Last spring at Picnic Day, the Vanguard decided that one of the best ways to follow what was going on was to drive around, spot law enforcement vehicles pulling people over and film the encounters.
During that evening, we had two encounters with police, neither of them local police. One was on Second Street, where an officer, noticing that we were shooting an arrest with a small, handheld Flip Camera, asked for our identification. He was a UC Police Officer who had been imported for the day.
Later that evening, across from Community Park on F Street, the California Highway Patrol flashed lights in our car, preventing us from filming their arrest of a presumably drunk driver.
This was mere nuisance. The debate is raging in other locations about the right of citizens to film police encounters.
Last week CalAware noted the increasing tension between journalists and police, as the ACLU in Southern California has filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office for the interference of freelance photographers.
An LA Times blog from October 27 notes that the Sheriff’s Department and several deputies, “harassed, detained and improperly searched photographers taking pictures legally in public places.”
Writes the Times: “The federal lawsuit alleges the Sheriff’s Department and deputies ‘have repeatedly’ subjected photographers ‘to detention, search and interrogation simply because they took pictures’ from public streets of places such as Metro turnstiles, oil refineries or near a Long Beach courthouse.”
“Photography is not a crime. It’s protected 1st Amendment expression,” said Peter Bibring, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. “It violates the Constitution’s core protections for sheriff’s deputies to detain and search people who are doing nothing wrong. To single them out for such treatment while they’re pursuing a constitutionally protected activity is doubly wrong.”
Mr. Bibring added that “the policy and practices of the Sheriff’s Department reflect a widespread misuse of ‘suspicious activity reporting’ under the auspices of Homeland Security and counterterrorism.”
Meanwhile, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Captain Mike Parker defended the action, claiming it is a deputy’s duty to ask questions.
“Should we really ignore suspicious activity?” Captain Parker asked. “We have an obligation to the public to answer questions and we are going to ask people why are you taking that picture. It is our duty to protect the public.”
Is a journalist with a valid credential taking pictures really a suspicious activity? My press credential did not stop the officer from continuing to take down my information, interfering with my ability to do my job.
George Washington Legal Professor Jonathan Turley writes today, “Twenty years ago, as Rodney King was beaten by Los Angeles police officers, a private citizen in a nearby apartment turned on his video camera. Largely because of that tape, four officers were criminally charged. In July, a homeless schizophrenic man died after a police beating in Fullerton. Audio from a cellphone video caught Kelly Thomas’ cries for his father and helped force an investigation that resulted in a first-degree murder charge against one police officer.”
“The increasing availability of cellphones and video cameras has fundamentally changed police abuse cases, creating vital evidence in cases that were once dismissed as matters of conflicting accounts between officers and citizens,” he writes.
But that is the real problem, with that change, officers are fighting back, by threatening to arrest people who have engaged in no other “crime” than to film them.
“In many states, prosecutors have fought to support such claims and put citizens in jail for videotaping officers, even in cases of police abuse,” Professor Turley writes.
For example, Mr. Turley cites the case of Emily Good, who was arrested after videotaping the arrest of a man at a traffic stop in Rochester, NY.
Ms. Good was filming from her front yard when an officer is heard saying to her, “I don’t feel safe with you standing behind me, so I’m going to ask you to go into your house.”
When she continued to film, the officer said, “You seem very anti-police,” and arrested her.
In some cases, the courts have stepped in, rejecting arguments by the police and finding that police had violated basic constitutional rights.
But he also notes the example of Richard Posner, whom he calls, “the intellectual leader of conservative judges and scholars who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago.”
Professor Turley writes, “Posner shocked many last month when he cut off an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed suit to challenge an Illinois law preventing audio recording of police without their consent.”
He continues, “The ACLU lawyer had uttered just 14 words when Posner barked: ‘I’m not interested, really, in what you want to do with these recordings of peoples’ encounters with the police.’ Posner then added his concerns about meddling citizens: ‘Once all this stuff can be recorded, there’s going to be a lot more of this snooping around by reporters and bloggers…. I’m always suspicious when the civil liberties people start telling the police how to do their business.’ “
Judge Posner is not alone, as many other judges “may privately share Posner’s view of such confrontations.”
Mr. Turley writes, “And the near-total silence of politicians in dealing with the question of the public’s right to record what they see and hear suggests that many legislators may also find these cases inconvenient.”
He adds, “Actions against citizen videographers run against not just the Constitution but good public policy. Yet, without a videotape, Rodney King would have been just another guy with a prior record claiming abuse, against the word of multiple officers.”
Mr. Turley concludes, “The outcome once was all but inevitable: no tape, no case. As long as police abuse is out of sight, it can also be out of mind. If successful, the backlash against citizens recording police could guarantee that Rodney King is never repeated – the officers’ trial, that is.”
In Davis, Chief Landy Black has made it a point to tell me that his department has not attempted and will not attempt to stop such recordings. That is a commendable view. However, it is one that appears to be increasingly in the minority.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
OK… you film an encounter with law enforcement and a suspected law-breaker… will you share that “free speech” record with both the defense and the prosecution? In a child-rape case?
If it’s subpoenaed.
fair enough…
Yesterday I listened to a report on NPR about police now having video cameras that they clip onto their uniforms whenever they make an arrest. According to a police chief, it is to protect the officers against false charges. How ironic it is that the police feel they have the right to videotape all of us, but we have no right to videotape them. I would like to hear what chief Black has to say about this issue.
Omit the last sentence in my post above. I only scanned the article before posting. Not wise.
You have mixed several issues within this article –
1) Filming an oil refinery could be a security problem. This could be rightfully considered suspicious activity, in light of the threat of terrorism. I see nothing wrong with law enforcement asking questions of the photographer who is taking pictures of an oil refinery, to make sure there is nothing nefarious going on. And the photographer should not have a problem with it.
2) Filming police if the photographer is getting in the way of the police doing their job, including keeping the photographer safe from harm. Again, I see nothing wrong with law enforcement interfering in such a situation.
3) Filming police making an arrest, where the photographer is in no way interfering with the police doing their job. I see no reason for the police to get involved whatever.
I do not believe in a blanket okay for photographers to take pictures in public under any circumstances, which is what this article seems to be saying. IMO, that is not a responsible position…
[quote]In Davis, Chief Landy Black has made it a point to tell me that his department has not attempted and will not attempt to stop such recordings. That is a commendable view. However, it is one that appears to be increasingly in the minority[/quote]
Since apparently the resource police are watching, got any credible verifiable support for the above? Jus wonderin’
David , when your getting your “DUI ” I’ll come and tape it , put it on Facebook , put it on a Blog , send it to local TV stations , take it to your childs school for show and tell .
Maybe that makes sense to you , if not maybe this will , it’s none of your business !
Avatar
A comment and a question.
As a journalist, I would say it is David’s business to report on events within the community. Arrests, and the manner in which they are conducted are sometimes very news worthy events.
Do you believe that it was “not the business” of the citizen who filmed the Rodney King arrest to do so ?
Medwoman , Rodney King being filmed was the right thing to do , thats common sense , someone or something is being done to harm someone or something .
Put yourself into the DUI situation , would you want that taped and then distributed , maybe even taken to your employer , if you haven’t hurt or harmed anything or anyone , then it’s none of your business .
Avatar,
Your logic escapes me. If you or me or David is stupid enough to endanger their fellow citizen and is arrested on the public right of way for DUI, the person deserves to be photographed and posted on blogs and Facebook etc etc. It is the duty of the press to keep the public informed of indiscretions/poor judgement of any public person. I have changed my vote based on information provided to me by a free press.
As a photojournalist, I have also been shot at, followed home, beat up and had my tires slashed for photographing people doing things they would rather not have the rest of the world know about. And I would gladly do it again!
As a society we have been scared stupid ever since 9/11. We are more than willing to give up our constitutionally guaranteed rights in exchange for some promised sense of security. Our military budget has doubled. Our percentage of caged citizens has increased by five fold here in California, while we are unable to pay for decent health care or infrastructure or education for our youth. We are barraged with T.V. shows portraying the military and the police in a heroic manner. Lets all get back to reality. THE UNITED STATES IS RAPIDLY BECOMING A POLICE STATE. Please don’t give up even one more of your civil rights! They are slipping away at an alarming rate.
Avatar,
“Put yourself into the DUI situation , would you want that taped and then distributed , maybe even taken to your employer , if you haven’t hurt or harmed anything or anyone , then it’s none of your business .”
Arrests are public record. Using your example, if one is arrested for DUI in which nothing was damaged and no one was harmed, newspapers may and do in some cases, publish the individual’s name and offense. Some papers regularly publish lists of arrested persons along with their offenses. So, the threat of having one’s unlawful busniess being made public is very much a reality, civilian recording or not.
I suppose recording the arrest would be a more technologically advanced and potentially more humiliating version of this, though.
Avatar:
I guess I’m missing your point on multiple levels.
First, why is there an expectation of privacy for a DUI arrest, the police are already recording it, it is a matter of public record, etc.
Second, the purpose of the videotaping is not actually to record the perpetrators but the police in case they violate the suspect’s rights.
I have video of the DUI arrestee right now, but I have not published it because it is not what I am interested in publishing.
Avatar
Perhaps it is merely a poor choice of example on your part, but the DUI is precisely the type of activity that should be stopped regardless of the social embarrassment to the individual and their family. With DUI, it is only a matter of luck whether the results are merely embarrassment or multi family tragedy as in a recent case in which the results were the deaths of three young people and the charge of manslaughter for the teenaged sole survivor. I believe that public safety whether it is protection against lawbreakers or over zealous police is all of our business.
If it takes public exposure to stop this potentially fatal activity, that’s fine with me.
Roger, 1)some say that over the last 10 years the military bufget grew by 50% http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-the-military-budget.html.
Some say it has doubled. Even if an 80% is proved is that “double?”
Some say it has [b]more[/b] than doubled.
At any rate – 2) Please substantaite your assertion that a nexus exists between the # of “caged citizens” in CA and 9/11.
Thanks
In response to Avatar DMG wrote:[quote]…why is there an expectation of privacy for a DUI arrest, the police are already recording it…[/quote]
Did I miss something; when did Avatar denote that an “expectation of privacy” exists in DUI matters?