| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/11/2012 11:54:01 PM · #1 |
DOJ is supporting a man suing the police for erasing his recording of them arresting someone:
//www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-ci-aclu-doj-videotaping-20120111,0,7691935.story |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 07:43:44 AM · #2 |
I think this is great....teach the cops a lesson
|
|
|
|
01/12/2012 09:37:48 AM · #3 |
| Good. The DOJ finally got something right, and stood up for the constitution. This will be a case worth watching. |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 09:41:41 AM · #4 |
It'll teach these particular cops this law, but I don't think there's much communication across the country, so other cops will probably remain ignorant.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2012 10:17:11 AM · #5 |
| The problem is that the laws on recording a conversation vary from state to state. Some require consent of one party, others require consent of both, otherwise a warrant is necessary...unless you're the Fed government (but that's another story). Technically, in the states that require dual consent, if you are making a home movie of your kids goofing around at the playground and you can hear someone's conversation, inadvertently recorded in the background...you've broken the law. |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 10:19:56 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The problem is that the laws on recording a conversation vary from state to state... |
True, but recording in a public place is not the same as recording a conversation where there is an expectation of privacy. The laws regarding recording of conversations would not apply to recording of activity in a public place, where there is no expectation of privacy.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2012 10:56:18 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The problem is that the laws on recording a conversation vary from state to state... |
True, but recording in a public place is not the same as recording a conversation where there is an expectation of privacy. The laws regarding recording of conversations would not apply to recording of activity in a public place, where there is no expectation of privacy. |
You would think so, but that's not been the case. The laws typically don't differentiate between phone conservations and in-person conversations. If you and I went to a public park and had a conversation that you wanted to record, and we were in a dual consent state, you would have to ask for my consent. Now if we were shouting at each other, it would be a different story.
People have been prosecuted for videotaping the police in public places based on the fact that they were recording sound without consent and that constituted wiretapping.
Message edited by author 2012-01-12 10:58:49. |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 11:33:56 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
People have been prosecuted for videotaping the police in public places based on the fact that they were recording sound without consent and that constituted wiretapping. |
i'm curious about this from a different angle. with photography, the legal issues related to the imagery itself start with the publication of the image. aside from trespassing and other crimes, it's not the taking of the image, but the usage of the image. wouldn't that be the same with video? for instance, if i recorded an arrest, but only published the video without the audio, would i have broken the law? |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 12:02:15 PM · #9 |
| Interesting, This should also affect the states/cities that have enacted laws banning taking pictures of police as well. The police definitely need to be held accountable for their actions if they are stepping out of bounds, and that is a lot harder to show if this policy of taking pictures of police in public is banned. |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 12:25:13 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by Spork99:
People have been prosecuted for videotaping the police in public places based on the fact that they were recording sound without consent and that constituted wiretapping. |
i'm curious about this from a different angle. with photography, the legal issues related to the imagery itself start with the publication of the image. aside from trespassing and other crimes, it's not the taking of the image, but the usage of the image. wouldn't that be the same with video? for instance, if i recorded an arrest, but only published the video without the audio, would i have broken the law? |
The way it was explained to me, yes. The illegal act is not in the publication, but the act of recording. The publication simply makes it publicly available.
There was an article in Time in AUG 2010.
Now those charges got tossed out, but the guy still spent 26hr in jail and was indicted on wiretapping charges. The guy on the motorcycle was riding like an idiot, but that doesn't excuse the cop's actions. If you cut me off in traffic and get out of your car with a gun, the first thing on my mind is "out of control road rager" and "how do I kill this asshole before he kills me"
There are other cases where the police have told people that recording them is illegal and the police have arrested people for continuing to record them. The police have used this threat to intimidate witnesses recording their actions. |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 12:29:27 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
There are other cases where the police have told people that recording them is illegal and the police have arrested people for continuing to record them. The police have used this threat to intimidate witnesses recording their actions. |
There was a case like this here in Milwaukee recently. A couple photographers were arrested for attempting to document police action against some protesters who were blocking a public roadway.
In no way should citizens be made to feel afraid to document police actions. To limit this right is to start down the very slippery slope toward a police state. This is not what a free country is about.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2012 12:57:35 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
There was a case like this here in Milwaukee recently. A couple photographers were arrested for attempting to document police action against some protesters who were blocking a public roadway.
In no way should citizens be made to feel afraid to document police actions. To limit this right is to start down the very slippery slope toward a police state. This is not what a free country is about. |
Unfortunately, with some police, you'd have to be willing to do some jail time to have your rights upheld.
How badly do you want to prove your point?
|
|
|
|
01/12/2012 01:41:48 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by kirbic:
There was a case like this here in Milwaukee recently. A couple photographers were arrested for attempting to document police action against some protesters who were blocking a public roadway.
In no way should citizens be made to feel afraid to document police actions. To limit this right is to start down the very slippery slope toward a police state. This is not what a free country is about. |
Unfortunately, with some police, you'd have to be willing to do some jail time to have your rights upheld.
How badly do you want to prove your point? |
Now you go on and stand up so this here white man can have a seat.
That's not to say that you should defy a police officer's orders or get into physical confrontations with them at the time...you will lose. BUT you can, and probably should, make sure that you are NOT silent on the matter and don't just tuck your tail between your legs and go home whimpering never to be heard from again. File complaints about the officer's behavior, let people know you were mistreated. If you don't get a reasonable answer, aim your complaints higher, call the media, call the ACLU, call Gloria Allred. Basically, make a fuss.
Message edited by author 2012-01-12 14:42:12. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/28/2025 12:54:51 PM EDT.
