Looney also noted that interfering with an officer is already a crime and would remain so.
The thing that always bothers me about the anti-photo/video side uses the bogus argument that people taking photos or videos will interfere with police business. If the photographer is being a material interference, they are committing a crime with or without their camera. Otherwise, just let them be.
> he anti-photo/video side uses the bogus argument that people taking photos or videos will interfere with police business.
that is a common pattern in authoritarian regimes -- a slew of catch-all laws that can be applied selectively. there is "interfering with police business", "interfering with official business", and whole set of others that can always be used to at least get you to the police station.
"if they were acting within their scope of authority and the conduct was not willful, wanton, or reckless."
I think this is pretty much the way it works everywhere in North America - sworn officers are ( rightfully ) immune to prosecution while in discharge of their duties. _unless_ their conduct qualifies as malfeasance. Arguably, ( in my mind at least ) arresting people for simply recording the public conduct of an officer already falls into this territory.
I may be slightly confused here. If it is legal to do something - take a picture - then why do you need a specific bill to allow you to sue a police officer for arresting you for doing something that isn't a crime?
Doesn't this get a bit infinite-set? Do you need a specific bill to allow you to sue a police officer who arrests you for doing anything else that is allowed in the Constitution?
The difference is that here you are able to sue the police officer rather than the police department, as you usually would. The theory is that this will discourage officers from acting in a certain way, since they would be personally liable.
However, one could also argue that this is bad for victims, since the officer's pockets will almost always be shallower than the municipality's. However, if this law were to pass, a smart attorney would probably file a suit against both the municipality and the officer.
One could also argue that it's bad for victims of other crimes. If police are personally liable for everything, then I suspect the won't be particularly motivated to do anything.
These ideas tend to come with unintended consequences.
Hopefully what it will mean is officers will have an incentive to actually learn the laws instead of guessing. This creates a disincentive to action without knowledge, and cops aren't going to want to do nothing.
That's not what I mean. Boil this down to it's logical conclusion. If a cop arrests anyone for something that is deemed after the fact unjustifiable, they should similarly be held liable for damages. I mean, why stop at taking pictures? Is it not just as much an inconvenience to be arbitrarily arrested for burglary?
Throw in the culture of the police corps - and you could see a lot more "not my job" type behavior from the police. This sort of law could very well be interpreted as a slap by an ungrateful populace.
I'm just saying there is a balance here. Us vs. them isn't likely to result in improvement. This law seems very knee-jerky to me.
> the officer's pockets will almost always be shallower than the municipality's
That's why the law allows officers to be reimbursed by the department if they lose a lawsuit, provided that they were following appropriate guidelines. I think that's a very nice compromise, targeting both the officer and the municipality.
Even if you have a legal right to do something (e.g. taking a picture or standing on a street corner), you don't necessarily have a right to sue the police officer for a wrongful arrest. Police officers and other government employees enjoy considerable immunity from their acts in the course of their job, unless they act with a particular type of intent; the level of intent (purpose, knowledge, or recklessness), I believe, depends on the state jurisdiction.
For Constitutional issues, I imagine it depends on whether you're suing the individual personally or the state agency, and lots of other things.
> why do you need a specific bill to allow you to sue a police officer for arresting you for doing something that isn't a crime?
Laws don't exist in a vacuum devoid of everything but reason. They are crafted to encourage or discourage the norm. If you point a camera at a cop, he will tell you to put it away. If you don't, you will likely be arrested. For what? For being disorderly, since you're not following his instruction.
Now, is the prosecutor going to pursue it? No, because as you said, the law clearly states you can do that. But guess what? Your ass just spent the weekend in jail. And no, you won't be compensated for it.
This law creates a strong dis-incentive for the police officer to do that to you. I only wish similar laws were introduced in my home state of New Jersey.
Read a bit below the Supreme Court decision. This man was abused, arrested, strip searched, and thrown in jail ... because the police officer thought he didn't pay some fine, when he in fact paid it.
What's going on here, as far as I can tell, is Connecticut is preemptively recognizing (by statute) a constitutional right that has been recognized in many courts around the country, but not yet in Connecticut.
As really helpful context, take a quick look through Glik v. Cunniffe, which held that there's a First Amendment right to record police, and that police in the First Circuit are liable for money damages if they arrest someone for recording.[1] Seriously, take a look, it's a great statement of what the Constitution is all about -- the First Amendment stuff starts on page 8.
The background is that police officers are ordinarily not liable for harm committed in the course of doing their job. This is called "qualified immunity," and without it you'd be crazy to be a police officer. But it's "qualified" because they are liable if they violate a "clearly established" right. Under Federal law, if they do that you can sue them for damages.[2]
What Glik held is that the right to record police officers is a clearly established First Amendment right. That means anyone who gets arrested for recording police officers has their clearly established constitutional rights violated, and can sue.
This is probably (hopefully) true anywhere in the country. But so far it's only been tested in the First Circuit and a handful of other courts. What Connecticut is doing here is basically preemptively recognizing the right without the need for a test case in their jurisdiction. It's a very cool move.
(On the other hand, if they don't pass this law, that doesn't mean you can't sue police officers who arrest you for recording. Seriously, read Glik.)
Yes - I realize this is either a cynical political game to make a politician look like a champion of freedom / a salutary reminder to the police about the constitution (delete as appropriate)
Of course any police officer that can't think of a dozen things to arrest someone for - probably wouldn't be on the street anyway!
This morning on my walk into work, I passed two private security guards standing in front of Bank of America on Market Street [1].
I noticed they were standing on little rubber mats to reduce the strain of standing there all day - as I looked at one, I glanced to the other to see if he also had a mat and see if it was the same size as the others'.
As I did so, the short asian guard said very intently at me, in a way he was trying to assert his authoritative role, and said gruffly "GOOD MORNING" and glared at me as I walked by - so I continued staring at him.
I said back to him "What? Do you think I am not allowed to look at you now? What the fuck are you thinking"
He glared at me with his hand on his gun.
I wanted to go back and take his picture, but it would certainly aggravate this already moronic figure with an authority complex.
>As I did so, the short asian guard said very intently at me, in a way he was trying to assert his authoritative role, and said gruffly "GOOD MORNING" and glared at me as I walked by - so I continued staring at him.
If that were my job -to guard a bank or whatever, I too would eye everyone with suspicion, as my default behavior. If I were a greeter, on the other hand, I would trust everyone as my default behavior.
Maybe it's just me, but if I were getting paid to guard, I would at least try to do so. I don't mean I would be a dick to everyone, but I would certainly "watch" as many people as walked into my field of vision.
I'm not sure acting relaxed and friendly and being off-guard would serve me in the capacity of being a guard. (Altho' I'm open to being corrected, if this assumption is incorrect).
If being looked at by a well dressed business man sets off your alarms as though you believe you are being cased, to the point where you feel you need to have your weapon hand at the ready - then screw that.
Screw this guard and every single mentality that supports him and people like him.
I am not a fan of the police state - and the last person I have any respect for is an armed civilian who believes himself to be some arm of the law.
Simply put, he is a hired thug for the bank. I give him no greater mind, or respect because he is wearing military like clothing. Here I went back and took this picture of him:
edit: and to be clear, if I were casing him - he would never know it. If I had bad intentions for him - clearly I would have used a moment like this where he was texting on his phone and oblivious to those around him to spring Operation Currency Liberation.
>If being looked at by a well dressed business man sets off your alarms
If I were a guard, I would not make any assumptions about how people are dressed.
>to the point where you feel you need to have your weapon hand at the ready
I hear you. If I were in your shoes, I too would feel like there was an overreaction. I do some street photography on occasion, and I do get weird looks from guards, on occasion. When you do photography a while, you learn to brush it off. Also, If I were the guard, I would remind myself that an unprepared guard is a potentially neutralized (or dead) guard.
We don't live in Japan where you can pretty much assume, that with very rare exceptions, a firearm will not be produced by an assailant.
>and the last person I have any respect for is an armed civilian who believes himself to be some arm of the law
Ok, we agree there.
>Simply put, he is a hired thug for the bank.
That statement tells me a lot. It's a pretty antagonistic interpretation of his aggressive attitude. Maybe he is maybe he isn't. Do we know he has a criminal record of unprovoked violence toward innocent people?
> if I were casing him - he would never know it.
I'm pretty sure you would not let him on. Do we know others would not be more impulsive?
For all I know he is a dick and does explode violently at others unprovoked. Still, I didn't read any evidence to that effect.
>It's a pretty antagonistic interpretation of his aggressive attitude
I find it ironic that his overly aggressive attitude makes me antagonistic, but I will concede that i get more emotionally heated about such things because i have contempt for his delusion of authority or power.
>I do some street photography on occasion
A while back, while doing some street photography of a homeless woman feeding some pigeons, in an alley not far from where this guard was, a guard emerged from some building telling me I was not allowed to take pictures.
I challenged her saying 'why?' - she said it was a federal law. I asked her if she was a federal employee or guard. She reiterated it was 'federal law' - I said 'but the building behind you isnt a federal building.'
She tried to press her position. I simply said "I don't care if it is a federal law - I refuse to obey it, further, you're not a federal employee and this is not a federal building" I also said "If I am standing on public property, and I can see it, I am allowed to photograph it. Period."
She realized she wasn't going to get me to stop, and left.
> i get more emotionally heated about such things because i have contempt for his delusion of authority or power.
sometime people who have no real power will cling to whatever little power they have and assert the hell of out that (put their hands on their gun, stare at people like he did)
find it is interesting to play along and indulge them, i kind of feel sorry for them, it is the little pleasure in life they have, and i just enjoy seeing them gloat with their fake power trip.
In talking to other photographers what I've learned is that there are two different approaches to take upon confrontation:
One, defend oneself about extant rights as if life depended on it.
Two, take a more practical approach, explain oneself (even if this should not be necessary) and if their objections remains, back down calmly. Fight another day.
While one would prefer that people not try to exert power where none exists, life will proceed smoother, if approach two is taken (as it regard photography)
Approach one can lead to agressive behavior by [guard|police|public] and has resulted in detention/citation. Approach two can and has resulted in some understanding and acceptance.
Confrontation one: You have no right to inquire about what I'm doing while on a public street. You ignorant $%#^# I'm going to call my lawyer, I'm going to sue you for harassment, etc...
Confrontation two: Are you familiar with street photography? It has a long tradition. You might have seen some of the photography on gallery visit. Have you heard of Winogrand, Cartier-Bresson, Frank? Here, I have some examples --carry some print-outs or load some into your DSLR.
If you are making a documentary about the police doing their jobs, then I think you can go ahead. Not sure if you need permission from documentary subjects to show the film, but you can film it.
Yes, those high profile cases always get my blood boiling - far more than the general public's blood, apparently.
My question was supposed to be "When (and why) did police start arresting people for photographing them?" and while I don't have data to support this, I think it was a combination of a) Rodney King, and b) 9/11. The former incident demonstrated the power of personal video recording in creating problems for police. The latter incident gave police more confidence in an broader range of powers, including the tangentially related issue of enforcing ban on the photography of sensitive places (which is, of course, a rather stupid policy, but I digress).
So, greater awareness of risk plus enhanced power yielded the application of that enhanced power to reducing that risk. Could there be anything more reasonable, more human, and more evil?
"...Under the bill, officers cannot be found liable if they reasonably believed that the interference was necessary to (1) lawfully enforce a criminal law or municipal ordinance; ..."
Is there anything that would prevent a police department from convincing their municipality to enact an ordinance stating that recording of police officers was illegal?
I didn't see a specific supremacy clause in the text of the bill, so probably that will happen, then the state will have to go back in a couple years and amend this to say that the state law overrides any municipal law.
The more power you give someone, the more you have to keep an eye on them so they don't abuse that power.
So I hope this spreads to the other states. It should be a federal law. All citizens should have the right to record police officers in public. We pay for them. They're job is to protect us. They are given a lot of freedom and power. And if they step over a line they should be punished the same way we would if we step over a line. Besides, photographing or recording people in public is perfectly legal.
I always thought it was stupid how Britney Spears can be hounded day and night by paparazzi or the news can play your frantic 911 call, violating your privacy when you most expect and need it, yet in Illinois you record one officer while he's giving you a ticket and you get sent to jail with rapists, robbers, and crack heads.
Your all a bunch of morons. Since when in a civilized society to you think it is okay to belittle a guy for doing his job? By your description, he was simply looking at you and did not say anything. You are both allowed to look at each other. Your interpretation of his look is just your opinion but it sounds to me that you were the confrontational one. In what world is it okay for you to challenge anyone about meer look and reply with obscenities "What the fuck are you thinking?" I would have to say that this security guards suspicion about you was dead on. Get a life please and do not waste anyone's time again with your stupidity. I'm sorry I took the time to read your post and am now dumber myself for it.
39 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 83.8 ms ] threadThe thing that always bothers me about the anti-photo/video side uses the bogus argument that people taking photos or videos will interfere with police business. If the photographer is being a material interference, they are committing a crime with or without their camera. Otherwise, just let them be.
that is a common pattern in authoritarian regimes -- a slew of catch-all laws that can be applied selectively. there is "interfering with police business", "interfering with official business", and whole set of others that can always be used to at least get you to the police station.
"if they were acting within their scope of authority and the conduct was not willful, wanton, or reckless."
I think this is pretty much the way it works everywhere in North America - sworn officers are ( rightfully ) immune to prosecution while in discharge of their duties. _unless_ their conduct qualifies as malfeasance. Arguably, ( in my mind at least ) arresting people for simply recording the public conduct of an officer already falls into this territory.
Doesn't this get a bit infinite-set? Do you need a specific bill to allow you to sue a police officer who arrests you for doing anything else that is allowed in the Constitution?
However, one could also argue that this is bad for victims, since the officer's pockets will almost always be shallower than the municipality's. However, if this law were to pass, a smart attorney would probably file a suit against both the municipality and the officer.
These ideas tend to come with unintended consequences.
Throw in the culture of the police corps - and you could see a lot more "not my job" type behavior from the police. This sort of law could very well be interpreted as a slap by an ungrateful populace.
I'm just saying there is a balance here. Us vs. them isn't likely to result in improvement. This law seems very knee-jerky to me.
I can't imagine how terrible that must be.
That's why the law allows officers to be reimbursed by the department if they lose a lawsuit, provided that they were following appropriate guidelines. I think that's a very nice compromise, targeting both the officer and the municipality.
For Constitutional issues, I imagine it depends on whether you're suing the individual personally or the state agency, and lots of other things.
Laws don't exist in a vacuum devoid of everything but reason. They are crafted to encourage or discourage the norm. If you point a camera at a cop, he will tell you to put it away. If you don't, you will likely be arrested. For what? For being disorderly, since you're not following his instruction.
Now, is the prosecutor going to pursue it? No, because as you said, the law clearly states you can do that. But guess what? Your ass just spent the weekend in jail. And no, you won't be compensated for it.
This law creates a strong dis-incentive for the police officer to do that to you. I only wish similar laws were introduced in my home state of New Jersey.
Here is a fine example from my state: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/people_arrested_on_...
Read a bit below the Supreme Court decision. This man was abused, arrested, strip searched, and thrown in jail ... because the police officer thought he didn't pay some fine, when he in fact paid it.
As really helpful context, take a quick look through Glik v. Cunniffe, which held that there's a First Amendment right to record police, and that police in the First Circuit are liable for money damages if they arrest someone for recording.[1] Seriously, take a look, it's a great statement of what the Constitution is all about -- the First Amendment stuff starts on page 8.
The background is that police officers are ordinarily not liable for harm committed in the course of doing their job. This is called "qualified immunity," and without it you'd be crazy to be a police officer. But it's "qualified" because they are liable if they violate a "clearly established" right. Under Federal law, if they do that you can sue them for damages.[2]
What Glik held is that the right to record police officers is a clearly established First Amendment right. That means anyone who gets arrested for recording police officers has their clearly established constitutional rights violated, and can sue.
This is probably (hopefully) true anywhere in the country. But so far it's only been tested in the First Circuit and a handful of other courts. What Connecticut is doing here is basically preemptively recognizing the right without the need for a test case in their jurisdiction. It's a very cool move.
(On the other hand, if they don't pass this law, that doesn't mean you can't sue police officers who arrest you for recording. Seriously, read Glik.)
[1] http://www.righttorecord.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/10-1... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983#As_Later_Amended_a...
Of course any police officer that can't think of a dozen things to arrest someone for - probably wouldn't be on the street anyway!
This morning on my walk into work, I passed two private security guards standing in front of Bank of America on Market Street [1].
I noticed they were standing on little rubber mats to reduce the strain of standing there all day - as I looked at one, I glanced to the other to see if he also had a mat and see if it was the same size as the others'.
As I did so, the short asian guard said very intently at me, in a way he was trying to assert his authoritative role, and said gruffly "GOOD MORNING" and glared at me as I walked by - so I continued staring at him.
I said back to him "What? Do you think I am not allowed to look at you now? What the fuck are you thinking"
He glared at me with his hand on his gun.
I wanted to go back and take his picture, but it would certainly aggravate this already moronic figure with an authority complex.
[1]: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=one+market+sf+ca&hl=en&...
If that were my job -to guard a bank or whatever, I too would eye everyone with suspicion, as my default behavior. If I were a greeter, on the other hand, I would trust everyone as my default behavior.
Maybe it's just me, but if I were getting paid to guard, I would at least try to do so. I don't mean I would be a dick to everyone, but I would certainly "watch" as many people as walked into my field of vision.
I'm not sure acting relaxed and friendly and being off-guard would serve me in the capacity of being a guard. (Altho' I'm open to being corrected, if this assumption is incorrect).
Screw this guard and every single mentality that supports him and people like him.
I am not a fan of the police state - and the last person I have any respect for is an armed civilian who believes himself to be some arm of the law.
Simply put, he is a hired thug for the bank. I give him no greater mind, or respect because he is wearing military like clothing. Here I went back and took this picture of him:
http://i.imgur.com/E0rjw.jpg
edit: and to be clear, if I were casing him - he would never know it. If I had bad intentions for him - clearly I would have used a moment like this where he was texting on his phone and oblivious to those around him to spring Operation Currency Liberation.
If I were a guard, I would not make any assumptions about how people are dressed.
>to the point where you feel you need to have your weapon hand at the ready
I hear you. If I were in your shoes, I too would feel like there was an overreaction. I do some street photography on occasion, and I do get weird looks from guards, on occasion. When you do photography a while, you learn to brush it off. Also, If I were the guard, I would remind myself that an unprepared guard is a potentially neutralized (or dead) guard.
We don't live in Japan where you can pretty much assume, that with very rare exceptions, a firearm will not be produced by an assailant.
>and the last person I have any respect for is an armed civilian who believes himself to be some arm of the law
Ok, we agree there.
>Simply put, he is a hired thug for the bank.
That statement tells me a lot. It's a pretty antagonistic interpretation of his aggressive attitude. Maybe he is maybe he isn't. Do we know he has a criminal record of unprovoked violence toward innocent people?
> if I were casing him - he would never know it.
I'm pretty sure you would not let him on. Do we know others would not be more impulsive?
For all I know he is a dick and does explode violently at others unprovoked. Still, I didn't read any evidence to that effect.
I find it ironic that his overly aggressive attitude makes me antagonistic, but I will concede that i get more emotionally heated about such things because i have contempt for his delusion of authority or power.
>I do some street photography on occasion
A while back, while doing some street photography of a homeless woman feeding some pigeons, in an alley not far from where this guard was, a guard emerged from some building telling me I was not allowed to take pictures.
I challenged her saying 'why?' - she said it was a federal law. I asked her if she was a federal employee or guard. She reiterated it was 'federal law' - I said 'but the building behind you isnt a federal building.'
She tried to press her position. I simply said "I don't care if it is a federal law - I refuse to obey it, further, you're not a federal employee and this is not a federal building" I also said "If I am standing on public property, and I can see it, I am allowed to photograph it. Period."
She realized she wasn't going to get me to stop, and left.
sometime people who have no real power will cling to whatever little power they have and assert the hell of out that (put their hands on their gun, stare at people like he did)
find it is interesting to play along and indulge them, i kind of feel sorry for them, it is the little pleasure in life they have, and i just enjoy seeing them gloat with their fake power trip.
While one would prefer that people not try to exert power where none exists, life will proceed smoother, if approach two is taken (as it regard photography)
Approach one can lead to agressive behavior by [guard|police|public] and has resulted in detention/citation. Approach two can and has resulted in some understanding and acceptance.
Confrontation one: You have no right to inquire about what I'm doing while on a public street. You ignorant $%#^# I'm going to call my lawyer, I'm going to sue you for harassment, etc...
Confrontation two: Are you familiar with street photography? It has a long tradition. You might have seen some of the photography on gallery visit. Have you heard of Winogrand, Cartier-Bresson, Frank? Here, I have some examples --carry some print-outs or load some into your DSLR.
Why (and why) did police begin to think that they could arrest people for taking pictures anyway?
For awhile police officers have been attempting to apply a personal right to privacy to their on-duty activities.
My question was supposed to be "When (and why) did police start arresting people for photographing them?" and while I don't have data to support this, I think it was a combination of a) Rodney King, and b) 9/11. The former incident demonstrated the power of personal video recording in creating problems for police. The latter incident gave police more confidence in an broader range of powers, including the tangentially related issue of enforcing ban on the photography of sensitive places (which is, of course, a rather stupid policy, but I digress).
So, greater awareness of risk plus enhanced power yielded the application of that enhanced power to reducing that risk. Could there be anything more reasonable, more human, and more evil?
Because they didn't want their pictures taken.
Is there anything that would prevent a police department from convincing their municipality to enact an ordinance stating that recording of police officers was illegal?
So I hope this spreads to the other states. It should be a federal law. All citizens should have the right to record police officers in public. We pay for them. They're job is to protect us. They are given a lot of freedom and power. And if they step over a line they should be punished the same way we would if we step over a line. Besides, photographing or recording people in public is perfectly legal.
I always thought it was stupid how Britney Spears can be hounded day and night by paparazzi or the news can play your frantic 911 call, violating your privacy when you most expect and need it, yet in Illinois you record one officer while he's giving you a ticket and you get sent to jail with rapists, robbers, and crack heads.