Cop To Cameraman: 'If You're Invoking Your Rights, You Must Be Doing Something Wrong'
from the we'll-let-you-know-when-you-have-some-'rights'-you-can-use dept
The notion that certain rights are guaranteed to citizens is being proven false every day. For instance, you have the First Amendment right to film police officers and other public officials, but it often takes an official policy change (usually prompted by lawsuits) before these public servants will begrudgingly respect that right.You also have certain rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, but even these aren't innate. You can't simply remain silent while detained or arrested. You have to invoke these rights (often repeatedly) or risk having your silence (things you didn't say) used against you.
In the case of photographing police officers, you'll notice that activists and others who are recording will invoke their rights repeatedly. In some cases, this forces those being recorded to back off and reconsider their attempts to shut down recordings or seize cameras. It doesn't always work but it works often enough to show that these police officers know you have this right but won't respect it unless you invoke it.
Techdirt reader timlash sends in this video of two citizens filming a sally port (where prisoners are shuttled in and out of the courthouse) in Jacksonville, Florida. As is to be expected, police officers show up and try to shut down the recording of a public building from a public sidewalk. But the most amazing part of the video is the police officer's statement in response to the cameraman invoking his rights.
"You must be doing something wrong if you invoke your rights."
That's the prevailing attitude. Invoke your Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures and the government assumes you have something to hide. Invoke your Fifth Amendment rights and the government assumes you've committed a crime. Invoke your First Amendment right to record police officers and you're told that you're "obstructing" an investigation or creating a public disturbance.
You have rights as an American citizen. They just won't be respected by default. And when you invoke them, you'll be treated as an activist (at best) or a criminal (at worst). The land of freedom has tipped the balance away from the citizens and towards the government -- because whether we're fighting terrorism, drugs or illegal immigration, the respect of citizens' rights impedes the progress of the nation's many "warriors."
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: cameras, invoking rights, police, recording police, rights, threats
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The "nothing to fear" crew should be reviewing their attitude by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I could spend a day telling you everything you did wrong while you were doing nothing wrong.
Ask any police officer and they can tell you, hang around or follow someone/anyone long enough and they WILL make a mistake that gives them an excuse to harass you. The possibilities are endless and once the harassment starts they usually pressure you into saying something stupid or just getting you to make a mistake that only makes the problem worse for you...
With today's technology I could most most people look suspicious with a few selective 'reports' on their daily activities. It would only be with a through review would you find out otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
*If you somehow do have nothing to hide, you are unique in the world. Everyone has stuff to hide even if they've done nothing wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe at this point, they're no longer rights. This is truly a sad statement as to the quality of "liberty" provided in this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When it comes to the concept of liberty, it doesn't matter one whit whether or not the government "grants" them. It's only liberty when you exercise it. We do not have liberty because a government says we do. We have liberty when we engage in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you don't know your rights, you have none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...
When laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another proud citizen expressing their love of American Exceptionalism. Yes folks, this exceptional behavior is part of what makes this country exceptional, taking exception to everyone's rights every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Photography?
Now, one thing on the list was photographing things but the picture accompanying it showed somebody shoving their camera through a fence and taking pictures of some kind of compound. So obviously if you stick a camera through a fence to take a picture of, say, a food distribution plant, because, say, you might be making a blog on food trucks, you might be a terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Photography?
I am pretty ok with police officers asking why people are doing things that may be suspicious. I am not ok with police officers arresting them, searching them, or otherwise interfering with them doing something not illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Photography?
FOOD TRUCK AKBAR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isn't the point of rights that you have them by default, that you are protected by them even if you can't protect yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Exactly! I don't think it's right, but that is how it is.
"Isn't the point of rights that you have them by default, that you are protected by them even if you can't protect yourself?"
Right again, but good luck convincing our Government as they have seem'ed to have made it a full time job trying to relieve us of our rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would actually say this the other way around. The point of government is to protect our inherent rights. That the government doesn't do so doesn't mean they aren't rights.
This is why I referred to "liberty" rather than "rights" in my other comments. The concept of "rights" has become too confused with the concept of "privileges".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Bivens?
(Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) ).
FWIW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so you must be doing something wrong,
so drop dead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a privilege, not a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Those that would strive to control the lives of others are, quite simply, doomed to die. Unfortunately their ideas don't seem to die with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you invoke your rights, either you must be doing something wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you invoke your rights, either you must be doing something wrong...
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you invoke your rights, either you must be doing something wrong...
It would probably get you a beating(for 'resisting arrest' of course), or tossed in a cell, but the first thing that came to mind after reading the headline was the response of 'Or maybe I'm invoking my rights because you are doing something wrong.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Secure Area"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad...
Sad, but all too true. And I don't know if there's anything we can do about it -- we can fight, and we certainly will, but the other side is much stronger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad...
This is an illusion. The other side is not stronger, they are weaker by a longshot -- which is why they do everything they can to maintain the illusion.
Our side (the people) have the numbers and the resources. If we stop allowing ourselves to be divided, they cannot stop us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad...
They got the guns but, we got the numbers.
Gonna win yeah we're takin' over COME ON!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha Ha I thought...
I was hoping this was a big ass story!
Just a cameraman.. waaa... I'm a cameraman.. I would have got the beat down, with that "He sets the rules crap"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Officer Sit-down
actually physically fix enough to be a patrol cop? The Duval County Florida SO, so sad on several levels during the videoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eliminating variables
"Shoot first, ask later" is one popular way to minimize risk and turmoil. "Intimidate, if necessary and/or disable with excessive force" is another.
Photographers consequently severely interfere with the options of policemen of getting a situation under control.
That's all perfectly understandable.
And because it is perfectly understandable, a Bill of Rights exists to point out explicitly where the Executive is not allowed to tread, even though the Constitution's main text already lists the areas where the Executive is only allowed to tread.
Unfortunately, policemen don't understand the costs associated with creating order in a country where laws are considered more than a joke. They want to cheat and not do the arduous and dangerous and responsible job they signed up for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eliminating variables
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eliminating variables
This is an old, old problem. And our bill of rights is almost in entirety about solving this old, old problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Invoke?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Invoke?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The courts disagree regarding some rights.
Which is to say we no longer really have those rights at all when the police decide we don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Invoke?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have rights...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kenichi tanaka et. al.
Even Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli recognized that necessary evils were still evil and only to be used as far as they were necessary, and no further.
And true sociopaths are pretty rare.
So I figure they're trolling to be edgy, or, giving them the most credit, trying to play devil's advocate to give us cerebral exercise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: kenichi tanaka et. al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: kenichi tanaka et. al.
Whatever and antidirt are pretty much trolls, antidirt's name alone should give you that.
Kenichi is either a really good idiot or a really bad troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
police officer: "You must be doing something wrong if you invoke your rights."
citizen: you must be doing something wrong to make me want to 'invoke my rights'!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to fight for your rights
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to fight for your rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pro tip
Also, if they don't know what statute you're violating, then you're probably not violating anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snappy response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Snappy response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The officer's snappy response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Snappy response
And if a person says something, anything that the officer doesn’t like .... you are very quickly give a disorderly conduct ticket
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There IS a tiny gray area
Just as you can photograph the outside of a house, but NOT use a telephoto lens to peer through the windows, this might have some validity.
There's another remote possibility that such photographs would be useful for planning a break when prisoners are being transferred - which is why our local courthouse closes the doors behind the vehicle before this is done. Jacksonville doesn't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There IS a tiny gray area
Well, first, was a telephoto lens in use? Second, you can (at least in my state) use a telephoto lens (or binoculars, or a telescope, etc.) to peer through windows -- you just have to be in a place you're legally entitled to be when you do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There IS a tiny gray area
The focal length of the lens is irrelevant; you could as easily come closer while still staying on public property, or crop the image. I'm pretty sure your locality has peeping tom laws that would prevent you from photographing the interior of a house, even if some view could be obtained in an otherwise legal manner. Ditto, the secure area inside a police station or courthouse.
I am somewhat unimpressed by shenanigans like this. I'm all for exercising ones rights to demonstrate and reinforce them, I've been stopped from photographing in public myself, and didn't back down. But there's little reason to photograph this particular area other than to force a reaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There IS a tiny gray area
Every peeping Tom law I have ever seen requires the "peeper" to be acting secretly. Standing on a sidewalk looking into a window usually does not apply. Can anyone provide the relevant law where this incident happen?
Ditto, the secure area inside a police station or courthouse
If the secure area inside a police station or courthouse is just on the other side of doors that they have propped open, I would recommend they tighten security procedures rather than trying to chase away people with cameras.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There IS a tiny gray area
This made me actually look up the law in my area. The key part of violating the peeping tom laws is that the "peeper" must be doing so while attempting to be concealed. Standing on the sidewalk with binoculars, looking into an open window, would not violate the law.
A couple of court cases a few years back actually clarified all this a bit. You can photograph or look at anything that is visible from a place that you are entitled to be, as long as you aren't trying to hide while doing it, using any equipment that is commonly available to the public (e.g., binoculars or telephoto lenses are fine, but sonar or infrared sensors are not).
This applies to public buildings, including law enforcement buildings, just as much as private property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There IS a tiny gray area
The police are being forced to react nearly every time someone photographs or films them doing their job in public; by their overdeveloped sense of entitlement to act without being held to account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There IS a tiny gray area
When the police don't react inappropriately, then there will be no reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There IS a tiny gray area
One of the nice things about being free is that you don't need a reason to do things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There IS a tiny gray area
If that's a security problem then they need to redesign something. Two sets of doors, or a curtain, or something. This was two guys out in the open obviously pointing cameras at the door. If they had had nefarious intent they would have been having a coffee with their hidden camera, or used a telephoto from down the street, or something. Relying on "please don't take pictures" isn't security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There IS a tiny gray area
If they didn't want the interior to be seen, maybe putting the door right on a public street wasn't the best design decision. How about putting it in a fenced in area, or using two doors so that when the outer door is opened, all people see is an entranceway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don't we just get rid of all rights? If you don't have any rights you can't be doing anything wrong. QED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fucking pigs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the best outcome you can hope for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At this point...
I'm surprised these guys haven't had their faces tased and their cameras seized just because a cop doesn't like their looks.
(I do hope he's streaming so that when it does eventually happen we get to see it on video.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like Sgt. Richardson
now since neither photographer was arrested for something stupid, obviously there was nothing that he could do. Bravo for the photographers in standing up for themselves. and bravo for the police officer for not being a total jerk and arresting them for some asinine law that is on the books.
The police officer is right that it is a matter for the court to settle when a local ordinance/law doesn't jibe with the state or federal law or the constitution.
The only issue that I have is the "You must be doing something wrong if you invoke your rights." That was just plain wrong and the officer (and the other one in the cart) needs some corrective training about that.
kc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need more of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Asserting rights to make sure they're there when we need them.
We're deep into an era where most folk are content to pretend their rights will be there when we need them, and dismiss occasions outside their immediate sphere when those rights are not respected.
The price of freedom and all that. And we've failed at being vigilant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
???
When has a PUBLIC official, had rights greater then a Movie star on his own property?
when DID A BUILDING FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS BECOME A secure premises??
At this point, Im considering CUTTING my Taxes just to get rid of these folks..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess I've been fortunate because even though I've nothing to hide, I've never had any police officer search my car or person after I denied consent. They've tried to trick me into giving consent (the "I'm just going to search you real quick to make sure you're not carrying any weapons" sounds very official when they spring it on you) but if you stick to your scripts -- and make no mistake -- everyone needs to know the scripts, they usually give up and find an easier target. Most people are stupid, ignorant or naively compliant.
The odd thing is that when it's over I have the impression the police have more respect for me than they did at the beginning of the encounter. They know it's a game and they know the rules. They're surprised when anyone who isn't a cop knows them too.
TL;DR
Present your ID
Remain courteous
Don't consent to searches
Ask the magic question "Am I free to go?"
Don't be afraid to say nothing at all when asked a question or to ask "Am I free to go?" in response to any of their questions.
If you're not free to go -- stop talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't do this in Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]