The article details how in several states, consent laws are being used to arrest people for recording police officers in public places, even though consent hasn't ever applied to people in public before. In a couple of cases, this has been used or threatened against people taking pics of what they consider to be abusive police behavior. The most disturbing thing is that the courts have upheld the arrests in a few cases.
Corruptissima republicae, plurimae leges ---The worse the state, the more laws it has.
--Tacitus, Roman historian as quoted in National Geographic, Aug. 1997, pg. 64.
What bothers me is the rationale behind anyone wanting this law. What's the point? How is not being allowed to take video or photos of a police officer going to help anyone, including law enforcement? The only thing it seems to help is police who don't want to worry whether or not they are behaving responsibly.
Now I will say that in a few cases I've read about, someone being actively questioned by an officer, or actively detained, was trying to video tape the events. I could see that as both aggressive, disrespectful, and unwarranted. So it should fall under the same rules/law as "failure to obey" or other laws like resisting arrest. But it seems to be handled differently in some of these cases, as though it's worse. And it is being levied against people that are in some cases not directly involved in the police action.
Plus, the way the couple of rulings in the above links read, the photos are illegal because the officer isn't consenting. That means any photo of anyone, taken any time, in any public place, is technically illegal unless you get explicit consent. And that can't possibly make any sense. So instead, they are selectively using and enforcing it - and of course selective laws like that can always be used for abuse.
The way the rulings have happened in the cases mentioned above, things like the Rodney King video would have been illegal to record, and they could have prosecuted the person who recorded it.
And what about all the private surveillance cameras in businesses or outside buildings? Many times the police department asks or demands copies of these for use as evidence in criminal cases.
Ummm....ever heard of something called a "Police State"? They get to do what they want and tell you what you can do. Hmmmmm.
Now I am all for law enforcement. I am not for I can do this and you can't when it comes to something as simple as photographing an event. If the police can use their camera, you should be able to set up yours and photo the same event as long as it does not interfere. Obviously, you cannot be holding your camera in his/her face while being questioned. But if you have a video camera, you should probably have the right to set it up for auto filming. Common sense must be used. Another person who is not involved in the police action should have every right to record or film what is happening unless it interferes with the officer carrying out the duty. When that is removed, your rights are squashed.
Well, if you have not been paying attention, we have been losing rights at an amazing pace. We ARE a government controlled state. Period. We do not have the freedoms we have left because we are a free people, we have those freedoms because the government allows us to have them. At least in America, we probably have more freedoms "allowed" to us than many other countries.
Ok, I am finished...don't want to take this into a rant.
I've shot news for almost 30 years and have had dozens of run-ins with the police. Some states are two party notification for recording private conversations. Those are the states that the cops will try to make this BS stick. If you are working in a one party notification jurisdiction, they have no grounds to stand on. Personally I believe this will end up in the SCOTUS with the ruling in favor of the photographers. Otherwise the cops will have to stop recording their traffic stops without consent. Actually it's not really consent that is required, simply notification.
Keep shooting and make them justify their actions in court. I plan to.
Some states are two party notification for recording private conversations.
I believe that's the main issue in Maryland. But some of the rulings (Illinois I think) are applying that rule to any photography at all, even when done in a very obvious way, and with notification being obvious.
Is VA. a two party notification state? Up until 10 years ago I lived in Falls Church, but I do not recall the law regarding this subject.
This will almost certainly end up being decided by the Supremes and could backfire on the police, I believe. If the cops are recording their arrests and interactions with the public and not notifying you that you are being recorded. While at the same time charging photographers with a violation of wiretapping laws, well, then wouldn't they be in violation as well? Under wiretapping laws they would need a warrant to record you. The law is a two way street.
I may be wrong, but hey, I'm just a news photographer not a lawyer.
Posted by Jerry Greer on July 25, 2010 at 11:01 PM
I hope they don't push this change in WVa! I shot this at 24mm, and yes he was a little irritated! Oh, and this is not your regular ol' West Virginia State Policeman! I'll post another of one office that wanted to put me behind bars "bigtime".
Posted by Jerry Greer on July 25, 2010 at 11:03 PM
Here's another with my favorite tropper! He liked me don't you think?
Discussion
11 repliesAre Cameras the New Guns?
The article details how in several states, consent laws are being used to arrest people for recording police officers in public places, even though consent hasn't ever applied to people in public before. In a couple of cases, this has been used or threatened against people taking pics of what they consider to be abusive police behavior. The most disturbing thing is that the courts have upheld the arrests in a few cases.
Here's a link from WJZ in Baltimore about the controversy as it pertains to Maryland.
Consider this:
Corruptissima republicae, plurimae leges ---The worse the state, the more laws it has.
--Tacitus, Roman historian as quoted in National Geographic, Aug. 1997, pg. 64.
the fisch
What bothers me is the rationale behind anyone wanting this law. What's the point? How is not being allowed to take video or photos of a police officer going to help anyone, including law enforcement? The only thing it seems to help is police who don't want to worry whether or not they are behaving responsibly.
Now I will say that in a few cases I've read about, someone being actively questioned by an officer, or actively detained, was trying to video tape the events. I could see that as both aggressive, disrespectful, and unwarranted. So it should fall under the same rules/law as "failure to obey" or other laws like resisting arrest. But it seems to be handled differently in some of these cases, as though it's worse. And it is being levied against people that are in some cases not directly involved in the police action.
Plus, the way the couple of rulings in the above links read, the photos are illegal because the officer isn't consenting. That means any photo of anyone, taken any time, in any public place, is technically illegal unless you get explicit consent. And that can't possibly make any sense. So instead, they are selectively using and enforcing it - and of course selective laws like that can always be used for abuse.
The way the rulings have happened in the cases mentioned above, things like the Rodney King video would have been illegal to record, and they could have prosecuted the person who recorded it.
And Scott, I actually don't know if this would apply to police cameras, since they may be excluded from the law.
But neither of those change the fact that a simple innocent image like this one would apparently be illegal. There's something wrong with that.
Now I am all for law enforcement. I am not for I can do this and you can't when it comes to something as simple as photographing an event. If the police can use their camera, you should be able to set up yours and photo the same event as long as it does not interfere. Obviously, you cannot be holding your camera in his/her face while being questioned. But if you have a video camera, you should probably have the right to set it up for auto filming. Common sense must be used. Another person who is not involved in the police action should have every right to record or film what is happening unless it interferes with the officer carrying out the duty. When that is removed, your rights are squashed.
Well, if you have not been paying attention, we have been losing rights at an amazing pace. We ARE a government controlled state. Period. We do not have the freedoms we have left because we are a free people, we have those freedoms because the government allows us to have them. At least in America, we probably have more freedoms "allowed" to us than many other countries.
Ok, I am finished...don't want to take this into a rant.
Keep shooting and make them justify their actions in court. I plan to.
I believe that's the main issue in Maryland. But some of the rulings (Illinois I think) are applying that rule to any photography at all, even when done in a very obvious way, and with notification being obvious.
This will almost certainly end up being decided by the Supremes and could backfire on the police, I believe. If the cops are recording their arrests and interactions with the public and not notifying you that you are being recorded. While at the same time charging photographers with a violation of wiretapping laws, well, then wouldn't they be in violation as well? Under wiretapping laws they would need a warrant to record you. The law is a two way street.
I may be wrong, but hey, I'm just a news photographer not a lawyer.