Videotaping Police

Welcome to America.
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 in court, 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.

Basically, if you are videotaping police officers (they could be abusing their power, it doesn't matter), you can get arrested and go to jail for 4 - 15 years.

Yep, I live in one of those states as well.  Their interpretation of the laws in Maryland are crap.  The law states that you cannot record anybody's voice without their permission when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  What they are saying is, a police officer, on duty, in public, and not under cover, has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I feel for ya. 
I guess they take the "by the people for the people" speech to mean cops.

And people wonder why I don't want to live in the States.

I wonder, what exactly is their thought process here?  If anything, I would think that the capability of being filmed anywhere is a good incentive for police to always act professionally in public, so isn't it a good thing?  This law doesn't seem to benefit anyone but corrupt or abusive cops.

I wonder, what exactly is their thought process here?  If anything, I would think that the capability of being filmed anywhere is a good incentive for police to always act professionally in public, so isn't it a good thing?  This law doesn't seem to benefit anyone but corrupt or abusive cops.

I think you answered your own question.  Anyhow, I am thinking of starting a petition in my state, to pass legislation clarifying that on duty police officers that are not undercover do not have a right to privacy as it relates to surveillance law.  I have no idea where to start with that, but I'm sure a lot of people would be on board.

incidentally, this is the same exact law that got Linda Tripp in trouble for recording Monika Lewinski admitting to having an affair with the president.  She illegally recorded a personal phone conversation between her and Monika without informing her.  That is an example of the law being used in the way it was intended, and that is why whenever any company calls you on the phone they have to inform you that they are recording your voice for training purposes.

Usually now whenever Comcast or Verizon call me and ask me if it is okay if the phone call is recorded, I respond by agreeing, then asking them if they mind if I record the call as well.  The reaction I get is usually amusing, you can tell they don't expect that.

never thought I would have something that made me agree with Fox.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284075,00.html
anyone know what is happening with this? I was trying to find out if there is any court cases that could overturn it but I haven't found anything.

never thought I would have something that made me agree with Fox.

Nobody can get everything wrong.  

A broken clock is still right twice per day.

They have similar laws in the UK. I think it is article V of the anti-terror act 2009 if memory serves. I remember protests of hundreds of cameramen surrounding police buildings taking a non-stop stream of pictures.

Still got forced through the Commons, though.

Labour fucked the country up socially, Conservatives are here to do the same economically.

These laws are a step in the wrong direction.

It keeps coming back to audio though. I wonder if you turn the mic off on your camera. Hmmmmmmmmmm

In the other states, even if you do have a right to photograph police, it still doesn't protect you against this:

*Cop takes camera*
You: Hey! I have a right to photograph!
Cop: *SMASH*
You:

I would this that these laws are a response from the justice system (cops, courts, etc) that are pissed they have to follow the wiretap laws. The rationale would probably be something like "if we need a warrant to watch the criminals, the criminals should need a warrant to watch us."

I would this that these laws are a response from the justice system (cops, courts, etc) that are pissed they have to follow the wiretap laws. The rationale would probably be something like "if we need a warrant to watch the criminals, the criminals should need a warrant to watch us."

The problem is, you do not need a warrant to watch the criminals if they are in public.

I would this that these laws [...]

lawl, this=say

Phew.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/story-lab/

Phew.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/story-lab/

Glad it worked out for him, but the legislation in those states needs to get ripped from the books. At least there is a set precedent.
Well shit.

"Because it is a circuit court ruling, it is not binding on other judges."

Phew.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/story-lab/

true but i am not sure if that precedent goes across state borders and since it was a county court...

true but i am not sure if that precedent goes across state borders and since it was a county court...

I hear ya. This a only really a small victory.
Also, I edited my last post after I kept reading. 

They have similar laws in the UK. I think it is article V of the anti-terror act 2009 if memory serves. I remember protests of hundreds of cameramen surrounding police buildings taking a non-stop stream of pictures.

Still got forced through the Commons, though.

Labour fucked the country up socially, Conservatives are here to do the same economically.

This law is only enforceable is the image is "likely to be useful" to a terriost.

You libdems should be ashamed of yourselves

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on September 21, 2010, 08:23:34 AM

They have similar laws in the UK. I think it is article V of the anti-terror act 2009 if memory serves. I remember protests of hundreds of cameramen surrounding police buildings taking a non-stop stream of pictures.

Still got forced through the Commons, though.

Labour fucked the country up socially, Conservatives are here to do the same economically.

This law is only enforceable is the image is "likely to be useful" to a terriost.

You libdems should be ashamed of yourselves

Terrorism: The Best Excuse since Communism

Quote from: monkeybradders on September 29, 2010, 06:18:56 AM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on September 21, 2010, 08:23:34 AM

They have similar laws in the UK. I think it is article V of the anti-terror act 2009 if memory serves. I remember protests of hundreds of cameramen surrounding police buildings taking a non-stop stream of pictures.

Still got forced through the Commons, though.

Labour fucked the country up socially, Conservatives are here to do the same economically.

This law is only enforceable is the image is "likely to be useful" to a terriost.

You libdems should be ashamed of yourselves

Terrorism: The Best Excuse since Communism

We live in Orwellian societies.

I'ma photograph police from now on. Just to make a point.

I'ma photograph police from now on. Just to make a point.

Enjoy your Beating^TM

Protip: Many on-duty police have no idea what the law is. If you annoy them, they will arrest you and try to find some charge to stick.

Yeah, a victory in maryland no doubt.  However the DA will probably not appeal this just so they can keep arresting people for videotaping police, in hopes that other judges will allow the law to stand.  In effect even though it is not against the law and they know it, they are going to continue to intimidate people into not videotaping them.  Because most people are not willing to put their freedom at stake, make a stand, and go to court over it.  I know I'm not.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on September 20, 2010, 10:59:42 AM

I wonder, what exactly is their thought process here?  If anything, I would think that the capability of being filmed anywhere is a good incentive for police to always act professionally in public, so isn't it a good thing?  This law doesn't seem to benefit anyone but corrupt or abusive cops.

I think you answered your own question.  Anyhow, I am thinking of starting a petition in my state, to pass legislation clarifying that on duty police officers that are not undercover do not have a right to privacy as it relates to surveillance law.  I have no idea where to start with that, but I'm sure a lot of people would be on board.

Late, I know, but I don't understand how I answered my own question.  This law only benefits corrupt cops.  Contrary to what the Internet tells us, most cops are not actually corrupt.  So why are the courts allowing this?

How many people have actually been prosecuted?

I do not know of any successfull prosecutions in Maryland yet.  However it is basically being used as an intimidation method because of the recent amount of police douchebaggery that has been caught on video.  Most recently " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">there was this beating that happened at college park.

It's obvious the police in Maryland are not happy about being held accountable by the public that they serve.  Likely they will not appeal this out of fear of it being struck down by precident, they want to continue to use this law as a way of intimidation, even though it was never meant to be applied in this fashion.