You have the right to record police in public, federal court rules(universalhub.com)
universalhub.com
You have the right to record police in public, federal court rules
https://www.universalhub.com/2020/you-have-right-secretly-record-police-public
147 comments
I had a cop in an unmarked car (with no lights or siren) try to shove me out of my lane while following a speeder he was going to ticket when their lane ended. I get pulled over instead for holding my ground and after explaining how he broke the law in so many ways he made a whole show of checking out the vehicle while monitoring for cameras.
I'm pretty concerned about how this ends. It's clear there's a major problem in police departments within the US and it is getting worse instead of better for a few reasons:
1) There a significant camaraderie that is very much part of the job. Unlike most jobs, police depend on their coworkers to keep them alive. From a game theory POV, the price of defection (not corroborating the a partner's story, or testifying against another officer) is extremely high.
2) Confidence in police is at a record low, the majority of American adults no longer trust police. This will yield an increased 'us vs. them' mentality and even more divisiveness. Officers that were more moderate/compassionate will be squeezed from both sides: general public assuming they are corrupt and fellow officers questioning their 'loyalty'. This pressure will cause some number of the moderate/compassionate officers to leave.
3) Calls to cut funding for police departments as well as the public perception changes economic incentives. From an economic POV, rational individuals are less likely to choose to be police officers. This means that the average 'rationality' of our nation's police is likely to decrease.
1) There a significant camaraderie that is very much part of the job. Unlike most jobs, police depend on their coworkers to keep them alive. From a game theory POV, the price of defection (not corroborating the a partner's story, or testifying against another officer) is extremely high.
2) Confidence in police is at a record low, the majority of American adults no longer trust police. This will yield an increased 'us vs. them' mentality and even more divisiveness. Officers that were more moderate/compassionate will be squeezed from both sides: general public assuming they are corrupt and fellow officers questioning their 'loyalty'. This pressure will cause some number of the moderate/compassionate officers to leave.
3) Calls to cut funding for police departments as well as the public perception changes economic incentives. From an economic POV, rational individuals are less likely to choose to be police officers. This means that the average 'rationality' of our nation's police is likely to decrease.
I wonder if bad laws might be part of the problem.
If the war on drugs, civil forfeiture or even a low speed limit makes everyone resent the police, is that a root cause?
I wonder if there could be a way that the police are viewed like firemen or postal workers. Did the UK policemen that didn't carry guns have better acceptance in that respect?
If the war on drugs, civil forfeiture or even a low speed limit makes everyone resent the police, is that a root cause?
I wonder if there could be a way that the police are viewed like firemen or postal workers. Did the UK policemen that didn't carry guns have better acceptance in that respect?
Another significant factor is police departments in the USA are almost always hyperlocal, meaning very corrupt practices can fester for a long time, all that has to happen is the sherif/police chief keeps getting re-elected.
[deleted]
> Something does seem wrong about police in public not wanting to be recorded while doing their (taxpayer funded) job
For devil's advocate, there's a lot of negative feelings toward workplace surveillance, and for good reason. Having everything you're doing recorded isn't a very good feeling. It really takes away freedoms of judgement and latitude.
Whether or not you think police should have any freedom of latitude is a debate in and of itself, I suppose. I come from a city that has an apparently unusually strong track record with traditionally disadvantaged peoples (POC, homeless, immigrants, etc.) so I have very different gut reactions about police than most of the internet.
For devil's advocate, there's a lot of negative feelings toward workplace surveillance, and for good reason. Having everything you're doing recorded isn't a very good feeling. It really takes away freedoms of judgement and latitude.
Whether or not you think police should have any freedom of latitude is a debate in and of itself, I suppose. I come from a city that has an apparently unusually strong track record with traditionally disadvantaged peoples (POC, homeless, immigrants, etc.) so I have very different gut reactions about police than most of the internet.
Workplace surveillance generally isn't surveilling someone with extra authority to end someone's life (whether literally or just putting them behind bars) and then have their word (and only their word) trusted in a court of law.
Workplace surveillance generally isn't surveilling someone doing their work in public which usually has significantly different privacy expectations.
Workplace surveillance generally isn't surveilling someone doing their work in public which usually has significantly different privacy expectations.
Entirely setting aside the current debate on whether police have enough accountability for the unique powers they wield...
Public sector employees are subject to extra scrutiny that private-sector employees are not. That's simply part and parcel of being employed by a democratic government. Your employer represents the general public, and therefore you are accountable to the general public.
For example, government employee salaries are public record. And not just in-theory records, this data is often easily-searched online databases. If you're employed in the private sector, having your compensation disclosed is considered a breach of privacy; it's considered mandatory in the public sector.
So yeah, I think it's reasonable to expect a certain level of workplace surveillance in the public sector that would be unacceptable for a private company.
Public sector employees are subject to extra scrutiny that private-sector employees are not. That's simply part and parcel of being employed by a democratic government. Your employer represents the general public, and therefore you are accountable to the general public.
For example, government employee salaries are public record. And not just in-theory records, this data is often easily-searched online databases. If you're employed in the private sector, having your compensation disclosed is considered a breach of privacy; it's considered mandatory in the public sector.
So yeah, I think it's reasonable to expect a certain level of workplace surveillance in the public sector that would be unacceptable for a private company.
Last I checked, they're not drafting police officers in the US.
If it hurts your feelings to be recorded while performing your public service job: find a new job.
If it hurts your feelings to be recorded while performing your public service job: find a new job.
"Find a new job" is equivalent to "move to a different country". It's a bullshit response that implies that a certain group should be allowed to do something controversial.
If you're going to exercise exceptional infringement on someone then you should be able to offer a solid rationale.
If you're going to exercise exceptional infringement on someone then you should be able to offer a solid rationale.
>Find a new job" is equivalent to "move to a different country".
No it isn't. Switching from cop to ditch digger doesn't require an immigration visa, learning a new language and culture, figuring out the metric system, uprooting your family and maybe supporting your spouse because they won't be able to acquire a job in the new country. Shall I go on?
No it isn't. Switching from cop to ditch digger doesn't require an immigration visa, learning a new language and culture, figuring out the metric system, uprooting your family and maybe supporting your spouse because they won't be able to acquire a job in the new country. Shall I go on?
> If you're going to exercise exceptional infringement on someone then you should be able to offer a solid rationale.
You're almost all the way there to thinking this through. Keep going!
You're almost all the way there to thinking this through. Keep going!
Is being able to record the police controversial?
Police service is not a job for everyone, what applies to factory jobs does not apply to it. It is a position that by definition requires good psychological profile, good reputation, unique qualifications, and so on. Such person surely has no problem finding a job. The police is not there to employ the unemployed.
We give police extra rights over the average citizen. Those extra rights must come with oversight, otherwise they'll be abused heavily (which, depending on region, does seem to be happening a lot).
You are missapplying the term. 'workplace surveillance' is continous surveilance by your boss / employer.
The ones recording here are the public (customer?), and it's not continous, its occasional - so it's a completely different phenomenon.
The ones recording here are the public (customer?), and it's not continous, its occasional - so it's a completely different phenomenon.
In the case of the police, being subject to workplace surveillance should be part of the job. When someone is given the authority to exercise power over the public, trust in them should never be implicit.
I agree with the thought process here, but the reality is that almost no one wants to be recorded in public, especially knowing that it can easily be posted and shared online, where they will likely look like the bad guy.
Cashiers that make $10 an hour are under more surveillance and public exposure than cops are. Police are often the highest paid employees on a government's payroll, often making more than software engineers do, and they get to retire with a full pension after only 20 years of working.
Given that they're the strong arm of the state, and that they're paid handsomely to be it, they can at least handle the same amount of accountability that cashiers do, if not more.
Given that they're the strong arm of the state, and that they're paid handsomely to be it, they can at least handle the same amount of accountability that cashiers do, if not more.
Comparing compensation of cashiers and police officers is unfair in my opinion. Police officers risk dying in line of duty. Would you play Russian Roulette for say $100k? I wouldn't.
Actually, retail workers and cashiers have similar murder rates as cops do[1].
[1] https://www.vox.com/2014/12/2/7313827/workplace-homicide-mur...
[1] https://www.vox.com/2014/12/2/7313827/workplace-homicide-mur...
Its not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs.
It is still riskier job than a cashier or software developer. OP's comment about police compensation is irrelevant, IMO.
Talking about risk, would you play a Russian roulette for $100? If you win, you will make $100 in less than a minute, far better hourly pay-rate than a police officer or a pilot.
Talking about risk, would you play a Russian roulette for $100? If you win, you will make $100 in less than a minute, far better hourly pay-rate than a police officer or a pilot.
But not a riskier job, than say a delivery driver, I doubt you hold them in the same esteem.
Risk is determined by actuaries. I say let the money do that talking.
You mean let the police be privately funded ? Well, the rich can then rest in peace.
Police departments have insurance.
Farm work is more dangerous than being a cop, and the federal government lets children younger than twelve work on a farm unless a state sets its own rules. Age, hour, overtime and minimum wage provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act that protect young workers in other fields don't apply. Seventeen states have exempted farm work from most or all their child labor laws: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming.
They're not really comparing compensation outside of the context of surveillance. They're saying that $10/hr cashiers are more heavily watched than police officers. It seems to me that we should maybe have more oversight over individuals whom we decide to present with lethal weapons as tools?
Kinda makes one feel like money is treated as more important than human life, when you look at it from that perspective.
Kinda makes one feel like money is treated as more important than human life, when you look at it from that perspective.
How do you prove that cashiers are recorded more than police? I also don’t think there is any indication that police are generally the highest paid government employees.
> How do you prove that cashiers are recorded more than police?
You've never worked as a cashier. If one is behind the till, they have a direct camera on them for their entire shift.
You've never worked as a cashier. If one is behind the till, they have a direct camera on them for their entire shift.
Usually several cameras, all pointed at the cashier and their hands from different angles, with even more cameras littered throughout their workplace.
I have. It depends where you work. I am curious what the point of that is because cameras don’t determine whether cash is improperly removed from the register.
As I understand it, there's a lot more to it than stealing from the till. I used to work for a company that was peripheral to the security industry, so I got a lot of their literature. One was a pamphlet showing more than a dozen fiddles that are possible at the cash register. I've also read that most shoplifting is an inside job, at least involving an inside helper.
There's stuff like having a bar code on the palm of your hand, so you scan a cheap item while passing an expensive item through the scanner.
There's stuff like having a bar code on the palm of your hand, so you scan a cheap item while passing an expensive item through the scanner.
Shop lifting, even at point of sale, does not occur inside the cash register. To that end you would be monitoring the customer, which can include employees on the customer side of the transaction.
> Shop lifting, even at point of sale, does not occur inside the cash register.
But money-skimming does. I know someone who got fired for that... After being caught on camera.
But money-skimming does. I know someone who got fired for that... After being caught on camera.
How much was their till off?
I don't know. I was just a front of house, not a shift lead.
My understanding of what happened is that the till was counted as off, and then it was confirmed that it was them through the cameras.
There are anywhere from 2 - ~6 people who can open the till in the store at any time at that location, thus the need for the cameras.
Edit: Obviously not the best OpSec, but that was the workflow at that point, and hiring enough staff to make that not the case was non-feasible.
My understanding of what happened is that the till was counted as off, and then it was confirmed that it was them through the cameras.
There are anywhere from 2 - ~6 people who can open the till in the store at any time at that location, thus the need for the cameras.
Edit: Obviously not the best OpSec, but that was the workflow at that point, and hiring enough staff to make that not the case was non-feasible.
As a customer, I’ve simply been given the wrong change and been told that I paid with a $10 and not a $20. Most of the time I take their word for it, but once I was actually paying attention and had a manager come over and count down the til.
True. Granted, the marketing material that I saw was 20+ years ago, and the recording was still done with videotape. One product would superimpose a text feed of the register tape on the video, so they were recorded simultaneously.
> I have. It depends where you work.
Is the company that you worked for, are they still in business? I'd be surprised if they were. If they are, I'm curious how large this business is. B/c I suspect they are able to charge it (the losses) to the owners.
Is the company that you worked for, are they still in business? I'd be surprised if they were. If they are, I'm curious how large this business is. B/c I suspect they are able to charge it (the losses) to the owners.
Simply look overhead next time you're paying for something. There's a camera on the cash drawer, a camera watching your face, a camera watching their face, probably a camera watching the whole lane from a wider perspective.
I used to work on point-of-sale equipment, typically fixing scanner-scale or receipt-printer issues, but all the database equipment is in the same back room as the security DVR. The number of cameras in a modern store is staggering, and nowhere are they more concentrated than the checkout area.
I used to work on point-of-sale equipment, typically fixing scanner-scale or receipt-printer issues, but all the database equipment is in the same back room as the security DVR. The number of cameras in a modern store is staggering, and nowhere are they more concentrated than the checkout area.
That completely depends on where you shop and your geography. There aren’t that many cameras in Texas or Kuwait.
> There aren’t that many cameras in Texas
Yeah no. I worked in a restaurant. There was one camera directly on both tills. One camera indirectly on each till. One camera directly in the main queue area and multiple indirectly on the main queue and otherwise covering the remainder of the lobby from multiple angles.
Edit: This is just the front of house stuff. The back of house had it's own complement which I won't detail here for obvious reasons.
Yeah no. I worked in a restaurant. There was one camera directly on both tills. One camera indirectly on each till. One camera directly in the main queue area and multiple indirectly on the main queue and otherwise covering the remainder of the lobby from multiple angles.
Edit: This is just the front of house stuff. The back of house had it's own complement which I won't detail here for obvious reasons.
I have worked in restaurants as well. Restaurants are not considered retail points of sale. The primary difference from an accounting perspective is till assignment. Again, your one experience at is not representative of the world as a whole.
You can also look around any time you go inside a Target or Walmart and see plenty of camera's, plus sometimes some displays showing that there are cameras.
Edit: In addition, we had till assignment at that location. However, there were at least 2 people there at all times who could open the till (Shift lead + assignee), and there was usually more (Managers, other shift leads who were still on shift).
Edit: In addition, we had till assignment at that location. However, there were at least 2 people there at all times who could open the till (Shift lead + assignee), and there was usually more (Managers, other shift leads who were still on shift).
Yes, they are looking for shop lifters.
You notice you shift ground when your comments are challenged? I also enjoy how a thread a about police and cameras turns into everybody suddenly becoming an expert on retail, accounting, and security because they have been in a store before or once worked a minimum wage job and yet have absolutely no idea how the money is handled.
You notice you shift ground when your comments are challenged? I also enjoy how a thread a about police and cameras turns into everybody suddenly becoming an expert on retail, accounting, and security because they have been in a store before or once worked a minimum wage job and yet have absolutely no idea how the money is handled.
> You notice you shift ground when your comments are challenged?
No?
Employees are in the store, and are put under surveillancece along with everyone else.
> yet have absolutely no idea how the money is handled.
No, I definitely know how the money is handled at the restaurant I was at. I don't know the figures for the one individual, but I know how it's handled in general.
If you'd like to email me (it's in my bio) than I can give a run down, but I'm not going to detail something like that in a public forum.
Edit: > everybody suddenly becoming an expert on retail, accounting, and security
I'm not claiming to be an expert. You claimed "There aren’t that many cameras in Texas"
I provided evidence you were wrong. That is all I've done in this thread.
Edit 2: Edit 1 not quite accurate. I also provided an anecdote about what happened to/with a coworker.
No?
Employees are in the store, and are put under surveillancece along with everyone else.
> yet have absolutely no idea how the money is handled.
No, I definitely know how the money is handled at the restaurant I was at. I don't know the figures for the one individual, but I know how it's handled in general.
If you'd like to email me (it's in my bio) than I can give a run down, but I'm not going to detail something like that in a public forum.
Edit: > everybody suddenly becoming an expert on retail, accounting, and security
I'm not claiming to be an expert. You claimed "There aren’t that many cameras in Texas"
I provided evidence you were wrong. That is all I've done in this thread.
Edit 2: Edit 1 not quite accurate. I also provided an anecdote about what happened to/with a coworker.
Well, this was a surprise to me. I had been under the impression that police had better salaries than what appears to be the case. A quick web search suggests that the average salary is roughly $60-65k. I had thought they were more around $80-120k, depending on position and seniority. I don’t recall where I got that impression.
As mentioned by others, cashiers are monitored by security cameras constantly. It’s just that footage of them stealing from the till doesn’t go viral. Police brutality does.
As mentioned by others, cashiers are monitored by security cameras constantly. It’s just that footage of them stealing from the till doesn’t go viral. Police brutality does.
Police work a _lot_ of overtime in most jurisdictions.
So the base salary may be misleadingly low. Especially since many police contracts have a 2x or even 3x payout for overtime under some conditions.
As with many statistics around policing there is a deliberate and calculated intent to muddy the waters and prevent effective policy discussion.
So the base salary may be misleadingly low. Especially since many police contracts have a 2x or even 3x payout for overtime under some conditions.
As with many statistics around policing there is a deliberate and calculated intent to muddy the waters and prevent effective policy discussion.
Median salary for cops is $105k[1] in states where the median salary for software engineers is $96k. They can surpass $250k a year with overtime[2].
[1] https://www.nj.com/news/2017/05/how_much_is_the_median_cop_s...
[2] https://www.nj.com/somerset/2019/11/4-cops-in-this-nj-town-e...
[1] https://www.nj.com/news/2017/05/how_much_is_the_median_cop_s...
[2] https://www.nj.com/somerset/2019/11/4-cops-in-this-nj-town-e...
Does that count overtime? That's a significant piece of comp for many police officers.
I have observed others with a similar impression so I suspect it is a common misconception. Good on you for having the courage to acknowledge it.
You don’t monitor theft from the till with cameras but by counting the cash in the till against a reported balance. This is determinate down to the penny without any camera.
Oh, but you do! Not all till shortages are due to theft, and not all theft at cash registers happens in ways that the till is off. Folks do lots of tricks to try to make sure the till count is correct: For example, scanning cheap items, not scanning things, charging more than the register total (and pocketing the rest)... and so on. Occasionally, it gets you out of being in trouble (some dude took goods and walked out of a place I worked at, after I scanned it but obviously before he paid, for example). Most places have variance built in as well - no one is perfect, after all. Some are stricter than others, and many places share the till between people because it takes more labor to do otherwise.
The till not being able to catch everything is a reason for the cameras, and the reason they aren't just around the till. (cosmetics often have cameras as do receiving areas). Bag checks are really common as well. Sure, you could just have an inventory management system, but again, these aren't foolproof nor do these systems give you a clue about who is stealing or if it is a simple mistake.
The till not being able to catch everything is a reason for the cameras, and the reason they aren't just around the till. (cosmetics often have cameras as do receiving areas). Bag checks are really common as well. Sure, you could just have an inventory management system, but again, these aren't foolproof nor do these systems give you a clue about who is stealing or if it is a simple mistake.
You wouldn’t be able to distinguish between a genuine mistake and theft without a camera. The same applies to police.
? It’s an accounting balance. The numbers match or they don’t.
If they don’t match, then what? Is ot a mistake or was it intentional?
It doesn't matter. It is reciprocated against the employee either way.
Damages from common/reasonable mistakes cannot just be shifted onto employees in sane juridictions.
In sane jurisdictions employees are naturally motivated to make fewer mistakes without need from cameras.
As the parent comment says, police are tax payer funded and hold extra power over citizens. I think that trumps them being worried about "looking like the bad guy".
anonunivgrad(3)
Then maybe people who don't like that shouldn't take jobs working for the public in public while enforcing public laws to uphold public standards of public safety and public order.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
This is quite well put
I can't edit now, but I'm addressing the point that it "seems wrong" for cops to not want to be recorded. It seems completely natural. I'm not saying they shouldn't be filmed or should attempt to stop it, just that it's not surprising that they might not like it.
the right to record isn't necessarily the right to publish.
Yes, of course, but the police are not just anybody.
Not being a cop is free. =)
Notably, they struck down a state law forbidding recording police in public. This is great! Police need accountability.
Now we just need some accountability for law makers. Who thought it was a good idea to ban recording police? What could the justification for that law possibly be?
Now we just need some accountability for law makers. Who thought it was a good idea to ban recording police? What could the justification for that law possibly be?
The law didn't ban recording police officers, it banned one-party secret recordings, and the police were treated the same as everyone else.
Yeah, this is actually an interesting case and one well worth litigating. I agree with the outcome (perhaps obviously) but it's good to have it argued in open court.
What you just described would outlaw security cameras which is clearly not what the actual law said.
Security cameras that record audio are illegal in California.
Security cameras that are not clearly visible (i.e., with a sign pointing them out) are also illegal in CA.
The penalties for operating such a camera are low, but enough to prevent evidence from holding up in court.
Anyway, the ruling that hidden recording of police is OK is great news, IMHO.
Security cameras that are not clearly visible (i.e., with a sign pointing them out) are also illegal in CA.
The penalties for operating such a camera are low, but enough to prevent evidence from holding up in court.
Anyway, the ruling that hidden recording of police is OK is great news, IMHO.
>Security cameras that record audio are illegal in California.
It depends.
The two-party consent rule applies when the audio being recorded is in a location where there is an expectation of privacy because the communication is considered confidential. Generally, this doesn't apply to cameras as long as their use doesn't violate community norms and they are used in an area without an expectation of privacy. Using a security camera on your porch is fine because there is no expectation of privacy, but if the microphone is powerful enough to pick up the conversation across the street on the neighbor's porch, that is illegal.
>Security cameras that are not clearly visible (i.e., with a sign pointing them out) are also illegal in CA.
Again, it depends.
There is no two-party consent rule for video recording. You are free to put security cameras anywhere on your property (inside or outside), without notification, including hidden cameras.
There are some exceptions:
1) Commercial operators of vehicles used to transport passengers require notification to passengers when using a video recording device.
2) It is illegal to use a video recording device in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person. This doesn't include areas of a business used to count negotiable instruments.
3) It is illegal to use a video recording device to view the naked body or undergarments of a person, without their consent, under circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
It depends.
The two-party consent rule applies when the audio being recorded is in a location where there is an expectation of privacy because the communication is considered confidential. Generally, this doesn't apply to cameras as long as their use doesn't violate community norms and they are used in an area without an expectation of privacy. Using a security camera on your porch is fine because there is no expectation of privacy, but if the microphone is powerful enough to pick up the conversation across the street on the neighbor's porch, that is illegal.
>Security cameras that are not clearly visible (i.e., with a sign pointing them out) are also illegal in CA.
Again, it depends.
There is no two-party consent rule for video recording. You are free to put security cameras anywhere on your property (inside or outside), without notification, including hidden cameras.
There are some exceptions:
1) Commercial operators of vehicles used to transport passengers require notification to passengers when using a video recording device.
2) It is illegal to use a video recording device in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person. This doesn't include areas of a business used to count negotiable instruments.
3) It is illegal to use a video recording device to view the naked body or undergarments of a person, without their consent, under circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
As someone who operates two Nest cameras (one doorbell, one camera, both record audio) in California with clear line of sight towards public areas (sidewalk and street), I would really like to know what sources make you believe this is illegal. I find that claim very hard to believe.
If you are concerned about this being an issue for you. Place one of the window stickers that came with it in a front window. That should satisfy any need to notify others of possible surveillance.
I linked the law in my other comment — to this non-lawyer's reading, it forbids security cameras that capture audio, but not video-only surveillance cameras.
In California, the two-party consent rule only applies when there is an expectation of privacy.
As an example, dash cams that record audio are legal in California. However, there can be cases when somebody expects to have a confidential conversation with you (on the phone, standing next to the door, or from the backseat) and you must notify them of the audio recording.
As an example, dash cams that record audio are legal in California. However, there can be cases when somebody expects to have a confidential conversation with you (on the phone, standing next to the door, or from the backseat) and you must notify them of the audio recording.
[deleted]
The county officials would not remove traffic cameras, so citizens had to put it on voting ballet in Houston and force the county to remove them.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03572911723/houst...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03572911723/houst...
There seems to be an inverse relationship with power and accountability/responsibility: the less power you have, the more accountability; the more power you have, the less accountability.
Okay, so how many officers could be found guilty of this:
> Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. > For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
If a cop orders you to stop filming them, which the courts have affirmed that citizens have a right to do, they have committed a felony, punishable by prison sentence.
> Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. > For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
If a cop orders you to stop filming them, which the courts have affirmed that citizens have a right to do, they have committed a felony, punishable by prison sentence.
I don’t think that’s how it works. Police officers can and frequently do issue unlawful orders, and you have no legal obligation to comply with those unlawful orders.
There's no law against a police officer stating a request in an authoritative voice, fishing to see if you'll just go ahead and comply. It's on us to clarify whether that's a request or a lawful order.
Highly recommend the YouTube channel “audit the audit”. They show recordings of police interactions with commentary by a knowledgeable lawyer. It’s both entertaining and informative.
Regardless of the laws, there's likely to be more and more recording in the future as surveillance technology advances and more smaller, more sophisticated, and more covert.
Even as far back as a decade ago or more there were posts on HN of youtube videos showing insect-cam R&D proposals for the military. Eventually something like that is bound to make its way down to the consumer level, but even short of that cameras have been getting smaller and more covert.
Today most people have to stand near and point their phones at the police to capture a decent image, but long telephoto lenses are available where you can capture video from far away, and technologies such as Google Glass proved that cameras can be integrated in one's glasses.
That sort of thing will just get more and more prevalent and recordings of police and everyone else are likely to become much more common, no matter what the law says.
Even as far back as a decade ago or more there were posts on HN of youtube videos showing insect-cam R&D proposals for the military. Eventually something like that is bound to make its way down to the consumer level, but even short of that cameras have been getting smaller and more covert.
Today most people have to stand near and point their phones at the police to capture a decent image, but long telephoto lenses are available where you can capture video from far away, and technologies such as Google Glass proved that cameras can be integrated in one's glasses.
That sort of thing will just get more and more prevalent and recordings of police and everyone else are likely to become much more common, no matter what the law says.
Things go in the other direction too: badge cams (and now even barrel mounted cams) have captured some chaotic moments that give a glimpse into the crazy stuff cops deal with from a crazy intense first person perspective. I think there's YouTube channels now dedicated to uploading badge cam footage.
That's actually the best argument for other viewpoints. We have bodycam videos (unless, of course, the cop switches his off because he's going to step outside the confines of the law), now let's also have the impressions of bystanders.
If cops are required (maybe by mechanical/tech constraints) to record via the body cam, that does remove some of the incentive for them to tell others not to record them. There's already a record of them.
Except when the body cam footage inexplicably vanishes most inconveniently (say, during subpoena with a defending cop) and everyone just goes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, repeatedly.
Yeah, it won't help either the most crooked organizations or people.
sounds like we need legislation to require the badge-cam video evidence to be presented the court to the allow any legal proceeding to by the police to continue and any where the proceeding are initiated by a member of the public to be found in their favor automatically if badge-cam footage is not presented.
I think it would be more apt to issue a jury instruction that loss of evidence against law enforcement by law enforcement can be interpreted as a sign of guilt, similar to how pleading the 5th can be interpreted as a sign of guilt in civil cases. It does not conclusively mean they are guilty (accidents do happen), but it can be considered in cases that lack other evidence.
Furthermore, if the person who "lost" the evidence can be found, they should be tried as a conspirator.
Furthermore, if the person who "lost" the evidence can be found, they should be tried as a conspirator.
I wouldn't go that far. I would agree for cases that don't have any other evidence. But cases that have other evidence could still be valid.
It's not about incentives, it's about opportunities. Why should free citizens not have the opportunity to tell their side of the story with pictures? The cops have all the opportunity they need, and the backup of the political apparatus as well.
I never said that people shouldn't have that right. Just that the incentive for an officer to violate that right can go down if the officer already knows that they are being recorded by body cams (if it's physically mandatory and the storing organization isn't corrupt).
I'm curious how the switch works exactly and if there's a record of the switching state left anywhere on the device.
They're actually pretty amazing devices. https://www.axon.com/products/axon-body-3
They're actually pretty amazing devices. https://www.axon.com/products/axon-body-3
Here are a few Youtube channels that people may find interesting. They mostly post raw bodycam footage.
(sort by "Most Popular of All Time" on each page for the good stuff)
https://www.youtube.com/c/PoliceActivity/videos
https://www.youtube.com/c/VideoLeakPolice/videos
https://www.youtube.com/c/PoliceCompilation/videos
(sort by "Most Popular of All Time" on each page for the good stuff)
https://www.youtube.com/c/PoliceActivity/videos
https://www.youtube.com/c/VideoLeakPolice/videos
https://www.youtube.com/c/PoliceCompilation/videos
Wasn't this already established by the supreme court?
edit: it was an appeals court. so why is this a headline? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe
edit: it was an appeals court. so why is this a headline? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe
This was about a ban on secretly recording the police while they’re in public, which implies the on-duty police have fewer protections than normal citizens.
The other case was about a law attempting to give police more protections than normal citizens.
The other case was about a law attempting to give police more protections than normal citizens.
Interestingly, the OP was ruled by the same court as Glik v. Cunniffe. Different judges. Would be nice to see it ruled on by the Supreme Court to set precedent at that level, I'd assume there isn't a precedent from SC based on these two cases.
never thought i’d see UHub here!
this has been a long-running massachusetts thing: PD hates being recorded in public.
MA is also one of the very last remaining two-party consent states, which is also an oddity.
this has been a long-running massachusetts thing: PD hates being recorded in public.
MA is also one of the very last remaining two-party consent states, which is also an oddity.
WA is also two-party consent for recording.
I found a WA law against recording private communications unless you first announce (or it's apparent) that you're recording it ... or you're a 'frequently-published' media employee (in which case consent can't be withdrawn).
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030
(I didn't find one, but I suspect that any public-recording law would be more restrictive.)
"The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals first acknowledged the First Amendment right of citizens to film police officers carrying out their duties in public in the case Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (1995). Later, in Lewis v. State, Dept. of Licensing, 157 Wash.2d 446 (2006), the Washington State Supreme Court also ruled in favor of recording public police activity in the context of a traffic stop."
http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/August-2019/... <== "Rights and Limits on Filming in Public Facilities"
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030
(I didn't find one, but I suspect that any public-recording law would be more restrictive.)
"The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals first acknowledged the First Amendment right of citizens to film police officers carrying out their duties in public in the case Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (1995). Later, in Lewis v. State, Dept. of Licensing, 157 Wash.2d 446 (2006), the Washington State Supreme Court also ruled in favor of recording public police activity in the context of a traffic stop."
http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/August-2019/... <== "Rights and Limits on Filming in Public Facilities"
Is that a "reasonable expectation of privacy thing" because that's hard to argue on a public street.
Headline should read “Court re-affirms you can video record cops despite the fact that cops have been beating/arresting/killing people for doing so even in states where it is explicitly legal for years”.
Which states?
Only 50 states.
It’s good to know that know it is legal in the remaining states too.
Which states?
Only 50 states.
It’s good to know that know it is legal in the remaining states too.
Does anyone have an estimate of how many times the court has ruled on this in favor of recording? I'm surprised this is still a question.
This is an obviously correct result, it’s just a bummer it took a while to get here. Now the next step is to hold police personally liable for violations of people’s rights.
The Supreme Court decided Tanzin v Tanzir a few days ago. They held federal agents personally liable for putting innocent Muslims on the no-fly list because they wouldn't inform on their community.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-71_qol1.pdf
The courts are getting closer to what you ask.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-71_qol1.pdf
The courts are getting closer to what you ask.
Similar rulings about recording the police have happened in the recent past too (past couple years).
Can we record our Bosses and Shrinks too?
Sure.
They are of course free to no longer be your bosses and/or shrinks though.
They are of course free to no longer be your bosses and/or shrinks though.
Depends on the state, and whether the cameras are visible.
I’m curious to go back and read the actual ruling, it’s surprising that the summary suggests that members of the public in public spaces have some expectation of privacy— that seems to run in the face of what I’ve previously read about photography in public.
Is it the surreptitious nature of the recording that creates the issue?
Is it the surreptitious nature of the recording that creates the issue?
The law appears to be this one[1], which bans secretly recording "wire" communications or "oral" communications, the latter specifically meaning speech. So it sounds like, in addition to secrecy, it's the audio that's at issue; a pure video recording wouldn't fall under this law even if done without knowledge or consent.
The opinion itself is here[2]. In fact the first two sentences of the opinion mention that expectation of privacy is irrelevant to this case:
> Massachusetts, like other states concerned about the threat to privacy that commercially available electronic eavesdropping devices pose, makes it a crime to record another person's words secretly and without consent. But, unlike other concerned states, Massachusetts does not recognize any exceptions based on whether that person has an expectation of privacy in what is recorded.
[1] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha...
[2] http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-1586P-01A.pdf
The opinion itself is here[2]. In fact the first two sentences of the opinion mention that expectation of privacy is irrelevant to this case:
> Massachusetts, like other states concerned about the threat to privacy that commercially available electronic eavesdropping devices pose, makes it a crime to record another person's words secretly and without consent. But, unlike other concerned states, Massachusetts does not recognize any exceptions based on whether that person has an expectation of privacy in what is recorded.
[1] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha...
[2] http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-1586P-01A.pdf
In America, I believe everyone has the right to record anything in public? This includes citizens recording police, police recording citizens, cities recording public spaces, and residents recording their doorways and streets.
Yeah, you have no expectation of privacy in public. However if you go to say Walmart and start recording, they have to right to ask you to leave or stop.
How about recording anyone in public?
If I get arrested recording the police in public, do I have any recourse? Can I sue the police department for false arrest?
Police Chiefs have said, on the record, with reference to photographers who have been arrested (not necessarily for filming the police):
"We can't expect our officers to be constitutional lawyers."
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
"We can't expect our officers to be constitutional lawyers."
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
[deleted]
That sure is nice. Meanwhile in Croatia, filming the police is a violation of GDPR, according to Croatian data protection agency.
All this will do is make police react to someone bringing up a phone to record video similar to someone pulling out a knife or a gun. Beat the shit out of them quickly before they can start recording, put em in cuffs.
I hope you're wrong. But if you're right, the answer is to record that, by enough people that they can't arrest them all or beat them all up.
So, streaming your dashcam video off-site the whole time you're in the car isn't practical given bandwidth constraints. But what if it's only when you're being pulled over? What if that happened automatically?
Police lights have distinctive flashing. It should be possible to analyze the images from a rear-facing camera, pick out the flashing, and start up a stream.
Bonus points if your lawyer automatically gets an email with a link to view it live, in case they happen to be in the office...
Seriously, this should be an app.
Police lights have distinctive flashing. It should be possible to analyze the images from a rear-facing camera, pick out the flashing, and start up a stream.
Bonus points if your lawyer automatically gets an email with a link to view it live, in case they happen to be in the office...
Seriously, this should be an app.
Sounds like “Hey Siri, I’m being pulled over” (which is a third party shortcut you have to install)
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/iphone-police-shortcut-rec...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/iphone-police-shortcut-rec...
Meaningless. The right is meaningless in practice. You will be threatened with arrest and likely arrested for resisting arrest if you actually are in danger of videoing anything that's important. The actual act will likely be obscured by policemen who will stand in between, block the view, or shine their flashlights into your camera.
If I see the cops doing something obviously insane, I will turn and walk away. I didn't see anything. When you engage with power, you know not to threaten it.
If I see the cops doing something obviously insane, I will turn and walk away. I didn't see anything. When you engage with power, you know not to threaten it.
> If I see the cops doing something obviously insane, I will turn and walk away. I didn't see anything.
Well, I'm glad that not everyone reacts that way!
People have managed to record police on important matters, and those videos have had a huge impact! The protests that began this summer are among the largest in US history.
Well, I'm glad that not everyone reacts that way!
People have managed to record police on important matters, and those videos have had a huge impact! The protests that began this summer are among the largest in US history.
All rights are meaningless in practice if you are willing to rollover and ignore them.
The good news is that there are other people that are willing to exercize those rights:
e.g. Bay Area Transparency https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwv35xL9AFI
The good news is that there are other people that are willing to exercize those rights:
e.g. Bay Area Transparency https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwv35xL9AFI
> ' If I see the cops doing something obviously insane, I will turn and walk away. I didn't see anything'
Oh my, we'd still live like medieval peasants with that attitude
Oh my, we'd still live like medieval peasants with that attitude
This is one thing Reddit has over HN. By this time, someone with actual insight into law enforcement practices would chime in with justifications for keeping a ban. I’m not seeing that, thus I take the entire discussion with several grains of salt. HN more of an echo chamber than Reddit...wow.
Don’t know what those justifications would be, but we sure won’t know if no one is bringing that information to the table.
Don’t know what those justifications would be, but we sure won’t know if no one is bringing that information to the table.
I saw something really interesting when getting pulled over by the police a while back (on a boat). When they saw us recording them while they were writing a ticket, they shined a bright flashlight at our camera so that it would ruin the exposure and not capture anything useful. They were very deliberate about this and it was quite effective.
Something does seem wrong about police in public not wanting to be recorded while doing their (taxpayer funded) job and holding extra power over the citizen (a police's word in court generally comes with a special authority).