Arrested for Videotaping

[patric]

We never got to see the cellphone video the Tulsa school principal shot when she was arrested, but I would imagine it wasnt too different from this, a few weeks ago:

The Rochester Police Department arrested a woman on a charge of obstructing governmental administration after she videotaped several officers' search of a man's car.

The only problem? Videotaping a police officer in public view is perfectly legal in New York state -- and the woman was in her own front yard. The arrest report of the incident also contains an apparent discrepancy from what is seen in the woman's own video.

That video, uploaded to the Internet this week, more than a month after Emily Good's May 12 arrest, begins by showing a black male being questioned by a police officer at about 10 p.m. The red and blue flashes of a police cruiser illuminate the scene on Aldine Street.

Then one of the officers, identified as Mario Masic in the arrest report, turns to the camera and asks, "You guys need something?"

"I'm just -- this is my front yard -- I'm just recording what you're doing. It's my right," Good replies.

"Actually, not from the sidewalk," the officer replies, incorrect about the legality of Good's actions.

"This is my yard," Good says.

"I don't feel safe with you standing behind me so I'm going to ask you go into your house, you understand?" Masic says.

From there, the conversation escalates into a confrontation, with Masic alleging that Good is threatening his safety, and that she expressed other, unspecified anti-police statements before the videotaping began.

"Due to what you said to me, before you started taping, I think, uh, you need to go stay in your house, guys."

Good's public defender, Stephanie Stare, told HuffPost she believes from her conversations with several neighbors who were present that Good made no threatening comments before the tape begins.

Ryan Acuff, a friend of Good's who witnessed the exchange and picked up the video camera after she was arrested, agreed.

"None of us was talking to them until they came to us," Acuff said. "The first contact was definitely on tape."

For more than a minute of the video, the officer and Good argue about whether she is threatening his safety. Finally, it appears, Masic has had enough: "You know what, you're gonna go to jail. That's just not right."

Acuff claimed that he and Good were complying with the policeman's order to return to their porch when she was arrested.

"The real reason they arrested her was because she was videotaping," Acuff said. Both he and Good are activists who have previously protested foreclosures in the area.

Acuff has posted his own account of the arrest on Indymedia. He said he and Good were videotaping the traffic stop out of concern about police misconduct.

The police report of the arrest contains another apparent discrepancy from what appears on the video: Masic writes that the traffic stop targeted three individuals who "were all chalkem south gang members."

"This gang is known for drugs guns and violence," Masic notes, underscoring the danger of the situation.

The video, while dark, appears to only show one man led out of the car. Good's public defender says that as far as she has been able to determine, only one man was pulled over.

The Rochester Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a statement released to the press, Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard said that while he had "researched" the incident, "With the case still pending and my unfamiliarity with the specific details, any assumptions at this time would be premature."

The police department has launched an internal investigation.

Good is scheduled to appear in court on Monday, where her public defender hopes the case will be dismissed.

If that doesn't happen, Stare said, she was not afraid of bringing Good's case to a jury trial.

"She was well within her rights."

[Ed W]

There's a follow up to that story:

"Basking in the viral glory bestowed upon one of its officers this week, the Rochester Police Department resorted to petty retaliatory and intimidation tactics against citizens attending a community meeting Thursday afternoon."

"The citizens were attending a meeting to discuss the arrest of Emily Good, the 28-year-old woman who was jailed for videotaping cops from her front yard, when they realized cops were outside issuing tickets for having parked more than 12 inches from the curb."

"The above video shows cops using a little purple ruler to prove their case."

http://www.pixiq.com/article/rochester-cops-resort-to-retalitory-tactics-against-citizens

[sgrizzle]

We never got to see the cellphone video the Tulsa school principal shot when she was arrested, but I would imagine it wasnt too different from this, a few weeks ago:

I bet it's different

From KTUL
Police say they were forced to arrest the principal of the Hawthorne Elementary and this is not the first time she has been under investigation.

Lynnette Dixon was arrested after police say, she wouldn't calm down on a scene.

"She was very belligerent, yelling loud causing a commotion," said Jason Willingham, of the police department.

Dixon was reportedly at her daughter's home, in Comanche Park Apartments. Police were arresting Charles Boyd, who is the boyfriend, of Dixon's daughter.

from TW
Tipler said Dixon showed up at the apartment and was "belligerent" and "upset."

"She accused the officers of going through her daughter's apartment," Tipler said. "She was acting in such a manner that she was loud. When the officers were trying to explain, she would not listen; she kept yelling."

Dixon's daughter was not being accused of any crime, and her grandchildren were safe, Tipler said. No physical altercations or fights occurred when officers were there, she said.

"That's why we're puzzled; she was just so upset," Tipler said. "She gets there and has just lost her cool."

Officers asked Dixon to calm down and to stay back, adding that if she did not comply, she would be arrested, Tipler said.

"She continued to act in that manner," Tipler said. "At that point she was arrested for obstructing."

[patric]

But none of those press handouts explained why they seized Dixon's cellphone.

[patric]

Don't shoot photos or video? But it's a public space
http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/orl-travel-troubleshooter-2-062111,0,753276.column

"I used to deal with one of these a month," says Mickey Osterreicher, the general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). "Then it was weekly. Now it's almost every day. Citizens are being told that they can't take pictures out in public -- whether it's a building, a bridge or a train."

Why the crackdown on photography? Carlos Miller, a Miami-based multimedia journalist and author of the blog Photography Is Not a Crime, says that law enforcement agencies have felt threatened by photographers since the videotape of Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King made the rounds in 1991. It accelerated after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and has spun out of control with the development of social media, location-based technology and cellphones with easy-to-use digital cameras. "Cops feel as if they have to protect themselves," he says.

Osterreicher says that there are only two public areas in the United States where you can't shoot pictures: military bases and nuclear facilities. "The warnings are clearly posted," he says. "Otherwise, if the public is allowed, then so are their rights."

[patric]

"Basking in the viral glory bestowed upon one of its officers this week, the Rochester Police Department resorted to petty retaliatory and intimidation tactics against citizens attending a community meeting Thursday afternoon."

As with the Dixon case here, the prosecutor couldnt find that a crime had been committed:

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s2174896.shtml?cat=565

[DTowner]

I normally wouldn't recommend a law review article to my worst enemy, but this is actually a very interesting article on the "War on Photography" and legal remedies.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1857623

[Cats Cats Cats]

I was taking pictures of the national bank of Tulsa building.  Had the security guard come over and question me why I was taking pictures.  So it isn't just police.  He was worried I was taking pictures of people coming in and out of the bank.  I assume to determine if they come in at the same time to rob them or something?  I have no idea.

[Conan71]

I was taking pictures of the national bank of Tulsa building.  Had the security guard come over and question me why I was taking pictures.  So it isn't just police.  He was worried I was taking pictures of people coming in and out of the bank.  I assume to determine if they come in at the same time to rob them or something?  I have no idea.

Well if you were laying on the sidewalk and taking up-skirt photos...

[Townsend]

Well if you were laying on the sidewalk and taking up-skirt photos...

I think if you announce yourself it's still legal.

[custosnox]

I was taking pictures of the national bank of Tulsa building.  Had the security guard come over and question me why I was taking pictures.  So it isn't just police.  He was worried I was taking pictures of people coming in and out of the bank.  I assume to determine if they come in at the same time to rob them or something?  I have no idea.

Now I want to take a camera down there and take photo's.  I like bucking authority (or those that think they should be considered authority, or should I say especially?)

[patric]

Now I want to take a camera down there and take photo's.  I like bucking authority (or those that think they should be considered authority, or should I say especially?)

If you are standing on the public sidewalk or in the public street, you are within your legal rights.  If you step upon private property, and they tell you to leave, you must leave or you could be charged with trespassing.

If anyone takes action upon you otherwise, follow the lead:

The Rochester woman whose run in with the law with her iPhone made national headlines, plans to file a lawsuit claiming Rochester police violated her civil rights.
Donald Thompson, attorney for Emily Good, told News 10NBC's Ray Levato Tuesday they may sue the individual police officer involved in her arrest, the Rochester Police Department, "any or all of the above and that's something to be discussed and considered."
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S2176499.shtml?cat=565


"There's no prohibition against video taping police officers in the scope of their employment. In fact, they themselves have dashboard cameras. There are pole cameras all over the city. There's no prohibition to video taping."
"She wasn't impeding anything. He didn't feel unsafe. Watch the video," says Thompson. "The other two officers are seen walking around and addressing the other concern from the traffic stop. These guys are trained in areas where officer safety is an issue. The other officers weren't behaving as if officer safety was an issue. The officer safety exception permits police officers to do things and intrude in ways they otherwise couldn't. So his statements on the video I think are self-serving attempts to justify his behavior. 'I don't feel safe, so I'm going to intrude into your yard. I'm going to take you into custody. I'm going to take you downtown because I don't feel safe.' There's some exception for his conduct. Nonsense."

[patric]

There's a follow up to that story:
"Basking in the viral glory bestowed upon one of its officers this week, the Rochester Police Department resorted to petty retaliatory and intimidation tactics against citizens attending a community meeting Thursday afternoon."

And yet another follow-up, her home was broken into and the iPhone she used to make the recording was taken.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110628/NEWS01/106280327/Break-in-at-Emily-Good-s-home-an-oddity?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|NEWS

[Ed W]

Can anyone point me toward Oklahoma's laws regarding privacy, photography, and taping?  I looked through the OSCN search function last night, but didn't find much.

[guido911]

Can anyone point me toward Oklahoma's laws regarding privacy, photography, and taping?  I looked through the OSCN search function last night, but didn't find much.

Here's a statute pertaining to taping/recording of conversations.

It is not unlawful pursuant to the Security of Communications Act for:

1. an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of any communication common carrier whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire, oral or electronic communication to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of such communication. Said communication common carriers shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks; or

2. an officer, employee, or agent of any communication common carrier or other person authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to a law enforcement officer who is authorized to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication; or

3. an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Commission in the enforcement of Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, [FN1] to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication transmitted by radio or to disclose or use the information obtained; or

4. a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception; or

5. a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal act; or

6. a communication common carrier or an officer, agent, or employee thereof, or a person under contract with a communication common carrier, in the normal course of the business of the communication common carrier bidding upon contracts with or in the course of doing business with the United States, a state, or a political subdivision thereof, in the normal course of the activities of said entities, to send through the mail, send or carry in interstate or foreign commerce, manufacture, assemble, possess, or sell any electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders the device primarily useful for the purpose of the illegal interception of wire, oral or electronic communications; or

7. an officer or employee of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections to monitor any wire, oral or electronic communication where an incarcerated inmate is a party to that communication, if the inmate is given prior and conspicuous notice of the surveillance or monitoring.

13 O.S. § 176.4[Emphasis added]. 13 O.S. § 176.2(9) prescribes: "'Intercept'" means the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device"