It's now illegal to photograph police officers on duty...
 

Here are a pair of articles detailing police officers claiming that photographing or videotaping them was a crime.

I think the fact that the officers didn't actually charge him with anything, at the end, is rather telling. Really, can you let a criminal go because your "supervisor wasn't there?" Does that make any sense? Also, what difference does it make if he were on his own property or not? You are allowed to take pictures of a public spectacle on public property...

Not only was this video of this man's own home but the lack of a warrant is also quite disturbing.

Really, what is going on here? This is a clear violation of civil rights and it isn't even in the guise of the War Against Terror (indeed, if it were, that would just be another thing to complain about). In both cases, the police have overstepped their bounds and I don't believe that either of these citizen's actions were illegal in any way...

Honestly, if I were a police officer, I'd be embarrassed to claim anything of the like. How do they do it? Why would they do it? It makes no sense to me...

In the first story I cannot see how this young man could have been arrested and then just released without having actually done something truely illegal. I can understand the police perhaps not wanting pictures to circulate of a situation involving a drug dealer if they wanted to continue investigating something. But if that was the case I don't see why they couldn't have approached the man and simply asked that he delete the pic and explain that they need him to do so to assist them. If I were him I would have deleted it. The story does not say they requested that at all. Granted he could have e-mailed it already but the article does not say that.

As for the second story - I get the feeling that we're not getting the whole picture. What was the gripe that this family had with the police. What was the police doing in the first place that was so terrible? It almost sounds like a snooty rich family wanting to spoil their troublemaker son and get him out of trouble instead of making him actually deal with it. Whiners and troublemakers. But then again the police weren't dealing with their complaints properly. If the police knew the cameras were there why couldn't they have asked the kid to come to the station for questioning? I don't know all the legalities there but it seems it would have been more appropriate.

The whole concept is just wrong. Now we give our police even greater authority, but making illegal part of the process of exposing unjust acts?

It's absurd, this is a ridiculous law that never shoul;d have been passed in the first place.

I say we arrest the police officers on a bogus charge from their homes at 2 am.

Hey, if the police have nothing to hide, then why don't they want us photographing or videotaping them?

Isn't that the argument that's used against civilians all the time?

I'm fairly positive that this law will get struck down when - and if - it's challenged in a court.

It's not even a matter of photographing and videotaping. They were in these people's house. There was a sign saying they had videotaping equipment. The officer tried to get in and would not leave despite not having a search warrant.

I don't know what the kid did, but it seems like the above is a pretty clear violation of the law and trying to bust these people under eavesdropping laws is bogus, in my opinion.

First both families sound like jaggoffs.

Second the police have the same rights as anyone else about not being secretly taped. A law meant to keep perverts from putting a video camera in their bathrooms at home can be applied to the police. It seems stupid but my guess its more due to a poorly written law than any government malice.

An officer I met recently explained a few things to me that I have always found useful. He explained to me exactly what to say to make sure that my 4th amendment rights were not violated.

When stopped for any reason and being asked if you would consent to a search or seizure, I have always declined stating I do not give them the right to search or seize anything. He said that was not enough but to also include a question to the officer, "Are you asking me to forgo my 4th Amendment rights? If so, I am stating for the record I do not give up my right to the 4th amendment."

He said that many officers are afraid of being charged with violating someone's civil rights and this would be a clear case of bringing them forward to the situation so that they too understand what is going on.

Any of the law enforcement folk care to corroborate or rebuke what I was told? I've never bothered to fact check it.

What law is that?

Luckly, the article has the response to this already.

I'm not commenting on the second story, but the first one is blatantly stupid. You can't be detained or arrested for taking a picture of that which is out in the open and can be seen plainly by everyone (public view). That's just nonsense.

Sure you can. The question is "is it legal?".

I can't remember the specifics, but in jr-hi my American Government teacher told us something very similar. I don't know if it was anything that would have been actually efective but it damn sure sounded impressive.

In my opinion, willravel and jumpinjesus said it all.

From what I can find, It is not illegal to do what the young man in the first story did. In most states you are allowed to take photographs of anyone in a public place for personal use. NOW the laws come into play when you intend to use it for commercial use. Then in most states you are required to have the subject of the photo sign a release form in order for you to publish the photo. Law enforcement are no different than any other person.

The only exceptions to this is if you were to be taking photos with a zoom lens from the street into someone's house or bathroom, or taking photos of a government facility where usually there are signs posted (no photography of video taping) but those are exceptions. I think I would be safe to say that neither of these came into play in the first article.

As for the second article - I would like to hear, from a neutral party, that the house actually did have signs posted announcing the use of cameras. The family says it does but the police didn't mention it. Are the labels in fine print on the back door only? Where are the labels, are they in clear view, and did the family actually remind the officers that they were using videos surveilance? I'm sceptical because there are gaps in that story.

Ummm thats the first article and no one was charged with that, its just what the family said the police said. The second article is the one that matters, the first is really quite pointless from a legal stand point.

By "pointless" you mean that in the first article the police were clearly at fault? From a legal standpoint, some kid was dragged from his own property and arrested for taking a picture of a public occourance. Where I come from, that's called illegal. Shouldn't the police be heald responsible for their actions? Aren't laws supposed to protect the innocent?

I think this is a sign of things to come. After september 11th, I would go to protest rallies in Madison, WI and there would be undercover police videotaping and taking pictures of the crowd for records. Kids in the protests would recognize the undercover cops and point them out and take pictures of them - at which point these cops would become very upset. I think it is quite hypocritical to just stand at the side of a march and take pictures of kids for identification of potential criminals - while not accepting that the lens can be turned back on you.

IF what the family said is true then yes the police are at fault. Abusive police breaking the law is not nearly as dangerous to society as laws which would allow them to be abusive.

Story one is maybe the cop did something wrong, big deal to the people involved maybe the cops need to be disciplined, but its no different than any standard abuse of power. Its handled at the individual level.

Story two is the only one that matters from the concept of it being against the law to film the police, and in such my OP stands unchallenged. Its most likely due to a law meant to PROTECT private citizens from unauthorized surveillance due to the cry for privacy laws once the hidden camera craze started (we all remember those stories about the couple with a camera hidden in their bedroom and there were no laws against it). The fact that it can be used to not videotape police on your own property was most likely due to the law being poorly written. Its a concern, but that doesn't mean its anything deeper than that and should be changed. I won't get up in arms about the police state coming.

Juvenal's expression "who will watch the watchers" has never been more applicable to US Politics than now with the emerging police state. They can video tape us in public (ever seen COPS?) but returning the favor is now a crime? It's the last step, friends.

My only hope is that these police officers are indeed human and simply made an error. If policy continues moving in this direction, we might soon be prosecuting "sense crimes."


*Gets up in arms*

Story 1: It was blatantly wrong by the officers, however, we truly do not know the whole story. The fact that the police offer NO reasonable excuse or appology sets the tone. If the picture was taken in public there is nothing the cops could do and to have held the 21 yr. old in custody is wrong and makes me wonder what exactly was happening there.

(He was not "arrested" as no charges were brought upon him. Police can hold anyone for 24 hours without charges for whatever they wish. That is media bias to not report this and to make it sound as if he were charged with something and then released.)

Story 2: It seems that both the family and the police force have animosity towards each other. From what I could tell it sounds like the family tends to antagonize the police and the police tend to handle the family like nuisances.\

The signs posted that there was surveillence supercedes any "rights".... as it is the right of the owner to have cameras so long as there are signs or the visitors have been told. Noone's rights supercede those of the landowners in this aspect..... (otherwise you would have people suing every store and casino and pretty much any place of business).

Now, if this family has had this system for 2 years, and has had all these problems listed in the article, why did the family never show the tapes to the police? If they had the police would have known of the cameras and thusly had no leg to stand on. If the family, never showed the police the film then why not?

Also the article states that the cameras are used to watch the front doors and parking lots..... Shared public areas, so again, no true privacy invasion.

If this were a true law and if the police have a leg to stand on saying this was violating state wiretapping and eavesdropping laws.... then I would be very worried if I owned anything in that state. Simply for the fact the next time a criminal gets caught commtting a crime and the main evidence is the tape, it will be ruled as invasion of privacy and in and of itself illegal. Thus, the true criminal would get off, the owner arrested for breaking the laws and possibly sued for invading the criminal's privacy.

It would seem to me that in public or on someone else's private property that there would be no expectation of privacy from being photographed or video taped except for obvious privacy violations like bathroom and upskirt cams, etc..

If true, I had no idea that it was illegal to have a security camera in your house or on your porch and driveway.

God, I know that it's a rough day when I find myself nodding in agreement with Ustwo over and over again.

Nice use of the word "jagoffs". You must have been hanging out with some South Siders recently.

The first one isn't very shocking; as far as i can tell, the police can generally get away with a whole lot of ethically and legally questionable things. It doesn't help that there are plenty of them who are complete douchebags.

The second one is silly if the guy warned them about he camera. Even if he didn't warn him about the camera, imagine how many robbery convictions would become null if it were actually illegal to videotape someone without his/her consent.

In some states you can do have whatever you like for security purposes. In the vast majority (and I believe Ohio is one) you need some form of warning. That's why you tend to see a lot of "this property protected by....." signs. Yes, it advertises the security company but also allows anyone coming onto the property that the maybe observed.

Just like stores, 99% of the stores you go into in Ohio have a sticker on their door announcing video surveillence (this also allows them to hide cameras from view (i.e. the ceiling globe, mannequins eyes, etc.)). The rest just have them in plain sight, usually with a sign around them.

The purpose for advertising that you are under video/audio surveillence is so that in court you cannot in any way fight the tapes, i.e. "I didn't know I was being observed, had I known I would have acted differently", "you violated my client's civil rights by videotaping him....".

It's also like taping a phone conversation. In some states like Ohio, as long as one side knows that it is being taped it's ok as long as you have at regular intervals a beeping sound from the recording device audible to both parties.

In most states you must inform the person you are taping them. If the call is interstate you must inform them the call is being taped or monitored.

That's why most telemarketers and telephone service people tell you that the conversation maybe taped or monitored. That way if you threaten to kill the guy/lady or decide you want to go nuts and kill everyone in a 100 mile radius and you decided to tell them for some reason..... that tape can be used for court prosecution against you. (Not the reason why they tape you.... but .....)

I think I'm going to fill in for UnclePhil with a quote from one of my favorite songs:

I'm not sure I understand. What's to stop the officer from saying "no, I'm not asking you to give up your fourth amendment rights, I just want to search your person and sieze your property..."

Seriously?

Because searching and seizing of property like that is unconstitutional.

Because ANYONE that would dare challenge abused authority must be jagoffs. :rolleyes:

Because the government is never wrong, just so long as we remain the perfect loyal citizen and abide by their rules.


This doesn't surprise me any knowing how you feel about police and being from chicago.

no police state here, nothing to see, just move along now citizens.

DK - I've always been consistent in asking for evidence or at least both sides of the story. So me proof of a police state and I'll believe it, but the preponderence of evidence is against it. Sure there are occassional abuses of power, and sometimes innocent people are arrested. However, those are the exceptions to the rule.

Given that you've taken the stance that the killing of an officer serving a legal warrant is justifable in a previous thread, I really don't have anything more to say to you.

If a police officer, executing said warrant, enters the wrong address, say MINE for example, he gets all he's asking for. Killing someone, later proven to be a police officer, because they bashed down your door at 3 am and fired flash grenades in your home is completely the fault of the idiot busting down the door.

Your problem in Illinois is that you've been spoonfed this 'police are the only ones' crap, that THEY are your protection, for so many decades that you can't fathom the possibility that I am better qualified to provide for my families defense in a moments notice, therefore you bash anyone that doesn't think like you do.

How do I know this? Because I was born and raised in Illinois, two hours west of chicago. I believed most of it myself until I got the hell out of there.

Most of the people in chicago are so ignorant (as in completely unkowledgable, not moronic) of the outside world that they blindly follow the words of their socialist and communist representatives as if they were kings. THAT will be it's downfall and it's also why chicago is in the running for murder capital of nation, yet again.

Living an hour or so west of Chicago, this describes me to a T. :rolleyes:

Illinois DOES have a lot of asshat politicans, Durbin being the worst asshole of the bunch, but I don't think we are brainwashed quite yet :p

Keyword was 'MOST'.

After being on here for a few years and reading most of your posts, I hardly classify you as one of the ignorant. You have SOME extreme viewpoints, but nowhere are you one of the brainwashed.

Most of your politicians, especially those north of I-80, are extreme leftist asshats, Durbin being chief among them. Hopefully you'll be able to get rid of Blago, though topinka will hardly be much better, and chicago would do well to get rid of daley, either by voting him out (not likely to happen) or convicting him out.

Illinois isn't all that far left really, but the Republican party has been grossly incompetent for the last 10 years or so and had very poor leadership so its not like Topinka is much of an upgrade from blago.

I don't like Daley in a lot of ways, but the one good thing is nothing extreme will happen under him (outside of Miggs, thats where I decided I didn't like him). He's very much a realist and the family is closet Republicans which is why I don't expect anything to extreme from him in the long run. I won't go into how I know this about Daley beyond that someone close to me used to sit on Old man Daley's chair when he was growing up and was even on the payroll for a while.

Well what's scary isn't the "police state" (you're right, we're not in a police state. . .at least not yet). What's scary is that so many people accept it. The citizens of that town should be going crazy protesting this obvious violation of civil rights. If they violate his rights and haul him to jail for taking photos of a public scene, they're willing to violate YOUR rights too. That's not saying the whole government is a police state, but the officers that apparently WANT it to be a police state, should be sacked.

I honestly don't believe that most people want to be in a police state. To the contrary, I suspect that if they suddenly found themselves oppressed ina direct and obvious way, they'd be up in arms ready to defend freedom. The problem is that of the boiling frog. Toss a frog in to boiling water and it jumps right out. Put a frog in tepid water and slowly bringing it to a boil with olive oil, salt and pepper, onion, carrot, celery, flour, white wine and canned tomatoes, and the frog becomes delicious. If people went from a relatively free society to a very much not free society and they'll know it immediatally. They'll stand up and fight and do everything they can to get back their beloved freedom. Erode freedom over a very long time, however, and very few are likely to react. It's hard to notice movement over a long period of time.

the cops just don't want to get caught in the act of something illegal

If my tax dollars are paying for the police, and they are on public property or my personal property, there really shouldn't be a problem with taking pictures or video of them.

They probably just are afraid of this getting on the internet.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...police+beating

I thought of this when I read what you wrote:

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

—Martin Niemoeller


So if you have a long term plan to curtail society's freedom, you put up some test balloons and see what the reaction is. If everyone freaks out, politicians will "race to our aid" and denounce the obvious wrong even if they were directly or indirectly responsible for it in the first place. If not, they move on to the next thing on their list.

Seems that in the last few years, lots of test balloons are having no problem going through.

Well put, Mondok.

I like your signature. Who would have thought Spoiler: Ronald Reagan would say such wonderful and appropriate words....

The second case will fall apart because they've had the system for several years. They were not taping the detective to eavesdrop. They were taping the goings-on of their property for security purposes.

The police will probably get their peepees slapped for trying it.

We will never have our freedoms taken from us. We will hand them over one at a time until they do not exist. If one person excuses the police for detaining a person for NOT commiting an act, especially if their is reason to believe the police KNEW there was no violation of law, we are giving up our freedoms.

The government cannot take a single freedom from us that we do not hand them on a silver platter, perhaps with a nice parsley garnish.

If the couple warned the cops that they were being taped, shouldn't the warning be on the tape? What I wouldn't give to see that tape, but that is the nosey in me

and the 'beatdown' goes on
 

arrested for carrying a weapon....a camera :orly:

said it before, i'll say it again. the police are not your friends.
it will only be a matter of time before a majority of americans consider police the enemy and then the war will begin.

The problem is that we will have no weapons with which to fight...

On top of that, I truly fear that we Americans have lost our will to stand up and fight for our rights...and the government senses it, and isn't afraid to seize the opportunity.

We gave up the essential part of our right to bear arms a long time ago.

...

Lengthy but really good link that details the heart of the problem.

Not for nothing, but this may be- to date- the craziest, most paranoid thing I've ever read from you. There are times when I can't tell if you truly believe that, or if it's a front to substantiate your love and stockpile of guns. Really though, I believe that you think it's real. I think you're well equipped for a civil uprising in America, but I don't think you're equipped, at all, to figure out that such a thing almost definitely won't happen any time in the near future- as in, not in your lifetime, or mine, or the lifetime of anyone already alive.

Barring nuclear war with another country, I don't see how you can even think such a thing would happen, let alone be sure of it.

There are assholes who abuse power in every line of work on the entire planet- doctors, lawyers, hot dog vendors, police, you name it. Just because you hate and fear a particular group of people based solely on the mischief of their worst offenders, doesn't mean they're all out to get you. It definitely doesn't mean there will be a civil uprising against the entire police force in the United States.

I definitely agree with you there.

you watch, if police forces across the country continue to act in the manner that they have been, there will be a retaliation. People are getting very disgusted with not only the actions of MANY police officers, but also the way that departments and dept heads circle the wagons protecting the offenders, the cities themselves doing all they can to cover it up, and in the rare cases there is actually something brought before a judge, it's dismissed or the offender is exonerated in some way. people are getting fed up with it and it is only a matter of time, just like it was pre-revolution, that the people will realize that they are the only ones with a vested interest in a 'free state'. Think me crazy all you like, I hear the words of an awful lot of groups and people.

I saw enough anti speech bullshit from police in riot gear when I was down in portland to last me a lifetime. I've been treated with disrespect from numerous police officers over the most inane things.

I'd honestly consider leaving the states once I get to a point of financial comfort. The strength of the U.S. dollar is a joke, the police are hive minded confomist assholes (yes thats a generalization, no, fuck it, it's a fact, I can't think of one cop that hasn't been an asshole in one way or another)

A cop pulling me over once and saying stuff like "give me one good reason to not write you a ticket" for going 5 over. then goes on his charade about how he "loves being the one with allt he power, it's why I became a cop"

having 5 cops surround me at 11pm on foot when I was sitting on the hood of my car, drinking out of my own water bottle, because some jackoff neighbor of ours thought that I was breaking in to my own house when I went back up to the side of the house to use the water hose.

being interrogated by a bunch of sarcastic jocks in uniform for half an hour wasn't my idea of "police at it's finest" and for fucks sake, get the maglite out of my face.

I don't mind if they go after... novel concept.... REAL criminals. But I think the ones being dumbasses about video taping, about me getting a bottle of water from my own house, spooging thier pants over having so much power over me because they wear a badge even though underneath that clothing, they're still just an inferiority complex wielding asshole, I think those kind of cops need to grow up and get the fuck out of the service.

reason number three million seven hundered and sixty three thousand and nine to carry a firearm: To protect yourself from treasonous public servants.

I'm 10x more afraid of a cop than I am of any other type of criminal.


This is a big misconeption that deserves some attention. Once upon a time long ago, there was this little gadget called the Liberator Pistol. It was a single shot .45 pistol that took longer to reload than it took to manufacture. They were dropped in China as well as other places where the local resitance would use them to slay just one opressor. After that was done, the person had a whole load of gear to continue fighting with.

A gun, with one bullet can make all the difference in the world.

Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

I like the sentiment, but a populace/resistance armed with inferior weaponry will have a HELL of a time against a modern army or police force, especially where the opposing force has little qualm against "civilian" losses.

(BTW, I think this is the reason the United States is losing the "war" in Iraq. We're hobbled by media & propagandists carting out any civilian losses that can be attributed to our troops - we're supposed to be fighting a "sanitized" war against an enemy who has no such impedances... but that's probably another thread.)

Now, I realize it's not practical to give tanks, nukes, etc. to the populace, so as a Constitutionist, my question is: Given the fact that it was supposed to protect the populace against internal and external tyranny, has the second amendment become obsolete?

somewhat off topic, but i'll answer. though we, as the populace, may not currently be as well armed as most police or even military, there are two practical things to take in to account. Those police and military do not want to die also, and some or most may not be able to stomach firing at american citizens. The second thing to take in to account is the horrible PR and reaction that would take place if things like kent state, or bigger, were to happen again.


The gun control/anti-gunners/statists want you to think that. For nearly 100 years, they have made great steps in to making you think that the government and its forces are subservient yet authoritative and at the same time have whittled away the peoples ability to retain power. By making you believe that the government can always be trusted, because your elected representatives are also 'the people', and that there is no way the government could ever become a dictatorship (since you can still 'vote'), while at the same time flipping the coin and saying that the government needs to tell you what can and can't be done because 'people' are too irresponsible and untrustworthy to keep all of their 'rights' anymore.

a vicious circle that will eventually have drastic consequences.

This is what happens when little people get a little power. It's not illegal to take pictures or videos of cops in public, and I have to believe that the cops know it, but they get used to some of the little perks of their job, including the power to boss people around, and they don't like it when someone gets in their way. So they use their position to harass people. Maybe most cops won't act this way, but a fair number do. I once gave a cop some lip while walking on my way to a meeting, and he followed me all the way to the meeting, into the building and up the elevator, trying to goad me into taking a punch at him (as if I give a shit what names he calls me). Finally, right before I got out of the elevator, I said "Listen, asshole. You can call me what you want, you think you're a big shot because you have a badge and a gun. But just remember, there's a closed circuit camera in here, and if you do anything to me it's recorded. So just keep spewing your shit if it makes you feel better, but try anything smart and I'll sue your ass and ruin your career. And your union rep won't be able to help you."

And with that I turned my back on him and walked out.

So that's the reason I think it's a bad idea to give people power. Many people can't handle it well, and that goes for bureaucrats, city officials, cops, health inspectors - anyone who works for the government or for a monopoly (like the local cable company, for instance). Many of these positions are necessary, and I'm not advocating getting rid of them, but we have to recognize that between power hunger and the opportunities for corruption, the best thing we can do is minimize the opportunities. People should as much as possible have the ability to go elsewhere for the services they want - that minimizes abuse and corruption. And it makes people much more polite.

it's a small point, but being taken into custody by the police IS what being arrested means. whether charges are filed later, is irrelevant. if you are taken into custody by the police, you have been arrested.

secondly, while it's true that the police can detain someone for up to 24 hours without filing charges, it is NOT true that they can do so for "whatever they wish". They must have legal reason to do so. Granted, it doesn't take much to satisfy this last requirement (i.e. suspicion based on even the smallest bit of circumstantial evidence) but they must have a legal reason to detain you.