Woman Charged With 'Obstructing Governmental Administration' For Filming Police From Her Front Yard

from the police-state dept

Thu, Jun 23rd 2011 10:35am — Mike Masnick

We've had a ton of stories recently about police reacting badly (and contrary to what the law says) when they discover that someone is filming some of their actions in public. Police keep trying to claim that doing so is illegal, and have even tried to claim that such video taping violates wiretapping laws. The latest such example is really bizarre. Boing Boing points us to a story of how a woman was arrested in Rochester, NY and charged with "obstructing government administration," all because she was filming a (questionable) traffic stop in front of her house. You can see the video below: The guy keeps trying to come up with reasons to get her to leave her front yard, first suggesting that she can't film from the sidewalk (so she takes a step back) and then complaining that she's "anti-police" and that he doesn't feel safe unless she goes inside. She points out that she's in her own front yard and not doing anything wrong. The cop then threatens her with arrest, and quickly arrests her, claiming that she didn't obey a police order.

What's really stunning is that prosecutors went forward with charges here. They must have known there was a video. I'm curious how anyone can claim that filming police is obstructing governmental administration.

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: arrests, chilling effects, filming, police

156 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 10:16am

Well, for a start, it applies the Hawthorne Effect to the police (for those who don't know, the Hawthorne Effect states that, upon being observed, a person or group of people will change their behaviour.)

This is bad because the police must clearly be unobserved in order to serve justice. Why are you anti-justice, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 10:34am
  
  Re:
  Well, for a start, it applies the Hawthorne Effect to the police (for those who don't know, the Hawthorne Effect states that, upon being observed, a person or group of people will change their behaviour.)
  
  As an undergrad, studying "labor relations" you would not believe how many times the Hawthorne Effect was discussed. It's also why I know that the original study has been almost entirely debunked. That doesn't mean that being observed doesn't change people's behavior, but the Hawthorne Effect itself is quite a bit overstated...
  
  This is bad because the police must clearly be unobserved in order to serve justice. Why are you anti-justice, Mike?
  
  You figured me out. ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    > As an undergrad, studying "labor relations" you
    > would not believe how many times the Hawthorne
    > Effect was discussed.
    
    Isn't that just applying the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to people?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeff Rife, 24 Jun 2011 @ 12:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Isn't that just applying the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to people?
      I'm not sure.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Derek Kerton (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 12:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Probably not. HUP is about how the observation interacts with the observed particle, and thus changes its behavior, but the particle still follows the same set of rules that governed its behavior prior.
      
      In the case of people, the observation changes the rules the people follow, their motivations, their energy level, etc. They will "camp it up" for the camera, or some will "shy away".
      
      In the case of police, they will argue that "when we are distracted, or thinking about someone filming instead of doing our jobs, we may do our jobs 'less perfectly'. Since safety and in fact life hangs in the balance, the distraction should be prohibited."
      
      Of course, I don't buy that. The elevated power that police has, if abused, is also dangerous, and thus needs checks and balances to verify that it is being used fairly. An obvious goal should be transparency - anything police do should survive scrutiny. And since the enforcement of laws (on us) also hangs in the balance, our right to film what is publicly visible anyway is more important than their imagined 'right to operate invisibly'.
      
      Gawd. What a world. We're moving towards gov't electronic espionage of the citizenry and warrantless wiretaps. Cameras are installed in every cop car. CC cameras recording us multiple times a day, all of which "can be used against you in a court of law", and the gov't thinks that is great. Yet if you try to film so that the evidence is available for the "defense", then they lose their shit. Seems backwards to me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 10:42am
  
  Re:
  If the police must adjust their behavior upon being filmed, perhaps they need to seriously reconsider their behavior to begin with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DogBreath, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    Police have the guns. Check.
    
    She has a camera. Check.
    
    The cops feel threatened at a citizen filming their activities? Check. (She was "shooting" at them with a "camera" after all)
    
    Lesson for the day: Stay in your house when the police are outside (which is 24/7), because they might feel "threatened" by your presence and arrest you for not obeying their "orders", lawful or not. Check
    
    Fear a government that fears and violates the people's rights. Check.
    
    Well the police are quite familiar with the phrase "anything you say or do can be held against you in a court of law" and are well aware how an audio or video recording (when used as evidence... but not "their" evidence) can blow their whole case up in court, and possibly put them in the hot seat for not following the laws they are sworn to uphold.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DS, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The only cop that assumes someone doesn't have a gun is a dead cop.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Valkor, 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Probably true, but the only cop that then goes on to be hostile to those potential perps is an asshole cop.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DS, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Noncompliance of a simple request can be viewed as hostile, which can lead to an escalation of the situation, generally by a perp who wants to take advantage of the situation.
        
        Asshole cops aside, when it's your ass on the line, you start to view things a bit differently.
        
        The bigger asshole in this is the prosecutor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Noncompliance of a simple request can be
        > viewed as hostile
        
        Doesn't matter how simple the request is, if it's not legal, the police are not justified in making it or enforcing it. Illegal orders/requests don't become legal just because they're "simple".
        
        > Asshole cops aside, when it's your ass on the
        > line, you start to view things a bit differently.
        
        Well, since I *am* a cop, I can speak authoritatively on the subject of how it feels, and I personally don't condone law-breaking and oppression justified by vague and self-serving claims of "I felt threatened".
        
        If a woman on her front lawn with a camera makes you feel scared and unsafe, then perhaps you should reconsider policing as a vocation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The cop can't make a request that he has no legal authority to make. Just because someone is a cop doesn't mean he has the legal authority to request that you hand him over all your money and therefore you must do it or else. Cops can only make requests that they have the legal authority to make.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 2:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Noncompliance of a simple request can be viewed as hostile, which can lead to an escalation of the situation, generally by a perp who wants to take advantage of the situation.
        
        If it's a simple request, then her refusal shouldn't have elicited more than a shrug and for the officer to move on and complete his duties, none of which involved this citizen in any way.
        
        Asshole cops aside, when it's your ass on the line, you start to view things a bit differently.
        
        Yes, you do. You look at clothing and behavior and use your training to judge where the dangers are in situations.
        
        Sometimes this leads to not-awesome but understandable behavior, like my father-in-law showing up to my son's birthday party packing heat because we didn't live in a great neighborhood. Sometimes this leads to not-awesome and not-understandable behavior, like the one detailed in the post.
        
        Tl;dr: His actions were inexcusable and he should be summarily fired to 'send a message' to those like him.
        
        The bigger asshole in this is the prosecutor.
        
        Agreed, but the presence of a larger asshole doesn't excuse the smelliness of lesser assholes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Trails (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only cop that assumes everyone has a gun, is equally dead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jackwagon (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and might take an innocent or two with them on the way...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chargone (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 5:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the possibility of getting shot because some cop is having a bad day and isn't as articulate as is needed for me to understand his instructions past his accent the first time when he is shouting at me is one of many, many reasons i have no intention of ever visiting the USA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        American A-hole, 24 Jun 2011 @ 4:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're probably a terrorist anyway.
        
        USA! USA! USA!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DogBreath, 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only private citizen who assumes a police officer won't arrest them for no violation of the law, hasn't been born yet.
        
        Cops should walk around everywhere with their guns drawn and pointed at everyone, because anyone could be armed at any time and a deadly threat to themselves or others.
        
        Moderation and common sense is the key, and this case looks more like "Do what I say lawful or not, or you're going to be arrested and thrown in jail on a charge we'll come up with later".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only cop that assumes someone doesn't have a gun is a dead cop.
        
        Delusional paranoia.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Damnit, guys, I was being sarcastic! :S
        
        IO guess I fell victim to Poe's Law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - GeneralEmergency (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, why not avoid the rush and shoot me dead now!
        
        ...And don't forget to empty the clip into me!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TS.Atomic (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 8:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The world needs more Andy Griffiths and fewer Barney Fifes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 12:52am
        
        Re: Please people ... its this simple ...
        The cop that assumes someone doesn't have a camera is no longer a cop.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 2:34am
        
        Re: Re: Please people ... its this simple ...
        The cop that assumes someone doesn't have a camera is no longer a cop.
        
        Actually, as this case shows:
        
        The cop that assumes someone doesn't have a camera is a cop that will arrest people on trumped-up charges and be supported by his peers.
        
        Sorry, Heph, but I FTFY. :/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        dummyass
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jesse (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 6:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    #ThirdWorldProblemsInTheFirstWorld
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 10:49am
  
  Re:
  You forget, my friend, that justice is blind and if the public wants justice they must be blind as well. Do you know who else can see police brutality...? Commie-nazi-socialist-terrorists. You wouldn't want our children growing up in a world where scum like that can monitor our boys in blue...do you? Please think of the children!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Prisoner 201, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    If the police doesn't have anything to hide, what are they worried about?
    
    Damn that felt good.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Prisoner 201, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This was supposed to be a reply to The eejit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dave (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 7:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    @el_segfaulto
    People, not just the police, need to behave as if they were being filmed any time they are in public. It has already been determined in court that there is no expectation of privacy when on a public street. I see no reason why a public employee, whether policeman or street sweeper, should enjoy special status. If they are behaving properly, there is nothing to fear from being taped.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PW (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:21am
  
  Re:
  "Why are you anti-justice, Mike?"
  
  Anti-justice? Hmm...one innocent person is inappropriately stopped and searched and another innocent person gets arrested on a trumped up charge. You my friend, have a strange sense of justice ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    Lot of missing /s tags around here
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - anothermike, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You need them to be marked? Is you detector malfunctioning or something?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - el_segfaulto (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh a sarcasm detector. That's a useful invention.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadioactiveSmrf (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have a patent on the idea for a sarcasm detector. If you make that device a reality I will sue you. /s
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DCL, 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Too late!
        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18956-just-what-we-need-
        sarcasm-software.html
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Grey Ferret, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're doing it wrong. You don't threaten to sue before they create the device. Wait until they're done. Otherwise, they might not make it and you then can't make any money from your patent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DogBreath, 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I bet the /s are not missing on the police arrest report.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chargone (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 5:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nope. just written with invisable ink.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 23 Jun 2011 @ 5:25pm
  
  Re: Hawthorne Effect
  How was that discovered? Was it only by observing people?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ScottE, 24 Jun 2011 @ 10:31am
  
  Re:
  Don't most cops have dashboard cameras? How is this any different than that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Guy, 23 Jun 2011 @ 10:49am

I hope someone arrests me for filming the police from a public space, or better yet my own property, some day... I could use the extra cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anothermike, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:41am
  
  Re:
  Exactly. False arrest against the police department and the arresting officer plus malicious prosecution if the DA pursues it. A couple rounds against a competent defense attorney ought to put a stop to this kind of nonsense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Only if the sleaze balls have to pay for the privilege from their own pocket.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rose M. Welch (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 2:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    ...if the DA pursues it...
    
    That's the most important bit there. And it's unlikely that the DA who chose to prosecute the crap charge would then turn around and prosecute the cop.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 8:59pm
  
  Re:
  In jail, you get three meals a day plus shelter. Perhaps homeless people should get video cameras and start following cops around with them, get arrested, and now they have some place to stay with food to eat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charles Meyer (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 10:50am

Consent laws
I just posted this on facebook for a friend linking this video. The prosecutors are clearly stupid in this case, as the woman was allowed to do what she was doing by a consent law. In NYS, there is a 1-party consent law, that is to say that only one party involved in a situation needs to consent for recording of any kind to be allowed. Some states have 2-party consent laws, where it is sometimes expanded to include x-size-party, but basically in that version, both included parties have to agree for recording to be legal.

I might have this out of order, or incorrect information, but this is how it was explained by the judge at the court system where I interned...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 10:57am
  
  Re: Consent laws
  This brings up an interesting point. If you are in a 2-party consent state and you are a 3rd party filming a traffic stop, would it count as 2-party consent if you and the person being pulled over consented to the recording but the police did not?
  
  Not that it really matters. It is still bogus to arrest people for filming the police.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:08am
  
  Re: Consent laws
  Since Google Street View is considered legal and there is no right to privacy for things done in public, there is no way this will stick.
  
  I sure hope she takes it to trial because I seriously doubt they will find 12 people to convict her.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 6:53am
    
    Re: Re: Consent laws
    This would be a trial by jury? I doubt it. A simple criminal case. They win. You appeal if possible. Years and dollars wasted. They know the system and use it to discourage people to do many things. It is best to remain anonymous but sometimes that is just not the right thing to do and we have to fight for our rights that have already been established for hundreds of years but tested every day.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Derek Kerton (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 2:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Consent laws
      We Americans will take to the streets to protest Health Care and death panels, but not to defend our rights. We'd rather just roll over and watch TV when those are trampled.
      
      It's easiest just to be angry at what the news channels tell us to dislike.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wulfman (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:01pm
  
  Re: Consent laws
  That consent law is only related to audio
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DCL, 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Consent laws
    That doesn't stop them from applying to video.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dwg, 24 Jun 2011 @ 10:39am
    
    Re: Re: Consent laws
    Not just audio: wires. Like, as in, recording a phone conversation. No one needs any consent to take video--only to broadcast it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Derek Kerton (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 2:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Consent laws
      This thread doesn't seem to apply to public spaces. Otherwise, how would a 7-11 put a security camera in the store?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - American A-hole, 24 Jun 2011 @ 4:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent laws
        Because a 7-11 isn't public space. Are you really that dense?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Derek Kerton (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent laws
        Technically, you're right. Of course, you're also a tool, because there's an obvious grey area. Like the street outside the 7-11 where they also aim cameras. Or the 7-11 itself (wikipedia):
        
        "'Semi-public' spaces
        A broader meaning of public space or place includes also places where everybody can come if they pay, like a caf�, train, or movie theater. A shop is an example of what is intermediate between the two meanings: everybody can enter and look around without obligation to buy, but activities unrelated to the purpose of the shop are not unlimitedly permitted."
        
        Basically, places where you don't have the expectation of privacy. Anyway, my point stands. They are discussing audio and videotaping in places where there IS an expectation of privacy around an event that took place on a public street. There is no expectation of privacy on the street.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Difster, 23 Jun 2011 @ 9:34pm
  
  Re: Consent laws
  They're not charging her with wiretapping so that doesn't apply in this case. But I understand the mistake, cops improperly charge people for illegal wiretapping all the time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devil's Advocate, 23 Jun 2011 @ 10:55am

What' good for the goose...
The most popular line coming from police is "You've got nothing to worry about, if you have nothing to hide!" This spin is used constantly to help justify more surveillance and more power to trash the Constitution.

Yet, that whole idea gets flushed down the toilet whenever the tables are turned, and an "authority" of any kind is put under the same microscope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 10:57am

Assuming the prosecutor is elected, that should be exhibit A for his/her opponent in the next election cycle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 5:58pm
  
  Re:
  unless they, as is often the case, actaully follow the same set of logic and have the same objectives.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 10:59am

Corruption? Nah...
So let's get this straight:

The person who was detained by police, locked up in a squad car while they searched his vehicle for narcotics was allowed to go free after the arrest.

This woman films the incident and she's arrested.

They had a conference for an hour about her filming. When all she did was film them doing an illegal search and seizure method.

What the hell is wrong with this picture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:05am
  
  Re: Corruption? Nah...
  What's wrong with this picture is that the 4th Amendment is getting in the way of police doing their damn job! When will people realize that stopping criminals is more important than civil rights?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:18am
    
    Re: Re: Corruption? Nah...
    /sarc
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DogBreath, 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:25pm
    
    Re: Re: Corruption? Nah...
    Perhaps the Constitution is filled with /sarc marks but they're so faded that only POTUS, Congress, Court Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcement can see them?
    
    Damn the Founding Fathers of our Country! They've rickrolled us all!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2011 @ 1:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Corruption? Nah...
      lulling hard right now
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - trish, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:59pm
    
    Re: Re: Corruption? Nah...
    The police are there to protect and serve. They are not important, the ease of their job is irrelevant, it is supposed to be hard because what they are supposed to be protecting is the rights and freedoms of the citizens. Citizens are important, they pay the civil servants' (civil SERVANTS, they serve civilians) salaries. In a dictatorship/ police state, the rights of civilians are trampled, police are there to oppress and dictate rules. If stopping criminals is more important than civil rights, than we may as well enforce curfew, cuz a lot of crimes are committed in the dark. Hell we should just set everyone up in concentration camps under armed guard, crime will be completely eradicated! O criminals, 0 civil rights. And everyone's happy! except, no...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greevar (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Corruption? Nah...
      You're preaching to the choir man.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - joe the plumber, 24 Jun 2011 @ 2:15am
    
    Re: Re: Corruption? Nah...
    You are and idiot. Your avatar is perfectly appropriate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greevar (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 9:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Corruption? Nah...
      You are an idiot to not pick up on the sarcasm.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Derek Kerton (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 2:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Corruption? Nah...
        Wow. Joe The Plumber. Out of touch. Who would have thought?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Don, 24 Jun 2011 @ 8:04am
    
    Re: Re: Corruption? Nah...
    While I have to agree with the 4th amendment
    
    The police are expected to up hold the laws not bend them to do there job. There exspected to be educated not morons.
    
    If they followed the law then they woundn't have to worry about being filmed now would they!
    
    just get the brownie point so their records look good..
    
    80% of Lawers and judges are just as bad twist and change the laws for there own needs.
    
    thats the human race for ya!
    
    See it eveyday it not just in the law enforcment
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:05am

I doubt consent matters
There's no expectation of privacy when you're in the middle of a public street. There was no surreptitious recording -- it was out in the open. I can't see how wiretapping law would apply. No, this seems likes a case of cops and prosecutors doing the wrong thing. How surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:14am

Remember guys, Apple was just patenting stuff for fun and there's no possible situation in which the feature could be misused!

Oh wait, why did I say that? I seem to be on the wrong article...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:46am

On principle, I can understand how bystanders can be a hindrance to officers just doing their already difficult job (let's assume that's what they were doing). But a lady in a nighty standing in silence at a respectable distance? Pleeze.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dave (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 7:17am
  
  On principle...
  I'd say the officer forgot who it was that he was supposed to protect and serve. The citizen's of Rochester should show up at the next city council meeting and demand the guy be fired. He seems to be suffering from Col. Nicholson's (Bridge on the River Kwai) syndrome.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:47am

I am definitely not "anti-police". I have friends who are cops. But, if police officers want to be liked and/or respected they need to stop acting like such assholes just because someone is filming them. People loose respect for them a little more every time one of these clips hits the 'net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCL, 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:38pm
  
  Re:
  Sheriff Andy and Deputy Barney didn't have these issues... they were all friendly like.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Sheriff Andy and Deputy Barney didn't have these issues... they were all friendly like.
    
    Sheriff Andy took all of Deputy Barney's bullets away.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DogBreath, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He should have taken away his gun, as Barney always seemed to never run out of bullets.
      
      Ballad of Barney Fife
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndup992fCJA
      
      Barneys Gun
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsg0EvZozI
      
      barney's gun goes off again!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1px5vIv9Rs0
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DCL, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And we were all better of for it.... Sheriff Andy still had his. But he also had a fish'in pole and wasn't afraid to use it to fish!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ro, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:56am

it make sense
It make sense: a mechanic cannot change the oil if you watch him. This also explain why JiffyLube has higher prices (due to open garage doors). And why college is so expensive. And why Lady Gaga get a tone of money. I didn't figure it out why doctors and lawyers have higher income...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boston99999 (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:20pm

New Laws
I think a lot of people here are missing the most outrageous part of all of this... this is not about wiretapping laws or obstruction.

1-party/2-party wiretapping laws pertain to voice recording, not video. But that's not my point.

Recently, many states, MA & CT included, have passed NEW laws that make it a crime to video a on-duty police officer or government official.

People have been charged with this already, and now a lawyer who was charged with this (in either MA or CT, I forget which) has vowed to challenge it all the way up.

It is complete BS.

Nobody else in an open, public space has an expectation of privacy, but cops do. Um, ok. That makes sense.

These laws will get struck down. Guaranteed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- D. Hope-Ross (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:03pm
  
  Re: New Laws
  Don't know about any new laws here in CT that made it illegal to videotape an officer working. There was, however, legislation recently introduced which would make it illegal for police to stop you from recording them.
  
  I couldn't find anything saying that it was passed.
  
  TD post:
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110301/16454913318/new-bill-connecticut-would-make-it-ille gal-police-to-stop-you-recording-them.shtml
  
  Bill text:
  http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/s/pdf/2011SB-00788-R00-SB.pdf
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:21pm

Wait a minute. I seem to recall some show on TV that has a camera crew follow police around and record their interactions with the public. What's the name of that show? Oh, ya, Cops. It's been on TV for 23 seasons.

The police don't have a problem with those cameras. Or the ones on The First 48. Or The First 48: Missing. Or TV camera's recording riot control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCL, 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re:
  That is because on Cops they are highly trained actors that become officers and the police have editing control.
  
  These guys only play officers on a woman's camera.
  
  I admit the above is a little harsh and mostly made up... but I am frustrated by the video so my self censorship filters are going to let it slide.
  
  For the record, I respect good cops, I have many as friends. I also respect the Constitution and what it stands for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    For the record, I respect good cops, I have many as friends.
    
    I have to wonder how good the "good" cops really are, seeing that they willingly tolerate so many bad ones in their midst. If they were really good, they'd clean up their own first.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DCL, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I wish they would...
      
      As an example of why not... how many people do you know at your place of work that screw stuff up, make bad choices or just suck to work with.... why are they still working there, and why have you not gotten them fired?
      
      In the brotherhood of police they politically bully each other around.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2011 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        its true, I took 2 years of criminal justice so that I could change the system from within. After 2 years of setting the grading curve, the teacher (20 years on patrol as a police officer) pulled me aside and said "dont take the police exam, you will go nowhere there."
        
        I was confused and said "wha wha whatt??? I just got the highest score on every single test, wouldnt that mean I got a leg up on these guys>"
        
        his answer was verbatim this "you have too much integrity. only the good old boys make it anywhere in policing."
        
        A twenty year veteran of the police force telling me I have "too much integrity" to be a cop.
        
        Yikes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thomas (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:56pm
  
  Re: Cop shows
  The police reserve the right to remove anything from the tapes that shows the police in an un-favorable light.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Patrick, 24 Jun 2011 @ 12:54am
    
    Re: Re: Cop shows
    Oh no the hell they don't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeni (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 4:47am
  
  Re:
  Just like they don't have a problem using their own cameras in their vehicles to record "perps". Course, those they can pick and choose when to use - or delete if it suits their motives...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irving, 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:26pm

Interfering by observation
Of course observation constitutes interference - if you don't believe me, just ask Schroedinger.

poor little kitty....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re: Interfering by observation
  or not...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:41pm

Typical...
Just goes to show that the cops are afraid someone will film them doing another Rodney King.

The cops don't have a problem with the crews from "Cops" since they agree ahead of time to cut any portions that don't show the police in a favorable light.

Are there any cops left in this country who actually want to help citizens? It seems like the cops now hate everyone, not just the criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:04pm
  
  Re: Typical...
  It seems like the cops now hate everyone, not just the criminals.
  
  No, you see, everyone but cops ARE criminals. Some just haven't been caught, yet.
  /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:19pm
  
  Re: Typical...
  "The cops don't have a problem with the crews from "Cops" since they agree ahead of time to cut any portions that don't show the police in a favorable light."
  
  Right but when a cop orders you to stop filming because (he claims) its ILLEGAL, then if it truly was, then they CANT give consent to Cops TV show to film. Its illegal to kill a person even if a cop were to say "go ahead, shoot him, I say its ok."
  
  So one of these is wrong. Either its illegal, and shows like Cops cant record, or its not, and its a massive abuse of police power for them to arrest citizens for doing so.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:47pm

AFter watching..
the video, I can't imagine why the cops would complain. They were only arresting a black man, probably for DWB. The cameraman couldn't possibly hurt the cops.

And the cops all over wonder why people don't trust them and probably hate them to boot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:53pm

this goes back to Hilter's goons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:07pm

Pigs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob J, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:26pm

What's maddening about this is that police cruisers have cameras during traffic stops, and many cities have 'big brother' cameras mounted on traffic signals that can give me a ticket if I trip some seemingly arbitrary sensor that says I ran a red light.

I don't get to object to either instance. Why should the police?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:46pm

They really didn't do it right....at all.....
I was at a Bikes, Blues and BBQ festival. There was cops all over the place, and about 30k people on the street. Most everyone is just watching bikes go by, lots drinking, etc.

One kid and his mostly naked girlfriend ride up the street. No biggie, until after the stop light went from red to green, he gunned it, squealed his tires (to the cheers of the crowd, of course...we were getting tired of the cops telling people at a bike festival to 'be quiet'...it's a motorcycle festival..wtfover....)....and then had to screech to a stop (because of traffic).

6 cops jumped out of the crowd onto the street and pulled him over. I snuck over with iPhone in hand, and started recording what I could. One of the officers saw me (about a minute into the video), called for backup, and there were like 10 huge cornfed cops surrounding the guy and his GF...no one could see anything because they basically 'walled off' the area with cop bodies.

They didn't arrest him, they just told him he wasn't allowed to ride his bike anymore on that street during the festival. They let him walk it off to the side of the road, and the GF was calling around trying to find a way to get it towed off the street.

Anyway, the cops need to realize there are better ways to handle a situation....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 8:21pm
  
  Re: They really didn't do it right....at all.....
  > no one could see anything because they basically 'walled off'
  > the area with cop bodies.
  
  I don't have a problem with people filming cops, but I also don't have a problem with cops doing what you described. You have a right to film but there's no law that says they have to make everything they do accessible to your camera.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 7:42am
    
    Re: Re: They really didn't do it right....at all.....
    Yea, that's what I was trying to get at. This is how our cops handle the taping situations, instead of all "tackle, arrest, beat" that we have seen so much of lately.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
someone (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:11pm

WirelessTapping laws?
"Police keep trying to claim that doing so is illegal, and have even tried to claim that such video taping violates wiretapping laws. "

Kinda hard to tap a wire that does not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:14pm

This article has inspired me to record ALL police stops from my apt window which happen often in front of the house.

Arrest me you fucking pigs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 4:44pm
  
  Re:
  Oh, and I live in Illinois. Take that !
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:28pm

Smoked pork for dinner
The cops wonder why people don't trust them and won't turn in people for crimes. This is a huge part of why. Cops like this should go back to being a 7-11 security guard. Mentally, this officer is not fit for duty as it's clear he doesn't understand what his job is, and what the law is. Ignorance is no excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Muir (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:39pm

Here is a comment full of speculation and extrapolation (since I really have no facts to back up what I'm saying).

All parties in this video remained so calm it seems like a perfect test case for the law. Neither the police officer nor the woman seemed to be "losing it" which is often a reason (no matter how the situation started or who was in the right) that things escalate and get out of control -- making an arrest inevitable.

I have no idea what the laws are in New York State, but from the way the officer continued to reiterate that he did not feel safe, there must be something on the books that allows police officers to detain someone who (in their opinion and at their discretion) threatens officer safety. Or perhaps the law allows an officer to direct someone to move (for officer safety reasons) even if they are on their own property which would make it a case of her not obeying a lawful police order. Again, this should make a good test case to see just how much discretion and leeway the officers should have.

Another speculative point: Like referees and lifeguards, cops are trained to assert themselves and "stick to their assertions" even if they realize they are wrong and have dug themselves into a hole. That's part of what's going on here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HrilL, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:47pm
  
  Re:
  I'm not law expert but I don't see how an officer can tell you that you're not allowed to stand anywhere on your own property. Since I don't think the lady in this video broke any laws and clearly the officer did. By illegally arresting her he also trust passed on her property because he didn't have her permission to come onto it as officers of the law are only allowed to enter onto someones property if they believe they law is being broken. If she wins she should press charges for trust passing. As well as sue the officer and department for wrongful imprisonment and excessive use of force (she clearly wasn't a threat and probably would have let the officer cuff her while standing so there was clearly no reason to have to take her to the ground.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 6:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    pretty sure you mean trespassing there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 8:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    > I'm not law expert but... he also trust passed on her property.
    
    LOL!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boo Boo, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:09pm

False Arrest ?
The Police clearly violated her civil rights and I Pray she sues and is awarded a HUGE CASH settlement. For me...

If I video taped them and I clearly violated no laws except for some trumpt up excuse. They can take me to jail and I will sue for millions !

The Police order was not a lawful order. She could have been video taping even on public property and be lawful..

YOU STINKING POLICEMAN - YOU IDIOT ARE A COWARD And I HOPE YOU LOSE YOUR JOB!

A Police order only has to be followed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:14pm

The police have been using the dashboard cameras for years to record traffic stops. How is that not illegal wiretapping if us recording them is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:39pm

Police State FTW!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Whiteman, 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:05pm

Oh yah
Napa, CA. Just yesterday the cops came looking for my 14 year old son saying he threw a molitov cocktail at a school close to our house. I told them they could not talk to him with out a adult there or our lawyer and they made me leave the room and go out side, if I did not they would have me arrested and pushed me out the door with his hand on my back and on his gun. They questioned him alone even after being told they could not. These are simple laws setup to protect minors and they don't care if they break the law there cops, they are the law. And my son was with adults all day and that night so could not have done it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:13pm
  
  Re: Oh yah
  then bring this up in court, case is then thrown out and your lawsuit begins!
  
  Good Luck!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Just chris (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:44pm
    
    Re: Re: Oh yah
    I called my lawyer right away and we filed in court today. and thanks for the luck.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hautedawg, 23 Jun 2011 @ 5:56pm
  
  Re: Oh yah
  Are you sure he didn't do it? I've heard "he/she couldn't have done that", and only later find out that he/she certainly did do it.
  
  I don't condone what the cops did, but I also know better than "he couldn't have done it". Kids can do a lot of things and we don't know it. I'm not saying he did do it, just saying before you grab the soapbox, make damn sure he was under contorl the whole time. Kids have a way of sneaking around.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 6:12pm
    
    Re: Re: Oh yah
    there's a difference between 'couldn't have done it' due to opinion of personality and 'couldn't have done it' due to being observed at all times to be nowhere near where the thing took place and/or not have the materials to do so.
    
    difference between a character witness (or something of the sort) and an alibi.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AW (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 8:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Oh yah
    What would this have to do with the officers breaking the law? You're not allowed to question someone who isn't legally capable of defending themselves as an adult. They would have needed to bring in a child advocate or a parent to question to have any legal standing if you are going to use that as testimony. It creates a situation of duress otherwise.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 4:46am
    
    Re: Re: Oh yah
    Are you sure he didn't do it?
    
    It doesn't matter whether he did it or not. The kid is a minor. He has a right to have his parents/guardians with him during police questioning, and that desire was made clear to the police. Everyone has a right to have an attorney present during questioning, and that desire was made clear as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mijestic (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 9:09am
    
    Re: Re: Oh yah
    It certainly doesn't matter whether or not the child did anything.
    
    The parent told the police that they didn't have any right to question their child without their observation and/or an attorney present. That is their right under our laws.
    
    The POLICE broke the law and even if the child admitted to them that he had in fact thrown it, his statement would likely get thrown out of court. And with it the whole case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dwg, 24 Jun 2011 @ 10:45am
  
  Re: Oh yah
  Supreme Court just ruled on this this week: minors have Miranda rights and cannot be questioned without receiving them. Did your son have his Mirandas read to him? Did he comprehend them?
  
  SUE THOSE FUCKS.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ron, 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:12pm

cops on bicycles
they are a joke i could never take a cop in spandex shorts serious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just chris (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:48pm
  
  Re: cops on bicycles
  Or there little light system, looks like the one I mounted to my bike when I was a kid!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ron, 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:18pm

cops
they use reno 911 as training are required to take 2 classes a-hole 101 and ignarant 101 sounds like they aced both
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:39pm

For further attractions and classic lulz from an informed public. Check out copblock.org.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sowhat, 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:47pm

this cop deserves a bullet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TWiT, 23 Jun 2011 @ 5:40pm

Never, ever trust a cop. They are paid to lie, cheat and steal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 6:16pm
  
  Re:
  though less so than politicians :D
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ringbearer31, 23 Jun 2011 @ 5:46pm

My town
Lolz, this was happening down the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 6:39pm

Police State...
The woman was in her own Constitutional right. She was calmly observing from a safe distance. The suspect was already detained. The cops were just visibly upset about being on recorded video. There's a reason why cops are called pigs. This is just one of many examples. There's never a cop when you call them, and they're always late. That's IF they bother to show up at all. Many of them have a fascist god complex when it comes to attitudes. Most have no respect for, or lack understanding of a Citizens Constitutional Rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gmarcotte (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 7:43pm

simple logic
From Wikipedia: "A person is guilty of obstructing government administration if the person intentionally interferes by force, violence or intimidation or by any physical act with a public servant performing or purporting to perform an official function."

"Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm."

Standing in one's front lawn and holding a video camera are clearly physical acts. The recorded visual evidence clearly threatens to expose illegal police activity, putting the officer's job in jeopardy and leading to financial harm. Case closed. And should the officer actually be fired, I know a lawyer willing to sue her for committing tortious interference by publicizing the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difster, 23 Jun 2011 @ 9:39pm

Stop Resisting!
Cops are pretty much trained to say "STOP RESISTING" to anyone they are giving a beating to because then they have some plausible deniability should there be witnesses to the beating.

Maybe they're catching on to the camera thing. "I don't feel safe" is the new "STOP RESISTING." Notice also the cop makes some vague reference to some threat she made before she turned the camera on? That'll become SOP as well.

What the cop should have said is, "Turn the camera off, you're endangering my job security."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeni (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 4:59am
  
  Re: Stop Resisting!
  At the very least he could have been polite. He was a bully and a brute and creepy cop.
  
  And she helps pay his salary. They seem to forget that fact.
  
  To so many creepy cops people are no longer human, just subjects to be abused and misused. It's a shame, really.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dori young, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:48pm

this article
Okay. I don't comment on articles, but as a criminal court reporter in Florida I have run into this so many times. The first day I arrived in my small town I was pulled over by the police TWICE. The first time didn't really bother me, he told me my signal light was not turned on. The second time was on my way home and I was stopped by not less than four unmarked cars, because I appeared to have an expired tag. After I was allowed to speak, I told them it was an Oklahoma tag, not expired, introduced myself to them and told them I was the new court reporter in town for the judge that had been there for a very long time, and told them that I was sure I would be seeing them in court on an almost daily basis. I did see them is court, and they were liars, dirty cops, and when the jury nullified the verdict as not guilty all we could say is everyone in this little town knows they plant evidence and they lie. I'm sorry to say in 34 years of criminal court reporting I haven't met very many police/detectives that I trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 1:58am

Oh my gosh people they r not charging her for video taping...y is everyone so bent on that? She refused to leave the scene when he was arresting someone and he has a right for not only his safety but the person he is arresting as well. If he had any suspicion she was not allowing for a safe arrest there should be no problem in asking her to leave the scene. He didn't ask her to put the camera away. He was very polite about it but her continued refusal to obey and then sound just plane silly that u wanted fresh air is rediculous. Its dark, he has no idea what kind of person is behind humor what her mental state is nor should he have to worry about that interfering with the arrest he was in the process of making. Bottom line is she crossed the line...the yelling and screaming and " I didn't do anything" was fake and an act. If all u really wanted to do was tape then do that in ur house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- joe the plumber, 24 Jun 2011 @ 2:32am
  
  Re:
  Wrong! Wrong!Wrong! The arrest of the suspect was outside of her yard. She was on her property. The officer was not threatened by her, his actions were clearly meant to stop her from recording his actions. It is ridiculus that someone is arrested in their own yard for doing something that is "not" illegal. Who the heck wouldn't yell if they were told what to do in their own yard? Do you really want police that are able to squash any citizen oversight? The police are looking at the wrong way. If they have officers whose conduct shouldn't be recorded, then maybe they need to look at that officer, not blame the witness.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 4:08am

Welcome to the way the future of this country is going to be folks. This is the beginning of complete government control, might as well get used to it, when the chinese take over it will only get worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 4:37am
  
  Re:
  Amen. The next revolution... ok maybe not the next. Maybe the 1000th next: The United Statesians. Obama needs to be hung. First by the balls, then by the neck. Oh and his children groped publicly then posted on Youtube. And let's not forget his wife arrested for filming it. And the executioner updating is facebook while telling Roger Ebert to not tweet if he likes his facebook accoun, otherwise Bam will kick his ass.
  
  Fun times. Fun times...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Really lost it didnt ya, 24 Jun 2011 @ 9:00am
    
    Your full of it
    Obama didn't cause this, your George Bush lying retard caused all this to go into motion by allowing the govt. to overstep it's powers.
    
    But just like the brain washed idiots that want to turn the facts into lies you are the problem, but then Bush wasn't President during 911 either was he... You fool.
    
    Stop getting all your information from Fox you idiot, no wonder Glen Beck is getting thrown off the air, finally they see the hate this fool and others that believe this nonsense is destroying our country.
    
    And people like you blame Obama for what Bush did, funny thing is that idiots like you don't see and understand that it takes years to see the full effect of a President, Now we are living the HE'LL Bush and Chaney payed out for us.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Derek Kerton (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 2:22pm
      
      Re: Your full of it
      Everybody likes power. Bush administration. Obama administration. Both like power, and will choose more over less.
      
      This is not a D vs. R issue. This is a government vs. the governed issue.
      
      Since Jefferson has been quoted to death, I'll cite Marley: "Get up, stand up. Stand up for your rights. Don't give up the fight."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeni, 24 Jun 2011 @ 4:06pm
      
      Re: Your full of it
      OMG look at this one ... not past the "blame Bush" rant yet.
      And all that name calling ... tsk tsk. Pray tell, why should you be taken seriously?
      
      Just can't see that old forest through them old trees. Pity.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2011 @ 1:26pm
      
      Re: Your full of it
      im a flaming liberal, and Obama is worse then bush, one every policy hands down. You are living in wonderland if you think everything Obama is doing is just a result of Bush initiation. Obama took the rolling ball, and kicked it as hard as he could in the same direction of his priors.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Black Panther, 24 Jun 2011 @ 4:41am

Look what happened to Rodney King
Police don't want a repeat of that. I hear Indiana already passed a State Law making it illegal to film Police Officers in public.

I don't think Rodney King was beat down in Indiana, but this this new law he could be. Again...

Only this time no-body will have it on tape and the police will be smiling.

Welcome to the future. Yay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Carleen, 24 Jun 2011 @ 11:01am

Arrest for "Obstructing Governmental Administration"
Frankly, the arrest of a woman who was standing in her own front yard videotaping a traffic stop is purely outrageous. The district attorney who pursued charges is out of his/her mind. What this woman did should not in any way be illegal or grounds for arrest. This should get further publicity so the public knows how our law enforcement officers and court officials are mistreating the public!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 11:14am

well
Schrodingers Police Officer?

We put this police officer and an unarmed completely innocent african-american in a box together and sealed the lid.

Now due to quantum mechanics we can't know for sure if the police man beat the other guy senseless for no good reason (but we can hazard a guess) until we open the box and observe the policeman and the citizen's corpse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 1:18pm

I have zero respect for your average cop
And they have none for me, or anyone else that isn't a cop. That's the way it is. Nothing will ever change that. I worked with and around them for many years at NYPD HQ in lower Manhattan, and I know exactly how they think. I have relatives on the force. That does not change my opinion. I had a friend who was murdered by a cop in Toms River, NJ, who then blew his own brains out to escape real justice - life in the joint with some of the same perps he helped put there. My whole take on this is to never, ever trust a cop to do the right thing. That's not their job, according to them. I look at them all as potential lethal threats, because you never know when one of them is gonna go postal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 3:18pm

Techdirt: Please post another article or update to advise what the police are now doing in her neighborhood.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/24/rochester-police-use.html

This is clear police harassment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeremy7600 (profile), 25 Jun 2011 @ 8:47am

Comments from the police union chief:

Mazzeo said: "What I think is wrong is, we don't have laws that allow our officers to do their jobs � that an individual has to answer to their demands and be responsible for it."

(from http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110625/NEWS01/106250325/Activist-Emily-Good-stunned-by -fallout-from-video?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News)

Wow. I am dumbfounded by this comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 25 Jun 2011 @ 12:51pm
  
  Re:
  To be clear, Mazzeo is the Police Union PRESIDENT. The Union President can be expected to back up the officer in almost all circumstances. In that role, his duty is to the officers, not the public.
  
  Saying "Chief" might imply a different position of authority.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeremy7600 (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 5:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    Clearly, the emphasis of my comment should be on what he said, not who he is. I only wrote chief as in he's thehead of the union. Obviously as I mentioned theunion I wasn't implying anything else.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Derek Kerton (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 10:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I wasn't replying to correct you. I was just clarifying before somebody reads the words "Police" and "Chief" and goes off with the wrong impression.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ntfny, 27 Jun 2011 @ 6:57pm

freedom
Film the man People cops are out of control You have a right to refuse orders that are not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2012 @ 8:46am

Who cares!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]