What Do You Think?

[jonnyb25]

We can record you but heaven help you if you record us.

It seems the government and police believe it is ok for them to record us without our permission or even when we do not want to be recorded, but if we record them then we are in violation of the law (even when that location is in a public location).

I am going to put a lot of news stories under this heading to make a point that police arresting/harassing people video taping them is not an isolated insolence nor is it uncommon these days.

The obvious question, I see, is if they are not doing anything illegal why would they care if they were video taped or recorded while doing their duty in public. It seems to me that a recording of their actions would only help to strengthen their case in legal actions and show they are doing their job properly at other times (assuming they are not doing anything illegal).

This is of course also assumes that the person making the recording is not interfering with them doing their job. For instance standing to close, hindering the officials or making unwanted/needed comments distracting them or something that would make the situation more dangerous for everyone.

[jonnyb25]

copied from:
http://boingboing.net/2010/01/14/boston-cops-citizen.html

Boston cops: citizen recording of abusive busts is "illegal wiretapping"

by: Cory Doctorow
Thursday, Jan 14, 2010

Boston cops are using the Massachusetts electronic surveillance laws to arrest and prosecute citizens who use their cellular phones to record abusive arrests. Though they haven't been successful in prosecuting the acts, it hasn't stopped the arrests -- presumably the point isn't to secure convictions, but rather to chill the recording of illegal police activity. However, police have convicted citizens who secretly recorded their own abusive arrests, charging them with illegal wiretapping.

Simon Glik, a lawyer, was walking down Tremont Street in Boston when he saw three police officers struggling to extract a plastic bag from a teenager's mouth. Thinking their force seemed excessive for a drug arrest, Glik pulled out his cellphone and began recording.

Within minutes, Glik said, he was in handcuffs.

"One of the officers asked me whether my phone had audio recording capabilities,'' Glik, 33, said recently of the incident, which took place in October 2007. Glik acknowledged that it did, and then, he said, "my phone was seized, and I was arrested.''

The charge? Illegal electronic surveillance.

[jonnyb25]

copied from:
http://www.jetsinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214594

07-12-2010

Police encounters now illegal to videotape
Just saw this article and it really struck a nerve.


http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

Are Cameras the New Guns?

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state's electronic surveillance law - aka recording a police encounter - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, "Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals…." (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)

The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.

Glik captured a police action on his cellphone to document what he considered to be excessive force. He was not only arrested, his phone was also seized.

On his website Drew wrote, "Myself and three other artists who documented my actions tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law. The police hesitated for two months because they knew it would mean a federal court case. With this felony charge they are trying to avoid this test and ruin me financially and stain my credibility."

Hyde used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the police. After doing so, he was criminally charged.

In short, recordings that are flattering to the police - an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog - will almost certainly not result in prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple dissent.

A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.

Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an explanation: "For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man."

When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.

Happily, even as the practice of arresting "shooters" expands, there are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested "shooter," the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.

As journalist Radley Balko declares, "State legislatures should consider passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law enforcement officials."

[jonnyb25]

copied from:
http://the-right-guy.blogspot.com/2010/06/police-arrest-those-that-video-tape.html


Police Arrest Those That Video Tape Them: Is it a privacy issue or CYA?

If there's one thing I could say about myself it is that I am anti-authoritarian, which means I am pro-liberty or libertarian. This belief transcends political parties or religion and remains my prime mover if you will, that people should be free.

Ayn Rand said it well in this statement:

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

She also said

"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave". Strong words from an articulate woman.

When it comes to a philosophy that summarizes this in a way to live, Thomas Jefferson said it thusly:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.


Yesterday I received a message through chat from a friend of this blog and myself, Hector Portillo. Hector has a blog, The Electric Eye. Hector was one of my first readers and has engaged me in very meaningful conversation that has had a profound effect on some of my ideas. He's a very intelligent young man and we keep in touch as they say. Anyway, Hector sent me this link, Are cameras the new guns? from Gizmodo. Probably knowing how pro-second amendment and individual rights oriented I am, he sent this to me for comment.

In the United States, most states are what they call single party consent states. Usually this means that if I am involved with a conversation or interaction, I can record it without the other members consent. In 12 states, the consent must be from all members involved in the conversation.

After reading the article, I have come to the conclusion that some police in all party consent states have come up with the bright idea of using this law to cover their asses. This is what happened in one case:

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law...


Wow. And the story Continues:

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.


Interesting. There have been incidents, according to this article, where police have been willingly videotaped without explicit consent and did not interdict or prosecute the videographer, such as when the police are doing something positive, heroic, etc. Do news people get releases from police? I don't know, but I bet not.

What makes these cases interesting is that they do rely on law that is clear and can be used to justify their actions. The question of privacy is a valid one, but I haven't seen the police exercise such concerns with the cameras in their cars, speeding and red light cameras, and certain municipalities that have installed cameras to monitor the public, including police, as in New York City and Chicago. In all these cases the police seem to go along with the program.

What seems res ipsa loquitur about this is that their actions are self-serving. We have seen many cases where police brutality has been uncovered with video and if it were not for the video, such abuse would have gone unpunished. It's an interesting juxtaposition of rights here, and if I had to take a stand, it would have to be on the side of the public. The police work for the government and as such an agent thereof with powers that extend beyond the average citizen, come under a higher level of scrutiny and a set of standards. An individual in society should be able to use any means to document interactions with these agents of the government as a protection of their rights. I might have a slight difference of opinion if police were against red light and speeding cameras, as well as cameras in public. They are not. They are also not against cameras in their own cars, which we have seen malfunction at certain times. What I would like to see happen is the thin blue line go away. This fortress mentality has not served police well and this type of enforcement we see here does not serve them well either. They seem to forget they serve us. Since when does the servant become our master? Let me know what you think.

[jonnyb25]

Copied from:
http://www.consumeradvocatelegalupdate.com/tags/filming-police-officers/

Guest Post: "Filming Police Officers: Crime or Civic Duty?"

Posted on July 1, 2010 by Breanna Wilson

Guest post from KPA law clerk, Greg Cragg:

In the early hours of New Year’s Day 2009, BART police officer Johannes Mehserle shot and killed Oscar Grant, who had been involved in a fight and was resisting arrest while prostate on the ground. Immediately after the shooting, Mehserle and his partner began to confiscate cell phones, cameras, and video tapes, many of which have still not been returned to their owners. After the public release of many of these recordings and a public outcry culminating in riots, Mehserle was charged with murder in the first degree. Opening arguments began June 10, 2010.Some of the videos and pictures, including a picture taken by Grant on his cell phone, have been crucial in this case. The circumstances of this case have drawn parallels to Rodney King’s beating, which was another police brutality case caught on camera. As catalogued on several blogs, notably Carlos Miller’s “Photography is Not a Crime,” many police departments across the country routinely harass witnesses recording public police activities, although usually without any legal basis to do so. However, in California and eleven other states, the police have used anti-eavesdropping and anti-wiretapping laws to legally arrest civilians who have recorded police officers performing their official duties in public. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code § 632. Arresting civilians filming police officers in public is detrimental both to police officers and to the public.

All-party consent statutes have been enacted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. In contrast to the anti-eavesdropping and anti-wiretapping statutes of the federal government and the other 38 states, the all-party consent statutes require the recording party to obtain consent from all parties to the recorded confidential conversation or face criminal charges. Of those states, Massachusetts seems to be the strictest and most active state in pursuing criminal charges against members of the public filming police officers in public, although there have been recent arrests for violating all-party consent statutes in Pennsylvania, Washington, and New Hampshire.

In Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594, 601 (2001), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts interpreted its all-party consent statute broadly to not require an expectation of privacy, in contrast to federal law and other all-party consent states, such as Washington and California. The Hyde court affirmed the conviction of the defendant, who had surreptitiously recorded his conversation with a police officer at a police stop and subsequently attempted to file a complaint using the tape as evidence. In Chief Justice Marshall’s dissent, he noted that this decision will threaten the press’s First Amendment rights and constitutional role as watchdog. The harsh interpretation by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts caused Massachusetts state legislators to propose several bills, which would carve out exceptions for recording conversations with police officers, but none have passed thus far.

All-party consent statutes are often applied too broadly by extending protection to conversations that have very low expectations of privacy. California courts have identified some of these situations, such as while under valid arrest in a police car, in jail, at a non-confidential business meeting, when expressing an intent to violate the law, and at a meeting in a busy restaurant. With the increase in the availability of consumer electronics, including cameras on most new cell phones, and the incredible ease of global distribution of recordings, privacy expectations are much lower than they were when anti-eavesdropping and anti-wiretapping laws were first introduced during the 1960s. Many states will not extend privacy protection to situations with low expectations of privacy, although some are inconsistent in applying this to the recording of police officers.

Another bar to criminal liability for recording police officers in public is the newsworthiness test, which has been held to be a full defense against other privacy-based offenses. The California Supreme Court recognizes that truthful publication is shielded from liability if “(1) it is newsworthy and (2) it does not reveal facts so offensive as to shock the community notions of decency.” Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., 4 Cal. 3d 529, 541 (1971). California courts use the following factors to determine newsworthiness: “(a) the social value of the facts published; (b) the depth of the article’s intrusion into ostensibly private affairs; and (c) the extent to which the individual voluntarily acceded to a position of public notoriety.” Id. As noted by Chief Justice Marshal, the press has a constitutional duty to act as a watchdog of the police, so recordings of police officers have high social value. Police activities in public are not private, so there is no intrusion into private affairs. Police officers are constantly observed by and interact with the public, so their public notoriety is voluntary. Thus, police activities in public are newsworthy. If police activities shock the community notions of decency, these activities should probably be halted. Any state with a similar newsworthiness exception should not find public recordings of police officers to be criminal offenses.



Allowing the public to record police officers protects both the public and police. It is in the interests of a just democratic society to hold police responsible for their abuses and to allow citizen oversight of police officers. The public is in the best position to protect their own rights through publication or political, administrative, or judicial methods. Additionally, police officers are protected from false claims of abuse if they are regularly recorded in public. Filming in other contexts can also yield a much wider and reliable source of information to investigate and stop crime. Recognizing this potential benefit, California already has exceptions to its anti-wiretapping laws for recording crimes of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, threats of violence against the person recording, annoying or harassing telephone calls, and domestic violence. See Cal. Penal Code § 633, 633.5. Police officers and the public would best be served by allowing citizen recording of police officers in public.

[jonnyb25]

Copied from:

http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/08/aclu-suit-seeks-to-allow-citizen-recording-of-police-in-action/

Illinois: ACLU suit seeks to allow citizen recording of police in action

August 23, 2010 by donal brown
Filed under 1st Amendment News, News & Opinion

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois is filing a federal lawsuit challenging the Illinois Eavesdropping Act that criminalizes recording public conversations without the consent of all parties. The ACLU claims that police routinely record encounters with drivers they pull over, but drivers are not allowed to record police conversations. -db

Chicago Tribune
August 19, 2010
By Becky Schlikerman and Kristen Mack

It’s not unusual or illegal for police officers to flip on a camera as they get out of their squad car to talk to a driver they’ve pulled over.

But in Illinois, a civilian trying to make an audio recording of police in action is breaking the law.

“It’s an unfair and destructive double standard,” said Adam Schwartz, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.

On Wednesday, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit in Chicago challenging the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, which makes it criminal to record not only private but also public conversations made without consent of all parties.

With cell phones that record audio and video in almost every pocket, the ability to capture public conversations, including those involving the police, is only a click away. That raises the odds any police action could wind up being recorded for posterity.

Opponents of the act say that could be a good thing and certainly shouldn’t lead to criminal charges.

The ACLU argues that the act violates the First Amendment and has been used to thwart people who simply want to monitor police activity.

The head of the Chicago police union counters that such recordings could inhibit officers from doing their jobs.

In its lawsuit, the ACLU pointed to six Illinois residents who have faced felony charges after being accused of violating the state’s eavesdropping law for recording police making arrests in public venues.

Adrian and Fanon Perteet were passengers in a car at a DeKalb McDonald’s drive-through in November when police moved in. Officers suspected that the car’s driver was under the influence, according to the brothers.

Fanon Perteet, 23, said he was scared. Past experiences with police had left him suspicious of the officer’s motives, he said. So he pulled out his cell phone and turned on the video camera, which also records sound.

“I felt obligated to record so nothing happened,” said Perteet, an event planner.

When the officers realized they were being taped, Perteet was arrested and taken to a squad car. Adrian Perteet, 21, a student at Northern Illinois University, then took out his cell phone and started recording his brother’s arrest.

Both brothers were charged with violating the eavesdropping act, a felony, their lawyer Bruce Steinberg said. They pleaded guilty in April to attempted eavesdropping, a misdemeanor, to avoid felony convictions, Steinberg said.

The Perteets were ordered to apologize to the officers. They were given back their cell phones, which had been seized by police, but told to delete the recordings. If they complete the terms of the sentence and stay out of trouble, the charges will be dismissed, Steinberg said.

Nonetheless, the episode was an embarrassing experience, said the brothers, who live in Chicago’s Old Town neighborhood. They welcomed the ACLU’s lawsuit.

“I’ve been waiting for something like this,” Adrian Perteet said. “I don’t want it happening to anyone else.”

Illinois is one of only a few states, including Massachusetts and Oregon, where it is illegal to record audio of conversations that take place in public settings without the permission of everyone involved.

Illinois’ eavesdropping ban was extended in 1994 to include open and obvious audio recording, even if it takes place on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists and in a volume audible to the “unassisted human ear.”

Experts said that although statutes like Illinois’ have been on the books for years, more arrests have occurred in recent years because of the prevalence of cell phone cameras that also record audio.

Robb Harvey, an intellectual property lawyer in Tennessee, said it’s likely there will be more widely disseminated videos with audio that show alleged police misconduct and more efforts by law enforcement to stop such recordings from being made.

Harvey and other attorneys said eavesdropping statutes were not intended to criminalize recording police officers in public.

“It’s a stretch to apply surveillance laws to a situation on the street with an encounter between the police and the public,” said Maryland defense attorney Steven Silverman. “An officer has no expectation of privacy when he makes a traffic stop or arrest in the course of his workday.”

Silverman refers to cases similar to one involving the Perteets — two of which are pending in Maryland, which has a similar eavesdropping law — as “contempt of cop.”

“The backlash is coming from embarrassment,” he said of police reaction to being recorded. “These are archaic statutes, made in a time when technology was different. The laws need to catch up.”

The defendant in the ACLU lawsuit is Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, whose office is pursuing an eavesdropping case against Chicago artist Chris Drew.

In December 2009, Drew intentionally set out to break the city’s anti-peddling law by offering handmade, screen-printed patches for $1 on State Street.

The Rogers Park artist wanted to challenge the law that requires people selling their wares on the street to carry permits. Drew had a digital voice recorder tucked inside the red poncho he was wearing, and when police moved in, he made an audio recording of the arrest.

Now, in addition to charges for peddling illegally, Drew faces a felony eavesdropping charge. He is fighting the charges.

People “have the right to defend themselves and bring evidence of what the police said to them in public and bring it into public court,” he said.

Alvarez’s office said it received a copy of the ACLU suit Thursday afternoon, had not had a chance to review it and could not comment.

Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police in Chicago, said he believes the state’s eavesdropping law is a good one. Allowing people to make audio recordings of arrests “could potentially inhibit an officer from proactively doing his job,” Donahue said.

Illinois’ eavesdropping law has been challenged before. In 2004, Martel Miller and Patrick Thompson were making a documentary contrasting the lives of minority residents of Champaign with students attending the University of Illinois. They filmed multiple traffic stops and were charged with eavesdropping, according to court records.

The charges were later dropped, according to court records, but the two men filed a federal lawsuit saying their constitutional rights had been violated by the city of Champaign, police officers and county officials.

The lawsuit was settled for cash, but Thompson declined to reveal how much was awarded.

Richard Goehler, a First Amendment lawyer in Ohio, said eavesdropping felony convictions have been secured in other states, which makes the ACLU’s lawsuit necessary and timely.

“This suit comes at an important time,” Goehler said. “It has merit and will hopefully stem the tide of these kinds of prosecutions.”

[jonnyb25]

copied from:
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2010/07/permanent_recor.html


July 20, 2010
Permanent Record
Keystone Kops
Hatched by Dafydd

If ABC News can be believed -- and in this case, they're probably accurate, though clearly biased against the police -- more and more police departments are actively trying to prevent citizens from video-recording or audio-recording arrests and other law-enforcement activities:

[I]t wasn't his daredevil stunt that has [Anthony Graber,] the 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard facing the possibility of 16 years in prison. For that, he was issued a speeding ticket. It was the video that Graber posted on YouTube one week later -- taken with his helmet camera -- of a plainclothes state trooper cutting him off and drawing a gun during the traffic stop near Baltimore.

In early April, state police officers raided Graber's parents' home in Abingdon, Md. They confiscated his camera, computers and external hard drives. Graber was indicted for allegedly violating state wiretap laws by recording the trooper without his consent....

"The message is clearly, 'Don't criticize the police,'" said David Rocah, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland who is part of Graber's defense team. "With these charges, anyone who would even think to record the police is now justifiably in fear that they will also be criminally charged."

On the one hand, I can think of several good reasons for police to be nervous about such recordings: The video of an arresting officer can be circulated to violent gang-bangers to use in a retaliatory assault. On a less dire note, a civilian can record an arrest, then use one of many free or low-cost editing applications to alter the video to make the cops look corrupt or out of control.

A videographer conspired with the left-bank news media to do exactly that in the Rodney King beating, albeit in a crude, prehistoric, and easily refuted way: The early part of the confrontation with King was snipped off, making it appear as though the officers beat him for no reason at all. (And it doesn't help the cause of liberty that the ABC article is utterly one-sided, not allowing police spokespeople to make the case in favor of prohibiting video-recording of arrests and confrontations.)

But still and all, such civilian videos would generally be the only possible evidence of police misconduct. If citizens have no right to record an arrest, either of themselves or a third party, without the "consent" of the officers (which is of course routinely denied), then how can anyone ever prove that a policeman is lying on the stand about what happened... or worse, that he assaulted the arrestee without good cause?

Suppose a cop pulls you over and demands money. When you refuse to pay a bribe, he throws you to the ground and arrests you for "resisting." By the time other officers arrive, you're already in handcuffs; who will the newly arrived police believe, the guy face down on the pavement, or one of their own?

I believe the answer is obvious: If a Good Samaritan records the events, you will be exonerated and a dirty cop will be off the streets; but if the police can confiscate his cell phone/camera -- or intimidate him into not recording the arrest in the first place by threatening to arrest him too -- then you will almost certainly be wrongly convicted; and the dirty cop will continue shaking down motorists. A society that removes from civilians the only means they have to prove statist tyranny is deeply unAmerican.

The ACLU of Florida filed a First Amendment lawsuit last month on behalf of a model who was arrested February 2009 in Boynton Beach. Fla. Her crime: videotaping an encounter between police officers and her teenage son at a movie theater. Prosecutors refused to file charges against Sharron Tasha Ford and her son.

Ford was not charged; but she was arrested. The mere threat of arrest would frighten most people out of video-recording any such "encounters," even in situations where police actions were entirely unreasonable. A decent judicial system must not tilt so strongly towards "law and order" that it neglects basic liberty. After all, the purpose of police in a civilized society is not to safeguard the police; if it were, cops would just hide in their stations and only sally forth in force to make military-style raids on the civilian population, as in many third-world countries.

The basic purpose of police is to safeguard civilians -- their persons, their property, and their liberty. In this case, the accused must have access to any valid record of the arrest, because it can form the basis of a defense against some or all of the charges.

It's true that police often have their own videocameras mounted on their patrol vehicles; and in a perfect world, that would probably be all that most defendants would need. But these videos are totally within the control of the police themselves. If the arrestee alleges he was abused and subpoenas the video, the police can say there is none -- it wasn't turned on, the recorder malfunctioned -- and there is no way for the alleged victim to prove otherwise.

Even if the cops are entirely honest, hood-mounted videos often fail to catch everything that happens, especially if the suspect flees and is brought to ground far away from the squad cars.

In most states, it's only a criminal offense to record "private conversations" without consent of all parties; it seems hard to argue that official law-enforcement action -- detention, arrest, physical confrontation -- constitutes a conversation where the police have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

We must balance the two imperatives: We certainly don't want creatively edited videos making their way onto YouTube and tainting the jury pool; but on the other hand, we cannot simply brush aside the liberty interest of civilians being able to gather evidence of police misconduct, abuse, or assault.

Since police themselves now routinely video-record confrontations, I would rather encourage them to expand those operations, by new legislation if necessary; this would protect them against Rodney King-like media manipulations. American military forces now routinely use helmet-mounted video cameras; that should be standard equipment for police as well. And if a civilian videos an encounter, the police should be allowed to get his name and address at the scene and subpoena a complete copy of the recording.

The cops should even be allowed to release the civilian's complete video to the public, if a partial or edited video has already been released -- via media news, YouTube, or any other means -- either by the defendant or by any third party not connected with the police themselves. And of course, the prosecutor should be allowed to introduce the civilian video recording during trial, whether or not the defendant alleges abuse or misconduct... just as defendants should be allowed to subpoena and introduce any and all police videos and audios. (The latter is probably already law.)

But by the same principle, we should enact legislation allowing civilians to record incidents as well, whether as arrestee or Good Samaritan. This proposal follows my general libertarian principle: The antidote to dishonest or toxic speech is not to suppress it, but to respond to it with honest speech.

If police are worried that their actions will be deliberately misportrayed in the media, then instead of banning civilian video-recording of arrests, let the police fight back in the same venue with an honest, untampered video recording. (And if the police -- or defendants -- make their own dishonest manipulations of video, that should clearly fall into the category of obstruction of justice, just like post-hoc fabrication of a search warrant that never actually existed.)

Let a thousand video bloom, and hold everybody accountable for his actions -- perp and cop alike.

[jonnyb25]

copied from:

http://www.pixiq.com/article/aclu-sues-illinois-over-absurd-law-forbiding-recording-of-cops

August 20, 2010 @ 12:20PM
ACLU sues Illinois over absurd law forbiding recording of cops
By Carlos Miller

There’s been a misconception in the media lately about it being illegal to videotape cops in three states; Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois.

That’s not exactly true.

In Massachusetts, it is illegal to secretly record anybody without their consent, but there is no law against openly videotaping anybody in public with or without their consent, including cops. In fact, charges have been dropped against people who have been arrested for videotaping cops in public in Massachusetts.

In Maryland, state police and a certain prosecutor treat it as if it is illegal but another state attorney as well as the attorney general disagree that it is illegal to videotape cops in public. The debate should be settled entirely by the time Anthony Graber goes to trial on October 12. Also, the ACLU, which is backing Graber in this case, is asking the law to be further clarified.

That leaves us with Illinois where Radley Balko reported that it is illegal to audio record cops, even if they happen to be in public with no expectation of privacy.

Fortunately, the ACLU is now trying to change this law after filing a federal lawsuit in Chicago Wednesday to challenge the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, according to the Chicago Tribune:

Unfortunately, the article also builds on the misconception that it is illegal to record cops in public in other states.

Illinois is one of only a few states, including Massachusetts and Oregon, where it is illegal to record audio of conversations that take place in public settings without the permission of everyone involved.

In Oregon, it is not illegal to record conversations that take place in public settings because they would not have an expectation of privacy. This issue was clarified in a memo from the Beaverton City Attorney last month that was distributed to police departments, which didn’t stop a certain police chief to vow continuing arresting people videotaping officers in public.

The ACLU lawsuit mentions six Illinois residents who have faced felony charges for recording cops in public, including Charles Drew, a street arrest who is still awaiting trial for having recorded police who were shaking him down for trying to sell art without a permit.

Coincidentally, I received an email yesterday from Jeremy Lindsey who was investigated by Granite City Police Chief Rich Miller for posting videos of cops he shot in public. Lindsey ended up removing the audio from two videos in order to comply with the law.

This is what the chief told him in an email.

It is illegal to record a persons conversation without permission. In fact we are reviewing your post yesterday of Officer Klump to see if you violated he law. I am aware you have altered it today. I have the Original post. Also when at a call for service you should refrain from interfering or you are subject to arrest for obstructing. Chief Miller

While it is a step in the right direction for the ACLU to attempt to change state laws in compliance with common sense First Amendment laws, we need to go a step further and pass a national law that specifically allows citizens to videotape cops in public as long as they are not interfering.

The resolution introduced by Democratic Congressman Ed Towns last month is the first step in doing this. The National Press Photographers Association, which got involved with our Metrorail escapade, is also asking Towns to change his resolution to a Congressional Bill.

According to last month’s NPPA press release:

Despite consistent court rulings protecting the First Amendment rights of both citizens and the media to take photographs in public places, and despite many law enforcement agencies spelling it out in their official policies, the officer on the street either doesn’t get the word or decides to act on his own in the name of “security” or “terrorism laws,” often citing rules that don’t exist and exerting authority that’s non-existent. And recently in some states police have started citing old wiretapping laws that have been on the books for decades as their excuse for ordering photographers to cease videotaping officers as they’re doing their jobs in public, either during traffic stops or street arrests or while interfering with photographers who are breaking no rules and who are posing no threats to safety.

“It is extremely disturbing that some states have misrepresented the intent of wiretapping laws and modified them to affect news photographers and everyday people who are photographing or videotaping police actions in a public place,” NPPA president Bob Carey wrote to Rep. Towns today.

“We believe that such misuse of these state laws are unconstitutional and need to be addressed at both the state and national levels. NPPA has been dealing with police interference with visual journalists in public places for years. We are pleased that your Resolution is currently before the Judiciary Committee and we stand ready to testify if needed.”

[jonnyb25]

copied from:
http://www.pixiq.com/article/police-turning-to-self-mounted-video-cameras-to-protect-themselves-from-us

July 20, 2010 @
Police turning to self-mounted video cameras to protect themselves from us
By Carlos Miller -

While police across the country have been using wiretapping laws to arrest people who videotape them in public, some police departments are resorting to equipping their officers with video cameras.

The latest police department to equip their officers with cameras is the Butler County Sheriff’s Office in Kansas, according to KSN.com.

Kansas is a one-party consent state, in case you’re wondering.

Sheriff Craig Murphy believes these cameras will protect his deputies from false accusations of police brutality.

“You know, from time to time, I get complaints that come across my desk about one of our officers maybe having a bad day,” says Murphy. “This video will be able to show everything.”

The deputies will be using Scorpion cameras that clip on to their uniforms which sell for just over $100 each, according to this website.

“That’s the beauty of this Scorpion (camera) is the price,” explains Murphy. “We can buy a lot of these and they are mobile. The cameras in the cars only capture what’s in front of them. These cameras go where we go.”

The Butler County Sheriff’s Office seems to have better business sense than the San Jose Police Department, which announced last year that they will equip their officers with head-mounted cameras that are produced by Taser Inc. that will cost almost $3,000 per officer at a total of $4 million-a-year to equip every officer.

Meanwhile, the Albuquerque Police Department has spent more than $50,000 to equip their officers with the Scorpion cameras as Photography is Not a Crime reader, First Amendment advocate and KOB-TV investigative reporter Jeremy Jojola informs us in the video below.

New Mexico is also a one-party state, but California is a two-party state, meaning that every San Jose police officer is committing a felony when recording people in public – if we were to use police logic.

[jonnyb25]

copied from:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100603/0859019675.shtml


Police And Courts Regularly Abusing Wiretapping Laws To Arrest People For Filming Cops Misbehaving In Public Places

by Mike Masnick

Fri, Jun 4th 2010

Back in April, we wrote about the case of a motorcyclist in Maryland who was wearing a helmet-mounted camera while riding his motorcycle (admittedly, above the speed limit). As he stopped at a traffic light, an off-duty police-officer in plain clothes and an unmarked car jumped out of his car with his gun drawn. All of this was caught on video. No matter what you think of the cop's reaction, what happened later is ridiculous: after the biker, Anthony John Graber III, posted the video from his helmet cam to YouTube, he was arrested for illegal wiretapping, based on Maryland's two-party consent rule for recording. As we explained at the time, wiretapping laws that require all parties to consent were not, at all, designed for this type of situation.

However, apparently this sort of thing is becoming all too common -- and stunningly, many courts are siding with the cops. Gizmodo recently had a good article highlighting how police in states that require all parties to consent to recordings have been using this law against being videotaped in public, and the courts are siding with them. What's really scary is that most of those laws even have clearly written exceptions for recording in public places "where no expectation of privacy" exists.

Yet, the police and the courts both seem to ignore that part of those laws:

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state's electronic surveillance law -- aka recording a police encounter -- the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, "Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals...." (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)

The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.

That last sentence is the real problem here. Two-party consent laws were clearly designed to be used in situations where someone was being recorded privately -- such as over a phone call, or in a private conversation. When police are doing things (especially questionable activities) out in public, we should be encouraging the public to record those incidents and report them. The laws are being abused to try to stop people from whistleblowing on bad behavior by police. That has nothing to do with the purpose of two-party consent laws. It's really scary that the courts didn't immediately throw out these cases.

[jonnyb25]

copied from:
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/state-laws-ban-recording-of-police-officers_06142010



State Laws Ban Recording of Police Officers
Author: Mac Slavo
- June 14th, 2010


With the advent of the technology age came cameras prominently displayed on every street corner, embedded in our laptop screens and carried by the majority of Americans in their purses or pockets.

Privacy advocates argued that cameras and microphones gave government officials unprecedented access into our private lives. To no avail, however, as federal, state and local government ramped up efforts to survey everything from rural streets to sporting events. We the people became desensitized and it seems we have willingly given up our rights to privacy, at least in public.

One group, however, who seems to have the government on their side because they feel their privacy in public is being violated are police officers, and states are stepping up prosecutions of those who have recorded videos of police officers in a not-so-good light:

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where “no expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

…

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler’s license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

…

In short, recordings that are flattering to the police - an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog - will almost certainly not result in prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple dissent.

…

When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.

Happily, even as the practice of arresting “shooters” expands, there are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested “shooter,” the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.

source: Gizmodo

The Congress of the United States should move immediately to establish legislation that protects a citizen’s right to record video and audio of any on-duty police officer in a public place or in their own home without having to obtain consent. We realize Congress is busy with trillion dollar bailouts and first class in-flight parties, but if there’s one thing they should be responsible for it’s protecting the rights of the American people, and this should be at the top of the list.

The adage “if you’re not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about” should apply not just to citizen proles, but government officials as well, especially if those officials control the destiny of other individuals.

The public is the final cross-check and balance against government tyranny. If only the government has the power to record, arrest, prosecute and judge then we truly are living in a police state.

[jonnyb25]

copied from:
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html

video recording leads to felony charge

Published: Monday, June 11, 2007, 8:51 AM Updated: Thursday, July 26, 2007, 5:27 PM
MATT MILLER, The Patriot-News MATT MILLER, The Patriot-News

Brian D. Kelly didn't think he was doing anything illegal when he used his videocamera to record a Carlisle police officer during a traffic stop. Making movies is one of his hobbies, he said, and the stop was just another interesting event to film.

Now he's worried about going to prison or being burdened with a criminal record.

Kelly, 18, of Carlisle, was arrested on a felony wiretapping charge, with a penalty of up to 7 years in state prison.

His camera and film were seized by police during the May 24 stop, he said, and he spent 26 hours in Cumberland County Prison until his mother posted her house as security for his $2,500 bail.

Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent.

The criminal case relates to the sound, not the pictures, that his camera picked up.

"I didn't think I could get in trouble for that," Kelly said. "I screwed up, yeah. I know now that I can't do that. I just don't see how something like this should affect my entire life."

Whether that will happen could be determined during Kelly's preliminary hearing before District Judge Jessica Brewbaker in July.

No one seems intent on punishing him harshly.

"Obviously, ignorance of the law is no defense," District Attorney David Freed said. "But often these cases come down to questions of intent."

According to police, Kelly was riding in a pickup truck that had been stopped for alleged traffic violations.

Police said the officer saw Kelly had a camera in his lap, aimed at him and was concealing it with his hands. They said Kelly was arrested after he obeyed an order to turn the camera off and hand it over.

The wiretap charge was filed after consultation with a deputy district attorney, police said.

Kelly said his friend was cited for speeding and because his truck's bumper was too low. He said he held the camera in plain view and turned it on when the officer yelled at his pal.

After about 20 minutes, the officer cited the driver on the traffic charges and told the men they were being recorded by a camera in his cruiser, Kelly said.

"He said, 'Young man, turn off your ... camera,'¤" Kelly said. "I turned it off and handed it to him. ... Six or seven more cops pulled up, and they arrested me."

Police also took film from his pockets that wasn't related to the traffic stop, he said.

Freed said his office has handled other wiretapping cases, some involving ex-lovers or divorcing couples who are trying to record former partners doing something improper for leverage in court battles, he said.

Such charges have been dismissed or defendants have been allowed to plead to lesser counts or enter a program to avoid criminal records, he said.

The outcome hinges on whether the person had a malicious intent, Freed said.

Carlisle Police Chief Stephen Margeson said allowing Kelly to plead to a lesser charge might be proper.

"I don't think that would cause anyone any heartburn," he said. "I don't believe there was any underlying criminal intent here."

But Margeson said he doesn't regard the filing of the felony charge as unwarranted and said the officer followed procedures.

John Mancke, a Harrisburg defense attorney familiar with the wiretapping law, said the facts, as related by police, indicate Kelly might have violated the law.

"If he had the sound on, he has a problem," Mancke said.

Last year, Mancke defended a North Middleton Twp. man in a street racing case that involved a wiretapping charge. Police claimed the man ordered associates to tape police breaking up an illegal race after officers told him to turn off their cameras.

That wiretapping count was dismissed when the man pleaded guilty to charges of illegal racing, defiant trespass and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to probation.

An exception to the wiretapping law allows police to film people during traffic stops, Mancke said.

Margeson said his department's cruisers are equipped with cameras, and officers are told to inform people during incidents that they are being recorded.

First Assistant District Attorney Jaime Keating said case law is in flux as to whether police can expect not to be recorded while performing their duties.

"The law isn't solid," Keating said. "But people who do things like this do so at their own peril."

Kelly said he has called the American Civil Liberties Union for help in the case.

His father, Chris, said he's backing his son.

"We're hoping for a just resolution," he said.

[jonnyb25]

copied from:
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/10/05/news/new_haven/aa3neyalebust100510.txt


Probe opened over New Haven club inspection, Yale student arrests

Published: Tuesday, October 5, 2010

By William Kaempffer, Register Staff

NEW HAVEN — The police chief has ordered an investigation into a nightclub inspection that led to the arrest of five Yale University students, including a football player who was charged with assaulting three police officers and hit with a stun gun.

Yale has said it may launch its own probe of the raid early Saturday at a club that was holding a private Yale party in its upper level.

Mayor John DeStefano Jr., meanwhile, urged people Monday to reserve judgment and allow the investigation into this weekend’s incident to run its course, and Police Chief Frank Limon said he is exploring implementing technology to have head-mounted cameras on police officers to chronicle encounters with the public.

An attorney for the club at the center of the controversy said police — including some in SWAT gear — “barged” into Elevate Lounge early Saturday like “storm troopers,” cursed at patrons and ordered everybody to the floor.

“I understand the crackdown. My client wants New Haven to be as safe as anybody, but is this the way to do it? What they’re doing and the tactics that they are using is provoking people,” said John Carta, attorney for Alchemy and the Elevate Lounge.

On Monday, there were still conflicting accounts of what happened early Saturday morning at the Morse-Stiles “screw,” a Yale party held at Elevate Lounge in the downtown entertainment district.

Witnesses described to the Yale Daily News and blogged about a heavy-handed police response in which a Yale student was punched and kicked by police and arrested during the raid with no provocation. City police said the student violently resisted and punched three police officers and “had to be Tased to be brought under control.”

Witnesses alleged that students who attempted to take video or pictures of the episode on their cell phones were threatened with arrest if they didn’t stop in this latest incident that occurred about two weeks after allegations that a Quinnipiac University student was arrested outside Toad’s Place after recording his friend’s arrest.

Limon and DeStefano affirmed that people are allowed to record police doing their jobs as long as they are not interfering with an investigation or jeopardizing officer safety.

Limon said he tells all police officers to work on the assumption that they’re being videotaped any time they go out on duty. That can be a two-way street. Limon said he’s researching technology that would place small, portable cameras on the helmets or heads of officers to document encounters.

Top Yale administrators and members of the Yale general counsel met through the weekend in response to the incident and sent out a number of e-mails to students recognizing “serious concerns about the reported behavior of the New Haven Police.”

City and police officials held similar meetings to determine what happened and whether police handled the situation appropriately.

Saturday’s inspection was part of Operation Nightlife, the city’s crackdown after a Sept. 19 shootout downtown in which police responded to gunfire and exchanged shots with at least one gunman. Three people were wounded in the barrage.

In the two weeks afterward, police flooded the entertainment district and inspected clubs there and in outlying areas with state liquor agents and members of the city fire marshal’s office and health department.

Until the raid Saturday of the Yale event, none of the more than a dozen inspections generated complaints of abuse, officials said.

Limon said he ordered Internal Affairs investigations into the incidents at Toad’s Place and Elevate. He was present for part of the inspection at Elevate and said he witnessed a tense situation, but nothing improper by police. He said the video outside Toad’s didn’t tell the entire story. The man who was being arrested allegedly assaulted someone inside the club.

DeStefano cautioned against drawing judgments based on short video clips posted on the Internet. He equated it to walking into a movie halfway through: You don’t know what happened beforehand to provide context.

[jonnyb25]

copied from:
http://www.intomobile.com/2010/01/13/crooked-cops-in-boston-arresting-citizens-for-recording-misconduct-with-cellphones/

Crooked cops in Boston arresting citizens for recording misconduct with cellphones

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

Overly abusive and crooked cops beware, the prevalence of cellphone cameras and video recorders has made it easier than ever to catch dishonorable law enforcement officers on film as they overstep their bounds. As public officials, cops should be held accountable for their actions, and technology is making it easier to keep them in line. But, there’s a scary trend among some less-than-upstanding police officers that allows them to arrest anyone recording police officers that take their jobs too far.

A new report from Boston, Massachusetts shows how certain states’ wiretapping laws are being broadly misconstrued by cops to allow them to arrest citizens doing nothing more than recording worrisome situations with their cellphones. A number of Massachusetts residents have been arrested over the years for recording police actions during anti-war protests and overly forceful arrest situations. The police, hiding behind a law that requires both sides of a conversation to agree to being recorded on film or audio tape, have made numerous arrests over the years. The implication here is that the cops are trying to cover up any possible misconduct.

“The police apparently do not want witnesses to what they do in public,’’ said American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts staff attorney Sarah Wunsch. The Boston police department responded to allegations that their cops are abusing the letter of the law in a bid to snuff out citizen oversight of excessive police behavior. “If an individual is inappropriately interfering with an arrest that could cause harm to an officer or another individual, an officer’s primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the situation,’’ said Boston police spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll.

The problem, it seems, is that ““Police are not used to ceding power, and these tools are forcing them to cede power,’’ according to David Ardia, director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society’s Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University.

In contrast to Massachusetts cops’ draconian attitudes towards citizen oversight, a Pennsylvania police department in Spring City and East Vincent Township has agreed to a policy that allows citizens to record on-duty cops on videotape. Unfortunately for Massachusetts State residents, a spokesperson for Attorney General Martha Coakley says that their police officers need not worry about the letter of the law. “At this time, this office has not issued any advisory or opinion on this issue,” said spokesperson Harry Pierre.

The good news is that Massachusetts – as well as other states in the US – might yet change their ways. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall believes that “Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals when they seek to hold government officials responsible by recording, secretly recording on occasion, an interaction between a citizen and a police officer.”

Until changes are made, though, be wary of recording shady cop activities with your cellphone. If you feel compelled to do so anyway, your best bet to fighting an arrest is to openly record the situation with your mobile phone’s camera – hiding the camera or microphone can only lead to bad things. You’ve been warned.

[jonnyb25]

There are many other stories about this topic it is really scary what some police departments are doing.