• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Fairfax PD clarifies a citizen's right to film police activity

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
The headline on this article is fairly misleading. The headline"policy" is for the FPD officers, instructing them that generally citizens have the right to film or record. I guess headline shockers generate ad-click revenue.

At first glance, seems like a good policy.

TFred

New guidelines for filming police activity in Fairfax County

The Fairfax County Police Department is clarifying what someone can and cannot do with a camera at or near a crime scene with a new policy.

In a policy titled FCPD General Order 603.1 the department said it issued June 1, anyone has the right to record police activity, whether that’s a passerby or someone directly interacting with police.

Officers will not be allowed to tell that observer that they can’t film a crime scene nor otherwise obstruct that filming.

However, according to the Fairfax County Police Department news website, filming cannot interfere with officers doing their job, jeopardize anyone’s safety, violate the law or “incite others to violate the law.”

...
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
The headline on this article is fairly misleading. The headline"policy" is for the FPD officers, instructing them that generally citizens have the right to film or record. I guess headline shockers generate ad-click revenue.
At first glance, seems like a good policy.
TFred

New guidelines for filming police activity in Fairfax County

tfred, the guidelines look good on the surface with the minor problem that the on scene officer may, if they determine the recorder is

quote: Although the mere fact that an individual is recording police activity does not constitute a crime, individuals do not have the right to interfere with police activity, jeopardize safety, violate the law, or incite others to violate the law. Interference consists of actions that obstruct officers from the performance of their duties or pose a safety hazard which the officer must account for. (added by me...there is a list in the guidelines)

When an officer makes an arrest of an individual who is recording police activity, the officer may, at their discretion, turn off the recording device and secure it incident to arrest. unquote

if the nice officer is cantankerous and believe the recorder is interfering may arrest said individual and then turn off the recording.

further, quote: The seizure of a recording device or recording medium is a temporary restraint intended only to preserve evidence (recording)
until a search warrant can be obtained. unquote.

and nothing in the guidelines provides any oversight if the nice officers violate said guidelines or how citizens are to provide complaints if they believe the officers violated the guidelines or get their recordings returned in case recordings are seized w/o a warrant.

soooo...eyewash or viable...my gut says...eyewash since there is no punishment if the officers violate the guidelines.

ipse
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
we may be forced to carry a back up recorder...

LEOS are more in fear of video recorders then guns..

My .02

Regards
CCJ
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
tfred, the guidelines look good on the surface with the minor problem that the on scene officer may, if they determine the recorder is

quote: Although the mere fact that an individual is recording police activity does not constitute a crime, individuals do not have the right to interfere with police activity, jeopardize safety, violate the law, or incite others to violate the law. Interference consists of actions that obstruct officers from the performance of their duties or pose a safety hazard which the officer must account for. (added by me...there is a list in the guidelines)

When an officer makes an arrest of an individual who is recording police activity, the officer may, at their discretion, turn off the recording device and secure it incident to arrest. unquote

if the nice officer is cantankerous and believe the recorder is interfering may arrest said individual and then turn off the recording.

further, quote: The seizure of a recording device or recording medium is a temporary restraint intended only to preserve evidence (recording)
until a search warrant can be obtained. unquote.

and nothing in the guidelines provides any oversight if the nice officers violate said guidelines or how citizens are to provide complaints if they believe the officers violated the guidelines or get their recordings returned in case recordings are seized w/o a warrant.

soooo...eyewash or viable...my gut says...eyewash since there is no punishment if the officers violate the guidelines.

ipse

I've had these issues (not just with cops but many different .govs). I always come out on top. Because its an issue I'm willing to argue over whereas .govs...not so much. make it known that you do not consent to any encounter
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The memo uses the Probable cause standard not reasonable suspicion.
Probable cause vs reasonable suspicion:
Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand. This level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside.

When you look at the memo in whole, it's a warning shot across the bow, officer don't be screwing with people recording your actions.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
The memo uses the Probable cause standard not reasonable suspicion.
Probable cause vs reasonable suspicion:
Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand. This level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside.

When you look at the memo in whole, it's a warning shot across the bow, officer don't be screwing with people recording your actions.

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/inside-fcpd/pdf/generalorder6031.pdf

^^^ direct link to "memo"...looks like the PD only respects 3 of the federal amendments ...

On the whole the memo shows a complete misunderstanding of the law.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
The memo uses the Probable cause standard not reasonable suspicion.
Probable cause vs reasonable suspicion:
Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand. This level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside.

When you look at the memo in whole, it's a warning shot across the bow, officer don't be screwing with people recording your actions.

absolute thumbs up,

but seems to lack the enforcement of what happens if the officer does screw up...

ipse
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
absolute thumbs up,

but seems to lack the enforcement of what happens if the officer does screw up...

ipse


And, there is the crucial point.

If the reader will google something called CALEA, he will find it is a company that "certifies" police departments. Early in CALEA's sales pitch, the reader will find the promotional point that CALEA certification leads to lower municipal insurance rates. Fairfax County PD is "accredited" by CALEA.

Having a policy, (called a General Order in paramilitary police parlance), is meaningless. It is just there for looks.

I have personally been seized twice by Fairfax County PD in fishing expeditions (traffic stops for tail-light burned out, both times). Fairfax Co PD "policy" (general orders) requires the cops, absent exigent (emergency) or mitigating circumstances) to immediately greet the driver, identify themselves, and state the basis for the stop. Not only did the Ffx cops not do that, the one time I expressly asked why I was seized, the cop said, and I quote, "We'll get to that in a minute." Even though department "policy" requires him to state that without me even having to ask.

The reason for this new policy about leaving alone people recording cops is so the PD is on record as having a "policy". Look to lawsuits about violations of rights. If a person proves a policy, written or not, or a custom, that allows a rights violation, the person suing is that much closer to winning his lawsuit against a police department. By making notice of this toothless so-called policy, Ffx County PD is really giving evidence to undermine future lawsuits--"See, see! We issued this policy!!" But, as Solus points out, it is toothless--no penalty for violation.

Want more evidence of the disingenuousness of this policy? When did recording police hit the national consciousness in a big way? Four years ago--2012. Remember the video of that biker who was speeding, and then cut off by an off-duty Maryland cop who threatened him with a gun? And, then across that summer more and more cases of cops seizing I-phones, or threatening people for recording them, various police using a bogus interpretation of wire-tap statutes to justify threatening or arresting citizens recording them? Then a federal circuit expressly ruled people have a right to record cops (as though it takes a court to explain something they should already know.) All that was four years ago.

And, Fairfax County only now gets around to issuing a policy? Suuuuuuuuure. With no penalty for violation? Yeah, right.
 
Top