Arkansas Congressman Who Helped Protect Citizens' Right To Record Police Arrested For Recording Police
from the seems-reasonable dept
While the recording of police activities has been covered here for years, I think we're starting to see what is at least a slight ratcheting down of the drama over the issue. Once almost universally rejected by law enforcement groups, the freedom to record police as they go about their public duty has become more recognized rather than less. That doesn't mean the issue is settled, though, as shown in a recent example in which Arkansas police arrested a state Congressman who had helped push through a state law protecting the rights of citizens to film police.
Officer Jeff Thompson of the Little Rock Police Department arrested Arkansas state Representative John Walker for recording their treatment of a black man who had been put in handcuffs during a traffic stop. Officer Thompson told Rep Walker he had to stop recording or face arrest. Rep Walker said, "Arrest me." Officer Thompson did. Police later dropped charges against Rep Walker, but are continuing with the prosecution of his colleague, civil rights lawyer Omavi Shukur.
Shakur, officers say, had done more than merely be present with a recording device, having at one point supposedly stepped in the way of the officers as they performed their duty. Police reports and statements alike, however, suggest that Rep. Walker merely stood by and filmed the police traffic stop and refused to leave when so ordered. The arresting officer indicates that Walker was told that he would be arrested for simply refusing to leave the area, at which point Walker said "Arrest me."
In other reporting, some of the police that were on site at the time of arrest discuss Walker being purposefully provocative, with one even indicating that Walker likely wanted to be arrested.
Film in another patrol car, taking the driver to jail, has audio of an older officer telling a younger black female officer who'd made the stop about Walker: "His main purpose was to be arrested." Walker, he said, had been "a thorn in the side of the police department" since he joined the force.
Even if we accept this at face value, there seems little value in law enforcement obliging Walker, giving him fuel for his cause and plastering his name all over the news. Particularly when the arrest comes about for his doing something that not only isn't illegal, but is something that Walker personally fought to legalize. Would it be so hard to just let Walker film away and go about your public duty?
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: arkansas, john walker, little rock, little rock police department, recording police
Reader Comments
The First Word
“The cop chose to arrest Walker.
He made a mistake.
The department had to apologize for it.
But if all criminals had to do was apologize, then it wouldn't be much of a deterrent to crime, would it?
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The self-control of a child on display for all to see
Walker, he said, had been "a thorn in the side of the police department" since he joined the force.
As for this? That complaint right there is a badge of pride, and I certainly hope he sees it that way as well. Being a thorn in the side of police like that is most certainly something to be proud of, and a good indicator that he's doing the right things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well the one with enough juice to cause them serious problems got cut free by a higher up, who now has to try and explain why the officers went from saying he had a right to film to calling him a race baiter who wanted to be arrested to cause the police trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The police can detain or arrest you merely as a form of punishment. Seize your guilty property as a form of punishment. Just to satisfy the cop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plan on being arrested?
I can see how you can accept that being unlawfully arrested in that situation is a distinct possibility , but that predisposes that you think the police mindset is such that they will happily arrest you for 'not' breaking the law.......and they obliged!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plan on being arrested?
The Police are on record ad nauseum for having arrested people for going about their lawful business. So, every time you have an interaction with the police and "plan to exercise your rights" you are simultaneously "planning to be arrested" because there is a much higher likely hood of being arrested if you do not just roll over like an obedient citizen when TOLD to do so by an officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plan on being arrested?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This like projection, the cops prime desire being to arrest people and search their belongings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So wait, a lawmaker who fought for the right to film police went out and intentionally tried testing how well his efforts paid off? It really is sad that police can't seem to understand, being a pain in the ass for a police officer is NOT illegal. It might very well be highly annoying, but if you can't handle some minor harassment then you really shouldn't be a police officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It really makes me feel bad for those good cops out there actually trying to do their job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Resisting
There is not a lot of details, but my first impression from reading this was that as soon Walker was told that he could be arrested, he chose to cooperate immediately. As a congressman, it would be easy to sort things out in the police station, but telling a police officer that filming is not illegal could possibly result in him being beaten for "resisting arrest"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Resisting
Eat your heart out, Joseph Heller.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"a thorn in the side of the police department"
I guess they'll teach him how those who write the lay shouldn't dare step on the toes of those who *are* the law, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "a thorn in the side of the police department"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
updates
Police publicly apologize to Walker Tue, 27th:
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/09/27/little-rock-police-reviewing-john-walk er-arrest
Walker rejects city apology Tue, 27th:
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/09/27/john-walker-rejects-city-apology-for-a rrest-during-filming-of-police
Police dash cam video released Wed, 28th:
http://www.arkansasmatters.com/news/local-news/lrpd-releases-dashcam-video-from-walker-arrest
Vi deo shows Walker's sidekick getting way closer than he needs to the incident scene. He could have stepped back a few feet on the sidewalk and still had an angle, but he wanted to be almost in the middle of it, intentionally provoking confrontation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: updates
All in all, this is a learning experience for the cops and the sidekick.
And as for ""His main purpose was to be arrested." I think that's great! He's making a point on a law that he sponsored and it's rare to see a politician getting that involved in an issue. Normally they're so mealy mouthed that they're unwilling to take a stand, especially one for freedom and the accountability of authority (i.e. the cops).
I guess it's the cynic in me in suspecting that since the election is only weeks away Walker didn't mind the additional publicity. But I'll squelch those thoughts since I approve of what he did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: updates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Little Rock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Little Rock
"notorious in this town for being a race-baiting ambulance chaser" Says who? Because when the MSM gives you a label bet your ass they are onto something.
"Google "Joshua Intervenors""
Yes Sir... he's a horrible horrible man: /s
In 1982, another dimension was added to the multi-district desegregation saga. The Little Rock School District, joined by a group of parents now known as the “Joshua Intervenors,” file a new lawsuit against the Pulaski County School District, the North Little Rock School district and the State of Arkansas, whose collective practices exacerbated racial segregation in Little Rock and Pulaski County. After successful litigation, the federal district court implemented an inter-district desegregation remedy and consolidated this case with the three original intradistrict desegregation lawsuits.
So.... what? You support segregation?
"I live in Little Rock."
But yet a guy from Philly already knows more about this than you do.
Is Mr. Walker Afro-american by any chance (Goes to google)AHHH!!! Yes he is.
"and the perception of Little Rock as a racist Southern backwater will be reinforced."
Oh the irony.
So an Afro-american man fought to end segregation practices and that makes him a troublemaker. That Abe Lincoln... man, what a troublemaker too.
Are you a white guy Kev?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Little Rock
Because being told to check your privilege is a great way to get people to see your point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Little Rock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Little Rock
While you might be right in him baiting the police, that doesn't change the fact those cops still broke the law. There should be serious consequences for police that break laws, otherwise what's the point in having them as police?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Little Rock
If Walker files a suit and wins against the LRPD, then the LRPD were the ones breaking the law. Therefore any monetary cost to them will have been due to their illegal actions.
My conclusion? If you want to stop having to spend money on legal fees and payouts for your illegal activities -- stop doing those (blatantly) illegal activities.
If the citizens of Little Rock are unhappy with their tax money being spent by these bodies as a result of their own illegal activities, maybe they should do something about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
except he did get in their way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just because the police tell you something, doesn't make it right. The second guy that walked up close up front, he got a little close, but shouldn't have been arrested over that. The congressman was more then far enough away. The police just just don't like to be recorded and I can see why.
If you have nothing to hide you should welcome the recordings showing you doing your job correctly and professionally. That wasn't these police officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The cop chose to arrest Walker.
He made a mistake.
The department had to apologize for it.
But if all criminals had to do was apologize, then it wouldn't be much of a deterrent to crime, would it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They cannot imagine thinking for themselves they just want to be told what to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you mean "supposedly"? There's dash cam video from the officers plus the video he was recording, right? I don't understand how you can say "supposedly" here.
From the dash cam video, he was WAY too close to the traffic stop - he actually walked between the squad with the dash cam and the car being pulled over. That's not an appropriate location to be. Also, there was more than one person who got that close. The officers were absolutely right to tell him to back off, and arrest him when he refused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]