On #1 , 50 feet is probably a pipe dream but 20 to 25 feet sounds about right. But more to your point, the Supreme Court says video, correct? Nothing about audio in there that I am aware of. And at some point the Supreme Court will probably have to take up the audio issue too. I see this one as a loser for 1st Amendment and a winner for Police safety. I just don't see any competent court ruling anyone is entitled to audio of third party police actions if it potentially jeopardizes the safety of the officers. If you want that kind of audio you will need to invest in professional equipment to eavesdrop from a distance.

 

On #2 any officer that tries to make a case that is in the 45 to 50 range needs his head examined. Think of it like speeding, the speed limit may be 65 but most officers give you until 75 (or more) before they ticket you. In this case the rule may be something like 50 feet but you wouldn't be charged until you came close to 20 feet away, this would be pretty clear to everyone in a trial.

 

On #3 (and I realize this is getting above some of you for good reason) mental state would have to be a part of the law. If you are knowingly taking video then you need to know to back the you know what up.

 

Finally, I am all for citizens videoing everything that happens (the government is sure working on that) but an officer's right to be safe trumps a citizens right to video every time.

 

I don't agree with point #3 . The Bill of Rights was written to protect individual rights over the rights of government. So if we take the spirit of the document I would think protecting an individuals right would supercede that of a government agent.

I don't agree with point #3 . The Bill of Rights was written to protect individual rights over the rights of government. So if we take the spirit of the document I would think protecting an individuals right would supercede that of a government agent.

 

Do you mean the part about mental states or the additional comment about officer safety trumping citizens rights?

Do you mean the part about mental states or the additional comment about officer safety trumping citizens rights?

 

The second part. Individual freedoms should trump all within reason. I don't find it reasonable to restrict audio under the assumption of police saftey.

 

I agree a 20-25 foot radius is reasonable. I just can't go with your blanket statement of police saftey trumps all. That just isn't true. If that were the case you could use that statement as a crutch to restrict all kind of freedom.

What's the % that filed an unwarranted complaint' date=' because they didn't like the outcome?[/quote']

 

Proving my point about stats.

The second part. Individual freedoms should trump all within reason. I don't find it reasonable to restrict audio under the assumption of police saftey.

 

I agree a 20-25 foot radius is reasonable. I just can't go with your blanket statement of police saftey trumps all. That just isn't true. If that were the case you could use that statement as a crutch to restrict all kind of freedom.

 

We are in the ballpark together.

 

I would assume any reasonable police officer would be all for a 20 to 25 foot radius of safe distance.

 

Ultimately I believe the Supreme Court will have to decide on these specific issues and I agree they are up for debate.

 

And finally, I am not for restricting any freedoms, as a matter of fact I lean Libertarian on many issues as long as the issue doesn't endanger anyone or affect our National Security.

The second part. Individual freedoms should trump all within reason. I don't find it reasonable to restrict audio under the assumption of police saftey.

 

I agree a 20-25 foot radius is reasonable. I just can't go with your blanket statement of police saftey trumps all. That just isn't true. If that were the case you could use that statement as a crutch to restrict all kind of freedom.

I don't think you should restrict audio but it also shouldn't be based on the recording capabilities of a cell phone while putting unnecessary risk to an officers safety. If 50 feet is the best distance then it should be 50 feet. If your cell phone won't pick up audio at that distance that's your problem. Go buy better equipment if you feel the need to record something.

On #1 , 50 feet is probably a pipe dream but 20 to 25 feet sounds about right. But more to your point, the Supreme Court says video, correct? Nothing about audio in there that I am aware of. And at some point the Supreme Court will probably have to take up the audio issue too. I see this one as a loser for 1st Amendment and a winner for Police safety. I just don't see any competent court ruling anyone is entitled to audio of third party police actions if it potentially jeopardizes the safety of the officers. If you want that kind of audio you will need to invest in professional equipment to eavesdrop from a distance.

 

On #2 any officer that tries to make a case that is in the 45 to 50 range needs his head examined. Think of it like speeding, the speed limit may be 65 but most officers give you until 75 (or more) before they ticket you. In this case the rule may be something like 50 feet but you wouldn't be charged until you came close to 20 feet away, this would be pretty clear to everyone in a trial.

 

On #3 (and I realize this is getting above some of you for good reason) mental state would have to be a part of the law. If you are knowingly taking video then you need to know to back the you know what up.

 

Finally, I am all for citizens videoing everything that happens (the government is sure working on that) but an officer's right to be safe trumps a citizens right to video every time.

 

To the first, maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure audio is covered as well. Some States tried prosecuting under wiretap statutes, but for those to apply, you need a reasonable expectation of privacy. Pretty sure the SC has covered this, if nothing else, by denying certiorari. Again, that's just my "anti cop" understanding of precedence.

To the second, I've seen police try to justify some pretty ridiculous stuff.

 

If you say 45-49 feet is illegal, you are letting them arrest at that range if they want.

 

Maybe it comes down to some crook lawyer who everyone would like to see actually trying to be a cop getting the person off in court, but right now that's usually how it works for ambiguous things like disorderly conduct, failure to disperse, failure to identify, etc.

 

You seem to want to give arrest powers that you don't agree should be strictly enforced.

 

Either way, 50 feet is a fairly ambiguous distance and lots of problems could arise. What happens with arrests in crowds where people can't move that far away immediately?

My solution: audio and video required and if not provided, then it's in a Judge's discretion whether or not to proceed with charges and/or exclude evidence. Build in some exceptions like good faith, being able to prove up through other means in the absence of a recording via other means, etc.

 

Since it's being recorded, defer to the officer's decision on someone being too close to them to pose a danger (will be on video/audio anyway).

 

Give and take. Officers wear recording equipment, citizens know they are wearing them and don't need to be close filming, etc. Officers get more deference on their evaluation of a threat because people lose an excuse to go near them.

To the first, maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure audio is covered as well. Some States tried prosecuting under wiretap statutes, but for those to apply, you need a reasonable expectation of privacy. Pretty sure the SC has covered this, if nothing else, by denying certiorari. Again, that's just my "anti cop" understanding of precedence.

 

Let's not confuse everyone with the wiretapping cases.

 

The issue here is just because current smartphone tech doesn't have the capability to pick up long range, directional audio doesn't give citizens the right to get as close to an officer in an emergency situation as they deem fit.

 

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

 

And either way they will eventually revisit it.

To the second, I've seen police try to justify some pretty ridiculous stuff.

 

If you say 45-49 feet is illegal, you are letting them arrest at that range if they want.

 

Maybe it comes down to some crook lawyer who everyone would like to see actually trying to be a cop getting the person off in court, but right now that's usually how it works for ambiguous things like disorderly conduct, failure to disperse, failure to identify, etc.

 

You seem to want to give arrest powers that you don't agree should be strictly enforced.

 

Either way, 50 feet is a fairly ambiguous distance and lots of problems could arise. What happens with arrests in crowds where people can't move that far away immediately?

 

I am not attempting to write a complete law in this thread. And we both know some statues contain provisions (they may not be specifically stated) that attempt to mitigate gray areas.

 

Maybe something like closer than 25 feet is this penalty and standard of proof is this (pretty much a slam dunk for the authorities) and 25 to 50 feet requires greater proof, circumstances, facts, etc. for it to be a violation.

 

Finally, I am definitely want audio with my video. For example, if you go back and read this thread from the beginning you will see that the audio of the officer(s) telling the mob to "back up" was an important part of the debate. And for all those brain dead people that somehow think the police should be advising everyone of their rights during an emergency situation and absent absolute proof of the police spoon feeding every individual mob member then the police are wrong and therefore the mobsters can't be held accountable, audio is a good thing.

My solution: audio and video required and if not provided, then it's in a Judge's discretion whether or not to proceed with charges and/or exclude evidence. Build in some exceptions like good faith, being able to prove up through other means in the absence of a recording via other means, etc.

 

Since it's being recorded, defer to the officer's decision on someone being too close to them to pose a danger (will be on video/audio anyway).

 

Give and take. Officers wear recording equipment, citizens know they are wearing them and don't need to be close filming, etc. Officers get more deference on their evaluation of a threat because people lose an excuse to go near them.

 

I definitely agree we are to a point in America where every police officer should have high quality audio and video of any situation beyond routine police work.

One murder is too many.

 

One teacher touching kids is too many.

 

I agree that one is too many, my entire argument is that it's not as bad as many people claim.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I've long preached against the nostalgia of "the good 'ol days, when crazy stuff didn't happen." I challenge anyone who has that mindset to go look up copies of their local newspaper and skim through the decades at some of the heinous stuff people did back in the "good 'ol days." Today's media and its broad scope just brings to light things that in the past were buried in your local weekly newspaper, and might've gotten a mention in the regional newspaper, depending on how the grapevine worked that week and if the right person was listening on the party line on that rural route.

 

But it's different now, and, for good or ill, law enforcement agencies have to be out in front of things. The old, harsher methods don't work anymore, and an insistence upon clinging to those methods has played a significant part in the community relations problems many departments face now.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I've long preached against the nostalgia of "the good 'ol days, when crazy stuff didn't happen." I challenge anyone who has that mindset to go look up copies of their local newspaper and skim through the decades at some of the heinous stuff people did back in the "good 'ol days." Today's media and its broad scope just brings to light things that in the past were buried in your local weekly newspaper, and might've gotten a mention in the regional newspaper, depending on how the grapevine worked that week and if the right person was listening on the party line on that rural route.

 

But it's different now, and, for good or ill, law enforcement agencies have to be out in front of things. The old, harsher methods don't work anymore, and an insistence upon clinging to those methods has played a significant part in the community relations problems many departments face now.

 

There's no denying there are some issues with public relations. To be fair, the media doesn't help that...

Let's not confuse everyone with the wiretapping cases.

 

The issue here is just because current smartphone tech doesn't have the capability to pick up long range, directional audio doesn't give citizens the right to get as close to an officer in an emergency situation as they deem fit.

 

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

 

And either way they will eventually revisit it.

 

 

"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