Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-30-2011, 04:47 PM   #1
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
Photographing-Recording Police: LEGAL IN USA!!

Federal Court: recording cops an unambiguous first amendment right

QuoteQuote:
...the court ruled that the right to video tape cops is well established and that no reasonable cop should think otherwise.
Will news of this ruling filter down to street-level USA? Should all of us shooting in USA carry a copy of the ruling? Or should we just remember to say "GLIK VERSUS BOSTON"??

08-31-2011, 05:06 AM   #2
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Federal Court: recording cops an unambiguous first amendment right



Will news of this ruling filter down to street-level USA? Should all of us shooting in USA carry a copy of the ruling? Or should we just remember to say "GLIK VERSUS BOSTON"??
Not sure it will filter down, but it wouldn't hurt to be able to quote it back at them. It will take time for it to filter out for certain. Even longer for them to recognize it and not harass you if past actions are an indicator of future ones.
Now of course the trick is to convince a meatheaded Private security guy this applies to him as well
09-05-2011, 05:45 PM   #3
Veteran Member
mysticcowboy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: port townsend, wa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 968
There are still a number of cases pending and one ruling short of the Supreme Court may not carry over to other jurisdictions.
09-05-2011, 05:48 PM   #4
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,464
You have a right to record the police | Campaign 2012


Here's one from my hometown. Cop smashes guy's face into side of cruiser. DA says cop didn't do anything wrong.

Victim in alleged police brutality incident sues Syracuse. Does he have a case? : News : CNYcentral.com

09-06-2011, 04:30 PM   #5
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
Excuse me while I WooHoo...

WOOOOHOOOOOOOOO !!!


A Victory for Recording in Public! | Citizen Media Law Project - very good summary

http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/10-1764P-01A.pdf - the ruling itself

No one should get arrested for this: Glik v. Cunniffe | ACLU of Massachusetts - an ACLU site that contains part of the actual video

Even absent a ruling by the Supremes (who are IMHO unlikely to hear this even if the cops and city of Boston appeal), the various circuits generally honor rulings from the other circuits in mundane areas of law like this.

Last edited by MRRiley; 09-06-2011 at 04:58 PM.
09-07-2011, 05:14 PM   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,869
While I applaud it for what it is, it will have little impact on the way police behave if any. A ruling such as this is a precedent to be used in defense of charges it is not unfortunately a law directing the actions of police. Until the legislature of the "several states" I believe the wording goes begin to legislate the limits of the enforcement of no photography rules the police will not change. The police enforce laws (enacted by some level of govenrment having jurisdiction ) not rulings by the appeals courts, unless they declare existing statutes illegal or in violation of the constitution , at which time they will instruct the government having jurisdiction to remove the law or how to modify it to comply
09-07-2011, 05:40 PM   #7
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
The thing is Lowell that there are few if any "no photography" laws for legislatures to address. The police think there are but there are not. The few that do exist relate generally to federal national defense and nuclear power facilities. What is important about this ruling is that it establishes precedent for having the charges dropped when one is arrested on similar bogus charges. Basically this precedent invalidates laws in jurisdictions wihin the scope of the 1st Circuit (and largely to the other Circuits) which restrict photography of the police while they are performing their duty in public.

No doubt it is going to take more people being arrested for the non-crime of "photography," but eventually more and more cops will get the message and fewer and fewer photographers will be hassled.

Mike

09-07-2011, 06:45 PM   #8
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
While I applaud it for what it is, it will have little impact on the way police behave if any. A ruling such as this is a precedent to be used in defense of charges it is not unfortunately a law directing the actions of police. Until the legislature of the "several states" I believe the wording goes begin to legislate the limits of the enforcement of no photography rules the police will not change. The police enforce laws (enacted by some level of govenrment having jurisdiction ) not rulings by the appeals courts, unless they declare existing statutes illegal or in violation of the constitution , at which time they will instruct the government having jurisdiction to remove the law or how to modify it to comply
Lowell, that is exactly what the Federal court did, rule the actions of the cops unconstitutional.

QuoteQuote:
We conclude,
based on the facts alleged, that Glik was exercising clearly established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause. We therefore affirm.
09-07-2011, 06:51 PM   #9
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
I still can't believe cops have been able to use the wire tap laws as the basis of such arrests. I mean, what phone lines can the possible allege were taped or bugs placed, especially in a public place. Plus, if the argument was valid, they need a court order to impliment a wire tap, i.e. turn on the dash cam. Any cop that actually believes this is makes Barney Fife look like Sherlock Holmes.
09-08-2011, 05:00 AM   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,869
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
I still can't believe cops have been able to use the wire tap laws as the basis of such arrests. I mean, what phone lines can the possible allege were taped or bugs placed, especially in a public place. Plus, if the argument was valid, they need a court order to impliment a wire tap, i.e. turn on the dash cam. Any cop that actually believes this is makes Barney Fife look like Sherlock Holmes.
Actually a court order or consent of one of the parties in most states. But that law only covers private discussions not ones that can be reasonably expected to be heard in public

Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 09-08-2011 at 05:07 AM.
09-08-2011, 05:06 AM   #11
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,869
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Lowell, that is exactly what the Federal court did, rule the actions of the cops unconstitutional.
Actually a district court if you read on, but the point is that in the ruling there is no comment about changing state laws or instructions to legislators so nothing will change
09-08-2011, 05:18 AM   #12
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Actually a court order or consent of one of the parties in most states. But that law only covers private discussions not ones that can be reasonably expected to be heard in public
Which is exactly why the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the public has a right to record the police in public!

QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Actually a district court if you read on, but the point is that in the ruling there is no comment about changing state laws or instructions to legislators so nothing will change
This ruling came from the Court of Appeals for the 1st CIRCUIT! Now it goes back to a District Court and the judges there have to consider the ruling of the Circuit Court before making their final ruling. It is very rare for a District Court to buck a Circuit Court ruling that has been returned to them. To do otherwise simply invited another overturned District Court ruling.

And they do not have to say anything specific about changing state laws. The ruling itself that videotaping/photographing police in public is permissible under our Constitution makes any laws restricting those activities invalid and legally unenforceable. I've no idea how it works in Canada, but that's how it works in THIS country.

Mike
09-08-2011, 07:14 AM   #13
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Actually a district court if you read on, but the point is that in the ruling there is no comment about changing state laws or instructions to legislators so nothing will change
It was still part of the Federal court system, i.e. Federal judges.


QuoteQuote:
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/FederalCourtsStructure.aspx

Last edited by Blue; 09-08-2011 at 07:22 AM.
09-08-2011, 07:15 AM   #14
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Actually a court order or consent of one of the parties in most states. But that law only covers private discussions not ones that can be reasonably expected to be heard in public
That what I was referring to Lowell, yet they have dashcams on virtually all patrol cars but yet if and when the public does that they try to invoke the wire tap law. Even it the concept of it being a wire tap wasn't silly, they were/are trying to have it both ways.
09-08-2011, 08:40 AM   #15
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,464
What Good Is a Legal Right to Record Police Activity - If the Cops Target You When You Do It? | Crooks and Liars
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
cops, court, photo industry, photography, usa
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is this legal? Pepe Guitarra Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 40 08-30-2011 08:05 AM
Machinery MEP Street Legal Drags Gaelen Post Your Photos! 4 04-24-2011 06:19 PM
Falling out: Legal Advice WerTicus Photographic Technique 22 03-18-2011 04:18 AM
DC Police - Illegal to take photos of people or police in public MRRiley Photographic Technique 109 08-06-2010 10:46 AM
Recording Police Likely Okay in Maryland mithrandir General Talk 4 08-01-2010 12:58 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:43 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top