Good Cops Have Nothing To Fear From Cameras (or recorders)

Interesting piece in Sundays Courant. In our cases, more applicable to audio recordings. Got to love the last line;

What is it they fear? After all, the officer who is being videotaped (in our case, recorded) can protect himself by doing one simple thing:

His job.


http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-pitts-cameras-0807-20110805,0,1649802.column

I testified in support of the bill during the last legislative session. I hope this ends up on the agenda again this session.

Jonathan

Actually, a good compromise would be....

If a citizen can't record and use it in court, neither can law enforcement.

Jonathan

KIX said:

Actually, a good compromise would be....

If a citizen can't record and use it in court, neither can law enforcement.

Click to expand...

This is neither the law, nor is it a 'good compromise'.

I agree guys. nothing beats police. than video or recording in the courtroom. its speak louder than words.

Rich B said:

This is neither the law, nor is it a 'good compromise'.

Click to expand...

I see your point, but you also discredit my point.

Of course, we should be able to document law enforcement. However, it is clearly not right when they can, yet we can't.

Look at that poor SOB in Miami that got shot and everyone that had either their SIM/SD cards taken or cameras destroyed. Glad one guy took his out in time!

Jonathan

just to add some perspective though,

"Good citizens have nothing to fear from cameras"

its a two way street.

KIX said:

However, it is clearly not right when they can, yet we can't.

Click to expand...

But you can record police. CT is a one-party consent state for purposes of "wire tapping" and has no other statute on point to forbid recording. As with OC, the absense of a statute making the practice illegal means that the practice is legal. The proposed bill would have provided a basis for civil action against the police officer that interfered with your right to record. You may, infact, still have that basis through a common law claim even without the statute. It has just never been tested in this state.

KIX said:

but you also discredit my point.
Of course, we should be able to document law enforcement. However, it is clearly not right when they can, yet we can't.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't see the connection.

The police are in public, they have no expectation of privacy. The police officer is also a public servant and is appropriately the subject of public scrutiny.


This has nothing to do with whether or not we should be free from police recording us at all times or during stops.

The two issues are separate and have to be treated that way.

GunTotingLawyer said:

But you can record police. CT is a one-party consent state for purposes of "wire tapping" and has no other statute on point to forbid recording. As with OC, the absense of a statute making the practice illegal means that the practice is legal. The proposed bill would have provided a basis for civil action against the police officer that interfered with your right to record. You may, infact, still have that basis through a common law claim even without the statute. It has just never been tested in this state.

Click to expand...

+1. I have no idea where this confusion comes from.

Looney's bill keeps true with the writer's namesake. We don't need legislative solutions, we need judicial solutions. If an officer wants to arrest you or interfere with you recording them while not interfering with them or their investigation, so be it. That is an issue for the courts.

In my mind, this is an example of the two divisions I am seeing in this state. Those who believe that laws are enforced by the legislature and those who believe they are enforced by the judicial branch.

I liken this to the people who advocate for and against gun control. One type of person believes we can just keep making more laws and eventually criminals will stop being criminals. The other type understands that we will just have to wait for the criminals to break the laws and then punish them as hard as we can, but that there will always be criminals and that laws don't stop criminals.

This is pretty much a direct comparison since LEOs who break the laws are criminals. Nothing more, nothing less.'

The bill is a worthless gesture. Take the criminals to court and stop the abuse.

bomber said:

just to add some perspective though,

"Good citizens have nothing to fear from cameras"

its a two way street.

Click to expand...

Utter hogwash. It's not 'fear from cameras' but privacy, having activities recorded and 'tampered with' and of course who is looking at that footage and why.

Remember the Constitution? This is applicable to a public servant being taped and recorded doing their job. Sheesh.