[jonKranked]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/09/police-officers-dont-check-the

tl;dr version: cops don't like being recording during traffic stops, sue people who have done so, even in instances where said recording contradicts police report.

To me it seems like they don't want to be held accountable/responsible for what they do on duty - aka their job. I don't know about you, but the only time I have a reasonable expectation of privacy while I'm at MY JOB is when I'm in the lavatory. Beyond that, I am responsible for and can be held accountable for everything else I do while on the clock (and even off the clock when it comes to IP). The same goes for workers at mcdonalds, computer programmers, athletic trainers, etc. There are obviously exceptions when dealing with things like sensitive internal company data and IP, but even when dealing with that you are still held responsible and accountable.



Manimal - what are your views on this subject?

 

[slyfink]

while you may be right, anyone in any of those jobs would get creeped out if they were filmed all the time.

 

[Silver]

while you may be right, anyone in any of those jobs would get creeped out if they were filmed all the time.

So?

If they have nothing to hide, then why should they worry?

That's what the surveillance state always says to the citizens...

edit: Casino workers and bank workers are filmed all the time. They don't whine like little bitches, and are much less likely to violate civil rights.

 

[IH8Rice]

Maryland is one of 12 states that require all parties to a conversation to give consent before the conversation can legally be recorded. But like nine of those 12 states, Maryland also requires that for the recording to be illegal, the offended party must have had an expectation that the conversation would be private

a situation liked this happened when a motorcyclist was pulled over by a cop and recorded it all on his helmet cam. the cop of course sued him.

does this law also apply to the video cameras cops have in their cruisers?
i always thought that if you are in public, you are fair game... paparazzi make their living like this

 

[sanjuro]

I'm still waiting to hear a current update, but I've been paying attention on the moto forums for a while.

One thing is that if you record or not, maybe putting it on youtube wasn't so smart.

 

[jimmydean]

Catholic priests?

I age, there should be video evidence to support/defend an officers position on duty. If they do no wrong, they have nothing to fear, right? Isn't that what they say about wire tapping?

 

[DaveW]

Catholic priests?

I age, there should be video evidence to support/defend an officers position on duty. If they do no wrong, they have nothing to fear, right? Isn't that what they say about wire tapping?

I believe this argument has also been used by various governments in regard to speed cameras.

 

[dante]

FVCK YEAH!!!!!!


Only applies to MD state law, but things just got a little clearer...

 

[rockofullr]

But Harford County State's Attorney Joseph I. Cassilly said the ruling "will make it more difficult for the police to do their jobs" and warned that people armed with cameras might soon point their lenses at car accident scenes "and eavesdrop as police take medical history" from patients.

Worst defense ever.

 

[sanjuro]

Ask Johannes Mesherle about it.

 

[Toshi]

FVCK YEAH!!!!!!


Only applies to MD state law, but things just got a little clearer...

"2008 Honda CR-V motorcycle"

 

[Pesqueeb]

Ask Johannes Mesherle about it.

Tape doesn't show the whole story.

 

[JohnE]

Act ethically, be professional, you have nothing to worry about. What if teh Cop records the motorist? Quid pro what?

 

[Pesqueeb]

I was just listening to a story on NPR's "this American Life" about a cop who recorded other cops doing shady stuff. Apparently that doesn't fly either.
Long Article from Village Voice about the officer.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-15/news/adrian-school-craft-nypd-tapes-whistleblower/

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I was just listening to a story on NPR's "this American Life" about a cop who recorded other cops doing shady stuff. Apparently that doesn't fly either.
Long Article from Village Voice about the officer.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-15/news/adrian-school-craft-nypd-tapes-whistleblower/

Serpico lives on.

 

[manimal]

i don't have a problem with it [being recorded]. heck..i work in the projects so cell phones are coming out every time we get into something good...although i have yet to see a vid of myself show up on youtube. perhaps because we do our job and nothing more/less so the videos aren't newsworthy?
i do run my mouth a lot but it's all in good humor and in retort to some jesting by the regulars....
"hey officer manimal...your mom said to tell you hi when i was at your house last night.."

"i know, my brother already told me you were there and that you prefer the taste of the grape flavored condoms these days"

most of the guys that test my mouth are willing to take what i can dish out in fun as i do with their insults towards me. we have a very good relationship with our citizens, particularly in the projects, because we treat everyone fairly. you can't be a hardass all the time and expect to earn someone's respect...the badge only goes so far. today's suspect is tomorrow's victim so it all works out in the end when you treat people right.

the only concern i see with the recording issue is that civilians aren't restricted to the same evidenciary standards as us when it comes to digital media. we have to prove that our video/audio evidence is unedited but any civilian can edit a video in their favor and send it to the news agencies as an original. i don't know how to fix that problem but i don't know if barring all recording is the way to go.

 

[jonKranked]

manimal, can you clone yourself so we have more good cops in the world?


also, news agencies != judicial system. Yea, its not good to manipulate public opinion, but as court evidence I think it would be more important, and more likely to be exposed as tampered.

 

[DaveW]

the only concern i see with the recording issue is that civilians aren't restricted to the same evidenciary standards as us when it comes to digital media. we have to prove that our video/audio evidence is unedited but any civilian can edit a video in their favor and send it to the news agencies as an original. i don't know how to fix that problem but i don't know if barring all recording is the way to go.

Yeah Subjective editing is a problem, but making recording illegal will create more of a problem I recon.

"i know, my brother already told me you were there and that you prefer the taste of the grape flavored condoms these days"

most of the guys that test my mouth are willing to take what i can dish out.

quoted just for the sheer out of context edited fun of it.

 

[Silver]

the only concern i see with the recording issue is that civilians aren't restricted to the same evidenciary standards as us when it comes to digital media. we have to prove that our video/audio evidence is unedited but any civilian can edit a video in their favor and send it to the news agencies as an original. i don't know how to fix that problem but i don't know if barring all recording is the way to go.

Has this ever happened?

As opposed to the police doing something like turning off dashboard cams, losing video footage, covering up security cameras during a raid...you know, all things that have actually happened?

 

[JohnE]

Silver, do you like anything or anybody? You really waste alot of energy hating everything, dont you?

 

[Silver]

Silver, do you like anything or anybody? You really waste alot of energy hating everything, dont you?

Simple question. I'll pencil your answer in as a "no"...

 

[manimal]

Has this ever happened?

As opposed to the police doing something like turning off dashboard cams, losing video footage, covering up security cameras during a raid...you know, all things that have actually happened?

yes, numerous times. the most prominent one i can remember is the cop in [ i think] LA getting his butt handed to him in a fight/wrestling match on the side of the road. he finally gets an arm free and starts wailing on the bad guy until he and a good samaritan can get the bad guy under control. the initial story on the news went with the "brutality" angle showing only the footage of the officer hitting the suspect. it wasn't until later, when the entire video, showing the officer losing the fight early on, was aired that public opinion changed.

i'll see if i can track down the two different versions. i know we have both news versions in a training course here at the PD but hopefully i can find a link online.

 

[blue]

today's suspect is tomorrow's victim so it all works out in the end when you treat people right.

 

[MikeD]

Laws barring recording of the police in public are bull****. The police can watch or record you in public. You can watch or record the police. The SCOTUS needs to overturn these laws, fast.

Recording of the cops' points of view can be beneficial for all parties...but it can also lead to a few situations that are bad for good cops. The public, and thus juries, can be led to believe that if it wasn't on the camera, it didn't happen, and that the camera's point of view, with rewind and pause, was the cops' perception of the situation at the time.

But it's also great for cops who are accused of things they simply didn't do or say, and for people who 1) would have been victims of police misconduct if not for the prospect of the act being recorded and thus deterred or 2) were victims of police misconduct and had it recorded. (Then again, won't bad cops simply find ways to circumvent these cameras...?)

Contrary to Silver's belief that I always defend cops (though I always do call for a complete understanding of the situation before making a judgement) and never believe a video, I do think videos can be an important or the most important aspect of understanding any particular incident. Conversely, it's possible they're not. Everything's got to be taken on an individual basis and with all available evidence.

The solution to bad cops turning off dash cams, losing footage, or otherwise being dirty is greater accountability and better management, not necessarily recording more.


Gun-mounted video cameras, which I've seen suggested elsewhere, are a horrible idea, though...they'd only catch a very narrow view of what happens AFTER a gun comes out of its holster, when it's the situation leading up to it that needs often needs the most consideration. Helmet cam, or voice and radio recorders, are more reasonable and useful ideas.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Gun-mounted video cameras, which I've seen suggested elsewhere, are a horrible idea, though...they'd only catch a very narrow view of what happens AFTER a gun comes out of its holster, when it's the situation leading up to it that needs often needs the most consideration. Helmet cam, or voice and radio recorders, are more reasonable and useful ideas.

I could watch tazer-cam footage all day long.

 

[manimal]

Helmet cam, or voice and radio recorders, are more reasonable and useful ideas.

i'm working on a grant to get hero HD's for our bike unit. lots of good uses for those, both serious and fun

 

[syadasti]

i'm working on a grant to get hero HD's for our bike unit. lots of good uses for those, both serious and fun

In the UK they trialed and rolled it out supposedly but not just for bike cops:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/21/eight-london-cops-to-get-head-mounted-video-cameras/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/12/police_helmet_cameras/

The Home Office is to provide £3m to equip police forces across the country with head camera technology, following successful trials in Plymouth.

It said an evaluation of the pilot run by Devon and Cornwall Constabulary showed that, compared with incidents when the cameras were not used, the body worn video devices led to an increase in the number of convictions of offenders. Their footage provided clear evidence that made it difficult for offenders to deny their involvement, leading to less paperwork for the police, earlier guilty pleas, less time spent in court and an increase in convictions.

For the year long pilot 300 Plymouth police officers were trained to use any of the 50 cameras available during day and night patrols. The evaluation found that violent crime was reduced by 8 per cent in the pilot sectors, compared to a 1 per cent reduction across other sectors. The number of incidents in which people were wounded were reduced by 18 per cent in pilot areas of the city, compared to no change in other areas.

Plymouth police using the new technology increased their detection of violent crime by 40 per cent and arrests for violent crime went up by 85 per cent.

 

[manimal]

In the UK they trialed and rolled it out supposedly but not just for bike cops:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/21/eight-london-cops-to-get-head-mounted-video-cameras/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/12/police_helmet_cameras/

good find thanks!