It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Washington State man arrested for recording Swat Team from the sidewalk.

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Just another story about the police and video camera's, apparently its a state law in Washington that you cannot record anyone without both parties consent?

Source
Source


A Washington man was arrested for video recording police from a public sidewalk after they had raided his neighbor’s home Saturday.

He was charged with obstruction, although as you can see in the video below, all he was doing was interviewing his neighbor about having a gun pointed at her six-month-old daughter.





I take it he means this law.
WA Recording Law

Washington's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Washington makes it a crime to intercept or record a private telephone call, in-person conversation, or electronic communication unless all parties to the communication consent



edit on 11-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


So, if she was talking to him while he was recording, she obviously consented.

That law cited seems to mean recording a person who is unaware they are being recorded is illegal, which this woman obviously wasn't unaware, and her baby doesn't count (she consents for her baby).

Is this meant to imply that a person can't record anything in public? Does this mean that a person cannot take video in public of say, a wedding, or a birthday celebration? What about photography? These are serious question that WA state needs to answer, if I understand this situation correctly.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
So being from WA state means that all my communications a safe from the illegal NSA tap and grabs right?

Yeah right. Laws in the US now only apply to the rabble, everyone above that is protected by illegality, corruption and just plain evil. It would be interesting to see this play out in court as the Supreme Court has already ruled that videoing cops is legal.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
It is oddly convenient for them to apply this law in this manner and
not, as mentioned in the post above, at say weddings or birthdays,
it really seems as though police hate being on video tape, i mean
if they aren't doing anything wrong what do they have to hide?

edit on 12-8-2013 by bloodreviara because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-8-2013 by bloodreviara because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Ok. I found a page that deals specifically with recording police officers.


However, First Amendment considerations arise when you are openly recording the activities of police officers (or other public officials) carrying out their duties in public places. A number of U.S. Courts of Appeals have held that, in such circumstances, the First Amendment protects the right to record audio and video regardless of whether the police/officials consent. This constitutional right would override any state or federal laws that would otherwise prohibit such recording

Recording the Police


If you are recording in New Jersey or in one of the states or territories within the First, Seventh, Ninth or Eleventh Circuits, the First Amendment right to record should protect you against prosecution for recording the police or other public officials as they carry out their duties in public places.

edit on 12-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thorneblood
Just another story about the police and video camera's, apparently its a state law in Washington that you cannot record anyone without both parties consent?


No it doesn't. The cops always make up this kind of bs. either on purpose or simply because they are unqualified for the job they have.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Wiretapping is only supposed to apply when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, you have no such expectation when in public. The police use this as an excuse (for example anything said in the back of a patrol car is public record as there is no expectation of privacy, etc..), and its a two way street. They can't have the law be one way for them, and another for us.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
In theory, could this guy cite his 1st amendment rights to have the charges against him dropped?



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I can't say I'm surprised by this as I've seen a number of these videos.

What is most unfortunate about these events is that many people who are unaware of their rights assume the position under authority would stop recording. With these cases you would not hear about what activities the enforcement agencies are performing. Legal or otherwise.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thorneblood
In theory, could this guy cite his 1st amendment rights to have the charges against him dropped?


The charges will be dropped automatically anyway. Noone is going to take the case seriously.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   
You want to tell me why the cops are ignoring a USSC ruling??


The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal of a controversial Illinois law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job.

By passing on the issue, the justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police officers.



I guess they are gonna make everyone fight it out in the courts. We are gonna need a website full of pro-bono lawyers because there are gonna be a bunch of people that WILL have standing to sue.

S and F
edit on 12-8-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I remember reading this story and the supreme court has made a ruling on a case back in November of last year on this issue.

Video taping police

Apparently the police do not know the laws




posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by phinubian
 

I think they know them but they just don't care to follow those laws themselves.
And why should they when most citizens do not know about said laws and will simply acquiesce to their demands?

edit on 12-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


You are right, the problem is most people will fold under anything that an officer throws at them that might even smack of possibly being cuffed to avoid confrontation and possible arrest, and then if you put up any sort of argument or try and explain they always find some way to place you under arrest, have you ever tried to argue with a policeman? regardless if you are right or wrong ?



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   
seems to me that it would be in ones
best interest to stay "Undercover" when doing surveillance
and videotaping the law.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
 


LOL What a great idea!
Let's start hiding in the bushes and pointing something indistinct at the armed police officers, it seems to work out ok for everyone who has done that so far.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 04:32 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Obviously.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Print out the supreme court decision and start filming. If a cop stops you, show the document.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Would it not be easier to just google it?



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join