out your child was killed in a traffic accident on U tube.


Why not O finds out everything from the news a least that what he says


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

BillM said:


> Filming a police officer acting in the line of duty is perfectly legal with exceptions. You may not cross over crime scene barriers to film officers or victims. Police place these barriers up to ensure victim privacy and to preserve specific details from becoming public knowledge. This allows officers to eliminate subjects or include subjects who may have knowledge of the crime as suspects. Protecting the identity of juvenile victims or offenders is important. Also protecting the identity of witnesses or victims of sexual assault may be a valid reason for requiring the public to stop filming at a crime scene.
> Last but not least is where fatal or horrific accidents have occurred. You would not want to find out your child was killed in a traffic accident on U tube.


All of which is good reason why everything cops do should be filmed by personal cameras and dashcams. Otherwise there is no evidence of what occurred. Filming police actions is vital. Whether those films should be made public is a matter for the courts.

Every single cop should be wearing a camera every minute he is on duty. Imagine this case if every one of the cops involved had been equipped with a camera. Several additional films would exist that would either corroborate or refute what appears to be a cop committing a homicide.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Actually*



Geek999 said:


> All of which is good reason why everything cops do should be filmed by personal cameras and dashcams. Otherwise there is no evidence of what occurred. Filming police actions is vital. Whether those films should be made public is a matter for the courts.
> 
> Every single cop should be wearing a camera every minute he is on duty. Imagine this case if every one of the cops involved had been equipped with a camera. Several additional films would exist that would either corroborate or refute what appears to be a cop committing a homicide.


Actually, many officers are now equipped with mini cams on their shoulder epaulets and gun cams are just becoming available. The gun cam actuates any time the officers weapon is drawn. It captures exactly what the officers gun is pointing at and what he sees when he fires his weapon. 
So, you may be closer to getting your wish than you think.

Geek, I hope we never see you on one of these videos !


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

BillM said:


> Actually, many officers are now equipped with mini cams on their shoulder epaulets and gun cams are just becoming available. The gun cam actuates any time the officers weapon is drawn. It captures exactly what the officers gun is pointing at and what he sees when he fires his weapon.
> So, you may be closer to getting your wish than you think.
> 
> Geek, I hope we never see you on one of these videos !


I am glad that technology is being deployed. I think it will lead to professional policing instead of what we have today. Personally, I would want every interaction I have with police filmed.


----------

