Two Reporters Arrested For Daring To Photograph/Videotape Public DC Taxi Commission Meeting
from the freedom-of-the-press dept
It really is quite amazing how so many authority types these days can't seem to comprehend the idea that people can and will take phones and record public events. Sinan Unur alerts us to the news of how two reporters were arrested in Washington DC while attending a public meeting of the DC Taxi Commission, which was meeting over a planned medallion system for taxis (used in many other cities, but somewhat controversial due to the ability to artificially restrict the market). Apparently, a reporter by the name of Pete Tucker was arrested for taking a photograph, and then Reason's Jim Epstein filmed the arrest and subsequent outrage by pretty much everyone in attendance. He then tried to leave, and the police tried to get his camera and then arrested him as well. You don't see him arrested in the video, but the woman at the end who declares that he has no right to film her (false, since this is a public place) apparently is told by a police officer that Epstein's phone would be turned over to her, which raises questions as to why police would be handing a phone over to someone else.
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: arrested, dc, filming, reporting, taxi commission
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
If majority were outraged by the actions of the police they should have taken more of a stand and made a citizens arrest of the officer for abusing his/her power. If 50 concerned citizens apprehended a "peace?" officer that would demonstrate outrage to me. This seems more like people were upset about it, but not willing to stand firmly behind their beliefs. If ever people begin to actually act on what they belive, only then do we have the possibility of real positvive change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
My 90 year old grandma is afraid of the police, and she is a saint!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
for an example of the things people actually SEE that freak them out about the police, see the video posted above ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
What if no one else joins in? What happens when the 20 other cops in the building get called in? How about when they get your face from the video and then come arrest you at home later on, where the odds are in their favor?
Those are the sorts of things that would come to my mind in this sort of situation.
At least they appeared to not be beating him - that might have swayed emotions over the brink.
Notice how to get around the 1st amendment, the cop thinks all he needs to do is say "I can arrest you for not following a direct order"
Citizens are a lower class than the Police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
"Notice how to get around the 1st amendment, the cop thinks all he needs to do is say "I can arrest you for not following a direct order""
Very important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
link?
Anyway, I think you're right that suing is the best option here, unless just filing a complaint actually results in sufficient discipline. Physical resistance is too risky and makes you look worse in the eyes of all involved, and doing nothing teaches the wrong lesson to the cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
You are not required at all to obey the orders of an officer unless they have "deprived you of your freedom," aka detained/arrested you.
If a cop really takes it that far, with nothing to back it up, you better beleive the city/town/county is liable for a false arrest lawsuit.
Its a game of chicken; the officer's confidence that he is acting within the law, versus yours.
The cost for the cop being the ire of his supperiors for costing the city money in fees and lawsuits, the cost for the citizen being a taser to the face and jail time.
You can see why one of these actors has less incentive to show restraint when faced with these situations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
All I'm asking for is some support for an assertion other than "I said so, so it's true."
I'm not even saying it's false, just that I'm not going to take some random internet dude's word for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
Well, that sense is not as common as you think.
Where I am, in Michigan, you most certainly can be charged with "Obstruction" for "a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command" of a police officer (or a firefighter, or a college campus cop, or a conservation officer (park ranger), or just someone involved in a search and rescue).
Michigan Legislature - Section 750.81d
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
For sure. Open to much interpretation.
For example, I believe "get out of the vehicle with your hands where I can see them" has been upheld by the courts as a lawful command. On the other side of the spectrum, something like "drop your pants and bend over" (cue Deliverance music here) would most certainly be considered to be an unlawful command.
Unfortunately, there is a ton of space in between those two that is open. And, it really doesn't make much difference anyways, since the police can always arrest you for it and dismiss the charges later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
Police can issue all the orders they want. The difference being that these days the police aren't able to arrest someone on some trumped up charge that would only leave their word against mine in court anymore. Not with videocameras in practically everyone's cellphones these days.
This link has it's own story about such police abuses of the press (it also as quite a few links to other stories about the same kinds of incidents all over):
But orders to shut off our cameras in a public place were almost always ignored. Often we did that for our own protection. In one case the video evidence showed a police officer was not telling the truth when my colleague, photographer Frank McDermott, was arrested at the scene of a drowning at a Virginia hotel many years ago. When the officer's supervisors saw the video (it was still rolling when the police officer placed the camera in the trunk of the police car following Frank's arrest), the charges were suddenly dropped and the officer found himself in quite a bit of trouble.
Maybe the police should read the Miranda warning themselves every morning just to be familiar with the phrase "anything say or do can be against you in a court of law" (including getting your case thrown out on it's ear because you lied and/or violated the defendants constitutional rights), and add "and remember, you are probably being recorded, so don't do anything stupid like making up laws as you go along, ok?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
No, it doesn't work that way. Cops can't just arbitrarily order people around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
“Highway robbery? Texas police seize black motorists' cash, cars”, LA Times, March 2009
Now, just a hundred dollars may not be worthwhile. But if the cop needs a few thousand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
I didn't suggest that all orders issued by any police officer must be obeyed.
I asked for the prior commenter to support his assertion that cops can't issue orders (e.g., "put your hands up").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
The point here is that this particular order made by the cop was not an order that the cop had the benefit to make. He had no right to make such an order and, as such, no one would be obligated to follow such an order.
It's little different than a cop ordering me to hand him over all of my money because he wants to spend it on Vegas. Cops can't make orders just because they want to, cops can only make certain kinds of orders under specific circumstances and this order, under the given circumstance, wasn't an order that could be made.
"link?"
Can you give me the link to the law that specifically says that cops can't arbitrarily ask me for money so that they can spend it on Vegas?
Even if no such law exists, the point here isn't that there are no laws preventing the cop from making such orders, it's that there are no laws giving the cop authority to make such orders. A cops authority isn't opt-out, where it is assumed that cops could make any order they wish so long as the law doesn't explicitly prohibit them from doing so, a cops authority is opt-in, cops can only do what the law specifically gives them authority to do. What the cop ordered here was not within his authority. The burden isn't on me to prove that the cop doesn't have the authority to make such an order by showing the specific law that says he doesn't, the burden is on you to show that the cop does have such authority by revealing the specific law that says he does.
Despite this, we have freedom of the press, which explicitly prohibits the government from suppressing such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
Anyway, I disagree with your belief about what they other guy "really meant." He acted as if only people who signed up for the military have any obligation to follow orders. I don't think that's true (depending on the order and who gives it).
I think you're right that the cop's order was not lawful, but that doesn't necessarily answer the question of whether there was any obligation to follow it. I don't really know the law in that area, but I think, for example, you might be charged with resisting arrest even if it later turns out they didn't have probably cause to arrest you.
As for your Vegas hypothetical, it seems totally irrelevant, as I never suggested a cop can lawfully order you to do any old ridiculous thing (as I thought my prior comment made clear).
If you're going to get mad about people taking things out of context, you might as well read WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
Go ahead and keep doing what they say so nothing affects your self interest. Hey as long as they don't violate my rights I think it is just fine, especially if there is a chance that if I do something they might harm me in some way. Reminds me of the lesson that nobody learned in kindergarten. If there is a pencil on the floor, pick it up and put it where it belongs regardless of whether it is your pencil or not. Why can't we help preserve other peoples rights if they are being threatened even if our rights are not currently being threatened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
A cop is not supposed to enforce his own will to dominate, he is supposed to enforce the will of the people who voted for the laws he is meant to uphold.
You have hit the crux of the issue though; what good does it do to be in the legal clear when confronting a police officer for overstepping their bounds, if they will simply arrest you for not doing as they say, no mattter how far-fetched their request? Have fun dealing with the mess after the fact.
If more of us new our rights, AND ACTUALLY USED THEM, and cops actually feared disipline for acting outside their authority, these kinds of cases would not go so unnoticed. Whats more, you may actually see cops learn to admit when they blatantly do not understand the laws they are payed to enforce, and defuse tense situations, versus flipping out when they are told they are wrong like a kid in a candy store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
What good? If people did this it would help more people know their rights and actually use them. What a better way than to demonstrate to the police and the general public that those who are aware of the rights will no longer stand for over reaching authority. It sounds like you are saying that you know your rights but wouldn't use them in this situation because of the "mess after the fact." Please tell me what your spine is made out of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
"If more of us new our rights, AND ACTUALLY USED THEM, and cops actually feared disipline for acting outside their authority, these kinds of cases would not go so unnoticed."
I think you forgot to read the whole post ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
Please explain how it does no good if you know the law and get arrested. Knowing the law would certainly benefit me if I was arrested. It would also give me something to talk to the arresting officer about ;) Titanium is better than what I have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not sure this was outrage by those in attendance
Really? That doesn't seem remotely plausible to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've lived in places where police are known to do these things just to intimidate people and they just get away with it. As far as I know in Bulgaria (used to be a Soviet state) and Turkey, not much is done when police officers make 'mistakes' like this; effectively creating police states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not only are their consequences - it's practically inhumane!
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> to deprive someone of their constitutional
> civil rights.
As a private citizen, that would be quite difficult for you to do. Unless you're running a business and deny someone service because of their race/religion/gender, it's pretty much impossible for you to deny someone ther civil rights, because the law-- with very limited exceptions-- only protects against state action, not action by private individuals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's amazing how I can get in all sorts of trouble, and face all sorts of huge penalties, for something as harmless and victimless as copy'right' infringement, yet cops can break laws in very harmful ways without any of the responsible parties facing any consequences whatsoever.
The laws that protect the rich come with steeper penalties than the laws that protect the public. We need to abolish this one sided legal system and vote for politicians that will pass reasonable laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a sad state of affairs,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a sad state of affairs,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a sad state of affairs,
His take on it is that the smart criminals are few and far between, and almost never get caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How failure to understand the law again? Enough to make me think that the Hamburglar would make a better police officer than these lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here I am, thinking that the availability of cameras in the public would actually lead to a more authoritarian state.
But what's actually happening is that it's empowering local civilians to make their own journalism, to report stories as they are told, to empower people to actively view wrongdoings and expose those wrongdoings. I'm actually amazed and proud of that. Sure, journalists seem to get special 1st amendment protections at times, but now, we can actively see the 1st Amendment being used to express speech in a multitude of ways, that citizens couldn't before.
And now matter how you slice it, those in governmental positions seem to hate it that the public eye can view them at any time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the question is, if someone claims it is not "open for cameras and recording," then who had the authority to "close" it? Is that really within the taxi commission's authority to stop people from recording a public meeting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
By that definition, the police are the only ones who caused the disruption (a.k.a. Disturbing The Peace) and at minimum they should be arrested.
Time to say, "Officer, arrest thyself", but it would never happen.
/not sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, lest they be under a ceiling. Then, beat them and electro shock their genitals if they try to record you.
They say the last phrase was written by John Adams. Bit of kink in him, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have a feeling that the people taking the pictures and video were (a) trying to make a scene, and (b) were trying to disrupt the meeting because they didn't like the result that would come from it. The minority tries to tell the majority what to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, I would assume a "public meeting" is not held "behind closed doors" and, frankly, I don't value your "feeling" (i.e., random speculation) too much based on the video evidence showing the arrestee acting in a civil manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
New York is also a one party consent state, which means that, as far as I can tell, anyone is free to record the hell they want, barring some contractual rules or other stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I also find that he failed to show his press credentials or back up his claim of being a reporter. It really does appear more like a blogger / internet dude playing reporter and not following the rules that are in place for that building or meeting.
The cop wouldn't have randomly just appeared in his face, so there is clearly a reason that is *not* shown on this video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reason is the monthly print magazine of "free minds and free markets."
It seems that the "reporter" is not much more than your average unpaid blogger. He is a libertarian, seeming intent on upsetting the apple cart.
I would really enjoy to know what happened in the 3 or 4 minutes before the video started rolling, that would be much more telling.
[ 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:
This story smacks of setup, because there isn't much with Reason that would suggest they would send a reporter to a local taxi story. I don't think this guy is actually a reporter with them at all, just a freelancer or contributor for byliner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What makes it look that way?
Why does someone who works for Reason not count as a "reporter" in your mind? Why does it matter?
Of course there is a reason the cop is hassling him. I assume it's because someone didn't want him filming/photographing. That doesn't mean he can't under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governments are ALWAYS worse than the 'criminals' they try to suppress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Staying Positive
We're in the transitional phase right now, where police and government everywhere will either adapt their behavior to the understanding that they are always under the watchful eye of the public, or an angry public will toss them out on their asses through any means available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Staying Positive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Staying Positive
I'm starting to think the police are really just paper tigers. They talk and act tough when confronted with people who can't defend themselves, but they wet themselves and get all misty-eyed when a confused homeowner puts a bullet through one of them during a no-knock. Notice how they'll send in a SWAT team to find someone who fraudulently obtained a student loan, but when it comes to a known murderer, mafia boss, and #1 on the FBI's most wanted list, they resort to trickery so as not to invite violence.
They only act tough in the face of an unarmed opponent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Jeopardy answer): The USA today...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.myfloridadefenselawyer.com/defenseblog/miami-beach-police-take-issue-with-civ ilian-cameras/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant
http://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Copwatch
Apprently we are reverting to "old west" style law enforcement.
Authority comes from the barrel of a gun, anyone telling you different doesn't have one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In that case, I guess I'm fortunate that I (legally) own one.
RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!
(And, no, I am not a cop, just a concerned citizen. And I also don't believe the quoted statement to be true.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I guess I'm fortunate that I (legally) own one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a Federal equivalent to California's Brown Act?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just shows..
If the police had their way, the cops that beat the *** out of Rodney King would never have been prosecuted since there would be no videotape evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you and I prefer to stay positive as well
I am not as concerned with police officers' actions as I am with the attitude of the members of the commission that they can freely restrict people's right to record and disseminate news.
The "disruptive behavior" criterion seems to be anything that bothers the commission chairperson. A commission that is working on restricting the supply of transportation services to citizens of a city whose work does not involve anything related to national security, or violation of anyone's privacy has no acceptable reason to restrict the information flow.
It seems to me that various public officials preferred the days when no one knew about the meetings which were announced on a dusty panel in the basement of the city sanitation services department, no one attended them and no one watched them on public access TV.
After all, there is a reason the Hitchhiker's Guide gets to hits this very early on:
Today's technology is making it easier for such things to come out in the open and we are better off for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]