When can you video the police?

[rockin'robin]

Sixty-four percent of adults in the United States own smartphones, according to the Pew Research Center. Four years ago, about half that number did.

Many depend on their smartphones for online access, whether they're applying for jobs, checking their bank accounts, paying bills, following breaking news events or sharing photos and videos. Never has it been this fast and easy to take a photo or video and share it online for everyone to see.

That brings us to a few important questions. When am I breaking the law with my smartphone? Can law enforcement simply take my phone from me?

The Indianapolis Star asked these questions of Indianapolis defense attorney Chris Eskew, who was a public defender for five years before opening his private practice. Eskew handles major felony cases, such as murder, sex crimes and drug-dealing charges.

Question: What are citizens' rights when it comes to filming in public?

Answer: "As long as you're in public and you're not harassing anyone, you're able to film what is going on around you. If you see police brutality or an individual committing a crime, you should be able to film that.

"It's very important that when people are recording the police, they not interfere with officers' duties. Keep distance and don't interfere with what's going on."

Q: If I'm taking a video of a fight or of police activity, can law enforcement take my phone right then and there?

A: "Police cannot take or even open up anyone's smartphone without a warrant. The Constitution protects us against illegal search and seizure."

A settlement in a recent federal lawsuit filed against the city of Indianapolis and a few Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers required the agency to adopt a policy prohibiting officers from taking away cellphones of civilians who are recording police actions as long as the civilians are not interfering, according to a report by The Indiana Lawyer.

Indianapolis resident Willie King sued the city and the officers who took away his cellphone while he was videotaping them arresting another man. King was awarded $200,000 in damages.

Q: Can police seize and search the phone of a person they have arrested or suspect of a crime?

A: "If you're arrested and your phone is on you, they can take it, but they can't search it without a warrant."

A 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in California held that police cannot search an arrested individual's phone without a warrant. The case involves David Riley, who was arrested on allegations of possession of concealed and loaded firearms after a traffic stop. Police seized and searched Riley's cellphone, where they found videos and text messages associating him with a street gang. They also found a picture of him standing in front of a car that police suspected had been involved in a recent shooting.

The evidence found in his phone resulted in criminal charges, including attempted murder. Riley was later convicted and sentenced. In his appeal, Riley argued that the evidence against him was obtained without a warrant and the search of his phone violated the Fourth Amendment. The California Court of Appeals upheld his conviction, and the California Supreme Court denied Riley's petition for review.

The country's highest court, however, ruled that the evidence against Riley was wrongly obtained. "Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant," U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Q: Are amateur videos permissible in court as evidence?

A: "It can (be admitted as evidence), as long as proper evidentiary foundations are laid and someone can testify when it was taken. Every piece of evidence has to have evidentiary foundation."

Q: Can a person who's pulled over by police ask the officer if he or she can film the traffic stop?

A: "If you're holding the phone, most officers will not be OK with that. You can ask, but they'll probably say, 'Keep your hands where I can see them.'"

Q: What is considered a public place?

A: "Any place you're allowed to be, or, generally, people are allowed to be in. As far as criminal law is concerned, a public place is any place the general populace is invited to go. A courtroom is a public place. Lucas Oil Stadium is considered a public place even if it's privately owned.

"It's just a matter of, 'Are you allowed to record where you are?' In hospitals, you can take pictures and videos, until the hospital tells you you can't."

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/tech/2015/06/02/when-can-you-video-the-police/28338847/

 

[The Joker]

Ill give you two words why people tape cops "Rodney King"

 

[DeafDucky]

Ill give you two words why people tape cops "Rodney King"

Cell phones were not even widespread much less have CAMERAS in them when Rodney King happened (1991). I don't think many people carried around video cameras except for tv news crews. So I don't think he was the actual catalyst for why people started filming.

 

[CrazyPaul]

Ill give you two words why people tape cops "Rodney King"

The guy who recorded it was at home doing that via his camcorder, I believe.

Nevertheless, the OP is about our rights to make a recording via our smartphones in public areas as long as we don't intervene the cops so that's good news.

 

[hoichi]

They should be recorded. franklY now adays every cop should be with s body cAm.
Period.
When they are on duty they should be recorded.
Why?
Because they cannot and should not be trusted.
Why?
Because they as a profession have proven time and time again they will protect their own, and have murdered enough unarmed dudes And have gotten away with point blank murder. More then once,
Why should they not be trusted?
To use cop speak
The thin blue line thats why.

 

[CrazyPaul]

They should be recorded. franklY now adays every cop should be with s body cAm.
Period.
When they are on duty they should be recorded.
Why?
Because they cannot and should not be trusted.
Why?
Because they as a profession have proven time and time again they will protect their own, and have murdered enough unarmed dudes And have gotten away with point blank murder. More then once,
Why should they not be trusted?
To use cop speak
The thin blue line thats why.

Sure and that means our taxes will go up. Did you know that? If not, where do they get money from to buy those body cams?

 

[Reba]

Sure and that means our taxes will go up. Did you know that? If not, where do they get money from to buy those body cams?

Here's one way:

Seacoast Church will buy 25 body cameras for North Charleston police.

Church leaders made the announcement Sunday night in a community service at the North Charleston campus on North Rhett Avenue.

“We’re embedded in the community, and we just want to demonstrate support,” Seacoast Operations Manager Jack Hoey said.

North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey announced that the city was buying body cameras for every active officer shortly after a video of the fatal shooting of Walter Scott by police office Michael Slager surfaced; Slager was fired and charged with murder.

If the city has already ordered all the cameras they need, Seacoast will pay for 25 of them, Hoey said.

Seacoast operates a half-dozen campuses in the Charleston area. The North Charleston church includes the Dream Center, which provides free medical services, food and clothing.

Post and Courier

 

[Reba]

Or:

. . . The problem (aside from some civil liberties concerns police will have to manage) is forcing police departments to pay for these cameras.

Most body cameras run between $400 and $1,500 each. For a force the size of Charleston's, which has 457 cops, that's a big chunk of change. And that doesn't include the considerable cost of data storage.

Gilliard has an idea for that, too: let criminals pay for the cameras through forfeitures. When police seize cars, boats or guns from bad guys, they sell the stuff at auction. The local police keep 75 percent of the proceeds, prosecutors get 20 percent and the state takes a 5 percent skim. That 5 percent is usually between $100,000 and $200,000 annually.

Gilliard says if the state increased its percentage to 10 percent, or even 15, that would go a long way toward equipping police with these cameras....

Post and Courier

 

[CrazyPaul]

Here's one way:
Post and Courier

LOL, is that all? What about every cities and states? Churches will pay for body cams? I mean that I am glad that this church paid for 25 cams but is that enough? No, how many cops are there? Over 25 cops? Please be honest.

 

[Reba]

Then, there is the problem with the ACLU:

Charleston police officers soon could be wearing body cameras to record all of the their interactions with citizens, a practice that has sparked privacy concerns with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen made a presentation on a plan to eventually provide the wearable video devices to all police officers to City Council's Public Safety Committee Thursday. He has applied for a $30,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to launch the program, he said. If he gets the grant, he will use the money to purchase the first 21 body cameras and begin equipping his officers with the surveillance technology that is growing more popular nationwide. . .

Mullen said he's pretty sure the department will get the grant, and that officers will begin using the cameras - which cost about $1,310 a piece - by the end of the year. . .

"It's the wave of the future," Mullen said. He predicts that five years from now, officers around the country will be issued body cameras just as they are issued guns today. . .

Before the department begins using the cameras, it will create a policy for how they are to be used, he said. When it has a draft policy, it will get input from the ACLU and other community groups, he said.

Victoria Middleton, executive director of the ACLU of South Carolina, said "a body-mounted camera can protect both a citizen's rights and an officer's rights if it's used appropriately."

But she has concerns about the cameras being used in homes and other private places, and who will have access to the recordings. She's also concerned about officers having the power to turn the cameras on and off at will. "We could have a selective recording," she said.

Before the city begins using the cameras, she said, it needs to have solid policies and procedures in place. Without them, "citizens could be the victims of creative editing."...

Post and Courier

 

[CrazyPaul]

Or:
Post and Courier

I recently posted just one minute after that post of yours. OK, good idea to make profits from auctions, etc to cover the costs of body cams. What I don't get is that Ferguson cops can't afford the body cams. Should they be able to afford them by profits from auctions, etc?

 

[CrazyPaul]

Then, there is the problem with the ACLU:
Post and Courier

But she has concerns about the cameras being used in homes and other private places

Can't cops have common sense? They can leave their body cams in their lockers at work before getting off work.

 

[Reba]

LOL, is that all? What about every cities and states? Churches will pay for body cams? I mean that I am glad that this church paid for 25 cams but is that enough? No, how many cops are there? Over 25 cops? Please be honest.

The point was, police departments can be creative about how they get the cameras. Not everything requires a tax increase.

Yes, there are more than 25 officers.

North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said Wednesday that soon every uniformed police officer on the city’s streets will be wearing a body camera.

Summey’s announcement comes in the wake of one of the city’s officers, Patrolman 1st Class Michael T. Slager, being charged with murder in the death of Walter L. Scott. A video taken by a bystander at the scene shows Scott was running away when Slager shot at him eight times.

Summey said the city received a state grant to purchase 101 cameras. And he made an executive decision Wednesday morning to order 150 more. The city will train officers how to properly use the cameras after they arrive, Summey said.

Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen said that sometime in May he expects all uniformed officers on Charleston streets to be wearing the cameras, as well. But, he said, the body camera plan has been in the works for months, and isn’t related to the North Charleston shooting.

He has ordered about 130 body cameras, which he expects officers to begin using as soon as they arrive.

When an officer completes a shift, he or she will turn over the body camera to an officer on the next shift.

Mullen said he eventually wants to purchase a total of 290 cameras, so each officer can have his or her own device.

But the cameras are expensive. The 130 cameras cost about $100,000 — $30,000 came from a federal grant; $55,00 from the Police Fund, a citizens fundraising group; and the rest from drug asset forfeitures.

Mullen said the city already has a use policy in place. Officers wearing a body camera must keep them on during “traffic stops, people stops or calls for service involving a criminal offense, or any field encounter,” he said.

But they can be turned off in certain circumstances, he said. For instance, the camera doesn’t have to be on if a person calls an officer to his or her home to give information, Mullen said.

He also said that tapes must be stored for 14 days for non-criminal offenses. For criminal offenses, the storage time varies by state rules, he said.

Post and Courier

 

[Reba]

Can't cops have common sense? They can leave their body cams in their lockers at work before getting off work.

She's referring to private areas that the police enter while they're on duty, such as on a call. Not referring to off-duty time.

 

[CrazyPaul]

The point was, police departments can be creative about how they get the cameras. Not everything requires a tax increase.

Yes, there are more than 25 officers.
Post and Courier

I appreciate a good detail regarding NC only. However they receive federal grants. Where do those grants come from?

In other words, if the federal government provides a grant to over thousands of police stations to pay for body cams, what about our taxes for road repairs, etc? Screw them? No wonder our government is in heavy debt.

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/

What does the government do next? Increase our taxes?

 

[CrazyPaul]

She's referring to private areas that the police enter while they're on duty, such as on a call. Not referring to off-duty time.

You mean pee/poo time or lunch break? Can't they turn it off?

 

[Reba]

I appreciate a good detail regarding NC only. However they receive federal grants. Where do those grants come from?

Grants are a one-time expenditure from a fund that already exists.

In other words, if the federal government provides a grant to over thousands of police stations to pay for body cams, what about our taxes for road repairs, etc? Screw them? No wonder our government is in heavy debt.

Grant money and road repair money are not from the same pots.

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/

What does the government do next? Increase our taxes?

They'll probably do that regardless of whether or not they grant money to police departments.

 

[Reba]

You mean pee/poo time or lunch break? Can't they turn it off?

No, I'm not referring to potty breaks. They wouldn't have them on then anyway.

As I posted before, it's when they're on a call to a private area. That means, a private residence, an office, the hospital, etc. That is, if they get a call from a citizen located in one of those places rather than on the street. Domestic disturbances, reporting a crime at work or home, making a complaint, etc.

 

[CrazyPaul]

Grants are a one-time expenditure from a fund that already exists.


Grant money and road repair money are not from the same pots.


They'll probably do that regardless of whether or not they grant money to police departments.

Can you tell me where those funds (ex: college grants, police grants) come from?

 

[hoichi]

Or:



Post and Courier

Are those forfietures actually from cinvicted criminals or people who hwve been literally robbed by the polce without any arrest or charges or even trial?
We need to be clear..