In some states, it is illegal for citizens to photograph cops, and that's the case in NY state. Some of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters have been arrested for documenting police brutality.

9/27/2011 2:59:50 PM

evidence does not support the claim.

9/27/2011 3:21:18 PM

I'd like to see a NY law that states that it it illegal to photograph cops. Video, however, may be a different issue.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/you-have-every-right-photograph-cop

9/27/2011 3:26:07 PM

^You're right. It's video that's illegal. If your recording device doesn't include sound, it'd be ok.

Quote :

"Another disturbing trend is police officers and prosecutors using wiretapping statutes in certain states (such as Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania) to arrest and prosecute those who attempt to record police activities using videocameras that include audio. (Unlike photography and silent video, there is no general right to record audio; many state wiretap laws prohibit recording conversations if the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy — which is never true for a police officer carrying out his or her duties in public.) "

[Edited on September 27, 2011 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ...]

9/27/2011 3:36:27 PM

Well, NC isn't one of those states, right?

9/27/2011 4:17:31 PM

As far as I know NC is still a one-party state for recording conversations.

That has it's positives and negatives of course, and if you're on the phone with someone in a two-party state you can still run afoul of their laws (depending on the wording). Still, it's an excuse cops can't use to confiscate your camera in NC.

9/27/2011 5:29:13 PM

On a side note, using pepper spray on a rioter/protester failing to obey commands does not equal police brutality.

9/27/2011 5:35:42 PM

Timswar, my understanding of the law is it doesn't matter if the other side of the call is in a state that requires two-party consent because federally it isn't required.

9/27/2011 6:10:36 PM

Quote :

"On a side note, using pepper spray on a rioter/protester failing to obey commands does not equal police brutality. "

What commands?

The sprayer in question walked up from far away and sprayed immediately and then walked away. He gave no commands.

9/27/2011 6:14:55 PM

and they werent creating a riot like atmosphere.

they have a right, freedom of speech.

9/27/2011 6:30:31 PM

I hate these things

9/27/2011 6:44:45 PM

Quote :

"On a side note, using pepper spray on a rioter/protester failing to obey commands does not equal police brutality"

Did you watch the video, or just read the title and make your own assumptions?

9/27/2011 7:15:56 PM

We don't know what happened before the spraying. However, if they weren't legally where they were I'm not sure what justified the spray down versus just arresting them.

9/27/2011 8:04:38 PM

Quote :

"Police have responded to these crowds, by using a 160 year old law which bans the wearing of masks in a gathering of two or more people, except at masquerade parties"

9/27/2011 8:11:25 PM

Soooo... buy a bunch of cheap masquerade masks and distribute them to the crowd?

9/27/2011 8:18:36 PM

1. handout masks
2. determine riot as a party
3. profit

9/27/2011 8:26:34 PM

Do they arrest little kids on Halloween?

Just declare the protest an outdoor masquerade party.

[Edited on September 28, 2011 at 12:50 AM. Reason : ....]

9/28/2011 12:49:11 AM

9/28/2011 9:32:55 AM

[Edited on September 28, 2011 at 9:56 AM. Reason : oops]

9/28/2011 9:56:27 AM

Illinois's wiretapping law just got shut down by a judge, the state is going to appeal. In just about every instance challenges to charges stemming from filming the police have gone in favor of the filmer. Usually DAs choose not to prosecute, but when they have they've lost pretty miserably. It's a clear violation of the first amendment and in almost all cases the wiretapping laws have been turned on their head and perverted in order to even attempt to justify charging someone for recording an on duty public official.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for a public servant providing public service on public property. Furthermore it is somehow perfectly legal in the states attempting to ban it for the police to record citizens via dashcams, public security cameras, etc.

Eventually a challenge to this type of statute will make it to the supreme court and the law will get shot the fuck down. Considering the prevalence of the public as press (bloggers, youtube, etc.) I don't see how an appeal to the first amendment would fail.

[Edited on September 28, 2011 at 12:06 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/28/2011 11:37:34 AM

9/28/2011 11:52:53 AM

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/09/28/another-illinois-arrest-for-recording-a-cop/

9/29/2011 4:03:56 AM

Another reason why filming of police in the line of duty should be protected at the federal level.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Officer-threatens-to-make-up-evidence-after-arrest-of-innocent-men-139266773.html?tab=video&c=y

2/14/2012 4:46:02 PM

Quote :

"These guys are guilty of being black in Seattle"

Pretty much sums it up.

2/15/2012 1:21:18 AM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-judge-rules-eavesdropping-law-unconstitutional-20120302,0,4122460.story

Illinois's wire tapping law takes another hit.

3/3/2012 12:44:25 PM

Amen!

3/3/2012 1:20:48 PM

I think anything in a public space, or any LEO interacting with you should be fair game to record with video and audio.

3/7/2012 5:15:41 PM

apparently it's A-OK to film em doing a little spring cleaning...

Quote :

"Several Miami television stations aired viewers' video or photos of the marked patrol car with mattresses fastened to the top on Monday."

http://www.wral.com/news/strange/story/10825373/

So, in the past few weeks we've learned that swift action is taken against cops for eating other people's food from the break room fridge and using a squad car to transport furniture. Glad to know the standards remain high.

3/7/2012 5:28:14 PM

Filming the police is illegal...but not in Connecticut (almost):

Quote :

"The Connecticut state Senate passed legislation last week that would hold police officers in the state personally liable for violating a citizen's First Amendment right to videotape their actions. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Eric Coleman (D-Bloomfield). According to The Day, a Connecticut newspaper, Coleman cited the 1991 Rodney King beating as an inspiration for the legislation. The proposal was also prompted by a 2009 incident in which "a Catholic priest was arrested by East Haven police while recording officers harassing Latino business owners." A federal investigation resulted in charges being filed against four police officers. "Sometimes we become aware of incidents where police officers have been overzealous or abusive and not act in a very complimentary way towards the citizens who deserve to be served and protected," Coleman said. The Connecticut bill, which still must pass the state's House of Representatives, is part of a trend toward increased legal protection for citizens filming police officers in the line of duty. At least one appeals court has recognized that citizens have a First Amendment right to record the actions of on-duty police officers in public places. But police officers often enjoy "qualified immunity," meaning that liability for police misconduct falls on the city (e.g. taxpayers) rather than on individual officers. Sen. Coleman's proposal would change that, giving police officers a stronger incentive to respect the constitutional rights of Connecticut citizens. The proposal includes several broad exemptions. Officers are not liable if they have a reasonable belief that their actions are necessary to enforce the law, protect public safety, preserve the integrity of a crime scene, or protect the privacy of crime victims or others. The Senate rejected an amendment that would have added an exception for arresting someone whose actions "inconvenience or alarm" a police officer. Critics argued that such a broad exemption would render the legislation toothless"

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/hold-cops-personally-liable-for-camera-arrests-connecticut-bill-says-yes.ars

4/25/2012 11:10:06 PM

^it's how it should be.

4/25/2012 11:13:48 PM

what are the laws in NC? Can you film the police?

4/29/2012 12:23:48 PM

^Yes you can.

4/29/2012 2:58:14 PM

With a federal government passing things like CISPA is there any realistic hope that they're going to do something to protect our right to use recording technology to protect against police abuse?

4/29/2012 3:00:55 PM

If we're gonna protect the police from being filmed, then it should go for everybody.

None of us want to be filmed doing something that could be perceived as bad, and we're all aware of the many things we do throughout the day, when taken out of context, could be embarrassing or something. Shirley Sherrod was made to look like an outspoken racist and was fired from her job cause of some doctored video...

What makes the police so special? They are already like the most protected group ever. It seems like they rarely ever get penalized for wrongdoing even when there is a little video evidence. So why not let people film?

[Edited on May 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM. Reason : ?]

5/1/2012 10:55:42 AM

John Stossel had a nice segment on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8dflSXvQME

5/1/2012 11:02:06 AM