Are Cameras the New Guns?

That will end up in court, probably Supreme Court.

My concern is, unless you are willfully interfering with police action, granting police (or any agency for that matter) unlimited power to hide their actions from the public is a recipe for tyranny.

Amen, this screams tyranny. The whole political system in the US is based on checks and balances. And although this does not directly boil down to the law enforcement, it kind of does...givings checks and balances to the people is a way of distributing the power to those not in office (or, as used in the broadest sense, power).

I'm not trying to be the rebel w/o a cause or anything, but there are some police officers who do act very unprofessional (as not to say that all do though!) and should be held accountable. But if the public cannot record police officers legally, what will be next? We cannot question our politicians either?!?

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than
those who falsely believe they are free." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

is this true?

Simply absurd. If the public can be compelled to testify as witnesses to a crime then we have the right to unobtrusively record any public act that we feel might be one. Period.

Although I'm surprided such provisions to "protect" law-enforcement officers from being photographed / recorded weren't tucked away in to some obscure corner of the various odiferous anti-terrorism laws passed in the knee-jerk reaction to 9/11.

I noticed that the article mentioned that in some areas recording was allowed only if being done by a TV news crew. Our local TV stations run ads inviting people to share their "breaking news" videos for their newscast. I wonder if that can be used as a legal shield, particuarly if you announce out loud "This is for Channel 7 News!". Probably still get a boot upside your head first, though.

More remarkable, this is the 2nd thing today I've agreed with Anonymous Hero on. Clearly an omen of the apocolypse in 2012!

:)

I forget, what is, three in a row or four and we better duck and cover?

On another thread someone said they got a ticket for parking their car nose in instead of nose out or vice versa... Now this? It makes me wonder about the 'land of the free' there seem to be some skewed priorities.
(Don't wory, I'm not being anti US...it just seems we (UK included) are in danger of becoming as restricted as the countries we revile...)
How can taking a picture be illegal? You are not actually 'taking' anything I bet a decent lawyer could shred the law. What if you don't ever view the image? Is the digital data stream illegal? Is the charge on the CCD illegal? If so then surely the reflected light from the scene must be illegal...
Can you sketch the scene? It's madness I tell you! What if you filmed it outside the visible spectrum (say IR)? What about audio? What if you transmit the data live but don't 'record' it? (although someone else might).
It's madness.. the police should encourage us to film them, if they are acting within the law it should support their evidence.
Del

Here is a link to the organization that rates the world's countries economic freedom.

The US is ranked as #8 (and falling). The UK is listed at #11 (and falling). Canada is #7 and essentially stable.

The US status is categorized as mostly free.

...easier to arrest a old lady with a cellphone that a rapist or murderer. Cops are going for what is easy to catch instead of what is really required!

This is really outrageous - it is tyranny alright.

The Canadian Criminal Code doesn't address video afaik, but audio recordings only require the consent of one party to, that is, intended receiver of, radiocommunications or other conversation. If a cop is talking to you, you can certainly record it and be within the law. I'm not sure where they stand on audio recordings made by a bystander (which might technically be illegal, unless the purpose of the recording is to serve justice - that's also specified in the law). Bystander video certainly was not considered illegal, and resulted in an inquiry into the fatal tasering of Robert Dzikansky by RCMP. One lesson learned there though (and in other cases) is that you shouldn't give up any such recordings to police unless you have already made yourself a copy - they're apt to dissapear em and refuse to give it back...

In any encounter with the police you are well advised to make your own documentation, whether audio, video or written. As I learned once from a lawyer, the only reason that the policeman's word is given a higher value than the citizen's word in court is because they make a written record on the spot: their police report. They have the documentation to support their statement and you don't, and in court that means your word is considered "less reliable" if it disagrees with theirs.

In this day and age it is hardly conceivable that the most accurate documentation - by audio or video recording machine, look ma, no pencil! - is not the rule in police practice anyway. But we must help the justice system into the 21st century, then.. Everyone should record their encounters with police.

Anything can be made illegal no matter the injustice. Anyone can fight the issue. And anyone can die in that fight.

In the USA we have our "constitutional rights" and are quite inclined to push the umbrella they provide us to the very limit. Anyone who pushes that way should realize that no legal right is irrevocable.

Artsmith, I can't speak for you folks in Canada; but anyone in the USA when stopped by a policeman who makes a physical move to record the proceedings will find himself facedown on the ground with the handcuffs going on an praying the cop doesn't use a baton or something heavier to get him there. All it will take is for 5 justices to decide that photographing or recording a police investigation is in the same category as yelling "fire" in a theater or making a death threat and that presumed First Amendment right will evaporate. Meantime there are certain to be fools who get their lives messed up because they think they are within their rights.

I live in one of the most liberal areas in the USA and still the situation I describe above is the case in virtually all cities and towns as well as rural places. When a cop stops you the drill is don't move, keep your hands still and visible and don't speak until required to. If someone with a cell phone camera thinks they can record what's happening he/she might get away with it. But if the cop thinks that cell phone or whatever it is looks like a weapon they are in deep physical jeopardy. The law is on their side.

You will not be within the law the moment the cop tells you to stop recording or whatever else you are doing. In a legitimate investigative activity the police orders must be obeyed and if not you are subject to arrest under a number of different statutes like interfering with an investigation or resisting arrest.

We have a murder trial getting ready to start out here over just such a case in which a cop shot a young man who could have been resisting arrest. Whether the cop is convicted will certainly revolve around what was going on in his mind when he pulled the trigger. Coincidentally this event was caught on camera by a bystander. Good idea or not? What would you do in a similar situation?

And I'd also like to mention that it is quite practical to make a pistol that looks just like a cell phone or a mini video camera. Yes they are illegal; but does anyone think a criminal, psycho or gangbanger using one is going to worry about the extra criminal charge for possession?

It could be that the laws in those three states are there partly for the purpose of discouraging bystanders from trying to take pictures with what they know is a camera but the cop (with a gun and on edge already) may think is a weapon.

BTW, before any of you guys get too upset with me and think I am one of those radical right wing law and order types please realize that isn't the case. There are plenty of things the police and other law enforcement types do that irritates me, too. But they are human and we do need them to do the job they do.

Ed Weldon

Bit like the old verse...there are doubtless many similar versions.

This is the story of John O'Day,
who died defending his right of way,
His cause was right and his will was strong,
but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

I'm sure you all know what an argumentative cantankerous old cat I am, but when I'm conversing with the police it's goody kitty yes sir, no sir. I've squirmed out of a few tickets with a bit of servility...and I don't mind, 'cos I know I'm playing the game.
I'm terribly sorry officer, I thought it was a 40 mph limit
Del

"You will not be within the law the moment the cop tells you to stop recording or whatever else you are doing. In a legitimate investigative activity the police orders must be obeyed and if not you are subject to arrest under a number of different statutes like interfering with an investigation or resisting arrest."

I think I understand your point, but the way it is worded you are assigning absolute power to the police at their discretion. Obviously, that is not true.

Just because a police officer orders you to do something does not necessarily mean it is law to follow it.

An extreme example would be an unwarranted search of your property without probable cause.

A more controversial situation might be filming or photographing a police action from a vantage point that is outside the sphere of the scene. If it is reasonably clear that you are not interfering with the police, what cause do they have to suspend your right of assembly and photographing? There has to be cause that the action harms, compromises, or interferes with the police's activity.

If, on the other hand, you are operating within the sphere of the theater the police are operating in, then there is cause to be concerned that your presence and activity is interfering.

I hear you, Ed Weldon, and I agree. No rights are guaranteed and the struggle to maintain a free society is often at risk of your life.

In the area where I live, handguns are extremely rare. Other than illegal weapons leaking into the country from the US, the police are the ones with the concealed weapons. Yes, if they think you are a threat they can shoot you. But the usual practices in USA, about keeping still, your hands where we can see em, etc etc are because guns are so common in your country, which makes a concealed firearm more likely, so police shootings on a 'perceived threat' are more easily justified.

I'm not suggesting that our situation is ideal either. There is a history in this country of fatal police shootings on questionable threats (not armed with firearms either). I myself was once threatened by armed police, in the context that I was the one reporting a crime! An intruder left physical evidence of entry and I reported it and asked for an investigation. A couple days later, the cop who took my statement showed up at the door with another policeman. They were friendly on the doorstep, said they were there to check if everything was ok, so I let them in. The second cop then proceeded to browbeat me with extremely rude and ludicrous remarks, even suggesting that I had fabricated the evidence (for what benefit??? I can't imagine) and made it clear they would not fingerprint, investigate, or test the evidence to verify that it was genuine and no fabrication of mine. At this point I felt pretty angry and I was about to say something angry - no doubt it showed in my face, because at that moment the two police made the same unmistakeable movement, instantly shifting into a fighting stance with their hand going to the hip ready to draw - what weapons they were carrying I do not know.

When I saw that move, I shifted to neutral and quietly and firmly said, if you are not going to investigate then I think you should leave. And they sheepishly agreed, and left. It's clear to me that the abusive cop was deliberately trying to provoke me so that they would have an excuse for violence. With no excuse though, they did not carry it out. Keeping up the pretence of serving the public while wearing the uniform?

I guess that gives me faint hope, that I won't be shot by cops for pulling out a tape recorder or a video camera in this jurisdiction, as long as I stay calm and tell them what I am doing and why.

The problem that some police have criminal partnerships, and use their position to protect those partners instead of the public, is another question. It doesn't take much for democracy to go to the dogs.

It wont stand up in court, especially if the police can use video. A friend of mine had a speeding ticket reversed. He drives a red _______ and he installed the police type cameras aiming front and back that records a 6 hour HD loop of both cameras. He was driving at approx 4mph over the speed limit in a 65mph area and recording how many people tailgated, cut him off, blew horns, gave him the finger and so on. Recording the general nastiness he collected. Most everyone on the road was doing 75mph+. He was pulled over and given a ticket for speeding. The ticket said he was doing 80mph. He hired an Attorney and went to traffic court where the violation was thrown out and he demanded that the county reprimand the officer, which they did over the objection of the police unions. The police have shifted thier job duties and now believe they have the right to victimize the public.

Any public official acting in an official capacity has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Period.

If you don't like it, resign.