Should citizens be able to video record police at work?

[BT]

Is there not a presumption of guilt in all this?

They are cops, they must be brutal corrupt thugs, right. They don't need no stinkin rights.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Police may have a right to privacy when they are off duty.

Not when they are on duty. Most of the cops here in Miami that I have come into contact with are smartassed bullies. It would be nice if they really seemed remotely interested in serving or protecting or saving, but such is not the case.

When you report a theft, they treat you like a nuisance.

If they stop you in traffic, they treat you like a criminal.

I have been stopped three times because some smartassed cop did not know how to enter my license plate number, and even after showing the cop my registration and license, was forced to wait for half an hour while they fiddled with their equipment to get it right.

Why would any cop run a make on a twelve year old Hyundai?

[BT]

Police may have a right to privacy when they are off duty.

Not when they are on duty.

Why shouldn't that apply to any public servant or for that matter anyone who cashes a government check?

[kimba1]

actually in a work place privacy rights maybe limited
remember e-mail in monitored
I`m not sure about workplace phone usage
but viideo camera in the workplace in many instance is legal
airports ,hospitals,casinos
sound seems to be the only thing that maybe illegal
that might answer the phone question(just realize)

[Universe Prince]

When a person becomes a policeman or fireman or meter reader do they give up their rights as citizens?

Is there not a presumption of guilt in all this?

They are cops, they must be brutal corrupt thugs, right. They don't need no stinkin rights.

No, and no. There is a difference between a police officer and an ordinary citizen. The police officer is a representative of the government authorized by the government to use force. Indeed using force and authority over citizens is part of the police officer's job. So just on general principles, I'd say citizens ought to be allowed to record on video the actions of on duty police officers. The government is supposed to be responsible to the citizens, is it not?

On duty police officers can record the actions of citizens, indeed most squad cars these days have video cameras installed. So then why should recording police, particularly when the police are also recording the same scene, be a crime? No one is arguing that police officers off duty and/or at home should be video recorded without their permission. This is about on duty police officers in the course of their work. And in the case of the guy in Pennsylvania, a uniformed police officer at that. So there was no question of ruining a drug sting or outing an officer undercover.

And no, I don't believe there is a presumption of guilt here. I simply see no reason why recording obviously overt police action should be a crime.

Should we limit to guys in uniform or would you extend it to undercover cops and detectives?

I think there is a clear difference between recording an undercover cop, knowing it's an undercover cop, doing it deliberately, and recording a unformed officer who has stopped the vehicle one was driving/riding. If one somehow recorded on video an undercover officer without knowing it, then who cares? Chances are, the undercover officer wasn't the target, and the cover won't be blown. The officer is just some person who ended up in the background, like a hundred other people.

[Plane]

Does anyone have a rght to not be photographed or videoed in a public setting?

[Universe Prince]

Does anyone have a rght to not be photographed or videoed in a public setting?

I believe the law generally recognizes the right of individuals to not be directly recorded or photographed without their consent.

[Michael Tee]

<<Is there not a presumption of guilt in all this?

<<They are cops, they must be brutal corrupt thugs, right. They don't need no stinkin rights. >>

I think what you are missing is the authorization of deadly force. 

Even if you assume that cops are no more likely to be brutal corrupt thugs than professors of Greek philosophy, the cops are authorized to use force and the professors are not.  So it behooves society to excercise a little more vigilant surveillance over the activities of a bunch of cops than over a bunch of professors of Greek philososphy.

There's no real purpose in videotaping the random working-day activities of professors of Greek philosophy.  Their privacy would be violated with no corresponding increase in public safety.

The cops, on the other hand, even if as non-violent by temperament as the professors, or no more or less belligerent, are nevertheless armed and possibly dangerous.  A little vigilance here would not be out of line.  Do you really not see the difference made by one group's being armed and authorized to use deadly force in certain situations?

And of course, in real life, cops ARE more brutal and thuggish than professors.  Live in the real world, even though in this particular argument, you don't even have to.

I guess what fascinates me is WHY, when you KNOW that compared to other groups, cops ARE more brutal and thuggish, you persist in pretending that they are not.  What is your point?  Why live in a dreamworld?  Do you really think there are as many victims of unjustifiable violence at the hands of the professors of Greek philosophy as there are at the hands of American cops?

[BT]

The kid has a big problem if the microphone was turned on while filming. Not only has this omnibus wiretap law been uphelp in PA but also Massachusettes.

What was interesting once I dug into the actual law in question which covers expectations of privacy as well as non interception, that Mikey was OK with foregoing the rights of the law abiders in order to catch a few bad guys. I wonder if the dashboard cams in cop cars pick up sound.

The kid would be wise to plead to a lesser charge

[Michael Tee]

<<Mikey was OK with foregoing the rights of the law abiders in order to catch a few bad guys. >>

NO, Mikey was OK with foregoing a portion of the rights of some law abiders (leaving most of them perfectly intact) in order to prevent serious physical harm including death to a few innocent victims of police brutality.

I guess you're OK with letting the poor buggers die, tortured to death for nothing, in order to preserve the dignity of the so-called "good cops" - - who by the way, having sworn to put their own lives at risk to protect our citizens, seem a little too anxious to hang on to a very small part of their privacy rights at the expense of the lives of those very citizens they were sworn to protect.

So . . .  their LIVES are on the line to protect the citizens, but NOT some small portion of their "privacy rights?"

VERY strange.

[sirs]

Yes

[Plane]

Does anyone have a rght to not be photographed or videoed in a public setting?

I believe the law generally recognizes the right of individuals to not be directly recorded or photographed without their consent.

So if I saw a private person jaywalking or dumping toxic waste into the river I should not snap a picture?

[Universe Prince]

Jaywalking, um, why bother? Dumping toxic waste into the river, yeah, probably you ought to get that one. Probably make some money selling it.

[BT]

I guess you're OK with letting the poor buggers die, tortured to death for nothing, in order to preserve the dignity of the so-called "good cops" - - who by the way, having sworn to put their own lives at risk to protect our citizens, seem a little too anxious to hang on to a very small part of their privacy rights at the expense of the lives of those very citizens they were sworn to protect.

The law as written does not disallow filming. It disallows capturing of sound. So if the microphone was off the kid was fine.

However if he was dealing with a homicidal cop, i doubt the camera with or without sound would be much of a match for a well placed bullet to the head.

[Michael Tee]

<<However if he was dealing with a homicidal cop, i doubt the camera with or without sound would be much of a match for a well placed bullet to the head.>>

Always with the extremes.  What if he were dealing with a NON-homicidal cop, like the one who jammed the broken handle of a toilet plunger up Abner Louima's ass, or the sicko thugs who beat Rodney King to a pulp?