Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Seattle PD Dash Cam lawsuit

  1. #1
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593

    Seattle PD Dash Cam lawsuit

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/S...136704018.html

    The City of Seattle is suing an attorney over violating Privacy Law in regards to FOIA requests for multiple Dash Cam recordings.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    489
    The tax payers have to be thrilled to see the city spending their dollars in such ways.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    "The dash-cam videos can be critical in ferreting out officer misconduct. The U.S. Department of Justice reviewed hundreds of these clips in determining that the Seattle Police Department had problems with excessive force.

    Holmes says before police start releasing dash-cam videos, they need a judge's guidance on the conflict between privacy laws and public disclosure laws.

    "We're going to work with the DOJ on these broader issues regarding SPD," said Holmes, adding improvements will not be made "if we start deciding which laws we're going to enforce and which ones we're not."

    The city argues it doesn't have to release any videos for three years. That also happens to be when the statute of limitations runs out for suing the city and, as a KOMO News investigation discovered, it is also when dash-cam videos are routinely erased from the system"

    Umm, isn't that what the Attorney General is for? They can get a legal opinion on the interaction of the two laws?

  4. #4
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018
    I'm wondering why it isn't perfectly clear that public officials, acting in a public capacity have no expectation of privacy. They work for us. We have the right to see the dash-cam videos. They should never be able to hide behind privacy laws when their dash-cam's record them.

    This is just another example of law enforcement overstepping the bounds. See how the Seattle PD has put itself in a bad light? They don't need anyone to do it for them, they keep doing it themselves.
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    I suspect (and this is just me spitballin' here) that they will claim it isn't the officer's privacy but the person who was stopped that they are concerned about...and in some respects, that is a valid issue. Not that I think the judge will allow that, but I am guessing that is the tactic the city will pursue.

    If the officers have nothing to hide, I would think they would be eager to have the clips exposed.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Person: "No officer, I do not consent to a search."
    Officer: "If you have nothing to hide, you would let me look in your trunk."
    Person: "Then what are YOU trying to hide, by refusing to release and then destroying your Dash Cam footage?"

    HAHA

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by oneeyeross View Post
    I suspect (and this is just me spitballin' here) that they will claim it isn't the officer's privacy but the person who was stopped that they are concerned about...and in some respects, that is a valid issue. Not that I think the judge will allow that, but I am guessing that is the tactic the city will pursue.

    If the officers have nothing to hide, I would think they would be eager to have the clips exposed.
    A person walking down a public street has no expectation of privacy, either. It's the same thing they'd say if they were recording a person.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    I can understand gaining access to private information being criminal, I can understand releasing private information to be criminal.
    I'm sorry, but I can't understand how making a request to public information is criminal.
    They could certainly refuse to provide the information (possibly, depending on the wording of the Washington Code... maybe.)

    Anyone have a citation to the Washington Code re: privacy laws?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    From the information given it would seem Seattle is claiming a conflict between
    Chapter 42.56 RCW Public Records Act
    versus
    Chapter 9.73 RCW Privacy, violating right of and/or possibly
    Chapter 10.97 RCW Privacy, criminal records
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-05-2012 at 04:50 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    From the information given it would seem Seattle is claiming a conflict between
    Chapter 42.56 RCW Public Records Act
    versus
    Chapter 9.73 RCW Privacy, violating right of and/or possibly
    Chapter 10.97 RCW Privacy, criminal records

    There's some problems with that.

    Is the city asserting that police officers are criminals under 10.97? If they are criminals, then they are barred from serving as law enforcement officers.

    Then there's 9.73, violations of which are criminal from the moment of recording, not the moment of publishing. If the dash cam videos are illegal recordings, then whoever took them is guilty of a crime.

    42.56.050 has some potential applicability though, assuming the video recordings would amount to an invasion of privacy that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person (I can't see such a claim being valid for taxpayer-funded recordings of a public official in a public place) or is not of legitimate concern to the public. 42.56.050 could backfire on the city, since if recording a person in public is highly offensive to a reasonable person, it would also prohibit things like dash cams or security cameras from being used.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    National coverage

    Judge Napolitano featured the Seattle police dashcam lawsuit: http://tinyurl.com/6pal3f8

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajetpilot View Post
    Judge Napolitano featured the Seattle police dashcam lawsuit: http://tinyurl.com/6pal3f8
    Good find! I recommend Judge Napolitano's books, he don't pull no punches.

    All of this is symptoms of an ailing, sick, system of law enforcement that has very little to do with fundamental rights and constitutional authority.
    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)

Posting Permissions

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