• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Feel free to record Boston police officers in public

Half Cocked said:
Ok... I guess we agree then. What has always been legal is still legal and it is good that they ruled that it was legal to remind us all that it is still legal.

There... I see the significance...[wink]
Click to expand...
Without qualified immunity, us lowly civilians don't have the luxury of relying solely on what is legal. [wink]

As they say, "it's not what you know, but what you can prove in court." This decision, IMUO, gives people who "legally" film officers in public places greater ability to prove they were in the right and the avenue to seek redress when they are wrongfully arrested.

As I said, perhaps more importantly, there should be a "chilling effect" on officers and departments who make a habit of allowing this sort of behavior amongst their ranks.
 
HalfCocked, see PA's treatment of non-resident CCW permit holders relying on reciprocity to make their CCW legal.

It was "legal," but that did not stop officers from arresting people who had perfectly valid out-of-state permits from state with which PA had reciprocity. What changed their behavior was the civil rights judgements against them for this behavior. "The law did not change," but the practice certainly has.
 
Every time a court rules in favor of citizens rights, it is excellent. Every time this happens, something changes. It's a reminder that citizens have rights and those rights are protected. And, every time a ruling comes from higher and higher courts, the Pee Pee spank that violators recieve is sweeter. Laws don't have to change for things to change.

Maybe the sun didn't appear to do anything different after this ruling. Maybe you are not looking at it in the right light.
 
inerlogic said:
Generalizations are generalizations for a reason..... And just as a few bad apples DON'T spoil the bunch,
Click to expand...

One bad apple DOES spoil the bunch. Bruised or rotten fruit emits greater amounts of Etheline gas. The Etheline gas causes the fruit nearby to ripen and rot quicker, and start emitting their own Etheline gas starting a chain reaction. Sort of how good cops continually seeing a bad cop getting away with wrong doing might start doing wrong themselves thinking there will be no consequence.
 
To add to cekim's point, often the mere threat of such heavy liability will be a catalyst for chiefs to promulgate policies that basically put the kibosh on 272/99 enforcement by particular agencies. Kinda like polices of departments that all but ban police pursuits for fear of a blockbuster lawsuit.
 
I particularly like this part of Glik:

"In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. Indeed, “[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.” The same restraint demanded of law enforcement officers in the face of “provocative and challenging” speech must be expected when they are merely the subject of videotaping that memorializes, without impairing, their work in public spaces."
 
The full text of the ruling is a good read.

Q: Can anyone shed some light on how this ruling will affect NH given that this ruling comes from the 1st Circuit, and we have similar wiretapping laws that are abused by public figures who do not like to be recorded in public? If Glik happened in NH tomorrow, would the officers also find themselves not protected by qualified immunity?
 
VARCHAR2 said:
The full text of the ruling is a good read.

Q: Can anyone shed some light on how this ruling will affect NH given that this ruling comes from the 1st Circuit, and we have similar wiretapping laws that are abused by public figures who do not like to be recorded in public? If Glik happened in NH tomorrow, would the officers also find themselves not protected by qualified immunity?
Click to expand...

It applies in NH but I am not aware of NH having a 2 party consent law.
 
Mr_Irritating said:
Every time a court rules in favor of citizens rights, it is excellent. Every time this happens, something changes. It's a reminder that citizens have rights and those rights are protected. And, every time a ruling comes from higher and higher courts, the Pee Pee spank that violators recieve is sweeter. Laws don't have to change for things to change.

Maybe the sun didn't appear to do anything different after this ruling. Maybe you are not looking at it in the right light.
Click to expand...

Pretty much how I felt about it.
 
Jackbooted, goosestepping, union scumbags. When you are entrusted with having a monopoly on protecting the public and the right to strike, you can do anything you want without accountability.

Just order yourself up some mail order diplomas, get a iPhone for those long, boring police detail shifts, beat the crap out of some non-union flaggers trying to feed their family, arrest some subjects for recording your corruption, and sit back and figure out which BMW to plow the dough into! Oh, and while your at it, steal some guns from law-abiding owners just to remind us subjects where our place is!

My take on this is, we should have cameras set up inside police stations. They ARE paid for by us, and we should have oversight over them, should we not? What is good for the goose, and all that?
Click to expand...

You forget who works for who! Now go back and play with your 10 round mags. You're luck you even get that.
 
Last edited:
Half Cocked said:
Ummm..... You people are easy to impress.... This is not new nor is it surprising nor does it change anything.[rolleyes]
Click to expand...

Mr_Irritating said:
Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...

terraformer said:
FYI: For those who care, there is a discussion of this over at Volokh.
http://volokh.com/2011/08/29/first-amendment-right-to-openly-record-police-officers-in-public

He pretty much confirms what I said above but in more detail for those who want such detail.
Click to expand...
Damnit.
 
Pilgrim said:
"Court says public has right to video police in public places"


what about in private places? Suppose I film a cop doing something in my house while there on business?
Click to expand...

Is your front porch public or private? Thinking about security cam issues that have been discussed here at length.
 
Pilgrim said:
"Court says public has right to video police in public places"


what about in private places? Suppose I film a cop doing something in my house while there on business?
Click to expand...

do you have an expectation of privacy in a private place? do you think, that if you're in your living room having a conversation with someone, do you expect that any random person could hear what's going on? of course you expect privacy in a private place... so no, you can't record a private conversation in MA without the consent of all parties in that conversation.

no, you can't secretly record audio while a cop does anything in your house...

and you've already failed because there's no reason a cop should be IN your house without a warrant anyway....
 
inerlogic said:
do you have an expectation of privacy in a private place? do you think, that if you're in your living room having a conversation with someone, do you expect that any random person could hear what's going on? of course you expect privacy in a private place... so no, you can't record a private conversation in MA without the consent of all parties in that conversation.

no, you can't secretly record audio while a cop does anything in your house...
Click to expand...

This is flawed logic because you believe that the flawed logic of the courts is not flawed. In short, you have no REP to your words if you speak them to someone else. Period.

Here in MA because of Hyde, people are presumed to have a REP (reasonable expectation of privacy) right from secret recording even when the persons controlling the recorders are privy to what is being said. That is absurd if you dissect it, but that is where Hyde leaves us. So for an example, if party A has a conversation with B, A can’t record it because B supposedly has a REP right yet A has heard everything B said. They were having a conversation for christ’s sake. B gave up their privacy to the statements once they engaged in said conversation by divulging the information. So A can detail the conversation from memory to whomever will listen but if B denies what was said or that the conversation even took place, it becomes a he said, she said situation. Now, who does this protect? It protects B. It protects liars, cheats and thieves. Because it allows them to lie about what took place. The SJC basically acknowledges this by their statement in Hyde that to allow surreptitious recording of cops will allow the citizens to monitor and find corruption.

So in short, A & B have no REP from each other for what they divulged to each other but they do have a REP from a C (a third party eavesdropper), because they had no intent to divulge to C (and assuming he wasn’t in earshot).

Here is where this logic really runs off the rails. An undercover cop asks a perp if he just knocked off the liquor store and he says yes. The cop can testify to this in court as the perp had no REP for the statement. But if the cop records the statement without a warrant, the recording is inadmissible and the cop has broken the law.

See the problem? There is no REP for words spoken to another person. There is only a trust relationship so therefore 2nd party recording does not violate a REP that doesn't exist.
 
you're A, i'm B, you record our private phone conversation.... if you share that recording with anyone else (C) that's a violation of my right to privacy according to the laws of the commonwealth, it doesn't matter if you have a photographic memory and can remember word for word everything i said and can tell anyone exactly what i said.... it doesn't matter if it's right or not, for now it's the law... and there's no shortage of stupid MA laws.....
 
inerlogic said:
you're A, i'm B, you record our private phone conversation.... if you share that recording with anyone else (C) that's a violation of my right to privacy according to the laws of the commonwealth, it doesn't matter if you have a photographic memory and can remember word for word everything i said and can tell anyone exactly what i said.... it doesn't matter if it's right or not, for now it's the law... and there's no shortage of stupid MA laws.....
Click to expand...

I am not illustrating what the law is with the above, I am illustrating how absurd the law is...
 
Pilgrim said:
"Court says public has right to video police in public places"


what about in private places? Suppose I film a cop doing something in my house while there on business?
Click to expand...

Is the inside of a police station a public place? We do pay for it, and it is owned by the public, correct?
 
Coyote33 said:
Is the inside of a police station a public place? We do pay for it, and it is owned by the public, correct?
Click to expand...

Although that is not the standard to define a public place..... There has been case law that a police booking room is a public place for the purposes of the application of certain laws.
 
inerlogic said:
you're A, i'm B, you record our private phone conversation.... if you share that recording with anyone else (C) that's a violation of my right to privacy according to the laws of the commonwealth, it doesn't matter if you have a photographic memory and can remember word for word everything i said and can tell anyone exactly what i said.... it doesn't matter if it's right or not, for now it's the law... and there's no shortage of stupid MA laws.....
Click to expand...

Actually, it's worse than that. If you make the recording, and share it with nobody, but testify "Yes, I am sure I am remembering accurately, since I checked the private recording that I have not shared with anyone to verify the accuracy of my memory prior to this testimony" you have admitted to a felony in MA (assuming the other person was not aware of the recording).
 
Half Cocked said:
Although that is not the standard to define a public place..... There has been case law that a police booking room is a public place for the purposes of the application of certain laws.
Click to expand...
That is true. Crimes like disorderly and disturbing which require they happen in a public venue can be charged in a booking area. To me, that's absurd, not because booking areas aren't public, but because there's little to any public impact.

As for control of cameras, you could probably obtain whatever footage you'd like by a FOIA request. There are some likely reasons for making them routinely accessible, primarily the privacy laws dealing with arrestees, CORI, and the amount of sensitiv info the police deal with regularly (identity of victims, info that could be used ifr ID theft) but your point in the broader sense definately has some merit.
 
No, I mean webcams in each and every room in the police department, for the public to view and monitor their activities.

Time to turn this ship around.
 
Coyote33 said:
No, I mean webcams in each and every room in the police department, for the public to view and monitor their activities.

Time to turn this ship around.
Click to expand...

Why stop there.... I am sure you can put cameras in all of the rooms of the white house too..... After all we taxpayers own that also .....don't we [rolleyes]
 

Similar threads

Boston Police Officer Shot
Replies
21
Views
676
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
SWAT team responding to Arkansas shopping mall, police ask public to avoid the area: Officials called it “an incident that is active"
Replies
5
Views
219
TJ4
T
Pennsylvania Court Upholds Right of Young People to Carry Guns in Public
Replies
6
Views
204
Coyote33
Coyote33
Baltimore City Implodes: Police Force Collapses, Only Three Officers Patrolled Major District
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
Berrymac65
Berrymac65
Two Police Officers, Paramedic Murdered While Protecting Family In Danger [VIDEOS]
Replies
12
Views
463
Sparky123
Sparky123
Back
Top Bottom