For Forum Consideration

[snjmom]

"Police officers don’t check their civil rights at the station house door."


Three law enforcement officials defend the arrest of citizens who record on-duty cops.

Radley Balko | August 9, 2010

The debate over whether citizens should be permitted to record on-duty police officers intensified this summer. High profile incidents in Maryland, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, and elsewhere spurred coverage of the issue from national media outlets ranging from the Associated Press to Time to NPR. Outside the law enforcement community, a consensus seems to be emerging that it’s bad policy to arrest people who photograph or record police officers on the job. The Washington Post, USA Today, the Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, and Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds, writing in Popular Mechanics, all weighed in on the side that citizen photography and videography can be an important check to keep police officers accountable and transparent.

But so far, there’s been little activity in state legislatures to prevent these arrests. That’s likely because any policy that makes recording cops an explicitly legal endeavor is likely to encounter strong opposition from law enforcement organizations. So what’s the justification for bringing and supporting charges against people who record or photograph cops? I recently spoke to three law enforcement officials about it. Two are prosecutors currently pursuing felony charges against citizens who made audio recordings of on-duty cops. The third is the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, America’s largest police union.

Joseph Cassilly is the Harford County, Maryland state’s attorney. He’s currently pursuing felony charges against Anthony Graber, who was arrested last April for recording a police officer during a traffic stop.

~rest of the story~
"Police Officers Don't Check Their Civil Rights at the Station House Door" - Reason Magazine

Does anyone on the left or right support that any citizens that are recording police encounters be charged under wiretapping law?

For the record, Heeeeeeeeell no.

 

[MikeK]

Wiretapping pertains only to recording telephone conversations.

Where surreptitious recording of ordinary conversation is concerned the law prohibits "third pary recording," which means a third party secretly records the conversation between two (or more) others without a warrant.

You are permitted to secretly record your conversation with another person (or persons) but you are forbidden to divulge the content without the other person's permission. However, this rule does not defeat the usefulness of a two party recording as evidence in a trial even if the other party will not agree to it being divulged, because that party's refusal to allow it to be entered will influence a jury.

 

[snjmom]

In none of these cases are the recordings in secret.

 

[Madeline]

The law has not kept pace with technology. In every instance I am aware of, the cops were badly embarrassed by the footage and the arrested person did no more than record their public conduct. I see no reason why this activity should continue to be illegal (and yet we have CCRC on every doorway and traffic cameras that automatically send us tickets). The police unions will scream bloody murder if state legislators make a move to permit public filming, but in response what they SHOULD ask for is mini-cams to record on their bodies just as dash cams do on their cars.

Pretending we have no bad cops is not the answer, nor is trying to stifle the public.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm all for citizens recording the actions of all public officials while on the job. If they are so afraid of what the reaction of the public is or will be to their recorded actions then maybe they don't need to be on the public payroll.

Televise the Senate proceeding too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wiretapping pertains only to recording telephone conversations.

Where surreptitious recording of ordinary conversation is concerned the law prohibits "third pary recording," which means a third party secretly records the conversation between two (or more) others without a warrant.

You are permitted to secretly record your conversation with another person (or persons) but you are forbidden to divulge the content without the other person's permission. However, this rule does not defeat the usefulness of a two party recording as evidence in a trial even if the other party will not agree to it being divulged, because that party's refusal to allow it to be entered will influence a jury.

It is actually a little more than that. The legal term has been redefined to include any clandestine recording of a private conversation.

That said, recording police in public is completely justified, and should be standard practice.

 

[Madeline]

There's no one legal standard as to what constitutes wire tapping, and a recording made in one state can be illegal in another if the parties call long distance. This ain't something to fiddle with (recording phone calls). My comments were directed only at speech and conduct that occurs in your presence, in public.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They're public officials and therefore have no right to privacy in that capacity.

 

[fyrenza]

This gets me into hot water all the time, but I'm a firm believer that if you aren't doing anything horribly wrong?

Who cares if it's recorded for all the world to see/hear?

The police should know their jobs well enough to perform them,

withOUT breaking any of the rules,

so I see no problem with ANY of their on-duty actions being recorded,

and them being held to a high level of standards.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We record the police and county deputies here all the time, and they know it. If the police do their work in a neighborhood, count on somebody being in his or her own lawn taping away. They know better than to interfere with someone fifty feet away on the other side of the lane. No DA here would ever be re-elected if he took a stand suggesting public involvement was somehow criminal activity.