PDA

View Full Version : Court rules on Video Taping Police


furyous68
08-31-2011, 1:32 PM
If this is a dupe.. then please remove it.. .didn't see anything when I did a search:

http://www.dailytech.com/First+Circuit+Court+of+Appeals+Rules+that+Citizens +Can+Videotape+Police/article22587.htm

Sounds like a good thing... but there seems to be a possible loophole when it comes to recording the police in non-public areas (personal home- drug raid @ wrong address...).

djleisure
08-31-2011, 1:38 PM
Looks like a good thing to me. I find it funny how people still say "taped" and "video taped" when they're clearly referring to a digital recording device (ie. cellphone) with no "tape" involved. But that's just a little pet peeve of mine, I guess those same people still listen to records - no biggie. :D

Maestro Pistolero
08-31-2011, 1:39 PM
An excellent, important, and binding ruling in that region. This was in the 1st circuit court of appeals. I would be quite surprised if the defendants took this any further.

choprzrul
08-31-2011, 1:42 PM
If this is a dupe.. then please remove it.. .didn't see anything when I did a search:

http://www.dailytech.com/First+Circuit+Court+of+Appeals+Rules+that+Citizens +Can+Videotape+Police/article22587.htm

Sounds like a good thing... but there seems to be a possible loophole when it comes to recording the police in non-public areas (personal home- drug raid @ wrong address...).

From the above link:

"Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw," the Court continued. "The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status."

The Court concluded that police officers are to expect to deal with certain "burdens" as citizens practice First Amendment rights, but that there needs to be a healthy balance between police officers being videotaped while acting irresponsibly and the harassment of officers with recording devices while they're conducting their duties responsibly.

Oh my, could the bold part be a foundation by which officers would be expected to deal with certain burdens as citizens practice SECOND Amendment rights????

.

Scarecrow Repair
08-31-2011, 1:51 PM
Looks like a good thing to me. I still find it funny how people still say "taped" and "video taped" when they're clearly referring to a digital recording device (ie. cellphone) with no "tape" involved. But that's just a little pet peeve of mine, I guess those same people still listen to records - no biggie. :D

And dial phones, and catch flights, and buy diesel from gas stations, and cut down trees to cut them up to burn them up.

Librarian
08-31-2011, 1:58 PM
See also Volokh -- http://volokh.com/2011/08/29/first-amendment-right-to-openly-record-police-officers-in-public/

And it's First Circuit, so doesn't apply everywhere. Yet.

furyous68
08-31-2011, 2:46 PM
Sorry guys.. I assumed it was a higher court.. just kinda skimmed the article. My bad!

I edited the title.

jwkincal
08-31-2011, 2:49 PM
Looks like a good thing to me. I find it funny how people still say "taped" and "video taped" when they're clearly referring to a digital recording device (ie. cellphone) with no "tape" involved. But that's just a little pet peeve of mine, I guess those same people still listen to records - no biggie. :D

What does the "dj" in your screen name stand for?

djleisure
08-31-2011, 2:56 PM
What does the "dj" in your screen name stand for?
Disc Jockey, because when I was a rave DJ from 1990-1996, I spun records. ;)

(But I get your point.) :D

Also, my original jab was at the writer of the column, no the OP's post title, just to be clear.

stix213
08-31-2011, 3:16 PM
Looks like a good thing to me. I find it funny how people still say "taped" and "video taped" when they're clearly referring to a digital recording device (ie. cellphone) with no "tape" involved. But that's just a little pet peeve of mine, I guess those same people still listen to records - no biggie. :D

Like how we say we're going to install a Bullet Button on an AK, when there is clearly no button? :p

My favorite though is "let me text you this pic I just took"

oni.dori
08-31-2011, 3:34 PM
Looks like a good thing to me. I find it funny how people still say "taped" and "video taped" when they're clearly referring to a digital recording device (ie. cellphone) with no "tape" involved. But that's just a little pet peeve of mine, I guess those same people still listen to records - no biggie. :D

It's just a colloquialism, just like calling the TV a "tube", even though modern LED/LCD/plasma screens don't operate on vacuum tubes any more.

Mike's Custom
08-31-2011, 3:39 PM
I look at it like if they can film me to protect themselves then I can film them to protect myself. What makes them better then anyone else?

djleisure
08-31-2011, 5:48 PM
It's just a colloquialism, just like calling the TV a "tube", even though modern LED/LCD/plasma screens don't operate on vacuum tubes any more.
Yep. Thanks. It's also made its way into the vernacular. Understood. ;)

Sniper3142
08-31-2011, 6:32 PM
This ruling is a GOOD THING for citizens.

I'd love a similar ruling from the Supreme Court (wishful thinking).

Oh, and another saying that hasn't changed despite technology...

"Dropping a Dime" on someone. Clearly no longer accurate but still used as are many other sayings.

jamesob
08-31-2011, 6:50 PM
If your in my home everyone is on camera, no matter if your l.e or not.

Kid Stanislaus
08-31-2011, 7:08 PM
An excellent, important, and binding ruling in that region. This was in the 1st circuit court of appeals. I would be quite surprised if the defendants took this any further.



The SCOTUS would probably not take an appeal unless another district court had made a contradictory ruling. But it'd sure be sweet!;)

Sgt Raven
08-31-2011, 7:15 PM
It's just a colloquialism, just like calling the TV a "tube", even though modern LED/LCD/plasma screens don't operate on vacuum tubes any more.

Even after TV's switched to transistors instead of vacuum tubes they still had a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube). :p A good CRT Monitor is still the 'gold standard' for photo editing.

swilson
08-31-2011, 8:15 PM
The Court concluded that police officers are to expect to deal with certain "burdens" as citizens practice First Amendment rights


Like the burden of proof put on the innocent when an out-of-line officer violates any of the first ten amendments? (not so much the 3rd)


but that there needs to be a healthy balance between police officers being videotaped while acting irresponsibly and the harassment of officers with recording devices while they're conducting their duties responsibly.

By that logic we can turn it around and consider red light and cop car cameras harassment too: there needs to be a healthy balance between citizens being videotaped while acting irresponsibly and the harassment of citizens with recording devices while they're going about their daily lives.

Burbur
08-31-2011, 9:21 PM
... but there seems to be a possible loophole when it comes to recording the police in non-public areas (personal home- drug raid @ wrong address...).

First of all, my home and business are protected by near seamless (what you do in the bathroom is your own business) video recording. I can't be expected to disable this system just because a cop barges in through my door.

Second, "loophole" is one of my pet peeve words. It is not an oversight that this judge did not affirm the People's right to record within their own home, it was not tested by this case. Furthermore, I do not need the permission of this or any other court to film anything and everything within my own god damned home.

Hunt
08-31-2011, 9:49 PM
I look at it like if they can film me to protect themselves then I can film them to protect myself. What makes them better then anyone else?

I like, let's turn the surveillance back on the State in a transparent manner without spin, wake the people up.

NeuTag
08-31-2011, 10:29 PM
I like, let's turn the surveillance back on the State in a transparent manner without spin, wake the people up.

With the ability to tape everyday occurrences, brings to mine a young woman on an Oakland bus that instigated a forty year old black man into attacking a mouthy 67 year old vet and known verbal trouble maker into defending himself physically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et1FRAmFa64

oni.dori
09-01-2011, 2:17 AM
Yep. Thanks. It's also made its way into the vernacular. Understood. ;)

In essence, colloquialisms and vernacular are synonymous, because a colloquialism is a form of vernacular.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-01-2011, 7:28 AM
From the above link:



Oh my, could the bold part be a foundation by which officers would be expected to deal with certain burdens as citizens practice SECOND Amendment rights????

.


You dreamer, you! Expecting public servants to actually serve the public.


The Raisuli

furyous68
09-01-2011, 8:49 AM
First of all, my home and business are protected by near seamless (what you do in the bathroom is your own business) video recording. I can't be expected to disable this system just because a cop barges in through my door.

Second, "loophole" is one of my pet peeve words. It is not an oversight that this judge did not affirm the People's right to record within their own home, it was not tested by this case. Furthermore, I do not need the permission of this or any other court to film anything and everything within my own god damned home.

Dude.. chill out... it was just an observation!

vantec08
09-01-2011, 8:58 AM
You dreamer, you! Expecting public servants to actually serve the public.


The Raisuli

Yea . . ... we exist to serve the gubmint. What makes ya think it exists to serve US??

Untamed1972
09-01-2011, 11:34 AM
The Court added that the police officers should have understood this all along, and that videotaping public officials is not limited to the press.


DUH!!! Gotta love how the COPs will so easily do something that's blantantll wrong and then give you that innocent smile and say "Well it's ok till the court says it's wrong."

These cases didn't cover any new ground. Case law on "expectation of privacy" in public places has been on the books for decades. It never should have had to get to court in the first place.

Nothing chaps my hide more than hypocracy.......especially from those in positions of power.

sreiter
09-01-2011, 3:30 PM
I was going to post this but thought it wasn't 2a.

Anyway, I didnt't read the decision. Did the court find ok in general, or was it "ok to record when not in secret"?

I remember the case hinged on the cops interpreting the anti-wiretap law, which clearly stated "in secret" as "being recorded when recorder (cell phone) was in plain view"

BPD wanted to settle because thy knew the cops were 100% wrong , but i think the ACLU stepped in and wanted to take this to a higher court and make it a 1a case

BannedinBritain
09-01-2011, 3:39 PM
Even though it's only one circuit opinion, this is full of WIN!

five.five-six
09-01-2011, 3:44 PM
there is no expectation of privacy in publicly assessable areas

Hunt
09-01-2011, 5:28 PM
Yea . . ... we exist to serve the gubmint. What makes ya think it exists to serve US??

more like, "aggressively managed tax livestock"

Sgt Raven
09-01-2011, 6:38 PM
First of all, my home and business are protected by near seamless (what you do in the bathroom is your own business) video recording. I can't be expected to disable this system just because a cop barges in through my door.

Second, "loophole" is one of my pet peeve words. It is not an oversight that this judge did not affirm the People's right to record within their own home, it was not tested by this case. Furthermore, I do not need the permission of this or any other court to film anything and everything within my own god damned home.

You might want to post signs at all entrances that "the premises are under video surveillance". Then they can't say they weren't informed. ;)

pitchbaby
09-01-2011, 7:50 PM
From the above link:



Oh my, could the bold part be a foundation by which officers would be expected to deal with certain burdens as citizens practice SECOND Amendment rights????

.

I was thinking the exact same thing... and furthermore... "protections of the First SECOND Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status."

There... I fixed the ruling for everyone... HAHA

Mulay El Raisuli
09-02-2011, 4:43 AM
Yea . . ... we exist to serve the gubmint. What makes ya think it exists to serve US??


Just a silly thought of mine, I guess.


The Raisuli