Some might think this is a strange topic for me to blog about. Some may not know that I was once a peace officer. Others, who know me, know that I served during the "pre-video" era, several decades ago, when dinosaurs still walked the earth...well, no dinosaurs, but several years have passed.
So in today's world, almost everyone over the age of three usually has easy access to some video device, be it a cellular phone or an actual video camera. If the device is not actually in a person's possession, it is stowed away somewhere within easy reach. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video can be priceless. We see beautiful things, unusual things, or scary things, we want to record them. That is now a normal reaction. One thing we may someday see is an arrest taking place, a terrible accident, or just a confrontation between a policeman and another person. And we may want to record the incident. After all, this is a free nation, and we have the right to make video in public places. But where we have rights, we usually have responsibilities, and that is the case when it comes to filming police officers "in action."
What responsibilities do you mean, Jim Silver? Well, first of all...SAFETY! Everyone's safety, INCLUDING THE POLICE OFFICER AND YOU!
In EVERY confrontation between the police and another person, A WEAPON IS INVOLVED! Yes, I am talking about the officer's weapon, primarily. Assuming nothing else, we KNOW that the officer is armed. That fact alone should be enough to keep the "uninvolved" and the "innocent bystander" at a safe distance. Unfortunately, this is not the case many times. The person who has turned "citizen journalist" for some reason seems to want to insert himself or herself right into the fray, for those close-up "action" shots. But there are two dynamics that come into play here. First, the officer cannot assume that the person taking the video is either a "concerned citizen" or an "innocent bystander." A non-police person may not understand that the officer MUST assume the person to be armed - it is a matter of survival for the officer.
The other dynamic involved is related to the first, that is that because the officer cannot be sure of the videographer's intentions, he or she must divide his or her attention between the person of interest and the videographer. Do you see the problem here? The officer, of necessity, now has two "suspects" instead of one. Do you see the safety implication here? If the true suspect, realizing that the officer is distracted, suddenly draws a weapon and commences shooting or stabbing, someone may get hurt...and that INCLUDES the videographer. Again, one who is truly concerned about a situation and wants to record it should be able to do so without ever making contact with the police officer or the suspect. When a person insists on getting right next to the action, the police officer and the suspect are not the only persons subject to injury...OR DEATH!
Now, what if YOU, as the videographer, are also the person of interest to the police officer, and you INSIST on recording the contact. That is your right. But again, there are responsibilities. First of all, contrary to all the attitude displayed today on YouTube videos and on news clips, a person lawfully stopped by a police officer should, within the bounds of the Constitution, cooperate with the officer. After all, we as a society have authorized and empowered the police to PROTECT US...ALL OF US. If you were speeding, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG and the officer who stops you is doing his or her duty...the duty WE pay officers to do. Do you have to admit you were speeding? No, that is your right. Can you record the contact? Yes, that too is your right. Do you have to display a defiant attitude just because A) you were caught in some traffic violation and you do not want to get a citation, and B) you are recording the contact? No. Are all police officers "polite" when they issue a citation? No, some are rude...I have seen this myself. But, there is still no reason to do other than cooperate to the extant reasonable under the Constitution.
What if the officer asks you to stop filming? If you want to continue the recording, you should explain to the officer that you are cooperating with him or her, but you have a right to record the contact. If there is another person in the car with you, why not hand the camera to that person and thus devote all your attention to the contact with the officer? Things will go faster that way. But, what if the officer demands that you stop filming, or else? Here you have a choice to make. If you are determined to continue recording, there is the possibility that you may be arrested.
Some officers believe that the very act of recording them constitutes interference with their duty. Thus, you are not charged with recording, but with interfering with a public servant in the performance of his duties. You COULD and probably WOULD be arrested in this case. If this happens, then you will have your day in court, and you will probably win in the long run, but only at great legal expense and loss of time at work, etc. Some states actually have enacted laws against filming police officers, but I suspect these laws will be ruled down...but in the meantime, there is still the trial process that leads to appeal. Again, costly and time-consuming.
Now, suppose the incident really turns sour. Suppose the officer "confiscates" your camera. Never hit the officer or try to take the camera out of his possession. Doing so will guarantee your arrest for assaulting a public servant, possibly even Aggravated Assault On A Police Officer. No matter why you either hit the officer or wrestled with him, judges frown on this conduct, and you will most likely go to PRISON. DO NOT DO THIS. There are more productive and less costly means of getting back your property. The easiest way is simply going to the police department and POLITELY asking for your camera or cell phone. Just a civil tone and calm attitude go a long way in ending these situations on the spot. Threats and posturing only make things worse. If the person refuses to hand over your property, request to speak with a supervisor. If the supervisor also refuses to turn over your property to you, simply inform the person in charge that you will be pursuing the matter. Then LEAVE! That's right...just leave. Deal with the situation during business hours when "top brass" are available. You will have much better results in this manner.
I believe strongly in the Constitution as the Law of this land, never mind the direction the Government is headed these days. Thus, I believe that a person has a right to video a police officer in action. Having said that, I believe that the videographer must exercise responsibility and must take into account his safety and the safety of all persons involved, including the police officer. Suppose an officer approaches the videographer and says something like, "I understand that you want to film this. But for my safety and yours, would you please stay across the street (or whatever REASONABLE location the officer suggests). Why not honor this request, use your camera zoom, and film to your heart's content? You get your video and the officer is not distracted by your presence.
If you are the subject of the officer's detention, you still have a right to record the situation. Again, do so in a safe and respectful manner. Many officers do not like to be recorded, but most realize that you as a citizen have a right to make the recording. If the officer then arrests you or takes your camera, or both, do not physically resist the officer. Do not touch the officer or in any way make a threatening movement toward the officer. This will not help you in any way and could subject you to being arrested FOR A FELONY. Read two to ten (or more) years in prison! If your rights have been violated, you have legal recourse, and could possibly even win a court settlement. There is no need to do other than cooperate with the arresting officer. THE POLICE are recording too, and your actions will speak as loudly as those of the police officer's.
So in today's world, almost everyone over the age of three usually has easy access to some video device, be it a cellular phone or an actual video camera. If the device is not actually in a person's possession, it is stowed away somewhere within easy reach. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video can be priceless. We see beautiful things, unusual things, or scary things, we want to record them. That is now a normal reaction. One thing we may someday see is an arrest taking place, a terrible accident, or just a confrontation between a policeman and another person. And we may want to record the incident. After all, this is a free nation, and we have the right to make video in public places. But where we have rights, we usually have responsibilities, and that is the case when it comes to filming police officers "in action."
What responsibilities do you mean, Jim Silver? Well, first of all...SAFETY! Everyone's safety, INCLUDING THE POLICE OFFICER AND YOU!
In EVERY confrontation between the police and another person, A WEAPON IS INVOLVED! Yes, I am talking about the officer's weapon, primarily. Assuming nothing else, we KNOW that the officer is armed. That fact alone should be enough to keep the "uninvolved" and the "innocent bystander" at a safe distance. Unfortunately, this is not the case many times. The person who has turned "citizen journalist" for some reason seems to want to insert himself or herself right into the fray, for those close-up "action" shots. But there are two dynamics that come into play here. First, the officer cannot assume that the person taking the video is either a "concerned citizen" or an "innocent bystander." A non-police person may not understand that the officer MUST assume the person to be armed - it is a matter of survival for the officer.
The other dynamic involved is related to the first, that is that because the officer cannot be sure of the videographer's intentions, he or she must divide his or her attention between the person of interest and the videographer. Do you see the problem here? The officer, of necessity, now has two "suspects" instead of one. Do you see the safety implication here? If the true suspect, realizing that the officer is distracted, suddenly draws a weapon and commences shooting or stabbing, someone may get hurt...and that INCLUDES the videographer. Again, one who is truly concerned about a situation and wants to record it should be able to do so without ever making contact with the police officer or the suspect. When a person insists on getting right next to the action, the police officer and the suspect are not the only persons subject to injury...OR DEATH!
Now, what if YOU, as the videographer, are also the person of interest to the police officer, and you INSIST on recording the contact. That is your right. But again, there are responsibilities. First of all, contrary to all the attitude displayed today on YouTube videos and on news clips, a person lawfully stopped by a police officer should, within the bounds of the Constitution, cooperate with the officer. After all, we as a society have authorized and empowered the police to PROTECT US...ALL OF US. If you were speeding, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG and the officer who stops you is doing his or her duty...the duty WE pay officers to do. Do you have to admit you were speeding? No, that is your right. Can you record the contact? Yes, that too is your right. Do you have to display a defiant attitude just because A) you were caught in some traffic violation and you do not want to get a citation, and B) you are recording the contact? No. Are all police officers "polite" when they issue a citation? No, some are rude...I have seen this myself. But, there is still no reason to do other than cooperate to the extant reasonable under the Constitution.
What if the officer asks you to stop filming? If you want to continue the recording, you should explain to the officer that you are cooperating with him or her, but you have a right to record the contact. If there is another person in the car with you, why not hand the camera to that person and thus devote all your attention to the contact with the officer? Things will go faster that way. But, what if the officer demands that you stop filming, or else? Here you have a choice to make. If you are determined to continue recording, there is the possibility that you may be arrested.
Some officers believe that the very act of recording them constitutes interference with their duty. Thus, you are not charged with recording, but with interfering with a public servant in the performance of his duties. You COULD and probably WOULD be arrested in this case. If this happens, then you will have your day in court, and you will probably win in the long run, but only at great legal expense and loss of time at work, etc. Some states actually have enacted laws against filming police officers, but I suspect these laws will be ruled down...but in the meantime, there is still the trial process that leads to appeal. Again, costly and time-consuming.
Now, suppose the incident really turns sour. Suppose the officer "confiscates" your camera. Never hit the officer or try to take the camera out of his possession. Doing so will guarantee your arrest for assaulting a public servant, possibly even Aggravated Assault On A Police Officer. No matter why you either hit the officer or wrestled with him, judges frown on this conduct, and you will most likely go to PRISON. DO NOT DO THIS. There are more productive and less costly means of getting back your property. The easiest way is simply going to the police department and POLITELY asking for your camera or cell phone. Just a civil tone and calm attitude go a long way in ending these situations on the spot. Threats and posturing only make things worse. If the person refuses to hand over your property, request to speak with a supervisor. If the supervisor also refuses to turn over your property to you, simply inform the person in charge that you will be pursuing the matter. Then LEAVE! That's right...just leave. Deal with the situation during business hours when "top brass" are available. You will have much better results in this manner.
I believe strongly in the Constitution as the Law of this land, never mind the direction the Government is headed these days. Thus, I believe that a person has a right to video a police officer in action. Having said that, I believe that the videographer must exercise responsibility and must take into account his safety and the safety of all persons involved, including the police officer. Suppose an officer approaches the videographer and says something like, "I understand that you want to film this. But for my safety and yours, would you please stay across the street (or whatever REASONABLE location the officer suggests). Why not honor this request, use your camera zoom, and film to your heart's content? You get your video and the officer is not distracted by your presence.
If you are the subject of the officer's detention, you still have a right to record the situation. Again, do so in a safe and respectful manner. Many officers do not like to be recorded, but most realize that you as a citizen have a right to make the recording. If the officer then arrests you or takes your camera, or both, do not physically resist the officer. Do not touch the officer or in any way make a threatening movement toward the officer. This will not help you in any way and could subject you to being arrested FOR A FELONY. Read two to ten (or more) years in prison! If your rights have been violated, you have legal recourse, and could possibly even win a court settlement. There is no need to do other than cooperate with the arresting officer. THE POLICE are recording too, and your actions will speak as loudly as those of the police officer's.
No comments:
Post a Comment