Due to recent internet videos of police brutality, at least three states have outlawed recording on-duty police officers. It doesn't matter if the encounter with police involves you, is necessary for your defense, or is in a public area, video recording on-duty police officers is now illegal.
The so-called legal basis for this rests on eavesdropping and wiretapping laws. In some states, all parties must consent to being recorded unless a TV news crew is doing the recording. Police never consent, and so the non-press camera operators can be arrested. Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland are among the 12 states with all-party consent laws.
Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall said, "Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals."
"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," said Jonathan Turley, a professor and Legal scholar.
Most courts seem to support the ban on recording police, however. An Illinois court recently refused to drop the eavesdropping charges against Christopher Drew, who recorded himself being arrested for selling art on the Chicago streets without a permit. Eavesdropping is a Class I felony and carries from 4 to 15 years in prison.
In 2001, Michael Hyde of Massachusetts was also arrested for recording his encounter with police, and the court supported his imprisonment for doing so in a 4 to 2 decision.
A recent arrest in Maryland during the month of March also provides another example. John Graber III was pulled over for speeding by a plainclothes policeman in an unmarked car. The officer approached Graber while screaming and waving his gun. Graber wasn't arrested right away, but he had recorded his encounter with the cop and uploaded it to YouTube. The police, feeling embarrassed, secured a warrant for Graber's arrest and he is now being accused of wiretapping.
"It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law," said Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman. He also stated that he had never heard of the police using the wiretapping law in this manner before Graber's arrest.
Carlos Miller of Photography is Not a Crime, apparently an expert on the matter, had this to say: "For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man."
However, Spring City and East Vincent Township of Pennsylvania have written into law that it is legal to record on-duty police in public places. This came as part of a settlement with the ACLU.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Thanks again for writing this. I posted it to a few of my friends' Facebook profiles (including mine) so they know the police will try to arrest them if they try to record in any of these states.
I must say though, these laws are complete and utter BULLSHIT. The rule is, IF you are in a public, tax-payer funded place, regardless of whether or not you consent, people have every right to photograph or tape you. I go to a lot of protests in Boston and I'm always taking pics and video and never once has a cop confiscated my camera or gave me shit for recording. In fact, I've taken pics of Boston police many times. Now I'm scared they'll take my camera away and try to press charges if they catch me doing it in the future. I think the best thing we can do is spread the word. Hopefully more people will be riled up and will then demand these laws be taken off the books.
@Julia: it's not photography or video that's the problem, it's the audio.
Somebody with the resources (ie money) needs to take this to the Supreme Court after which the state legislatures will be forced to address the problem.
You know, you can find San Francisco criminal attorney here
I am presently on a path to bring the Illinois law to a Federal Testing. It is my duty to do this. It is a great risk in the State of Illinois. They are making me their test case to apply this law widely in Illinois to prevent its citizens from critiquing their police. When you think about it, this is a line between freedom and tyranny because if you can't gather information to back up your story in court and the policeman has more credibility in the court's eyes, the policeman can lie with comfort and you can not prove them wrong.
http://www.c-drew.com/blog is my Street Artist Adventures blog where the whole story of my struggle to make Chicago more friendly to artists has led to an even greater fight for freedom in Illinois.
C. Drew
I agree the video is not the issue it is the audio. Frankly every audio enabled recording device (i phone, ipod touch digital recorders and cameras needs to come with a warning that in some states the recording without the disclosure or permission of party being recorded may be a crime. We have been technologically enabled and at the same time legally tied up.
well, should it not also be illegal than for the dashborad camera recordings, since the person in the car often does not agree to being taped?
False. Wiretapping laws do not apply here.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/police-continue-to-harass-citizens-who-record-them-102826639.html
I've heard the laws are being challenged. There was a story here in Maryland of someone winning a case against a cop who claimed the guy recorded his arrest. I'm sure other states are going to start challenging these pointless laws.
Post a Comment