In what is sure to be hailed as a giant leap forward in the work against corrupted police officers, Washington D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier has laid down a set of guidelines for her officers to follow in the event of having their actions recorded.
To begin with, asking a citizen to stop recording violates their first amendment rights, and in no way should they be asked to stop, even if their tactical view is compromised because of it. The argument that people filming cops get in their way and bring danger to a situation is not only an outright and bald-faced lie, it is also the exact opposite of the truth. More cameras, (unlike, perhaps say, more guns) is bringing about a safer and more accountable society. No longer can the police hide their crimes.
The statement goes on to outline specific examples, saying that officers could not ask a citizen journalist for their I.D., hamper them from filming in any way, or arrest them.
The full statement, from Timothy Lee at Ars Technica:
“A bystander has the same right to take photographs or make recordings as a member of the media,” Chief Lanier writes. The First Amendment protects the right to record the activities of police officers, not only in public places such as parks and sidewalks, but also in “an individual’s home or business, common areas of public and private facilities and buildings, and any other public or private facility at which the individual has a legal right to be present.”
Lanier says that if an officer sees an individual recording his or her actions, the officer may not use that as a basis to ask the citizen for ID, demand an explanation for the recording, deliberately obstruct the camera, or arrest the citizen. And she stresses that under no circumstances should the citizen be asked to stop recording.
That applies even in cases where the citizen is recording “from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties.” In that situation, she says, the officer may ask the person to move out of the way, but the officer “shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording.”
As a point of distressing information, the day after the statement was released, a man in D.C.’s phone was taken from him after photographing an officer. Though the phone was apparently given back to him, it’s memory card was not. D.C. officials say they are looking into the matter.
-Ethan I. Solomon
-Pictured is Washington Chief of Police Cathy Lanier
Amazing!
A cop with a brain. Not very common nowadays.
I don’t see what difference this is going to make. The pigs in Anaheim, California murdered Manuel Diaz in broad daylight right in front of a group of witnesses.
Poor Maurice, I think you need a comfort pet, maybe a beagle…
Just remember not to act like that idiot filming construction zone citations. Just record what happens and stay out of it. If cops are as bad as we say they are, and far too many are, then the film will tell the truth. No need to goad them on.
Cops obeying the law and acting with respect and dignity to citizens should be treated with dignity themselves, regardless of what any one individual thinks of the law they are enforcing. You don’t like drug laws or traffic laws, complain to the law makers, not the officer. You have no idea what his opinion is. And legally his opinion means nothing outside the voting booth.
The goal isn’t to get rid of cops, it is to increase accountability and remind them they serve, not rule.
Am I supposed to believe this post from the person that said SF Police executed a handcuffed man? If someone else put it on here I might believe it but I will never believe anything else that liar puts on here. It might be true but I will not believe it just because he put it on here.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/jerome-vorus-wins-settlement
Here is the story from the Carlos Miller site with which this article is based on.
…as per usual, you left a few parts out…
“Lanier’s directive addresses another scenario that is becoming increasingly common: a civilian takes a photograph or recording that a police officer believes could constitute evidence of a crime. Under Lanier’s directive, an individual cop cannot take a recording device away from a citizen without his or her consent. “Consent to take possession of a recording device or medium must be given voluntarily,” she writes.
In the event that the cop believes the recording is needed for evidence but its owner isn’t willing to part with it, the officer is required to call his supervisor. The device or recording media can be seized only if the supervisor is present, only if “there is probable cause to believe that the property holds contraband or evidence of a crime,” and only if “the exigencies of the circumstances demand it or some other recognized exception to the warrant requirement is present.”
In non-emergency situations, Lanier directs her subordinates to obtain a search warrant before accessing any information on a seized device. And, she writes, “photographs or recordings that have been seized as evidence and are not directly related to the exigent purpose shall not be reviewed” by the police.
“Hello, Sarge, ‘they’ filmed this person’s *insert allegation* and refuse to hand over their cell/camera, and it’s clear evidence of said allegation. You’ll seize it? Hey, thanks Sarge…”
The important thing to remember about this story is this guy was not suspected of a crime, he walked up and started to take photos. He was questioned about it and the first cop told him no he was not being detained. Then a 2nd cop showed up and detained him without cause because he broke no laws and as the story states she believed it was illegal to record her without her permission which we all know outside of Illinois is not true. The fact that he received a settlement and there was 6 pages of directives issued to police speaks to the validity of his claim. To me this was a case of police needing to be trained better on this first amendment issue esp when the person is someone jjust taking pics and being grilled why they are doing such!!
“Lanier’s directive addresses another scenario that is becoming increasingly common: a civilian takes a photograph or recording that a police officer believes could constitute evidence of a crime. Under Lanier’s directive, an individual cop cannot take a recording device away from a citizen without his or her consent. “Consent to take possession of a recording device or medium must be given voluntarily,” she writes.
————————————————————–
Here is a thought. Cops have computers in their cars now. How about they can ask for a COPY of the video, leaving the video in the possession of the owner.
I doubt anyone would be unwilling to allow the cop to download a video of an incident.
As a point of distressing information, the day after the statement was released, a man in D.C.’s phone was taken from him after photographing an officer. Though the phone was apparently given back to him, it’s memory card was not. D.C. officials say they are looking into the matter.
—————————————————–
Then the Pig needs charged with theft. It’s the only way some of them will learn rules apply to them. The laws about taking things that don’t belong to you even apply to cops. And as cops say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Gutsy and right. For more on this and why, read my new book and visit my blog, “Arrested Development: A Veteran Police Chief Sounds Off About Protest, Racism, Corruption and the Seven Steps Necessary to Improve Our Nation’s Police” (Amazon.com). My blog is at http://improvingpolice.wordpress.com/ where I discuss these and other current police improvement issues. Good luck and may we all experience not just good but great policing!
Don’t give Lanier credit for this – this is the result of a settlement and the result of a legal challenge for the District’s cops behaving badly with regards to taping/filming/shooting. She is not “a cop with a brain,” she’s a police official doing what they have to do in order to make a lawsuit go away.
This is, quite literally, the least she could do. Not a gesture of goodwill or an embracing of freedom.