Taping the Police

[BOR]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

I retain the Right to protect myself as needed from potential unlawful activity by record it when it occurs in a public place.

also to make money on a breaking news story.

I understand your point. The 1st AM and 4th AM's would seem to protect here, not the 9th though.

The US SC has ruled, and I don't have the case at hand, I will try to be precise, "the passage of the criminal laws is basically a state sovereign position".

Many laws in Title 18 I have read require a FEDERAL element, state laws do not.

 

[Dillon]

I'm not saying I agree with the charge of obstruction, or that a judge will. However, the police have, on repeated occasions, used that very argument to arrest people.

Man Arrested for Photographing Police Officer Who Came Into His House
Flickr: Discussing Man Arrested for Photographing Police Officer Who Came Into His House in Photography is not a crime

Photographer arrested for walking toward police
Police Safety and The Camera The Joe Blow Report 2

Police arrest ABC photographer for filming at the scene of a car crash
Insane Cop Arrests ABC News Reporter For Filming Traffic Accident | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul

Photographer arrested for obstruction for photographing an automated police photo radar camera van
Arizona: Man Taping Photo Radar Protest Arrested

all look unconstitutioal execpt officer going into his home. safety of officer

the one where the Photographer arrested for walking toward police - what about the Duty the state has to insure the safety and Right of the public to move with their private property on the common easement.

the camera is not a weapon, if it is considered one, then we have the right to bear arms (armed with his camera to record public injustice)

its my understanding the Citizen has a Duty to police the police.

 

[KnownOne]

Someone get Dillon an award - she more than deserves it.

 

[justalayman]

=Dillon;2609691]all look unconstitutioal execpt officer going into his home. safety of officer

The article was lacking for information but based on what was written, officer had no right to enter home or arrest for the pictures.

the one where the Photographer arrested for walking toward police - what about the Duty the state has to insure the safety and Right of the public to move with their private property on the common easement.

in this one the officer actually had a legal right to arrest the guy and it had nothing to do with the pictures. He was ordered to stay on the other side of the street (away from the action the police were involved in) and simply decided he had the right to ignore the officers lawful command. The cops apparently never attempted to stop him from taking pictures when he was on the other side of the street. They simply wanted him to remain away from the action. He refused, he got arrested.

the one with the radar; bad arrest, based on the info provided

the one with the reporter; probably bad but not really enough info. The only justification I could see as a possibility is the traffic hazard being on that bridge (which I would strongly suspect there is no legal parking on). If the cop didn't shoo away other bystanders, then it was a bad arrest.

 

[OfficerObie59]

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.

The statutory language relied on for enforcement of these violations, MGL ch. 272, §99(C)(1), makes the crime is a felony, which allows warrantless arrests in presence, as well as in the past upon probable cause.
M.G.L. - Chapter 272, Section 99

Quite frankly as a cop, I assume that everything I do is being recorded at all times. Nonetheless, I have seen arrests for this offense occur with my own eyes. I agree that an officer has no right to privacy while on duty, but if you give the police such a tool, it will be utilized for better or worse.

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.

Usually, district court judges dispose of these cases rather quickly, as the appearance of the charge for recording police seems to irritate most judges for the reasons previously stated by other users here.

In Jackson, the police recorded Jackson's conversation with his knowledge, but without his consent. It was not Jackson recording the police.

I'm waiting for a case where the police arrest someone for openly recording police activity. The article quoted tells of at least three arrests (Simon Gli, Jon Surmacz and Emily Peyton) made of people openly recording the police. In all three cases, the charges were dropped, yet the threat of arrest is still there for openly recording the police in Massachusetts.

In practice, it comes down to it what point would the officer have reasonably known he was being openly recorded.

For example, if a subject has a flip phone open in their hands while seated at a car stop, what is reasonable for the officer to assume? That he or she is being recorded with audio? Or is the subject simply dialing the phone?

If an officer is standing with his back to Person A while interviewing Person B at an incident scene, say, on the sidewalk after responding to a bar fight, and Person A begins an audio/video recording with a Handycam he's holding high in the air before the officer turns around, the crime has already been committed.

And as someone already clarified, the issue is not that consent was not given, but rather that the recordings were done without the officer's knowledge. I know some cops who have failed to make that distinction in debate, but luckily for them have never acted on it. In that instance, you'd be giving a defendant a §1983 case (and thus, your house, car, and other worldly possessions) on a silver platter.