Slashdot Log In
Recording Police Misconduct is Illegal
Posted by
michael
on Sat Jul 14, 2001 06:34 AM
from the getting-the-short-end-of-the-nightstick dept.
from the getting-the-short-end-of-the-nightstick dept.
mypalmike writes: "The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has upheld a lower court's decision that it is illegal to record what happens to you when get pulled over by the police. It seems they are citing a rule which essentially prohibits all recording in which the recording is made secretly. Maybe I can sue the local quickiemart for secretly recording me as I purchase a slushie. (Reported in the Boston Globe)." I'm not sure I understand this. Aren't almost all police cars these days equipped with video cameras that record everything occuring in front of the car?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Recording Police Misconduct is Illegal
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 354 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Us laws are wierd. (Score:4)
So what you should have said is "Massachusetts is weird."
And, you'd be right; we have a certain bunch of states that tend to have weird-ass laws that don't reflect the rest of the country. Massachusetts is among them. More power to 'em; they can have whatever laws they want, without affecting me.
-
Re:NO (Score:5)
Do it openly and your gear will be confiscated, and if you're not lucky, other stuff you own too. The cop will probably start looking really hard for stuff to arrest you for too. At any rate, you won't get your recording. SECRETLY is the only way to get your recording and force a certain level of accountability.
put an x10 camera in your car (Score:4)
The Quickiemart Thing Is Different (Score:3)
Bryan R.
Us laws are wierd. (Score:4)
Canada, lots of other places, you can record any conversation so long as at least one party involved knows about it. I believe the same goes for video. (You can't video tape people in a private place without their permission, but if you are one of the people involved...)
Re:Public Place? (Score:3)
> What's the purpose behind laws like that?
Most surveilance-type tapes are made without audio. Most consumer video devices have builtin microphones that are often difficult to disconnect (i.e. requiring [warranty-voiding] disassembly).
In other words it allows professional surveillance videos of public places, while making it hard for the public to do the same on an ad-hock basis.
Ain't public protection nice?
--
Re:Public Place? (Score:3)
As an example, most RCMP are fine people, but I had a run-in with a Sgt. Bruce Waite. Mr. Waite has a history of beating up prisoners -- especially natives. The RCMP has settled a number of times out of court after he was sued for beating up prisoners. (One, for example, had to be medivaced to hospital after the beating he recieved).
After one such lawsuit, they then gave him a Promotion and put him in charge of a detatchment... near yet another native reserve.
And you wonder why minorities sometimes hate police?
--
Nice Summary (Score:3)
David Yas, publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, said the wiretapping law was established to protect citizens against government oppression.
"The preamble to the law said electronic devices are a danger to the privacy of all citizens. This case turns that notion on its head because here we had an individual trying to protect himself from a misdeed on the part of public officials and he's the one who ends up being arrested for it and prosecuted," Yas said.
--
Public Place? (Score:5)
Be interesting to see if police want to set up video cameras with face matching software in Boston in a few months....
Another defence..... (Score:3)
But your honor I was helping the police officer
with HIS DUTY to record any interviews with suspects.
FROM: http://www.commonwealthpolice.com/Free_Stuff/Crim
In Commonwealth v. Diaz, 422 Mass. 269 (1996), the SJC stated that "[w]e decline at this time to adopt or prescribe a rule of general superintendence or of common law suppressing statements taken from a defendant in custody in a police station unless those statements have been electronically recorded. However, defense counsel is entitled to pursue the failure of the police to record a defendant's statements. Counsel may, for example, inquire of a testifying police officer, as happened here, whether he or she was aware of the availability of recorders to use during the questioning of suspects. Counsel may argue to a jury and to a judge as factfinder that the failure of the police to record electronically statements made in a place of custody should be considered in deciding the voluntariness of any statement, whether the defendant was properly advised of his rights, and whether any statement attributed to the defendant was made."
Thinge that make you go hmmm....
Re:Public Place? (Score:4)
I'd also like to address the disgusting stereotype of police I have been reading around here. I'm friends with four police officers in Massachusetts, three of which I see on a weekly basis. All of them are nice people, and none of them abuse their power.
The problem we have in society in relation to the police is that because we get a speeding ticket, we suddenly decide to foster a hatred for the person who gave it to us. Only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of police harbor any racism or abuse their power, most of which residing in towns that only recently obtained indoor plumbing.
Cops choose to do their job knowing that their lives are in danger every day. If this makes it easier for them to do their job, without worrying about some asshole posting a recording of their actions on the Internet without their permission, than I'm for it.
If you don't think there are enough methods to record police officers' actions, then rally your town to pay for every officer to wear a microphone. Just don't be surprised later if it turns out their job performance suffers.
Scared me there for a second! (Score:5)
Whew...
Re:Try this... (Score:5)
Try this... (Score:5)
I'm kinda curious if they would ask you to stop or not. In any event, it seems like a great idea because if there is one thing I have learned is that cops love to twist your words around. I once told a cop my license plate was in my trunk because my front mounting bracket was broken and when the cop recounted my statement it had somehow become that i refused to mount a front license plate to avoid photorader. Jerk.
Just get a bumpter sticker (Score:5)
Seriously.. I've been pulled over a few times, I don't know if they were taping or not, but if they were, I did NOT know about it.. And if you watch these police videos on TV, the drunk people that get pulled over also don't know they're being taped, so how could that be evidence?
--
But it's legal - I swear! (Score:5)
The lights flash, and a siren wails. "Damn cops, they are on to me." As I pull over I flip the face plate down so they can't see I have cajun [sourceforge.net] in the car and quickly hit the hidden record button [linuxvideo.org]
"Do you know why I pulled you over boy?"
"No SIR!"
"You have a picture of a penguin on your car, you know the Linux operating system is illegal don't you??"
"Yes Sir I only run Microsoft product as per the constitutional amendment of 2015, Sir"
"You wouldn't be an illegal coder would you? I see the case of Jolt cola there, and I think I see an O'Reilly book on your back seat, thats damn near probable cause to search your car!"
"But sir, I'm just a lowly cleaner, see all the cleaning supplies. I found this stuff in an storage unit I was cleaning out".
I showed him my pay stub for the idiots I work for. I knew going through those old storage lockers would net me someting eventually. The cop bought it. Berated me for the penguin sign, said even though it wasn't illegal he'd take it off the car. I promised I would. Cop said owning a O'reilley book was illegal even though I knew it wasn't. I tried to argue but got a quick slap in the face. Ended up giving him the book, don't want him opening the trunk. We parted amicably, my cheek still stinging. Wow what a bitch slap that was. He probably dresses in drag on the weekends.
I'll use my new face recgonition software and cross my video with the video feed we have at dumbkin dognuts. Have to keep an eye on this one, he must of spotted that penguin sticker from 200 meters or more.
Over the top can't happen? Well at one time I would have thought that you could always record what a public official does in public. MA is interesting. I guess those laws allowed a senator from the state to get away with murder (or at least negligenct homicide), but prevent a common citizen from protecting himself from a authority figure abusing his/her power.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth"
Re:NO (Score:5)
The extent of your stupidity is frightening.
Firstly, I can hide in the bushes on a sidewalk and secretly record passers-by. If someone is standing on their balcony having sex, I can videotape that as well (so long as it's in plain view).
In the United States, you have the right to privacy where you might reasonably expect it. This includes your home, the trunk of your car, etc. It does not, however, describe a bubble that travels around with you protecting you wherever you go.
The fact that the person being recorded in this instance was a public official only furthers the point. Courts have held time and time again that those who have by their own will become famous have less rights to privacy than normal citizens do. This is because there reasonable expectation of privacy goes down as their fame increases. The premise is basically the same in this case: The police officer cannot, while being paid by taxpayers, expect any form of privacy.
I'd like to find the hookups the Mass. Supreme Court has, because they're smoking some good fucking crack. I hope very much this is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it will no doubt be overturned.
signature smigmature
Secrecy is bad? (Score:3)
That said, IMO, This guy was pretty foolish, taking the tape to the police. On TV, "IA" (Internal Affairs) may look like they're out to get the beat cops for any little thing, but in reality the Blue Wall still thrives, and unless you have a good lawyer they will F**K you. Next time, take it to the PRESS! It may not be "just" but the spotlight of public attention might be the only way to force the police to respond appropriately.
Expectation of privacy (Score:5)
The police are here to server us. They are agents of the people. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has made them agents of power and eliminated the one check-and-balance we had available to us for protection from abuse of power.
Re:yeah, but... (Score:3)
Not exactly. The problem is that not everybody knows of this police surveillance. Therefore, the (relatively few) people that don't know about it ARE being recorded secretly. It's like the Miranda case -- most people knew what their rights were when they were arrested, so it was assumed that everybody knew. But in this case, he didn't, and so he took it to court. Guess what? He won.
---
Re:NO (Score:3)
Re:Public Place? (Score:3)
All right, I'll bite:
> The laws on the books say you can record public places on videotape, but you can not retain copies of audio.
What's the purpose behind laws like that? If I can retain a "memory" of something observed in public, why the hell shouldn't I be allowed to retain a recording, video *or* audio?
Sounds like a choice between black and white because no-one's got the balls to try and sort out the fine grey lines seperating everything. I hate that type of human stupidity.
Re:News for nerds (Score:3)
Re:Try this... (Score:3)
Unfortunately, I don't run into many of the "nice cops" out on the road. I've found that many of the cops in my area get pissed at me no matter how polite I am. Interestingly, I have found that many of the cops in this area (Georgia, USA) react better if I use a southern accent when I speak to them than using my normal (slightly northern) accent.
Dissenting Opinion (Score:3)
In fact, the article states that your point is exactly the defense Hyde tried to use. The 'people should have no expectation of privacy in public' defense, and he lost with it.
Look for a showing of this case in your nearest US Supreme Court.
All Recording Laws at a Glance.... (Score:5)
http://www.rcfp.org/taping [rcfp.org]
Also has links to the relevant state codes concerning this.
Don't just sit till you grow an ulcer either... (Score:3)
This is absolutely rediculous (Score:4)
Re:Try this... (Score:3)
This remindes me of a missed opportunity.
A friend of mine is making a film and they were practicing some of there scenes in Hyde Park which involved the use of BB guns (toys that fire plastic pellets).
Now as the more astute of you may be aware, hand guns were made illegal over here a while ago and the police (rightly in my opinion) take a pretty hard line with threats to the public.
So when someone phoned them and said "There's a man with orange hair shooting people in Hyde Park", what were they supposed to do?
Well what they did was to send in a heavilly armed anti-terrorist-style unit, complete with helicopter to "take-down" these people who, by that time, had begun to play frisbee and were completely unaware that within the space of 10 seconds they would find there faces in the ground with guns pointed at them...
If only they'd got that on film! It could have been great as part of the story line!
Re:yeah, but... (Score:3)
The legal reason for that is that the wiretapping statute only applies to audio recordings, not video, so the police and the department stores can take all the pictures of you they want.
Re:Public Place? (Score:5)
Well, then, as public officials performing a public function in accordance with prevailing laws and regulations, they should have no problem with being recorded in any form.
The problem we have in society in relation to the police is that because we get a speeding ticket, we suddenly decide to foster a hatred for the person who gave it to us.
No, the problem we have in US society is a escalation of violence and power. The police have too much power to make people's lives miserable, criminal convictions are often life-or-death issues, yet such power appears to be necessary because US society as a whole is so violent and disrespectful of the law.
If you don't think there are enough methods to record police officers' actions, then rally your town to pay for every officer to wear a microphone. Just don't be surprised later if it turns out their job performance suffers.
I'd much rather have them work by the book and be less effective than to have a very efficient police force that operates without checks. Have you been in countries where people have traded freedom for security? I have, and it's not pretty. And the US is moving more and more in that direction.
Giving police and the legal system ever more powers is the direct route to a police state. It's a short-term fix for what is a more fundamental problem in US society. Crime needs to be attacked at the root; that is: the US finally needs to get its act together and address its profound social problems. Then the US wouldn't need all-powerful police and harsh punishments anymore.
Re:Try this... (Score:3)
Re:NO (Score:4)
The issue isn't whether you or I put the cops in a different category. The big problem is that many cops see fit to place themselves in a different category. In the real world full of like-minded cops, they have little to fear.
How many times has a cop car without its lights on blow by you doing 90MPH on the freeway? Have you ever seen one of these guys pulled over for speeding?
Re:yeah, but... (Score:3)
Re:Try this... (Score:5)
A lesson for everybody (Score:4)
Don't fool around and try to handle things on your own, or the cops will hang you out to dry.