Print 69 comment(s) - last by espaghetti.. on Sep 15 at 12:09 PM

The filming of government officials while on duty is protected by the First Amendment, said the Court

The First Circuit Court of Appeals reached a crucial decision last Friday allowing the public to videotape police officers while they're on the clock.

The decision comes after a string of incidents where individuals have videotaped police officers and were arrested. Police officers across the United States believed citizens didn't have the right to videotape them as they conducted official duties, but issues like police brutality put the issue up for debate.

One instance where a citizen was arrested for videotaping an officer was when Khaliah Fitchette, a law-abiding teenager from New Jersey, boarded a bus in Newark. Two police officers boarded the bus as well to remove a drunken man. Fitchette began taping the police officers because of how they were handling the man, and a police officer instructed her to stop recording them. When Fitchette refused, she was arrested and placed in the back of a cop car for two hours while the officers took her phone to delete the video. Fitchette was then released, but she and her mother then filed suit against the Newark Police Department with the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Another example involves Simon Glik, a passerby on the Boston Common. He used his cell phone to tape police officers when the Boston police were punching a man. Citizens surrounding the scene were saying, "You're hurting him." Glik never interfered with the police officers' actions, but recorded the entire incident. The police officers ended up charging Glik with violating a wiretap statute that prohibits secret recording, even though the police officers admitted that they knew Glik was recording them. He was also charged with disturbing the peace and aiding the escape of a prisoner.

While all charges against Glik were dropped due to lack of merit, he still decided to join forces with the ACLU and file a civil rights suit to prevent a similar incident from occurring with others.

On Friday, August 26, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is New England's highest federal court just below the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that citizens are allowed to videotape law officials while they conduct official duties.

The city's attorneys made the argument that police officers should have been exempt from a civil rights lawsuit in the first place in this case because the law is unclear as to whether there's a "constitutionally protected right to videotape police" conducting their daily duties in public.

"The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity].," said the Court. "Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs."

The Court added that the police officers should have understood this all along, and that videotaping public officials is not limited to the press.

"Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw," the Court continued. "The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status."

The Court concluded that police officers are to expect to deal with certain "burdens" as citizens practice First Amendment rights, but that there needs to be a healthy balance between police officers being videotaped while acting irresponsibly and the harassment of officers with recording devices while they're conducting their duties responsibly.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

They are darn right...
By MrBlastman on 8/31/2011 1:38:57 PM , Rating: 5
That this is protected by the First Amendment. If you take a position in public service, be it a janitor, police officer, politician or military serviceman, you should respect the fact that you serve the public. Because of this, you should be subject to scruitiny from US, the people and if we decide to videotape or record your actions, it is completely fair in keeping us informed.

However, I'm sure some thugs in PD's across our nation will have issue with this. Now, they aren't all bad. I've met quite a few honest individuals in the police profession. There are some bad apples though and these are the ones that are leading to all this conflict. The only reason they don't want to be recorded is that they have something to hide.

RE: They are darn right...
By fic2 on 8/31/2011 4:15:39 PM , Rating: 1
I always wonder how the police reconcile it in their minds - it is ok for us to video tape you but you can't video tape us.

RE: They are darn right...
By Solandri on 8/31/2011 5:09:23 PM , Rating: 5
To be fair, nobody likes to be monitored as they work.

As for them videotaping us, police officers were initially vehemently opposed to dashboard video cameras. They only grew to accept them after it became clear that in most cases they supported the officers' version of events.

Personally, I still consider police dashboard video cameras to be more reliable evidence. They record an incident from beginning til end, and the complete tape must be given to the defense prior to trial. Street recordings by the public almost never start until after the crucial instigating cause of an event. It's much more difficult to get the full context of what's happening from such recordings. I completely agree that the public should be able to make such recordings unhindered. But I also think police officers have better reason to dislike them than the public has to dislike being recorded by police (as long as police don't do things like erase parts of the recording).

RE: They are darn right...
By fic2 on 8/31/2011 5:52:28 PM , Rating: 4
I remember hearing about a case in the south east where the video cameras in 4 different police cars "malfunctioned" simultaneously.

We have also had a case here in Denver where the jail house video camera had a missing 45 seconds of recording during which a prisoner died.

Surprisingly these "malfunctions" magically happen during crucial parts.

These need to be black box and be uploaded to a non-erasable black box server.

RE: They are darn right...
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2011 4:41:41 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is the police have a code of silence and cover for each other when they step out of line.

RE: They are darn right...
By jeff834 on 9/1/2011 7:38:08 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder how much this continues today, but about 50 years ago my mother was babysitting my 3 year old cousin, and he shot himself in the hand with his father's service revolver. According to her, the uniformed officers were there first and helped to fix it so my uncle didn't get in trouble when the detectives showed up. There are certainly worse things to cover up than simple accidents, but I think that kind of thing was pretty rampant back then, and most likely today as well.

RE: They are darn right...
By bupkus on 8/31/2011 6:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they're just camera shy. Al Capone didn't mind be photographed especially by reporters... unless he was in the act of bashing someone's brains out with a baseball bat.

"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular ArticlesAMD, Zen Processor might power the upcoming Apple MacBook Pro
September 30, 2016, 5:00 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Are you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Apple’s Siri Speaker is a Game Changer
September 26, 2016, 5:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki