NY Police Arrest Citizen for Filming

[KG1]

That be Trucker talk.
No self respecting LEO would put the word "big" in front of 10-4.

I should'a known that was a dead giveaway

 

[Benny]

I don't understand the "Don't film me" attitude. When the Squad Car dash cams first came out some people, LEO's and non LEO's, balked at the idea of being filmed during a traffic stop.
Hell, I always considered it insurance that someone couldn't try to stick me with a false "abuse" claim.
Today I simply presume that we are "on camera" whenever we step outside and act accordingly.

This.

Why any LEO wouldn't want every. single. citizen encounter on camera with audio is beyond my comprehension.

 

[PatriotPride]

It keeps officers on their toes (good for that occasion when bad cops are around and is an extra incentive for even the law-abiding ones to double-check their plan of action) and serves to keep them safe at the same time. Win-win situation for everyone. Better yet, it doesn't violate any Constitutional rights!

Exactly! If a police officer does not want to be filmed while they are performing their official duties, then serious scrutiny should be leveled at them.

 

[malern28us]

I don't understand the "Don't film me" attitude. When the Squad Car dash cams first came out some people, LEO's and non LEO's, balked at the idea of being filmed during a traffic stop.
Hell, I always considered it insurance that someone couldn't try to stick me with a false "abuse" claim.
Today I simply presume that we are "on camera" whenever we step outside and act accordingly.

I don't understand how the officer could even attempt a charge against the filmer like this. Is this something that is done to CYA (cover your a$$)? I guess the person that was arrested could file charges against said officer?
I really am looking for help on this one because I don't see how any officer would do this. Do you have any insight?

 

[semperfi211]

that's a big 10-4

Is that official cop lingo or just regular trucker type?

That be Trucker talk.
No self respecting LEO would put the word "big" in front of 10-4.

I should'a known that was a dead giveaway

It needs to have "good buddy" at the end to be some real hardcore trucker lingo.

 

[level.eleven]

This.

Why any LEO wouldn't want every. single. citizen encounter on camera with audio is beyond my comprehension.

Duh. It adds 5 pounds.

 

[Benny]

Duh. It adds 5 pounds.

I thought it adds 10 pounds?

Anyway, how many cameras to you think were on this guy?

 

[KG1]

It needs to have "good buddy" at the end to be some real hardcore trucker lingo.

Now were getting into a whole nother ball game there.

 

[KG1]

I thought it adds 10 pounds?

Anyway, how many cameras to you think were on this guy?

I think he ate his partner.

 

[semperfi211]

I have noticed some new units out there to allow taking video to be less obvious.These might be a better choice when videoing the police. A pair of sunglasses that take video and a camera that clips into the visor of a baseball cap. I am thinking about getting the shades. They could also be used for some cool shooting videos.

 

[printcraft]

LOL
He looks like a nesting doll.......... he might have a battalion in there.....

 

[thebishopp]

People who are saying it's NY and they get away with everything are actually quite wrong. Lately NY has been averaging 30k a pop payouts in settlements for hassling photographers. Most of them being by transit cops in the subways. In several cases they actually took them to jail and trumped up charges (all dismissed and settlements paid). It is a running joke among photogs who keep up with this stuff about how if you need money to drive to NY or DC and start taking photos around the transit cops to earn a quick payday.

In this situations though, from the article,it looks like she was arrested because he "felt unsafe" and not for the actual filming. Supposedly he attributes this "unsafe feeling" to things she said prior to the filming that indicated she was "anti-police".

So, in short he didn't arrest her because she was "filming him" but instead is trying to make it an "officer safety" thing, probably because he knows he can't arrest them for taking photos or video taping him. For pepole who say that there needs to be consent by the police, Maryland recently tried that by charging somebody under their wiretapping laws and it was thrown out of their own state court with the judge making some pretty direct statements regarding public officials, ie police, and how they do not have a right to privacy while performing their duties. It would be surprising if other state courts did not follow with the same reasoning.

He is screwed. He will probably be reprimanded and if she sues she will offered a settlement. I would be surprised if the PPA and the ACLU don't jump all over this one.

Edit: Just read another article that says the National Press Photographers Association is getting involved ( http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110621/NEWS01/110621029 ).

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

In NY only one party consent is required to record. You are legally allowed to record anyone, anywhere, at anytime, so long as the production is not for profit. That's why they had to charge her with "obstruction of government a55hattery" or whatever the trumped up nonsense was.

Boy there seems to be alot of this going on lately. I think they even have a new division dedicated to that. It's called the Dept.of Government Asshattery

I own the domain name governmentasshattery.com. You guys both owe me a quarter.

I thought it adds 10 pounds?

Anyway, how many cameras to you think were on this guy?

He's hiding an undercover midget. Either that or we just found Jimmy Hoffa.

 

[KG1]

I own the domain name governmentasshattery.com. You guys both owe me a quarter.

Send me a self addressed stamped envelope and i'll send you a quarter.

 

[RockofStrength]

In this situations though, from the article,it looks like she was arrested because he "felt unsafe" and not for the actual filming. Supposedly he attributes this "unsafe feeling" to things she said prior to the filming that indicated she was "anti-police".

So, in short he didn't arrest her because she was "filming him" but instead is trying to make it an "officer safety" thing, probably because he knows he can't arrest them for taking photos or video taping him. For pepole who say that there needs to be consent by the police, Maryland recently tried that by charging somebody under their wiretapping laws and it was thrown out of their own state court with the judge making some pretty direct statements regarding public officials, ie police, and how they do not have a right to privacy while performing their duties. It would be surprising if other state courts did not follow with the same reasoning.

He is screwed. He will probably be reprimanded and if she sues she will offered a settlement. I would be surprised if the PPA and the ACLU don't jump all over this one.

Edit: Just read another article that says the National Press Photographers Association is getting involved ( Arrest of woman taping police sparks controversy | Democrat and Chronicle | democratandchronicle.com ).

Glad to hear it. I hope the police department (after making a thorough and unbiased investigation!) also makes a statement against this action if the story is accurate. It means something that the courts will rule against it: it means even more if the PD makes it clear that this will not be tolerated.

 

[CalebToNowhere]

Epic Fail for Rochester PD. -1

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm going to be "that guy" and explain the flip side of the coin. Videotaping officers is perfectly fine in most cases. However, if it can be articulated that a person is a possibly a threat, or someone that maybe, it's best to listen to the officers. It appears the officers are enacting an arrest, and that there are multiple people in the vehicle. On officer has his back turned to the photographer. In the video, the photographer states that the people stopped, and guy in cuffs, are her friends. That's certainly something to take note of during this situation. I don't want the "friend" of somebody being arrested standing behind me, no way, no how. The officer's request isn't unreasonable.
Is she there to push buttons? Yes. Does your property allow you free reign of control when it is in proximity of a police action? I'd say no. Let say this was a foot pursuit, and the guy was tackled on her lawn, is she (b/c it's her property) allowed to exit her home and stand over the officers while they struggle with police b/c she owns the property? This woman was asked several times to go inside, and given a reason for be asked to do so. I think it will be a hard arrest to overturn.

 

[Expat]

I don't know the legal niceties involved, but I would have a hard time being ordered around on my property when there is an incident happening out on the roadway and I am doing nothing wrong. If he has the situation sufficiently controlled and the time to come over and yell about my videocamera, then he has already assessed it is a non-threatening situation, in my opinion.

 

[RockofStrength]

I'm going to be "that guy" and explain the flip side of the coin. Videotaping officers is perfectly fine in most cases. However, if it can be articulated that a person is a possibly a threat, or someone that maybe, it's best to listen to the officers. It appears the officers are enacting an arrest, and that there are multiple people in the vehicle. On officer has his back turned to the photographer. In the video, the photographer states that the people stopped, and guy in cuffs, are her friends. That's certainly something to take note of during this situation. I don't want the "friend" of somebody being arrested standing behind me, no way, no how. The officer's request isn't unreasonable.
Is she there to push buttons? Yes. Does your property allow you free reign of control when it is in proximity of a police action? I'd say no. Let say this was a foot pursuit, and the guy was tackled on her lawn, is she (b/c it's her property) allowed to exit her home and stand over the officers while they struggle with police b/c she owns the property? This woman was asked several times to go inside, and given a reason for be asked to do so. I think it will be a hard arrest to overturn.

So long as I am not interfering with the officer's job (getting between him and the person he's trying to arrest etc) he has no grounds to force me to move, much less arrest me for not doing so. Would I respond to his request? Maybe, but that would be my decision and made as I see fit, not merely because the officer can threaten me with the possibility of arrest.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So long as I am not interfering with the officer's job (getting between him and the person he's trying to arrest etc) he has no grounds to force me to move, much less arrest me for not doing so. Would I respond to his request? Maybe, but that would be my decision and made as I see fit, not merely because the officer can threaten me with the possibility of arrest.

So you think it would be acceptable for you to stand 3 feet behind an officer, verbalizing how much you dislike police, as he struggles to arrests your friend?