Recording police officers in public now illegal

[SpankMe]

In at least three US states it is now illegal to record Police officers doing their job without their consent. :shit: and it's gaining popularity around the US.

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

I think many police have forgotten they are public servants. :angry:

<center>On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding.
He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ&feature=related</center>

[rustic101]

I think that some States are sick of having to pay out so much in compensation!!!

[bogan]

wtf, don't cops over there have cameras in their own cars anyways?

I can understand in cases where it may obstruct justice, but a blanket ban on recording cops is a little ridiculous.

[SpankMe]

What worries me is that there is bound to be officials here looking at this for NZ and we got just the government that is likely to pass it into law.

[Ixion]

there have been a number of articles on El-reg about cops in the UK harassing photogrpahers. Even though the government and judges have said that photographing police (including on duty) is lawful, unless there is evidence of a sinsiter purpose.

[SpankMe]

...Unless there is evidence of a sinsiter purpose.

sinsiter by whose definition? :confused: I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

[Swoop]

What worries me is that there is bound to be officials here looking at this for NZ and we got just the government that is likely to pass it into law.
I'd be more concerned if it was the state of Victoria that was dreaming this up...

The Constitution will provide lawyers with ample scope to challenge this... and make a fortune in the process.

[Ixion]

sinsiter by whose definition? :confused: I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

Sinister would be a matter for a court. Maybe stuff like videoing police routine when planning a terrorist attack, or a armouring car heist or something. Like, at present it is legal to record a conversation. Unless you are recording it with the intention of using the recording for blackmail purposes. or to faciliate a crime in some way. But cops have no special status in that respect.

[red mermaid]

You've only told half the story here (What a surprise).

The problem was with people photographing sensitive buildings and sites, and the possible use of those photos by terrorist organisations, and the power to stop the photographs been taken was under an anti-terrorist enactment.

In NZ, anyone can photograph anyone or anything in a public place, as long as it doesn't breach any indecency laws.



there have been a number of articles on El-reg about cops in the UK harassing photogrpahers. Even though the government and judges have said that photographing police (including on duty) is lawful, unless there is evidence of a sinsiter purpose.

[Gremlin]

There has already been cases of cops being found guilty of various things, and there was no chance it would have happened if it wasn't for the video proof. Mind you... this from the country that holds person A responsible for person B's actions.

[rustic101]

You've only told half the story here (What a surprise).

The problem was with people photographing sensitive buildings and sites, and the possible use of those photos by terrorist organisations, and the power to stop the photographs been taken was under an anti-terrorist enactment.

In NZ, anyone can photograph anyone or anything in a public place, as long as it doesn't breach any indecency laws.

In addition you need an individuals consent if you wish to release (publish) their intellectual property or face, of course our criminal community are excluded this clause.

[Ixion]

You've only told half the story here (What a surprise).

The problem was with people photographing sensitive buildings and sites, and the possible use of those photos by terrorist organisations, and the power to stop the photographs been taken was under an anti-terrorist enactment.

In NZ, anyone can photograph anyone or anything in a public place, as long as it doesn't breach any indecency laws.

Bullshit. Backed up by public apologies by Chief Constables to photograhers unlawfully harrassed. And specific announcements of the legality of photography by the Ministry , and magistrates and the High Court. I suppose next you'll claim the photographers were speeding. You should be careful you know, accusing people of terrorist acts, that's defamation.




As yet another senior copper reads the riot act to his fellow officers over the policing of photographers, concerns are growing amongst senior ranks that this is all too little too late – and that serious damage has now been done to relations with the public over this issue.

John Yates, Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations, put out a message yesterday reminding all Met Police officers and staff that people taking photographs in public should not be stopped and searched unless there is a valid reason






The government’s own anti-terror advisor, Lord Carlile of Berriew, believes that the police are over-using and misusing anti-terror laws to crack down on photographers.




The Metropolitan Police has issued guidance to its officers to remind them that using a camera in public is not in itself a terrorist offence.

There has been increasing concern in recent months that police have been over-using terrorism laws and public order legislation to harass professional and amateur photographers. The issue was raised in Parliament and the Home Office agreed to look at the rules.
The guidance reminds officers that the public do not need a licence to take photographs in the street and the police have no power to stop people taking pictures of anything they like, including police officers


Just a sample. A search on El reg returned pages on them.

With cops like those, and you, we'd be better off with the terrorists.

Perhaps you should stick to matters you actually know something about, instead of inventing it on the spot, under the good old "The law is what I say it is, because I'm a cop and cop's are God" rule. of course, you'd then have nothing to say at all.

[red mermaid]

Mmm, the quotes you have included seem to back up my story about possible use to terrorist activities.

[bogan]

bit of a difference between banning all videoing of cops and prosecuting likely ter'ists. Like the vid above, cop pulls over some guy who has his helmet cam on at time, cop doesn't follow procedure and harras's biker with a gun ffs. what is wrong with recording that? quickest way to get such cops to clean up their act I reckon.

[rustyrobot]

This rider (Anthony Graber) just had his wiretapping charges dropped by a judge, who stated that the state's prosecution would render illegal "almost every cell phone, Blackberry, and every similar device". (The charges alleged Graber was in possession of a "device primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of oral communications")

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-09-27/news/bs-md-recorded-traffic-stop-20100927_1_police-officers-plitt-cell-phones

[sil3nt]

This made me laugh


Graber said he has since sold the motorcycle for $5,000, far less than the $10,500 he says he paid for it a year earlier. He said he still owed several thousand dollars on the bike but took the loss. "I don't want to ever have a motorcycle again," he said.

HTFU pussy :scooter:

[jahrasti]

bit of a difference between banning all videoing of cops and prosecuting likely ter'ists. Like the vid above, cop pulls over some guy who has his helmet cam on at time, cop doesn't follow procedure and harras's biker with a gun ffs. what is wrong with recording that? quickest way to get such cops to clean up their act I reckon.

How do you know that the cop didn't follow procedure? Do you know the procedure for conducting a vehicle stop in the state that this happened? If you do please explain as I don't and would like to know.

You are implying that this cop is dirty and harassing the biker, please enlighten me?

P.S I don't actually expect a reply as it is a bit of a thread dredge!!

[Max Preload]

How do you know that the cop didn't follow procedure? Do you know the procedure for conducting a vehicle stop in the state that this happened? If you do please explain as I don't and would like to know.I'm going to go out on a limb here and (from memory - I haven't watch the video again) I'm going to say that cutting across the front of another vehicle in an unmarked car with no lights of siren and leaping from that vehicle with a firearm in your hand, not identifying yourself as a Police Officer and telling the vehicle operator to get off his vehicle isn't within the realms of possibility procedure in ANY state.

How say you, savage?

[jahrasti]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and (from memory - I haven't watch the video again) I'm going to say that cutting across the front of another vehicle in an unmarked car with no lights of siren and leaping from that vehicle with a firearm in your hand, not identifying yourself as a Police Officer and telling the vehicle operator to get off his vehicle isn't within the realms of possibility procedure in ANY state.

How say you, savage?

How say I, is that the video only shows him getting out of the vehicle and walking up to the bike. Twenty odd seconds long.

And once again how do you know he isn't complying with SOP's? Maybe not however we hammer the Police on this site for estimating speeds and yet people are guessing that what the cop did was wrong.

For all we know what he did was legit, that is why I ask to be shown his actions were wrong (not talking about the video camera charge, the gun drawn bit)

I fuckn hope that it is not somewhere glearingly obvious, as I haven't bothered to look :innocent:

[avgas]

I fuckn hope that it is not somewhere glearingly obvious, as I haven't bothered to look :innocent:
Officers have to announce themselves.
Especially when asking someone to do something.

This is what differentiates them from a criminal.

[jahrasti]

Officers have to announce themselves.
Especially when asking someone to do something.

This is what differentiates them from a criminal.

Yes that is the case here but what about over there?

[Juzz976]

Another good reason not to go to the states, if they bring that here I'll be protesting.

Police have brought public distrust upon themselves, they need to be more aware of the dirty cops albeit a small portion but they are as bad as the scum they sometimes deal with.

The public deserves the right to record an encouter with police to protect themselves from wrongful prosecution, intimidation and bullying.

You would think that the many videos showing police abusing their power would be enough that a stupid law like this would never pass.

[rustyrobot]

How many times have we heard from the police about surveillance "there's no problem if you've got nothing to hide". Well, surely the same applies to them also.

[cs363]

I'd be more concerned if it was the state of Victoria that was dreaming this up...

The Constitution will provide lawyers with ample scope to challenge this... and make a fortune in the process.

X 2 The NZ government (no matter which party is in power) or more to the point the LTSA or NZTA as it is now, have a long history of not being able to think for themselves and mimick virtually every dumbarse traffic law that gets introduced to Victoria.
Agreed regarding the lawyers too :)

[Max Preload]

How say I, is that the video only shows him getting out of the vehicle and walking up to the bike. Twenty odd seconds long.You ignore the drawn firearm and failure to immediately identify himself as Police. Don't you watch COPS? Even the uniformed officers identify themselves first and foremost and the only time their weapons are drawn is for a 'felony stop' .

[jahrasti]

You ignore the drawn firearm and failure to immediately identify himself as Police. Don't you watch COPS? Even the uniformed officers identify themselves first and foremost and the only time their weapons are drawn is for a 'felony stop' .

No I don't watch cops :facepalm: You see you are making an assumption on what you have observed. Once againg there are plenty of threads on this site flaming Police for estmating speed. It usually goes along the lines of what the fuck would they know they dont even ride bikes blah blah.

[Max Preload]

No I don't watch cops :facepalm: You see you are making an assumption on what you have observed. Once againg there are plenty of threads on this site flaming Police for estmating speed. It usually goes along the lines of what the fuck would they know they dont even ride bikes blah blah.Are you saying that the footage on COPS is staged or that they leave the sensational bits out? :facepalm:

There's a big difference between estimating the speed of something approaching on a path almost directly toward you and simply observing the actions of people. Or did the cop not actually draw his weapon if the incident is viewed from another angle?
:rofl:

[Max Preload]

See post #52.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1041329109.shtml

"This is why we have laws that state how the police are required to immediately identify themselves by words, lights, markings, or badges."

[Crazy Steve]

This is a repost anyway..:yes:

Wheres Sniper when you need the REPOST ! ! REPOST ! !

Crazy Steve.

[Max Preload]

This is a repost anyway..:yes:Not really - the charges have just been thrown out.

The idiot State Policeman is lucky he's not dead, getting out an unmarked vehicle without lights or siren, failing to immediately identify himself and drawing a gun on a citizen.

[jahrasti]

See post #52.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1041329109.shtml

So you are saying that something someone posted is law? So all the posts on KB are factual?

So we are back to you assuming something, and yes Police estimating speed and you guessing about what someone did are similar.

[scumdog]

Not really - the charges have just been thrown out.

The idiot State Policeman is lucky he's not dead, getting out an unmarked vehicle without lights or siren, failing to immediately identify himself and drawing a gun on a citizen.


Pffftt....

[DMNTD]

So all the posts on KB are factual?

Don't be so farking stupid...of course they are! :facepalm:





































p/t

[Toaster]

You've only told half the story here (What a surprise).

The problem was with people photographing sensitive buildings and sites, and the possible use of those photos by terrorist organisations, and the power to stop the photographs been taken was under an anti-terrorist enactment.

In NZ, anyone can photograph anyone or anything in a public place, as long as it doesn't breach any indecency laws.

Talking with a film crew at work yesterday and they suggested that they cant in fact do that either and that there are restrictions on filming anyone in public without consent. Will be interesting to clarify this point.

[scumdog]

Talking with a film crew at work yesterday and they suggested that they cant in fact do that either and that there are restrictions on filming anyone in public without consent. Will be interesting to clarify this point.

Going by all the 'scandal' pics in womens magazines I doubt there's any control on taking pics..

[Usarka]

I kicked the neighbours dog because it's a possible terrorist.

[Forest]

Talking with a film crew at work yesterday and they suggested that they cant in fact do that either and that there are restrictions on filming anyone in public without consent. Will be interesting to clarify this point.

The law regarding model releases is complex and there are plenty of exceptions.

For example, journalists can lawfully film any person in public without their consent.

[Max Preload]

So you are saying that something someone posted is law?Are you not assuming they're not required to identify themselves as Police, when in plain clothes, emerging from an unmarked car without lights or sirens and drawing a weapon? That'd have to be the dumbest assumption I've heard in a long time! :rofl:

It seems a very popular opinion that plain clothes Police must identify themselves immediately among those who live there. Do you think you know better than them about their own laws?


So all the posts on KB are factual?
Are none of them?


So we are back to you assuming something, and yes Police estimating speed and you guessing about what someone did are similar.No, they're not. Not even close. There's no guessing what the cop did - just watch the video! :facepalm:

[Max Preload]

Pffftt....

Is that it? No argument? I guess you can't argue against it.

[scumdog]

Is that it? No argument? I guess you can't argue against it.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: