Court: No First Amendment right to videorecord police

That is were that reasonable space thing comes in. Filming across the street were the police arrest someone is reasonable.

- - - Updated - - -

As long as the police are doing their jobs correctly, they should have nothing to fear.

 

Anyone with the desire to video them? There are literally thousands of videos of police abusing their power or undertaking straight up corrupt actions.

 

I don't fear the camera I welcome them.

 

I agree with you.

This conservative court ruled otherwise.

If you want protection you have to say the magic words. That's insane

 

This ruling really does nothing as long as you see it you can film it. This probably will be turned over. This has nothing to do with protecting police at all. Sorry but it is a first amendment right the court igonored precident. I do wonder what the details are in the case

 

Yes they did and that ruling takes precidence.

 

The courts have already decided this. Public servants do not have a right to privacy while on the job. They work for the tax payer .

 

ok ,moot point , done .

- - - Updated - - -

If you say so .

 

They work for the government, and they serve and protect the government even to the detriment of the peaceful taxpayer who violates some statute.

If we followed your reasoning, no government official could expect any sort of privacy from public scrutiny while on the job, including soldiers and national security organizations. While I am fine with that, are you?

 

The practice in my state is for police to simply arrest someone who is hindering them. Photographing, recording police at work isn't an offence and nor should it be. But if the person doing so makes the job of the police (who must actually be carrying out specific duty) more difficult then they get pinched.

 

you don't? yeah all cops are good guys, and no preachers molest children.. the world is perfect... not

- - - Updated - - -

I do as well, I like seeing camera's at places I go, keeps away the rift raft

and most people will treat cops better if they know the cop has a copcam too, it's a win\win (well for the good guys)

.

 

Yeah , and OJ wasn't guilty ...say old say BS .

 

Cops have robbed people THOUSANDS of times and places.

Google cases like "La Rampart divisions" that was first noticed when cop and her girlfriend robbed a bank, and dozens of other cases were discovered including a pair of patrolmen who stole drugs from evidence lockers, and had the their gang buddies selling the drugs in the street. What was particular precious is that the patrolmen would shoot another dealers who were drug competitors stepping on the cops turf, and included shooting down and killing a poor working bricklayer coming home from work when the cops had mistaken from another dealer.

 

I guess we're not counting revenue-generating policing now? *cough*Ferguson*cough*

 

http://filmingcops.com/woman-beaten/
just one of millions of examples
yep, them wunerful pigs should be protected at all costs

 

Most of the working world has camera's pointed at them while they work.

Here's what a cop fears, their word which is taken as GOLD and absolute truth by the DA and in a court room being cut down by actually recording of an event.

But they don't even have to fear video and audio evidence really, the DA's and courts still give an officers first person accounts of a story the benefit in light of staggering audio and video evidence. They just claim "you didn't catch the right angle and ah ah ah the audio didn't pick up what I heard with my super sonic ears": And of course the DA doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) so they are good with it and they present it is "well we can't really tell from the undisputable 21st century technology over the word of a human being trying to save their ass with some lies. . .case dismissed.

 

I retired from full time police work in 2008 after about 31 years on the street. I couldn't have cared less if someone was videoing me out on the street. As long as they stayed out my way, I didn't care, and I never worried about it. A higher court will probably not agree with this lower court, but even if the Court of Appeals or the SC upholds this decision, government should just leave video recorders alone. In this day and age, everyone has a video cam on them (their I-Phone), so why create a burdensome and unenforceable law by trying to prohibit videoing the police? Makes no sense.

My two cents ....

 

***cough** "Michael thug Brown" **cough****

 

Do the People also have a right to not be "video recorded" in that same manner? If not, why are Only functionaries of the State allegedly given privileges and immunities, not granted on that same basis, to all citizens of our State and republic?

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

1929 already happened; only the right wants 1984 for their fantastic, benefit.

 

If the police follow the law, then why do they care about being videotaped.

 

If everyone followed the law we wouldn't need police .

 

so, simply having Police, means the People are just a bunch of Illegals waiting for something to engage in?

 

Thxs >>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<< for that little tidbit, but since everyone doesn't that is why we have police who are suppose to UPHOLD the law and since that is what they are paid to do what is the problem of videotaping them unless they are BREAKING the law.

 

There can be no, right to privacy, in any office of public trust.

 

There isn't and will continue not to be. This is one low-level judge trying to get around SCOTUS and existing case law. It won't survive it's first appeal...