Court: No First Amendment right to videorecord police

Well folks we are slouching towards a police state here in the US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-you-are-challenging-the-police-at-the-time/

 

Any way you could post a link that doesnt require a subscription?

 

The devil's in the details. This ruling is basically saying: "Sure, you can videotape them. You just can't videotape them without cause." The lower court is basically trying to protect the civilian rights of law enforcement officers(who they themselves are also citizens of the country.). It's a hard thing to balance out really, but it's understandable.

 

So basically we can be videoed 24/7 and not expect privacy but police can? Sorry i dont agree.

 

This isn't about sticking a camera in the window of their homes, this is about videotaping them during the performance of their official tax payer funded duties.

 

I think there's a reasonable assumption of privacy in the home(4th Amendment) as far as that translating into the public sphere, has always been very messy. Because I do believe we should have privacy, but cameras for example have caught burglars in the act of stealing. So, where's the balance? We've struggled to find it in a world of technology and also a world where security measures have to be higher than before.

Furthermore, in the example the court gives: Public officers mingling with citizens in an open space like a pool, etc. Does their uniform make them an open target of recording? That would make them lesser than civilians, since civilians aren't necessarily targeted by open cams(not even the ticket cams), it's just all-encompassing. This would be deliberate targeting. That'd get us in a riot, and I think police officers deserve the same protections we're all fighting for.

 

I don’t see anything suggesting the “can’t video without a cause” is limited to police officers. I’d suggest the same principle would apply to anyone being recorded by anyone else. What is a legitimate reason to record someone will differ depending on who is recording and who is being recorded – in general there will be more legitimate reasons for a civilian to record a police officer but also more legitimate reasons for a police officer to record a civilian.

 

BS. Anything anyone does in full view of the PUBLIC is subject to any sort of recording members of the public want to do. Paparazzi make their LIVING based on that exact premise. Police deserve no additional protections under the law with regards to being videotaped.

If this case stands then video surveillance systems will become unconstitutional.

 

Didn't the Supreme Court already rule on this?

 

Obey the law and you wont have a need to video tape anyone . Take a guess who tapes the police ???

 

Someone was bound to use that stale line sooner are later.

Look at it like this, if the police are obeying the law, there should be nothing for them to hide.

 

The stale line happens to be all cops are racist , all cops profile , and the best is " I wasn't doing anything wrong !!

 

Neither do I. Are surveillance cameras illegal the second a cop appears in the frame?

Obviously, this will go to the court of appeals.

 

everyone should have the right to record police as long as they are not directly interfering with their jobs

by that I mean getting too close or in the way.... as long as they are off to the side and not interfering, video away

someday we will all be recording all the time, including the cops with copcams too, so shoudl be allowed

.

- - - Updated - - -

yep, this will never survive the appeals

 

if the cops are obeying the law, they would not fear the camera

guess which cops fear being recorded....


.

 

this is a activist judge trying to get around previous rulings by changing the argument a little

 

As an officer I would say that anyone should be able to record is at anytime while we are on duty. I would just like to see a law requiring a certain distance while recording. If we are busy arresting someone and you want to record, that's fine with me but you do not need to be right up on top of me. It's a safety hazard for everyone involved.

But if it's in public, there is no expectation to privacy.

 

I'm not worried about the cops , it's the thugs you should fear . When is the last time a cop robbed you ?

 

There were no video recorders when the Constitution was written, hence, this will be an issue that the U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide.

 

It is not something that is to be balanced quite frankly. The ruling is plain wrong. It would require you to break the law and then redeem yourself by using the video as criticism. You don't know if the police are doing anything to be criticized for until that thing is actually being done. I do not see how this ruling would ever stand if it reached the SCOTUS.

 

why do cops fear camera's, that is the discussion here

 

It's actually quite simple: Are they performing their duties as an officer or not? Do you think it ethical or right to videotape a couple of cops eating at Dunkin Donuts? So by all means, videotape a violent arrest or a violation. No one's stopping you, but just because they wear a uniform doesn't mean they should have a camera spying on them at all times like THEY'RE the enemy. They're law enforcement officials

IMO, they got the ruling right and it's people not understanding the ruling making a bigger hay than it is.

 

Do you want a camera pointed at you when you are doing your job ? Do you even work ?????

 

When you have someone who can take away your freedom or even you live filming they should be is is a great thing. Filming the police keeps everyone in check too. It gives you evidence if they do so something and it could save the officer's ass if something happens. Aslo they are paid vie taxpayer dolloers so what they do in the course of their official duties is a public interest.

 

Anyone can record anyone in a public place for any reason even when they are eating donuts. Why should cops recieve special protections?