Police Claim That Allowing People To Film Them In Public Creates 'Chilling Effects'
from the those-aren't-the-chilling-effects-you're-thinking-of dept
There isn't a ton of new information in this NPR piece on how police still can't stand the fact that people record them with cameras and cameraphones, but it's one of the first articles on the subject that has actually laid out an argument for why police think it's bad that people out in public can film them:"They need to move quickly, in split seconds, without giving a lot of thought to what the adverse consequences for them might be," says Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police.Frankly, this makes absolutely no sense. Why would a police officer think twice about doing his or her job if there are legitimate reasons to do what's being done? The only time I could see a "chilling effect" on the actions of officers, is if what they're doing is not legal.
"We feel that anything that's going to have a chilling effect on an officer moving -- an apprehension that he's being videotaped and may be made to look bad -- could cost him or some citizen their life," Pasco says, "or some serious bodily harm."
Meanwhile, the article does show the real chilling effect of officers intimidating people who are filming them. The article tells the story of a teenager who tried filming police in Newark, New Jersey last year, and for her troubles, was handcuffed, put in the back of a squad car, and had the videos deleted off the phone. She was released two hours later and no charges were filed (though, she's now suing the Newark Police Department). Still, when asked, the woman, Khaliah Fitchette, says that she probably wouldn't film police in Newark again:
Khaliah Fitchette's lawyers in New Jersey say her detention was illegal. But Fitchette still says she'd think twice before filming police in Newark again.Now that is a chilling effect.
"It would have to be important enough to get myself in trouble for, I guess," she says.
She has this attitude, Fitchette says, because she thinks she could get in trouble again, even though her detention was allegedly unlawful.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chilling effects, filming, police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
3step. When you post, you always seem to forget something and it's just as insightful as your last post. Why not register? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Feel free to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would have been way funnier :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a police officer is sensitive/easily distracted enough to allow something as minor as video camera use to prevent him/her from properly doing his job then the police officer is probably not mentally capable of doing his/her job to begin with (regardless of video camera use). Police officers are supposed to be mentally and physically equipped to properly handle situations that are far worse than simply being recorded, they should be trained to be able to work well under pressure. If the minor added pressure of a video camera is enough to prevent them from properly doing their job then they clearly aren't cut out to be cops (regardless of the presence of a video camera). The police officer either needs additional training or he/she needs to find another job and be replaced by someone who is more capable of handling stressful situations.
Outlawing video camera use on police officers because it retards their performance is also self contradictory. Police officers are supposed to be able to perform well under situations where people break the law. If it's against the law for people to use video cameras because video camera use prevents police officers from performing well then that's a law that the police officers can't perform well under when broken, which kinda negates the whole idea that police officers are supposed to work well in situations where people break laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They say people are judged by the worst thing they've done (ie: an otherwise nice person murders someone and gets put to jail for life). So why should cops be any different? If anything, those who are responsible for upholding the law should be held to a higher moral and legal standard than the rest of us (at least while on duty). The real question here is not, "why is the footage editing out all the good things that the officer does" it's, "why is the officer doing bad things in the first place".
As far as being taken out of context, I don't buy the argument that the public is too incompetent to understand the different contextual possibilities that a camera could be drawing its information from and therefore no footage should ever be permitted at all. Under that pretext, we can argue that all cameras that record the public should be abolished because there is no way of knowing whether or not they are simply taking footage out of context. Why does the "if you're not doing anything wrong then you wouldn't mind them watching you" only apply to citizens and not police?
and why should we simply assume that the police are less likely to edit footage than a regular citizen, just because the police say so? Citizens are guilty until proven innocent while police are innocent until proven guilty, but we must deny citizens the means to prove those police guilty (but police get access to the means to prove citizens guilty)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All footage is taken outside of the context of what's not being recorded, so all footage is taken out of context to some extent, but that's no excuse to disallow the existence and distribution of any piece of footage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Begs The Question
If there was, they'd be waving it around and shoving it in our faces and using it as an excuse to get anti-filming laws passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Might reconsider who you advocate sex with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: people who film cops should be in jail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On a (un)related note, how did the US become a society where you need to blur out every product image in regular TV? Thats just insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a difference between a police officer acting as a police office at taxpayer expense and a regular person acting as a regular citizen on his/her own time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why should we assume that police are superhuman non corruptable entities that should simply be assumed to be immune to corruption and hence not publicly monitored? But regular non-cops are subject to corruption and so cameras everyone need to watch our every move?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already happened
In the 2.5 blocks between bus stop and my building, I counted 16 cameras that probably could see me. These aren't special blocks with a federal building on them, either. So, yes, cameras everywhere, and cops shouldn't get special dispensation. It's something of an open secret that they abuse their position already anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When they start spouting out comments that basically boil down to "Filming me means I have to stop and think to Cover My Arse" then their is a major problem and it is not with the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Commercial television doesn't have to blur out product logos, but many times they elect to as to not provide free advertising. Apart from the obvious money-grubbing, it can potentially lead to situations such as, say, Honda being less likely to purchase advertising on a program where the protagonist drives a Chevrolet with a prominently placed emblem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How is that not just about the same thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its OK for the city of Chicago to place cameras all over the city to watch us. When we complain they say "If you are not doing anything wrong then you shouldn't care" but then when the camera is turned on them they cry foul.
It sounds like a bunch of huppla to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone needs to remind the police that..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Although I have not thought out all the in's and out's. It seems it would help in many ways. Sexual harassment? Not while your being monitored and your spouse/employer might be watching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
East Coast Cop Scum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Representative
I seriously believe that those who don't want to be recorded are bad apples and know it. Law enforcement attracts those who want law and order, but it also attracts bullies. Thankfully, most bullies don't last long, or so I've been told.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Representative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tips
Sometimes a confrontation can be avoided with some subtle trickery or deception.
For example, don't wave the camera in their face right from the start. Pretend you are recording a friend talking, or recording touristy things, then land on the scene at hand when their focus is no longer on you.
If that wont work, resolve the problem the Canadian way: smile politely and apologize in a way that sounds genuine. Show them that you are deleting the video/photos, and casually move along... Then run home and install some data recovery software, get your files back, and post everything on-line anonymously. Nothing is lost and a big legal hassle has been replaced with a much smaller technical hassle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tips
That's rather the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tips
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: tips
Whether it is evidence that could be used by the prosecutor, or the defendant it is still evidence until a court says otherwise, even after any charges are dropped. The only person who might have a defence on deleting it is the actual filmer themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tips
Whether the police like it or not, we as citizens shouldn't have to worry about whether we will get in trouble for recording our public servants in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy.
An officer of the law has no legal grounds (yet) to detain a citizen for doing something legal.
Everyone has uncomfortable experiences all the time, whether it's getting a filling, or paying your taxes.
The police should stop being pussies and ignore the camera, and follow their training. If they stay true to the fact that they work for us, then they don't need to worry about liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tips
If a police officer is intimidated by having a camera pointed at them, perhaps they aren't suited to being a police officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teeshirt warning ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Teeshirt warning ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The few times I've dealt with officers it's been about 50/50 some have been super nice and talkative even able to relate to, while others have been all about trying to put the fear of the police into you and threatening to arrest you for obstructions of justice, or interfering with police work when you've done nothing wrong and aren't holding back any info. I'm of the opinion that going to jail or being detained is literally a coin toss as to what kind of officer you are going to be dealing with.
NOTE: most of my experience has been as a witness to a crime (fender benders, 1 robbery while living in PHX) or for a very short span of renting a room in a house where the landlords (a couple on the rocks) would get get into huge verbal fights and throwing all of each others stuff out the windows and on the lawn. The cops would come out for domestic that a neighbor would call in... I got the hell out of there fast both of the owners were sociopaths that cops apparently knew by first name. (sometime saving a few hundred a month just isn't worth it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chilling effect on officers
If we don't accept the reasoning of "only someone who has something to hide should be afraid of public scrutiny" when an ordinary citizen is faced with invasion of privacy by the government, why is it different for cops? While we certainly expect a certain level of professionalism, ANYBODY can get the jitters if they know they are (or might be) subject to a bunch of backseat drivers.
Again, not to say I am actually opposing the ability to videotape the cop who is giving you a speeding ticket, but I think we have to treat as real (and take appropriate action, if possible, to mitigate it) the fact that a cop can get stage fright just like anybody else, and being recorded very well might cause a cop to take an extra second to think about it in a situation in which seconds count.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chilling effect on officers
Because they are public servants paid with public funds, and therefore shouldn't expect any sort of privacy from public scrutiny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chilling effect on officers
That's the point. We *want* them to think twice before 'taking some action.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chilling effect on officers
In a functioning democracy, scrutiny of the work performed by public officials is a critical part of the oversight process. If we can not document behavior we as members of the public might find questionable because the public official might get "stage fright", how on earth can "we" the public make intelligent decisions about how to vote when questions such as "should the town cops carry tasers" come-up? If we vote yes and suddenly the town is filled with rumors of people being tased in a way that is inconsistent with the law but no one is allowed to document the behavior in question, it is just a he said she said cluster-fest that goes no where. If we see a video of 200lb officer Brutus tasing a little old lady and kicking her in the head, we now have a situation where the video may not tell the whole story, but, it does suggest something is not right with the world as a 200lb cop apparently needs a taser to subdue a little old lady.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Panopticon Sees All and Shows All
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Further eroding (the right of the people)(you and I)to be secure in our persons, papers, affects, and property.
Welcome To The Jack Booted Authoritocracy!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
I live in Indy. I'm trying to be less cynical these days, so I'll remind all of you that the courts in your state do dumb shit too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance."
You can technically say that the police officers in that case did not have leave to enter the house, but the defendant in that case should have just refused permission for them to enter his home, not attacked them. The cops were well within their rights and authority as part of a domestic violence case, to enter the home of the aggrieved and provide aid.
The issue of unlawful entry...I agree with the cops on this one because...imagine if a suspect just has to run into his house and deny entry, and that way he can get off scot free? That point was mentioned in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What rights then am I left with to keep an officer who, without a warrant, just feels like snooping around? Should I just say, "Please don't come in"? Should I call the police?
Seriously, it seems I have no other recourse except some post hoc legal action, by which time the rights I'm concerned with protecting have already been violated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The opinion certainly doesn't say that. Where are you getting that from?
They weren't invited by either party that lived in the home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to Find Balance
I went out (this was about 3AM) and asked if this had anything to do with any of the people living in the neighborhood (it didn't) and the officer was extremely nervous and wanted to keep me away from getting a good look at the suspect. He seemed relieved I simply said thank you and went home and did not have a camera. Most of what I am relaying is based on sounds and a glimpse or two of the actions but I got a complete picture of the events and the necessity of what the police did to protect me and you.
On video this would have looked terrible. Six or more police beating a teenager (albeit a large, muscular, tattooed, shaved headed, violent one) with batons and boots. The reality was a hyper-violent suspect resisting arrest and trying to injure police to his last once of strength and well trained police trying not to kill him while attempting getting him under control after a dangerous car chase that left all of the officers filled with adrenaline. They could not use a taser because they have been banned for any police use in this area (considered too dangerous). If only a small part of the fight was recorded and not the initial attack of the suspect this video taping of only part of the incident would be very coercive, effectively working as if it was edited.
On the other hand another incident that was on the news was a bystander's cell phone video that showed a suspect fully complying and on the ground and another officer coming up and kicking the arrested man in the face without provocation, something he may have gotten away with without the video evidence.
Having had arrested knife wielding muggers, home invaders, and a couple of thieves in the past and controlling the situation through extreme aggression, but no violence, I can see that a police officer may use a level of aggression that is less than necessary if intimidated by a video taping public resulting in harm to the officer, suspect, or both given the possibility of a loss of promotion, career, or even a bogus criminal sentence. Looking at shows like "Video on Patrol" I do sometimes sense a level of reserve on that part of officers confronting aggressive suspects in several of the videos (usually from the police dash cams) that could be argued encouraged the suspect to become violent and did result in injury and even death when a far more aggressive initial confrontation would have resulted in compliance.
Personally these NPR liberal, academic, armchair quarterbacks often make me retch but I agree that the actions like those of the New Jersey police who arrested Khaliah Fitchette and, in my opinion are guilty of tampering with evidence, and that idiot that was recorded confronting the motorcyclist in plain cloths and pulled the pistol without first identifying himself as a police officer and then arresting and prosecuting these vidoegraphers to intimidate them should have been brought to light. The article also does point out that most police do understand that video is now ubiquitous and a fact of everyday life for us all. Where should we draw the line? Should video from anti-crime cameras put in place by cities be edited if police are recorded committing crimes?
On the whole, I would have to side with public freedom to observe, report, and record police actions in public otherwise we will end up with more of a police state than the "patriot" act and other slimy, anti-freedom, anti-privacy laws have already created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to Find Balance
How many times have videos by students showing a teacher yelling or grabbing a student been put on Youtube. Of course, they don't show the students egging the teacher on for 15 minutes before they get the perfect 15-second "gotcha" clip. I can understand why cops don't want to be videoed, because it will encourage people to fuck with them until they snap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to Find Balance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to Find Balance
/sarcasm
Yeah, because what this country needs is fewer academic people. The smart folks are absolutely holding back this country. In fact, how about locking up every academic person?
/end sarcasm
People who seek to emulate Pol Pot and Chairman Mao because they fear smart people aren't the solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Restrict You Movement??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, the Bart shooting is very chilling indeed. This video also may be key in the case to help shed some light on what happened immediately before the officer fired his gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 1887
In the reality of everyday life, there isn't much power that is more absolute than armed men with the ability to legally restrain and detain a citizen.
The accountability provided by filming of police while on the job is extremely necessary to ensure the power entrusted to them does not tip toward the side of corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/222686
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shouldn't they always think someone is lookin over their sholder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have any objection to being tracked/filmed/recorded/etc"
Now obviously the larger point is police doing their job properly. I would like to see some consistency, tho.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Same thing here. In this situation the public is the employer and the police are the employees. Employers should expect to be monitored from their employees while at work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no inconsistency in allowing the filming of police officers. Phrases like "nothing to hide - nothing to fear" are about protecting privacy against abuses by those in power. This does not apply here: police officers are doing public work in a public space. The people filming are not "in power".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bottom line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double Standard
Exactly. If the "if you don't have anything to hide, you should be open to us watching you," can be used by cops to citizens, it can be used by citizens to cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It could be possible!
I can just see some camera wielding citizens chasing a squad car into a tunnel..And we ALL know how that turned out for Dianna.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Standard procedure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Similar UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ROFL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FILMING IN PUBLIC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh
Police are vested with a great deal of power and leeway when it comes to making on-the-spot decisions. Perhaps outcry by the public, which employs the police, should be regarded not as an uninformed bunch of civilians being �armchair quarter-backs.� Maybe this is a situation best viewed, as the employer telling an employee their behavior or method for handling a situation is unacceptable.
Police are public officials. Guess what, when it comes to public officials, every member of the public is an armchair quarterback. If you are unable to do your job as a cop in the public eye, maybe you need to consider a different line of work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
deliquent cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
police fear of being filmed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]