Woman arrested while videotaping police from her own front yard

MRRiley · 06-23-2011, 04:21 AM

Rochester Woman Arrested After Videotaping Police From Her Own Front Yard

You Tube

The charge, of course, was not for videotaping, but for "obstruction." However, if the officers had simply ignored people standing in their own yard being curious about the arrest occurring right in front of them, there would have been no problem. For all intents and purposes the police officers created the "obstruction" themselves by interfering with a citizens right to be on her own property and perform a legal act, in this case, videotaping police.

Mike

Last edited by MRRiley; 06-23-2011 at 04:58 AM.

JohnBee · 06-23-2011, 04:33 AM

LOL

"You seem very 'uh, anti-police, I don't feel safe with you standing behind me, you mind standing in the house?"

Okay so she was making him nervous(I guess).
And I'm not taking sides or anything, though I do wonder why she didn't comply at that point. Which might of saved her from getting arrested.

MRRiley · 06-23-2011, 04:50 AM

John...

Why should a person comply with an illegal order from the police? If I am in my yard, and am not in the way of the arrest or any officers, I can legally set up 6 70mm IMAX cameras as well as a full array of lights and sound equipment as long as I don't shine the lights in my neighbor's windows at 10PM. I can then use the gear to record any police activity which happens on the public street in front of my house.

Quote:

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so!" - Thomas Jefferson

In this case it wasn't even a real law that she was disobeying but an ignorant police officer's assertion of a non-existent law/crime... The police do this all the time and largely get away with it because many people assume the police know more about the laws than they do... This is often far from the truth.

The woman who was arrested may well be anti-police, but I suspect she is more "anti abuse of police power". Most law-abiding people are very pro-police, but rightly fear the occasional officer who steps outside of the law, whether from ignorance of that law or from outright malice. It is in society's best interest that our police enforce the law... but it is not in our interest for them to make up laws they think should exist. Videotaping or photography police activity is one of the few means the public at large has to protect themselves because, lacking visual or audio evidence, the courts almost always believe the charging officer rather than the defendant.

Frankly, an officer who is acting within the law and who is following proper procedures should not fear the public's recording devices. Indeed they constantly say that we should not fear their recording devices if we are not doing something illegal... Whats sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander...

Mike

GeneV · 06-23-2011, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by JohnBee

LOL

You seem very 'uh, anti-police, I don't feel safe with you standing behind me, you mind standing in the house.

Okay so she was making him nervous(I guess).
And I'm not taking sides or anything, though I do wonder why she didn't comply at that point. Which might of saved her from getting arrested.

Actually, John, you are sort of taking sides. I respect police for their work in fighting crime, but that does not include situations where someone is just making them nervous. Police are the forceful arm of the government, and the government has no right to order one not to do something that is legal.

This has become a real problem with police all over. The number one crime for which custodial arrests are made in some areas is "contempt of cop." This is slang for failure to obey an order from a police officer. When police start ordering people to do things as if they were dictators, we have a problem. Back about 10 years ago, when there were a lot of protests against the Iraq war, police here were hauling people to jail for taking video of what was happening during the protests. Successful civil rights suits were the result. Officers carry records, and some even carry video. We and they are actually better off if their actions (other than undercover) are recorded.

GeneV · 06-23-2011, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

John...

The woman who was arrested may well be anti-police, but I suspect she is more "anti abuse of police power". Most law-abiding people are very pro-police, but rightly fear the occasional officer who steps outside of the law, whether from ignorance of that law or from outright malice. It is in society's best interest that our police enforce the law... but it is not in our interest for them to make up laws they think should exist. Videotaping or photography police activity is one of the few means the public at large has to protect themselves because, lacking visual or audio evidence, the courts almost always believe the charging officer rather than the defendant.

Exactly. You actually have the right to be even rude to a government official in your own home, as long as you are not violent or threatening violence. This is a big difference between our country and that of Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, or Hitler. It is is part of the problem that led to a national issue with the professor in Cambridge a couple years back. Our police here are losing major suits right and left over reactions that have led to wrongful imprisonment or even serious injury and death.

rhodopsin · 06-23-2011, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Actually, John, you are sort of taking sides. I respect police for their work in fighting crime, but that does not include situations where someone is just making them nervous. Police are the forceful arm of the government, and the government has no right to order one not to do something that is legal.

This has become a real problem with police all over. The number one crime for which custodial arrests are made in some areas is "contempt of cop." This is slang for failure to obey an order from a police officer. When police start ordering people to do things as if they were dictators, we have a problem. Back about 10 years ago, when there were a lot of protests against the Iraq war, police here were hauling people to jail for taking video of what was happening during the protests. Successful civil rights suits were the result. Officers carry records, and some even carry video. We and they are actually better off if their actions (other than undercover) are recorded.

I think the prior law is, citizens are required to obey police orders. That is probably a good idea since police wield the power of life and death and can easily remove your freedom. Police also routinely lie and cheat, all legal except in the court of law. The courts will sort through the mess, probably supporting the police's perceived needs over the right to photograph -- the police felt threatened, had to devote part of their resources to 'securing' the photographer, including them in their legal action. Resources are already stressed...

I do think police over-reacted, a lifesaving tendency of police everywhere, here misapplied.

GeneV · 06-23-2011, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by rhodopsin

I think the prior law is, citizens are required to obey police orders. That is probably a good idea since police wield the power of life and death and can easily remove your freedom. Police also routinely lie and cheat, all legal except in the court of law. The courts will sort through the mess, probably supporting the police's perceived needs over the right to photograph -- the police felt threatened, had to devote part of their resources to 'securing' the photographer, including them in their legal action. Resources are already stressed...

I do think police over-reacted, a lifesaving tendency of police everywhere, here misapplied.

The statutes and ordinances vary quite a bit. Some limit the situation to the operation of a motor vehicle. Some say the order must be "lawful." Others, may actually be void for vagueness in the same manner as loitering statutes. The constitution does not allow criminal charges to result from statutes which do not give law enforcement officials sufficient guidance.

This problem with photography and journalism in a matter which could be of public interest is a very serious one and is widespread. It raises First Amendment rights as well. http://www.pixiq.com/article/el-paso-reporters-are-latest-to-fall-victim-to-contempt-of-cop

jogiba · 06-23-2011, 12:40 PM

If the poor cop does not feel safe with the woman standing in her yard with a video camera then he should be put on desk duty if he is such a weenie. Cops are world class liars.

shooz · 06-23-2011, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by jogiba

Cops are world class liars.

They don't have be, because we give, or at least the courts give, world class credulity to their statements.

Clicker · 06-27-2011, 08:55 AM

Some people just abuse their position of authority.

MRRiley · 06-30-2011, 07:45 AM

The charges were dropped...

Quote:

Reports say that the legal question was: did the evidence satisfy the elements of the crime charged under NYS law? Accordingly, prosecutors would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Good used “intimidation, physical force or interference” to disrupt the police traffic stop. Since she was 10 to 15 feet from the police and doing nothing to interfere with police other than videotaping the People would not have been able to meet their burden.

Charges Against Rochester Woman Who Videotaped Police Dismissed | NPPA Advocacy Committee

Charge against Emily Good in videotaping case dismissed | Democrat and Chronicle | democratandchronicle.com

Parallax · 06-30-2011, 08:08 AM

I'm not sure she wouldn't have a good false arrest suit here. Not because charges were dropped; I think that is irrelevant.
A lawful arrest has to meet two basic criteria: Belief that an offense was committed, and belief that the person being arrested committed it.
I think the arresting officer might have trouble convincing a jury that he truly believed that videotaping, from your own property, an event that was occurring on a public street, was a violation of a particular federal or state law, or civil code.

I have always been a staunch supporter of law enforcement........... when they get it right.
This wasn't right.

MRRiley · 06-30-2011, 08:24 AM

There is evidently an active "internal affairs" type investigation going on right now Jim.

I'm with you for sure. In spite of what appears me railing against the police at many opportunities, it is really me railing against them overstepping their bounds and "getting it wrong!" The police have a tough job, but is not in the public's best interests when they exceed their authority or abuse our basic rights in the name of "security."

Mike

BillM · 06-30-2011, 08:36 AM

Non-issue period.Child pornography is something that needs to be erradicated
from the face of the earth.How about a meaningful thread on that.

Parallax · 06-30-2011, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by BillM

Non-issue period.Child pornography is something that needs to be erradicated
from the face of the earth.How about a meaningful thread on that.

Seems to me that people being arrested for taking pictures is an issue.

06-23-2011, 04:33 AM	#2
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	LOL "You seem very 'uh, anti-police, I don't feel safe with you standing behind me, you mind standing in the house?" Okay so she was making him nervous(I guess). And I'm not taking sides or anything, though I do wonder why she didn't comply at that point. Which might of saved her from getting arrested. Last edited by JohnBee; 06-23-2011 at 05:26 AM.

06-23-2011, 04:50 AM	#3
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275 Original Poster	John... Why should a person comply with an illegal order from the police? If I am in my yard, and am not in the way of the arrest or any officers, I can legally set up 6 70mm IMAX cameras as well as a full array of lights and sound equipment as long as I don't shine the lights in my neighbor's windows at 10PM. I can then use the gear to record any police activity which happens on the public street in front of my house. Quote: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so!" - Thomas Jefferson In this case it wasn't even a real law that she was disobeying but an ignorant police officer's assertion of a non-existent law/crime... The police do this all the time and largely get away with it because many people assume the police know more about the laws than they do... This is often far from the truth. The woman who was arrested may well be anti-police, but I suspect she is more "anti abuse of police power". Most law-abiding people are very pro-police, but rightly fear the occasional officer who steps outside of the law, whether from ignorance of that law or from outright malice. It is in society's best interest that our police enforce the law... but it is not in our interest for them to make up laws they think should exist. Videotaping or photography police activity is one of the few means the public at large has to protect themselves because, lacking visual or audio evidence, the courts almost always believe the charging officer rather than the defendant. Frankly, an officer who is acting within the law and who is following proper procedures should not fear the public's recording devices. Indeed they constantly say that we should not fear their recording devices if we are not doing something illegal... Whats sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander... Mike Last edited by MRRiley; 06-23-2011 at 05:15 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
News: Man Faces Up To 16 Years In Prison For Videotaping The Police	johnmflores	Photographic Industry and Professionals	52	09-28-2010 10:10 AM
DC Police - Illegal to take photos of people or police in public	MRRiley	Photographic Technique	109	08-06-2010 10:46 AM
Flowers in my front yard	mr tibbs	Post Your Photos!	2	03-20-2009 05:48 PM
My Front yard.... alot of snow...	bwield	Post Your Photos!	22	01-22-2009 07:28 AM
The view from my front yard...	GirlsGoneRacin	Post Your Photos!	4	08-31-2007 12:01 PM

06-23-2011, 05:31 AM	#4
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by JohnBee LOL You seem very 'uh, anti-police, I don't feel safe with you standing behind me, you mind standing in the house. Okay so she was making him nervous(I guess). And I'm not taking sides or anything, though I do wonder why she didn't comply at that point. Which might of saved her from getting arrested. Actually, John, you are sort of taking sides. I respect police for their work in fighting crime, but that does not include situations where someone is just making them nervous. Police are the forceful arm of the government, and the government has no right to order one not to do something that is legal. This has become a real problem with police all over. The number one crime for which custodial arrests are made in some areas is "contempt of cop." This is slang for failure to obey an order from a police officer. When police start ordering people to do things as if they were dictators, we have a problem. Back about 10 years ago, when there were a lot of protests against the Iraq war, police here were hauling people to jail for taking video of what was happening during the protests. Successful civil rights suits were the result. Officers carry records, and some even carry video. We and they are actually better off if their actions (other than undercover) are recorded.

06-23-2011, 05:39 AM	#5
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by MRRiley John... The woman who was arrested may well be anti-police, but I suspect she is more "anti abuse of police power". Most law-abiding people are very pro-police, but rightly fear the occasional officer who steps outside of the law, whether from ignorance of that law or from outright malice. It is in society's best interest that our police enforce the law... but it is not in our interest for them to make up laws they think should exist. Videotaping or photography police activity is one of the few means the public at large has to protect themselves because, lacking visual or audio evidence, the courts almost always believe the charging officer rather than the defendant. Exactly. You actually have the right to be even rude to a government official in your own home, as long as you are not violent or threatening violence. This is a big difference between our country and that of Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, or Hitler. It is is part of the problem that led to a national issue with the professor in Cambridge a couple years back. Our police here are losing major suits right and left over reactions that have led to wrongful imprisonment or even serious injury and death.

06-23-2011, 06:56 AM	#6
rhodopsin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Deep Forest Posts: 643	Originally posted by GeneV Actually, John, you are sort of taking sides. I respect police for their work in fighting crime, but that does not include situations where someone is just making them nervous. Police are the forceful arm of the government, and the government has no right to order one not to do something that is legal. This has become a real problem with police all over. The number one crime for which custodial arrests are made in some areas is "contempt of cop." This is slang for failure to obey an order from a police officer. When police start ordering people to do things as if they were dictators, we have a problem. Back about 10 years ago, when there were a lot of protests against the Iraq war, police here were hauling people to jail for taking video of what was happening during the protests. Successful civil rights suits were the result. Officers carry records, and some even carry video. We and they are actually better off if their actions (other than undercover) are recorded. I think the prior law is, citizens are required to obey police orders. That is probably a good idea since police wield the power of life and death and can easily remove your freedom. Police also routinely lie and cheat, all legal except in the court of law. The courts will sort through the mess, probably supporting the police's perceived needs over the right to photograph -- the police felt threatened, had to devote part of their resources to 'securing' the photographer, including them in their legal action. Resources are already stressed... I do think police over-reacted, a lifesaving tendency of police everywhere, here misapplied.

06-23-2011, 07:05 AM	#7
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by rhodopsin I think the prior law is, citizens are required to obey police orders. That is probably a good idea since police wield the power of life and death and can easily remove your freedom. Police also routinely lie and cheat, all legal except in the court of law. The courts will sort through the mess, probably supporting the police's perceived needs over the right to photograph -- the police felt threatened, had to devote part of their resources to 'securing' the photographer, including them in their legal action. Resources are already stressed... I do think police over-reacted, a lifesaving tendency of police everywhere, here misapplied. The statutes and ordinances vary quite a bit. Some limit the situation to the operation of a motor vehicle. Some say the order must be "lawful." Others, may actually be void for vagueness in the same manner as loitering statutes. The constitution does not allow criminal charges to result from statutes which do not give law enforcement officials sufficient guidance. This problem with photography and journalism in a matter which could be of public interest is a very serious one and is widespread. It raises First Amendment rights as well. http://www.pixiq.com/article/el-paso-reporters-are-latest-to-fall-victim-to-contempt-of-cop

06-23-2011, 12:40 PM	#8
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	If the poor cop does not feel safe with the woman standing in her yard with a video camera then he should be put on desk duty if he is such a weenie. Cops are world class liars.

06-23-2011, 01:07 PM	#9
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	Originally posted by jogiba Cops are world class liars. They don't have be, because we give, or at least the courts give, world class credulity to their statements.

06-27-2011, 08:55 AM	#10
Clicker Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,241	Some people just abuse their position of authority.

06-30-2011, 07:45 AM	#11
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275 Original Poster	The charges were dropped... Quote: Reports say that the legal question was: did the evidence satisfy the elements of the crime charged under NYS law? Accordingly, prosecutors would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Good used “intimidation, physical force or interference” to disrupt the police traffic stop. Since she was 10 to 15 feet from the police and doing nothing to interfere with police other than videotaping the People would not have been able to meet their burden. Charges Against Rochester Woman Who Videotaped Police Dismissed \| NPPA Advocacy Committee Charge against Emily Good in videotaping case dismissed \| Democrat and Chronicle \| democratandchronicle.com

06-30-2011, 08:08 AM	#12
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	I'm not sure she wouldn't have a good false arrest suit here. Not because charges were dropped; I think that is irrelevant. A lawful arrest has to meet two basic criteria: Belief that an offense was committed, and belief that the person being arrested committed it. I think the arresting officer might have trouble convincing a jury that he truly believed that videotaping, from your own property, an event that was occurring on a public street, was a violation of a particular federal or state law, or civil code. I have always been a staunch supporter of law enforcement........... when they get it right. This wasn't right.

06-30-2011, 08:24 AM	#13
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275 Original Poster	There is evidently an active "internal affairs" type investigation going on right now Jim. I'm with you for sure. In spite of what appears me railing against the police at many opportunities, it is really me railing against them overstepping their bounds and "getting it wrong!" The police have a tough job, but is not in the public's best interests when they exceed their authority or abuse our basic rights in the name of "security." Mike

06-30-2011, 08:36 AM	#14
BillM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Ferguson, Mo. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,348	Non-issue period.Child pornography is something that needs to be erradicated from the face of the earth.How about a meaningful thread on that.

06-30-2011, 08:41 AM	#15
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by BillM Non-issue period.Child pornography is something that needs to be erradicated from the face of the earth.How about a meaningful thread on that. Seems to me that people being arrested for taking pictures is an issue.