Judge Rules Cops CANNOT Make You Stop Filming Them (video)

Unfortunately I think this is not a nation wide ruling, just a ruling by a state court. thus the precedent only applies to that state, not the entire US.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter what the court's say, cops are going to do what they want to do regardless.



I totally agree with the judge. If a police officer has a problem being video taped then he is probably doing something he shouldn't or wants to do something he or she shouldn't. Anyone who is really pro-police should also be in favor of allowing citizens to film them doing their job. I can't understand how a well-intentioned person could think anything else? There shouldn't be any "mystery" behind street cop operations, for the most part.

You can read the news here

The cops won't have to pay the $40,000 in damages, the citizens/taxpayers will.

reply to post by RUSSO


It could climb the court system. Not that I think the Cock Bloc - Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy - would rule against the police, unfortunately.

Should we be allowed to film them? yes undoubtly the reason being is, they have bent the rules of capitolism plenty of occasions. They must be responisble for the justification of sights. When produced with a recording device one must oppose the same qualities of guidline restrictions. Therefore, hence realities of duty calls will oblidge to the foreman of proof. Views infront of the judge seeking wills to affect the decision of allowing civilians to camcoarder thy protectors of the crown. Disagreed plenty but encouraged with the numerous forces of human rights. Only by tradion luck-factors affiliation with unwarrented instances exist.

This video relates with the link provided yes? She states that it is legal in the U.S to film a police officer on public property. Surely she was just talking about Atlanta, because the cops in my town of California would disagree.

S+F

reply to post by ThinkingCap


I beg to differ. Apart for the crown councel affiliating the viewing the main portion of the film was unsected. There being a place for officers to get filmed when gardening along sentences via this message board. Did you read the fact that they were asking about the recording or taping of cops synonem for police definiton? Around the time of the video post though it was the law of trafficking being video taped. YES THEY SHOULD BE TAPED amongst reasonable conditions and no proof of crime as of the instance bonder.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by RUSSO

 

It could climb the court system. Not that I think the Cock Bloc - Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy - would rule against the police, unfortunately.

edit on 16/2/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

Really dificult to happens. Unfortunately.

reply to post by RUSSO


unfortunately the prediction is a defecit. Shall it be tossed away in the system of courts. Before the bench yes! but if it arises to the raising. The judge could spector that the police had the right to discourage the filming of. In the management of discounts. They have seen this happen. Lifewise, likewise will be the preferred condensation of the ruling. All depending of course, what the person was doing, why they were filming and if it was warrented condionally. Radicals despite either or but people are big on it like bohemiths metiforically.

reply to post by plutoice


Do you realize what you sound like? I'm pretty sure that besides murdering grammer you also made up some words. I wish I could comment on your thoughts, but I'm not possitive what they are. Please try again.

I'll film a cop whether it's "legal" or not, among other things...

There is no court ruling in this story. The City settled out of court before it was filed for the 40k, and the memo to officers to not interfere with citizens who record appropriately in public.

The Citizen review board dealt with the use of force in the case, which from the looks of it the officers got off light.

Personally speaking, as long as they arent endangering themselves or others, I could care less if im being recorded. The only time I have ever actually ordered someone with a camera to move, was news media who watched one to many episodes of CSI at a motor vehicle accident, and since then no issues from the crew.

I dont think there needs to be a law to protect citizens from recording the police, simply because we have no expectation in privacy while doing our jobs, with very few exceptions (fatalities, filming of minors etc). However, if State courts are going to continue entertaining these types of charges (Illinois) and Police Agencies are going to continue to act stupid on occasion, then maybe we do need a law specifically to reinforce that the action is protected (within reason).

The only way this is going to be applied everyone is to get it to the US Supreme Court. Even if they win and the fEderal Appeals level, the ruling would only apply to the states within that circuit.

Originally posted by BeenieWeenie
The cops won't have to pay the $40,000 in damages, the citizens/taxpayers will.

Actually this depends on how exactly the disciplinary process worked. If the officers were not within policy, the city can disassociate themselves with the officers, who are then personally on their own.

Also, just from the way the article is written, it almost sounds as if Atlanta PD HAD some type of policy on the books for people recording officers.

"if you got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"

The people should shove this motto into the hypocritical face of their government.

Yo Russo my brother good thread !

In a world where elements of the police feel they are above the law and have no need for courts and jury , the Only "weapon of self defence " we have left is the camera .

When a law gets passed to ban recording of the police youll know what's coming next Martial Law

Listen it can work the other way too Good cops doing their thing needs to be seen too.

Most cops, are good people and risk their life to protect us . They need to be applauded for that , those who don't should be named and shamed .

There is more here than many would suspect, as this kind of a ruling will send ripples across the country and resonate in all 50 states. The first being that as this was a ruling in favor of the person who did the recording, it then can play out in all 50 states as it sets precedents. Most court cases, if you look at them, the rulings are often based off of similar cases, be they in other cities, counties and states, to help a judge determine on how to rule. In this case, the court in Georgia determined that such was permissible and that the police, had no legal standing to prevent a person from being able to record them in a public venue. The courts decision is documented and it would stand to reason that there are many places, where the officer could be recorded, and without the active consent being present, such as a gas station or a bank. And it would stand to reason, that any activity would be caught on tape or disk.
So then what will the police do, as it would be their right to ask for a copy of such, as it would be evidence, using it in court, and the person who got arrested, also would have full rights to that video as part of their defense. So while it may seem like a good idea to be able to video the actual goings on of police, it ultimately will play against the persons taking the video, cause they can be compelled in a court of law to hand over the video to the lawyers, and never see it again, until after the trial is over, as it is evidence, and both the prosecution and the defense would want to review it, to see all information was present, along with the person who shot the video. That also could be a dangerous thing, as the person then becomes a witness in a trial and may become a target of a crime themselves.

Originally posted by filosophia
"if you got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"

The people should shove this motto into the hypocritical face of their government.

Yeh, its so simple to see this. The thing is, they have some to hide, so they fear. They pretend have no fear but they are.