District Attorney Dismisses Charges Against Woman Who Filmed Cops
from the good-for-them dept
Last week, we wrote about the absolutely ridiculous situation, in which a woman who filmed the police in the process of a traffic stop in front of her house was arrested and charged with "obstructing government administration." The whole thing was clearly a sham, involving law enforcement that didn't like having their actions scrutinized in perfectly legal ways. The vast publicity that story generated apparently made law enforcement in Rochester think twice about going ahead with the case. Shane alerts us to the news that the district attorney decided "after reviewing the evidence" that "there was no legal basis" to continue the case and asked for it to be dismissed, which the judge granted.This followed reports over the weekend that, during a meeting over the weekend in support of the woman, police went on a selective enforcement rampage, looking for any reason to give the supporters parking tickets, including being parked more than 12 inches off of the curb.
"We believe that the incident that led to Ms. Good's arrest and the subsequent ticketing for parking violations of vehicles belonging to members of an organization associated with Ms. Good raise issues with respect to the conduct of Rochester Police Officers that require an internal review. A review into both matters has been initiated."Of course, given all that, one thing still not explained is why the DA pressed charges in the first place. While it's good that they've now decided that there was no legal basis, isn't the point to determine that before you press charges?
"Police officers must be able to cope with a high degree of stress while performing oftentimes dangerous duties, relying on their training and experience to guide their behavior. As routine as a traffic stop may appear, it has proven over time to be a potentially dangerous activity for police. Nonetheless, police must conduct themselves with appropriate respect for the rights of those involved or who are observing their actions."
"There is a mandated legal process that governs our internal response when police officer behavior is called into question. We must respect this process and that may be frustrating to those who may have already made up their mind about the outcome. We have confidence that the review will be fair and impartial and invite Ms. Good and anyone else with firsthand information to participate. We will withhold our judgment until the review is completed."
"Whatever the outcome of the internal review, we want to make clear that it is not the policy or practice of the Rochester Police Department to prevent citizens from observing its activities - including photographing or videotaping - as long as it does not interfere with the safe conduct of those activities. It is also not the policy or practice of the Department to selectively enforce laws in response to the activities of a group or individual. This has always been the case and it is being reinforced within the Department, so that it will be abundantly clear to everyone."
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still not a good idea...
I'd much rather deal with a mugger who only wants my wallet or cell phone than an angry cop. The mugger will take what he wants and leave. The cops are likely to throw you down, cuff you, charge you with whatever they can dream up, and toss you into the squad car. It costs a heck of a lot more money to extricate yourself from baseless charges and injuries than it does to deal with loss of wallet and phone.
And for some reason, the cops still wonder why people don't trust them. The answer is simple; the police are not to be trusted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still not a good idea...
It's almost like the cure is worse than the disease...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still not a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still not a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still not a good idea...
However I agree with you about the mugger, the law will throw the book at you and bury you in arrests, court cases and a police record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still not a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still not a good idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selective enforcement..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
f**k 'em
The DA pessed charges in the first place because they thought they could get away with it, the same reason they ticketed the group supporting miss good. As has become abundantly clear in the last few years the police/various DA's will do whatever they believe they can get away with and only stop abusing innocent citizens when enough people call attention to it.
It also goes to show how out of touch these people are, it took this long for them to realize how bad the press was on them, I saw this literally hours after the fact; before it got on techdirt it was floating around drudge and google news.
I mean its pretty obvious the police are desperate to hide how abusive they are, this is about the 5th repot of police seizing, threatening, or arresting someone for filming their actions in the past few weeks. You can bet your bottom dolla that there are more we haven't heard of because the police were successful in oppressing citizens speech/actions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The woman arrested wasn't going to roll over and play dead for anyone,
The cops didn't realize she wouldn't and kept pushing buttons to make the situation worse,
and lastly:
It went viral on Twitter and the Internet. That's what you call street justice-and everyone will pile in on your butt if you do it.
That's why the charges were dismissed-the case made world-wide headlines in a matter of hours-something the cops and the City of Rochester didn't count on.
They couldn't justify such a stupid bone-headed arrest and make it stick.
That being said, I hope the woman gets a good lawyer and sues the crap out of them. She will win. I can almost smell the money from here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have a better one. When is the next election? The Chief of police may not be an elected position, the Mayor he reports to certainly is. This also applies to the DA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We should make an app that streams the audio and video feed from the phone to an online storage at the press of a button. Lets call it something cool like the iWitness (tee hee).
If you are abusing your authority, and somone had the iWitness on you, you are screwed.
You can't make the user delete it (the app does not support it), and you could pulverize the phone and it would not help.
You could threaten the filmer, arrest them, even shoot them. But it is too late. Your misdeeds are in an cyberlocker halfway around the world.
What has been seen cannot be unseen. Your actions have been recorded and you will have to face the consequences.
And flipping out on the first guy that iWitnessed you will only get you in more trouble as other people on the scene bring out their iWitnesses.
There is no hope, no way out. The only option is to preemptively follow the law and stay within the boundaries of your legal autority.
About time the authorities learned what chilling effects feel like, neh?
It would also probably work on criminals to some degree, if it becomes widespread enough for it to be common knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aptonym FTW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and the next time anyone wants to make an absurd definition as to who is or isn't a journalist - techdirt and the online sources had this story before all of the rochester news outlets did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let us investigate the police.
Why do you abuse us so?
We're not criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't going away just yet. =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DA's Role
Everything up until yesterday's hearing (her arrest, booking, incarceration, and being released on bail) could have possibly happened without any input from the DA at all. Yesterday's hearing was her first court appearance since being arrested, so I'm not surprised that that's when the charges were dropped.
The cops were asshats, to be sure, but I'm not really sure the DA had much of an active role in pushing this forward. True, he could have pre-emptively dropped the charges before yesterday's hearing, but she was already out on bail so it's not as if she was languishing in jail awaiting her court date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DA's Role
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DA's Role
Nonsense. The police do not work for, or report to, the district attorney. The police chief's superior is the mayor or the city council, not the district attorney.
Same thing on the federal level. I don't work for the US Attorney and he/she has no supervisory authority over me. My agency's director reports to the Sec. of Homeland Security, who in turn reports to the president. We're not even a part of the Department of Justice, let alone subordinates of the US Attorney's office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Future Headline: In other news...
Based on the findings of the internal investigation, no disciplinary action to any officers involved will be taken, for the following reasons:
(1) the arresting officer of Ms. Good was merely enforcing the little known law against copying law enforcement reflected photons (with her camera), which was passed by the City of Rochester yesterday, and predated to make it a crime the day before Ms. Good took her video, and also misappropriating the officers publicity rights by making the video available on YouTube without his permission.
(2) parking tickets are allowed to be selectively enforced as long as a pink ruler is used in the ticketing process (also passed by the City of Rochester yesterday and predated).
Case Closed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"why the DA pressed charges in the first place"?
Anyway, to agree with as already answered above; gov't is a sheerly criminal gang and they tyrannize us as much as they dare. They are no longer anywhere honorable public servants -- even resent that title though it's the essence of America: gov't is to be a /servant/ of the people, not our masters. Remind them of that at every turn, as they intend to reverse the little truth to it left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She having the video and evidence backing the police would have...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Cops won this
They successfully hassled the woman with a false arrest -- and will receive not the slightest punishment. Getting handcuffed, pushed around, booked, and jailed -- is very unpleasant... even if the charges are later dropped.
Cops know they can get away with this stuff ... and have long had a catch-phrase for it : "Ya can beat the rap -- but you can't beat the ride {..to jail} !"
"Dis-respect" any cop in any way... and they can severely hassle you with a false arrest, knowing full well they are safe to do so.
The DA should immediately prosecute the those cops for false arrest, assault and kidnapping-- but of course, there's not the slightest chance of that happening. Cops & prosecutors are above the law everywhere in the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Cops won this
Seems a little early to call this one, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Cops won this
Works every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Cops won this
> cops for false arrest, assault and kidnapping
It would be kind of hard for the DA to do that, considering the DAs office initially accepted the charge against Good when she was arrested. If it was false arrest, then the DAs office is complicit in that offense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Cops won this
This has "backfire" written all over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey - *WE* (the citizens) should not be the only ones who are held to the law, right?
Or is this police state of a country not like that anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BUT THIS KINDA THING IS EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE INDY MEDIA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selective Enforcement
And Mike is a big fan of selective enforcement. When he's the one doing the selecting, that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selective Enforcement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heh, "police officer" isn't even in the top 10 of most dangerous professions. It's more dangerous to be a convenience store clerk than it is to be a cop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danger
Heh, "police officer" isn't even in the top 10 of most dangerous professions. It's more dangerous to be a convenience store clerk than it is to be a cop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The mayor, police chief, head DA, and local judges don't care about the criminal behavior of these cops... or these cops wouldn't have badges & guns in the first place (they are all on the same team -- the 'government' ruling team against the citizenry). But they do care about 'bad publicity'-- so they will pretend to take issue seriously, while they sweep it under the rug... and wait for the media/public to lose interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The mayor, police chief, head DA, and local judges don't care about the criminal behavior of these cops... or these cops wouldn't have badges & guns in the first place (they are all on the same team -- the 'government' ruling team against the citizenry). But they do care about 'bad publicity'-- so they will pretend to take issue seriously, while they sweep it under the rug... and wait for the media/public to lose interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The police chief is there to protect his officers, NOT enforce the law. Cops regularly harass minority groups and poor people and get away with it cause the victims don't have the money or political power to defend themselves.
The days are long past when the cops were there to protect citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed it for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed it for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed it for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police Chief's statement:
Bull. they are only saying this cause they get caught. Nothing will change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police Chief's statement:
They need to fire everyone involved, not just remind them. In reality, the only thing they're really doing is just reminding them to not get caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the ACLU?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's too bad
I talked to several Rochester officers after the first video was released. The car that they had pulled over had three people in it that the police would classify as 'gang members'. Needless to say when the cops walked up to the car they knew all three of the people without looking at their licenses. There was drugs in the car, these were problem people, the cops were not wrong in what they did with them.
Apparently that woman had said a few things before she started filming that really caught their attention. I'm sure they were already very uneasy about the situation they were dealing with and having that woman there, after just saying something uncalled for which we don't know what that was because she didn't have the camera rolling yet, make them more uneasy. In their eyes they now have to watch this woman off to the side because they don't trust her.
She was asked several times to please step back and out of the way. She was making them uneasy. It would have made me uneasy too. This wasn't a normal traffic stop. What if a cop got shot that night? What if all hell broke loose and that woman got hurt? Could the cop have told her about how dangerous these guys were? NO! He doesn't have the right to disclose their personal information. It's against their rights even though they are getting arrested. I personally feel that woman went out to start the trouble and cause this whole situation. Well she picked a really bad traffic stop to do it.
Do I agree with what happened? No. But do we know both sides of all stories? No.
I really have no comment for the ticketing at Flying Squirrel. The people at the Flying Squirrel cause a lot more trouble around town than a simple filming incident. That doesn't mean that I don't support them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's too bad
You're all for it� 'cept when you're agin' it. Right. Got that. Understood.
Troll harder.
Which really would have justified having the cops go all Rodney King on those �problem people�.
But the woman with the camera got in the way. The cops got uneasy about getting spectators to rightly understand the proper solution to "problem people".
And now you're warning folks that something bad could happen to a woman caught videoing things she shouldn't ought to be videoing. Something real bad. Really bad things could happen to her.
Which is exactly why the Rochester cops told you how dangerous these guys were. Because the Rochester cops you talked to�wait. Stop. They do or don't have the right to tell some random person �how dangerous these guys were?�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's too bad
If there were drugs in the car, the problem people would have been arrested. But guess what, they were let go. Hmm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]