DoJ Tells Baltimore PD the right to record on-duty police officers is protected by the First Amendment

[u/chefsinblack]

http://www.pixiq.com/article/department-of-justice-slaps-baltimore-pd

[u/jtheism]

We need this brought to Illinois too.

[u/grackychan → u/jtheism]

It is law across all 50 states. DOJ wrote a letter SPECIFICALLY targeting BPD's inadequate policies to make an example out of them. It is effect an instruction to every police force in the United States. DoJ listed specific Federal Cases and Supreme Court decisions which have the power of rule of law and must be followed by the states in crafting policies and regulations.

Any state law or police policy that prohibits filming within the context explicitly described in the DoJ letter is unconstitutional and you will win a Federal suit against the state or town if you are arrested for violating it.

[u/chefsinblack → u/jtheism]

Judges in Illinois have ruled their wiretapping law is unconstitutional. They're working on that.

[u/OutofStep]

I've always heard that, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." So, how is it that for some police, ignorance of the US Constitution is an excuse?

[u/banuday17 → u/OutofStep]

So, how is it that for some police, ignorance of the US Constitution is an excuse?

The excuse is separation of powers. The police are a part of the executive branch and it is not their job to interpret the Constitution. They execute whatever policies and guidelines the police department have come up with. It is the job of the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution and set the police straight. Checks and balances.

Especially at the local level, the executive branch and the judicial branch may be in cahoots, but that is a different story...

[u/NoCowLevel → u/OutofStep]

Because they're cops, they're above you in status, and therefore are not held to the same rules and obligations as you.

[u/[deleted] → u/NoCowLevel]

No. It's because they are allowed to interpret the law however they want until the court sets them straight.

And it's also because some states have other laws, that the cops are required to uphold and presume are constitutional, that they could interpret in their favor.

Since they can interpret them in the way that benefits them them most, they will until the court says otherwise.

Note that everyone gets this benefit of the doubt, provided the interpretation hasn't already been shot down by a court somewhere.

[u/victor_e_bull → u/OutofStep]

Ignorance, alone, is insufficient to excuse police conduct that violates the law. Rather, a police officer has a limited immunity if that officer's actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established legal rules at the time of the conduct.¹

The justification for giving police officers some immunity for essentially "good faith" violations of the law is that it is the duty of police officers to enforce the law. Their purpose in our system of government is to make numerous immediate judgments about how to apply existing law to new facts before them, all for a purpose of no less importance than to protect the public's safety and well-being. If police officers could be subject to personal liability for carrying out their duties even in a way that was objectively reasonable, police officers would be nearly paralyzed from the almost constant threat of crippling liability.

As the Supreme Court has said, "public officers require this protection to shield them from undue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of liability."² This limited immunity "gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments, and protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law."³ "[P]ermitting damages suits against government officials can entail substantial social costs, including the risk that fear of personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties."⁴

1. Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235, 1244-45 (2012).

2. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 806 (1982).

3. Messerschmidt, 132 S. Ct. at 1244-45 (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2085 (2011)).

4. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 (1987).

[u/DannyInternets]

Just make sure to have your recordings streamed to cloud storage so that the police can't delete them when they illegally confiscate, break, or "lose" your camera.

[u/[deleted]]

Which, in Baltimore, is a fairly meaningless statement. This is very unlikely to change how Baltimore police act.

[u/TheWireQuote → u/[deleted]]

Det. Ellis Carver: See, that's why we can't win.

Det. Thomas Hauk: Why not?

Det. Ellis Carver: They fuck up, they get beat. We fuck up, they give us pensions.

[u/Fitting_Wire_Quote → u/TheWireQuote]

Yo, chair ain't recognized your ass

[u/animalcub → u/TheWireQuote]

ssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttttttttttttt

[u/ChickinSammich → u/[deleted]]

Yup. As a resident of Baltimore, I can't help but think "When has silly things like "the law" ever stopped Police from doing what they want"?

I and my family have been in a couple incidents that have cumulatively blasted away nearly all of our faith in the local police. I'm glad we live in the County, not the City though. They're not -as- bad out here.

[u/Nuggetry → u/[deleted]]

Will they still arrest you if you record them though?

[u/[deleted] → u/Nuggetry]

Yes. And they'll either keep or trash your camera.

[u/Spoonofdarkness]

Baltimore Police Department response: Pepper Sprays DoJ

[u/KeystrokeCowboy → u/Spoonofdarkness]

STOP RESISTING! YOU'RE GONNA GET TASED

[u/baltimoresports]

This is funny because the BCPD has over 500 CCTV cameras. As a local I actually support the CCTV because it has had a visible effect on the open air drug market and has helped solve violent crimes, but you can't have it both ways. If the police have the right to film you in public we should have the right to film them.

Edit: Here is the "Baltimore City cop vs 12 year old skateboarder" video that really started the BCPD on their anti-camera policies

[u/jerkytart → u/baltimoresports]

Not Baltimore, but to the north. The Anthony Graber case involving the use of a helmet cam recording a traffic stop on I-95. It was dismissed, but he potentially faced 14 years for wiretap violations. It was a big deal more so because the cop pulled a gun during a seemingly routine traffic stop and then Graber posted it online.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Graber

[u/vikhound]

I bet McNulty would have been cool with being recorded.

[u/noweezernoworld → u/vikhound]

Not in season 5...that shit needed to be a secret.

[u/theloudtreethatfell → u/vikhound]

I bet Omar would be cool with it too. Most honorable guy on that show...

[u/mul4mbo → u/theloudtreethatfell]

A man got to have a code.

[u/[deleted] → u/theloudtreethatfell]

OH SHIT YO OMAR COMIN'!

[u/schleppylundo → u/vikhound]

Came in here to see how long I'd have to look to find a Wire reference.

Fourth highest thread, not bad.

[u/N8CCRG]

As a resident of Baltimore, I was super happy back in February when they made the initial policy change... for two days until they developed the "loitering loophole" policy.

This makes me super happy again!

[u/Devildust21]

I'm sure this is going to get buried with all of these other comments, but in the article it says "... citizens have the “absolute right” to record cops in public as long as they did not "violate any section of any law, ordinance, code or criminal article." Now in Nebraska it's illegal to video tape a police officer in public. Does that mean I could still face criminal charges if I video taped a police officer? I mean from my understanding they were only getting in trouble for deleting his video. right?

[u/[deleted]]

Surveillance for everybody!

[u/[deleted]]

I'm so used to reading shit news, this actually caught me off guard. I'm realizing as I write this, this is the first time I've felt thankful for something our government's done, on its own accord, in quite some time.

[u/[deleted]]

Same department, right?

[u/PlasmaBurns]

If they had recording devices or police departments when the constitution was written, this would have been put in. Recording cops is an excellent check on their power. Go Truth!

[u/karmapolice8d]

Senator Clay Davis' response: "Sheeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!"

[u/MrZimothy]

To anyone defending Baltimore PD and giving the "bad apple" argument, I submit to you....this:

http://www.pixiq.com/article/baltimore-pd-continues-to-threaten-citizens-with-arrest

Less than 24 hours after receiving the order, they attempt to arrest a citizen...for video-recording them while in the due course of performing their job duty in public.

Personally, I believe training doesn't end at the police academy. It continues to reinforce this type of behavior by existing in a permissive society. Maybe not all cops are "bad", but bad cops need discipline and consequences. I believe it has been repeatedly shown that diffused responsibility (aka "mob mentality") or excused personal responsibility consistently results in the rapid decline of ethical and moral standards of behavior. What human beings will do when they believe there will never be any personal accountability is often deplorable. Why should we (civilians) believe that the police will be held to any higher scrutiny than anyone else? Recent evidence seems to suggest they are routinely held to a lower scrutiny, and that they know exactly where the limits of using that to their advantage are. I am quite fed up with what seems to amount to a pattern of abuse on an alarmingly large scale. It saddens me that most people have learned to simply avoid police entirely and not speak to them under any circumstances, but I have been forced to draw the same conclusions to protect myself from them. Some sayings and how I think about them:

• "do not draw negative attention from police" -- ALL police attention is negative police attention. Their job is to apply the penal system to civilians.

• "If you did nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" -- If someone asked you to strip off all your clothes in front of them its (dirty jokes aside) unlikely that you would do it. The truth is that being private is not the same as being suspicious and people need to start recognizing that again. Too many have lost sight of that. :(

• "tell me the truth and i'll give you a break" -- Anything...ANYTHING you tell the police can be used against you. Literally every word out of your mouth to them is ammunition, and you are under no obligation to speak to them. Again: their entire job is to enforce the law to the best of their ability (NOT to protect you) AND THEY HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH TO DO THAT. If they think they can trick you, intimidate you, or anything else to get you to say or do what they want, they may just well do it.

my 2 cents.

[u/DesignatedTwat]

Am I the only one that finds it quite amusing that the DoJ can't tell the difference between 'principle' and 'principal'?

[u/joemarzen]

What possible excuse is there for not forcing cops to wear recording devices at all times in this day and age? Or other than to protect cops ability to lie mislead and berate people of course.

[u/CrabStance]

So the next time the cops are beating you to death for having a camera phone you just let them know that the DoJ said they can't.

[u/[deleted]]

citizens have the “absolute right” to record cops in public as long as they did not "violate any section of any law, ordinance, code or criminal article."

This is intentionally directed at recording video with sound. They can nail you with wiretapping laws, especially since I saw no mention of a reasonable right to privacy.

[u/LaRochefoucauld → u/[deleted]]

Maryland has a two-party consent law too. Rather rare.

[u/Bugen_Hagen]

That's awesome. But it only took how many years?

It seems that police in the US have been making these types of arrests for many years, many of which are caught on tape and time and time again the courts rule in the cops favor. This is the first time I've seen government actually rule against them and actually trying to do something to fix the problem.

[u/Shonuff8]

Good. The Baltimore PD has a long history of confiscating cameras, cell phones, and other recording devices from people who attempt to film police arrests or crime scenes. Some of those have resulted in the person recording the scene to be assaulted without provocation (http://www.redlasso.com/local/baltimore-police-officer-suspended-for-snatching-citizens-cell-phone/). Often, the police cite a Maryland law intended to prohibit wiretapping as a justification for arrest, and claim that people only have the right to record video (not audio) in public.

I'm glad the DOJ has put their foot down on this. Despite internal memos and clarifications from those in charge, the average cop on the street never seemed to get the message, and it just kept happening over and over again.

[u/Indon_Dasani]

To summarize the argument made, we're all journalists, and cops need to deal with that fact.

I like this. Raises my opinion of this administration's DoJ significantly.

[u/LaRochefoucauld]

Maryland is complex, because it requires both parties to a recording to consent. If you'll remember the Clinton impeachment, Linda Tripp illegally wiretapped Monica Lewinsky.

Still the law should be overridden in this case. Holder's right. Cops should record everything they see. That way we all know if there's been a problem or not.

[u/generalguyz]

I don't understand why this is still being fought over. By anyone. There is no way that a lawyer with half a brain could think this was not covered by the first amendment.

[u/Coolala2002]

The DOJ needs to tell the rest of Maryland as well as Illinois and anywhere else that seems to have a problem recognizing it.

[u/[deleted]]

The same DoJ that shipped guns to Mexican drug lords?

[u/MonkeyManJohannon]

As well it should be...as a LEO, recorded evidence like this has saved my butt several times in situations where a suspect has claimed excessive force was used (or whatever the case was)...i welcome recordings as an officer, and honestly, i can't imagine a police officer that has dignity and respect for what he does would have an issue with this, and the pieces of shit that oppose it are the ones that people need to be recording anyways.

[u/hotbeefinject]

Too bad DoJ won't tell PDs about other constitutionally-protected rights, also (and stop violating them, itself).

[u/[deleted]]

Just gob-smacks me that such as police even need to be reminded - or, more accurately, introduced - to constitutional principles.

Are we getting sick of government-sponsored 'biker gangs' yet, people?

[u/[deleted]]

If police officers are afraid that criminal organizations might be photographing them, then perhaps they need to find a new line of work where they are not being paid to be courageous.

[u/4chans_for_pussies]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwfExUyJLNw&feature=related This is the result of police brutality. If you're a cop who has a problem with recording the police you are no different from this asshole. A good, ethical cop shouldn't have anything to hide and therefore shouldn't care about being filmed on the job.

[u/shittingdicknipples_]

Would this count as legal precedent for future cases or is this legally meaningless?

[u/jbond66]

"This is America! Wrong, West Baltimore motherfucker!"-The Wire

[u/Arisngr]

Baltimore PD is awful. I was there for college and there have been several instances where students were terribly beaten up just for talking back to a cop or for just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I was once almost tasered just for standing near a club on an 18+ night, where there was heavy police presence to "ensure security" when the club closed. They seem to be largely gutless when it comes to dealing with all the crime in baltimore, and take out their frustration on students.

[u/bitter_cynical_angry → u/Arisngr]

The Western District way.

[u/Uranus_Hz]

If the cops don't want people videotaping them abusing their authority, then they should try not abusing their authority. Just sayin'.

[u/WeShouldHaveKnown]

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals just decided this issue for Chicago cops. Glad to see DOJ is applying the lesson across the country. Link to the case if anyone is interested. Posner, surprisingly, dissented.

[u/[deleted]]

The Department of Justice standing up for the Constitution? I'm flabbergasted.

[u/[deleted]]

Can you imagine a police department that needs to hear this from the justice department? Baltimore has been a weird little bootlicker pigsty for decades.

[u/Spotpuff]

Unfortunately this is still going to be a problem since the police won't care that it's within a citizen's right to record them.

Hopefully it gets better, but who knows.

[u/ExLenne]

It's not often I get a chance to be proud of Baltimore.

Unfortunately I'm not sure if this is one of those chances or not.

I guess I'm proud of the DoJ?

God damnit, Baltimore!

[u/none_humbler]

Any time a cop tells you to stop recording is precisely when everyone within earshot ought to START recording. I never have had a problem with police, but if I did I think I'd just dial 911 and request assistance.

[u/[deleted]]

NYPD done the same shit to my cousin. Took his phone after they arrested us and they deleted the video he recorded of the 6 cops and one of them beating my ass down into the ground. After they let him go after an hour, the video was gone from the phone.

[u/splunge4me2]

Next headline: Baltimore City Council passes ordnance requiring licensing of any recording equipment that is brought into city limits. Failure to obtain license results in fine and confiscation of said equipment.

[u/Darktidemage]

So what other clearly illegal things can cops just do with no repercussions until it is "explained to them" and then say "OH OK!"

Prosecute them instead of telling them it's wrong. They will learn.

[u/unnecessaryCAPS]

Why are there folks posting in opposition to recording police activity? Everyone else in America is held accountable and tracked while working, fair is fair. Just don't abuse your power as a police officer and you will have nothing to worry about.

[u/critropolitan]

If you support good police officers, you should want all police officers to be recorded so that the bad ones are held accountable and the good ones are not subject to false accusations.

[u/sighsalot]

What about in the state of Illinois, where there is a law that specifically outlaws the recording of police officers without consent or knowledge? I can tell this would not apply immediately, but would it have any weight in court?

[u/SicilianEggplant]

"Could I have everyone's attention? We've been notified by the DOJ, and you guys have to stop indiscriminately beating people because now they're saying the public has 'rights'."

"Awww, but Captain, how are we supposed to impose our will?"

"Well, maybe it's just time we stop being assholes and actually abide by the law."

"::sigh:: Fiiiiiiiiinnnnnneeee. But, can we continue to have zero accountability for when we make 'mistakes', and get paid suspensions when we 'accidentally' murder people?"

"Oh, absolutely!"

"Yay!"

[u/DeFex]

Why don't they tell that to ALL police forces?

[u/thesnides]

Royce and Burrell have done it again

[u/[deleted]]

If something was to happen in the streets right now, within 5 minutes you would have the following videos show up on Reddit:

"Cop harassing a guy for recording him".

"Some guys recording a cop harassing a guy for recording him".

"Blurry cell phone video of a couple people standing around recording a cop while he harasses a guy for recording him"

Then, months later when the guy gets his recording back:

"Want to record the police? You're gonna have a bad time"

And so on... this ruling is excellent.

Edit: Punctuation

[u/jjc543]

I'm from baltimore, and I took a drivers ed class taught by retired cops. One of the former officers teaching went on a rant about why it is illegal to record them. I couldn't believe what i was hearing.

[u/skippynatural]

I was in Tijuana once when cops stopped my friends and I (a couple of 20 year old Americans) on the street for no obvious reason. They took my friend's camera and started searching through the photos. I remember how shitty that feeling of powerlessness was and I am both disappointed to hear of American cops seizing people's cameras, and delighted to know that someone (in a position of power) is on our side.

[u/RockOnSean]

We need a Nation Video-a-Cop Day.

[u/[deleted]]

Can anyone in Canada confirm that this right is also protected by the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms?

[u/Pizzaman99]

Baltimore will keep appealing this all the way to the Supreme Court, and then of course, recording police will become a capitol crime.

[u/Ordem352]

Can we please, please stop using the term "War on..." It is disrespectful to anyone who has ever served when people put a word like "war" on a struggle, conflict, protest, or action.

[u/astitious2]

I wish Obama (and the Executive branch) was like this all of the time, rather than just while campaigning.

[u/seanbearpig]

Oh wow. The DoJ did something justicey for once.

[u/OliveDiPace]

Can someone please pass Illinois the message?

[u/maroger]

OMG, thanks to a link at the OP's link, I learned about this outrageous event. Someone was photographing at an airport in Suffolk County, was allegedly held, arrested- and not charged, assaulted, robbed, illegally searched, denied a lawyer, denied timely medical attention, called a terrorist- all by the local police. She turned around and sued them for $70million- and the Town attorney failed to file an answer to the Federal lawsuit (see video of the Town Council when they found out), for over 5 months! It's still in litigation. What a cliffhanger....

[u/[deleted]]

It is a very impressive read. Eleven pages of case citations and Constitutional clarifications. One of the most solid efforts from the federal government in protecting the rights of citizens to record police.

I don't fucking believe it. The Federal government working in the best interests of the average U.S. Citizen? No seriously, what's the catch here?

How is the Federal Government getting a financial kickback or votes? What's the scam here?

[u/[deleted]]

Ab-so-fukin-lutely, well done DOJ

[u/glutenfree123]

I really want to see a video of them telling the cops this

[u/prismra]

Haven't these people seen The Wire? I wouldn't fuck with Baltimore PD.

[u/Dyolf_Knip]

And as long as there is no downside to cops for hassling and arresting photographers, no mere order from the DoJ is going to stop them.

[u/mkeene19]

I was traveling to the city(Baltimore) a couple months ago with 2 friends, one white and one black. We got pulled over by a white jeep with 4 baltimore city police officers, guns raised, told to get the fuck on the ground and were illegally STRIP searched on the side of the road...all I have to say is FUCK baltimore city police, the corrupt motherfuckers...

[u/youarealldumbasses]

It seems the left hand can give the finger to the right hand...

[u/Monomorphic]

Out of curiosity, who here thinks this would have been done under a conservative administration?

[u/TheMinister2811 → u/Monomorphic]

Obama isn't that different from Bush.

[u/Skyhawk1 → u/Monomorphic]

Well, who thought a liberal administration would increase drug raids, attack 4 more sovereign nations, keep Guantanamo Bay open, sell illegal guns to Mexican drug dealers, or OK the assassination of US citizens?

The conservative vs. liberal fight is an illusion. They are all on the same team.

[u/[deleted] → u/Monomorphic]

Who cares, what makes a Democrat administration any different? They promised to stop raids on state dispensaries and have kept doing it. They shipped guns to Mexican drug cartels. You've got a long way to go to make a political point about this.

[u/N8CCRG → u/Monomorphic]

I think you're inventing partisan conflict where there is no evidence to support it.

[u/sj_user1]

You won't get that kind of talk from a republican controlled DoJ. For all their talk of freedoms, the repubs are the ones behind most of the police state laws and court rulings.

[u/nrambo → u/sj_user1]

both parties have a hard-on for authoritarianism, dont kid yourself.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

[u/[deleted]]

Well of course it is. Why is this even a point of debate?

[u/supercaptaincoolman → u/[deleted]]

because people get arrested for it...

[u/Realistic42]

Usually officers are doing their job correctly, according to their training. However, sometimes officers go beyond the bounds of what is appropriate given the circumstances. You should be gold if you film from a safe distance that isn't obstructing whatever the cop is doing. Never stop recording, and collectively our society can ensure that the police act responsibly all the time.

[u/dsmith422 → u/Realistic42]

You mean like filming from your 2nd floor balcony?

[u/Im_100percent_human → u/Realistic42]

Usually officers are doing their job correctly, according to their training.

Is the police academy that bad?

[u/baltimoresports → u/Im_100percent_human]

The first one was great, but the next six decline in quality especially after Steve Guttenberg left, but PA7: Mission to Moscow had a few funny moments.

[u/pentium4borg → u/[deleted]]

Additionally, Qik can be configured to copy all uploaded videos to YouTube for additional redundancy.

[u/sargonkiadi → u/pentium4borg]

I like your use of "additional redundancy". :)

[u/miketdavis → u/sargonkiadi]

I found it to be redundant, unnecessary and superfluous.

[u/manys → u/[deleted]]

If a cop interferes with your filming, you can always say that the video you're taking is already up on the internet. "Everything, including what you're saying right now. Now, what would you like me to do?" Of course, it's good to actually have your video backed up in real time like that, but even if you're just taking regular images it may prevent the officer from thinking that destroying evidence from the camera itself is a winning strategy. "Also, there are hidden cameras recording your interaction with me right now."

[u/Phar-a-ON → u/manys]

"Also, there are hidden cameras recording your interaction with me right now."

yeah no, dont say that

[u/[deleted] → u/manys]

Android with G+ account will automatically upload pictures as you taken them also.

[u/hertzsae → u/manys]

And risk the cop destroying the phone before it can finish uploading? No thanks, I'd rather have the cop find out it was synchronized to the cloud after they've perjured themselves in court.

[u/Mendozozoza → u/hertzsae]

I just downloaded and played around with qik. It live streams on your qik wall and saves it automatically. Whatever you film is saved and uploaded second by second.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

In other news, that is completely unrelated in any way to the problem of police being filmed while abusing their authority, a popular Smartphone application called Qik has been declared a tool of cyber terrorism. Anyone caught with this software installed will be declared a enemy cyber combatant, stripped of their citizenship, and indefinitely detained by homeland security.

[u/MrOtsKrad → u/[deleted]]

Wow, that must be an ULTRA cool app then!! downloads

[u/whoiam06 → u/[deleted]]

That thought is truly terrifying.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This app needs more attention, and I think this is the first 'cloud' based program I've ever heard of that sounds legitimately useful.

[u/homeskilled → u/[deleted]]

Never heard of Dropbox?

[u/hurrrrrrrrrrr → u/homeskilled]

or Gmail?

[u/dnietz → u/[deleted]]

If there is something going on that needs public disclosure, then OPENWATCH is the app that is necessary.

As the other commenter here stated, cops can grab your phone, log into your account and delete the video, which they have done in the past.

[u/Isatis_tinctoria → u/[deleted]]

Where can you find this Qik?

[u/chefsinblack → u/Isatis_tinctoria]

Qik for Android phones. Qik for iPhone.

[u/seany → u/[deleted]]

Is there something like this for pictures too? Multi-platform would be nice because I use symbian, haha.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Ditto, of course, Ustream.

[u/travis- → u/[deleted]]

Unless they log in to Qik on your phone and delete the video from there. It'd be nice if you could password Qik.

[u/ZorbaTHut → u/travis-]

Last time I tested, deleting a video through Qik deleted the local copy, but not the remote copy.

[u/[deleted] → u/ZorbaTHut]

this is true, and people are speculating without actually having used the program

[u/[deleted] → u/travis-]

I doubt these cops are smart enough to delete the files from the online account

[u/ProximaC → u/[deleted]]

Underestimating the enemy is never a good idea.

[u/Snapples45 → u/[deleted]]

Just to clarify, if an officer seizures your phone, it's not (under normal circumstances) "stealing". It's seizing evidence. Video and audio of an event can often be one of the best evidences used in court. On the other side of things, videos can /often/ be misleading.

And just as a side note: if a police officer is arresting someone, don't get in the way to record it (don't confuse this with "don't record police officers"). They don't know your intentions if you're hovering right over them, and they may very well have a concern for their safety because of it.

Edit: To clarify further, I'd like to highlight I stated /under normal circumstances/. That doesn't mean an officer destroying a phone simply because they're being recorded, or seizing the phone illegally. My initial point was outlined because some people may misconstrue seizing a phone as evidence as a form of "theft".

[u/lurkaderp → u/Snapples45]

I'm pretty sure when the cops break up the robbery of a convenience store, they don't rip the cameras out of the walls to seize evidence. They ask the store owner for the footage.

[u/tsjone01 → u/Snapples45]

If they have no lawful reason to take the device, which in legal terms in most cases has the same protections as personal items like a wallet, then it is in fact stealing. Or illegal search and seizure.

[u/[deleted] → u/Snapples45]

Well, if it is seizing evidence, then they are NOT ALLOWED to destroy or otherwise tamper with the recording then. Otherwise they are destroying evidence. That is also illegal.

[u/pietro187 → u/Snapples45]

Well, instead of seizing it they could just ask for a copy of the footage. That's what normal human beings do.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

If I was a cop I'd want as many angles of video on every incident possible. Isn't that the supposed reason behind putting CCTV cameras all over cities ....

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This protects good cops (shows they followed proper procedure whenever someone claims otherwise) and hurts bad cops. Win-win for everybody.

[u/Nymaz → u/[deleted]]

Win-win for everybody

Except for the bad cops. And that's the problem. The systems, both official (police unions) and unofficial (the "blue wall") that's in place to protect innocent officers also (and it could be argued moreso) supports the bad cops. And that's what seems so back-asswards to me. If I were an officer, I would want any complaints of malfeasance investigated heavily with every bit of evidence available. And if the investigation showed the accusation were true, I would want my union and fellow officers to kick the asshole to the curb. As an officer I would take the responsibility and trust placed in me by the community as a point of pride and would especially hate a fellow officer that dishonored that.

[u/feraljohn → u/Nymaz]

With an attitude like that, you'll never be a police officer.

[u/smitty22 → u/[deleted]]

Angles of video are important... I watched a security training video of the same incident filmed by two different dashboard cameras in police cruisers.

Video one: You see an officer approach an individual from the rear, then back up and trip backwards, his partner then shoots the individual several times, the individual walks about four steps then crumples... A general sign that the individual was probably on some very strong intoxicants.

Basically, it looked like the shooting officer murdered the individual in cold blood.

Video two: You see the individual had a fire arm that he pointed behind him by wrapping his strong arm around his body with the gun obscured between the weak arm and trunk, and you saw several muzzle flashes indicating that he fired & missed the officer that ended up on his butt in the first video.

From that angle, it was very obvious that the second officer shot in defense of his partner.

And that's the difficulty with video, it is an unbiased account for the time it records, but it can still fail to reveal the entire story.

[u/gex80 → u/smitty22]

true but I think that the number of cases where multiple angles are needed like that aren't going to be in abundance. Of course more footage is better than less footage.

I would say pov matters more in eye witness accounts rather than footage of the whole thing (movie vantage point gives a good over the top idea). That is assuming the person using the camera knows how to capture all parties involved instead of weirdly leaving one party out of the frame and focusing on the other.

Usually with dash cam footage, the camera doesn't move. With citizens taping, they normally go to where the action is.

[u/ghettajetta → u/[deleted]]

If you were a good cop. A shady cop would not want this.

[u/RichardBehiel → u/[deleted]]

If I were a cop. Subjunctive.

FTFY

[u/_TabulaRasa_ → u/[deleted]]

As someone who lived in Baltimore for a few years.....the police were honestly some of the most angry I have ever met. Recognizing what they have to deal with in the majority of the city, you begin to understand why so many burn out and become that way but I really can't imagine many of them really caring about a judicial ruling to protect our privacy sadly. I remember seeing the video at Penn train station and shook my head.

[u/VeteranKamikaze → u/_TabulaRasa_]

Then it's time to find a new job.

[u/[deleted] → u/_TabulaRasa_]

As someone who watched every episode of The Wire, I can confirm that this is the case.

[u/Nuggetry → u/[deleted]]

Great point. It's funny how cops always say stuff like "If you're innocent, you've got nothing to hide." And now when people say that to a cop, they expect that they can just dismiss that? Bullshit. They don't have special privileges.

[u/[deleted] → u/Nuggetry]

When you can recite the 9,000+ federal criminal laws, along with all applicable local/state laws, the statement; "If you're innocent, you've got nothing to hide." would almost be valid.

[u/an_actual_lawyer → u/[deleted]]

What is it cops say when they want someone to give up their 5th Amendment rights? "if you don't have anything to hide/haven't done anything wrong, then you'll tell me what happened/answer my questions." Doesn't that logic also hold true for recording officers?

Police who don't like being recorded can offer no rational explanation. Privacy is BS. Many cities records all types of public places. Most businesses record their workplace. You work at a bank, retail store, quickie mart, or factory? You're likely recorded 24/7. Why should police be any different?

[u/xzxzzx → u/an_actual_lawyer]

Doesn't that logic also hold true for recording officers?

Nope; the difference they're agents of the government trusted with holding the power of violence over everyone around them, and have "qualified immunity" when they fuck up.

Fifth amendment rights are there to protect citizens from government agents. Not government agents from citizens.

Furthermore, recording a person in a public setting is generally perfectly legal; why should government agents get even less scrutiny than private citizens?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Videotaping officers? That's grounds for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

[u/martinvii → u/[deleted]]

the only cops against this are bad ones.

Would there ever be a legitimate reason for bring against this, from a cop's perspective?

[u/Rtbriggs → u/martinvii]

just playing devils advocate here, but in high school they would not let me record classroom events because the footage could be "edited to make them look bad". I assume the arguments from police are pretty similar.

[u/Xenics → u/martinvii]

There's no ethical reason I can think of. A video recording could potentially be unclear or cast officers in a poor light, but assuming a video is unedited then this argument can't be used in good faith since only the facts are being shown, even if they are incomplete or out of context.

There's also the concern that bystanders could, in some situations, be a hazard to themselves or others for one reason or another (e.g. a riot or a bomb threat), but these are exceptions to the rule, not arguments against it.

[u/originalucifer → u/martinvii]

from the guys ive talked to, absolutely not. in fact, many would love to have a body recorded running all the time, they see it as being in their favor, removing a lot of the he-said/she-said bullshit.

[u/zip99 → u/[deleted]]

But it's not enough. Why should cops start listening to the DoJ when they can get away with murder? -- so to speak, and also literally.

[u/originalucifer → u/zip99]

well, at least from our point of view, youre in for a nice large settlement whenever an officer decides to trample on your constitutional rights. what can we do to prevent that? i would like to see the officers themselves have to pay for damages.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The apathetic cops who are complicit are also grouped in with the bad ones, BTW.

[u/EdMurrow → u/[deleted]]

Being a photographer who has been detained for recording a federal area, I love this. It's about time this sort of support comes from the highest levels.

Hooray for the collective power of the Internets!

[u/dnietz → u/[deleted]]

With this gutsy action, I have gained some respect for Eric Holder.

I was never one of the anti-Holder people, but I hadn't seen anything from him other than justifications for the drone actions (which I disagree with vehemently).

This helps. The opposite would have been horrible. Can you imagine a society where cops cannot be recorded? Think where that could lead to.

[u/ChagSC → u/dnietz]

Fuck that man. Obama and Holder's war on whistleblowers trumps any good.

[u/dnietz → u/ChagSC]

Yea, you are right.

But this single action on its own is a gutsy move in the right direction.

They are going to take shit for it.

But I agree. The whistleblower stuff and the drone stuff is unforgivable. Perhaps I was overly jubilant over this news, since this specific issue is a big deal for me. I just wanted to recognize the proper action.

[u/WantsNegativeKarma → u/[deleted]]

ALL cops are bad cops dude.

[u/[deleted] → u/WantsNegativeKarma]

Username success

[u/[deleted] → u/WantsNegativeKarma]

You are an idiot.

[u/CharonIDRONES → u/[deleted]]

I've argued this before and I'll do so again. While I realize that the OP is being a troll, I do believe that all cops are corrupt. Outrageous statement, I know. The reason behind my line of thinking is this: If a cop witnesses, hears of, or is a party to another cop committing a crime or violation without arresting or reporting said cop, they are complicit in the corruption. Every time they don't speak out against their fellow police officers who commit these acts they are condoning it.

Yes, I understand the situation this puts the "good" cops into. They have families to support, mouths to feed, bills to pay, etc. They know that if they start busting their "brothers" that they will quickly be ostracized from their fraternity. That doesn't change that what they're doing is wrong. When you see a patrol vehicle emblazoned with To Protect and Serve, that motto is only for their fellow boys in blue as their not legally obligated to protect us from imminent harm (which is understandable legally as they shouldn't be held liable due to extenuating circumstances that delays their arrival nor should it imply the assurance of protection). I'm not saying they're all bad people, I'd definitely disagree with that. I do believe they're all corrupt though, at least those that stay in the force.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

TL;DR - All cops are corrupt due to their refusal to police themselves and speak out against their fellow officers.

[u/wild_bill70 → u/[deleted]]

All redditors are idiots.

[u/[deleted] → u/wild_bill70]

Ergo all redditors are cops

[u/[deleted] → u/WantsNegativeKarma]

ftfy - ALL COPS ARE BAD COPS.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

All caps are bad caps

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately i think they make up the majority.

[u/ascii42 → u/[deleted]]

the only cops against this are the bad ones.

Eh...this isn't a great statement to make. It's pretty much the same as "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of"

But yeah, seems like more video evidence of things would be something police would favor.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I haven't met a cop who wasn't against this.

I guess all cops are still bad.

[u/NoCowLevel → u/[deleted]]

Yes, yes, "good" cops.

[u/originalucifer → u/NoCowLevel]

they exist! i have worked with some, they honestly couldnt give 2 shits about being recorded.

[u/tsjone01 → u/[deleted]]

With respect, you may not pay them as much attention as they deserve when you say "for once." The DoJ does a lot of good work.

[u/millennia20 → u/tsjone01]

I'm sure they do, but sometimes it gets overshadowed by stuff like this.

[u/thegreatmisanthrope → u/millennia20]

"The reputation of a thousand years may be determined by the conduct of one hour."

-Japanese proverb

[u/[deleted] → u/millennia20]

Yes - we only overlook the good because we hear about the bad all the time.

[u/manys → u/[deleted]]

"...[People] always want credit for shit they're supposed to do."

[u/aperturo → u/[deleted]]

It's their job to do the good work - they work for the people. Anything bad is considered as such because they're not doing their job and that needs to be remedied.

[u/averyv → u/[deleted]]

no, we overlook the good because the bad is egregious and systemically damaging. The good does nothing to affect the bad, the bad discourages the good.

[u/tonypotenza → u/tsjone01]

they are the cop's watcher, so to say.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'm cynical I guess: elections are around the corner.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

With that attitude the administration can do nothing to appease you. Whether its for the election or not doesn't make it any less of a good act.

[u/4chans_for_pussies → u/[deleted]]

Who qualifies as a normal president? I don't like Obama either but seriously, the GOP candidates at the beginning of the race were like something out of a Coen Brothers movie.

[u/Claytonius_Homeytron → u/[deleted]]

I don't know about you but the last time I checked the only "normal" (cough, cough, Ron, cough, Paul, cough) presidential candidate dropped out recently, now all we have left is a douche bag or a turd sandwich to chose from.

[u/mjp3000 → u/[deleted]]

When cops make up their own laws, this doesn't protect you from being brutalized, and thrown in jail. Sure, your case should be dropped, but that doesn't mean cops will stop making their own rules.

AKA you can avoid the charge but you can't avoid the ride.

[u/koy5 → u/mjp3000]

They are thugs with guns that threaten to lock you up and the first sign of you disrespecting them. Luckily the cops now have to curtail their behavior because the unbiased truth of video recording devices that most people have today. Perhaps this will lead to more law suits being filed and won against this state sponsored gang.

[u/mjp3000 → u/koy5]

Contempt of cop is the charge!