This is a discussion on Appeals Court Unanimously Affirms Right to Videotape Police within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I was just sent link to a press release on the ACLU website that is dated 29AUG11. It claims that the U.S. Court of Appeals ...
I was just sent link to a press release on the ACLU website that is dated 29AUG11. It claims that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unanimously that Simon Glik had a right to videotape police in action. The link is:
Appeals Court Unanimously Affirms Right to Videotape Police | American Civil Liberties Union
Criminal charges were lodged against him for "...holding up his cell phone and openly recording Boston police officers who were punching another man on Boston Common in October 2007. "
I think this is important because on one hand police officers in many areas routinely video and/or audio tape interactions with suspects, yet citizens are increasingly being charged with felony crimes for recording their interactions with the police.
Given all the guidance I've read and stories I've heard about the importance and consequences of what is reported by police, your assailants and witnesses with regard to a self defense incident in which you are involved, I would think that being able to have your own recording of events could very important to your defense in after-incident legal proceedings. But if we have to fear, not only for our lives when attacked, but for felony wiretapping charges when we record what transpires, it makes protecting ourselves from harm (both physical and legal) that much harder.
In the heat of the moment, what matters is what your body knows -- not what your mind knows.
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......
This is good. Excellent win for the First Amendment.
People with authority should conduct themselves at all times as if they were being recorded anyway. Cops who conduct themselves professionally (as most of them do) will have nothing to worry about. Hopefully this will help weed out "problem" officers and make room for rookies waiting for a chance to prove themselves.
"The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
We can only hope that this will soon become the law of the entire nation.
Anything that happens in public, is legal to tape here. Now, if it's in a private residence, it's up to the owners of the residence.
That doesn't mean there have not been occassions where LEO's have not wanted to be taped, and tried to threaten people to stop or be arrested, but there are no "charges" to arrest them for , unless they want to go with "interference" which wouldn't hold up for 02 seconds in court. Police are always in the public eye, and those that don't want things taped, usually have reasons for it that are not necessarily positive ones.
I think the whole thing about 'taping ' being illegal, is absurd.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
I think the ultimate resolution of this issue will be that citizens have a right to record the police, but not all up in their face in a way that starts distracting from the cop's issue at hand.
What does this have to do with carry? Its not even a landmark issue. The courts have ruled over and over again that anyone and anything in the public eye is subject to be photographed. Much to do about nothing.
"Just blame Sixto"