Friday’s Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir.), held that the First Amendment protects a right to openly videorecord and audiorecord police officers in public:
It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” An important corollary to this interest in protecting the stock of public information is that “[t]here is an undoubted right to gather news ‘from any source by means within the law.’”
The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Moreover, as the Court has noted, “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.’” This is particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties. Ensuring the public’s right to gather information about their officials not only aids in the uncovering of abusesbut also may have a salutary effect on the functioning of government more generally, see Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8 (1986) (noting that “many governmental processes operate best under public scrutiny”).
In line with these principles, [our circuit, other circuits, and various district courts] have previously recognized that the videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties….
It is of no significance that the present case, unlike Iacobucci and many of those cited above, involves a private individual, and not a reporter, gathering information about public officials. The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public’s right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press. Indeed, there are several cases involving private individuals among the decisions from other courts recognizing the First Amendment right to film.
Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.
To be sure, the right to film is not without limitations. It may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. We have no occasion to explore those limitations here, however. On the facts alleged in the complaint, Glik’s exercise of his First Amendment rights fell well within the bounds of the Constitution’s protections. Glik filmed the defendant police officers in the Boston Common, the oldest city park in the United States and the apotheosis of a public forum. In such traditional public spaces, the rights of the state to limit the exercise of First Amendment activity are “sharply circumscribed.” Moreover, … the complaint indicates that Glik “filmed [the officers] from a comfortable remove” and “neither spoke to nor molested them in any way” (except in directly responding to the officers when they addressed him). Such peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers’ performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation.
In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. Indeed, “[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.” The same restraint demanded of law enforcement officers in the face of “provocative and challenging” speech must be expected when they are merely the subject of videotaping that memorializes, without impairing, their work in public spaces.
The decision is correct, I think: Just as the right to speak can be unconstitutionally burdened by restrictions on spending money to speak, or associating in order to speak, it can also be unconstitutionally burdened by restrictions on the gathering of information that is needed to credibly speak.
And the decision is also important. It’s just the latest in a line of circuit court cases, but it’s likely to get a lot of publicity, encourage police departments to respect the public’s rights to openly record police officers in public, and encourage lawyers to challenge violations of these rights. This is especially so because the court held that the right was clearly established, so that the officers won’t have qualified immunity. This means that if the plaintiff proves to the jury that his account of the facts is right, he can recover damages and attorney’s fees.
Note, though, that the decision is quite limited in its scope. It doesn’t, for instance, deal with whether state laws that bar surreptitious recordings — including of police officers in public — are constitutional (the argument would be that they are permissible “manner restrictions”). For an example of such a law being applied to punish a citizen, see this post, which discusses the 2001 Commonwealth v. Hyde decision in Massachusetts.
The First Circuit decision also doesn’t deal with whether the First Amendment right extends to the recording not just of government officials but of others (whether employees of a business or a nonprofit, or private citizens acting outside of any scope of employment). It doesn’t deal with whether state laws that bar surreptitious recordings of supposedly “private conversations” are constitutional. And it doesn’t discuss the permissible scope of restrictions on videotaping on government property (outside traditional public forums such as streets, sidewalks, and parks).
The logic of the opinion is broad enough to strengthen the hand of people who challenge some of these restrictions, and may ultimately lead to some of these restrictions being struck down. But which ones will indeed ultimately be struck down, and which will be upheld, is not clear.
Polypolitical says:
Interestingly, many police officers with whom I am personally aquainted fear being recorded not because it interferes with their duties, but rather because when the video is typically shown in a public forum it is presented in a way that puts the officers in a bad light. The public is fairly ignorant of the realities of using force in the enforcing of the law, and the use of force is never a pretty thing to witness. Of course many officers simply enjoy pushing people around. Just my two cents.
August 29, 2011, 7:00 pmhelene edwards says:
this right will be purely theoretical, cops will consistently thwart it with bogus claims of “interference,” and no plaintiff will ever receive a dollar in compensation, due to qualified privilege. Cops are jerks.
August 29, 2011, 7:05 pmanon says:
@Polypolitical I can’t see how it’s relevant at all how the cops feel about it. And given how eager they are to use dashcams and the like, I can only assume they generally benefit from video capturing.
August 29, 2011, 7:05 pmFub says:
Or maybe not [pixiq.com].
Some detailed analysis of Glick at http://www.righttorecord.org/?p=448
Via Radley Balko’s coverage Saturday.
Note: For some reason I could not make the righttorecord.org link display properly. I know it was properly formed. But preview is apparently still buggy.
August 29, 2011, 7:20 pmuh_clem says:
It is a relief to see such a right-headed ruling.
If only for the reason that I so rarely get the chance to use the term “right-headed”.
August 29, 2011, 7:20 pmcirby says:
Translates to “shows what really happened when the officers screwed up.”
There’s only so much a single camera operator can do to make someone look bad. If they don’t edit the tape, and if the whole story is made available, there’s not a lot you can complain about.
I’m just waiting for someone to do a statistical analysis of the reliability of police dashcams and other recording devices when used in prosecutions of citizens, versus how often they “malfunction” when used as evidence against the same officers.
August 29, 2011, 7:24 pmDebrah says:
Good point.
Police officers, highway patrol officers, and those in similar occupations are fully initiated into the videotaping scheme of things.
Most often, to their ultimate benefit.
It’s also worth noting that everyone is videotaping most everything as we go about a normal day.
Most are probably aware that you’re taped throughout the shopping experience, down each and every aisle when you go to the market.
It’s easy to see the camera devices as you enter the market. You’re also being taped at the cash register as you pay for your groceries…..as well as watched through a two-way mirror on the market’s office doors; however, I didn’t know until recently that you are being videotaped as you shop on every grocery aisle.
I recently got a take-out lunch at a grocery deli, but upon returning home I discovered that the take-out hadn’t been put into my bag at check-out.
When I called to complain they retraced my every move from beginning to end on their tape and were able to see that it, indeed, had been left near the register.
One of their employees picked it up and had it for lunch since no one had claimed it. Ha!
And so……the store manager had the deli make another take-out for me and the store delivered it to my door.
Very good business move.
Videotape saved the day!
August 29, 2011, 7:32 pmEH says:
but rather because when the video is typically shown in a public forum it is presented in a way that puts the officers in a bad light.
“Typically?” Such as never? Or is your issue with the part where the unarmed kid getting shot in the back isn’t edited out?
Surreptitious recording of police officers with acquittal:
http://www.suntimes.com/7259815-417/woman-who-recorded-cops-acquitted-of-felony-eavesdropping.html
August 29, 2011, 7:39 pmTed says:
I assume then, that such a state would not allow “surreptitious” recordings on behalf of the police? It seems odd that a cop would be able to record me, when I would not be able to record her.
August 29, 2011, 7:47 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
There’s another First Amendment issue besides freedom of the press here, too, and it may actually be more immediately pertinent: the recording of official behavior ought to be protected as a strong aid to exercising the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
August 29, 2011, 7:52 pmJimbino says:
This is great news! Now we can put our attention to setting our fascist cops up for a great fall!
August 29, 2011, 7:54 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Another step forward for the libertarian-liberal alliance, and for freedom in America.
August 29, 2011, 7:56 pmBob from Ohio says:
Juan R. Torruella appointed by Reagan
August 29, 2011, 8:19 pmKermit Lipez appointed by Clinton
Jeffrey R. Howard appointed by G.W. Bush
J. Aldridge says:
It isn’t about “gathering” but about discussion. Gathering methods can be another “abuse” of the freedom that has always been restricted by law. The court needs to go back to basic constitutional law 101.
August 29, 2011, 8:22 pmjill says:
New Jersey Cop Assaults Man For Videotaping Him
By Carlos Miller -…
A man and his brother were walking down the street early one morning in New Jersey last week when a police officer approached and began harassing them for videotaping him.
The man said that Seaside Heights police officers not only snatched his iPhone from him, but that they handcuffed and beat up his brother on the street, then again later in jail.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/new-jersey-cop-assaults-man-for-videotaping-him
and on another note…be careful what you photograph:
Police Chief Confirms Detaining Photographers Within Departmental Policy
http://www.lbpost.com/life/greggory/12188
and be careful what picture you paint!!
Artist’s Depiction of a Bank on Fire Drew Attention L.A. Police
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bank-painting-20110828,0,4395501.story
August 29, 2011, 8:25 pmRandy says:
“The decision is correct,
August 29, 2011, 8:34 pmI think.“jill says:
What would these same judges say if someone walked in and started videotaping them at work
August 29, 2011, 8:34 pmtwency says:
Pray, what is the constitutional flaw to which you alude?
August 29, 2011, 8:35 pmterraformer says:
MA cops do not use dash cams and other technologies because of this law, so there is no double standard with this. For everything it is lacking, MA law is typically not hypocritical. It is obtuse, inane, verbose to the point of eliciting maddening interpretations, but unless they exempt police officers explicitly, the powers that be typically interpret the law to apply equally to officers.
Applying our AWB to officers off duty is actually a minor controversy here in MA these days. The legislature made it clear their exemption ends at the point of official duties. The cops have been interpreting that as their official duties never end. A handful of chiefs are forcing officers to sell their privately held arms and we have had some prosecutions of people (corrections officers) exempt but not on duty.
August 29, 2011, 8:37 pmFub says:
Do judges work on public streets and sidewalks?
August 29, 2011, 8:38 pmterraformer says:
I don’t believe the 1A logic will carry every challenge to this law. Case in point will be the challenge where the law applies to private citizens on private citizens. There is tortured logic in Hyde about expectations of privacy. It will require among other tacks, a 6th amendment right to confront their accuser. How to make that work is another story, but that, the 4th and the 5th (due process) will be implicated before this is all done.
Here in MA because of Hyde, people are presumed to have a REP right from secret recording even when the persons controlling the recorders are privy to what is being said. That is absurd if you dissect it, but that is where Hyde leaves us. So for an example, if party A has a conversation with B, A can’t record it because B supposedly has a REP right yet A has heard everything B said. They were having a conversation for christ’s sake. B gave up their privacy to the statements once they engaged in said conversation by divulging the information. So A can detail the conversation from memory to whomever will listen but if B denies what was said or that the conversation even took place, it becomes a he said, she said situation. Now, who does this protect? It protects B. It protects liars, cheats and thieves. Because it allows them to lie about what took place. The SJC basically acknowledges this by their statement in Hyde that to allow surreptitious recording of cops will allow the citizens to monitor and find corruption.
So in short, A & B have no REP from each other for what they divulged to each other but they do have a REP from a C (a third party eavesdropper), because they had no intent to divulge to C (and assuming he wasn’t in earshot).
Here is where this logic really runs off the rails. An undercover cop asks a perp if he just knocked off the liquor store and he says yes. The cop can testify to this in court as the perp had no REP for the statement. But if the cop records the statement without a warrant, the recording is inadmissible and the cop has broken the law.
August 29, 2011, 8:54 pmElliot says:
It’s encouraging to see the court firmly state that reporters have no special privileges not enjoyed by everyone else.
August 29, 2011, 8:59 pmwhit says:
1) most officers i know support people recording us, and vice versa. because it helps weed out the guilty AND protect cops from false complaints. of course our state supreme court recently said iirc, that making FALSE complaints against the police is constitutionally protected? or at least some smart lawyer told me that
2) our state prohibits recording “private conversations” without 2 party consents (a few exceptions are made). imo, a police officer (also called a “public officer” ) communicating with a person during the course of an investigation is NOT a private conversation, and thus we can record people and vice versa.
imnsho
August 29, 2011, 9:01 pmterraformer says:
Public Officer? NY?
August 29, 2011, 9:04 pmwhit says:
it’s nice that i can always rely on anti-police bigotry within the first few posts of any topic that in any references police, police powers, etc.
August 29, 2011, 9:06 pmwhit says:
as a former MA cop, I agree with this POV. MA law is weird, to put it mildly. it’s the only state i know where only SOME misdemeanors are arrestable if occurring in your presence, and a state that still had laws on the book like “malicious mischief in an orchard on a sunday”.
August 29, 2011, 9:14 pmLex Apostata says:
I can think of reasonable limits on the right to videotape public officials, although the proper phrasing of narrowly drawn legislation might be tricky.
For example, a gang member taping narcotics officers leaving their homes on the way to court to testify against other gang members, such that the officers’ addresses and/or license plate numbers are visible.
Or private lawyers bugging the offices of government attorneys they are about to try an anti-trust case against.
August 29, 2011, 9:18 pmMario says:
I wonder if there is something in the timing here. This opinion came down very quickly–oral arguments were just June 8. That’s a fairly quick turnaround for a civil case like this.
Note that oral arguments in the related, Seventh Circuit case of ACLU v. Alvarez are going to be held in about two weeks. In that case, the ACLU-IL is asking for a declaratory judgment that criminalizing the audio, or audio and video, recording of police through the Illinois wiretapping law is unconstitutional. Below, Judge Conlon ruled that the First Amendment did not include a right to record police in public. (Conspiracy post here.)
Judge Lipez’s opinion in Glik made a point to cite the Seventh Circuit case of Schnell v. City of Chicago, 407 F.2d 1084 (7th Cr, 1969) for authority. Opinion at 11-12. Given the timing, I wonder if there was either a kind of “nudge” or a signal to the sister circuit here. The opinion is exceptionally strong.
(Thanks to Fub above for linking to my blog. One of the amici, Citizen Media Law Project, also has an especially good post on Glik.)
August 29, 2011, 9:18 pmEH says:
No comment on the pro-police bigotry in the very first comment, though?
There was a book we’d check out from the library when we were kids listing all of these “Can’t feed an elephant peanuts while standing on your head” laws. It’s what helped put “automatic sunsets for legislation” into my head before I got out of high school.
August 29, 2011, 9:23 pmwhit says:
my favorite MA law was “blaspheming the name of God”
August 29, 2011, 9:26 pmFub says:
I’ll agree that the implication that all police will charge interference is too broad a generalization. But it isn’t bigotry to state empirically verifiable facts that some police certainly have brought such charges against photographers.
I’ll agree that you, and maybe your entire department and entire state are golden in that regard. But not all officers or departments are.
For just one recent example.
August 29, 2011, 9:46 pmJ. Aldridge says:
In viewing the freedom as a right to gather info, to be seen or heard. It was never such a thing. It prevents govt from criminalizing “discussion” of public affairs it deems distasteful, e.g., discussion that might lead people to be dissatisfied with govt through addressing corruption of public men, etc.
August 29, 2011, 9:53 pmwhit says:
“cops are jerks” that was the quote
August 29, 2011, 9:58 pmOther Posts on the Lipez Opinion and Glik Case » righttorecord.org says:
[...] Amendment guru Eugene Volokh weighs in with a short post here. (My comment [...]
August 29, 2011, 10:09 pmStephen Lathrop says:
Just as? Those seem to be three unique issues. My arguments on each would be notably different.
August 29, 2011, 10:12 pmJimbino says:
I never thought about it before, but now I conclude that it would indeed be a great idea to subject every judge and public official to being continuously monitored by a camera hanging right over their heads.
August 29, 2011, 10:31 pmFub says:
Agreed that all cops aren’t jerks too. But the statement about cops always making “interference” charges was more readily empirically testable.
Unless there is some sekrit Steve Martin test that I don’t know about.
My favorite stupid statute, as an old computer guy, has always been the original deadly embrace.[1] It’s probably fictional, but I’ve heard it for several states, for both autos and trains:
FN 1: An unexpected process halt, avoided by Dijkstra’s Banker’s Algorithm.
August 29, 2011, 10:46 pmwhit says:
this is the kneejerk “yea but”used by the anti-cop bigots. even when a decision comes down limiting police power, the AUTOMATIC response of the anti-cop bigot is “they will find some way around it and violate it anyway”. it gets tiresome
August 29, 2011, 11:28 pmdave h says:
There were a few cases of cops in New Haven arresting people for recording them and erasing the videos. The police department had to retrain their officers to not do this, and the legislature took up a bill to make it clear that it was legal to videotape police.
August 29, 2011, 11:33 pmFirst Circuit: There is a Clearly Established First Amendment Right to Videotape the Police | ameerbenno.com says:
[...] Read more about it HERE. [...]
August 29, 2011, 11:34 pmwhit says:
great. i;m well aware you can find a few cases of almost ANYTHING. that doesn’t justify broadbrush wanks, is my point
August 29, 2011, 11:45 pmMario says:
I argue that this is more than the right to gather information.
With programs like QIK, recorders can publish on the spot. They exercise on-the-fly editorial control through their chosen viewpoint—physical viewpoint and otherwise. Even when recorders do not publish concurrently with recording, they are creating a media. Creating the first draft of an amateur documentary is different from merely observing. These videos are often used to express a particular and expressive viewpoint (see all the Copwatch groups), and often do so with little or no editing. This is an act of electronic writing.
August 30, 2011, 12:05 amEH says:
that doesn’t justify broadbrush wanks
Present company excepted, naturally, but the officers I’ve known have been pros with the broad brush, almost as a point of pride. I have to think it was something they picked up in training, since I knew some of them before they went in.
August 30, 2011, 12:28 amwhit says:
so, your argument is “they (allegedly) do it, so we should do it too?”
um, whatever. i expect more at volokh.com.
hth
August 30, 2011, 12:54 amTatil says:
If a private citizen gets ticked off, snatches a recording device and erases videos, he would be in a world of hurt. When a police officer does it, he just goes to a training class. The difference in treatment is a bit too wide.
August 30, 2011, 1:12 amPeter Gerdes says:
This issue will get solved when recording becomes such a common integrated part of our lifestyle that it would be inconceivable to ban it.
Regardless of what they say now people will use eyeglasses that help them associate names and faces and easily make videos of things they want to remember or even just be able to take a look back inside your fridge to see if you are out of milk when your at the store.
Once recording is the norm there won’t be such a thing as surreptitious recording without explicit assurances that no recording is being done.
August 30, 2011, 1:27 amKazinski says:
Actually I kind doubt that. It’s going to be a pretty tough charge to prove. With dubious injury, and unless there is a sympathetic victim, and/or multiple credible witnesses I think most prosecutors would punt.
August 30, 2011, 1:45 amJohn A says:
The headline of the article I first read was misleading, saying the law had been found unconstitutional.
It appears to me, in all my ignorance, that the bench did the equivalent of what we usually refer to as “jury nullification.” For the particular case, the prosecutors should have used their discretionary powers and never gone to court.
Indeed, I feel that many such cases should never be cases. Why should a uniformed officer in a public place have a greater “expectation of privacy” than any other citizen, and/or how much so? When carrying out public duties, to boot?
Dashcams… When first proposed, police associations mostly opposed them, but once in use found they were good in keeping down complaints and refuting some of those which were still made. OK – but should they not also be under the [sillier] “wiretapping” laws without prior warrants? I do not think so, but to exclude them while including [all] non-government recording is certainly problematic to me. Much the same sequence had occurred decades earlier about recording police-station “interviews” of witnesses and suspects.
August 30, 2011, 2:18 amdelurking says:
I have a question about such statutes. Let’s say I am in a two-party consent state (for purposes of recording). I and a police officer are having a private conversation. I say “I am recording this conversation”. Can the officer order me to turn off the recorder?
When I read the texts of the statutes in 2-party consent states, I would conclude no. If the officer wishes not to be recorded he can simply not speak.
Thanks
August 30, 2011, 7:42 amtwency says:
As I understand the term, jury nullification refers to situations where the jury believes the claimant is guilty breaking the law as written, but either because of disagreement with the law outright or because of other circumstances which the jury considers extenuating or overriding, declines to convict.
In this case, the judges gave what appears to be (to this nonlawyer) a rational argument for why the statute, as written, was no violated.
August 30, 2011, 7:43 ampublic_defender says:
One way to tell an honest cops from a dishonest ones is to ask what they think of being video taped. The honest ones won’t care because they are, well, honest, and the tape will just back them up. The dishonest ones know that without a recording, their word is becomes The Unquestionable Truth in any court. Absent affirmative evidence of dishonesty, judges and juries almost always believe what a cop says.
This is why surreptitious recording must be permitted. Cops should never know when they are being recorded and when they are not. And someone with evidence that a cop is lying shouldn’t have to fear prosecution because they recorded the cop without the cop knowing.
Sure, some tapes can show cops in a misleading light, but the answer to that problem is for cops to use their free speech rights, not to suppress ours.
August 30, 2011, 8:13 amSmooth, Like a Rhapsody says:
1. Another public policy reason to allow this is that it provides security—esp for females—against intrusion by bogus “cops”.
2. Re: taping court proceedings. Court proceedings are transcribed. There is always a record of them. Also, certain court hearings are closed to the public.
August 30, 2011, 8:20 amKen Brooks says:
I have been looking for a case in which a recording device is confiscated in a public forum. Personally, I would not desire to bring a section 1983 action, because of the potential for qualified immunity. What I desire is to put my money with the money men. I believe the attack that is most fruitful for attorney and client alike is under the Fifth Amendment. Remember that the confiscation is not only of the electronic device, but also the vast amount of copyright material on the device. Pursuant to the Berne Convention once one creates a fixed tangible copy of something there is automatic copyright protection. This would be considered non-published material. $$$$$$
August 30, 2011, 8:32 amBen P says:
I assumed he was talking about a police recording device, but on a second look the post is vague.
If a citizen were to snatch a police recording device and erase the recording on it, that citizen would probably be charged with obstructing an investigation, destruction of state owned property, and malicious mischief (or the equivalent) in a heartbeat.
If a citizen were to take another citizens’ private camera it would depend on the circumstances. That could easily be threatening or assault or theft of property, but if the circumstances were tame, it would probably be a civil matter rather than a criminal one.
August 30, 2011, 8:49 amBen P says:
You seem to be mistaking what the case was.
The Plaintiff, Glick, was arrested by the police in Boston Commons because he was videotaping the police arrest someone else. They arrested him and seized his camera. He was charged with a criminal violation of Massachusetts wiretapping statute.
The prosecutor subsequently dropped the charges. However, Glick subsequently filed a Sec. 1983 suit alleging his civil rights were violated when the police wrongfully arrested him for something that was an exercise of his constitutional rights.
The police, of course, asserted they were entitled to qualified immunity, which is that they’re immune unless there is a clearly established right that they violated.
The Trial court and now the first circuit said effectively “Yes, there is a clearly established first amendment right to record the police in a public setting,” therefore the police officers can be held liable for a violation of rights. I expect the police will probably settle the case at some point.
The constitutionality of the Massachusetts code was not directly adjudicated. But if I were to be a lawyer in a similar case, I’d absolutely say this is the functional equivalent of an as applied challenge in these circumstances. if the police use the statute to
August 30, 2011, 8:57 amprosecute the recording of police in a public place, the statute is being applied in an unconstitutional manner.
Ken Arromdee says:
I don’t see why this is a problem. The benefit of using a recording instead of just writing things down is that it’s *proof* which is hard to deny in a court. Since the gang member isn’t planning to use the information in a court, he could just as well write down the information instead of record it.
August 30, 2011, 9:29 amKen Arromdee says:
My response is not “the cops will find a way around it”.
My response is “the citizen, when he runs into a cop, has no way to know whether the cop is good or bad. So in order to protect himself, the citizen has to take precautions to keep himself safe from bad cops. If the cop turns out to be good anyway, then those precautions will seem like they’re inconveniencing the cop for no reason, but there actually is a reason.”
There are cops who won’t abuse their power, but the ordinary guy has to act as though any particular one might. He can’t read minds, after all.
August 30, 2011, 9:36 amSeaDrive says:
I don’t see how any one, including an LEO, can claim some expectation of privacy when wearing a uniform. The whole purpose of a uniform is to inform the public.
As for the narcs on the way to the bust, they’ll just have to try a bit harder to be covert.
August 30, 2011, 9:37 amTuesday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath says:
[...] Getting the obvious right. [...]
August 30, 2011, 9:51 amHasdrubal says:
At risk of being labeled an anti-cop bigot, I must say this was my favorite line of the ruling:
Looks like it’s from City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462-463 (1987)
I want that as a bumper sticker.
August 30, 2011, 10:32 amFub says:
Well, if I’m an “anti-cop bigot” for agreeing with you that all cops won’t “find some way around it and violate it anyway” because the assertion that “all cops will find a way” is empirically testable and obviously false, so be it.
August 30, 2011, 11:26 amSardonic_sob says:
Maybe if the cops would stop doing it, you wouldn’t have to be bored with tiresome complaints about it. Just a theory.
August 30, 2011, 11:50 amSardonic_sob says:
This seems like a perfectly reasonable proposition, given the vast increase in the number of reasons cops now do “felony stops.” “Well, yeah, it looked like a scared sixteen-year-old-girl in the car, but she ran from us. For all we knew she had a grenade launcher in there. So of course ten cops had to point shotguns at her while one tackled her and landed on top of her on the pavement.” If they are entitled to be overly cautious, so should the citizenry.
August 30, 2011, 11:53 amVeniceneon says:
In LAPD’s Pacific division and especially in the areas around Venice Beach there are a number of people who routinely video document police activity and place the recordings on local blogs such as ‘Yo Venice’. Over time many officers have used the recordings to back up their actions in situations where someone files a complaint against the officers. The officers in this LAPD division have been trained and are accustomed to the camera. They still provide excellent police work, and great community relations with the public at large in part because of the openness law enforcements willingness to be videotaped.
I suppose it comes down to there are some LEO’s that rely on intimidation to operate and are therefore unwilling to subscribe to video or photographic evidence of their actions and then there are others that respect the public, and the public’s interaction.
August 30, 2011, 12:40 pmDave h says:
Whit, the city I live in had multiple instances of officers destroying video and arresting the owner. so much so that the department had to remind all the officers that that was illegal, and the legislature stepped in. if you don’t think that’s a problem, you think cops are above the law and you undermine every other defense you’ve made.
August 30, 2011, 3:32 pmwiddershins says:
Was it for or against?
August 30, 2011, 4:11 pmohtobeapd says:
Actually, Whit’s definition of “bigot” is far too broad, and Helene’s characterization of cops might be closer to actuality. For example, consider this. In California, home to nearly 1 American in 8, it is nearly universal, during a Terry-type stop for a cop to tell the person that he must conduct himself “respectfully.” This despite the fact that both the California courts (1986) and the 9th Circuit (Kozinski, 1993), have clearly stated that cops are required to withstand a reasonable level of verbal abuse. Obviously, what’s happened is that police departments omit this from their training of new entrants to the profession. So Whit, doesn’t this consistent flouting of established doctrine justify a conclusion that “cops are jerks”?
August 30, 2011, 4:26 pmPeter says:
I’m fine with the first amendement defense on this but would prefer it overuled on the forth.
Polypolitical: As the saying goes, fight fire with fire. If the police are concerned they can always come forward with their own video, they already tape most incidents. The problem of course here is the police can’t doctor the publics video or magically lose it.
August 30, 2011, 7:14 pmBrowsing Catharsis – 08.31.11 « Increasing Marginal Utility says:
[...] The first steps to guaranteeing the constitutionality of recording police officers. [...]
August 31, 2011, 8:11 amThe Fool says:
@Whit
Hey, bro: for many of us saying stuff like “cops are jerks” is not bigotry, it’s completely justified, empirically-based fact.
Most people get their idea of what cops are like from tv, which is far from reality, or simply from uncritically idealized assumptions, again far from the truth.
Cops perform a necessary function and some of them are sometimes heroes. But on a day-to-day basis, most cops are control freaks and jerks.
August 31, 2011, 10:46 amthe first amendment: Public video and audio recording « oftheknowledge says:
[...] Court of Appeal’s report of Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir.), and a summation can be found at the Volokh Conspiracy: Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to [...]
September 1, 2011, 6:24 pmStones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e187v2 says:
[...] Getting the obvious right. [...]
September 6, 2011, 9:27 am