RE: Slashdot | Recording Police Misconduct is Illegal
BTW, Mass. has always been "funny" about electronic surveillance. State history is very interesting, and so is the law. (Early on, their police wouldn't wiretap, it was not "gentlemanly." Ahem.) Consider the traditionalist two-party states and ponder on the true nature of the historical parallels at the time the recording statutes were enacted. Ignore the legislative testimony and history, because it will just confuse you. ~Aimee
"Aimee Farr" <aimee.farr@pobox.com> wrote:
BTW, Mass. has always been "funny" about electronic surveillance. State history is very interesting, and so is the law. (Early on, their police wouldn't wiretap, it was not "gentlemanly." Ahem.)
In Ohio curiously enough, it is legal to record as long as one of the parties involved know that there is a recording being made. So in Ohio recording the police would be OK as long as you personally do the recording. However, this spring near the Ohio State University, there had been an on going problem with out of control drinking parties that spawned setting fires, turning over cars, and tossing bottles and rocks at the police. Over the years the police have responded with riot tactics, liberal use of pepper spray and giving students and residents free civic lessons on what happens when you're on the wrong side of a PR-24 or ASP baton. Which in turn has caused a plethora of civil rights lawsuits many being settled out of court and the city routinely hands out millions each year to settle claims. What I did find surprising this year was watching a TV news video of the police spraying pepper spray from a fire extinguisher size sprayer at residents filming the police in action. The police spokesperson said something to the effect that "The public has got to understand that it is just unacceptable to videotape the police from a porch in a riot situation." The resident got sprayed on his own porch, not doing anything more violent than filming the Police. This must be the latest technique to minimize another Rodney King episode from happening in the first place...Just think what might have happened if the King chronicler got peppered with a few large bursts. So I guess the moral of the story is that if you must record the police you should do so clandestinely. Regards, Matt- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************
Matt said:
So I guess the moral of the story is that if you must record the police you should do so clandestinely.
The Court addressed this: "Followed to its logical conclusion, the dissent would encourage drug manufacturers to mount hidden video cameras in their facilities so they can capture the moment of truth when the police execute a search warrant and would authorize drug dealers secretly to tape record conversations with suspected undercover officers or with informants in order to protect the dealers' rights against hypothetical police abuse.... Every police encounter would be available for secret recording; even meter maids would not be spared. The value of obtaining probative evidence of occasional official misconduct does not justify a failure to enforce the clear terms of the statute." ---- I can't suggest a client to do anything "against the law," even though I would argue nothing is deserving of greater "transparency" than acts of the government against its citizens, and by the government's own admission, surreptitious recording uncovers wrongdoing. I think the judiciary is capable of recognizing legitimate interests so as to avoid stalked meter maids, compromised investigations and endangering the lives of UC agents. As to the privacy interests of enforcement officers in acts of enforcement: "One of the costs associated with participation in public affairs is an attendant loss of privacy." @ <http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1687.ZS.html> As for bad guys recording... The REAL bad guys usually don't want to be recorded, which is why they have taken up bodywear countermeasures. At any rate, criminal laws are only a deterrent to law-abiders. (Our electronic surveillance statutes are, to a significant extent, the legacy of political espionage. They were protecting themselves -- against themselves.) Miniaturization, affordability and availability has made *covert* surveillance a viable protective strategy for citizens. (i.e., "Tape is the best testimony.") One-party recording statutes are in recognition of this protective interest. Recording statutes, especially the new visual recording and "paparazzi" bills are deserving of scrutiny, even though many are *extremely* well-intentioned. Not only do they increasingly implicate the First Amendment, they risk limiting the citizen-use of legitimate, protective covert surveillance in certain circumstances involving citizen/government conflict -- as seen in the Hyde case. You can protect privacy without depriving people of the right to protect themselves. ~Aimee
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
You can protect privacy without depriving people of the right to protect themselves.
Only a lawyer, or crack head, could have thinking that fucked up. 'protect privacy' is equivalent to 'right to protect themselves'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Aimee Farr -
Jim Choate -
Matthew Gaylor