• 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.

DC chief of police issued guidelines to her officers on citizen phot

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
http://boingboing.net/2012/07/26/dc-police-chief-issues-extreme.html

As part of a settlement with Jerome Vorus, who was ordered to stop taking pictures by DC cops, DC chief of police Cathy Lanier has issued guidelines to her officers on citizen photography of police activities. They are extremely excellent guidelines, too, as Timothy Lee writes in Ars Technica:

"A bystander has the same right to take photographs or make recordings as a member of the media," Chief Lanier writes. The First Amendment protects the right to record the activities of police officers, not only in public places such as parks and sidewalks, but also in "an individual’s home or business, common areas of public and private facilities and buildings, and any other public or private facility at which the individual has a legal right to be present."

Lanier says that if an officer sees an individual recording his or her actions, the officer may not use that as a basis to ask the citizen for ID, demand an explanation for the recording, deliberately obstruct the camera, or arrest the citizen. And she stresses that under no circumstances should the citizen be asked to stop recording.

That applies even in cases where the citizen is recording "from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties." In that situation, she says, the officer may ask the person to move out of the way, but the officer "shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording."

She also notes that "a person has the right to express criticism of the police activity being observed."
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
As part off the settlement? Really? Was not needed to be part of the settlement....the plaintiff should have been asking for $$$$$$ and when the case was won then this letter would have been sent out anyway to prevent further lawsuits.

If you think PDs care about your 1st amendment rights you are mistaken .. they only care about $$$...because if they did care about your rights then this lawsuit would never had existed
 
Last edited:

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
As part off the settlement? Really? Was not needed to be part of the settlement....the plaintiff should have been asking for $$$$$$ and when the case was won then this letter would have been sent out anyway to prevent further lawsuits.

If you think PDs care about your 1st amendment rights you are mistaken .. they only care about $$$...because if they did care about your rights then this lawsuit would never had existed

They don't care to pay out money either. The money won in lawsuits is not their money, it is the taxpayers, and they know they can always raise taxes. The government agencies in this country are beyond repair, and it is our duty to replace them with constitutional agencies that abide by the Federal and applicable State constitutions.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
They don't care to pay out money either. The money won in lawsuits is not their money, it is the taxpayers, and they know they can always raise taxes. .

Taxpayers learn of these output of their tax $$$ ... they vote accordingly. It becomes an issue on the campaign trail.
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
Now that the lst Amendment is going to be respected in D.C., perhaps we can now address D.C.'s respect (or lack of same) for the 2nd Amendment.........................?
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Now that the lst Amendment is going to be respected in D.C., perhaps we can now address D.C.'s respect (or lack of same) for the 2nd Amendment.........................?

If D.C. changed their laws, she might be the one to implement them.

I'm not holding my breath on D.C. changing it's laws, however. I personally believe D.C. should be downsized to only those buildings and properties which are strictly federal, such as the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court, while allowing all other property to be be returned to Virginia and Maryland, respectively. Although, if I'm not mistaken, "on July 16, 1790, the Residence Act approved the creation of a capital district as permitted by the U.S. Constitution. The District is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Congress and is therefore not a part of any U.S. state."

Thus, the same problem exists for D.C. as it does for our entire country: We need to vote out all un-Constitutional members of our government.
 
Last edited:

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
. . . which the cops then violated the next day. bad link removd[/B] Pulled this from the notes in the article. She talked a good game.
 
Last edited:

Cavalryman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
296
Location
Anchorage, Alaska
It's nice to have this clarified but she only did it because the city and the department got bytch-slapped in a lawsuit, so she gains no points with me.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
If D.C. changed their laws, she might be the one to implement them.

I'm not holding my breath on D.C. changing it's laws, however.

Emily Miller's pieces on acquiring a gun in DC and the difficulties thereof caused them to eliminate a lot of the requirements. Heller II is still in the district court and a third amended complaint was filed to eliminate most of the rest.
 

Smith45acp

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
434
Location
NC
Well I for one agree with zack - her guidelines are excellent. Applause for her for standing up and implementing what's right.


Well, yeah. But she stood up for what's right after receiving a court order to do so!
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
As a photographer/videographer who has covered street scenes for many years, I can say that the local departments around me have gotten MUCH better towards us.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Last edited:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
Actually, if ou want something very specific in your law suit it is better to settle for less money and "added training" or whatever you particularly want.

If you actually go to court, you MAY get more money (the lawyers absolutely will) but you may not get your change in policy, or "required" training out the the court itself.

No, some Judge did not order this statement from the DC CoP..it was a settlement...never went as far as to go to court. The person that sued settled for something more valuable to the community than just money in his particular pocket.

Also, this helps the next guy if the city is sued for the same reason again...it ups the anti considerably...now the officer that violates someone's rights is not just violating their rights but also written policy. very good thing if you want that officer out of a job because he acts like a thug.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Also, this helps the next guy if the city is sued for the same reason again...it ups the anti considerably...now the officer that violates someone's rights is not just violating their rights but also written policy. very good thing if you want that officer out of a job because he acts like a thug.

Policy means little .... unless it would sway a jury to give more $$$ but a previous lawsuit trial would do the same. With a settlement, it means little.

As we see, policies mean nothing. Lawsuits are all about 1 thing: money. Everybody understands money. I have never sued to get the gov't to stop violating a right .. I sue for $$$ because they violated my right knowing that after a few suits, the gov't will stop w/o a need for a settlement.

Small towns and cities don't have the money to continue in such manners.
 
Last edited:
Top