Previous coverage & discussion of cameras at incident scenes can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here & here
The video above was posted to YouTube about an incident that occurred on Friday in Suffolk County, New York. It came with the following description:
This was the end of a police chase and the Sgt. doesn't want video coverage from a credentialed member of the press. The photog asks how far to move back but the sgt. says no you can't shoot it at all. Notice the road is open to traffic, there are people without a camera that are standing there and even some kids walk straight through the scene. The photog moves a block away and shoots from the next street over and that's when he's arrested and charged with Obstruction of Governmental Administration….how can you obstruct from a block away.
LongIslandPress.com says the man behind the camera is Phil Datz, who works for Stringer News Service in New York:
Suffolk County police confirmed that Datz was arrested and said he was charged with obstruction of governmental administration. He was taken to the Fifth Precinct stationhouse in Patchogue where he was fingerprinted and had a mugshot taken. He was later released.
“We are reviewing the circumstances surrounding the arrest” of Datz, a police spokesman said. Datz can be heard referring to the cop as a “Sergeant” but the name and rank of the arresting officer was not released.
Ryan said a police officer apologized to him at the precinct, but told him nothing could be done about the arrest because Datz had already been booked.
From experience in writing about this topic, I am sure there are some who will laugh and say the only mistake the police officer made is he didn't destroy the camera and video. I find humor in lots of things many others find inappropriate. But this doesn't make me laugh. To me, it is extremely chilling and very sad.
As many of you who read this electronic rag know, I am very biased when it comes to this issue. I make no apologies for being hard-core pro-First Amendment. And I am kind of fond of that whole Constitution thing.
I know some who disagree with my position will start telling me how awful the news media is (and some in the news media are awful, as recently shown by the News Corp. debacle which now has possible connections to 9-11 victims). And others will tell me I don't know what's not on this video that the terrible man with the camera did. So, let me be clear I am only basing my opinion on what I see in this raw video.
What the police officer had to say on the video and the actions he took are plenty enough for me to once again point out that leaving decisions of what is and isn't okay for the public to see in the hands of uniformed and armed agents of our government is quite a scary scenario for the future of our country. And those who think these actions by police are just fine and call yourselves supporters and protectors of our way of life really need to study a little history and look closely at the countries where government does control the news media. This is my preemptive strike telling you to stop making excuses for people in uniform who are only selectively supporting the Constitution they are sworn to protect.
Below, are some other stories in recent months that help fuel my worries. Each has its own set of circumstances. I am sure many of you who feel differently than I do can find excuses for the actions of the police that will support your own interpretation of our rights. But I have to tell you it's not how they taught it to me in school.
Above is a video from the May 12 arrest of Emily Good in Rochester, New York. This case has received national attention. Good, who is described in news reports as an activist, shot the video of police activity while standing on her front lawn. The District Attorney quickly dropped charges against Good. The union representing the police has a different view on this and believes the safety of officers is what's at stake here. They also say that officers involved in Good's arrest have been threatened (read and watch that story).
James Sheppard, Rochester's police chief, ordered investigations of this incident and one where police ticketed cars belonging to supporters of Good gathered at a meeting (video here). Chief Sheppard told the Democrat and Chronicle on July 5 that he is waiting for results of the investigations before determining if there was any misconduct by Officer Mario Masic, who arrested Good. Here's more of the chief's comments::
He said he thought the video showed that Masic acted professionally, and said the stop that precipitated Good's arrest — the activity partly filmed by Good — was an example of "proactive" policing.
Police said there were suspected gang members in the car. No one was arrested from the vehicle.
Sheppard said the incident does show the need to remind police officers that they shouldn't be concerned if someone videotapes them without interference.
Chief Sheppard is exactly right. A lot of this is about training. Not just for police, but for all first responders who now have to do their jobs with cameras shooting them from all angles. As I have mentioned before, some EMS providers are using cameras during training to make sure when they hit the streets they can do their jobs competently despite someone taking pictures. I have watched law enforcement train for decades on how to ignore taunts and other actions of protesters during large demonstrations. Wouldn't it be smart to the same with cameras?
A story by Jack Minor in Colorado's Greeley Gazette looks at the attempt by some since 9-11 to declare photography illegal. It has some interesting comments by Greeley Police Chief Jerry Garner who confirms that his city does not have any law prohibiting taping of police officers (by the way, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Secret Service, the Federal Protective Service, the FBI, the U.S. Capitol Police and most every other law enforcement agencies in the Washington, DC area confirmed the same for me when I was a TV reporter working on a number of stories about this post 9-11 issue) :
Garner said he was amazed at how a lawful act such as videotaping could be considered illegal. Garner went on to say that he tells young officers to, "Do your job so that if you were being taped and the tape was shown to your loved ones you would never be ashamed."
Great words to live by for all of us in the digital video age.
Above is the story of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a man taking pictures of an arrest in your Nation's Capital on July 3 (what is it everyone was celebrating the next day?). Click here to read more about this incident in Georgetown.
When you look at the story above from June 19, I think you will understand why the DC police officer in the July 3 Georgetown incident believes citizens have no right to go about their business unmolested when they are taking pictures of cops in action on a public street. Metropolitan Police Department Assistant Chief Diane Groomes explains why it is okay for officers to confiscate your camera when you shoot an arrest scene. It leaves you wondering if the department will start taking the cameras of all news photographers who show up where people are being cuffed and stuffed. If not, what's the difference? And who is the press these days anyway? (For the record, as puzzled as I am about her comments, I have a great deal of respect for Chief Groomes and her treatment of the press based on my experience as a reporter in Washington.)
The video above is also from your Nation's Capital. This time the scene is not on a public street, but inside a public meeting of the DC Taxicab Commission. The officers are with the United States Park Police. In fact, the meeting is at a U.S. Park Police facility. Is it only me who finds it ironic that the people who seem the most outraged by the arrest of the reporter are taxi drivers who are immigrants from countries where the press and the citizenry don't have the freedoms that this country guarantees? Reporter Tom Sherwood wrote about this June 22 case here and has more to say here.
Now, before any of you make decisions about what my politics are are or start believing I don't support law enforcement or possibly mom, apple pie and the flag, watch the interview below with the reporter who took the video above. He was also arrested by U.S. Park Police. Notice who is doing the interview and completely supports the reporter's actions and thinks police were wrong. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is the senior judicial analyst for the Fox News Channel. He also hosts the show Freedom Watch on the Fox Business Network where this interview took place.
Okay, I'm through. Have at me.
Also on STATter911 …
- Must see video: Paramedic arrested by police. Clashes over scene safety are apparently universal. – January 23, 2013
- Check this out: Scene safety or censorship? You be the judge as Miami-Dade firefighters confront videographer. – March 22, 2013
- The not so funny rest of the naked man on the PGFD ladder truck story. PGPD say he shot a man before climbing the rig. – May 16, 2013
- Pre-arrival video: Police take sledge hammer to door at garage & workshop fire in De Pere, WI. – February 10, 2013
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
It should be scarey to people, that the police are violating the 1st amendment. If the police are scared that they will be caught on camera and be held to a standard of doing their job properly then they should find a new profession.
Sounds as if there are a bunch of Constitutional law cases ready for the federal courts from this.
The police have a right to restrict things that interfere with scene operations, but they don't have the right to obstruct freedom of the press.
The bottom line is that the police can look very, very bad if they have the appearance of covering up something, even if that was not their intent. Confiscating cameras and obstructing the news media puts the police on very shaky Constitutional grounds.
I'd be interested in seeing Curt Varone join in this discussion.
I believe it’s reasonable to say that a majority of Americans are now carrying cameras with them at all times, via smart phones. That fact has probably still caught many agencies and individuals off guard. And the trend is still developing. Everyone has a camera. And greater numbers are filming public servants. That’s going to climb, I think. Recorded experiences will become ubiquitous. Will we each face arrest at some point? Hope not. Probably not.
The suffolk county sgt. is an embarassment to himself, to the people in his command and to Suffolk county. He should be removed from the street, be reprimanded and if the case goes to trial be made to attend and watch the video as it is presented to the judge. He should also be returned to his academy for a review of the constitution.
1. But the Sgt has 30 years experience, doesn't that count for something?
2. I think Dave has a long standing hatred for News Editors, he called the Sgt one…do you have some psychogical trauma from a past encounter with a News Editor? You can get help for that.
3. I bet you can't get a parking ticket fixed in any of the 50 states.
4. What ever happened to just following the PD's instructions and filing a complaint with the Internal affairs bureau the next mornig, right after you plaster the Officers face all over the 10:00, 11:00, 05:00, 06:00 news. I think that would have widened the eyes of a few Politicians and may have been resolved rather quickly.
1. 30 years experience or 1 year of experience repeated 30 times? If he's so clueless to think that the camera well down the street is some how "obstructing" him, then I'm willing to believe that he has 1 year of experience repeated 30 years than his actual 30 years.
Experience isn't just a number. It's what you do with it that counts.
Does any of your points justify the suspension of an individuals amendment rights without do process? This officer is nothing less than a criminal and should be educated or removed from his position simply on the grounds of not understanding the most basic of laws.
I think the photog handled right. Filing a complaint would do nothing but get it swept under the rug. Good to see someone stand up against injustice
What a bunch of D_ _ k, I been doing this for 30 years and he is only a Sgt. Well Sgt. I think it is time for your grunpy a _ _ to retirer. If you are not doing away thing wrong ,why should you care if you are being taped. Have they thought that this could help them selfs out one day when they have charges brought up agains then ( officers ). You know guys if you would of gotten 10 more points on your test and been a Firefighter. I do know of allot of police officers , and some think that they can do no wrong and untouchable.
I'm here….
You know, cops have a difficult job…. and in many ways its not unlike our job. Its a thankless job. Cops in many cases do not get all the training that they need, and many times bad attitudes are ignored or covered up in the name of "brotherhood".
It is pretty clear what the 1st Amendment requires, and its pretty clear that many officers either don't understand it, or care to understand it. In my mind there is a big difference. What is the solution?
The first step is to report the matter to the internal affairs unit. [NOTE: BTW - Unless you are a reporter and you want to push the case through the court system by being arrested - comply with the officers instructions. It may save you a beating even though you are "right", and will prevail in the long run.] In a progressive police department, the new term for internal affairs is the Professional Standards Division. The Professional Standards investigation should be capable of determining if the problem is one of lack of training or bad attitude, and recommend appropriate corrective action. Believe it or not, most police departments take this stuff seriously…. because they don't want it to go to the next step.
The next step may be a complaint to the FBI. Violating the civil rights of a citizen under color of law is a federal offense. In addition, there is a little known law that allows the US Attorney to – in effect – take control of a police department that is routinely violating the civil rights of citizens. It involves the US government filing suit against the department and having a special overseer appointed to run the department. It doesn't happen because of one complaint – but rather because there has been a pattern and practice of civil rights violations. However, the very threat of that occuring has prompted many police departments to take complaints alot more seriously than they did even 10 years ago.
The last step would be a civil rights lawsuit. Unless you are rich, or related to a civil rights attorney - you are probably better off sticking with steps 1 or 2.
Finally – so we don't all get on our high horse about this – I have seen firefighters do the same thing to reporters…. minus the arrest of course…. It is still a violation of the 1st Amendment even when we do it – and it looks just as ugly.
Curt,
You are right, of course, that firefighters have taken similar actions short of the arrest. That is what got me on this topic a few years back. I try to revisit it every once in a while in an effort to keep firefighters from making similar mistakes. Thanks for your input.
For those who don’t know, Curt has a must read site- Fire Law http://firelawblog.com/
It is one of the sites I check out daily.
Statter
Boring. I thought this was a fire web site.
Fireman,
Sorry to bore you, but the reason I run this is, as Curt Varone pointed out, there are firefighters who have done similar things with those carrying cameras.
Statter
If the results of the meeting are public record, so should the meeting be!
I think someone said above that there a some "Constitutional law cases" to be decided from these incidents. I disagree. None of these cops had any "resonable expectation of privacy," and attempts to whitewash the incidents with "obstruction of justice" claims are totally without merit (as the civil courts will decide when these people sue). The only "obstruction of justice" was when the sergeant took time out from his PRIMARY responsibility….that to supervise his cops and the scene….and make an issue out of someone standing on the sidewalk across the street (camera or no camera), causing an "obstruction" to the operation himself.
In any respect, cops had better get used to seeing themselves on Youtube, because EVERYONE has a camera these days, like it or not, whether it be a full-size video or a camera phone. And until they outlaw cameras in public places, it is what it is.
The cop in Las Vegas will be fired, no doubt, and the Good Sgt. in Suffolk is probably organizing his retirement party right now.
I love how these 'thug bullies with badges" always use the whitewash, be all end all, cover every base, obstructing charge. Take off that gun and badge tough guy and I'll show you some obstructing. Watch a few of these videos and see as well how when they know their being recorded, you'll always here very loud and clear as if almost scripted "Stop resisting" , Stop resisting", laying the foundation for some trumpped up charge. Most of these men and women were probably bullied as kids and saw this as a way to "F" with people and hide behind the thin blue line. I went to school with a guy who was the "King of Dorks" and now he's this big Bad A$$ machine gun toting, google wearing, jack booted Mr. Tactical this and Special Response Team that. In school if you said boo, he'd pi$$ his pants. Now he's all tough in his photos wearing the aviator sun glasses and DI "Smokey Bear" hat tilted down in front. What a poser. I think too many of these cops fail to realize that if I'm NOT violating any law, then they work for ME and are MY public SERVANT. You are NOT judge, jury and executioner, you maintain the peace and arrest suspected criminals within the scope of the laws the WE make and vote for. And as for Mr. Sgt. 30 yrs in Sufflok, I hope this cameraman and the ACLU shove it so far up your backside they'll push the doughnut right out of you mouth.
Hey Dave, FWIW, I like lawyers less than reporters. lol Thought I'd get that out of the way right off the bat.
Having said that, some reporter needs to take one of these cases as far as needs to so the cops can get educated on the First Amendment. These incidents are beyond ridiculous and downright scary, since these folks are allegedly our first line of defense against having our rights violated.
Curt, are you saying that one must be a credentialed media member to be able to "get away" with videotaping an incident after a cop tells them to stop?
Keep it up Dave, even though I said at one point I couldn't stand the media, I have been changing my opinion.
Mark,
Not speaking for Curt, but often a stringer or someone without a big organization behind them doesn’t have the resources to fight this unless someone like the ACLU is willing to take it on. BTW, Art Spitzer from the DC chapter who is seen in the story about the Georgetown incident, handled a number of freedom of speech cases for IAFF Local 36.
From my non-legal background (see, I am not a lawyer like Curt and am no longer a reporter, so you can like me) credentials are more about an organizations own procedues that are supposed to allow a reporter or photographer access in front of the public. My experience in the Washington are was that often when the credentialed TV photographers showed up at a crime scene the police lines would suddenly show up and everyone was pushed back.
I am dissapointed that the stories in the Washington area that I ran aren’t being publicly pursued further by the local press. I want to know more when I hear a top police official defending a police officer’s right to confiscate your camera. The fact that The Washington Post hasn’t made a big deal of that and sought answers is almost as chilling to me as an assistant chief saying this. Many years ago the Post rightly made a big deal when one of its reporters found police coming after him after he snapped pictures of an intoxicated woman handcuffed to a light pole on Wisconsin Avenue.
Statter
Although I agree that the police don't have the right to be news editors, it's pretty obvious there is a history here. This is not the first interaction between Stringer & the local Law Enforcement.
And what does that history include? Documented abuses by their photographers or more of this type video or both?
Statter
Although for the most part I agree with you, Stringer News has done a great job at offending every law enforcement & rescue organization on Long Island. They're known for showing up on scene & interfering with firefighting & rescue attempts & have gotten into it with the local law enforcement several times. A big bone of contention is the organizations reputation of posting victims faces, even in horrific condition, sometimes before the family has been notified. There have also been several cases of Stringer reporters crossing police/fire lines to get the shots they want.
I truly believe in the necessity of getting the story out. That being said, I also feel very strongly that posting victims being removed & interfering with law enforcement/rescue personal, (i.e. being someplace you shouldn’t be & therefore being in the way) altough legal, is highly unethical. Granted, this did not appear to be the case here.
What you're seeing here is an interaction that has a long history, not simply a guy standing on the street & trying to get a shot. Perhaps the LEO acted inappropriately but he certainly didn't act without provocation.
Crossing police lines (lines that are there not just to hold back the press, but the public too) is a very easy problem to handle. Obviously that’s not what happened here.
As much as you may not like it, there are no laws or regulations that keep the press from showing the faces of vicitms and it is not the job of first responders to edit the news. If you think something is not appropriate that has been aired you should complain (and you can also use a sheet to shield the victims).
The whole idea that you bring up of being somewhere you shouldn’t be is very subjective. This officer in Suffolk County decided it was a place the press shouldn’t be. That’s not a good standard. In some of these cases I showed, just being on the scene with a camera was in the way for the police officers (who ignored other members of the public who may have been closer).
And what was the provocation that you are seeing in this video? I must have missed that in the version I viewed. I saw an agitated police officer who clearly stated he didn’t want the press on his scene. Where was the provocation?
Statter
Not popular != Not legal
Time to dig out that great, past thread about the fatal car fire, law officer, and photographer.
Dave,
You're right, it's not our job to be editors, no question. As I said, it is legaly & within their rights but IMO, not ethical. My point simply was that in most cases, there is a deeper story than what you're seeing on the video. When I said there was provocation, I meant there was a history, as i would guess is the case more times than not.
Maybe there was a history, but that isn't the question in this case. Was he violating a law in this video clip? As Dave keeps saying, cops are trained to ignore threats in a riot situation, why can't they do it here? And as they always say, if they're not doing anything wrong, what are they afraid of?
Really, Let it go, Dave…
Really,
Not likely. But I understand your point of view. In my mind it’s too important of an issue.
Statter
I hope you're joking. This is the kind of garbage that our forefathers fought against. As well as WW1 and WW2.
So we should just let the Constitution go as well as the Bill of Rights? Do you really not understand the importance of this issue? If you don't, I hope you are still in, say 2nd grade and just haven't had any history or civics or government classes.
Yup, It's your web site. So I'll Let go..
Dave;
I feel it would be unfair if I didn't submit this video that I found mentioned on another forum; the officer is quite cooperative and professional.
http://www.break.com/index/one-good-cop-2086255
Doug
Doug,
What a great find. I will post that this evening. What a pro. Imagine that the man he was dealing with had both a camera and a gun. What a credit to his department and police all over.
Thanks for sharing.
Statter
Hire that man to train every single cop across the country.
He is awesome!!!
…but read the reader comments on that video, and that slam both the officer and the citizen. Fascinating.
Thanks Doug for showing the good side of Law Enforcement. However I would have checked his ID to make sure he wasn't a convicted felon prior to allowing him to leave.
What would have happened if he reloaded and started shooting?
After a series of incidents involving the Maryland State Police similar to those reported on by Dave Statter, I asked the Superintendent, Col. Dave Mitchell to provide in-service training on constitutional and media issues to the troopers of the three Southern Maryland barracks as while I had ample grounds to file a lawsuit under the 1st Amendment I would take that action as a last resort. To their credit, 6 years ago the Maryland State Police did exactly as I requested and such training was carried out resulting in not a single episode of such illegal acts on the part of troopers up until last year when I sold the newspaper. These acts that Dave Statter is reporting on are troublesome and outrageous but could be prevented by better training and are a reflection on police leadership, not the cop on the street. Sheriff's Tim Cameron, Mike Evans and Rex Coffey make it clear to their deputies beginning in their joint academy how officers are to deal with the media or citizens in access to view or photograph any public scene and that advice is to not do so.
The Constitution belongs to all of us and all of us must act to protect it. In 1998 a gang of deputies and the sheriff and states attorney candidate went out the night before the election and cleaned out the newsstands of my newspaper to prevent voters from reading critical articles of the two before voting. Due to the great efforts of my attorneys Levine, Sullivan, Koch & Schulz, we prevailed in a federal civil rights action in a landmark 1st Amendment decision that is now the law of the land. Cops who are bullies need to drive trash trucks and police leaders need to take the responsibility for which they are paid and that includes providing proper training and proper leadership. This is one of your readers, Dave, that has no plans on ever surrendering my 1st Amendment rights to a cop on the side of the road. There are far too many graves in Arlington of heroes who died so we can have and keep these rights. Our law officers work hard to protect us and we need to support them. But the bums on the job need to be fired. God Bless America!
From around the nation since 9/11, reports show that various police officers, almost always acting on their own interpretation of the law, have been seizing cameras from reporters and citizens, confiscating film, deleting photos, arresting those who video tape or photograph police scenes, all in violation of the Constitution… the following is a special report from STATter911.com:
http://www.dwihitparade.com/2011/08/01/new-york-cops-arrest-reporter-for-reporting-what-country-is-this/
So lets get to the root of the problem. Why is it OK for someone to post my image in a video on the internet without my permission? lets face it, these sites reach more people than my local TV station ever will and they ask permission if my face is recognizable.
We are have seen some of these videos. no context only a small snipet of time with nothing that says what happened before or after. You can make anything damaging if taken at the right time , clever editing or without interviewing folks involved. Credentialed press have these credentials for a reason and it should be honored. Joe Public that takes something and plasters it on utube should have similar controls on what the publish.
Video may not lie –but it doesn't always tell the truth.
maybe this has made us all a little paranoid
Dave, thank you for carrying this flag. Hold it high and wave it with fervor. You are doing the work of a patriot.
I think education of all responders is essential. I also know that a good relationship with the media works well too. I know well the rights of media to cover an event and based on the relationship we have with our media this seems to go pretty well.
The problems I have are not with these individuals but with the alternate media or those in the media whose heroes are not people like Murrow or Kronkite but more like Rivera and Stringer. In these cases it is more about “exposing the incompetence of the authorities” than it is about reporting news. When a “reporter” has an axe to grind rather than a sincere interest in observing impartially and documenting the facts, that is where I have a problem. And again, I am fortunate right now to have a pretty responsible bunch of media colleagues, but things have not always been so forthright.
If I have done something wrong requiring the airing of that wrong for all to see, that is one thing. But people do make mistakes, even the best trained and the most well intentioned, and given the thirst for legal action these days, I can understand why some might be a little gunshy about being recorded for public scrutiny. Just read the comments in this blog sometime and you should understand where I am going.
Help the media get their story; they have a job to do too. But be smart and make sure that if your actions are always transparent and you always err on the side of best practices, you shouldn’t fear the media.
The Charges against the guy from Suffolk County have been dropped.
Ok Dave here’s my 2 cents. If possible can I get some change?
First off I agree with most of the replies but I have another take on this issue. People have cameras everywhere these days and when asked to step back I believe there should be no questions and move back when asked. Why do police, fire or EMS need to provide service to the citizens AND have cameras shoved in their faces while doing it. How many people on this blog would rant and rave if a police officer contaminated the scene of a homicide, of someone they had a personal connection with, due to the fact that someone with a camera was filming and causing a distraction to the investigator? What about if the suspect got away with the homicide because the scene was contaminated? Would you want a camera distracting a paramedic that was trying to stop an arterial bleed on YOU? I sure wouldn’t.
I wonder how the hack would feel when the police officer finished his shift and went to the photogs house and followed him around for periods of time filming him. He would cry that he was being harassed I’m sure.
Fire away……
True enough when they interfere with the scene. We got alot smarter with scene tape as the digital age progressed. Your last point, the cop did the following. When kids and cars and everything else drive through the scene it is tough to make a case for a guy across the street interfering. I'm really surprised that firefighters and cops would take offense to the First Amendment.
I ponder the reality versus the perception of camera intrusion on scenes. Shhh… you use the familiar "camera shoved in their faces."
What's the measurement on that one? Is a face-shoved camera one that's six inches away? Is it two feet away? Is it 20 feet away?
I'll wager it's a sliding scale. Maybe the more strongly you feel toward cameras recording your actions– your sensitivity to same– maybe the more intrusive a camera feels, even if it's objectively pretty far away.
Fifty feet on the other side of a street might still feel too close, or even "in your face." What do you think?
Far enough away that they can get the story and not distract those working the incident. Again, if someone was performing a life saving task to you or for you would you want them distracted even for 1/100 of a second?
If the camera is, say, a minimum of 10 feet away it shouldn't be a distraction at all. UNLESS, of course, you are worried that having some of your actions on tape may not be in your best interest. If that's the case, then the camera isn't the problem…the responder is.
If you don't want to look stupid on tape…then DON'T ACT STUPID!
Simple…problem solved…
Charges were dropped : http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/08/01/suffolk-cops-to-drop-charge-against-news-cameraman/
Yes, thanks. Will be part of my update in the morning. Much appreciated.
Statter
The key word in all of this is the word "PUBLIC" If you are employed in any public position, you are a recipient of the public trust. The public is trusting you to be doing the right thing, at all times, and in every situation. Since you should be so doing, there should never be anything to worry about while you are doing your duties in the public trust, about being recorded in any way, shape form or fashion. As a EMS worker responding to a medical call, or a firefighter responding to a fire incident, or a member of law enforcement responding to any kind of legal incident, every single American has the Constitutuional right to record all of your efforts! What is the problem with it, well I will tell you. In the non digital age, a great many members of Law enforcement have been getting away with many types of inapropriate behaviors due to the lack of such recordings! Now that almost every single person has at least one device that can make audio/visual recordings, the light of day is beginning to shine upon the prefession that has depended upon darkness to get away with their thuggish means of selective law enforcement, which they must either stop completely, or face the loss of millions of dollars in 1st Amendment rights law suits. The police are not above the Constitution, they can and must be held fully accountable for their actions while operating in the afore mentioned public trust.
One of the worst things in this report is Asst. Chief Groomes' statement that all videos taken at a crime scene are " evidence, and as such, can be confiscated by the police" She doesn't even bat a false eyelash when she says it either. Anything that is recorded is the personal possession of the person recording it,as is the device. They have no intrinsic right to anything that has not been a part of the crime that was committed. If they want, they could request any footage that one may have recorded from the individual doing the recording, but that would be a request, not a confiscation! Most people would gladly help an investigation, especially if treated with the respect that is due a law abiding citizen.
Hats off to Mr. Rossignol's, and the way he handled his situation with the Maryland State Police. None of the examples here showed anyone being "hacks" , but respectful, citizens, doing Constititionally protected activities. Shhh's point about a member of law enforcement coming over to a citizens house and following them around and recording their every move, speaks exactly to why the problem we have exists. The difference Shhh is that the all of our homes are PRIVATE residences, and therefore protected from such intrusions, whereas the police, operating in the PUBLIC can be recorded at any time, for any reason, because its PUBLIC PROPERTY! All of us in public positions are open to public scrutiny, at all times. All you have to do is do the right thing, and you'll have no worries! Right on Dave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wasn't saying film them in thier home. Thier home is private but when they walk out the door they would be free game to be followed.
Dave,
You're spot on and you and everyone who sees these video's should be very worried. The video of the DC Deputy Chief, explains why the rank and file believe that they can violate someones Constitutional Rights.
If the Police have no problem violating the First Amendment, then where would they stop? A few years ago the New Orleans PD and other law enforcement officers after Hurricane Katrina hit began to openly confiscate firearms from civilians in violation of the their Second Amendment Rights. NOPD officers failed to or were unable to show up for work, leaving residents that decided to stay to fend for themselves. When the National Guard and outside agencies showed up NOPD Superintendent Eddie Compass ordered them to confiscate all weapons and they not only violated the Second Amendment, they violated the Fourth Amendment by forcing their way into peoples vacant homes and confiscating any weapons found.
When officials at any level violate the Constitution and their Oaths of Office, then every citizens should stand up and object loud and long or otherwise we will soon be living in a Country that has no Constitution. When the Rule of Law doesn't apply to everyone, then tyranny will soon follow.
Bravo!
Keep up the good work, Dave. You and a few other bloggers are takiing the lead in the "War Against Photography" by some police and some public officials.
There is s disturbing trend, accelerating post 9/11 toward secrecy by our public officials. Arresting private citizens and accredited photographers is just part of it. Encrypting pubic safety communications in the name of "anti terrorism" is another part. In this country citizens are supposed to be able to see what their public servants are doing and saying. That's part of what makes us different than other nations. Or used to at least.
Not to mention the terrorist organization that is the TSA.
I'm sorry that some people find this boring, because it's vitally important to remaining a free nation.
The implication that this incident and others foreshadows some kind strong-armed government attempt to usurp our rights is really reaching. The police have a pretty dangerous job with a lot of unknowns at any given time. Their job isn't getting any less dangerous with the proliferation of drugs, gangs, etc. We don't know the whole story behind the incident and the officer obviously had a compelling reason to do what he did. If he was wrong for whatever reason, be it not liking media, fight at home, rough day on shift, or whatever, log a complaint. Emergency scenes are chaotic events and bystanders, etc. get in the way and become safety risks to themselves and the responders.
Remember too, that the Patriot Act is to blame for most of the over zealous actions of law enforcement. THat was a government power grab if I've ever seen one. And the mention of Fox News at the end of the article was a weak attempt at, well I don't know exactly. Fox News isn't news but a right-wing propoganda machine.
My point is that there is some very quick assumptions being made about situations in which not all is known. I can say that , as a firefighter, civillian bystanders like to get in the way trying to get famous on youtube or facebook, etc. As I said emergency scenes are chaotic and often dangerous. Responders usually don't have the time to be polite. Professionalism is required, but being polite is not necessarily a part of that. Sometimes it takes a harsh tone to get the point across the the thick-skulled…
BobOEFVet,
I am basing my opinion solely on the video and what is on the video was clear enough to have the police commisioner work to get the charges against the photographer dropped and require retraining of his people. Same thing happened in Las Vegas with the charges against the citizen.
Compare the Suffolk officer’s actions to the one I posted later of the officer in Oceanside, CA ( http://tinyurl.com/3pj3vfl ) who handled a man with a camera and a gun like a pro not violating anyone’s rights.
You can make all of the excuses you want about why the officer did this (and the officers in the other videos) but the Constitution trumps all of that. We shouldn’t excuse an officer deciding whether he is going to defend and protect the Constitution based on how he feels that day or any hatred (justified or unjusitifed) he has for the press. No one is asking for a friend. Just do your job professionally despite your individual bias.
As for Fox News, it was just my attempt to point out that defending our rights as citizens does not and should not be based on what your political leanings are. For all I now Cpl. Lyons in Oceanside may have views that are polar opposite of mine, but from what I saw we both believe that police or anyone else should not piss all over the basic rights and freedoms this country has to offer. And even if doesn’t believe or agree with it, from what I saw he does his job in a manner that he is sworn to do. It is the opposite of what you see in these other videos I posted.
Statter