Police arrest a college student taping police activities as part of a group called "Cop Watch"

I make you a bet this gets thrown out..

If the story is being told dead on these cops
had NO RIGHT to take his camera, not without a warrant.

If the guy was not in their way, whats the problem?
Unless these cops have something to hide...
Both parties knew the recording was going on...

I would slap a lawsuit on them.

Well I don't know if it's against the law or not but I can understand why the police officers would want to confiscate the tape seeing as that some individuals have been giving them a bad name(deserving or not).Don't think all cops are as bad as they make them out to be.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


It wll get worse before it gets better I predict. This officer must think he lives in Illionois, Maryland or Massachusetts as it is already a passed law in those states that you "can not film" on-duty officers. Here is a thread on ATS that has been discussing this law. ATS THREAD ABOUT THE NEW LAW

If people can not freely film police officer's then it should be equally illegal for officer's to film citizen's with out their permission. Trying to confiscate the tape then arresting these students was a result of the officer being afraid that the video of his unprofessional action's were probably going to be placed online for all to see, hence him possibly getting into trouble. People should be afraid of video's going online of them behaving badly, because then maybe those behaving badly will wise up and act more civilized in public.

All said in my own opinion,
Bzzzzzzz

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Of the two schools of thought you mention, I fall firmly in the former. Exposing those who have worked or are working undercover is a pretty huge deal Unless someone finds a way around this, it's a no-brainer for me.

However, in regard to the taping of activities, surely some sort of a compromise where any taping done by either party involved in an incident is then provided immediately to all parties involved (including anything recorded via police dashcams and/or on the party's behalf) and limited to said parties might alleviate most concerns.

it's not right or fair for any Tom, Dick, or Sally to be able to film a portion of what someone in the line of duty and post it on the likes of YouTube for the world to see and judge. As if the job's not hard enough already.

As for a group who has seemingly decided they need to cop watch and film anything and everything just in case? That almost seems like asking for trouble. Wouldn't you just love it if someone followed you around filming you all day? Not to mention that it creates a huge potential for interfering and maybe triggering or exacerbating some dangerous situations..

A good undercover operation will have the undercover cops arrested with the others. There would be no danger in recording the activity.

"Undercover" is different than a typical "sting" operation. They might use a sting for a night of prostitution round up, and in that case the vice cops might not like being filmed, but it wouldn't put them in immediate danger. If someone is legitimately undercover, they are not going to be present at an arrest, of if they are present, they will get arrested with everyone else, and they will stay among them the entire time. There is still good intel to be had in jail!

reply to post by getreadyalready


If someone they're undercover with sees them on tape while they're still undercover, say from a past job, it's a moot point.

If someone following around a uniformed officer inadvertently films an undercover having a conversation...

If someone was undercover in the past and was not exposed because they were arrested returns to regular duty...

Nope. It's dangerous.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I would take what he says as pretty accurate.

You wont even know if it is an undercover cop, so why would you be taping
just some random person who you might suspect is a under cover?

I don't get your argument.

An undercover wont be talking to a uniform cop in public,
that would blow the cover.

Even if you were taping a under cover cop getting arrested
you would not be able to know the difference between them
and the criminals who are also getting arrested.

Your not making sense...

What if a CCTV camera is recording it in the walmart parking lot?

Sure they might use it if they need it.

How can you just take someones camera away?

My neighbor can tape my property all day on HIS property.

I can not go over there and take it or smash it no matter how much
I want to.

You have no argument.

I wonder if they hold the MSM to the same standard? If not why would it be any different than a citizen that tapes an arrest and then sends it to the media. For instance the CNN I reporter, is this not instigating a crime?

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Undercover certainly has a shelf-life, that much is for sure. I would imagine it is becoming more and more difficult with social networking, FB, YouTube, etc. Tattoos, or scars, or little quirks could get around pretty quickly.

I have a feeling any major undercover operatives only have 1 or 2 good gigs in them, before they have to move mainstream. Now, the sting operations can go out over and over, because it isn't crucial if they get made, they just move on to the next sting, and they have backup available at all times.

reply to post by getreadyalready

It's dangerous for them to be recognized even AFTER. That is my main point. You seem pretty focused on DURING.

Cops and their families get notified when someone they've put away gets out of jail just like victims do for good reason. And that's not even to say they can't be targeted by someone in the same organization or gang that's not in jail..

Hope that's clearer for both you and hill.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


It is no more dangerous then if the undercover
ran into the wrong criminal goon in person..

If the undercover did get arrested and it was on camera
and on youtube even if the criminals saw it they would
see the undercover getting arrested..... So what?

It is not like the undercover pulls out his hand cuffs
and badge when the deal goes down...

Thats the movies. They have guys in suv's and trucks all
come out and surround the car arresting all of them..

Anyone that sees the video will see the undercover as a criminal..

I think it is more like that correct getready?

If the undercover got arrested and it is on camera
he will look different when in uniform they have a disguise undercover

A good undercover would not be able to be outed in his regular issued police uniform on a beat.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


In most cases, their identity becomes known at trial. That whole "right to face your accuser" thing, and then the "discovery" aspect of a good defense, plus trial testimony is usually necessary.

I suppose there could be cases where an informant doesn't go to the trial, but all of their hardwork would be useless if they can't show up in court to testify.

Cops personal information is sealed, and they are exempt from most normal data checks, but even FBI agents can be found pretty easily if someone has time and money. My buddies in the FBI have regular facebook pages? I think they are insane, but their photos as well as their family photos are splashed all over the place. They don't think it is dangerous. I disagree.

Anyhow, the point is, I don't think the video would be at all important compared to the trial, affidavits, and testimony.

I'd like to see the actual law regarding the filming of on duty cops. As far as I can tell that isn't the case. Also the whole idea of using wiretapping laws never holds in court. Reason to that is that even though you need to have 2-consent it is not required when the filming is done in public where there is no expectation of privacy. Also filming undercover cops is perfectly ok and there is no law that somehow protects them from that.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I did not know the undercover had to show themself in court.
I believe If it did not go to trial and the criminal took a deal, maybe that would
keep the undercover from having to go in..

Well that makes

*it is dangerous for undercovers* point debunked...

The recording would not make a difference in that respect.

Also, I know that undercovers use civilian (NARCS) to do the deals
that keeps the undercover from having to do the deal directly..

He then could make the arrest on both guys but the criminal would not know
the one guy who is not a cop is the one who was helping the cops.

The undercover who was doing the case can show up in court and the real
person who was making the deal (a civilian narc) would be let out of jail.

Sometimes the undercovers don't even do the deals.

They just record them and run them...

This guys camera should not of been taken away.

What specific charge was the arrest based on? I haven't seen anything mentioned about that?

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

As for a group who has seemingly decided they need to cop watch and film anything and everything just in case?

Do you also think that cops shouldn't be using their dash-cams to film us doing anything and everything just in case?

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Wouldn't you just love it if someone followed you around filming you all day?

Isn't that exactly what they are doing with their dash-cams, street cams, building security cams, etc., etc.

reply to post by dainoyfb


Uh huh....to varying degrees, but not by a person tailing ya all day. And now that you bring it up, do you love it?

Originally posted by Klassified
Gee, what a surprise. NOT.

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. If we can be taped without our consent, so can they. Unfortunately, they will win out on this in the end. But it doesn't make it right. A case on this needs to go all the way to the scotus, although I'm not sure that one case would or could make the difference. But multiple cases might.

It depends on local/state laws, but they may be subject to question if they are too restrictive.

We just had an Indy-area cop caught by a fed-up driver as he sped through streets, ran stop signs, etc.:

A Greenwood police officer has been reprimanded over cell phone video that appeared to show him speeding and disregarding traffic signals.

Officer reprimanded over traffic violations on video

Of course, now he and his buddies will BOLO for the whistleblower.

jw

reply to post by dainoyfb


In answer to your first question, I believe I already answered that. (What I said was filming is going to happen...here's a possible way to deal with it...that part.)

And in answer to your second question, the same. (Again, they're a fact of life...that doesn't mean we now have to follow people around with cameras all day long, does it?)

reply to post by getreadyalready


Based on experience, my opinion is that yeah...I'd say they were insane. Nuff said.