I hear lots of people saying, "if you aren't do anything wrong, you won't be arrested", but it's weird that "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't worry about being recorded" doesn't seem to have as much steam.

FWIW I think fewer and fewer officers are concerned about being recorded. I think it is more of an old school thing.

 

A problem with Body Cameras is the first time they aren't switched on or get switched off accidentally during a fight everyone will cry there is a cover up.

A second problem is that in a physical situation they can be knocked off, aimed in a way that doesn't capture the encounter or not be pointed in the same way the officer is looking when he fires his weapon.

 

Body cameras are a great step...but just don't crazy when the body camera doesn't see everything or capture every incident the way we would all like for it to be.

"Confusing everyone with wiretapping cases" was basically what Illinois policemen had strategized to charge people as a way of strong-arming them into being scared to record for fear of arrest. The Supreme Court denied cert. for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals though.

 

You can read more about that one. The police arrested a woman for "wiretapping" because she was accusing an officer of sexual harassment and felt she was being bullied. She was arrested for her troubles, but a Judge acquitted her. Probably someone "looking for a settlement" or "trying to record hoping to provoke an officer".

 

 

"And either way they will eventually revisit it"... same goes for a lot of laws. If police are arresting people for marijuana, they don't get to use an "eventually the Supreme Court will review it" defense.

 

 

***Side note: if it were as easy to get a settlement and the "cost of defending" thing were as people here have seemed to opine, then there'd be way more settlements than there actually are and people would all be rich, just going around getting settlements against one another.

 

 

Supreme Court rejects plea to ban taping of police in Illinois - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

 

ACLUPennsylvania ? Know Your Rights When Taking Photos and Making Video and Audio Recordings | Genius

 

There you go, just make the issue more confusing for our membership. Fine job joker, fine job...

FWIW I think fewer and fewer officers are concerned about being recorded. I think it is more of an old school thing.

 

A problem with Body Cameras is the first time they aren't switched on or get switched off accidentally during a fight everyone will cry there is a cover up.

A second problem is that in a physical situation they can be knocked off, aimed in a way that doesn't capture the encounter or not be pointed in the same way the officer is looking when he fires his weapon.

 

Body cameras are a great step...but just don't crazy when the body camera doesn't see everything or capture every incident the way we would all like for it to be.

 

Understand the bolded and think that's a fair point. Personally, I wouldn't expect anything but video as it was normally recorded/how officers were trained for their own safety, and I'm probably pretty pro-police on that one.

There you go, just make the issue more confusing for our membership. Fine job joker, fine job...

 

 

"And why speculate, if the Supreme Court covered the audio portion by all means let us have it."

 

I thought I was just answering your question since you seemed confused about what the Supreme Court had said and told me to show you.

"And why speculate, if the Supreme Court covered the audio portion by all means let us have it."

 

I thought I was just answering your question since you seemed confused about what the Supreme Court had said and told me to show you.

 

Are you being purposely obtuse?

 

We are past those cases, those cases show that citizens have a right to video and audio record the police.

 

The issue that has to be decided by the Supreme Court is where the line is drawn between a citizens right to video and audio record the police and a police officers right to be safe.

I think we have the Freedom to record video/audio but not the Right to. If it was an outright Right, at some point the police would be forced to accommodate individuals at all crime scenes and allow them access.

 

I just think it comes down to we have the Freedom to video the actions of police, but have no Right to interfere to do so.

Are you being purposely obtuse?

 

We are past those cases, those cases show that citizens have a right to video and audio record the police. The issue that has to be decided by the Supreme Court is where the line is drawn between a citizens right to video and audio record the police and a police officers right to be safe.

 

I think that'd be you.

 

You insinuated that there wasn't a right to record audio and asked me to show proof, I showed you where the Supreme Court denied certiorari when States tried to circumvent them and apply "wiretapping" laws to citizens trying to record audio.

I think we have the Freedom to record video/audio but not the Right to. If it was an outright Right, at some point the police would be forced to accommodate individuals at all crime scenes and allow them access.

 

I just think it comes down to we have the Freedom to video the actions of police, but have no Right to interfere to do so.

 

I can definitely get down with the bolded. How I feel already actually.

I think that'd be you.

 

You insinuated that there wasn't a right to record audio and asked me to show proof, I showed you where the Supreme Court denied certiorari when States tried to circumvent them and apply "wiretapping" laws to citizens trying to record audio.

 

Once again it is YOUR reading comprehension problem. I didn't insinuate that at all. I have said more than once the public has a right to record the police, I even said we trained new officers that way.

Once again it is YOUR reading comprehension problem. I didn't insinuate that at all. I have said more than once the public has a right to record the police, I even said we trained new officers that way.

 

"And why speculate, if the Supreme Court covered the audio portion by all means let us have it."

 

Something tells me I'm NOT the person with the reading comprehension problem.

 

The person who called your bluff and corrected you? Maybe.

"And why speculate, if the Supreme Court covered the audio portion by all means let us have it."

 

Something tells me I'm NOT the person with the reading comprehension problem.

 

The person who called your bluff and corrected you? Maybe.

 

Again, this issue is officer safety vs. individual rights.

 

And you are definitively the person with the reading comprehension problem.

Again, this issue is officer safety vs. individual rights.

 

And you are definitively the person with the reading comprehension problem.

 

I mean, I guess I'll just plug along and do what I can with my life and make the most of things. Learning to live with my "reading comprehension problem" is going to be really tough.

Our rights can't be taken away because people feel unsafe. We can walk down the street with a gun, this may make a lot of people feel unsafe. Should we take that right away? Maybe we can pass a law that states you can only Carry 20 feet or more away from the public so no one feels unsafe.

Our rights can't be taken away because people feel unsafe. We can walk down the street with a gun, this may make a lot of people feel unsafe. Should we take that right away? Maybe we can pass a law that states you can only Carry 20 feet or more away from the public so no one feels unsafe.

You think you have a Right to interfere with the Police responding to an incident? That's all we've talked about. Everyone realizes that you can video the police but it is a public safety issue if people are getting too close to an encounter between a police officer and someone on the street. Stay back and record away at a safe distance.