Re: Should photography of police be illegal?

**ScratchMonkey** · 07-31-2010, 03:54 PM

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...e.html?sid=101

Sgt. Jonathan Burke wrote that he repeatedly ordered Greenfield to place the "unknown" object in her pocket and keep her hands free. When Greenfield refused, she was arrested and charged with obstructing official business and resisting arrest.

Burke wrote in his report that he feared that Greenfield could have been holding a dangerous object such as a "cell-phone gun."

http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/cellgun.asp

So remember, never video overtly. Hide the camera in your cap or clothing.

**ScratchMonkey** · 09-14-2010, 06:56 PM

Today's CATO video blog, "Cops on Camera":

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/cops-on-camera/

**Jakaleel** · 09-28-2010, 01:28 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/loc...clist-tro.html

Ruling:
http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2...ion_092710.pdf

One of the key legal questions facing Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr., was whether police performing their duties have an expectation of privacy. Pitt ruled that police have no expectation of privacy in their public, on-the-job communications.

Pitt wrote: "Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. 'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."

Graber was also charged with possessing a “device primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of oral communications" -- referring to the video camera on his helmet. The judge disagreed with the prosecutor that the helmet cam was illegal, and concluded the state's argument would render illegal “almost every cell phone, Blackberry, and every similar device, not to mention dictation equipment and other types of recording devices."

No word yet on whether the state's attorney will try to appeal the decision.

Graber still faces traffic charges.

May have problems getting his equipment (computer, cameras, etc...) back since it was used to document his traffic crimes - speeding (+100), reckless and negligent driving (weaving and wheelies).

**E-Male** · 09-30-2010, 12:42 AM

When we cannot re-present what we see, then we have no real public sphere. A healthy democracy needs citizens empowered to not merely say, "I saw this" but to say, "here, see what I saw".

**ScratchMonkey** · 01-28-2011, 04:48 PM

Buildings, not cops. But I don't recall buildings even having a right to privacy.

http://gizmodo.com/5745720/you-can-n...out-being-shot
http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/27...ral-buildings/
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...-that-picture/

That’s why the New York Civil Liberties Union was so pleased with the settlement it reached in October with the Federal Protective Service of the Department of Homeland Security. (“You Can Photograph That Federal Building,” Oct. 18, 2010.) In the settlement, the agency pledged to inform its officers of the public’s general right to photograph the exteriors of federal courthouses.

Now, the civil liberties group has received a redacted version of the directive that was sent out last year. Significantly, it embraces federal buildings — not just courthouses — nationwide.

**Sirusblk** · 01-28-2011, 07:11 PM

I've had photographer friends had their cameras shoved away, told to move elsewhere etc. because buildings for big corporate businesses are considered intellectual property. What BS. I'm glad this ruling was done, now we have presidence for other similar cases.

Thread Tools

Display