[Infowarrior] - Fwd: Gizmodo post asks, "Are Cameras the New Guns?"

[Richard Forno]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Jonathan Abolins <jon.abolins at gmail.com>
> Date: June 3, 2010 12:40:10 PM EDT
> 
> Gizmodo post asks, "Are Cameras the New Guns?"
> http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns
> 
> Are Cameras the New Guns?
> In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict
> police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In
> at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police
> officer.
> 
> Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your
> defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no
> expectation of privacy exists.
> 
> The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing
> wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing
> law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland
> are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a
> recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to
> all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the
> camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also
> include an exception for recording in public places where "no
> expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice
> this exception is not being recognized.
> 
> Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was
> arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been
> misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and
> snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor
> Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a
> ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law -
> requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the
> area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."
> 
> The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge
> rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against
> Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar
> artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of
> not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were
> dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I
> felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.
> 
> In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the
> state's electronic surveillance law - aka recording a police encounter
> - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2.
> In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, "Citizens have a
> particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue
> is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must
> fear criminal reprisals…." (Note: In some states it is the audio alone
> that makes the recording illegal.)
> 
> The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed,
> suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.
> 
> Glik captured a police action on his cellphone to document what he
> considered to be excessive force. He was not only arrested, his phone
> was also seized.
> 
> On his website Drew wrote, "Myself and three other artists who
> documented my actions tried for two months to get the police to arrest
> me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers
> license law. The police hesitated for two months because they knew it
> would mean a federal court case. With this felony charge they are
> trying to avoid this test and ruin me financially and stain my
> credibility."
> 
> Hyde used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the
> police. After doing so, he was criminally charged.
> 
> In short, recordings that are flattering to the police - an officer
> kissing a baby or rescuing a dog - will almost certainly not result in
> prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only
> people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or
> confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then
> the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism
> of the police or simple dissent.
> 
> A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.
> 
> On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was
> pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for
> a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic
> stop.
> 
> The case is disturbing because:
> 
> 1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter,
> he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper
> J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car,
> jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify
> himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the
> police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house
> (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a
> violation of wiretapping law.
> 
> 2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had
> never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In
> other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing
> the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more
> [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."
> 
> 3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of
> charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious
> retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious
> nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were
> not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.
> 
> Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported
> the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that
> some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something
> to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official
> policy, and it's backed by the courts.
> 
> Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an
> explanation: "For the second time in less than a month, a police
> officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The
> first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick
> Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video
> posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before
> charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be
> convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who
> shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently
> paralyzing the 24-year-old man."
> 
> When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns
> pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras
> have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to
> protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to
> stop.
> 
> Happily, even as the practice of arresting "shooters" expands, there
> are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania
> jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As
> part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested
> "shooter," the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted
> a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.
> 
> As journalist Radley Balko declares, "State legislatures should
> consider passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law
> enforcement officials."
> 
> Wendy McElroy is the author of several books on anarchism and
> feminism. She maintains the iconoclastic website ifeminists.net as
> well as an active blog at wendymcelroy.com.
> 
> The author of this post can be contacted at tips at gizmodo.com
>