Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Watching the watchers
Glenn Reynolds correctly calls this "an outrage":
Brian D. Kelly didn't think he was doing anything illegal when he used his videocamera to record a Carlisle police officer during a traffic stop. Making movies is one of his hobbies, he said, and the stop was just another interesting event to film.
Now he's worried about going to prison or being burdened with a criminal record.
Kelly, 18, of Carlisle, was arrested on a felony wiretapping charge, with a penalty of up to 7 years in state prison.
His camera and film were seized by police during the May 24 stop, he said, and he spent 26 hours in Cumberland County Prison until his mother posted her house as security for his $2,500 bail.
Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent.
If Kelly's actions were felonious, then so is all hidden camera or ambush journalism. There should be an absolute right, sounding in the First and Fifth Amendments, to record any public official speaking under circumstances in which he or she had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Glenn argues that we need "federal legislation guaranteeing the right to tape law enforcement activities in public places," and he may be right insofar as thuggish local prosecutors might bring criminal cases against inherently innocent people. I am no expert on this sort of stuff, but it does seem to me that Kelly and similarly-situated defendants already have a private remedy under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which provides (for you non-civil rights lawyers):
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...
In the absence of a privacy interest, one would think that the First Amendment would protect Kelly's interest in covering a news story transpiring on a public thoroughfare, and the Fifth Amendment protects his tangible property interest in the camera and his intellectual property interest in its contents. What am I missing here? Some huge percentage of our readers are lawyers, some of whom are clearly more qualified to opine on the merits of Kelly's case.
26 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Jun 12, 10:08:00 AM:
You're not accounting for the (mythical) "blue wall of silence". You can't videotape pigs in action without finding them doing something wrong ranging from brutality, foul language, threats, offers of bribes of cash, sex, etc.
They can videotape you without your consent. How else do we have all those videos they show us on TV? Why the hell should'nt we be able to tape them?
And let's face it. Most of these guys are lunchbox types who damn near dropped out of school. Uncle Tony the Guido or Cousin Mikey the Mick got you into the Academy as a legacy. These aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree. For every one who whines about how tough the life is, there's at least one saying the same thing with only his 'roids to bitch about, writing traffic or parking tickets in some backwoods 'burb.
Without the ability to tape them, you will miss the chances to cleaning up the forces for the kind of pricks who thumped that barkeep in Chicago, and people across this country "in the line of duty".
Just one man's opinion. JT in NC.
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Tue Jun 12, 10:50:00 AM:
I'm going to be right wing douche (as most of your commenters are hahaha) and disagree with the previous commenter. Only 50% of cops are roid-surged idiots. the other 50% are decent people who are trying to do a good job within the strictures and prescriptions out there (that shift daily). Now, that means half of them are clowns, and it's tough to see if they are actually detering crime, or merely cleaning up after it's happened. Plus they indeed seem to be everywhere if you're goign 5 miles over the speed limit on your way to the grocery store, but if someone's beaten you and stolen your ATM card, they seem all be in Donkin Donuts or Wendy's...
That said, I think the only thing thatcould counter a first/14th amendment challenge (using the civil rights acts as vehicles for relief, as TH says, plus section 1981) would be obstruction of justice or hampering a ongoing police investigation, or jeopardzing the identity of officer in such an investigation. I doubt these tools can show that. Most cops have dash cameras anyway. Why don't these guys? Indeed, if this kid can establish some fatcual predicate for the camera beyond personal protection for wanting to film law enforcement (e.g., why they should have dash cams, brutality, racial profiling, negligence), the issue becomes one of "public concern" and the cops have an even bigger burden to overcome. That's the tough thing for them. Even though this kid would have the ultimate burden of proof if he sues, it shifts very starkly back onto the cops due to the nature of these issues.
Maybe thee cops were just frustrated because their chiefs won't let them arrest illegal immigrants under the new "sanctuary" trend?
By , at
Tue Jun 12, 11:00:00 AM:
Hat tip to Chambers for working "douche" into his comment. It was so popular a word when I was young, and seems to have fallen by the wayside.
So OK, perhaps I should've used "many" rather than "most", but I think the point was clear, I think cops to be scumbags many.
We use cameras in the ME to "report" on the work of our military, and use it against them if they act under duress and it's later deemed excessive or wrong. They're held to a stricter standard than "most" militaries on this planet. Why not our doughnut eating friends? And yes, although I'm not overly sensitive to the plight of the Rodney Kings of the world, nor do I agree that his case merited so much money (if a big dude hopped up on 'dust needs his ass whipped to cuff him, so be it) but the evidence is pretty clear that our police do not always behave themselves. We need this type of oversight.
Further, on the day when that rat bastard Nifong faces those he sought to ruin, with the apparent willful or ignorant cooperation of Durham's finest, it becomes that much clearer why the law should apply equally to those entrusted to apply it.
We cannot count on them to own up when they break the law, we need hard evidence to make our case.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jun 12, 11:47:00 AM:
I will leave out my perspective on law enforcement people. Suffice it to say that it is a job that requires getting done. Like everything else in the world, probably mostly good apples and a few bad. In any event, beyond that, one's opinion on people in law enforcement is not germane to the question.
I think there are probably circumstances that would make open filming in a public place of every interaction between public officials and priavet citizens problematic. First of all, as a private citizen, is anybody entitled to film me interacting with a public official? Not sure I like that very much. Second, suppose a law enforcement official is having a discussion with an informant in a public place -- do we want to promote filming the interaction?
I guess this gets more to the privacy of the citizen rather than a law enforcement official, but still, I can see circumstances where this "unfettered right" could be abused. Ultimately, what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy?
By , at
Tue Jun 12, 12:24:00 PM:
The article linked didn't cite which PA law was specifically at issue. I looked it up -- 18 Pa. C.S. 5703. According to PA Assistant Attorney General Eric M. Noonan, "The general rule in Pennsylvania is that electronic surveillance is illegal. For the purposes of this article, "electronic surveillance" shall include the interception (to include recording) of electronic (digital pagers, computers/e-mail, fax machines), oral (face-to-face conversations where there is an expectation of privacy/non-interruption) and wire (telephone conversations) communications." http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=199 (emphasis added); http://members.aol.com/StatutesP5/18.Cp.57B.html (18 Pa C.S. 5703 -- scroll down a bit).
Seemingly here there is no expectation of privacy for any of the parties involved beyond the vehicle occupants' interests in being secure that they would not be subject to illegal searches and/or seizures. This was a traffic stop - not a meeting between the officer and an informant behind the cover of closed doors. Perhaps the charges are being filed to specifically elicit a Constitutional challenge.
By knighterrant, at
Tue Jun 12, 12:55:00 PM:
By their own reasoning, the police practice of videotaping demonstrations and even dashboard cameras would be illegal without a court approved warrent. If it is wiretapping when I do it, it is wiretapping when they do it.
By , at
Tue Jun 12, 12:56:00 PM:
I read thru the linked story again. So after a twenty minute tongue lashing by Barney over a minor ticketable incident, he brings in SEVEN more of Carlisle's "finest" to help him hassle two 18-year-old kids? This after cursing him for using a video camera? Pulllleeease. He must've had to pull a bunch of these guys out of bed or the local bar to get that many cops in one place. Carlisle is only 18000 people as of 2000, so it's relatively small.
I wonder if anyone knows of cases where the police have come forward with their recordings when then they've violated the law? it seems like the sample size would be zero. I wonder also when people sue and those tapes wind up accidently damaged or erased? The point of being able to film your own traffic stop is to make sure people follow the rules of engagement. Applying that to Barney in this case does not seem unreasonable.
Besides, is it an unreasonable or illegal "wiretap" when it's obvious you're being recorded, or you're recording it yourself? The cop can't say he didn't know he was being filmed when he's looking at the camera. How can be an expectation of privacy when you already know it's being filmed?
By , at
Tue Jun 12, 01:45:00 PM:
Knight -- The law allegedly violated makes an exception for police videotaping.
By Georg Felis, at
Tue Jun 12, 02:50:00 PM:
I would shoot for there being no reasonable expectation of privacy in the traffic stop because the police officer (probably, not sure) was taping the event with his squad car windshield recorder. And even if he was not running tape, the guy with the camera had no idea. After all, we all watch COPS. America's funniest criminal moments, all filmed by police cars.
Also, in my area of the country almost without exception, police are the most humble and brave of public servants. Thank God the Cops are here.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jun 12, 03:37:00 PM:
I thought I would add another thought, this time in order to be rather more sympathetic to the police officer or officers in question.
Filming a police officer on duty is at a minimum disrespectful and obnoxious, and at its extreme, potentially dangerous to the police officer.
Disrespecting a cop who is performing his duty -- and nobody is arguing here that the traffic stop was unjustified, or based on race, or profiling, or anything else -- is not something I feel good about. The truth is, I want people to be respectful of, and responsive to, police officers doing their duty. I want my children to acr that way in a traffic stop, and I should act that way too. These guys do a dangerous job; every traffic stop has danger associated with it. the kid was acting to hide his camera. Suppose the cop thought he saw a gun barrel rather than a lens? Think, people.
I have no objection at all to criticizing the law, or, in the alternative, criticizing the failure to properly discharge the laws. But I think it is offensive and dangerous to criticize the faithful execution of the law - which is exactly what this was -- by the cops and the DA.
If you want to change the law, go talk to the lawmakers. But don't, don't, don't ask the cops and the DAs to look the other way on a law that the legislature -- the people's elected reps -- passed. And be nice to cops. They do something of great societal value for each and every one of us.
By , at
Tue Jun 12, 04:40:00 PM:
Cardinal -
The article says the officer correctly recognized the camera as a camera and asked that the kid shut it down. The article also denotes the kid complied with the officer's request. This prosecution is an example of a law intended to protect privacy being extended to its extreme limits. To say that it is simply being faithfully executed is laughable at best. Local tax dollars would be more wisely spent prosecuting truly dangerous crimes.
By , at
Tue Jun 12, 04:55:00 PM:
CP ... I think the question is one of whether the law applies, not asking to "look the other way".
The article said that after the 20-minute (likely sanctimonious)lecture from the cop that he called for backup with 6 or 7 more, and then told them they were being videotaped. So the question is, did the cop violate the rights of the driver and passenger for not informing them up front that they were on tape? And how could he argue that it was secret when it was open and notorious? He might not LIKE it, but was the law being violated, and how could it affect his performance of his job?
I get the point that SOME police operate in dangerous settings, but let's face it, Carlisle, PA? doubtful. College town, big antique show locale, but not likely meriting some cop getting his knickers in a twist over a video camera UNLESS he himself was doing something wrong and didn't wish for it to be memorialized.
My big issue with this is that while many police do execute their jobs without prejudice or violations of the laws they're entrusted to enforce, there are also other cops who do not. Like most news stories, my bet is there's more to this than has been reported.
I know too many stories (corroborated) about cops beating the crap out of people, or abusing the law to simply trust that these are good cops doing their jobs.
I do not trust them to do right without oversight.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jun 12, 05:17:00 PM:
Annon Guys - I don't think anybody is questioning whether the law applies. The article was clear, and even the kid said he understood -- and it's because of the audio, not the video portion. One lawyer made clear that if the audio was on, the kid broke the law.
The kid acknowledges exactly what he did and the other interviewed lawyer says he broke the law. Period.
Others on this board are making presumptuous statements about what the cops did or did not do or say or see.
1) Most any traffic stop I've ever had took 15 minutes. Just radioing it in and writing it up takes 15 minutes. So 20 minutes ain't impressively long. Throw in the kerfuffle about the recording and additional cops, 20 minutes feels pretty quick to me.
2) Saying I don't like cops because a few of them have beaten the crap out of people is ridiculous. Replace the word "cop" with some other word and you may find yourself getting insulted pretty soon, or being called a racist or bigot. It is an absurd generalization made about people who are, for the most part, protecting you and your family.
3) cops die in all manner of small and seemingly innocuous places. You can NEVER let down your guard. Ever. And you job requires you to impose authority on people who may be violating the law. It's called enforcement for a reason. That doesn't imply gentle politesse on many occasions.
4) As to the specifics of the interaction, I don't know when the cop came to learn that it was a camera and not something more threatening, and neither do you. What the story says is the kid was concealing it. So, sorry, I have no problem with a cop taking umbrage at having some kid trying to conceal something from him in the midst of a traffic stop. You don't get second chances in the cop's business.
The truth is, the entire bit of outrage here is manufactured by distrust of the cops and dislike for the law.
Well, if you dislike the law, go change it in the legislature. But don't ask the cops and the DA not to enforce it. They're not suppose to pick which laws they like and which ones they don't. they're supposed to enforce them all.
And as for distrust of the cops, try to put yourself in the shoes of that guy, and go look at the stats. It is a dangerous job, and the context in which they operate demands exceeding amounts of caution, regardless of locale. No place is crime free. It does not seem from the story as though we are talking about bigotry or abuse. We are talking about an abundance of caution, disrespectful youth, and teaching the kids a lesson.
Let me give another example - a 20 year old kid was driving like 100 miles an hour, and had been detected by one cop, who radioed ahead to a colleague, who finally busted the kid after establishing a roadblock. The cop was pretty unhappy because it was certainly a dangerous situation, both for the kid and the cop, who was positioned in front of the oncoming speeder. When the cop asserted himself to the kid, he said "well young man, I been waitin' for ya". To which the kid responded, "well I got here as fast as I could."
The cop busted the kid and locked him up, extremely pissed off. Why? Simple? Flip disrespect...
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Jun 12, 05:17:00 PM:
where there is an expectation of privacy
That pretty much ends at your front door IMO. Some perv masturbating on a bench at a bus stop has no reasonable expectation that the act will be "private".
Cops should have zero expectation of privacy on the streets. If you're playing it straight up, there's nothing to worry about. If you shaking people down, abusing them, etc well then too freaking bad.
By , at
Tue Jun 12, 06:00:00 PM:
CP, I humbly offer that a guy driving 100 MPH should get arrested. Even if you're out West and it's an 80 zone, you're still way over the legal limit. Chances are you're in a 65 zone. 35 over gets an impound and trip to jail to think it over.
I dismiss the patent argument that cops exist in a dangerous world. Yes, some people target them, but they're wearing vests and carrying a sidearm. This case didn't happen in Camden, Trenton, Harlem or LA. Rather, it's a relatively small town in PA.
I do presume this happened after the cop took the opportunity to run the plates, turn on the bright lights, have them show hands, lecture these young men, and perform whatever due diligence a cop is taught to make a reasonable determination of whether they're dealing with a violent criminal, drug runner, or other piece of garbage that he's just going to "teach a lesson" to someone.
And yes, I do know many police, and many of them are not the high-minded upstanding 'heroes' people might hope them to be. They live with one set of laws, the rest of us another. Same goes if the cop's a relative or your best friend.
What I have an issue with is that they get to hide behind a cloak of rightness, with a badge, cuffs, and a gun. They can basically do whatever the hell they please, and it's your word against theirs. A video/audio record levels that playing field.
Someone, maybe TH, offered that it might simply be a constitutional challenge to see how far the rule extends.
When the kid turned off the camera and forked it over, and the cop called for backup of his boys, I think that was probably overkill. How about you?
I'm not a lawyer, and do understand that the issue here comes down to the audio, but so what? If I were the judge, I'd be really interested to see and hear the tape, and see if this guy behaved himself or acted up, and likewise the kids in the car. We don't know ... MAYBE the kid starting filming because the cop was stepping over the line.
I'd do the same thing given the opportunity.
JT
By , at
Tue Jun 12, 11:04:00 PM:
To which the kid responded, "well I got here as fast as I could."
The cop busted the kid and locked him up, extremely pissed off. Why? Simple? Flip disrespect...
And you think that's a good thing?
Locking up a guy for not showing proper "respect"?
No way.
By , at
Wed Jun 13, 01:35:00 AM:
"Police said the officer saw Kelly had a camera in his lap, aimed at him and was concealing it with his hands. They said Kelly was arrested after he obeyed an order to turn the camera off and hand it over."
CP -- these cops were out of line.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jun 13, 09:10:00 AM:
This is an interesting discussion. Let me summarize:
1) commenters acknowledge the kid seems to have broken the law.
2) commenters acknowledge they don't know what the cop said or did--they merely "suspect" he did something based on no facts, just bias
3) nobody has actually accused the police of doing anything wrong -- no bigotry or race issues, no abuse. They are being criticized for robustly enforcing the law.
Instead, there seems to be a perspective that says kids being wiseguys to cops over a traffic stop -- which everybody also seems to acknowledge was an ok stop -- is ok, even to be commended.
Horsehit, in my opinion. I have a 12 year old who already is beginning to act like a teenager. He is going to know NOT to be a wiseass to cops, ever. When they pull you over, you keep your mouth shut. You say, "yes, sir" and "no sir," in response. If you have a problem you seek counsel after the incident, and you take it up in court. But you know what? If you keep your mouth shut, and act respectful, in 99.9% of cases, nothing will happen.
You do not disrespect officers of the law. Ever. For myriad reasons. That's what my kids are going to understand. Not in a demonstration in public. Not in a traffic stop. Not. Ever.
Do any of you -- any -- want to take responsibility or have your child take it -- for doing wrong?
This is a case of a couple of kids getting correctly stopped for a traffic stop they deserved, and then being wiseasses and disrespectful. They never thought for a nanosecond that the context could seem threatening -- not even for a second (the attempt to conceal the camera), because they are naive, young, and irresponsible. Then, in a supreme act of wiseassness, they further violated the law, inciting the cops to "throw the book at them", because they were disrespectful to their authority.
Now, I think that is a problem. And not for the cops. Perhaps because that's because I have kids who I try to teach the value of integrity and respect every single day, and you guys don't. I don't know. But I promise you this, being disrespectful to a cop on a simple traffic stop is pure stupidity. Utter, pure stupidity. It is a situation from which you cannot emerge victorious.
I have no problem with these kids being worried. Let the judge sort it out. Maybe they will learn a proper lesson when the facts come out in court. Maybe their lawyer will convince the cops these are good kids who deserve to get off with a little community service.
But the lesson is perfectly fine with me. I think a few of you guys could use it.
And if you have a problem with the law, go to the lawmakers, not the law enforcers.
By , at
Wed Jun 13, 10:51:00 AM:
Cardinalpark:
Now it seems like you're making some unfair generalizations. I'm one of the anon guys, and I have a genuine dislike of police for my own reasons. That said, I am respectful of their position, and mind my manners among them, as I do among other people who aren't cops. But at my age I've had enough interactions with bozos who feel pumped up behind their little badge and gun to take for granted they're all good, honest, and law abiding.
When it was proposed that a misdemeanor crime should mean you couldn't get a firearm, it was the police who pushed back. Passage would mean all the wifebeaters in their ranks couldn't have their service revolver, especially if applied retroactively.
I've been stopped a few times in the last few years, with out of town tags in NJ. The last time was because I "didn't have brake lights". I responded fairly outraged, and told the cop to go look at my tail-lights, stepped on the brake and demonstrated I had them. He said "your lights didn't come on", and I ripped into him that I'd used my directional signals and was changing lanes without any point where I needed to brake or come to a stop. I am convinced he was just pulling me over because he was either stupid, or looking to hassle an out-of-towner. Two times, in the same town in Jersey. I'd could respect him if he just said it was routine, but not some cock and bull story to just look me over.
As suggested elsewhere, there's a lot that's probably not known in this news story. It's not clear at all to me that these guys were wise or disrespectful to the cop. You seem to consider it disrespectful that they were taping at all, and I maintain there might have been a reason. The fact that he called in 6 or so for backup suggests to me he got his ego bruised about his self-ordained power. Take his badge off and he's just as likely to be cheating on his wife, his taxes, cards, surfing child porn, or committing violent crimes. There's little or no filter for who gets thru the academy and a job in "law enforcement" other than knowing someone in the business or a political position who can give you the nod over the next guy. That's the truth about local cops. No more, no less.
As for changing the law ... Yeah, sure, just as soon as I have millions to waste trying to do that I'll worry about bribing, err, influencing politicians. If that day ever comes, I like to think I'd focus on something else.
I would only close with my original thought on this: that in the absence of cameras there'd be quite a few persons in positions of trust and authority who were not punished for their actions. We need the oversight, IMO, and I do not feel it should NOT be illegal to tape with or without sound. I hope the case leads to PA's lawmakers to reconsider the rationale behind this law.
JT
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jun 13, 11:25:00 AM:
JT - I appreciate your perspective. But -- nothing has changed. You have a bias against police officers. You innately distrust and dislike them. It feeds your assumptions about the interaction they had with this kid or kids. By the way, I would characterize my last post as having certain assumptions, but not generalizations. I drew those assumptions, though, from the testimony of the kid and an impartial lawyer -- not from the cops. So I will stand by them.
The fact is JT, the police have thousands of societal interactions every single day. Almost all of them are without incident. Statistically, there is simply no reason for you to have this innate distrust. You've said you were unduly hassled in a mistaken stop as an out of towner. Daily, folks in all walks of life experience hassle from people in a momentary position of power -- even the cashier at the supermarket.
Are some cops low IQ guys? Of course. So are representatives of each and every job on the planet.
Every action by people in positions of authority is not going to be recorded for posterity. Some humans will violate their position. Welcome to the world of humanity. You might even wear that shoe someday. I hope you show some forbearance and appreciate that power can be most effective when not used.
And finally, as I guess we can agree, if the people don't like the law, change it. But the cops job is to enforce the law. you're right, perhaps this circumstance will galvanize the local legislature.
Separately, I am curious about your age and whether you have kids. I think it has an impact on perspective here.
By , at
Wed Jun 13, 12:03:00 PM:
CP - they seem to be enforcing this law in a rather predatory fashion. You may be ok with that, but I can't stomach it. Because Police "have thousands of societal interactions every single day[,]" they are granted with discretion. Prosecutors as well. All violations and violators can not be prosecuted.
Nothing in the story suggests the kids were ascertained as threatening in any way to the police involved. Once asked to stop recording the kid did so. (Even though he concealed the camera the officer was able to discern there was no threat). Whether the kids were disrespectful or not is irrelevant as disrespect, while unfortunate, is not criminal.
To videotape a public official in public during the commission of his official duties should not be classed as a criminal offense. The police and the prosecutors have the authority and discretion to avoid wasteful litigation and should have done so in this case.
By , at
Wed Jun 13, 12:21:00 PM:
CP
I am a 46-year-old white guy with one child (a daughter, just finished second grade). I have no record (and shouldn't), own a legally registered firearm that's never been fired and probably never will be.
I am a CPA, have never cheated on my taxes, my wife, etc. I usually only take on mulligan per 18 holes , lol.
I obey the law, period. I generally lean conservative in my thinking, but am fairly middle of the road on most issues. I've voted in 7 Presidential Elections, now 2x Dem, one independent and 4x Rep. I believe there's a war on terrorism.
Most importantly, I think the measure of a person is whether they do the right thing whether someone's watching or not.
The fact that I have a distrust of police is the same reason I don't simply "trust" lawyers, CEOs, politicians, or many people out of the blocks: I buy into the adage of absolute power corrupts absolutely. I've just had too many interactions with cops that were negative than positive. There's a big difference in getting lip from a store clerk or sniffy metrosexual in Barney's men's department than a cop who can break your stones with impunity and a hogleg, and then lock you up whether you should be or not.
Three kids at a party in Durham found that out the hard way, at a cost said to be $1M a head on lawyers.
I truly believe that cops have much more important work to do cleaning up crime than hasselling some kid about a bumper or videocamera. I know that some settings are very challenging, but believe that Carlisle isn't one of them. And FWIW, I've been in executive positions for a long time, and can honestly say I've managed, mentored, counseled, promoted, and advanced co-workers without exploiting my position of "authority", and have treated them primarily as peers in my interactions with them.
JT
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Jun 13, 01:06:00 PM:
By the way, put yourself in the cops shoes for a second. During a traffic stop, one of the people inside the car is manipulating a device which he is concealing from you. Is it a gun? A bag of controlled substance? A detonator?
Moral of the Story: Don’t make the traffic cop think you have a gun. Or drugs. Keep your hands in plain sight too.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jun 13, 01:57:00 PM:
Thanks JT - we have quite a bit in common. My experience with police is far more positive than yours though. As a result, I approach them with much more inherent trust, respect and sympathy. Will you advise your daughter to do the same? With 2 boys 12 and 8, I promise you I will advise them so.
Let me suggest a place where I think you might be expressing your antipathy to perhaps an extreme. Cops do not have absolute power, as you suggest. It is in fact quite limited and circumscribed. As a result, they rely on certain techniques to impose an apparent authority that they once may have had, but has been substantially eroded over time.
This imposition bothers you, I think, because you think it is out of place -- certainly with you, and in this instance with these kids. I understand. I would submit to you that I simply don't think they have any a priori idea who needs that authority imposed and who doesn't, who's a problem and who isn't. And since you don't think they're that bright to begin with (let's see, a potentially dangerous job that pays badly and has lots of people who look down upon it), I don't see why you would conclude they should be clairvoyant (spelling?). The only practical signal they get on that score is whether they are instantly treated with respect (yes sir, no sir, thank you sir), or if they perceive themselves to be disrespected -- which is to say, threatened (filming qualifies, give me your badge number!) Let's be honest, these are threats of one sort issued for no practical purpose other inflating an ego. The cop's name will be on a summons. If you ultimately have a case to make, you ain't gonna make it right there. That's just stupid. If you disrespect them, and try to put them on their heels, they will impose their authority in order to get you back on yours. I went to military school, and that is exactly what you do, and are trained to do, in those circumstances. If you were in their job or position, you would do the exact same thing every time, or you would eventually fail. And failure can mean death. No second chances.
I am spending an inordinate amount of time on this because people who make the choice to be police officers are important to us. The position is important to us all. And your distaste for the position has created antipathy for people you don't know, it seems to me, that is counterproductive. I doubt I will change your perspective, but let's keep an open mind. Next time, say have a nice day:).
I don't think the Durham police or the law were the issue as much as a corrupt DA. And thankfully, he is getting his now.
Finally, one small nit -- the law at issue was about capturing audio, not video. He would have been within his rights apparently on the video -- and I believe the cops themselves video from their car.
By , at
Wed Jun 13, 09:07:00 PM:
The problem I have with your demand that we all shut up and be respectful to cops, CP, is that there are two kinds of people in this world that have to deal with cops.
I'm a priviledged white kid who grew up in uniformly good neighborhoods, and the only negative interactions I've ever had with cops was running away at a keg party once in high school and getting pulled over for making an illegal U-turn. I've always been respectful with cops, have done what they asked, and I've never been afraid of them. Why? Because I can afford to be. If anything bad happens I have a whole support network of family and friends who will come bail me out and possibly assist me in making life difficult for the cop. I know that, and so does the cop. So we get along just fine.
Now, the story changes just a little if you are poor, or otherwise marginalized in this country. Just like there are two kinds of justice for rich and poor, there is two kinds of law enforcement. In a bad neighborhood in a city I bet it's a pretty tough and frustrating job to be a cop. If a cop is having an especially bad day (and I don't doubt that that happens often) and pulls someone over in a poor neighborhood, then he can arrest, hassle, or even beat the living shit out of that person to take out his frustrations. And there will generally be no repercussions for the cop, because, really, there's not much in the way of justice for you in this country if you are poor. And (corrupt) cops know that, so they take advantage.
So yeah, I would say that people should absolutely be free to videotape cops in public at all times, not for the sake of spoiled rich kids getting pulled over, but for poor people for whom there is no other remedy to combat abuse by law enforcement personnel. Retain counsel and file a complaint? Come on, that kind of recourse just isn't realistically available to people who aren't in the same economic class as you and I.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jun 13, 09:38:00 PM:
It's always been my understanding that interacting in public gives, de facto, no expectation of privacy. I seem to recall from High School civics that there was a supreme court case to this effect in the 50s (I think) where the police wiretapped a public phone without a warrant to catch a mobster who used it to order hits; the mobster sued on the grounds that it was a violation of due process and privacy, and it was ruled that because it was a public phone on public land where someone standing nearby could hear everything anyway, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy and the wiretap held.
Can I be arrested for filming traffic with the audio on? How about a crowd of people? Protests even. That's absurd. How come all the TV reporters in Pennsylvania aren't in jail because of this law? As a matter of fact, I was filmed without my consent *today* as I stood in a leadership position as part of a ceremonial formation. (though not in Pennsylvania) Is that guy with the camera a criminal?
This kid is being railroaded because said cop didn't like the idea that he was on camera. Period.
