Arrested For Recording The Police

for all you who apparently didn't read the whole article, charges were dropped against him.

as for cops saying they can't be recorded without consent... well then how can they record people they pull over, without their consent of being recorded?

I understand the PO's do it for their safety, but it truely is hypocrisy.

"You can't record me cuz I didn't agree! But I can record you whether you like it or not!"

as for complaining about what the guy did... since there is no video, how do we know the PO's weren't royally beating the snot out of the guy?
Sure, PO's can use force when necessary, and "unnecessary force" is all dependent on the situation (which we don't know the exact situation except for what little was told in the article).
Maybe the officer's were only being as necessary as they needed to be, but maybe they were using excessive force.

Without any kind of video as to the exact situation we won't know.
 
taking my own advice? i do as i dont film people
Look, the police have a dirty job and Im pretty sure you wouldnt want to do it. they need the public's support and respect, like any job there will be some that do it well and some that do not. I just dont think every cop has to justify everything they do. (yes they do) If a crack head resists the officer has the power to do what he feels necessary in that situation to make the arrest, if that involves some violence then so be it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think everyone for the most part would agree with you there; but that's not what you said..

you said:

jesus. the same reason its illegal for me to come and film you. You cant film people willy nilly. If someone filmed without my permission I would throw a major wobbly.
Click to expand...

Which is not true; so if i came up to you on the street and filmed you then you can throw all the wobblys you wanted to, but it isn't illegal...
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
While I'd be the first to say "fuck the police" regarding this obvious abuse of authority, I also have to wonder why people bother trying to record shit like this with a cell phone. The recording quality isn't going to be anywhere near good enough to provide anything useful unless you are so close you're practically physically interfering anyway.
Click to expand...

Wrong, because of cell phone recording the killing of Oscar Grant is being investigated and hopefully that cop that shot and killed him will be put away for murder.

Thanks to the people that recorded the incident with their crappy phones we have a case.

R.I.P
Oscar Grant
 
never mind, drunk in public is no way to go through life, unless you're dimebag....
 
SoAndSo said:
seeing as how i cant edit my post

yes, i read the article. If the teenage was instructed to spit the bag out of his mouth and did not comply OF COURSE they are going to try to extract it then and there. Its the kids fault for not complying.

If someone does not drop a weapon and then gets shot is that the cops fault or the subjects for not complying??? same situation, but obviously no one got killed.
Click to expand...

Same situation? a kid with a bag of drugs and a person holding a weapon threateningly.. jebus,where do you live?

it is misuse of a law to protect privacy.. if they are police officers on duty than they should no longer be considered a private citizen and are now an arm of the state. The law unfortunately didn't make for that concession, and technology took leaps and bounds ahead of legislation.

I live in Boston and do not have the police in my existence but it is sad that they have this shield to protect them.

/hums N.W.A.
//walks back into the shadows
 
If it's out in public and the person recording is not interfering with the police officer's job then it shouldn't be a problem; it certainly shouldn't be illegal. After all, sometimes the police need to be policed.

However, I can see why even the best cop might not want to be recorded; if he had to use force on someone resisting arrest then he certainly wouldn't want some dumbass recording it, editing so that only the resisting part is shown, then posting it on YouTube as 'evidence' of police brutality.
 
SockMan! said:
If it's out in public and the person recording is not interfering with the police officer's job then it shouldn't be a problem; it certainly shouldn't be illegal. After all, sometimes the police need to be policed.

However, I can see why even the best cop might not want to be recorded; if he had to use force on someone resisting arrest then he certainly wouldn't want some dumbass recording it, editing so that only the resisting part is shown, then posting it on YouTube as 'evidence' of police brutality.
Click to expand...

too true! I've seen state troopers pull over city police for speeding before. :D

sadly the 2nd part is true too, especially since a lot of schmucks that would watch it on youtube would believe that short clip to be the whole thing, instead of showing the criminal fighting to begin with.
 
SoAndSo said:
jesus. the same reason its illegal for me to come and film you. You cant film people willy nilly. If someone filmed without my permission I would throw a major wobbly.

dont be a douche bag.
Click to expand...

actuly you can do that in PUBLIC the catch is if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy
 
Even though the charges were dropped, I'd be suing that department for all I could get. And I'd win.
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
While I'd be the first to say "fuck the police" regarding this obvious abuse of authority, I also have to wonder why people bother trying to record shit like this with a cell phone. The recording quality isn't going to be anywhere near good enough to provide anything useful unless you are so close you're practically physically interfering anyway.
Click to expand...

Seriously? There are plenty of phone camera videos that have at the very least provoked debate, some serious criminal investigations and even legislative proceedings. For example, close to home for me is the Robert Dziekański death in Vancouver airport after abuse by RCMP. I'm not sure if the video is from a cell phone, but the quality is pretty poor. This case has sparked serious public debate, plenty of investigations into pretty much everything involved (Airport policy, RCMP, use of Tasers and so on). Police tried to hide the video, lied to the public about its content and without the owner of the camera fighting to get the video back and releasing it, I doubt anything more would have come of his death than a brief investigation and writing it off with some excuse.

And just in this relatively small metropolitan area, there have been a couple other similar videos of police misconduct in the past couple years.
 
SoAndSo said:
jesus. the same reason its illegal for me to come and film you. You cant film people willy nilly. If someone filmed without my permission I would throw a major wobbly.

dont be a douche bag.
Click to expand...

Wrong. If your argument the paparazzi would not exist.

I believe it is only illegal to film someone where they have an expectation of privacy. If the police officer can make a case for a public street having an expectation of privacy, I'd like to see that.

The expectation of privacy usually only applies to bathrooms, dressing rooms, and your own house. Being outside, in public, it does not apply.


This seems like a serious breach of this guys rights. I hope he gets a good lawyer and sues the city. If the police weren't doing something wrong, they should not have a problem - and in fact, should welcome video footage. A good cop is helped by being filmed (future lawsuit protection from that suspect, etc).
 
I got a better idea, go back and fix the loopholes in the law. Don't blame the cops for exploiting a loophole in the law. Fuckin criminals been doing it for years.
 
SoAndSo said:
jesus. the same reason its illegal for me to come and film you. You cant film people willy nilly. If someone filmed without my permission I would throw a major wobbly.

dont be a douche bag.
Click to expand...

In public?
 
SoAndSo said:
jesus. the same reason its illegal for me to come and film you. You cant film people willy nilly. If someone filmed without my permission I would throw a major wobbly.

dont be a douche bag.
Click to expand...

Not many places you can get away with saying willy nilly and major wobbly and douche bag all in the same thought. Good on ya LOL
 
Recording video and/or audio in a public place is perfectly legal in the US.

Police departments need to educate their officers on the law before they are given authority to enforce it.
 
A lot of people here are assuming that the police were being overly brutal, and one or two have suggested that they should have held back since it was only drugs. There is one reason to put drugs in your mouth, and that is to swallow them to hide evidence (and yes, teens in particular are stupid enough to do that). That might have killed the kid. Considering what we know, it is certainly possible that the police were aggressively trying to remove the drugs from the kid's mouth in order to save evidence and the kid's life.

On the recording itself, the recording of police does not violate their right to reasonable privacy, so their argument is invalid. However, they do have a reasonable expectation to not be distracted from performing their job. We can't know if the guy making the video was disturbing them unless we can see the video itself though.
 
It saddens me to see people make comments such as...

"it is a dirty job...who cares if they beat up a crackhead"

"criminals use loopholes, why not cops?"

It is a career that is paid for by tax dollars. Cops should follow the letter of the law exactly. It might take great restraint but should that not be a huge qualification for the position? It might seem find that a cop punches a hardened criminal but lets think about what kind of person does that....do we really want that person carrying a loaded gun?

I do not think it is too much to ask for to have police that follow the letter of the law in a calm fashion....it is part of their job.
 
I wonder if google street view has recorded any roadside "attitude adjustments" and if they did would they release it?
 
its not illegal to record police. i would have resisted arrest, unfortunately. prolly end up getting tasered but at least i would ruin the cop's day. just letting him arrest you is what they want. its all about control, and they love to think they have it.
 
Lebowski said:
Since I can't edit, It doesn't surprise me that Simon Glik is a lawyer. We don't have access to said video recording so we don't know if possibly Simon put himself in a position to interfere with the officers.
He should have minded his own damn business and kept walking and let the police do their job.
Click to expand...

I doubt he was simply due to fact he wasn't arrested for interfering with the police or disobey an order or anything. Even if he was its still wrong to arrest him for illegal wiretapping.
 
Fu*k the police, Fu*k the police, Fu*k Fu*k the police, whiky whiky whiky whiky wahhhhh.

On topic : in public this shouldn't be a question. A police's actions are just as accountable. It's not like he pre meditated the whole act and wire tapped them.
 
All you shit house lawyers don't know what you're talking about. It's obvious the judge found probable cause for the arrest under current their state law therefore legitimizing the charge. It was the "state" that dropped the charges.
 
madcap magician said:
All you shit house lawyers don't know what you're talking about. It's obvious the judge found probable cause for the arrest under current their state law therefore legitimizing the charge. It was the "state" that dropped the charges.
Click to expand...

To make the assumption that it was obvious is a sad mistake and only hurts your point. Just because he was a judge does not mean he is always in the right and it does not mean that the cops clearly conveyed what was going on.:eek:
 
infect0 said:
To make the assumption that it was obvious is a sad mistake and only hurts your point. Just because he was a judge does not mean he is always in the right and it does not mean that the cops clearly conveyed what was going on.:eek:
Click to expand...

What about your assumption that the judge was wrong and the cops did not clearly convey what was going on? Too easy man jeez
 
(only read the first page)

There seems to be a bit of debate... Can any of it be cleared up?

1. Is is legal to film the police, or anyone for that matter, out in a public street like this?
2. If not, do the police have the right to arrest him over it?
3. Were the police abusing their power/using excessive force in the drug arrest?

Now, I see people arguing for both sides, but do any of us actually know the laws? I know I dont.

In number 1, I know it's certainly not illegal to watch. They can come over and not allow us to go near them, but they cant forbid us from seeing what is happening out on a public road like this.

for 2, if it was illegal what he was doing, does that fall under a crime requiring them to take him into custody? I would think a ticket would be enough, the person was not in any way inhibiting the police from doing their job.

Finally, for number 3. I have not seen the video myself so I do not know the situation any further than the police were arresting a drug dealer/addict and they were using a certain amount of force to do so. I did not read the article either, which, alright, I should have. I am assuming this is in the U.S.. The amount of force the police can justifiably use is dependent on the situation. Does he have a weapon? Has he made threats? What prior crimes has he/she committed? What are they being arrested for now? These are all important factors to look at.

Even so, I saw a post earlier implying that since it was a drug dealer/user, the person had fewer rights and as such, it is okay to use more force.



In my opinion, if you see the police abusing their power, which can happen and has happened many times all over the world, it should be reported so it can hopefully be taken care of. This man saw something that he thought was wrong and excessive, and wanted proof to show later. Whether or not is it within his rights to record the incident or not, I have no idea.

Now, I am not saying the police cant have any leeway either. If they are not allowed to use any force, or get questioned every time they use a little force, they would not be very effective. However there is a difference between acceptable and not acceptable. For example, if someone runs from the police, regardless of why, the police have the right to chase and at the very least tackle the person down to the ground. If the person gets hurt, it's their fault. I can see it as acceptable even after tackling the person to punch them as well. However, if a person is in custody or on the ground detained, there is a limit of force you can use. If you start beating on a person that cannot do anything, that is abuse. Back to my example a couple lines ago, the person that was tackled and punched is now down, I do not think it would be justified to hit him again unless he continued to struggle in some way, but even then there should be other ways to handle it. he should by that time be in cuffs, and if so, the police must use restraint.
 
If you can record others largely depends on the state. Often it relates to wiretap laws and is more concerned around sound than video. Many states are "one party" states meaning only one party in a conversation has to be aware of or give consent to recording. So while you can't record your neighbour's phone, you can record your own and not tell anyone.

Other states are "two party" states, meaning everyone in a conversation has to know about the recording. You can't record it without telling everyone. That's why when you call an 800 number they tell you the call may be monitored or recorded. Their employees know that, however they inform you because you might be in a two party state.

That is what a lot of it comes down to. I'm not saying it is right that you can't record the police, but some states have laws around that. If you live in such a state, you should push to have it become a one party state.
 
If I were a cop these days, I'd be paranoid as hell about getting recorded doing just about anything, because there's a big enough following in the world that thinks all police are dirtbags and should be removed from the street. It doesn't take much, as has been suggested, to put any video in the worst possible light.

Personally I'm glad to have a police force. I have never understood why so many others are not.
 
I don't agree with this. The word "surveillance" implies that the act of recording is intended to be secret.
 
Dougjwjr said:
(only read the first page)

There seems to be a bit of debate... Can any of it be cleared up?

1. Is is legal to film the police, or anyone for that matter, out in a public street like this?
2. If not, do the police have the right to arrest him over it?
3. Were the police abusing their power/using excessive force in the drug arrest?
Click to expand...

1. Yes its legal to film the police and anybody else in a public place
2. No they do not have the right to arrest him nor do they even have the right to prevent him from taking photos/film. The best they can do, stand in front of him or shine a light on the camera (ive had both done, btw, from a distance shining a light on a telephoto lense has NO effect lol)
3. Yes abusing power, maybe not on purpose, but they probably had a situation, were not used to someone videotaping them, were in a bad mood and decided to arrest another person.
 
Adam said:
1. Yes its legal to film the police and anybody else in a public place
2. No they do not have the right to arrest him nor do they even have the right to prevent him from taking photos/film. The best they can do, stand in front of him or shine a light on the camera (ive had both done, btw, from a distance shining a light on a telephoto lense has NO effect lol)
3. Yes abusing power, maybe not on purpose, but they probably had a situation, were not used to someone videotaping them, were in a bad mood and decided to arrest another person.
Click to expand...

Quote from the OP article,

"In 1968, Massachusetts became a “two-party’’ consent state, one of 12 currently in the country. Two-party consent means that all parties to a conversation must agree to be recorded on a telephone or other audio device; otherwise, the recording of conversation is illegal. The law, intended to protect the privacy rights of individuals, appears to have been triggered by a series of high-profile cases involving private detectives who were recording people without their consent."

You are right ref. video. It was the audio that got him arrested under Mass. law.

Just for the record, I don't think that this law should extend to LEOs. They, as public servants, should not have a right to privacy when performing official duties.
 
3 page? they couldn't have put all of that on one page?

anyways it seems to me that the wiretapping laws only says it is illegal to record audio without consent, so if only VIDEO was recorded, I think he would've been in the clear.
 
infect0 said:
It saddens me to see people make comments such as...

"it is a dirty job...who cares if they beat up a crackhead"

"criminals use loopholes, why not cops?"

It is a career that is paid for by tax dollars. Cops should follow the letter of the law exactly. It might take great restraint but should that not be a huge qualification for the position? It might seem find that a cop punches a hardened criminal but lets think about what kind of person does that....do we really want that person carrying a loaded gun?

I do not think it is too much to ask for to have police that follow the letter of the law in a calm fashion....it is part of their job.
Click to expand...

Full of win.
 
Dougjwjr said:
(only read the first page)

There seems to be a bit of debate... Can any of it be cleared up?

1. Is is legal to film the police, or anyone for that matter, out in a public street like this?
2. If not, do the police have the right to arrest him over it?
3. Were the police abusing their power/using excessive force in the drug arrest?

Now, I see people arguing for both sides, but do any of us actually know the laws? I know I dont.

In number 1, I know it's certainly not illegal to watch. They can come over and not allow us to go near them, but they cant forbid us from seeing what is happening out on a public road like this.

for 2, if it was illegal what he was doing, does that fall under a crime requiring them to take him into custody? I would think a ticket would be enough, the person was not in any way inhibiting the police from doing their job.

Finally, for number 3. I have not seen the video myself so I do not know the situation any further than the police were arresting a drug dealer/addict and they were using a certain amount of force to do so. I did not read the article either, which, alright, I should have. I am assuming this is in the U.S.. The amount of force the police can justifiably use is dependent on the situation. Does he have a weapon? Has he made threats? What prior crimes has he/she committed? What are they being arrested for now? These are all important factors to look at.

Even so, I saw a post earlier implying that since it was a drug dealer/user, the person had fewer rights and as such, it is okay to use more force.



In my opinion, if you see the police abusing their power, which can happen and has happened many times all over the world, it should be reported so it can hopefully be taken care of. This man saw something that he thought was wrong and excessive, and wanted proof to show later. Whether or not is it within his rights to record the incident or not, I have no idea.

Now, I am not saying the police cant have any leeway either. If they are not allowed to use any force, or get questioned every time they use a little force, they would not be very effective. However there is a difference between acceptable and not acceptable. For example, if someone runs from the police, regardless of why, the police have the right to chase and at the very least tackle the person down to the ground. If the person gets hurt, it's their fault. I can see it as acceptable even after tackling the person to punch them as well. However, if a person is in custody or on the ground detained, there is a limit of force you can use. If you start beating on a person that cannot do anything, that is abuse. Back to my example a couple lines ago, the person that was tackled and punched is now down, I do not think it would be justified to hit him again unless he continued to struggle in some way, but even then there should be other ways to handle it. he should by that time be in cuffs, and if so, the police must use restraint.
Click to expand...


More win.
 
SoAndSo said:
jesus. the same reason its illegal for me to come and film you. You cant film people willy nilly. If someone filmed without my permission I would throw a major wobbly.

dont be a douche bag.
Click to expand...

Yeah dude but you also dont have a license to drive around and do what you please like the cops do, I think police should be filmed 24/7 actually I would prefer robot police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top