Filming cops is not a 1st Amend. Right

[Jago668]

Except the ruling isn't if you are impeding an officer, or if you are verbally harassing an officer you can't record. It is simply you cannot record period, without meeting the stipulation of letting them know why you need to. Someone recording an officer in and of itself does not impede an officer from doing his job. An officer is a public servant, if they cannot handle public scrutiny while executing their jobs then don't do the job.

I'm fairly lenient on use of force. I've worked as a security guard, and as a correctional officer so I have some idea of the knuckle heads officers deal with on a regular basis. You resist arrest or fight and you deserve some lumps. You want to get in an officers face, curse/yell, and cause problems while they are trying to do something. Then sure enjoy your trip downtown, might not go to trial, might not get a conviction but have a nice night in the pokey. Someone sitting in their car being polite, someone standing back away from the situation recording; where is the issue? We are so far down so many different slippery slopes in regards to rights it isn't even funny. We don't need another ruling pushing it even further that way.

[Jusme]

I think where the confusion starts is the difference between video recording and audio recording. Police have the right to record their encounters with us because the state(s) grant them more powers than the average everyday person in order to enforce the laws. Most of the time the stops they have begin with Probable cause that we have committed a crime so in that sense it is totally justified for them to film us.

Where I think the confusion starts is the difference in audio vs video recording because in some states it is illegal to record audio from someone without explicit permission.. however there is almost no laws nation wide as to recording JUST video (with NO audio) in a public place.

a lot of it is dependant on state law... you also have to realize that the MAIN reason this stuff ends up in court is NOT because of bad cops.. its because of those idiots that get in the way of police doing their jobs because they harass, annoy, and physically impede them from doing their jobs.

Look at it this way... most people have at some point worked in a customer service related job.. .picture yourself in that job.. now picture yourself dealing with a hostile and upset customer.. now picture someone that is friends with that disgruntled individual (or someone random) that just wants to get in the way by shouting at you and filming and putting pressure on you and trying to get you to slip up any way possible.. of course youre going to be flustered, you may even make a mistake or misspeak based on the pressure that person is providing..

its the same with cops..

rather than instantly pull out your phone, see if the cop needs some help... or try to assist them.. the overwhelming majority of us are just trying to do the right thing and keep the public safe and be able to go home to our families at the end of the shift.

I too was a LEO so I know all too well how the public attempts to get under their skin and get them to react inappropriately, but that is the job. If LEOS aren't held to a higher standard than the customer service rep at Walmart, then there can be no law enforcement. While my time on the job was before everyone had a cell phone and our cars weren't equipped with cameras, I approached every situation with the assumption that there may be someone watching or recording it. While officers are afforded the same expectation of privacy that Joe Citizen has, once he/she is in the public, being paid by the public, performing duties in public, everything is open to the public. That includes audio recordings, video recordings, or still photography.
While that may not always be pleasant or comfortable, it is part of the job.

[treadlightly]

I have high-minded ideals I'll stick to, but it doesn't help, whether the argument is for open, Constitutional carry or for the right keep and bear telephoto lenses, that the most visible practitioners of the adult art of citizenship are sometimes just plain jerks.

Entrapment is nasty business, whether practiced by citizen or law enforcement officer.

[The Annoyed Man]

I think where the confusion starts is the difference between video recording and audio recording. Police have the right to record their encounters with us because the state(s) grant them more powers than the average everyday person in order to enforce the laws. Most of the time the stops they have begin with Probable cause that we have committed a crime so in that sense it is totally justified for them to film us.

Where I think the confusion starts is the difference in audio vs video recording because in some states it is illegal to record audio from someone without explicit permission.. however there is almost no laws nation wide as to recording JUST video (with NO audio) in a public place.

a lot of it is dependant on state law... you also have to realize that the MAIN reason this stuff ends up in court is NOT because of bad cops.. its because of those idiots that get in the way of police doing their jobs because they harass, annoy, and physically impede them from doing their jobs.

Look at it this way... most people have at some point worked in a customer service related job.. .picture yourself in that job.. now picture yourself dealing with a hostile and upset customer.. now picture someone that is friends with that disgruntled individual (or someone random) that just wants to get in the way by shouting at you and filming and putting pressure on you and trying to get you to slip up any way possible.. of course youre going to be flustered, you may even make a mistake or misspeak based on the pressure that person is providing..

its the same with cops..

rather than instantly pull out your phone, see if the cop needs some help... or try to assist them.. the overwhelming majority of us are just trying to do the right thing and keep the public safe and be able to go home to our families at the end of the shift.

The forum rules forbid me from using the common euphemism for what I think about the content of your post.

Can I get a witness?

[68Charger]

The forum rules forbid me from using the common euphemism for what I think about the content of your post.

I'm with you on that, WB.

[RedRaiderCHL]

haha! I understand where y'all are coming from.. but i also understand cops perspective.. i dont care if people record... just dont do it invasively.. let them do their jobs.. thats more of the point im trying to drive home..

[Jusme]

haha! I understand where y'all are coming from.. but i also understand cops perspective.. i dont care if people record... just dont do it invasively.. let them do their jobs.. thats more of the point im trying to drive home..

I understand that and I agree that once their recording becomes interference, then it is a different issue, but this ruling doesn't address any type of interference it says that a person must first inform the officer of their reasons for the recording, and then obtain permission. That is a direct violation of one's First Amendment rights. This has been a bone of contention for LEOs in several large cities and they have pushed for just this type of legislation. They have always been defeated simply by the fact that it would infringe upon First Amendment rights. And the press was always at the forefront of the fight against these type of rulings.

Again, if you work for the public, are performing your duties in the public, everything is up for public scrutiny, I don't see this ruling standing up to appeal, but I have seen our courts do crazier things.

[twomillenium]

I think where the confusion starts is the difference between video recording and audio recording. Police have the right to record their encounters with us because the state(s) grant them more powers than the average everyday person in order to enforce the laws. Most of the time the stops they have begin with Probable cause that we have committed a crime so in that sense it is totally justified for them to film us.

Where I think the confusion starts is the difference in audio vs video recording because in some states it is illegal to record audio from someone without explicit permission.. however there is almost no laws nation wide as to recording JUST video (with NO audio) in a public place.

a lot of it is dependant on state law... you also have to realize that the MAIN reason this stuff ends up in court is NOT because of bad cops.. its because of those idiots that get in the way of police doing their jobs because they harass, annoy, and physically impede them from doing their jobs.

Look at it this way... most people have at some point worked in a customer service related job.. .picture yourself in that job.. now picture yourself dealing with a hostile and upset customer.. now picture someone that is friends with that disgruntled individual (or someone random) that just wants to get in the way by shouting at you and filming and putting pressure on you and trying to get you to slip up any way possible.. of course youre going to be flustered, you may even make a mistake or misspeak based on the pressure that person is providing..

its the same with cops..

rather than instantly pull out your phone, see if the cop needs some help... or try to assist them.. the overwhelming majority of us are just trying to do the right thing and keep the public safe and be able to go home to our families at the end of the shift.

The nicest thing I can say about this post is Bravo Sierra.

[mojo84]

In this case the interference or invasive argument is nothing more than a strawman.