Are Cameras the New Guns?

[lexiconic]

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.

Read more

[Alfred E. Neuman]

This is interesting..........fil m away, I say.  The more evidence of people's actions, the better, right?  How many rogue cops take matters into their own hands?  How many criminals do whatever they can to escape a situation?  The police should behave in a manner that they are proud of and should welcome such footage.  If they are abusing people, they should pay the price also.  If your pulled over or faced with answering to police, you must repect them. 

[Wiener]

As my mother said "Do the crime, do the time."  I will add no matter what your job or postition in life, that is how we are all equal under the law right?

[pbal]

I have no doubt that, should any of these cases get into a Federal court, the laws will be tossed. Meanwhile, a couple of worthwhile links:

The Photography is Not a Crime article.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/illinois-where-videotaping-on

State-by-state recording laws

Why the pbal is a registered Republican: I think it's worth noting that the laws under discussion were passed by Democratic legislatures, the same people who insist that Republicans are fascists intent on eliminating the rights of we the people. More doublespeak.

[Wiener]

I must say I see some on here have been doing homework and I like it.

[beeker]

Why the pbal is a registered Republican: I think it's worth noting that the laws under discussion were passed by Democratic legislatures, the same people who insist that Republicans are fascists intent on eliminating the rights of we the people. More doublespeak.

In many of the same areas that ban recording of law enforcement it is legal to record cars at traffic lights and activity in parks.  The most liberal area in the country wants more cameras in public:

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=4277

We have made the transition, we are now more concerned with monitoring the people then the Gov't.  That'll learn us.

[pbal]

I must say I see some on here have been doing homework and I like it.

Nah. Just paying more attention than some might think. This topic has been under discussion for quite some time on my favorite photo forum.

[pbal]

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/07/30/maryland-attorney-generals-office-police-have-no-expectation-of-privacy-in-public/

[beefman]

In regards to the lack of a 4Th amendment we now seem to see any body know the court case that allowed this kind of activity to go on now? I'm going to try to stay away from politics on this quiz but offer no promise....

[beefman]

In many of the same areas that ban recording of law enforcement it is legal to record cars at traffic lights and activity in parks.  The most liberal area in the country wants more cameras in public:

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=4277

We have made the transition, we are now more concerned with monitoring the people then the Gov't.  That'll learn us.

Its not the liberals that want cameras everywhere. Rich people want cameras where they cant put up gates and lock common people out. You have to ask why its ok to film me doing something aganst the law but its not ok to do the same to a cop. As dr. phil would say "people who have nothing to hide...hide nothing" What are they afraid of, camera guns?

[pbal]

Rich people want cameras where they cant put up gates and lock common people out.

Do you lock your doors? Maybe you should open them up and let the common people in.

[beefman]

Do you lock your doors? Maybe you should open them up and let the common people in.

Thats ok, you might show up.

[pbal]

What kinda beer you got?

[The Rock]

The Rock has always wanted to piss in Beefman's swimming pool.

[beeker]

The Rock has always wanted to piss in Beefman's swimming pool.

I rarely agree with beefy, but at least he usually disagrees without attacking.  I don't consider yours an attack, just humorous, but others tend to believe that if your opinion differs, you not only see things differently but you also have no right to a voice.