Should videotaping the police be a crime?

Homeslice · 08-04-2010, 04:04 PM

What idiot would say yes?

By ADAM COHEN Adam Cohen 1 hr 10 mins ago
Anthony Graber, a Maryland Air National Guard staff sergeant, faces up to 16 years in prison. His crime? He videotaped his March encounter with a state trooper who pulled him over for speeding on a motorcycle. Then Graber put the video - which could put the officer in a bad light - up on YouTube.

It doesn't sound like much. But Graber is not the only person being slapped down by the long arm of the law for the simple act of videotaping the police in a public place. Prosecutors across the U.S. claim the videotaping violates wiretap laws - a stretch, to put it mildly.

These days, it's not hard to see why police are wary of being filmed. In 1991, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) beating of Rodney King was captured on video by a private citizen. It was shown repeatedly on television and caused a national uproar. As a result, four LAPD officers were put on trial, and when they were not convicted, riots broke out, leaving more than 50 people dead and thousands injured (two officers were later convicted on federal civil rights charges). (See TIME's special: "15 Years After Rodney King.")

More recently, a New York Police Department officer was thrown off the force - and convicted of filing a false report - because of a video of his actions at a bicycle rally in Times Square. The officer can plainly be seen going up to a man on a bike and shoving him to the ground. The officer claimed the cyclist was trying to collide with him, and in the past, it might have been hard to disprove the police account. But this time there was an amateur video of the encounter - which quickly became an Internet sensation, viewed more than 3 million times on YouTube alone. (Read about the hidden side of the NYPD.)

In the Graber case, the trooper also apparently had reason to want to keep his actions off the Internet. He cut Graber off in an unmarked vehicle, approached Graber in plain clothes and yelled while brandishing a gun before identifying himself as a trooper. (Comment on this story.)

Back when King was beaten, it was unusual for bystanders to have video cameras. But today, everyone is a moviemaker. Lots of people carry video cameras in their pockets, on iPhones, BlackBerrys and even their MP3 players. They also have an easy distribution system: the Internet. A video can get millions of viewers worldwide if it goes viral, bouncing from blog to blog, e-mail to e-mail, and Facebook friend to Facebook friend. (See photos from inside Facebook's headquarters.)

No wonder, then, that civil rights groups have embraced amateur videos. Last year, the NAACP announced an initiative in which it encouraged ordinary citizens to tape police misconduct with their cell phones and send the videos to the group's website, www.naacp.org.

Law enforcement is fighting back. In the case of Graber - a young husband and father who had never been arrested - the police searched his residence and seized computers. Graber spent 26 hours in jail even before facing the wiretapping charges that could conceivably put him away for 16 years. (It is hard to believe he will actually get anything like that, however. One point on his side: the Maryland attorney general's office recently gave its opinion that a court would likely find that the wiretap law does not apply to traffic stops.)

Last year, Sharron Tasha Ford was arrested in Florida for videotaping an encounter between the police and her son on a public sidewalk. She was never prosecuted, but in June, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida sued the city of Boynton Beach on her behalf, claiming false arrest and violation of her First Amendment rights.

The legal argument prosecutors rely on in police video cases is thin. They say the audio aspect of the videos violates wiretap laws because, in some states, both parties to a conversation must consent to having a private conversation recorded. The hole in their argument is the word "private." A police officer arresting or questioning someone on a highway or street is not having a private conversation. He is engaging in a public act.

Even if these cases do not hold up in court, the police can do a lot of damage just by threatening to arrest and prosecute people. "We see a fair amount of intimidation - police saying, 'You can't do that. It's illegal,'" says Christopher Calabrese, a lawyer with the ACLU's Washington office. It discourages people from filming, he says, even when they have the right to film.

Ford was not deterred. According to her account, even when the police threatened her with arrest, she refused to turn off her video camera, telling her son not to worry because "it's all on video" and "let them be who they continue to be."

The police then grabbed her, she said, took her camera and drove her off to the police station for booking.

Most people are not so game for a fight with the police. They just stop filming. These are the cases no one finds out about, in which there is no arrest or prosecution, but the public's freedoms have nevertheless been eroded.

Ford was right to insist on her right to videotape police actions that occur in public, and others should too. If the police are doing their jobs properly, they should have nothing to worry about.

Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board

Avatard · 08-04-2010, 04:14 PM

ACLU heeds to get a piece of this.

This is a fucking human rights issue.

tommymac · 08-04-2010, 04:14 PM

I can see in the case of a plain clothes or possible under cover officer having his face exposed but a regular plain clothes cop, I cant see what the problem is.

Avatard · 08-04-2010, 04:16 PM

The problem is that his vagina was exposed.

z06boy · 08-04-2010, 04:18 PM

No it shouldn't be a crime imho. The guy in that Maryland case isn't in trouble so much for the videotaping...it's the fact that he posted it on youtube that screwed him.

Avatard · 08-04-2010, 04:24 PM

Cops should be videotaped 100% of the time, and the videos screened by civilian review boards.

OneSickPsycho · 08-04-2010, 04:24 PM

They can't have it both ways... if that's the case, and we cannot tape them, they must cease using their dashboard cameras.

I'm usually in here defending police actions because of a lack of evidence and whatnot, but this is utterly ridiculous. The fact that the police would even pursue this course of action completely flabbergasts me.

Avatard · 08-04-2010, 04:29 PM

I'm not flabbergasted, nor surprised in the least. Why would you be?

Most cops are cops simply because they wanna be bullies, free to operate with impunity.

This cop got mad because his ability to be a bully was compromised by having a big spotlight shone on it.

the chi · 08-04-2010, 04:43 PM

I cant believe this has gone so far either. While the guy wasnt obeying the law, neither was the officer. In plain cloths, endangering the life of the person he's pulling over and waving a gun with no provocation?! Really??!!

I hope this guy has great representation, someone needs to step up for him. I'm also surprised that the military hasnt appointed someone from the Legal Office for this guy. Max he should have gotten a ticket for breaking the law, which isnt arguable, but everything else? It's like a bad movie.

Smittie61984 · 08-04-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the chi

I cant believe this has gone so far either. While the guy wasnt obeying the law, neither was the officer. In plain cloths, endangering the life of the person he's pulling over and waving a gun with no provocation?! Really??!!

I'm pretty sure that here in Georgia you don't have to stop for an unmarked police car (just a marked one). I would say you have to get out of the way but I found out today that in GA, you do not have to yeild to an emergency vehicle. Only law regarding that is if an emergency vehicle is pulled off of the shoulder and you have another lane to go into, then you have to move into that lane.

The government has no right to tell you that you can't video tape someone in public. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy watching some of these people who are video taping just to cause trouble get the shit beat out of them.

08-04-2010, 04:04 PM	#1
Homeslice Elitist Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: SF Bay Area Moto: Gix 750 Posts: 11,351	Should videotaping the police be a crime? What idiot would say yes? By ADAM COHEN Adam Cohen 1 hr 10 mins ago Anthony Graber, a Maryland Air National Guard staff sergeant, faces up to 16 years in prison. His crime? He videotaped his March encounter with a state trooper who pulled him over for speeding on a motorcycle. Then Graber put the video - which could put the officer in a bad light - up on YouTube. It doesn't sound like much. But Graber is not the only person being slapped down by the long arm of the law for the simple act of videotaping the police in a public place. Prosecutors across the U.S. claim the videotaping violates wiretap laws - a stretch, to put it mildly. These days, it's not hard to see why police are wary of being filmed. In 1991, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) beating of Rodney King was captured on video by a private citizen. It was shown repeatedly on television and caused a national uproar. As a result, four LAPD officers were put on trial, and when they were not convicted, riots broke out, leaving more than 50 people dead and thousands injured (two officers were later convicted on federal civil rights charges). (See TIME's special: "15 Years After Rodney King.") More recently, a New York Police Department officer was thrown off the force - and convicted of filing a false report - because of a video of his actions at a bicycle rally in Times Square. The officer can plainly be seen going up to a man on a bike and shoving him to the ground. The officer claimed the cyclist was trying to collide with him, and in the past, it might have been hard to disprove the police account. But this time there was an amateur video of the encounter - which quickly became an Internet sensation, viewed more than 3 million times on YouTube alone. (Read about the hidden side of the NYPD.) In the Graber case, the trooper also apparently had reason to want to keep his actions off the Internet. He cut Graber off in an unmarked vehicle, approached Graber in plain clothes and yelled while brandishing a gun before identifying himself as a trooper. (Comment on this story.) Back when King was beaten, it was unusual for bystanders to have video cameras. But today, everyone is a moviemaker. Lots of people carry video cameras in their pockets, on iPhones, BlackBerrys and even their MP3 players. They also have an easy distribution system: the Internet. A video can get millions of viewers worldwide if it goes viral, bouncing from blog to blog, e-mail to e-mail, and Facebook friend to Facebook friend. (See photos from inside Facebook's headquarters.) No wonder, then, that civil rights groups have embraced amateur videos. Last year, the NAACP announced an initiative in which it encouraged ordinary citizens to tape police misconduct with their cell phones and send the videos to the group's website, www.naacp.org. Law enforcement is fighting back. In the case of Graber - a young husband and father who had never been arrested - the police searched his residence and seized computers. Graber spent 26 hours in jail even before facing the wiretapping charges that could conceivably put him away for 16 years. (It is hard to believe he will actually get anything like that, however. One point on his side: the Maryland attorney general's office recently gave its opinion that a court would likely find that the wiretap law does not apply to traffic stops.) Last year, Sharron Tasha Ford was arrested in Florida for videotaping an encounter between the police and her son on a public sidewalk. She was never prosecuted, but in June, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida sued the city of Boynton Beach on her behalf, claiming false arrest and violation of her First Amendment rights. The legal argument prosecutors rely on in police video cases is thin. They say the audio aspect of the videos violates wiretap laws because, in some states, both parties to a conversation must consent to having a private conversation recorded. The hole in their argument is the word "private." A police officer arresting or questioning someone on a highway or street is not having a private conversation. He is engaging in a public act. Even if these cases do not hold up in court, the police can do a lot of damage just by threatening to arrest and prosecute people. "We see a fair amount of intimidation - police saying, 'You can't do that. It's illegal,'" says Christopher Calabrese, a lawyer with the ACLU's Washington office. It discourages people from filming, he says, even when they have the right to film. Ford was not deterred. According to her account, even when the police threatened her with arrest, she refused to turn off her video camera, telling her son not to worry because "it's all on video" and "let them be who they continue to be." The police then grabbed her, she said, took her camera and drove her off to the police station for booking. Most people are not so game for a fight with the police. They just stop filming. These are the cases no one finds out about, in which there is no arrest or prosecution, but the public's freedoms have nevertheless been eroded. Ford was right to insist on her right to videotape police actions that occur in public, and others should too. If the police are doing their jobs properly, they should have nothing to worry about. Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board

08-04-2010, 04:14 PM	#2
Avatard Crotch Rocket Curmudgeon Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Here to integrity Moto: Li'l red baby Ninja Posts: 7,482	ACLU heeds to get a piece of this. This is a fucking human rights issue. __________________ Insert free thought here.

08-04-2010, 04:16 PM	#4
Avatard Crotch Rocket Curmudgeon Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Here to integrity Moto: Li'l red baby Ninja Posts: 7,482	The problem is that his vagina was exposed. __________________ Insert free thought here.

08-04-2010, 04:24 PM	#6
Avatard Crotch Rocket Curmudgeon Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Here to integrity Moto: Li'l red baby Ninja Posts: 7,482	Cops should be videotaped 100% of the time, and the videos screened by civilian review boards. __________________ Insert free thought here.

08-04-2010, 04:29 PM	#8
Avatard Crotch Rocket Curmudgeon Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Here to integrity Moto: Li'l red baby Ninja Posts: 7,482	I'm not flabbergasted, nor surprised in the least. Why would you be? Most cops are cops simply because they wanna be bullies, free to operate with impunity. This cop got mad because his ability to be a bully was compromised by having a big spotlight shone on it. __________________ Insert free thought here.

08-04-2010, 04:14 PM	#3
tommymac Moto GP Star Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 11,022	I can see in the case of a plain clothes or possible under cover officer having his face exposed but a regular plain clothes cop, I cant see what the problem is.

08-04-2010, 04:18 PM	#5
z06boy Letzroll Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Lake Norman area, NC Moto: 07 Red R1 & 07 Blue R6 Posts: 5,265	No it shouldn't be a crime imho. The guy in that Maryland case isn't in trouble so much for the videotaping...it's the fact that he posted it on youtube that screwed him.

08-04-2010, 04:24 PM	#7
OneSickPsycho Ride Like an Asshole Join Date: Feb 2008 Moto: nothing... Posts: 11,254	They can't have it both ways... if that's the case, and we cannot tape them, they must cease using their dashboard cameras. I'm usually in here defending police actions because of a lack of evidence and whatnot, but this is utterly ridiculous. The fact that the police would even pursue this course of action completely flabbergasts me.