Police say wearing video cameras offers protection

Police say wearing video cameras offers protection [huffingtonpost.com]

Before hitting the streets, Oakland police officer Huy Nguyen's routine usually goes something like this:

Gun ready? Check. Bulletproof vest strapped? Check.

Body camera secured? Check.

Wait, body camera?

"It feels uncomfortable when I don't have it," Nguyen said of the video camera that is smaller than a smartphone and is worn on his chest. "You can never be too safe."

[...]

"First and foremost, it protects the officers, it protects the citizens and it can help with an investigation and it shows what happened," said Steve Tidwell, executive director of the FBI National Academy Associates in Quantico, Va. "It can level the playing field, instead of getting just one or two versions. It's all there in living color, so to speak."

Ask and ye shall receive.

Good...let the cops have cameras. Leave the guns in the hands of the citizens.

Win/Win

Quote from REDCELL : Leave the guns in the hands of the citizens.

What about the cameras?

Quote from digitalhandle : What about the cameras?

What about them? People have cameras now.

Quote from REDCELL : What about them? People have cameras now.

People are arrested for recording incidents [registercitizen.com].

The bill was proposed ... in response to several incidents ... where citizens were arrested for recording incidents ... two Yale University students were arrested for taping a raid by police on a private party in the city, while two others were charged with interfering. All the charges were later dismissed, and the city issued a policy preventing officers from stopping such videotaping in the future. ... a police officer charged a priest with threatening him after the priest started videotaping an incident at a local store. The video clearly showed, however, that the officer knew the shiny object in his hand was a camera and not a weapon. ... a man who was recording an arrest was arrested by a former assistant chief. The officer took the camera, arrested the man and ordered another officer to erase the video.

So do we leave cameras in the hand of citizens? Or do we allow police to arrest us for recording incidents?

Quote from digitalhandle : People are arrested for recording incidents [registercitizen.com]. So do we leave cameras in the hand of citizens? Or do we allow police to arrest us for recording incidents?

From your quote, it appears that recording is lawful, and these arrests were unlawful.

Quote from digitalhandle : People are arrested for recording incidents [registercitizen.com]. The bill was proposed ... in response to several incidents ... where citizens were arrested for recording incidents ... two Yale University students were arrested for taping a raid by police on a private party in the city, while two others were charged with interfering. All the charges were later dismissed, and the city issued a policy preventing officers from stopping such videotaping in the future. ... a police officer charged a priest with threatening him after the priest started videotaping an incident at a local store. The video clearly showed, however, that the officer knew the shiny object in his hand was a camera and not a weapon. ... a man who was recording an arrest was arrested by a former assistant chief. The officer took the camera, arrested the man and ordered another officer to erase the video. So do we leave cameras in the hand of citizens? Or do we allow police to arrest us for recording incidents?

Its my understanding that all of these types of incidents have been bounced once someone other than a cop looked into it....no?

Are the cops out of line when they pull this?? Yup.

Quote from Rebound : From your quote, it appears that recording is lawful, and these arrests were unlawful.

Too many police officers are not getting the message [dailycaller.com]:

There have been numerous cases ... where citizens are being detained, arrested or intimidated for documenting police activity or even just taking photos of government buildings. ... Here’s a few more notable examples:

• On June 2, Miami police seized a man’s cell phone at gunpoint and smashed it after the man recorded an officer-involved shooting.
• A Rochester, New York woman was arrested in June for videotaping police from her front yard. She was charged with obstructing justice.
• In January, two Illinois residents were charged with eavesdropping — a class I felony — after they recorded their encounters with Chicago police. One of the citizens, a woman, was recording her interview with two internal affairs investigators. She was filing a sexual harassment complaint against another Chicago police officer.
• A motorcyclist in Maryland was also charged with eavesdropping in April after he uploaded a video to YouTube — caught on his helmet cam — of a state trooper stopping him with a drawn gun. Police showed up at his house four days after the traffic stop with a warrant for four computers, two laptops and his camera.

...

“Suddenly people who didn’t normally have cameras did,” said Carlos Miller, a Miami-based journalist, photographer and blogger. “And they were taking pictures. We then saw a huge increase in cops telling people they couldn’t do that.”

Where it is lawful, stronger laws may be necessary to dissuade the police from interfering.

Quote from REDCELL : Its my understanding that all of these types of incidents have been bounced once someone other than a cop looked into it....no?

I hope you are right. These [arstechnica.com] cases [charlotteobserver.com] seem to keep coming up.

And there can be a chilling effect [wbur.org]:

Khaliah Fitchette's lawyers in New Jersey say her detention was illegal. But Fitchette still says she'd think twice before filming police in Newark again.

"It would have to be important enough to get myself in trouble for, I guess," she says.

She has this attitude, Fitchette says, because she thinks she could get in trouble again, even though her detention was allegedly unlawful.

The police erased the recording. So it being unlawful did not prevent the destruction of her property and the evidence that may have documented police misconduct.

Quote from REDCELL : Are the cops out of line when they pull this?? Yup.

Quote from Rebound : From your quote, it appears that recording is lawful, and these arrests were unlawful.

In some states (Gizmodo cites 12 [gizmodo.com]) it isn't.

Quote from digitalhandle : Too many politicians that are in charge of the police are not getting -- The given link is broken -- [INDENT][I]Before hitting the streets, Oakland police officer Huy Nguyen's routine usually goes something like this: Gun ready? Check. Bulletproof vest strapped? Check. Body camera secured? Check. Wait, body camera? "It feels uncomfortable when I don't have it," Nguyen said of the video camera that is smaller than a smartphone and is worn on his chest. "You can never be too safe."

As I've said, most of the cops I know would love to have every interaction they have recorded.

And your poll answers are flawed. I'd vote yes on:

"Yes. There is no excuse for the police to arrest people solely for recording them where it would be legal to record anyone".

People do not have the right to interfere with an officer performing his duty.

Quote from digitalhandle : And there can be a chilling effect [wbur.org]: Khaliah Fitchette's lawyers in New Jersey say her detention was illegal. But Fitchette still says she'd think twice before filming police in Newark again. "It would have to be important enough to get myself in trouble for, I guess," she says. She has this attitude, Fitchette says, because she thinks she could get in trouble again, even though her detention was allegedly unlawful. The police erased the recording. So it being unlawful did not prevent the destruction of her property and the evidence that may have documented police misconduct.

And this is where the buck stops with that incident:


Newark Mayor Cory Booker (D)

Instead, Booker is preparing to run for the US Senate.

Quote from Elmer : Corrected that for you. Cops don't write laws, prosecute them, nor are they in charge of how they enforce them. As I've said, most of the cops I know would love to have every interaction they have recorded.

They should, because if they're in the right the video will back them up, it would also help them with weeding out anyone in their ranks who is unworthy of wearing the badge.

Quote from Terrell : They should, because if they're in the right the video will back them up, it would also help them with weeding out anyone in their ranks who is unworthy of wearing the badge.

Exactly.

A cop I know won one of the first lawsuits under a CA law that allows cops to sue those who file false reports. A wealthy woman he had arrested for DUI, told him if he didn't let her go, she was going to say he had sexually assaulted her. He of course, didn't let her go, and she filed the report. What she didn't know, was that he had a pocket tape recorder going on the front seat of the patrol car, and recorded all of the threats on the way to jail. He only got 5K, but liberal groups called the verdict "chilling", as it would "discourage victims of police abuse from filing reports".

Idiots.......

I'd like to see body cams, and cams on and in patrol cars, that are activated during all interactions. Digital storage is cheap.