Man who Videotapes Police Could Get 16 Years in Prison

[Jacksnyte]

1. A legal order from a peace officer is determinant upon whether or not he feels (and presumably can demonstrate) that your compliance with the order will not hinder or will at the very least assist him in the performance of his duties.

2. Whether or not a cop's order to a civilian is legal is for a court to decide. As the law (keep in mind that these laws are mostly state dependent) is, he can order you to do something and you have to. If you choose not to, he is allowed to use force to make you do so. Whether what he's ordering you to do is legal or not is something that is determined later in a court of law.


It is a lot of power and it can and is used for police corruption. Which is why education, both character education and education on what is and isn't legal, is important.


I'm sorry your experiences with cops have been negative. My personal experience has been the opposite.

I've found that the vast majority of cops are no different than any average member of society. Granted, in my point of view this is pathetic because I think someone who is given that extra power should be required (before receiving it) to have excellent character.



I''m sorry to hear that. But keep in mind that for all the bad cops who get bad press and make the rest of law enforcement look bad, there are plenty of good ones who don't do that.

In fact, most are absolutely disgusted by a corrupt cop. For many in the law enforcement world there is nothing worse.





It depends on where you are. In certain places in California is it illegal to shout obscenities in public.

Besides, you can legally shout "F*&^ the police"and a cop can legally (again, it depends on the State because these things are largely state dependent) come and talk to you about it, and even detain you for it during the course of his/her investigation of your behavior.

If you disagree with that, then work to change the law. Don't blame the cop.



I disagree with that. I don't disagree with video or recording, but I disagree with the conception that there is some sort of right to do so.

Depending on what is going on, your videoing could negatively impact the situation and place either yourself, the suspects, or the officers in danger.

Case in point, a classmate of mine was working one night and they received a call to a party that was going out of control (people were throwing beer bottles at the windows of the neighbors who'd called). The location was one where warrants had been served and weapons had been discovered. It was in the middle of an area that was known for gang violence. The neighbors who called said that they thought someone may have been armed due to threats being shouted out from partygoers.

My classmate and his partner rolled up to the scene and saw a young man with a black object in his hand that he was pointing at them. Given the distance, poor lighting, and the time of night, they ordered him to drop whatever it was he was holding and detained him at gunpoint (assuming it was a gun). At first he did not listen so they radioed for backup.

Ultimately, the kid's more sober friend convinced him to drop the cellphone which he was using to videotape them. At the time that they ordered him to drop it, they did not know it was just a cellphone.


Another example: The city I used to work in primarily was known to have lots of violence from the Mexican Mafia. During the time period when our officers were being videotaped, personal death threats and even attempts to murder some of the officers who worked the overnight shift of the city happened as a result of certain gang members hearing that their buddies had been arrested. Even if the arrest was totally legal and for a valid reason (like domestic violence).

Even I was told at one point that there was a hit on my life because I worked for the department and translated most of the time (as one of the only people on my shift who could translate).

My identity, in many cases, would not have been known had I not been taped.

Despite all this, I still think there's nothing wrong with video taping peace officers because those who work in law enforcement recognize the risk that comes with it. At the same time, it's not someone's right to video tape law enforcement despite being ordered to stop. If you choose to anyways, then you choose to accept the consequences that may come with that.

Personally, from my experiences with cops, I will say that the average personality profile of a cop in the USA will lean more toward the bullying, narrow-minded jock type who gets off on giving other people a hard time. You remember those guys in high school! I have noticed a lot of symptoms of "roid rage" in a lot of the younger cops in the last decade or so, as well. I have seen more instances of cops causing the problem than of cops solving the problem. Cops often act more like a gang than many actual gang members, only they have govt. funding and sanction. Of course there are some good cops out there, but I have rarely come in contact with them. Any cop should have nothing to hide in the execution of his duties!

 

[TheKnight]

Personally, from my experiences with cops, I will say that the average personality profile of a cop in the USA will lean more toward the bullying, narrow-minded jock type who gets off on giving other people a hard time. You remember those guys in high school! I have noticed a lot of symptoms of "roid rage" in a lot of the younger cops in the last decade or so, as well. I have seen more instances of cops causing the problem than of cops solving the problem. Cops often act more like a gang than many actual gang members, only they have govt. funding and sanction. Of course there are some good cops out there, but I have rarely come in contact with them. Any cop should have nothing to hide in the execution of his duties!

Like I said, there are bad cops out. A lot of the negatives you've seen probably come from psychological issues. Most cops start out being relatively good people. However, with the difficult schedule, the amount of stuff that cops are expected to deal with, and with the stigma of seeking professional help, over time many cops start to express negative behavior as a result.

I personally don't think that the problem needs to be addressed by prosecuting cops, but changing their work schedule (which has been done on many departments), offering anonymous psychological help (on many departments, seeking psychological help can be damaging to a career), and more vacation time.Obviously all of this would vary depending on the area.

I realize that many people have negative experiences with cops, but at the same time I also know what it is that cops deal with. Your day could be a slow one where you get no calls. Or it can be a day where at the beginning of your shift am eleven month old baby and two male adults get shot and killed (with the baby bleeding while your partner held it in the passenger seat as you tried to get it to the hospital because the ambulance would take took long). After that you're driving around and see a man beating a woman who happens to be his wife and when you contact him she tells you that he's high on meth and he tries to fight you. Then you get a call of a 7 year old girl who tells you the details of her constant rape by her dad who you have to arrest. You later get a call of child abuse and when you get there you see that the mother is high on meth and in't fit to take care of the children, so you take them into protective custody and wait 5 hours at the station for the overworked child services agent to arrive. You go home late due to the child abuse case and when you get there your wife begins to argue with you about how you're never home and that the kids always miss you.

So while most cops expect to face difficulty when they join up, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who could deal with all of that on a daily or weekly basis and still be OK without seeking professional help. I would hope that such things would affect anyone and would worry about the person who it doesn't affect.

If only seeking professional help was de-stigmatized, then it would solve a lot of problems.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Since I actually work in law enforcement, I'll go ahead and jump in here.

Everything that I do, say, and type is public record. Everything. If they want to know how much money I make, they get it. If they want a recording of a 911 call, they get it. If they want a copy of a police report, they get it.

If a person wants a copy of an officer's patrol cam, they get it. It is not reasonable for an officer to tell a person to stop filming them unless they can demonstrate that doing so prevented them from performing the actions of their job.

In this case, if the fellow is violating Maryland's wire-tap law, ie, recording without a court order, then the police officer is also violating the wire-tap law by recording the stop without a court order.

 

[TheKnight]

Since I actually work in law enforcement, I'll go ahead and jump in here.

Everything that I do, say, and type is public record. Everything. If they want to know how much money I make, they get it. If they want a recording of a 911 call, they get it. If they want a copy of a police report, they get it.

Again, a lot of this is state dependent. Not just anyone can get a report in California. You have to be somewhat involved in what was going on. And that involves any record. You cannot go and ask for any random record, you have to be involved with it because not everything that happens is everyone's business.

So a lot of it is state dependent.

then the police officer is also violating the wire-tap law by recording the stop without a court order.

How do we know the officer was recording the stop?

 

[Magic Man]

I believe it should be legal, but not illegal for them to tell you to stop. It would make no sense to have such a law. There are so many reasons why they might want you to stop that you wouldn't necessary know at the time or ever come to know. Do you really think it would be worthwhile to make it illegal and seek criminal charges against cops for telling people to stop filming for the very few and rare instances where that filming occurs and isn't in the way?

First, it should not be illegal to record your interaction with the police. Second, it should be illegal for them to tell you to stop without a good reason. Obviously, if there are extenuating circumstances that mean the best course of action for everyone involved is for you to stop recording, that's fine. Just like generally, they shouldn't tell you to drop your phone, but if they think it could be a weapon, they have the right to do that.

The biggest problem is that you make the assumption that recording your interaction with the cops usually gets in the way. That is a false assumption.

Spectators do not always have a right to gain information about a situation involving law enforcement. Almost every situation involves the officer and another person. A lot of times the officer isn't allowed to just give out information on the other person or their situation. Sometimes it's simply out of courtesy to the suspect/victim/parties involved.

It's not just a matter of privacy for the cop, but for the people involved in whatever situation the cop is there for (because you probably wouldn't be video taping the cop by himself--there wouldn't be anything interesting about that).

Also, if you're close enough to be filming anything worthwhile, then it is extremely uncomfortable for the law enforcement personnel to have you standing that close and not being involved in the situation. I would imagine that in most cases cops telling people to "stop filming" could probably be translated as "could you do that over there" (over there being somewhere not so close to where you're filming).

Not only that, but you being as close as you are could be illegal. If you're on the freeway and you stop to film, you're holding up traffic. If you're on a street and you pull your car up behind a traffic stop to film, then you're interfering with the cops duties. If it's a call at a private residence you probably have no reason to be there. If you're the person talking to the cops, then it's just rude to be videotaping that situation and sort of shows a lack of seriousness on your part. If I called the police, one of my last thoughts would be "let me get the camera so I can film this interaction."

It just doesn't seem worth it to make it illegal for them to tell you to stop filming.

I'm really not sure what the problem is here. It should be plainly obvious, especially for a supporter of Ron Paul. You have every right to record your interaction with the cops, and others have every right to record those interactions when in public. Cops need a good reason to tell you to stop, and that doesn't include to save them some hassle later on because they're doing things wrong. If there is no good reason, then it should be illegal to tell you to stop.

 

[TheKnight]

The biggest problem is that you make the assumption that recording your interaction with the cops usually gets in the way. That is a false assumption.

It can and in many cases does. The value derived from such recording isn't worth the trouble that would go into it.

I've already said that I'm not against it happening at all. If it's out of the way and doesn't interfere then, as I've said more than once in this thread, I see no problem with it.

I disagree that it should be illegal for cops to tell you to stop. Making it illegal means that you want cops to be prosecuted for telling people not to film. I think that's absolutely ridiculous and will create a burden on our justice system that isn't necessary.

Even in places where there are video recordings of cops, there are not enough instances of the video catching corruption to warrant all the expenditure of paying for it and maintaining this kind of surveillance.

I'm really not sure what the problem is here. It should be plainly obvious, especially for a supporter of Ron Paul. You have every right to record your interaction with the cops, and others have every right to record those interactions when in public.

And I have no issue with it. My posts have only been in argument against the assertion that it should be illegal for cops to tell people to stop. That's absurd.

And as a Ron Paul supporter I think blaming the cops is just a cop out for personal political irresponsibility. We have so many ridiculous laws and policies that cops have to follow that increase police interaction with civilians to a ridiculous level.

Imagine a world where cops only had to deal with crimes that mattered: violent crimes and traffic violations which affect others. That's not how it is. We live in an America where cops deal with people because drugs are illegal. 100% of all my non-violent/non-traffic interactions with people when I worked in law enforcement came from enforcement of ridiculous drug laws that most cops don't even believe in.

If we truly cared, we'd address the problems behind the situation, which is inefficiency in government policy when it comes to this issue. Saying that we should film cops is, as I also said in this thread already, addressing the symptom and not the issue itself.

I support Ron Paul because I believe the system is messed up and needs fixing. My support for him does not mean that I will irrationally criticize cops for acting within the messed up system that they are legally bound to serve and live by, even if they are not properly equipped to do so.

Should we be allowed to record our interactions with the police? Absolutely. But it all depends on how it is done, and I certainly don't think it should be illegal for a cop to say to someone that they should stop filming because 98% of the time, the film the person was taking wouldn't have been useful to them, wouldn't have exposed any corruption and was (perhaps to the ignorance of the videographer) probably in the way.

Cops need a good reason to tell you to stop, and that doesn't include to save them some hassle later on because they're doing things wrong. If there is no good reason, then it should be illegal to tell you to stop.

And who determines what a good reason is? By illegalizing you're saying that every time a cop tells someone to stop filming there should be a trial wherein the cop provides his justification to a court (and presumably with a jury). In essence, you would create this entire system for regulating this, when it isn't even really an issue.

It simply isn't worth it. Audio works just as well (and statistically works better in court) and even in times when video does catch corruption, it usually isn't a determining factor or even a major supporting factor.

There are huge systems in place already to deal with and eliminate police corruption. Every single action follows a long thought process and then hours worth of paperwork afterwork for explaining and recording statements and gathering data to analyze the situation. To pay, presumably with taxpayer dollars, for another inefficient system wherein we record all police interactions, or a system wherein we prosecute police for telling people not to film is absolutely ridiculous and it lacks sound logic.

All it takes is a reasonable look at the actual data to see that mandating filming wouldn't change enough to be worse the cost, and illegalizing orders to stop filming would create a ridiculous amount (however small it may be) of court cases over a silly issue.

 

[Magic Man]

It can and in many cases does. The value derived from such recording isn't worth the trouble that would go into it.

As I said, this is a false assumption. Recording my interaction with a cop when I'm pulled over for speeding doesn't interfere with anything.

I've already said that I'm not against it happening at all. If it's out of the way and doesn't interfere then, as I've said more than once in this thread, I see no problem with it.

Right, and so in the majority of cases, you have no problem with it.

I disagree that it should be illegal for cops to tell you to stop. Making it illegal means that you want cops to be prosecuted for telling people not to film. I think that's absolutely ridiculous and will create a burden on our justice system that isn't necessary.

I want there to be a penalty for cops doing something that they shouldn't do. It would be no different than excessive force. A cop is not allowed to use excessive force, and neither should he be able to tell you to stop recording an incident (unless there is good reason, obviously).

That's why I say it's very simple. You're really digging way too far into this. Very simply, an officer can use his gun or mace, but he has to have good reason and he has to be able to justify the use. Similarly he should be allowed to tell you to stop filming, but only when he has a good reason and can justify it. Just because he doesn't want the incident recorded is not a good reason.

 

[Revoltingest]

I propose:
It should be legal to record (both video & audio) actions of a cop at all times....no exceptions.
This way, there can be no mischief by cops who seek to hide their malfeasance/misfeasance by ordering citizens to stop recording.
Give cops long jail sentences for such violations.
If this occasionally causes real problems, then this is an acceptable cost for preservation of liberty & holding cops accountable.

 

[Jacksnyte]

I propose:
It should be legal to record (both video & audio) actions of a cop at all times....no exceptions.
This way, there can be no mischief by cops who seek to hide their malfeasance/misfeasance by ordering citizens to stop recording.
Give cops long jail sentences for such violations.
If this occasionally causes real problems, then this is an acceptable cost for preservation of liberty & holding cops accountable.

AMEN!!! Preach own, bruthah!!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It can and in many cases does. The value derived from such recording isn't worth the trouble that would go into it.

Please provide just one instance in which it might interfere? Now obviously if the person recording is physically getting in the way and the police would have to work around this person, then I can see them ordering the person to leave. However, when would it ever present a problem in which it would hinder police work if someone is filming from a distance in which there will be no physical interference? Take the OP for example, he most definitely was not interfering with police work.

 

[Where Is God]

My only guess would be that you could potentially give away an undercover cops's identity, but I still think its bullcrap.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My only guess would be that you could potentially give away an undercover cops's identity, but I still think its bullcrap.

If a civilian discovered an undercover cop for what ever reason, then it's probably time for the cop to give up undercover work for their own safety.

 

[TheKnight]

As I said, this is a false assumption. Recording my interaction with a cop when I'm pulled over for speeding doesn't interfere with anything.

Recording how? If you dig out a video camera and start filming the whole interaction that can interfere.

I want there to be a penalty for cops doing something that they shouldn't do. It would be no different than excessive force. A cop is not allowed to use excessive force, and neither should he be able to tell you to stop recording an incident (unless there is good reason, obviously).

That's why I say it's very simple. You're really digging way too far into this. Very simply, an officer can use his gun or mace, but he has to have good reason and he has to be able to justify the use. Similarly he should be allowed to tell you to stop filming, but only when he has a good reason and can justify it. Just because he doesn't want the incident recorded is not a good reason.

I suppose I see the difference as being the level of objectivity. Using a gun or a baton on you is not anywhere near the same level as telling you to stop filming something.

And who would define what a "good reason" is? Because I can guarantee you that we all have different opinions of what a good reason is. I see pulling out a camera and taping someone while you talk to them as being akin to talking on a cell phone while they're talking to you.

I would agree that it isn't a good enough reason to tell you to stop necessarily, but I don't think cops should face prosecution if they do tell you to stop.

And besides, there's SO much that goes into each and every force incident. To suggest that a similar process be in place for ordering the cessation of filming is to place it on that same level, and it's definitely not.

Please provide just one instance in which it might interfere? Now obviously if the person recording is physically getting in the way and the police would have to work around this person, then I can see them ordering the person to leave. However, when would it ever present a problem in which it would hinder police work if someone is filming from a distance in which there will be no physical interference? Take the OP for example, he most definitely was not interfering with police work.

If one films from a distance and isn't physically in the way, that's totally fine. However, from experience, third party videographers like to be too close. Like crossing police tape, standing over bullet-ridden bodies, and follow cops into private residences to get recordings.

As I already said, I don't think the cops actions were appropriate in the OP. And I don't know all the details, but from what it seems like there were so many things wrong with what the cop did.

How many instances do you know of where a cop told someone filming from a distance to stop? I would agree that a cop who did that is probably up to no good. I simply don't think it happens enough to be an issue that needs legislating. In fact, I would argue it barely happens at all. I think cases where it does happen should result in a civil trial with the cop having to pay. But criminal prosecution? That's absurd!

I'm all for transparency, believe it or not, transparency helps cops more than it helps suspects or claimants (statistically speaking anyways), but I simply think it's illegal to waste taxpayer dollars on mandating such filming or committing the breach of reason that would be required to seek criminal prosecution of cops who tell people to stop filming.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Odd how video-taping is wire-tapping.

We are monitored almost 24 hours a day by video.

Besides, I know a guy that put himself through law school by video-taping cops and suing the city for their behavior.

Bad cop. No donut.

 

[Magic Man]

Recording how? If you dig out a video camera and start filming the whole interaction that can interfere.

Anything can interfere, but all you're doing is trying to nitpick to keep pretending you're right. Even if I dig out a video camera, it's generally not going to interfere. However, these days we're usually talking about using a phone.

I suppose I see the difference as being the level of objectivity. Using a gun or a baton on you is not anywhere near the same level as telling you to stop filming something.

And who would define what a "good reason" is? Because I can guarantee you that we all have different opinions of what a good reason is. I see pulling out a camera and taping someone while you talk to them as being akin to talking on a cell phone while they're talking to you.

I would agree that it isn't a good enough reason to tell you to stop necessarily, but I don't think cops should face prosecution if they do tell you to stop.

I'm really not sure why you're still arguing this. It seems like at this point, you just don't want to give up, so you're trying to nitpick to avoid doing that.

Here's the deal. There are some things cops shouldn't do, and should get in trouble for. Telling you to do something you don't legally have to do is one of those things. Beating you unnecessarily is another thing. "Good reason" is determined by common sense and the situation. How do you determine excessive force? There's no clear-cut line. I'd even say determining that would be much harder than determining whether or not you had a good reason to tell someone to stop filming.

And whether or not excessive force is on the same level as telling someone to stop recording is irrelevant. They share similar characteristics for the purpose of a comparison.

Bottom line: Cops should only tell people to stop recording if it actually interferes with police work or could cause a dangerous situation. In the vast majority of cases, it would do neither of those things. 80+% of the time there would be no good reason to tell someone to stop recording.

 

[Magic Man]

As I already said, I don't think the cops actions were appropriate in the OP. And I don't know all the details, but from what it seems like there were so many things wrong with what the cop did.

Good, then we're agreed. You should be able to record interactions with the cops without getting arrested for it.

How many instances do you know of where a cop told someone filming from a distance to stop? I would agree that a cop who did that is probably up to no good. I simply don't think it happens enough to be an issue that needs legislating. In fact, I would argue it barely happens at all.

It doesn't matter how often it happens. What matters is that in many places it's illegal for those videos to exist. The point is that it shouldn't be legislated. There should e no laws concerning it.

I think cases where it does happen should result in a civil trial with the cop having to pay. But criminal prosecution? That's absurd!

Who said anything about criminal prosecution? You seem to be creating reasons to keep arguing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would agree that it isn't a good enough reason to tell you to stop necessarily, but I don't think cops should face prosecution if they do tell you to stop.

And besides, there's SO much that goes into each and every force incident. To suggest that a similar process be in place for ordering the cessation of filming is to place it on that same level, and it's definitely not.

I think that cops should be free to request a person to stop filming... though with the understanding that the cop may be made to explain why he made that request. As for ordering a person to stop filming... I pretty much agree with mball. There has to be a strict test, IMO.

 

[TheKnight]

Who said anything about criminal prosecution? You seem to be creating reasons to keep arguing.

What do you expect to happen when you make it illegal? If a cop violates that law when it is illegal, what sort of enforcement do you think would occur? Criminal prosecution can and most often does follow the breaking of laws. This is especially true for cops.

If we're comparing excessive force to filming, then I'm assuming that you want there to be a punishment that comes from criminal punishment, like there is when a cop uses excessive force. So you are expecting a trial to happen, and for a verdict to be given by either a judge or a jury, and then for there to be some sort of repercussion for the cop because they told someone to stop filming.

If that's not what you're saying, then why say make it illegal? What does illegal even mean if doing illegal acts isn't enforced by criminal prosecution?

 

[Magic Man]

What do you expect to happen when you make it illegal?

"Illegal" as in they're not allowed to do it. If they were allowed to do it, they wouldn't have to worry about civil court either. If they're not allowed to do it, it's illegal. A random person is not allowed to make me get out of my car.

If we're comparing excessive force to filming, then I'm assuming that you want there to be a punishment that comes from criminal punishment, like there is when a cop uses excessive force. So you are expecting a trial to happen, and for a verdict to be given by either a judge or a jury, and then for there to be some sort of repercussion for the cop because they told someone to stop filming.

If that's not what you're saying, then why say make it illegal? What does illegal even mean if doing illegal acts isn't enforced by criminal prosecution?

You're confusing things. If a cop is not allowed to do something, it's illegal for him to do so. What I would expect is for a case of him forcing someone to stop filming to be dealt with reasonably. That would most likely include an investigation and a punishment in the range of suspension for some period of time. We're not talking about having him go to jail or anything.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"Illegal" as in they're not allowed to do it. If they were allowed to do it, they wouldn't have to worry about civil court either. If they're not allowed to do it, it's illegal. A random person is not allowed to make me get out of my car.



You're confusing things. If a cop is not allowed to do something, it's illegal for him to do so. What I would expect is for a case of him forcing someone to stop filming to be dealt with reasonably. That would most likely include an investigation and a punishment in the range of suspension for some period of time. We're not talking about having him go to jail or anything.

That's not completely accurate.

Police officers are not allowed to do a lot of things that are not illegal but that are procedural violations that can get them suspended, demoted, or fired. A good example of this is when seven police officers encouraged a teenager to pose for pictures in a booking area. Some were fired, some were suspended, but the DA said that nothing criminal took place so there were no charges filed.