Ohio Legislators Pass Bill That Would Make It Easier For Cops To Make Bullshit Arrests Of Bystanders
from the reps:-you-know-what-would-make-things-better?-making-things-worse. dept
A substantial part of the Ohio legislature seems incapable of reading the room. Following several months of anti-police violence protests, state legislators have passed a bill that makes it easier for law enforcement officers to arrest anyone for just about anything. (h/t Joe Papp)
The opening of this report by Cleveland's News 5 gives you the general gist of the bill.
A proposed state law that could make it a crime to shoot cell phone video of police got the green light by lawmakers to move forward following a statehouse committee hearing Thursday in Columbus.
Members of the House Criminal Justice Committee voted to approve the measure despite more than 100 civil rights, first amendment groups and individuals testifying against the measure since it was first introduced.
It seems like this would be a bad thing to do, considering the state of the room these legislators have failed (or chosen) not to read. For one thing, it would target First Amendment protected activity: the filming of public servants. Second, it gives police more power to make "contempt of cop" arrests which, despite the colloquial name, does nothing to make cops less likely to be viewed with contempt.
This isn't a bipartisan effort to ensure cops are left unharassed when harassing the public. This is a one-sided affair where the "us v. them" attitude has carried over from the cop shop to the legislative branch of the Ohio government.
Of course, the bill has its supporters. And they're all of one (blue) stripe.
The bills sponsors say it would protect both police and the public from harm when police are attempting to clear crime scenes, make arrests or maintain order and is supported by the Ohio Prosecuting Attorney's Association, Buckeye Sheriff's Association, Ohio Highway Patrol and the Fraternal Order of Police.
The opponents of the bill have pointed out the law's broadness, which could be read to could outlaw filming police officers. Or interacting with them in any way when they're handling a stop or effecting an arrest.
Here's what the bill [PDF] adds to existing obstruction of justice laws. First, it criminalizes this act of civil disobedience.
(7) Fail to follow a lawful order from a law enforcement
Then it piles on all of this:
(B) No person shall do any of the following to a law enforcement officer in the performance of the law enforcement officer's duties with reckless disregard as to whether the action diverts or obstructs the law enforcement officer's attention:
(1) Use force or threaten the immediate use of force against the law enforcement officer;
(2) Interfere with or obstruct a law enforcement officer in a manner that does any of the following:
(a) Inhibits or restricts the law enforcement officer's control of a subject or detainee;
(b) Deprives the law enforcement officer of control of a subject or detainee;
(c) Without the consent of the law enforcement officer, enters, or places an object or substance into, a space around the law enforcement officer that is large enough that the law enforcement officer cannot reach a person outside of the area.
(C) No person with the intent to distract a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of the law enforcement officer's official duties shall throw any object or substance at or onto a law enforcement officer.
The good news is this caveat has been thrown in at the last minute -- a bone thrown to the 100+ rights groups and activists that read the bill's intent for what it was:
(F) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a person from using video or audio recording equipment to record a law enforcement officer in the performance of the law enforcement officer's duties.
Yes, but nothing in the law appears to prevent an officer from deciding some of the other forbidden acts are inseparable from the actions of someone filming police officers. An officer could claim the person's presence made it more difficult to control a detainee. An officer could claim the presence of witnesses with phone cameras rolling presents some sort of threat. An officer could claim they told bystanders with active cameras to disperse and they refused to obey a lawful order. So, this exception is great on its own, but it's terrible in conjunction with everything else tossed into the bill.
And, as if we really needed the true point of this bill spelled out for us, the police officer who was the epicenter of this seismic shift in public opinion about police officers and their abuses of power made it perfectly clear who cops feel the real threat is when deploying excessive force:
Derek Chauvin's defense attorney argued those surrounding police, taking cell phone video, were a distraction that helped cause Floyd's death.
Chauvin's lawyer isn't the only one to have expressed this sentiment. Following the killing of Eric Garner by NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo, one of the NYPD's police unions said the real problem was bystanders with cameras and suspects wanting to "put on a show." And FBI director James Comey blamed a half-dozen spikes in violent crime around the nation following the Ferguson protests on people with cellphone cameras "taunting" officers into behaving badly.
If this bill becomes law, it won't make things easier for police. It might make it easier to effect bogus arrests, but it won't make the actual job of policing any easier. This will just widen the divide between the police and the policed. Disrespect can be earned much faster than respect. With police refusing to meet their employers halfway -- and being given the blessing to keep citizens at arms' length -- the problems people have been protesting about are never going to go away. This bill encourages officers to indulge their worst impulses. And this unwillingness to utilize self-control is a big part of why we're at the point people are burning down precinct houses in response to acts of police violence.
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: 1st amendment, arrests, bystanders, ohio, police, protests, recording police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Look at em scurry
Boy the fact that a murderous cop was actually convicted and will be serving jail time sure seems to have scared the hell out of police and their supporters if they're throwing together laws like this, having to face the idea that the law might actually apply to police and that a video can be the difference between being able to spin their own narrative and ending up in a cell has got to be absolutely terrifying to people accustomed to the idea that laws are for other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look at em scurry
Although this could fit in a couple of other stories from today's postings, I'll drop it here.
US officer plays Taylor Swift song to try to block video
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57698858
So they attempt an end run around the 1st Amendment and the public's right to record cops. Now waiting for the MAFIAA to sue the cop for an "unauthorised public performance", but I won't be holding my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Look at em scurry
Funny you should bring that up, I'm not sure if it's about the same person but an article about just that subject, a cop admitting to playing music to block videos of their actions from being posted is in the list of upcoming TD articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Look at em scurry
It's scummy behaviour but at least it's relatively easily bypassed by muting the sound before uploading. The cop lovers will probably claim that means it can't possibly tell the whole story, but if it gets attention from the media and he full version is mad available to people who don't have that restriction, it's a v ery temporary speedbump.
It also highlights one of the big problems here - the fact that concrete evidence of the abuse that's been known to have been happening for decades has not led to them putting effort into combatting their abuses - they put the effort into suppressing the evidence. It just proves the actual meaning of the bad apples saying - the whole barrel has been spoiled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Look at em scurry
Problem is that stripping the audio would also likely strip some of the more damning parts of it and if anything would just help a corrupt cop.
Hell, consider the video in question, strip out the audio where he admits that he's playing music to prevent it from being uploaded and it's just a video of a cop doing whatever he was at the moment, something which is vastly less damning than the video with audio and not likely something that would get much attention even if the description noted what he said as you can be sure the police departments/unions would simply claim that the poster of the video mischaracterized what was said, and unless a press outlet decided to take a gamble and reached out to get a copy of the original video that's likely where it would end.
As for your second point though yeah, it's pretty damning when police are so accustomed to simply burying evidence of abuse rather than address it that they'll admit so on camera, as that's not a mindset that just springs up out of nowhere, that's something that develops over a long period of time where corruption becomes more and more normalized in policing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look at em scurry
"Problem is that stripping the audio would also likely strip some of the more damning parts of it and if anything would just help a corrupt cop."
Initially. My thought is that if it gets noticed then the uncut version is made available to media that doesn't have to worry about copyright strikes, such as actual journalists, then the initial roadblock doesn't mean so much. Not that the people who support cops even when faced with uncut murder footage would be swayed, but it doesn't make the truth impossible.
To the second point - what increasing clear is that this stuff has been happening all along, it's just that the footage available now have made more people realise that some folk really weren't kidding when they said they were being disproportionately abused. Which proves the "a few bad apples" theory wrong, even if you were going for the false version of the adage that suggests that everything's fine except a few bad cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Look at em scurry
Wouldn't that count as a commercial performance? Someone didn't get permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THREAT that law might actually apply to police too
yup, Ohio rulers are predictably reacting to a new threat to their governing team-mates (LEO crimes being videotaped by innocent bystanders).
Cops already enjoy major immunities to laws & legal procedures that apply to normal Americans -- but legislators and judges have not yet closed this "videotaping" loophole in the standard cops-are-above-the-law model of American criminal justice.
(Other states are also pursuing similar cures to this loophole)
The formal ruling class does not like its power diminished-- cops are the critical "enforcers" for all commands issuing from legislators; therefore, cops must remain supremely powerful over the public, or ruling legislative bodies degrade to irrelevant debating clubs.
To understand policing in America, one must understand the base nature of government itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can turn off bodycameras, they can menace and discredit eyewitnesses before they ever come close to court. they can coerce private businesses into 'losing' footage of officers murdering people caught on their security cameras but they can't stop civilians sharing footage of their crimes... Unless they arrest them and 'accidentally' destroy their phones. Fortunately Ohio is there to find ways to make that easier for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another front in the war between Republicans against Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, all of the real things listed which can be real problems... are already illegal, and even if not illegal per se, cops can expand their perimeter and back people up anyway. All we did here is broaden the "i feel threatened or distracted" excuse. We've already seen how that plays out in thousands of videos, where the cops are "distracting" themselves by threatening people well outside the area of concern and nothing of concern to the cops for safety is going on in the first place.
Damnit Ohio. smh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you can no longer suppress the the voters the old fashioned way, you make it so the cops can do it without having to change into their casual friday hoods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately they're reading the room fine, this place is a very fashy shithole that loves police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All those guns and armor and still so scared lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teachable moment perhaps?
This will be struck down on freedom of speech grounds the moment it gets challenged in court. Why not pass a bill to make into law that politicians must pass a proficiency certification on the US constitution insted? Seems like it would eliminate the excuse for republicans who keep passing and enacting blatantly visible unconstitutional laws and would save taxpayers millions in pointless litigation of the obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Teachable moment perhaps?
Won't do any good. These legislators know it's unconstitutional, they just don't care. They're passing these laws to pander to their base, and then they can cry about "activist judges" when it gets struck down. It's entirely performative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Teachable moment perhaps?
"These legislators know it's unconstitutional, they just don't care."
Too true. Every politician to some extent leverages the fears and wants of their base by making all the right noises...but it's disturbing beyond belief to see US politicians drag out legislation coming close to what might have prospered in the reich because they have good reason to believe that's what their base wants.
The non-insane part of the US needs to realize that a third of their population has become as malicious as metastatizing cancer. That it's no longer a philosophical disagreement or an expression of freedom when their neighbor dons a red hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Godwin's Law arises
"US politicians drag out legislation coming close to what might have prospered in the Reich"
'Godwin's Law' states that as an online discussion thread progresses -- the probability of a comparison with Hitler or the Nazis approaches 100%, regardless of the original topic.
When this happens any serious discussion is regarded as over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Godwin's Law arises
Ie. Godwin's law applies if the comparison is disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Godwin's Law arises
Godwin himself has retracted that law. He's said up-front that where the US alt-right is concerned, "nazi" is the only appropriate word.
"When this happens any serious discussion is regarded as over."
There is no discussion to be had where the alt-right is concerned. Not after the "Unite the right" movement where neo-confederates, Qanon adherents and "conservatives" marched right alongside the American Nazi Party. Godwin's law is dead, by fiat of the author of that law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
Godwin never retracted his 1990 law.
" I don’t think GL {Godwin;s Law} needs to be updated or amended. It still serves us as a tool to recognize specious comparisons to Nazism — but also, by contrast, to recognize comparisons that aren’t. And sometimes the comparisons can spot the earliest symptoms of horrific “attitudes, actions and language” well before our society falls prey to the full-blown disease."
--Mike Godwin June 24, 2018 4:05 AM PT[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
"Godwin never retracted his 1990 law."
Him coming out and saying "By all means, compare these shitheads to the Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." about the "Unite The Right" movement may not be a definite retraction...
...but in practical reality it more or less is; Although you may be able to point out exceptions the vast majority of contention in the US online environment today stands between the alt-right and sane people.
My point stands; one third of the american voting population falls into the category of either being nazis or being fine with standing alongside nazis. Or, as some might refer to those unworthies, the "Very Fine People".
And the non-insane part of the US citizenry needs to realize that this difference isn't, like it used to be, a different approach to wealth distribution, government size, taxation or a focus on states right vs federal. The point of contention is now whether or not white supremacy, conspiracy theory, and bigotry is an acceptable part of open american politics and daily life.
Sitting down and being the half of the US which chooses not to vote isn't going to work out very well now. Because not participating is also a choice. For the worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
See, I have a problem lumping people. I just don’t do it. I can’t do the by association thing; my mind doesn’t work that way.
We, with Clinton the Trump equivalent would be, say:
You voted for ethnic targeting of Russian people.
You voted to dismantle the immigration system with no replacement.
You voted for outsourcing jobs to other countries
You voted for slavery.
I just can’t do that. I can toss the population into a pile for a vote alone.
People vote for their own reasons. A bit for one issue doesn’t mean agreement with another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
"See, I have a problem lumping people. I just don’t do it. I can’t do the by association thing; my mind doesn’t work that way. "
Politics in general is about finding a common denominator acceptable to everyone. With a grand total of two parties around "lumping" has become established reality.
This creates a lot of trouble for the democrats who have such a big tent that any not outright insane idea fits right in, and because of the extremely wide range of opinions the only policy to ever see the light of day is the one everyone could agree on. You won't find a single democratic politician whose harshest and most accurate detractors aren't found within the ranks of democrats, for instance. Obama took a lot of crap over his failure to abolish gitmo or return civil rights, his drone strike programs, etc - from inside his own party.
The republicans, meanwhile, tried instead to criticize the Kenyan Muslim helming Hillary's cabal of cannibal child-traffickers...because as a party they couldn't fit their head around either context or factual accuracy so chose to feed their base a Grimm Brother fairytale.
The extreme right has the complete opposite problem of the democrats. There are plenty of people who have so little identity of their own the herd (or subset of tribe) is the only recourse they know. You can certainly fit almost every person in the "Unite The Right" march in Charlottesville into a template covering most of their personality and at least half their motivation.
Turning contemporary republicans into a party built entirely around the concept of guns, heretic christianity, anti-abortion and bigotry. Those four issues are enough to consolidate their whole base. There is literally nothing more to be found, no hidden depths to plumb, and among this mob no individual difference elevating the braying horde from the simple morass of never having to choose they've elected to dwell in.
"A bit for one issue doesn’t mean agreement with another."
Except that for the current GOP that's exactly it. There are Republicans In Name Only, of course, but when the vast majority of that party has let Trump tweets and conspiracy theory govern their opinion completely it's pretty clear that like every authoritarian would-be dictator's mob, these are the people not looking for thoughts their own, being content with letting Dear Leader tell them what they should think and how they should feel.
You need to realize that individualism comes with a liberal mindset and there are, today, some 70 million americans who consider dissent sanctionable blasphemy, ignoring any facts not amenable to the narrative they've been given.
When you can point to 8 out of 10 republicans today and find their national politics all boils down to four basic concepts and nothing else of importance then you can't very well insist they're all individual. They chose not to be and haven't looked back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
“ contemporary republicans into a party built entirely around the concept of guns, heretic christianity, anti-abortion and bigotry.”
And right there you exclude me from Republicans yet the users here call me one anyway.
Yes, I’m pro self arming the public.
Christians? Fools.
A woman has a right to decide what grows on or in her body.
And the only way you could possibly, legitimately, call me a bigot is on religion. I treat them all with disdain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
Except for the part where no, all that exists exclusively in the demented hallucinations of extreme-right projection propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
Except, uh, yes.
I was against our involvement with Ukraine long before Trump was a candidate.
Bill Clinton ran with immigration reform and border security.
Bush jr did too. So did Obama.
It wasn’t a bad thing until Trump won and actually did something.
Loose tariffs a open travel have long been a staple of Democrats.
To to deny history is to repeat it.
Democrats were the party of slavery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
Why do you deny the history of the Southern Strategy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
I don’t.
The republic south supported racism at the time.
Just like the Democrat party supported slavery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
Unless you're talking exclusively about people over 70, it's a lie to pretend voting Democrativ]c is voting for slavery, as all the slavers went (and remain) solidly Republican.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
Unless your talking about people over 50 it’s a lie To pretend voting Republican is voting for Jim Crow.
Most of those Republican politicians went Democrat in the following years.
To ignore history is to repeat it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
Were you asleep? That's literally the exact opposite of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
"Most of those Republican politicians went Democrat in the following years."
Weird. I could have sworn that in the reality the rest of us occupy it was largely the Southern Democrats who made up the Jim Crow contingent who were attracted to the Republicans, hence the "Southern Strategy".
"To ignore history is to repeat it."
Or, you could use the Lostinlobos method and just invent history in order to pretend you're not on the wrong side of it again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's Law
Of course, we have Republikkkans trying to pass their Jim Crow anti-voting laws this very minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Godwin's
Sort of. While most voters want us brought to a consistency with the rest of the world, have an id,
If you’re not for verification you’re a self righteous partisan cunt.
That said some powerful republicans are slipping anti-access regulations into bills.
That is NOT good.
Be it district voting, early voting, or absentee access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verification is fine. It’s the limits on what can be used to verify ID that concerns people—as was the case with provisions in that smacked down North Carolina voter ID law, which were found to have targeted Black people with “near-surgical precision”. That’s the whole point of the GOP’s post-2020 voting restrictions laws: to stop people who aren’t known for voting Republican from voting. The GOP doesn’t want free and fair elections; they want elections they can win, no matter how many people have to be disenfranchised and how many elections have to be tainted by their bullshit in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, im an officer in ohio, who is distracted by my alcoholic beverage... can i sue the beer maker?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Failure to obey…
This law exists at the local level all over the country.
I’ve been hit with it once myself.
At 11:something pm. After calling *999 to report the accident, which I received, I continued on to my destination
On my return I pulled over, told an officer I had seen it, and I had a dash camera. Asker if they wanted anything, no, and asked if I could cross the (open area) if the intersection, also no. And instructed me to leave.
Another officer, apparently or having the best of days, then ran into the path of my car as I was leaving. Demanded I stop and supply my licence.
I did and wrote me a citation for failure to obey.
The irony in the bench trial rulings (I plead not guilty), was that the judge found for the police for the exact opposite of the citation.
The police presented I failed to leave the scene.
The judge ruled I interrupted the scene because I was in a hurry.
Lol.
It happens.
Every department has bad cops. Every jurisdiction has bad laws.
I don’t blame the department for one idiot officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Failure to obey…
"Every department has bad cops. Every jurisdiction has bad laws.
I don’t blame the department for one idiot officer."
You should. That idiot officer pulls the shit he does because come hell or high water the department has his back. That's the poison of Code Blue. When you have one actively bad cop and 99 cops whose only felony is having the back of that bad cop what you've got is 100 Bad Cops.
Because their whole job, as officers, is definitely the opposite having the back of a criminal, even if that criminal wears the same gang colors they do.
THAT is how accountability works.
The "just a few bad apples" metaphor doesn't hold water if all the other apples fight tooth and claw to shield the bad one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Failure to obey…
"The "just a few bad apples" metaphor doesn't hold water if all the other apples fight tooth and claw to shield the bad one."
Just a regular reminder that the original saying is intended to mean that you should not let the bad apples stay in the barrel because they will spoil the whole thing if left unattended. Why exactly this has become understood as "meh, there's just a few bad apples, the rest are OK so no need to do anything about them" is a mystery, but the original meaning remains valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh
One of those sponsors is my "representative." She will never get my vote in any future elections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]