Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Cops getting tired of being recorded behaving badly

  1. #1
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

    I think we need to work for an amendment to RCW 9.70.030 explicitly stating that a LEO has no expectation of privacy in the course of his duties, that recording a LEO in the course of his duties without their permission is explicitly lawful, and LEO have no authority to demand recording be stopped.

  2. #2
    Regular Member skiingislife725's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lake Stevens, WA
    Posts
    400

    Post imported post

    I believe you mean RCW 9.73.030? But anyhow, I totally agree with you. That article you linked is very disturbing. As one commenter said, "Who's going to watch the watchmen?"

  3. #3
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    skiingislife725 wrote:
    I believe you mean RCW 9.73.030? But anyhow, I totally agree with you. That article you linked is very disturbing. As one commenter said, "Who's going to watch the watchmen?"
    People who read the graphic novel. :P

    But srsly. You're right.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    They’re getting pissed off because video is the only way they are being held accountable. Most of the Unlawful things police do and the brutal way they treat people are swept under the rug and there is no accountability. The police chiefs, prosecutors and Judges mostly turn a blind eye to police brutality, so people started recording and posting on YouTube to force the city and police to do something about it.

    So this whole wiretapping or eavesdropping laws they claim as justification to arrest and steal your camera, which most of the time miraculously ends up deleted, is a BS way of skirting expectation of no privacy on public streets.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    I thought Washington was a 1 party concent state. So long as you know a video is going its lawful. (I might be incorrect.)

  6. #6
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    skiingislife725 wrote:
    I believe you mean RCW 9.73.030?
    D'oh!

  7. #7
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    nofoa wrote:
    I thought Washington was a 1 party concent state. So long as you know a video is going its lawful.
    Nope. All parties must consent to recording a private conversation unless it's something like threats or late night harassment calls.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

    The general way to obtain consent is to say (and record!) "I am recording this conversation" and if they keep talking they're assumed to have given consent to the recording.

    The "no assumption of privacy" in an official interaction with LEOs is from a 9th Circuit decision ( http://otd.oyez.org/articles/2004/12...erome-12132004 ); it should be made explicit.

    What's amusing is there does appear to be an assumption of privacy going the other direction... http://www.allbusiness.com/services/...4079292-1.html

  8. #8
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    nofoa wrote:
    I thought Washington was a 1 party concent state. So long as you know a video is going its lawful.
    Nope. All parties must consent to recording a private conversation unless it's something like threats or late night harassment calls.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

    The general way to obtain consent is to say (and record!) "I am recording this conversation" and if they keep talking they're assumed to have given consent to the recording.

    The "no assumption of privacy" in an official interaction with LEOs is from a 9th Circuit decision ( http://otd.oyez.org/articles/2004/12...erome-12132004 ); it should be made explicit.

    What's amusing is there does appear to be an assumption of privacy going the other direction... http://www.allbusiness.com/services/...4079292-1.html
    Yup.

    When I was a kid my Mom recorded someone on the phone without telling them. NOT a good idea. Only reason it didn't bite her in the end was because the second party didn't want to press charges.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  9. #9
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    The "no assumption of privacy" in an official interaction with LEOs is from a 9th Circuit decision
    There is no such thing...

    Read carefully.



    The 9th Circuit concluded that tape recording police officers during a traffic stop is not a crime in Washington State because a traffic stop does not constitute a private conversation.
    A traffic stop is PUBLIC, as it is in a PUBLIC area...Hence, there is no expectation of privacy.

    Had nothing to do with acting in an official capacity, and everything to do with the fact that recording WAS NOT MADE WHERE PRIVACY EXISTS OR IS EXPECTED.

    I think it's funny that the officers claim that the stop is 'private', yet want to record the stop on their cameras, essentially violating their own law.


    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  10. #10
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Ya see, Ya see, another reason Illinois sucks...
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    The police don't like it...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jftEa...layer_embedded

    I have real problems with using the color of law and also his reference to he was a Marine...therefore .....

    Who is to say the photographer was not also in the service?
    Live Free or Die!

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    SNIP I have real problems with using the color of law and also his reference to he was a Marine...therefore .....
    A real holier-than-thou attitude. "I got shot at to defend your rights, so I get to tell you what your rights are."

    An embarrassment to Marines, I can tell you that.

    Worse, though, is his enforcing his opinion. No authority. The cop even said he didn't care, in response to the videographer telling him it wasn't against the law.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Techno brings up some good points, but I don't think it's a far leap to say when a public official is acting in public capacity doing a public job none of his conversations with "us" the public would be considered private.

    Then again wouldn't mean we can record a call to their spouse, or them using the restroom, or something else that would be considered explicitly private.

    I went through this with building inspectors, and was told I don't have to have their permission to record them on my jobs in their public capacity and this was from the city's lawyer. The inspector had walked off and were refused to do my inpsections because I was recording them. (long story why)

    I had the most pleasant inspections after that.




    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    The police don't like it...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jftEa...layer_embedded

    I have real problems with using the color of law and also his reference to he was a Marine...therefore .....

    Who is to say the photographer was not also in the service?
    Thanks for that link. I watched all his videos and I got to give it to him. He is standing up for his 1st amendment rights, just like we stand up for our 2nd amendment rights. Looks like he goes through a lot of hassels to expose officers harrassment and I'm glad there are people willing to do that. And the cop in that link is an idiot. Military service does not mean you can make up your own laws, nor does it mean the public owes you anything. I served our country myself, but do not request citizens give me any special privilages for doing so, I did so out of my own free will because it was something I wanted to do. I am grateful for all our veterans, but to use your status like he did is disgraceful. On a side note, thank you to all of you who are veterans or currently serving our grate country. Your sacrifices are very much appreciated.

    Edit: Also to the police officers who do thier best to protect and serve without infringing on citizens rights, thank you too. I know the police that go beyond the law are not the majority. I only wish all officers were professional in thier duties.

  15. #15
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    If Law Officers are upset about being recorded while abusing their powers, then perhaps they should stop doing so. Just being a little "rough" while arresting a suspect does not, to me, constitute abuse. The additional "touches" administered once the suspect is under their control do. Nothing wrong with a little "video truth".

    Be sure and note that there are far more LEOs that DON'T beat on their arrested subjects. Just those that think they are immune to the rules because they wear the badge and thankfully they are in the mnority. The more they are exposed by video's like the recent one in Seattle, the less chance they will be allowed to continue their careers.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  16. #16
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Another cop ona power trip getting mad because someone is contesting his knowledge and authourity. Would have been good to see the supervisor show up and to see what he would have had to say. That guy handled that very well, they should give the officers some maturity training and help them with their listening skills.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    I'm honestly not biased because I'm going in to the field, but I always here these reports and stories of how law officers get offended when they're being video recorded or photographed in the midst of their work, or are harassing open carriers, among other things, but I've never myself had a negative encounter, and none of my friends or family members have ill feelings toward open carriers. In fact, most of them went in to law enforcement because they support the U.S. Constitution.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    If Law Officers are upset about being recorded while abusing their powers, then perhaps they should stop doing so. Just being a little "rough" while arresting a suspect does not, to me, constitute abuse. The additional "touches" administered once the suspect is under their control do. Nothing wrong with a little "video truth".

    Be sure and note that there are far more LEOs that DON'T beat on their arrested subjects. Just those that think they are immune to the rules because they wear the badge and thankfully they are in the mnority. The more they are exposed by video's like the recent one in Seattle, the less chance they will be allowed to continue their careers.
    I tend to agree that the abusive LEO are in the minority, I just wish that the majority did a little more sometimes to call out the minority and keep them in line, instead of turning a blind eye. Hopefully these videos and the public awareness they create can give them a bit of inspiration and incentive to do so.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  19. #19
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    Had nothing to do with acting in an official capacity, and everything to do with the fact that recording WAS NOT MADE WHERE PRIVACY EXISTS OR IS EXPECTED.
    I think there was also a WA SC ruling that stated the "official capacity" reasoning, but I didn't find a reference quickly enough.

    Regardless, it should be made explicit.

  20. #20
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Metal_Monkey wrote:
    I am tired so please excuse me if this isn't very clear. If officers can't be filmed by these so called laws....wouldn't that mean they can't use recordings of you without your consent? Not that would ever happen, but in theory?
    See the last link in my post above. The WA SC has ruled that LEO recordings made without notifying the subject are suppressed from evidence.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    The police don't like it...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jftEa...layer_embedded

    I have real problems with using the color of law and also his reference to he was a Marine...therefore .....

    Who is to say the photographer was not also in the service?
    This guys is an ass.....Any self respecting Marine would never use his service as leverage.....this guy needs some "correcting"

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    sempercarry wrote:
    SNIP This guys is an ass.....Any self respecting Marine would never use his service as leverage.....this guy needs some "correcting"
    "You're making me nervous," the cop said.

    Hahahahahahahaa. I gotta get me one of those cameras that emit "nervousness" rays!

    Goof with a badge.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    sempercarry wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    The police don't like it...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jftEa...layer_embedded

    I have real problems with using the color of law and also his reference to he was a Marine...therefore .....

    Who is to say the photographer was not also in the service?
    This guys is an ass.....Any self respecting Marine would never use his service as leverage.....this guy needs some "correcting"
    Isn't just Marines who shouldn't use their service as leverage... all of em should remember that when they drop the "I've been to/served in XXX' line.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  24. #24
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    Metal_Monkey wrote:
    I am tired so please excuse me if this isn't very clear. If officers can't be filmed by these so called laws....wouldn't that mean they can't use recordings of you without your consent? Not that would ever happen, but in theory?
    See the last link in my post above. The WA SC has ruled that LEO recordings made without notifying the subject are suppressed from evidence.
    IIRC they have to tell you they are recording and if you object they have to kill the audio. The video will keep recording only it will be silent. Video recording with no audio does not record a "communication" so no consent required.

    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Anyone here heard of Jimmy Justice? He goes around filming cops in the act of violating the law, and confronts them on video. He has a youtube account.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/JimmyJus...2&ob=1#p/u

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •