Los Angeles Cops Found To Be Tampering With Mandated Recording Devices

from the all-the-power,-zero-accountability dept

Who watches the watchers? Well, when you're the Los Angeles Police Department, you watch yourself. And when that kind of watching seems to be inhibiting, you just screw with the "watching" equipment. (via Ars Technica)

Los Angeles police officers tampered with voice recording equipment in dozens of patrol cars in an effort to avoid being monitored while on duty, according to records and interviews.

An inspection by Los Angeles Police Department investigators found about half of the estimated 80 cars in one South L.A. patrol division were missing antennas, which help capture what officers say in the field. The antennas in at least 10 more cars in nearby divisions had also been removed.

These antennas, linked to both in-car camera systems and officers' body mics, helped increase the recording range. Removing the antennas didn't completely prevent recordings, but it did make it harder to pick up officers' voices once they entered buildings or ventured further away from the receivers located in the vehicles. According to the manufacturer, the antenna boosts the effective range of the body-worn transmitters by roughly a third.

When you're watching yourself (something prompted by a decade-long DOJ investigation of the LAPD), you have this luxury. No cop's going to turn in another cop who removes an antenna or otherwise tampers with the department-imposed oversight measures. A whole lot of time elapsed between when the tampering was discovered and when it was finally brought to the attention of those charged with monitoring the monitoring.

Members of the Police Commission, which oversees the department, were not briefed about the problem until months later. In interviews with The Times, some commissioners said they were alarmed by the officers' attempts to conceal what occurred in the field, as well as the failure of department officials to come forward when the problem first came to light.

"On an issue like this, we need to be brought in right away," commission President Steve Soboroff said. "This equipment is for the protection of the public and of the officers. To have people who don't like the rules to take it upon themselves to do something like this is very troubling."

This is very troubling, and while it's nice of the Police Commission to admit that fact, this tampering points to the officers' underlying resentment of nearly any method of monitoring or control. Many police officers don't like being recorded in public by citizens, so it stands to reason they don't much care for being recorded by the department itself. Hence, antennas go missing.

Those who are supposed to be making sure the police officers aren't becoming a law unto themselves seem to have little interest in attacking the mindset that leads to this sort of behavior.

"We took the situation very seriously. But because the chances of determining who was responsible was so low we elected to … move on," [LAPD Commander Andrew] Smith said, adding that it cost the department about $1,500 to replace all the antennas.

Too hard, won't try. That's the standard being applied to the LAPD. Instead of making an effort, band aids are being applied. Officers are now supposed to sign off that the antennas are in place at the beginning and end of their shift. This leaves a gaping hole in coverage (otherwise known as the shift itself) should officers decide they'd rather not be recorded. This hole has received its own band aid.

To guard against officers removing the antennas during their shifts, Tingirides said he requires patrol supervisors to make unannounced checks on cars.

Great, but considering there are many more officers than supervisors, and considering the fact that it took months before the missing antennas were brought to the attention of the Police Commission, who really believes this is going to stop officers from disabling antennas during work hours?

Oh, Commander Smith believes.

Since the new protocols went into place, only one antenna has been found missing, Smith said.

Well, that's the sort of result you can expect from self-reporting. Sure, a few cops may get a verbal handslap from a supervisor if they happen to come across a missing antenna, but it's a safe bet these supervisors aren't any happier about their men and women being recorded while on duty. Because if they did care, it never would have gotten to the point where nearly half of the antennas in a single division went missing.

With these cops being charged with keeping department-issued antennas present and accounted for, some have opted to go a different route to avoid being recorded.

Last month, the department conducted a follow-up audit and found that dozens of the transmitters worn by officers in Southeast Division were missing or damaged.

This time there's actually an investigation being opened, months after the original antenna abuse was uncovered by an internal audit (but hidden from the Police Commission). Judging from what's happened previously, there's very little reason to believe this will lead to the ouster of bad cops who don't like accountability. A few scapegoats may be offered up to calm both the public and department oversight, but if a ten-year investigation by the DOJ failed to bring about the sort of systemic change needed, it's highly unlikely an internal investigation will result in anything better.

Filed Under: la, lapd, police, recording, tampering

Experience Stop And Frisk Thanks To This POV Video

from the a-mile-in-their-shoes dept

It's not terribly often that two regular themes we discuss at Techdirt come together in an almost perfect way. Yet that's exactly what's happened recently with a story that combines the value of allowing citizens to record public servants, particularly law enforcement officers, and the complete travesty known as stop and frisk. While that program is perhaps most infamous in New York, the basis for it is a court case, Terry v. Ohio, and that has been the groundwork for similar law enforcement policies throughout the country. Included in that is the city of Philadelphia, where we are able to see and hear firsthand a stop by two officers that all began when someone said hello to a stranger. Here's the entire video.

In case you can't view or would just like highlights, two men were stopped by police, according to the officers, because they said hello to a stranger and people just don't do that. So now we're outlawing being polite? Outstanding. It gets worse from there.

"I didn't accuse you of anything, can you hear? I said we could have got a call that somebody wearing the clothes that you're wearing just robbed someone, that's why we stopped you, so is that wrong of us?"

Well, gee, officer, in that completely hypothetical that you aren't confirming actually happened, that would not be wrong. But that isn't what was said initially. Instead, the stop occurred because of so-called suspicious activity that consisted of someone saying hello to another person. A stop due to a BOLO (be on the lookout) probably wouldn't have started with questioning suspects about saying hello.

"You're under investigation right now"

"Investigation of what? I was walking."

"That's not what I saw"

"I was walking."

"You're gonna be in violation if you keep running your mouth when I split your wig open."

I'm pretty sure we have a right to remain silent, not a requirement to under penalty of a split wig, whatever the hell that is. Further, as the video continues with threats for taking the men in for "running" their mouth illustrates wonderfully how far outside the bounds of serving and protecting these two esteemed officers went.

If you can stomach the video all the way through, you end up hearing the officers admit these two gentlemen did nothing wrong and would be let go, offered up via an extremely patronizing admission that they're "good guys." Without the right to record, not only would the abhorrent actions of the officers be subject to review, but those more privileged in life like myself might not understand that complete humiliation and unfairness involved in randomly stopping people without any reasonable suspicion wrong-doing. Stop and frisk and its cousin programs need to go the way of the dodo now.

Filed Under: philadelphia, police, recording, stop and frisk

PA Cop Refuses To Take Accident Report Unless Citizen Stops Recording; Cites 'Department Policy' [UPDATED]

from the those-enforcing-the-law-are-the-best-at-twisting-the-law dept

It's 2013, and despite oft-abused wiretapping laws being found unconstitutional when applied to recording police and new policies being issued to deter law enforcement officers from persecuting/prosecuting camera-wielding citizens, further incidents occur daily showing many PDs just aren't willing to cede this battle yet.

In this instance, a Lancaster, PA police officer simply walked away from taking an accident report because he objected to being filmed.

A Pennsylvania cop responding to a report of an accident refused to talk to the citizen unless his friend turned off the camera.

The citizen insisted on his friend recording, so Lancaster police officer Philip Bernot walked back to his car and drove off, refusing to take the report.

The citizen said he called the desk sergeant to complain, but was told it is a departmental policy not to be recorded.

Is it actually against departmental policy for Lancaster police officers to be recorded while performing their public duties (in public)? Well, that all depends on how you translate Pennsylvania's wiretap act, which aligns closely with the (formerly) onerous statute in place in Illinois. According to this 2007 Lancaster PD policy manual update, Pennsylvania citizens have the right to record video but not audio, unless both parties consent.

It starts out promisingly.

It is the policy of the Manheim Township Police Department to recognize the legal standing of members of the public to make video/audio recordings of police officers and civilian employees who are carrying out their official police duties in an area open to the public, and by citizens who have a legal right to be in an area where police are operating, such as a person’s home or business. However, this right does not prevent officers from taking measures to ensure that such activity and recording does not interfere or impeded with the officer’s law enforcement and public safety purpose.

The right to record audio and video seems to be guaranteed, provided there's no interference of police business (a huge gray area), and would seem to cover the contentious recording that caused an officer to walk off the job, as it were. But later in the same statement, this guarantee is undercut by a reference to Pennsylvania's wiretap act, providing every Lancaster police officer with a very convenient out.

The courts have made a distinction between simply videotaping an officer and videotaping with audio. When a person is out in public, he or she is voluntarily presenting their visage to the public and therefore can have no expectation that someone may photograph that person’s actions. However, when a person engages in discourse with another, as provided in the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 PA C.S.A. 5701, et seq. (“Pennsylvania Wiretap Act”), that person is entitled to expect that the discourse will remain private and not be shared with others through a recording device unless specifically consented to by the person speaking.

In order to ensure the state's (outdated) wiretap act isn't violated, those involved must jump through the following hoops.

If the officer would normally have an expectation of privacy and the officer observes the person being addressed audio taping or videotaping with audio, the officer may inform such person that he or she does not consent to the audio portion of the taping and request that the audio be shut off.

Following up on a reported accident on a public street would seemingly eliminate any "expectation of privacy," even for audio. Officer Philip Bernot felt otherwise, and chose to read the policy as being heavily reliant on this phrase in the preceding paragraph:

However, when a person engages in discourse with another… that person is entitled to expect that the discourse will remain private and not be shared with others through a recording device unless specifically consented to…

These two parts of the policy are at odds with each other and, indeed, with the opening paragraph that states the department recognizes the public's right to record video and audio of public servants performing their duties in public -- all of which Officer Bernot was doing, right up until he decided he wouldn't.

Pennsylvania's wiretap law provides plenty of exceptions for law enforcement and certain citizens to record audio with only the "consent" of the recorder (telemarketers, people discussing work with contractors) but it provides nothing specific regarding the general public recording public citizens. On the bright side, the wiretap law is set to expire at the end of this year (it was last amended in 2002 -- problematic enough given the exponential increase in citizens who carry cameras everywhere they carry their phones). Unfortunately, it looks as though renewing it completely intact is an option ("...unless extended by statute").

But is the Lancaster PD's contradictory reading of the wiretap statute accurate? Does it actually mean the public has no right to record audio of police officers without their consent, while completely free to record video and take photos? The Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press has a rundown on every state's applicable recording statutes and it comes to this conclusion regarding Pennsylvania's.

It is unlawful to record an “oral communication,” which is defined as “any oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation” without first obtaining the consent of all parties engaged in the conversation. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5702. Thus, a journalist does not need consent to record conversations in public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

If a journalist is allowed to record "oral communications" in public without consent, it stands to reason citizens should be allowed to do the same. Lancaster PD may be deterring recordings by providing a confusing mess of a policy, but its interpretation of the wiretap law is flawed. The PD may have its own departmental policy, but it's superseded by state law governing recordings.

The constitutionality of this law won't be stress tested until there are multiple incidences of abuse, unfortunately. In Illinois, it took several high-profile cases of police and prosecutorial abuse before it reached the critical level needed to prompt a ruling from the Supreme Court. A single case, properly routed, could have the same effect, but there's an equal likelihood the courts would view it as a departmental anomaly rather than a flaw with the underlying law. On the other hand, Illinois' nearly-identical wiretap law has been struck down, meaning there's some sort of comparative ruling, even if there's not actual precedence.

The Lancaster PD is misusing the wiretap statute, one that the original legislators never meant to be utilized as a shield against public accountability. Officer Bernot's refusal to perform his duty, whether "justified" by a bad statute or not, was completely immature.

[UPDATE: A commenter points out that the Lancaster Police Dept. apologized for Officer Bernot's actions and sent him back out to take the accident report.]

Filed Under: accident report, eavesdropping, pennsylvania, police, recording, video

How Much Would It Cost To Store All US Phone Calls Made In A Year?

from the cheaper-than-you-think dept

An early criticism of Snowden's leak about NSA spying activity was that the $20 million annual cost for PRISM -- whatever that turns out to be -- was simply too low to be credible. One person who knows more about storage costs than practically anyone -- well, outside the NSA, at least -- is Brewster Kahle, who set up the Internet Archive, essentially a backup for the entire Web plus a wonderfully rich store of many other materials. He's carried out a fascinating back-of-the envelope calculation of how much it would cost annually to record every phone call made in the US and store it in the cloud:

These estimates show only $27M in capital cost, and $2M in electricity and take less than 5,000 square feet of space to store and process all US phonecalls made in a year. The NSA seems to be spending $1.7 billion on a 100k square foot datacenter that could easily handle this and much much more. Therefore, money and technology would not hold back such a project -- it would be held back if someone did not have the opportunity or will.

Kahle has made the calculation available as a shared document (on Google, appropriately enough), so you can inspect his assumptions there and play around with the numbers. It's also worth reading through the comments to his short post, since they make some interesting points. However, even if the numbers are off by a factor or two, there's no doubt about the feasibility of recording all US phone calls.

And that's for sound files, which take up quite a lot of space. Text-based information pulled in from emails, Web pages and chat logs could be stored more compactly. That would make the routine recording of vast swathes of what those in the US -- and outside it -- do online not just plausible, but so cheap in comparison to the NSA's presumably large budget, that the latter might feel it would be crazy not to do so as a matter of course.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: brewster kahle, cost, nsa surveillance, phone calls, recording, surveillance

Your Word Against Ours: How The FBI's 'No Electronic Recording' Policy Rigs The Game... And Destroys Its Credibility

from the everybody-knows-the-dice-are-loaded dept

Considering the FBI's unseemly interest in recording phone calls and inserting itself into all sorts of electronic conversations (all without asking permission first), it's incredibly strange that it refuses to use one of the most basic electronic devices available: a voice recorder. In fact, as Harvey Silverglate's op-ed for the Boston Globe points out, it's forbidden to use any sort of recording device when interviewing suspects.

FBI agents always interview in pairs. One agent asks the questions, while the other writes up what is called a “form 302 report” based on his notes. The 302 report, which the interviewee does not normally see, becomes the official record of the exchange; any interviewee who contests its accuracy risks prosecution for lying to a federal official, a felony. And here is the key problem that throws the accuracy of all such statements and reports into doubt: FBI agents almost never electronically record their interrogations; to do so would be against written policy.

Without a recording to compare the transcript to, we are expected to trust the FBI's version of the interrogation. If we can't trust it, we are left to draw one of the following conclusions.

1. The transcript is completely false.
2. The transcript is heavily editorialized.
3. The transcript interprets certain statements, but is otherwise accurate.
4. The transcript is completely accurate.

Of all of these choices, number 4 seem least likely. In fact, one wonders why the FBI bothers interviewing anyone when it could simply put two agents in a room and allow them to bang out a confession on behalf of the accused.

If a suspect claims the transcription is erroneous, it's his word against theirs. His words, of course, disappeared into the ether as soon as they were spoken. The FBI's version lives on, printed on paper.

We don't need to ask "why" this is a problem. There are rhetorical questions and then there are stupid questions, the sort helpful teachers and guidance counselors continue to pretend don't exist. A better question is, "Why hasn't this been changed?" Silverglate notes this policy is an updated version of a 1990's policy, crafted in 2006, long long long long after recording devices were ubiquitous. The excuse that this policy was "logistically necessary" because of technological limitations was ridiculous in 1990, much less 16 years later.

This is a problem. More specifically, this is Robel Phillipos' problem.

Phillipos is a 19-year-old Cambridge resident, former UMass Dartmouth student, and friend of alleged Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. He faces charges of making materially false statements during a series of interviews with FBI agents. If convicted, he could get up to eight years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine.

How do we know he did this? Because the FBI says he did. It has the "paperwork" to "prove" it. As was pointed out above, simply questioning the transcript opens the questioner up for charges of "making false statements." Phillipos could be completely innocent but that means nothing when the accusers are writing the narrative. Scott Greenfield shows just how easily an innocent answer could turn into damning "evidence" in the hands of an FBI interrogation team.

Q: We found files on your computer showing that you went to a website with instructions on how to make a bomb, so we know you did it. When did you first go to the bomb website?

A: I surf the web constantly and go through, like, a million pages. I have no idea what pages I searched or when. How could I possibly know?

Notated in 302: D cannot recall when he first went to bomb website. Went "constantly."

Slick, isn't it? And when someone points out a misquote, the accusation is turned on them just as easily. "Are you lying now or were you lying earlier?"

This is nasty business but it gets even nastier. Beyond the hilarious claim that tech simply hasn't advanced enough since 1990 to allow reliable voice recording, there's a much darker rationale guiding this ridiculous (and dangerous) policy.

The more honest — and more terrifying — justification for non-recording given in the memo reads as follows: “. . . perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining information from defendants. Initial resistance may be interpreted as involuntariness and misleading a defendant as to the quality of the evidence against him may appear to be unfair deceit.” Translated from bureaucratese: When viewed in the light of day, recorded witness statements could appear to a reasonable jury of laypersons to have been coercively or misleadingly obtained.

Sometimes the "reasonable jury" would be right -- the statement has been "coercively or misleadingly obtained." Other times, it may not be as clear-cut. But in a day and age where recording interviews and interrogations is the expectation, the FBI continues to play by its own (convenient) rules. And if the person being interrogated doesn't like it, he can expect additional charges to brought. This puts the alleged criminal in the unenviable position of having "anything he says" twisted, rewritten and heavily paraphrased before being used against him.

Silverglate cautions to withhold judgement on Phillipos until all the facts are in. But as long as the FBI continues to use this "recording" technique, don't grant its statements any credibility. They have none.

Filed Under: fbi, interviews, recording

Time Warner Cable: We Can Record You, But You Can't Record Us

from the oh-look-at-that dept

So we just had a post about a spoof on customer service from Time Warner Cable by the gripe site TWCCustomerService.com, and I see that they've been busy with their next video as well, in which they call Time Warner Cable's customer service center and tell the representative who answers that they are going to "record the call for quality assurance." Hilarity ensues. Here's a snippet.

Caller: First off, I just want to let you know that I'm recording the call for quality assurance...

Customer Service Rep: Unfortunately, I'm actually not authorizing you to do so, sir.

Caller: You're not authorized to do what?

Customer Service Rep: I'm not authorizing the recording, sir.

Caller: Oh, well you guys are recording the phone call on your end. Why can't I record it on my end?

Customer Service Rep: (long pause) Because it's the company sir.

Later on, the CSR admits that, yes, TWC is recording the call, and the caller requests the recording (guess how that goes?). The CSR continues to insist he's uncomfortable being recorded and is not giving any consent, so the caller more or less says the same thing and asks the CSR to turn off the recording on their end. And so it goes.

As a random aside, I'll just bring up the idiocy of places (including my home state of California) that have two party consent recording laws. If you are a party to the call, you should be able to record it without getting the consent of all participants.

Filed Under: customer service, recording
Companies: time warner cable

Recording Of Bradley Manning's Statement In Court Leaked

from the in-his-own-words dept

We've discussed before just how secretive the court martial process has been for Bradley Manning. Part of that is that there is no recording allowed in the courtroom, and thus there was no recording or official transcript of Manning's long statement to the court, even though some reporters tried to piece together a statement from their notes. However, it appears that someone snuck a recorder into the room, and recorded Manning's statement, which has now been leaked by the Freedom of the Press Foundation. As they note, this is actually the first time that the public has been able to hear Bradley Manning speak. As the FPF notes:

A group of journalists, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), has been engaged in a legal battle to force the court to be more open. While the government has belatedly released a small portion of documents related to the case, many of the most important orders have been withheld—such as the orders relating to the speedy trial proceedings or the order related to Manning’s prolonged solitary confinement.

Michael Ratner, president emeritus of CCR, called the government "utterly unresponsive to what is a core First Amendment principle." Ratner noted this is a public trial, the information being presented is not classified, and that contemporaneous access to information about the trial is necessary to understanding the proceedings. Nonetheless, the lawsuit has been tied up in the appeals court for months.

Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald highlights why this is so important:

The US government and its military has carefully ensured that people hear about Manning from the government, but do not hear from Manning himself. It is way past time for Manning's voice to be heard.

Greenwald has also broken down the statement and highlighted some key points. For example, he notes that many of Manning's critics argued that Manning released information willy nilly with no concern for what was in the documents, and whether releasing them would cause harm. From the transcript, we learn that this is simply untrue. He did review the content, and came to the conclusion that the documents he was releasing needed to be released for the benefit of the US, and not to harm the US. He admitted they might be embarrassing, but that's very different from harmful.

Up to this point, during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.

"In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.

"The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.

"The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.

"The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personnel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.

"The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.

"I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.

"I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations."

It really is a travesty that the US government has kept all of this so closed, and has refused to release a recording or a transcript. Are they really so afraid that the public might hear Bradley Manning explain himself?

Filed Under: bradley manning, court marshal, journalism, recording, secrecy
Companies: freedom of the press foundation

NJ State Trooper Feels The Best Part About The Required Dashcam Is The OFF Button

from the welcome-to-new-jersey,-here's-your-complimentary-beating dept

We've seen plenty of stories here dealing with law enforcement's general displeasure with having their actions captured on camera by citizens (with one rare, exemplary exception). An odd stance to take, considering most law enforcement officers are recording a majority of their interactions with the public -- except when it's more convenient not to. Scott Greenfield runs down the details of another case where a state trooper's camera was used selectively to "throw out" incriminating evidence.

The virtue of having a video of police encounters has been proven over and over, whether because it belies the allegations of a crime or proves them. But then, sometimes the guy with his finger on the dashcam's "on" button may not want evidence of what is about to happen. Via NJ.com:

Allen Bass, 50, sued Trooper Gerald Dellagicoma and others in 2009, claiming they punched and kicked him multiple times, causing him to urinate on himself, after he complied with their commands to get off his bicycle at Ellis Avenue and Clinton Avenue in Irvington a year earlier.

[Bass] was riding his bike July 10, 2008, in Irvington when Dellagicoma and other troopers who were on patrol in the area got out of their patrol cars and ordered him to stop. Bass claimed he laid on the ground chest-down and spread his arms and legs.

Troopers allegedly then punched and kicked him before arresting him. Bass was charged with drug possession, resisting arrest by flight and resisting arrest by force, court documents show.

Ultimately, the charges against Bass were dropped because the officers failed to show up in court. That, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily indicate any sort of irresponsibility or maliciousness on behalf of the troopers involved. But one of State Trooper Dellagicoma's actions during the incident certainly does.

Court documents show Dellagicoma, who joined the force in 2001, failed to activate his patrol car camera and was suspended without pay for 30 days, but only served 15 days of that suspension.

And this wasn't an isolated incident.

Records show Dellagicoma was reprimanded several times prior to the incident for the same infraction.

In fact, Dellagicoma is named in another federal civil suit for basically the same actions:

In another federal civil lawsuit, Salah Williams of Newark, an African-American, claims he was a victim of racial profiling, excessive force and malicious prosecution when Dellagicoma allegedly assaulted, maced, arrested and charged him for no reason while walking near his store in the city... Similar to the Bass case, Dellagicoma also failed to activate his patrol car camera and appear in court, resulting in the dismissal of the charges against Williams.

This is a big problem. As Greenfield points out, New Jersey State Troopers are required to record every interaction with the public.

What makes this special is that in New Jersey, there is a requirement that arose from the racial profiling scandal that rocked the Turnpike, that all encounters with State Troopers be videotaped. The state was kind enough to put cameras in cruisers. Never again would a trooper be falsely accused of profiling a driver just because he was black. (This is known as the "black plus" theory of profiling.)

The bigger problem is the handling of those who choose to grant themselves exceptions to this requirement. The offense is treated as a minor infraction, punishable by a written reprimand or a short suspension -- neither of which are severe enough to make troopers like Dellagicoma reconsider hitting the OFF switch when it suits them.

The only way an incentive system works is to make the cost of noncompliance greater than the cost of compliance. Apparently, a written reprimand and a few days suspension doesn't cut it. And when it happens repeatedly, it is clearly failing to serve as a deterrent. That's not good enough.

The efficacy of video depends on its actually being used, in every instance and including the entire encounter. Anything less reduces it to a game, where the police make the rules, and the rules will not be good for the other side.

Citizens aren't going to be on hand to record all of these interactions, although each passing day provides more and more documentation captured by the public, many of whom put themselves in harm's way to secure this footage. And it's a sign that the system is pretty screwed up if "recording the police" often equates to "putting yourself in harm's way."

This single incident cost New Jersey taxpayers $50,000 and did more damage to the already-questionable reputation of NJ state troopers. All it cost Dellagicoma was a single paycheck, leaving him free to "fail to activate" his camera again and again as the situation suits him. 

Filed Under: evidence, new jersey, police, recording

Police Use HIPAA To Justify Charging Citizen For Recording Them

from the well-that's-just-bullshit dept

At some point, some national group is going to have to get the memo out to local law enforcement agencies within the United States that it is perfectly legal to record them while they operate in public. We've seen case after case after case of citizens having their property taken away or being charged with trumped up crimes all because they pointed a recording device at the police. Hell, some states have tried to enact unconstitutional laws to back up their ill-conceived and unwarranted positions.

All that being said, you just have to hand it to a police force up in Minnesota for the sheer cajones it took to do what they did. It started as other stories have, with a citizen, Andrew Henderson, recording police as they frisked a bloodied man before he was loaded into an ambulance and then having an officer take his recording device away.

The deputy, Jacqueline Muellner, approached him and snatched the camera from his hand, Henderson said.

"We'll just take this for evidence," Muellner said. Their voices were recorded on Henderson's cellphone as they spoke, and Henderson provided a copy of the audio file to the Pioneer Press. "If I end up on YouTube, I'm gonna be upset."

We've seen this kind of thing before, of course. Police use the excuse of evidence collecting to take away recording devices, which is really the only thing they're interested in. It's wrong. We get that. Usually some kind of internal review of the incident is triggered, asses are officially covered, and then the recording device is returned, sometimes after having been wiped. It's a bad enough story as it stands.

And that scenario is almost exactly what happened here, as the spokesman for Ramsey County acknowledged in a quote that citizens have the right to record police. But everyday abusive practices aren't enough for Ramsey County officers, apparently. The only thing that will satisfy them appears to be a new level of bullshit hitherto unseen, because a week later, when Henderson went to retrieve the camera, the police charged him with disorderly conduct and obstruction, with the citation noting that this was due to a "Data privacy HIPAA violation." In case you aren't clear on this, in the blogging industry, we refer to this as a massive amount of bullshit (piles and piles of it).

The allegation that his recording of the incident violated HIPAA, or the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, is nonsense, said Jennifer Granick, a specialist on privacy issues at Stanford University Law School. The rule deals with how health care providers handle consumers' health information.

"There's nothing in HIPAA that prevents someone who's not subject to HIPAA from taking photographs on the public streets," Granick said. "HIPAA has absolutely nothing to say about that."

The kicker? The deputy who had taken the camera for "evidence" purposes erased all the footage. The exchange in which she took that camera was audio recorded by Henderson separately on his cell phone, a recording which he still has. I would suggest that if the police do not immediately rescind their trumped up charges against him, Henderson should insist that we take the deputy at her word, assume she collected the camera and its footage as evidence, and then we can all begin discussing how much prison time the deputy should be doing for destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice.

That's no more crazy than anything the police have done in this story.

Filed Under: hipaa, overreaction, police, ramsey county, recording

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Over Law Banning Recording The Police

from the got-one-right dept

You may recall that we've been following the ongoing saga of a poorly-written piece of state legislation in Illinois, which would strip citizens of their First Amendment rights if they were to film law enforcement performing their duties. One gentleman was facing a possible 75 years in jail for five counts at up to 15 years each, until the 7th Circuit appeals court ruled that the law could not be enforced, because it very likely violated the First Amendment. Specifically, they sent it back to the lower court to rule on whether the law did, in fact, violate the First Amendment, along with fairly strong guidance that the lower court should probably toss out the law on those grounds. However, before the district court could review, the appeals court ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has now refused to hear the case, sending it back to the lower court, as the appeals court had originally intended.

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from the Cook County state's attorney to allow enforcement of a law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job. The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free speech rights when used against people who tape law enforcement officers.

The ACLU had brought a suit to block the prosecution of their staff recording police in public spaces, a main focus of the organization. They also see the refusal by the Supreme Court to hear the case as a major win for the rights of citizens to keep law enforcement from abusing their power.

Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois, said the organization was "pleased that the Supreme Court has refused to take this appeal. . .The ACLU of Illinois continues to believe that in order to make the rights of free expression and petition effective, individuals and organizations must be able to freely gather and record information about the conduct of government and their agents – especially the police. The advent and widespread accessibility of new technologies make the recording and dissemination of pictures and sound inexpensive, efficient and easy to accomplish."

As recording devices in public become more and more ubiquitous, hopefully law enforcement will cease to shy away from such public scrutiny. After all, in the long run, the ability for the public to check abuses by the authorities will only make those authorities better.

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, illinois, recording, supreme court