Arrested for Videotaping

[Vashta Nerada]

That sounds like the story of the cops that shot and killed the guy to stop him from committing suicide....

"Without the video my word may have not have meant anything."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/11/los-angeles-woman-beaten-by-highway-patrolman-says-believes-was-trying-to-kill

[Vashta Nerada]

That sounds like the story of the cops that shot and killed the guy to stop him from committing suicide....

Deja-Vu

A 45-year-old man was fatally shot during a confrontation with Tulsa police officers in a neighborhood west of downtown early Tuesday.
Emergency responders found Mark Kelley holding a knife and bleeding profusely as he stood in the driveway of a home in the 300 block of North 25th West Avenue about 4:20 a.m.

Kelley had already stabbed himself with a knife and was approaching the officers when he was shot, according to Officer Jill Roberson. He was pronounced dead at a Tulsa hospital.

Homicide Sgt. Dave Walker said Wednesday that Officers Amy Jensen, 25, Mitchell Franklin, 44, and Rashena Smith, 26, combined to fire 18 shots at Kelley, who was struck multiple times.

Walker said which of the three officers struck Kelley might never be determined. (no ballistics evidence) In addition, police said Tuesday that Kelley's self-inflicted injuries were so severe that they had not determined whether he died from the gunshots or from the knife wound.

Kelley was taken by ambulance to St. John Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead, she said. Investigators have not determined whether Kelley died of gunshot wounds or the self-inflicted stab wounds.

"He did have a knife. He did approach the officers, ... I understand that. But he was 50 feet away. You think he's going to stab you from here to there?" Clarence Kelley said pointing from his backyard gate to beyond the driveway where his brother was shot.

[Vashta Nerada]

Ferguson police broke the law when they stopped civilians from videotaping them
Filming police is the American thing to do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/15/ferguson-police-broke-the-law-when-they-stopped-civilians-from-videotaping-them-and-theyre-just-the-latest/

For decades, civil rights activists have struggled to hold rogue police officers more accountable.   Claims of excessive force, racial profiling, and illegal arrests were hard to prove.   In the rare cases when prosecutors brought charges against errant police officers, jurors often did not convict.  "The police were just doing their job" has been a common refrain.

But we've discovered we're now holding one of the most powerful tools for social activism in our purses and back pockets. Last year, for the first time, the majority of Americans (56 percent) owned smart phones, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. That was a landmark development with great consequences for criminal justice and citizen oversight of law enforcement. There's been a power shift in favor of everyday citizens and it's being recorded on iPhones and Androids – then Facebooked, tweeted and Instagrammed. Now all the world has seen how a few bad cops do their job.

This summer, ordinary citizens have put those phones to good work.  They have allowed us to see a New York City police officer put Eric Garner in an illegal choke-hold.  We saw Marlene Pinnock, a 51-year-old grandmother, get held down and punched in the face 10 times by a California Highway Patrol officer.

And then there's Ferguson, Mo.  We have seen how the police responded to people who, in the main, peacefully protested the shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black man.  We saw the police, using assault rifles, rubber bullets, tanks, tear gas, and smoke bombs, wage a "shock and awe" campaign seemingly out of the Operation Desert Storm playbook.

The world witnessed these outrages, in part, because citizens had the courage to videotape what the police were doing.  It takes guts because bad cops don't like being caught on tape and, in some recent cases, they've gone after the photographer. Police in Petersburg, Va. stormed the porch of a young man taping an arrest in his front yard, causing a violent confrontation. Nearby months later, a teenager said police assaulted him for filming a police arrest, too. Then this week in Ferguson, police arrested — on drummed up allegations that they were never charged for — Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery and Huffington Post reporter Ryan Reilly when they were videotaping the cops.

The law is simple, and it is entirely on the side of the citizen photographers.  The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of anyone to record police in a public place.  The police can place reasonable restrictions on photographers by, for example, not allowing them to enter a crime scene.  But they cannot stop people from standing on the street and filming them while they make arrests, detain suspects, or otherwise enforce the law.

If the police see you filming, they cannot force you to turn over your camera.  They cannot make you delete what you have filmed.  Of course, they can ask you to do any of these things — and the police are very good at making requests sound like orders.  But all you have to do is say something like "Officer, I refuse to consent to you to look at my photos."  Then you have the constitutional right to be left alone.

It takes guts to record the police, even if it is perfectly legal.  As I often tell my law students, the Bill of Rights is not for wimps.   But think of it as an act of patriotism. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, in 2011, the right to video-record the police.  The Court stated  "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.'"

Police should support these efforts. Cameras improve working conditions for the majority of police officers who are hard-working and law-abiding.  In jurisdictions where police cars are equipped with dashboard cameras, police misconduct complaints have gone down – along with the taxpayer expenditures to settle them. That's partly why Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier has recommend a pilot program in which D.C. officers will wear body cameras.   She sees it as a win-win, protecting cops as much as civilians.  The police will have evidence for their cases, and citizens will have evidence when they allege mistreatment. It also can address complaints about discourteous treatment by police – rude conduct or abusive language.   Officers say some citizens don't treat them very well either.  Knowing a camera is running should make everyone nicer.

The next time you see the police doing something that concerns you, don't just get mad.  Take out your phone and make a recording.   Think of it as the American thing to do.

[Ed W]

The latest reason that police are using to confiscate cell phones is that they "were in fear for their lives." A smart phone could easily be converted to a gun, a rifle, or even a bazooka, you know. And to no one's surprise, any photos or video of an incident gets mysteriously erased before the phone is returned.

[patric]

The latest reason that police are using to confiscate cell phones is that they "were in fear for their lives." A smart phone could easily be converted to a gun, a rifle, or even a bazooka, you know. And to no one's surprise, any photos or video of an incident gets mysteriously erased before the phone is returned.

Pffft!  That's so ten minutes ago.

Cop To Cameraman: 'If You're Invoking Your Rights, You Must Be Doing Something Wrong'
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140905/07011828427/cop-to-cameraman-if-youre-invoking-your-rights-you-must-be-doing-something-wrong.shtml

[patric]

A federal judge held that the right to record police activity is a clearly established right protected by the First Amendment.

In a civil rights lawsuit, Antonio Buehler alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested by the Austin Police Department multiple times for taking pictures of police activities. Buehler was first arrested when he came upon a police scene at a gas station, where he began recording the arrest because he felt that excessive force was being used.

In an effort to get the lawsuit dismissed, the Austin Police Department claimed "qualified immunity" which protects state officials from suit. However, qualified immunity is not available if officials violate a clearly established constitutional right.

In an order released Thursday, the federal judge in the case held that not only is there a constitutional right to document police officers, but that the right is clearly established. Magistrate Judge Mark Lane held that "the First Amendment protects the right to videotape police officers in the performance of their official duties, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions."

Continuing, the judge wrote:

    If a person has the right to assemble in a public place, receive information on a matter of public concern, and make a record of that information for the purpose of disseminating that information, the ability to make photographic or video recording of that information is simply not a new or a revolutionary expansion of a historical right. Instead the photographic or video recording of public information is only a more modern and efficient method of exercising a clearly established right.
See also, http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/crime-law/federal-judge-upholds-activist-antonio-buehlers-ri/ngnbp/
http://peacefulstreets.com/

[patric]

NYPD police union president Patrick J. Lynch objected to a recording of a police incident, saying:

"Resisting and interfering with an arrest is against the law. It is time to stop the amateur video activists who interfere with police operations from setting the agenda."


...which sounds perfectly reasonable, until you see the video he is objecting to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/nyregion/man-accuses-officer-of-taking-more-than-1000-video-prompts-investigation.html

[Vashta Nerada]

NYPD police union president Patrick J. Lynch objected to a recording of a police incident, saying:

"Resisting and interfering with an arrest is against the law. It is time to stop the amateur video activists who interfere with police operations from setting the agenda."


...which sounds perfectly reasonable, until you see the video he is objecting to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/nyregion/man-accuses-officer-of-taking-more-than-1000-video-prompts-investigation.html

Ill raise you one:

WATCH: NYPD Officers Pistol-Whip Teen Suspected of Marijuana Possession

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/10/08/first-offense-nypd-cop-caught-camera-pistol-whipping-teen-2

Patrick Lynch, the police union president, said the tape does not tell the entire tale.
"As usual, the video fails to capture the offense that resulted in police action or the lengthy foot pursuit that culminated in the arrest," he said.

OK union apologist, what would the video have needed to show to excuse the assault and brutality?

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141007/bed-stuy/video-nypd-officer-hits-teen-face-with-his-gun
Video: http://bcove.me/zsk7w7qp

[Vashta Nerada]

http://www.cnet.com/news/this-is-why-people-use-phones-to-film-police

[/quote]

[Vashta Nerada]

"That camera could be a disguised gun" making a comeback after courts uphold citizen's rights to photograph police?

Pringle pulled out his Samsung Galaxy smartphone and began recording.  It all seemed pretty civil until the cop writing the citation told him to stop recording.

"Phones can be converted into weapons .... look it up online," the cop told him.

When Pringle stood by his civil rights, the cop slapped the phone out of his hand where it fell onto the boardwalk and broke
apart.
The other cop then pounced on him, slamming him down on the boardwalk where he ended up with a laceration on his chin.
"Blood was everywhere," Pringle said. "I was laying on my stomach and he had one knee on my back and the other knee on the side of my face.
His friends picked up his phone, which was damaged but still functional.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/04/09/san-diego-police-attack-and-arrest-man-video-recording-them-claiming-phone-could-be-a-weapon/


Curiously, the cops completely forget about the "weapon" once it's slapped out of the owner's hand,
and in some cases bystanders have even picked phones up off the ground to continue recording.

So now the question is, are these cops actually that stupid, or are they just using a pretext designed to circumvent the courts and civil liberties?

Government ... have a set hierarchy of purpose that does not change.
1. Self preservation & insulation from public/political/market forces

Im going to go with "big fat lie disguised as an officer safety issue."  And since "Officer Safety" trumps "Citizen Safety" in the current political climate, guess who wins... and who looses?   




http://www.cnet.com/news/cops-allegedly-get-violent-at-sight-of-samsung-galaxy/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml

http://www.fox4now.com/features/4inyourcorner/Assessing-the-threat-of-cell-phone-guns-to-law-enforcement-253461221.html?lc=Smart#

[Vashta Nerada]

Yes, It's Legal To Film The Cops -- And What's Been Filmed In Recent Months Is Appalling
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/film-the-cops_n_5967008.html

[dbacksfan 2.0]

This is one area that the Russians are ahead of us on. We have a full on dash cam war.

In a post on Animal, Russian ex-pat and journalist Marina Galperina offers a few reasons, which boil down to dangerous driving conditions and the unreliability of Russian traffic police.

Driving in Russia is hazardous: Last year, 200,000 traffic accidents killed 28,000 people. (More than 32,000 died in car accidents in the United States in 2011, a much lower figure per capita.)

Addressing those high levels in 2009, President Dmitry Medvedev blamed the "undisciplined, criminally careless behavior of our drivers," along with poor road conditions.

Drivers certainly play a role, but Medvedev did not mention Russia's traffic police, which, Galperina writes, "is known throughout their land for brutality, corruption, extortion and making an income on bribes."

That is not hyperbole. Russia ranks 133rd among the world's nations in corruption (where number one is the least corrupt), according to Transparency International. Much of that corruption is on the part of the traffic police, an institution that, along with kindergartens and higher education, was ranked by Russians as the country's most corrupt. In a recent poll, 32 percent of Russians surveyed called traffic police the most corrupt institution.

So going to the police with a legitimate complaint is far from sure to produce a good result.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-russian-drivers-have-dash-cams-2012-12

[Ed W]

Russians use dash cams because few of them have insurance.

Ed W

[patric]

Russians use dash cams because few of them have insurance.

Ed W

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=19839.msg264527#msg264527

[Vashta Nerada]

An off-duty police officer who used a controversial neck restraint on a woman after she refused to stop filming an arrest in a Corpus Christi parking lot has resigned.

Gary Witherspoon, an off-duty investigator for the Nueces County Attorney's Office, resigned Wednesday.  "The termination is a result of his involvement and actions at an incident that took place on August 16, 2014, as well as other employment issues."
The footage shows Corpus Christi Sgt. J.E. Lockhart repeatedly instruct Lanessa Espionsa, who was not being charged with a crime, to show ID or be arrested.
Espinosa told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times that she was not involved in the incident, but was at the scene because the off-duty officer did not let her leave the parking lot after eating at the restaurant.

While she was in custody in the police car, Ms. Espinosa was asked to delete the video footage she'd recorded. The conversation was recorded on the car's dashcam, and that footage is posted on KERO TV's website.
Espinosa said she pretended to delete the video in order to satisfy the cops.

   "I was told I was free to go and to delete the video. I pretended to delete the videos so I would be released."

At issue in the video are two separate problems, according to reports.

First problem: was Ms. Espinosa legally required to produce I.D. when the police officer asked for it?

Former District Attorney Carlos Valdez tells KZTV that in Texas, a person is only required to identify their self if they have been arrested, so Ms. Espinosa's arrest for refusing to identify herself was not legal.

   "So under this particular offense that we're talking about, failure to identify, I don't think there's a violation on video."

Second problem: was Officer Lockhart within his legal authority to ask Ms. Espinosa to delete the video?

Chief Floyd Simpson tells KERO that his officer should not have asked Espinosa to delete the video, and for that reason the officer is being disciplined.

   "Our officer performed the way I wanted him to perform except 'I'm going to arrest you if you don't give me the ID'... and the piece about deleting the video."