Do police have a legitimate expectation of privacy in public performance of duty?

posted at 1:36 pm on June 3, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Perhaps the blame lies on the founders who wrote our Constitution, who included an individual right to bear arms but not to bear … cameras.  In a handful of states, it has now become illegal to videotape police officers performing their duties in public, and in Maryland, it can result in charges of illegal wiretapping.  The efforts to squelch videotaping have created situations where citizens place themselves at risk in having no expectation of privacy when speaking to police in public, but the officers themselves are presumed to have that expectation in the same conversation and place:

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where “no expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, “[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want.” Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, “The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law – requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense.”

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler’s license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

Radley Balko has been covering this issue for Reason Magazine for quite a while.  He also looks at Maryland’s attempt to use wiretapping laws to keep people from videotaping police:

Graber is due in court next week. He faces up to five years in prison. State’s Attorney Joseph Cassilly has also charged Graber with “Possession of an Interception Device.” That “device” would be Graber’s otherwise-perfectly-legal video camera.

Graber’s case is starting to spur some local and national media discussion of the state’s wiretapping law. As I mentioned in my column last month, his arrest came at about the same time the Jack McKenna case broke nationally. McKenna, a student at the University of Maryland, was given an unprovoked beating by police during student celebrations after a basketball game last February. McKenna would probably still be facing criminal charges and the cops who beat him would likely still be on the beat were it not for several cell phone videos that captured his beating. According to Cassily’s interpretation of the law, if any of those cell phones were close enough to record audio of the beating, the people who shot the videos are felons.

Now we have another video of an arrest during the Preakness Stakes in which a Baltimore police officer can be heard telling the camera-holder, “Do me a favor and turn that off. It’s illegal to record anybody’s voice or anything else in the state of Maryland.”

That simply isn’t true, and it’s outrageous that Maryland law enforcement keeps perpetuating this myth. Perhaps that officer was merely misinformed. But Maryland police spokesmen and prosecutors are giving the impression that the state’s wiretapping law is ambiguous about recording on-duty police officers. It really isn’t. They’ve just chosen to interpret it that way, logic and common sense be damned.

No one is arguing that people should interfere in an investigation or expose undercover police on YouTube.  These cases involve people videotaping police actions in public, where the police either wear uniforms or announce themselves as law enforcement officers.  Last year, the video of a DC police officer brandishing his gun to stop a snowball fight became of the most popular YouTube clips of the year, and resulted in disciplinary action for the police officer.  None of these endangered an investigation, but some of these have shown abuses of power by police officers that should focus attention on the officers rather than the videographers.

Police do not have an expectation of privacy in their public encounters with the citizenry.  In fact, they should have instead an expectation of public accountability for the performance of that work.  When a free people give police the authority to enforce our laws and to have the leeway to commit acts of violence in doing so, that is a trust that requires oversight and accountability.  The vast majority of police officers enforce the law in a lawful, professional manner, but some abuse their positions of trust.  Removing oversight makes it more difficult for the professionals to do their job and easier for the small number of abusers to bully others into following their example.

Instead of using the combination of technology and a free people to ensure accountability, a few states instead want to turn videographers into felons and put police beyond public scrutiny.  That’s a very bad combination and direction.  The notion that police officers have an expectation of privacy in public while anything said around them in the same venue is public enough to use as evidence in a court of law sets up a dangerous double standard, and the legislatures of these states should put an end to the abuse of wiretap laws to squelch accountability.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Thought I’d clear that up for ya.

JetBoy on June 3, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Got it. Carry on.

*ba-dum-bum*

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 3:04 PM

What I’m sick of tho is people who automatically assume cops to liars, harassers, etc. I’m sure most who believe that don’t know any cops, or themselves have never put their lives on the line on a daily basis……

JetBoy on June 3, 2010 at 2:57 PM

The world is now officially upside-down. The lefty trolls are defending the actions of the police, no matter what they do, while the right-wingers are opposed to police actions. Wow.

iurockhead on June 3, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Jet-If I came on too strong I apologize, but this is the comment that pissed me off, in light of personal experience and the frequency of incidents reported.

Yeah, they should just wear ski masks…oh, wait…they already do.

Perhaps police officers would be more respectful to peaceful, law abiding citizens if they feared retaliation for thuggish behavior.

fossten on June 3, 2010 at 2:19 PM
Sure, because cops are always harassing “peaceful, law abiding” citizens.

JetBoy on June 3, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Always. No. Often-yes.

riverrat10k on June 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM

The world is now officially upside-down. The lefty trolls are defending the actions of the police, no matter what they do, while the right-wingers are opposed to police actions. Wow.

iurockhead on June 3, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Lefty troll?!?

Got it. Carry on.

*ba-dum-bum*

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Not that I don’t think those forums are a little loaded with rednecks and militia types tho :P

JetBoy on June 3, 2010 at 3:11 PM

And here is the example of the double standard.

This is purely from memory – but it’s case law somewhere.

A couple were parked in a car, on a secluded road or side road. They were doing the vertical bop. A police officer saw them, and came up, and knocked on the window.

They were subsequently charged with public lewdness or some such. They claimed to have a right to privacy – but the judge ruled that since what they did was in public, and clearly visible through the clear glass of the windows, that it was not private or an issue of privacy, but done in the public view.

I believe that ruling is right.

I also believe this horrible misuse of the law in “wire tapping” is possibly criminal. Wouldn’t the suppression of evidence (the tape), be obstruction of justice? And since many different players are conspiring to make this happen, it could have RICO applications too.

BTW, I love our police force, and trust cops. Got friends who are cops. Great people and a very difficult job to do – but just like when he/she put his or her “police officer” hat on and I have to change gears and respect them – they must respect us and not try to punish us for non-crimes.

LSBeene on June 3, 2010 at 3:13 PM

JetBoy on June 3, 2010 at 2:57 PM

I agree that many many LEO’s are honest, hard-working men and women. I’m also finding it strange that lots of people amazingly have a video camera when a cop shows up. How convenient.

I’ve seen some videos of cops behaving in a rather bad way. One that sticks out is an incident involving a cop in plain clothes in his privately owned car performing a traffic stop of a guy on a motorcycle and gets out holding his gun before identifying himself as a police officer.

First off, if I had a concealed carry permit and was on that motorcycle, I’d be very tempted to pull out my weapon since I don’t know who this guy is but he does have a gun.He could be doing this for any number of reasons.

Second, I’m not sure how this guy riding the motorcycle had a helmet-mounted camera, but the entire incident was on the side of the interstate, hardly “private”.

I guess my goal would be to somehow protect officer safety, maintain the integrity of ongoing investigations, and somehow circumvent this weird situation of people getting arrested for filming cops in public.

Rightwingguy on June 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM

JetBoy on June 3, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Didn’t know those types knew how to use computers…

Rightwingguy on June 3, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Look, no matter how you slice it, when 2 people are engaged in a convo, with eachother, and one has an expectaion and the other is not granted that same expectation, this a violation of “equal protection before the law“. This premise is already well established and stare decicis, therefore unconstitutional!

Archimedes on June 3, 2010 at 3:21 PM

I’m a big supporter of policeman, but the idea that they have an expectation of privacy while being paid public funds is just silly.

ynot4tony2 on June 3, 2010 at 3:23 PM

I was a cop for over 21 years. I retired just as they were starting to put video cameras in the patrol cars. Even then, the consensus opinion was that it was a good thing for the cops. Going to a pretrial hearing of some sort and being able to produce a tape of the defendant doing whatever, was usually, like the commercial says, “priceless”. Having said that, I can’t understand why, in general, videotaping the police would be a problem. Like people have said, unless there’s extenuating circumstances like a cop working undercover, or the person videotaping is interfering in something, people should be free to videotape. You’re in the public eye when you’re working, and you should conduct yourself accordingly. The biggest problem I see from the police side is if a tape gets “creatively” edited, but that’s usually pretty easy to determine.
Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem being taped, and it’s a great way to document the behaviors of the people you’re dealing with. Someone’s appearance, language, and demeanor in court is often totally different that what the cops had to deal with at the time of the incident.
On the other hand, if the cops are doing something wrong, then they should be held accountable. I don’t agree with this new interpretation that somehow videotaping something going on in a public place involving public servants is now a felony. No Way.

Dan859 on June 3, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Do police have a legitimate expectation of privacy in public performance of duty?
—–
The answer is no. No they do not.

Of course the police would much rather it be a he said she said situation rather than the irrefutable detail of footage of their actions.

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Not that I don’t think those forums are a little loaded with rednecks and militia types tho :P

JetBoy on June 3, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Don’t you live in Florida?

Careful calling us Yanks “rednecks”, pal. :P

And militia types? Give me a break. That’d be like people who have 2000+ rounds of ammunition in their…oh, wait. Never mind.

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Sure, because cops are always harassing “peaceful, law abiding” citizens.

JetBoy on June 3, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Would you like me to give you a long list, Mister Straw Man?

How many times does a videotape surface where cops are abusing their authority? How many times more than that do you think it happens when a camera ISN’T rolling?

Man you’re naive.

fossten on June 3, 2010 at 3:26 PM

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Hey, dump lump southerners in with rednecks. Have you ever been in to central Illinois?

Rightwingguy on June 3, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Cop to citizen: “If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn’t mind if I come in for a minute, right? If I have to go get a warrant, it might get worse for you.”

Citizen to cop: “If you’re not abusing your authority, then you shouldn’t mind if I videotape this, right?”

See how it works both ways?

fossten on June 3, 2010 at 3:29 PM

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Hey, dump DON’T lump southerners in with rednecks. Have you ever been in to central Illinois?

Rightwingguy on June 3, 2010 at 3:28 PM

How in the world did I make THAT typo?

Rightwingguy on June 3, 2010 at 3:29 PM

This is the tyranny of Fascism, plain and simple. We must be honest to ourselves and to the nation at large just what this is, and plan & adjust accordingly, if we do not, we will do so at our peril.

Archimedes on June 3, 2010 at 2:35 PM

How ’bout elaborating on “planning and adjusting accordingly.”

Gang-of-One on June 3, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Rightwingguy on June 3, 2010 at 3:29 PM

I…I give up….

Rightwingguy on June 3, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Dan859 on June 3, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Well said, sir.

Rightwingguy on June 3, 2010 at 3:38 PM

The world is now officially upside-down. The lefty trolls are defending the actions of the police, no matter what they do, while the right-wingers are opposed to police actions. Wow.

iurockhead on June 3, 2010 at 3:07 PM

In the hallowed halls of academia for 40-50yrs the mantra that the US was dictatoral state has been ingrained in leftists they churn out. Thus, no matter how mistaken that is, they feel no compuntion in exacting actual tyranny now that they have the reins of power. This is their justification, it is why we are in great danger as this mind set, as it allows them to know no remorse of guilt for that which they perpetrate.

It is the same POV that allowed or ignored atrocities in totalitarian Germany, the Jews had brought about all their travails, and so not deserving of sympathy. When the cabal jews exacted injustices on the volkspeople by their control over powers that be (from what they were taught/indoctrinated) it was thus considered exceptable to exact injustices now that the shoe was on the other foot.

The road the progressives are taking us is grave, now that they are in ascension, their desperation to retain it will I fear bring about untold horrors. As their desperation becomes more acute, say after losses in ’10 and threat of of reversal in ’12, will lead to ever greater desperate acts. Perversly this cycle will perpetuate itself as they do more & more harm to others they will project that their opponents will do likewise if they fail to hold power.

After all, they already beleive that conservatives are NAZI’s, extremists, racists and all other delusional pejoratives as has been drilled into them from the ivory towers of our universities. You can see them stating these beleifs every day day on TV.

I fear that we are about to head into circumstances that might well rip the country apart. Even if Obama & Co lose in ’12, the resultant cries and accusations of cheating and stealing the election I predict will lead to riots, think ’00 & ’04 on steriods. This of course acheives Obama’s objective of diminishing the nation one way or another, a classic heads I win-tails you lose.

No matter what the election of Obama to even just one term may have forces into motion that we may not survive as a republic.

Archimedes on June 3, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Always. No. Often-yes.

riverrat10k on June 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM

B*** S***.

Blake on June 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Waiting for MB4 and a few others to waltz in and admonish the people who deign to imply that cops are not angelic defenders of justice and honor…

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 2:19 PM

The badge bunnies and holster sniffers generally avoid threads where they can’t defend cop behavior.

Still, JetBoy seems to have a problem with identifying public employees doing their job in public when he says that you shouldn’t be able to publish photos of cop’s faces.

What I’m sick of tho is people who automatically assume cops to liars, harassers, etc. I’m sure most who believe that don’t know any cops, or themselves have never put their lives on the line on a daily basis.
JetBoy

I don’t assume that all cops are liars, harassers, etc. I do believe that the job attracts authoritarian personalities who easily suffer narcissistic injuries to their egos when they perceive that their authority is challenged.

As for putting their lives on the line on a daily basis, that’s an exaggeration at best. While the potential for danger is there, most police work is routine and bureaucratic and even cop apologists like “Jack Dunphy” of the LAPD say that 20% of cops do most of the work and the other 80% mostly stand around.

The truth is that being a farmer is a more dangerous job than being a police officer in the United States. Sure, we need police, but we need food even more. We also need hygienic conditions and garbage collectors have a more dangerous job than cops do. Cops are ranked #10 in terms of fatal risks on the job.

Cops rarely stop crime in progress. They want us to believe that they protect and serve but they protect other cops and serve their unions and pensions. Cops will let your child bleed to death before they will risk their lives.

They’re adrenalin junkies that want credit and honor for having a dangerous job. They threaten the public if taxpayers dare to want budgets cut. They routinely abuse disability and other pension provisions.

I’m sorry if I regard them as little more than petty bureaucrats with enough power to take away your property, liberty and life if they choose to do so.

They mock citizens who dare to talk about “rights” while they want special privileges (like the policies and laws that prohibit taping them in public) not available to regular people.

rokemronnie on June 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM

How many youtube videos do you want, Blake? Newspaper articles? I stand by often.

riverrat10k on June 3, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Like people have said, unless there’s extenuating circumstances like a cop working undercover….

Dan859 on June 3, 2010 at 3:23 PM

I would expect someone who claims to be a cop to think this out a bit further.

Blake on June 3, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Have you ever been in to central Illinois?

Rightwingguy on June 3, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Yes. I don’t ever want to go back. Then again, I don’t ever want to go back to the southeast part of Chicago, either. Illinois as a state is terrifying.

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 3:59 PM

rokemronnie on June 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Oh, no, the mentally ill cop hater is back.

Blake on June 3, 2010 at 3:59 PM

riverrat10k on June 3, 2010 at 3:57 PM

And I stand by you’re full of s***.

Blake on June 3, 2010 at 4:00 PM

In Mass. there was a 2001 case (Comm. v. Hyde) were the courts ruled that the secret audiotapped recording of a Police officer was a violation of the states wire-tapping law. This is now case law.

Far as I know, in Mass. you can still video record or take pictures of anyone so long as it is in public. You can audio record anyone so long as you inform the other person you are doing it. If you audio tape anyone secretly then according to this Mass. case law you would be in violation.

That’s the law in Mass. anyway, or at least as I understand it.

brennan251 on June 3, 2010 at 4:04 PM

The badge bunnies and holster sniffers generally avoid threads where they can’t defend cop behavior.

rokemronnie on June 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Sadly, the threads they’re most vocal in is where someone gets tasered or shot that shouldn’t have. The victim may have been an idiot that created a problematic situation, but the quickness of some HAers to question the manhood of anyone who doesn’t think “they had it coming” is quite disturbing.

I’ve created a basic standard for ascertaining a good cop versus a bad one. Legally open carry. If the officer leaves you alone, they’re likely a good cop. If they politely stop you, and remind you of the places you can’t carry, they’re likely a good cop. If they stop you and ask why you’re carrying a weapon, they’re less likely to be a good cop. And if they stop you and ask you if you think you’re a cowboy/what you think you’re doing/if you’re showing off your gun rights…bad cop(I’ve personally heard all three).

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:06 PM

And I stand by you’re full of s***.

Blake on June 3, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Ironic, coming from you.

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Been stopped for no reason other than it was late at night four times, Blake. Never got arrested, never got a ticket. Three different departments, two county, one city.
In total in my life, I have been stopped seven times. 3x for speeding for which I was cited. 4x for, apparently, “driving late at night”, no summons or arrest.

That comes to about 43% legitimate stops and 57% just to check me out for some unknown reason. I stand by “often.”

riverrat10k on June 3, 2010 at 4:10 PM

How ’bout elaborating on “planning and adjusting accordingly.”

Gang-of-One on June 3, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Different people have differing circumstances and responsibilities that obviously have to be considered, each must act according to their conscience. Some may choose tto Go Galt and leave the progressives to sleep in the bed they have made, some will not have the means to do so. Some may choose, as has many at an astonishing rate of increase since ’09, to simply renounce their citizenship. Some may opt for the Patrick Henry position. All are gravely personal decisions and I am not one to pretend to know what is best for each, a position that is the antithesis of the progressive paradigm.

Each must choose their own fate and live with the consequences.

Archimedes on June 3, 2010 at 4:11 PM

riverrat10k on June 3, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Fair warning…you’ve bumped into a person of the following mantra:

“If it hasn’t happened to me, then it hasn’t happened to anyone. Any assertion otherwise means you’re a liar.”

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:13 PM

As a police officer I have no problem with people taping me while I am performing my duties. A couple of exceptions are worth mentioning. 1. During my breaks, if I am sitting at Dunkin Donuts and some ahole shows up and starts taping me. 2. A lot of police agencies, state, federal and local are more focused on site protection or prisoner transport. I will give an example of #2, someone taping the Security Police Officers protecting Nuclear Labs (LLNL or Sandia) while they perform perimeter security operations. The Maryland cases are completely ridiculous and really leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Howcome on June 3, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Howcome on June 3, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Do you have an opinion on police checkpoints, like the DUI checkpoints?

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:17 PM

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Yeah, I think I have seen his stuff before. Thanks for the warning. I’m pretty thick-skinned about words from people I don’t know personally. Comes with carrying firearms around. Not in my best interests to lose my temper very often.

As my friend Ed says “If I have this on (patting holstered gun), I have this ON (fingering the voice recorder hanging around his neck.)

riverrat10k on June 3, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Of course the police would much rather it be a he said she said situation….

Dave Rywall on June 3, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Somewhat OT, but just saw in today’s Cleveland Plain Dealer that a judge has ruled that a policeman’s visual estimate of your speed is enough to convict you of speeding.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/06/police_officers_visual_estimat.html

skydaddy on June 3, 2010 at 4:21 PM

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:13 PM

For those unwilling to beleive that much of our LE is not what it was in the past of Leave it to Beaver days, they merely need to peruse The Balko Report from the CATO inst. Reams and reams of documented police-state horrors running amuk at an exponetially accelerated rate since the war on drugs commenced.

103 pages of governmental war against its citizens that will shock both Lib & Con alike.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

Archimedes on June 3, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Great link, Archi, I had forgotten about it.

riverrat10k on June 3, 2010 at 4:25 PM

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:17 PM

I am not a fan of DUI checkpoints, when you have police block a road and start looking for any reason to issue a citation or apprehend someone all under the guise of stopping drunk driving. I think that gets a little close to the police state environment than I am comfortable with.

Howcome on June 3, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Howcome on June 3, 2010 at 4:33 PM

It’s very comforting to hear another LEO speak that perspective. Thank you.

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:38 PM

…All are gravely personal decisions and I am not one to pretend to know what is best for each, a position that is the antithesis of the progressive paradigm.

Each must choose their own fate and live with the consequences.

Archimedes on June 3, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Respectable answer. Hopefully we will never succumb to such tyranny.

As for the videotaping of police officers being illegal in some states, well, I see it this way:

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”— Patrick Henry

Gang-of-One on June 3, 2010 at 4:48 PM

hmmm
so you can’t video police officers…. This comes at a time when we are becoming a POLICE state. Perhaps this is to cover up when the SEUI thugs and the police beat down “teapartiers” and “right wing extremist” . Even if you video it, you go to jail for videoing it.

Sounds like Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky – where Tripp received a called from Monica, hit the record button on her phone, and Monica proceeded to bribe Tripp to commit perjury. Then they tried to arrest Tripp and put her in jail for 10 years for “wiretapping”
God help us.

Donut on June 3, 2010 at 4:56 PM

MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Then you and I are very much in agreement!

Rightwingguy on June 3, 2010 at 5:46 PM

My Gawd… if the Po Po (da State) is too stoopid to realize that a man that sits silent for 2 hours and 45 minutes during an interrogation is exercising his right to remain silent. (Cause they ain’t mind readers and need the defendant to explicitly tell the he is remaining silent!) How da hell are they going to be smart enough to use these powers of invisibility?

roflmao

donabernathy on June 3, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Cops rarely stop crime in progress. They want us to believe that they protect and serve but they protect other cops and serve their unions and pensions. Cops will let your child bleed to death before they will risk their lives.

They’re adrenalin junkies that want credit and honor for having a dangerous job. They threaten the public if taxpayers dare to want budgets cut. They routinely abuse disability and other pension provisions.

I’m sorry if I regard them as little more than petty bureaucrats with enough power to take away your property, liberty and life if they choose to do so.

They mock citizens who dare to talk about “rights” while they want special privileges (like the policies and laws that prohibit taping them in public) not available to regular people.

Wow. Quite the broad brush there. You’re right about rarely stopping crimes in progress. Something about the law of averages, I think. The rest of it, I’ll just take a pass.

Dan859 on June 3, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Most of the cops I know are honest professionals and probably would not be breaking any laws while making a stop but I’m sure most would not like to be taped given the propensity of do-gooders to creatively edit.

Lonetown on June 3, 2010 at 6:22 PM

Per the SCOTUS, DUI checkpoints are not unconstitutional because they ruled that being out in public means you have a reduced expectation of privacy.
Funny, I’d say that applies to LEO too. Fortunately here in AZ we don’t need the other person’s consent to record them.

Yeras ago there were Congressional heraings about mistreatment of firearms owners by police in blue states. Is anyone shocked that in a plce like MD or MA where most people think the state is the ultimate power, that LEOs in said state think they are the law?

Hard Right on June 3, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Like people have said, unless there’s extenuating circumstances like a cop working undercover….

Dan859 on June 3, 2010 at 3:23 PM
I would expect someone who claims to be a cop to think this out a bit further.

Blake on June 3, 2010 at 3:58 PM

OK, it’s late for me, and maybe that wasn’t as clear as I would have liked. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying an UC cop, by virtue of being UC, shouldn’t have to worry about being videotaped because he’s not known to be a cop. That’s generally true, but bad guys have been known to do their own counterintelligence, for lack of a better term. For example, I would have issues with someone sitting out in front of a police station at shift change, videotaping everyone going in and out, or videotapint the license plates of all the cars in the parking lot.

Dan859 on June 3, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

Oh that fits the crime. I wonder what he’d have gotten for selling crack to some kids.
Hey, question, do these cops have cameras on their own cars? Are they video taping traffic stops? Are there cameras taking pictures at stop lights?

JellyToast on June 3, 2010 at 8:05 PM

My Gawd… if the Po Po (da State) is too stoopid to realize that a man that sits silent for 2 hours and 45 minutes during an interrogation is exercising his right to remain silent. (Cause they ain’t mind readers and need the defendant to explicitly tell the he is remaining silent!) How da hell are they going to be smart enough to use these powers of invisibility?

roflmao

donabernathy on June 3, 2010 at 5:58 PM

You still smarting after being destroyed in that thread. I actually agree that police don’t have an expectation of privacy when performing public duties…and I’m an officer. I don’t mind someone’s video showing that what I said actually happened. I wish we had cameras in our cars!

ajsleepy on June 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM

I am not a fan of DUI checkpoints, when you have police block a road and start looking for any reason to issue a citation or apprehend someone all under the guise of stopping drunk driving. I think that gets a little close to the police state environment than I am comfortable with.

Howcome on June 3, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Except that, at least in FL, you are required to notify the public where the checkpoint will be in advance, and give reason as to why the checkpoint is being conducted at that location. Otherwise it would be illegal.

ajsleepy on June 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

I don’t assume that all cops are liars, harassers, etc. I do believe that the job attracts authoritarian personalities who easily suffer narcissistic injuries to their egos when they perceive that their authority is challenged.

As for putting their lives on the line on a daily basis, that’s an exaggeration at best. While the potential for danger is there, most police work is routine and bureaucratic and even cop apologists like “Jack Dunphy” of the LAPD say that 20% of cops do most of the work and the other 80% mostly stand around.

The truth is that being a farmer is a more dangerous job than being a police officer in the United States. Sure, we need police, but we need food even more. We also need hygienic conditions and garbage collectors have a more dangerous job than cops do. Cops are ranked #10 in terms of fatal risks on the job.

Cops rarely stop crime in progress. They want us to believe that they protect and serve but they protect other cops and serve their unions and pensions. Cops will let your child bleed to death before they will risk their lives.

They’re adrenalin junkies that want credit and honor for having a dangerous job. They threaten the public if taxpayers dare to want budgets cut. They routinely abuse disability and other pension provisions.

I’m sorry if I regard them as little more than petty bureaucrats with enough power to take away your property, liberty and life if they choose to do so.

They mock citizens who dare to talk about “rights” while they want special privileges (like the policies and laws that prohibit taping them in public) not available to regular people.

rokemronnie on June 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM

I figured this thread would bring you back out…still up to your old stereotypes I see…

What’s weird is that I agree that, in most cases, police on duty should be allowed to be videotaped. And in case you’re wondering, I’m not at work in case you want to have AP or Ed check to see if I’m using a gov’t-issued computer.

ajsleepy on June 4, 2010 at 10:28 AM

As for putting their lives on the line on a daily basis, that’s an exaggeration at best. While the potential for danger is there, most police work is routine and bureaucratic and even cop apologists like “Jack Dunphy” of the LAPD say that 20% of cops do most of the work and the other 80% mostly stand around.

rokemronnie on June 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Looks like you still can’t get the Pareto principle right, even after I explained it to you the last time…

ajsleepy on June 4, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Conceal cary camera.

I was hit by an uninsured motorist. She had the nerve to start cussing at me. It all changed when I brought out a camera and encouraged her.

seven on June 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2