Taping the Police

[CdwJava]

At most there might be an issue for the agency to reinforce or remind officers of how to conduct themselves off duty, but I suspect a 4 second delay is NOT going to be all that critical - especially since nothing came of it and the weapon was never directed at the motorcyclist.

I find it appalling that the cyclist got charged for taping the contact (if he did) but that is the unfortunate status of the law there I guess. At least, for now.

 

[dlw99]

Very Interesting. In Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland it would have been illegal to video tape cops throwing a black man down and shooting him in the back on accident.

Luckily, that is still legal in CA.

In Massachusetts it would have been perfectly legal. Cops have no expectation of privacy either in public or while committing a crime.

 

[Zigner]

patrol car behind the guy? All I saw was the car that pulled around the cop. From what I could tell, that was the car in the shot where the biker looked behind him.


and the cop pulled his gun at 3:16, took 3 or 4 steps towards the biker, ordered the guy to get off the motorcycle three times as he walked and then ID's himself, verbally, as state police at 3:20.

No, the cop did not ID himself concurrently with unholstering his firearm. There was a full 4 seconds between the time if pulling his gun and identifying himself as state police.

At 3:21, the officer looked to his left (behind the biker) - I am "assuming" that he was looking at the patrol car pulling up. The car & officer are CLEARLY visible at 3:36 (yes, 1 second before the tape ends)

 

[Mass_Shyster]

In Massachusetts it would have been perfectly legal. Cops have no expectation of privacy either in public or while committing a crime.

Do you have any support for that?

 

[dlw99]

Do you have any way to impeach the statement?

 

[Zigner]

Do you have any way to impeach the statement?

Your penchant for giving false/inaccurate/misleading information impeaches your statement.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Do you have any way to impeach the statement?

Police fight cellphone recordings - The Boston Globe

 

[dlw99]

Whatever. I videotape cops in Massachusetts every day.
I'm in their CAD system as having cameras.

What's at issue here is only the audio, as per wiretapping statute because we are an all consent state.

The audio can be used when there is no expectation of privacy.

If I call the cops right now, they will inform me upon answering the phone that I am being recorded. If I chose to speak, I will be giving them implied consent to continue recording. My other choice is to hang up.

Cops have no expectation of privacy when they're beating or shooting some guy on a public road.

However, you may not secretly record a cop, especially in Massachusetts, or you WILL GO TO JAIL.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

• The audio can be used when there is no expectation of privacy.
• Cops have no expectation of privacy when they're beating or shooting some guy on a public road.
• However, you may not secretly record a cop, especially in Massachusetts, or you WILL GO TO JAIL.

If the first two statements are true, the third cannot be.

 

[dlw99]

If the first two statements are true, the third cannot be.

Massachusetts and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where “no expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not).

I videotaped the cops in the 4th of July Parade, and didn't fear getting arrested.

If I were pulled over and had my camcorder recording under my jacket, I am certain I would be arrested if I got caught here in Massachusetts.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested.

This is where the controversy lies: The MA wiretapping law prohibits secret recordings. I'm not convinced that recording the police while holding the recording device in the open is a violation of that law. I haven't found an SJC case precisely on point. They all pertain to secret recordings. In all the cases where an arrest has been made for openly recording the police (that I'm aware of) the case never got very far.

Under the current interpretation of the law by many police departments (including Boston), you could have been arrested for taping the July 4th parade precisely because you did not have consent.

 

[justalayman]

At 3:21, the officer looked to his left (behind the biker) - I am "assuming" that he was looking at the patrol car pulling up. The car & officer are CLEARLY visible at 3:36 (yes, 1 second before the tape ends)

I do see the cop car at the end. Yes, I missed it.

I can't tell if that was the car he saw when he turned around in mid video or not. Could be but I can't tell.

Due to that, I would suspect he figured the guy in front was a cop. I still think the cop should ID himself immediately just to avoid some guy claiming he didn't know and something wild happening.

 

[Some Random Guy]

This is where the controversy lies: The MA wiretapping law prohibits secret recordings. I'm not convinced that recording the police while holding the recording device in the open is a violation of that law.

Ah, but if you openly record the police, and they do not consent to being recorded, then their only recourse is to remain silent. Being forced to remain silent interferes with their official duties, therefore the police will charge you with obstruction. At least that's their argument.

This is one situation calling out for clarification from the legistlature. Otherwise we will just be stuck with the status quo of annoying in your face camera freaks and silence through indimitation by the police.

 

[dlw99]

I'd rather have a videotape of an incident than have to rely on a police report every single time - as a victim, defendant, or juror.

If the police can have cameras in their cruisers and at their cop shops, citizens should have the right to record activities of the police in public.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

If the police can have cameras in their cruisers and at their cop shops, citizens should have the right to record activities of the police in public.

I agree with you. After a little more research, it appears that the SJC held that for a recording to be legal under Mass. Gen. Laws. Ch 272 Section 99, knowledge of the recording is all that is required, not consent. Com. v. Jackson, 370 Mass. 502, 349 N.E.2d 337 (1976).

One if these cases will eventually make it to the SJC.