Recording police with your smartphone is a Constitutional right, says DoJ • Hacker News Board

Re: Recording police with your smartphone is a Constitutional right, says DoJ

#41

Post by ludflu » Sat, May 19, 2012, 11:53 AM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #26

ludflu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its my understanding that due to the supremacy clause, federal (constitutional) law trumps state laws. in some cases, state laws can grant addiitional rights, but they can't abridge the rights granted by the constitution.

Not exactly - you're right about most of what you said, except the constitutional rights/bill of rights. The Bill of Rights defends individuals against the federal government, and did not originally apply to State governments. One by one, the amendments have been/are being slowly incorporated to protect individual rights against State governments as well, as the result of Supreme Court rulings: http://en.wikipedia.or…

interesting thanks. so freedom of speech and lots of other stuff has been incorporated, but not everything in the constitution applies to states automatically

Re: Recording police with your smartphone is a Constitutional right, says DoJ

#42

Post by crusso » Sat, May 19, 2012, 12:09 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #32

ori_b wrote: post #6

Why aren't the police equipped with recording devices that are active whenever they are interacting with the public? It seems that anyone with that sort of power should have an audit trail for their actions.

In Oakland all police officers are equipped with lapel cameras. But having been involved in Occupy Oakland's legal and anti-repression work what we have found is that since police have discretion as to when they can turn the devices on and off and when to upload, the video always seems to be mysteriously missing whenever defense lawyers request it. The officer will say that they forgot to turn it on or that it malfun…

The cameras should be required to be on in order for the officer to do anything "in the line of duty". Furthermore, they should broadcast a wifi feed of what they're seeing in real time so that anyone can have a "listener" running nearby to capture it. You could have a listener in your car, at your apartment, or running on your iPhone. There should be a listener in the police car that instantly uploads the feed to a server managed by an agency that is totally independent from the police department.

Camera always on. Everyone gets an immediate copy.

Re: Recording police with your smartphone is a Constitutional right, says DoJ

#43

Post by spindritf » Sat, May 19, 2012, 12:13 PM UTC

ori_b wrote: post #6

Why aren't the police equipped with recording devices that are active whenever they are interacting with the public? It seems that anyone with that sort of power should have an audit trail for their actions.

There are a couple of legitimate reasons why police officers might not want to be recorded 8-12 hours a day.

First is purely psychological. Would you want to have someone looking over your shoulder all the time? Would you want your employer to record everything you do on your computer through some spyware? Have a camera mounted above your head?

Second is procedural. There are so many rules and regulations that it's almost impossible not to break some of them (just like with laws in western countries) so police officers (just like citizens) rely on low detection rate for minor violations and difficulty of proving anything.

There is also something to be said about how trustworthy police officers would be everyone they come in contact while on duty. People (and that includes criminals) find it much easier to trust a person they see standing in front ot them than some unknown tape reviewer.

And finally, basic privacy. If you work for many hours with little to do (patrolling the streets isn't exactly a consuming task), you probably have a lot of personal conversations with your partners.

Those problems will also be made worse by the officers themselves struggling with yet another piece of equipment (have you ever seen a cop running?).

All or almost all of the above could probably be resolved with selective recording, clear indicators of when the camera is running, light and easy to use devices and other technical solutions. Though we all know that, as with any other technological project, first users will get a lot of leakage and other bugs. And with the feedback loops what they are in the government, many may not be fixed for a really long time.

Re: Recording police with your smartphone is a Constitutional right, says DoJ

#44

Post by dodo53 » Sat, May 19, 2012, 12:42 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #42

guelo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Oakland all police officers are equipped with lapel cameras. But having been involved in Occupy Oakland's legal and anti-repression work what we have found is that since police have discretion as to when they can turn the devices on and off and when to upload, the video always seems to be mysteriously missing whenever defense lawyers request it. The officer will say that they forgot to turn it on or that it malfun…

The cameras should be required to be on in order for the officer to do anything "in the line of duty". Furthermore, they should broadcast a wifi feed of what they're seeing in real time so that anyone can have a "listener" running nearby to capture it. You could have a listener in your car, at your apartment, or running on your iPhone. There should be a listener in the police car that instantly uploads the feed to a…

that would be pretty handy for actual criminals

Re: Recording police with your smartphone is a Constitutional right, says DoJ

#45

Post by DanBC » Sat, May 19, 2012, 12:46 PM UTC

revelation wrote: post #16

jamesBB wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty darn cynical, I think people in general want their privacy respected, regardless of power level.

Privacy comes from private. What you do in your function as a public servant is not private.

Civilians may be uncomfortable with police officers recording everything all the time.

See, for example, discussion about CCTV in England. There are many valid concerns about the amount of stuff that's recorded.

Re: Recording police with your smartphone is a Constitutional right, says DoJ

#46

Post by jasonlotito » Sat, May 19, 2012, 1:28 PM UTC

13rules wrote: post #31

sodafountan wrote: post #28

I've actually been arrested once for recording a police officer, I went up to her with my cellphone in hand when she was questioning my intoxicated friend on my college campus. She snatched my phone away from me and said I was prohibiting her from doing her job, and so I was taken in with my friend. Looks like i'll be fighting this one. Never thought HN would be a good source for legal advice ;)

"said I was prohibiting her from doing her job" Translation: You've done something that I don't like, but isn't illegal, so here's a trumped up charge so you have to spend the night in jail.

At the same time, shoving a camera into someones face could impact their ability to perform their job. In, fact, unless your job involves working with a camera, I imagine a camera in the face wouldn't help matters.

Simply put, while I agree we should be able to records officers, I also believe that playing a game of "I'm not touching you" with a camera is out of place.

Indeed, if your dealing with drunk people as a cop, having someone else walk up to you is going to be threatening. So, why does a person with a camera automatically get a pass.

Yes, you have the right to record. But that doesn't give you the right to ignore the officer.

Re: Recording police with your smartphone is a Constitutional right, says DoJ

#47

Post by jjcm » Sat, May 19, 2012, 1:50 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #42

guelo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Oakland all police officers are equipped with lapel cameras. But having been involved in Occupy Oakland's legal and anti-repression work what we have found is that since police have discretion as to when they can turn the devices on and off and when to upload, the video always seems to be mysteriously missing whenever defense lawyers request it. The officer will say that they forgot to turn it on or that it malfun…

The cameras should be required to be on in order for the officer to do anything "in the line of duty". Furthermore, they should broadcast a wifi feed of what they're seeing in real time so that anyone can have a "listener" running nearby to capture it. You could have a listener in your car, at your apartment, or running on your iPhone. There should be a listener in the police car that instantly uploads the feed to a…

Disagree on the immediate copy. Perhaps a few hours delay. A live feed would be too valuable for evading police.

Re: Recording police with your smartphone is a Constitutional right, says DoJ

#48

Post by Cieplak » Sat, May 19, 2012, 1:56 PM UTC

13rules wrote: post #30

Cieplak wrote: post #17

Here is a case from my state of Maryland where a motorcyclist was charged with recording a police man without the officer's permission; it was very upsetting to me when in happened two years ago: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/05/stat...

I remember that when it happened and totally agree. It's ok for the cop to get out of his car with his gun drawn and no identification that he is police and go up to the guy on the bike, but it's not ok that the rider had a helmet cam that recorded the entire thing? The bottom line with these kinds of cases is that if not for the video, the victims of police brutality and abuse would have nothing to show ... and ther…

I went to Maryland and was a student when this happened. The video you mention was filmed from South Campus Commons Building 3, and I lived in 4. I was at a friends house when this happened, and rode my bike home shortly after this happened, not knowing all of this had happened (not a big basketball fan). As I was riding my bike down Baltimore Avenue, two cops in riot suits were standing on the sidewalk beside the street, and when I was just square with them, they suddenly jumped at me screaming stop. I almost lay down by bicycle as one of the cops tries to tackle me. He managed to kick my back tire, and I skid to a halt and dismount. They come up to me and point their 50mm canister guns in my face and start yelling in my face. I smile at them and sort of laugh, and ask if there's a problem officer. They say I was entering a restricted area, and tell me I have to turn around. I point to the my building and they don't really care. They say I have to turn around. These cops don't get to go to riots very often, so when they do get the chance, they like to have as much fun as they can with it.

Re: Recording police with your smartphone is a Constitutional right, says DoJ

#49

Post by crusso » Sat, May 19, 2012, 2:38 PM UTC

dodo53 wrote: post #44

crusso wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cameras should be required to be on in order for the officer to do anything "in the line of duty". Furthermore, they should broadcast a wifi feed of what they're seeing in real time so that anyone can have a "listener" running nearby to capture it. You could have a listener in your car, at your apartment, or running on your iPhone. There should be a listener in the police car that instantly uploads the feed to a…

that would be pretty handy for actual criminals

Ha, good point. Okay, well amend my brainstorming to just being a live feed that goes to an independent agency that can make the video available at a later date.

Re: Recording police with your smartphone is a Constitutional right, says DoJ

#50

Post by matwood » Sat, May 19, 2012, 2:55 PM UTC

ori_b wrote: post #38

matwood wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Denver police have been trialing a program to do just this: http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/10/denver_police_w... It's taken a lot of brutality cases and lawsuits to get them to this point though.

> * Officers will be able to turn the cameras on or off at their discretion.* That part seems to render much of the experiment useless, sadly.

Yes and no. If the camera is on and then shuts off for a few moments it does make the officer look like they are trying to hide something. Also, just having this step in the right direction will hopefully set up a time in the future when all dealings with the police have to be recorded by law.

A similar thing happened in my home town. A state law said that all police cars must have cameras for DUI stops. One of the counties in the state that wrote the most DUIs kept saying they couldn't afford to put cameras in all of the cruisers. Finally, a judge started throwing out all DUIs where the camera wasn't installed. Cameras were all installed and working in short order.

Technology has made it so easy to record all interactions that if the police are not doing it then the default reason is they are trying to hide something.