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.
GO HERE to read more.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
8 comments:
So doesn't that mean that you can still record, just without sound? It seems like the law only protects recorded sound, but not visual images. If I'm reading this correctly, you can either record without sound or just take regular old photographs.
Can anyone give a REASONABLE excuse as to why a CITIZEN (remember the government exists with the PERMISSION of the governed..) would not be allowed to record ANY government official at ANY time they are in public doing what taxpayers pay them to do? Think of all the instances (and there are HUNDREDS of them) where the police said "this happened this way" and then film surfaced to refute the "official" police version. Not even considering the "filing a false police report" issue...how many innocent people have had to plead guilty to a crime (that police favorite -- 'obstruction of justice'-- a blanket charge that can mean anything the police want it to, comes to mind) because the testimony of the police officer was deemed solid gold and unquestionable, even when there are numerous and objective statements from witnesses that contradict the "official report". Here we go--- public MASTERS, not public SERVANTS....the overbearing arrogance of the police in this matter is unbelievable....why would they be SO against having their actions recorded....they certainly do a lot of that themselves, so it seems their attitude is "the laws are made for you "citizens" but not for us...and its obvious from the assorted posts that this "we're ABOVE the law and we don't care if you like it or not" attitude is beginning to irritate the average citizen....
If its illegal to record an "official" then why should it be legal for an "official" to record a citizen ? Seems lopsided to me.
Further, the last paragraph to that story should OUTRAGE every citizen who reads it...his charges of peddling ONE DOLLAR ART WORKS was dropped, but the STATES ATTORNEY decided to try to put him IN PRISON on a felony for filming his own arrest!! This is the government "protecting" us??? It's a disgusting and shameful exercise of authority, but what's even more disgusting is that the States attorney thought this was a good idea....does discretion have a place in his vocabulary??? Wonder why more and more people are losing respect for authority? Please, sir, more "protection"...thats what we all crave....more "protection"...
I think in Maryland it's the audio recording that gets you in trouble, not the video.
11:26 "in practice, this exception is NOT being recognized"..."even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists"..."eavesdropping" charges against someone filming HIS OWN ARREST???! Am I missing something? Ask MY consent the next time I'm pulled over for speeding and I'll be happy to ask for yours, but again, the law is made for everyone...would there be something happening that the police DON"T want recorded??? LOL!! never......right?
unreal. If they have nothing to hide, why would police object to being recorded?
10:05...EXACTLY!!! Next thing you know, you'll be getting arrested for LOOKING at an arrest being made...and if you don't have your "papers", it will be a mandnatory prison sentence...and I still haven't heard ONE police officer address the issue of what happens to a cop who files a report that is in direct conflict with a film of the incident (that the officer didn't know was being made at the time)..."lying to a police officer" is a crime, but apparently a police officer lying to another police officer is well, uh, not that big of a deal...just tell the citizen to plead guilty, pay the fine, get a criminal record and shut the hell up. Filing a false police report is only a crime if you are a civilian...spin THAT....
Post a Comment