Battle Heats Up Between Police Officers And Civilians Who Record Them

Should ordinary people be arrested for filming on-duty police abusing their power? If a string of recent cases is any indication, judicial systems throughout the country think so.

LA Weekly reported Thursday on the troubling case of Jeremy Marks, a teenager who's been in jail since May for using his cell phone camera to videotape an L.A. Unified School District officer slamming a student into the window of a school bus. His working-class parents can't afford to pay the $155,000 bail to bring their son home for Christmas, so Marks may be forced to plead guilty to "attempted lynching" in order to reduce his sentence from seven years to 32 months.

Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, who recently lost a hotly-contested race for California Attorney General, continues to pursue charges against Marks, despite taped evidence that he stayed largely on the sidelines of the skirmish, quietly capturing the ordeal on video.

Meanwhile, Reason.com published a story this week detailing a similar account in Illinois. After what he describes as repeated harassment by local police claiming he violated the town's "eyesore law" by working on used cars in his own yard, backyard mechanic Michael Allison began tape-recording such encounters. When he finally received a formal citation, the judge denied his request for a reporter during his hearing, prompting him to bring his own tape recorder to court.

The judge then charged him with five counts of violating Illinois' wiretapping law by recording his previous interactions without the officers' consent. He faces up to 75 years in prison.

This past summer, Gizmodo ran a piece discussing laws on the books in at least three states that are being newly-interpreted to prevent civilians from recording the actions of on-duty officers in response to a flurry of viral videos capturing police abuse. The problem is, most of the charges have developed around wiretapping statutes written long before technological innovations like smartphones and social networks emerged, facilitating a heightened level of transparency.

In fact, many lawyers have deemed it "absurd" or "utter nonsense" to use antiquated wiretapping laws to bring charges against bystanders who record cops in action. And First Amendment enthusiasts are fighting back -- Carlos Miller's Photography Is Not A Crime tracks these types of cases on a daily basis.

But that doesn't stop the cases of regular folks punished for trying to expose corruption from popping up all over the country. Look no further than Marks, Allison and Mississippi motorcyclist Adam Mueller, who filmed an officer during a simple traffic stop and has since endured more than a year and a half of unresolved court proceedings.

Comments

[Monique In LA]

04:34 PM on 12/28/2010

Something amazing happened in this case. Just before Christmas a software engineer who works for Google gave the family of Jeremy Marks enough money so that they could bail him out of prison. Jeremy got to spend Christmas with his family! Also, the news of the outrageous way the District Attorney has handled this case has gone viral in Los Angeles, and even the City Attorney (Carmen Trutanich) has said that the DA "over charged" the case, and it should be a misdemeanor, a minor crime. I don't think it should be a crime at all, but at least one prominent person has spoken out for Jeremy.

[Jacob Kloutier]

05:28 PM on 12/18/2010

So I ask you now, Where do we as people get to fight back? The system is built to make the average citizen feel helpless, and like there is nothing that they can do. What is it that we can do? Where do we go? If you hire gun men to protect your sheep, who protects you from them if they decide they want the sheep? Or as more popularly said, "Who polices the policemen?"

Think about it, think hard,
- Professor

[Jacob Kloutier]

05:28 PM on 12/18/2010

Don't think this won't affect us either, these laws have already been passed and average citizens are going to jail for it. What has to happen before we realize we are in the fast lane to a prison state and we have no more freedom?

Here is another example of government officials, people we place in power who we trust to do the right thing and protect us, trying to get into the legal position of not being held responsible for any of their their current and future actions. J. Edger Hoover of the FBI wanted to put the Constitution and Bill of Rights in a safe and make it illegal for anyone to see it or copies of it, making it impossible to confirm the newly made laws against it

If more of these kind of laws get passed we will have to decide on if we want to be beaten savagely by a cop that will deny doing it, or catch them on tape and get prosecuted for illegal recording, which is a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison. Remember, if we try to protect ourselves from a beating it is resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, and impeding an investigation, and YES officers have been caught using that before.

[Jacob Kloutier]

05:27 PM on 12/18/2010

With much power comes much responsibility, and therefore those in power need to be held responsible for ALL of their actions, both good and bad. At the same time leniency should be given for minor infractions of the officers as the real world is never going to be as simple as the rule books. Putting a knee in an arrested persons back is not considered police brutality if the person has given reason to the officer that he is a risk of physically harming the officer or himself. After all being in law enforcement is dangerous and very difficult, who wants more grief of someone calling foul at every movement. That is where a jury and a court of law can make that decision.

[Jacob Kloutier]

05:27 PM on 12/18/2010

I don't think Police have the right to say they don't want to be filmed if they are on duty, as they are Government Public Identities just like politicians. I am not sure if Police fall into this category but because Politicians fall into the "public domain" the use of their picture can be used on a t-shirt or any other item, including video tape as long as there is not an infringement of copyright issues regarding the person that took a particular photo or video.

Video capture is a passive from of observation, in which nobody gets physically hurt or detained so why is the video capture a problem? The police choose this venue for that exact reason, and use it in court as evedence. And excuse me but if they are on duty they have the right to video tape you, but you can't tape them? In court an officers word has more weight then an average citizens, so why not have the ability to have proof to what the citizen is saying. Video is a perfect witness, It won't lie, it is 100% impartial, and it can perfectly recall 100% of what it saw. If the officer is lying the video will confirm it, if the accused is lying the video will confirm it. I mean "Those that have eyes let them see, those that have ears let them hear!"

[AndyWright68]

02:06 PM on 12/16/2010

The cops don't want you recording their crimes.

[stevebeast]

11:35 AM on 12/15/2010

http://barrycam.com/

[superchitownguy]

07:36 PM on 12/13/2010

There is truely no law in America,anymore,only selective prosecution. The super wealthy and powerful have their own laws and separate Government, like the CFR. Americans have rules written by their rulers.

[AndyWright68]

02:07 PM on 12/16/2010

When you have hundreds of thousands of laws then there are no laws.

[Sugarmaker]

02:47 PM on 12/13/2010

There should be no expectation of privacy when actions are performed in areas accessible to the general public. The fact that some LE agencies don't like the fact that officers can be recorded at any time is something they will need to adjust to. Actions which agencies wish the general public not see should either not be performed or, to protect identities, presumption of innocence, etc. should be saved for a less public venue.

[Barbara Rae]

02:39 PM on 12/13/2010

Of course you all have already hit on this but It bares saying again. With cameras mounted inside police cars to see what happens both in and out of the vehicle, there is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY when an officer steps out in uniform. I mean, we can't even go to the grocery store or the bank, or a PTA meeting without being filmed a half dozen times. Traffic cameras, ATM cameras etc. are always there watching us. If this is illegal then the state needs to do 75 years in prison to make it up to me.

[Alex Moschopoulos]

12:09 PM on 12/13/2010

The cops need to be careful. The legislation can ban people from filming the police doing their jobs and/or abusing their power, but if you push the people enough, they'll bite back.

We have the handgun ban overturned, and thus I wouldn't be surprised if those in the bad areas are simply going to take it further and start killing police officers?

Frankly, if they have nothing to hide then they shouldn't try to stop the filmers. Better a youtube video than others deciding to simply wage war on the CPD.

[dbrett480]

12:37 PM on 12/13/2010

"We have the handgun ban overturned , and thus I wouldn't be surprised if those in the bad areas are simply going to take it further and start killing police officers?"

"They" already have and a handgun ban (or any ban) isn't going to stop them. Criminals don't consider whether something is illegal or not before they do it. If they did they probably wouldn't be criminals.

[Alex Moschopoulos]

01:48 PM on 12/13/2010

I know this...but now the average Joe can also pack more heat easily.

I just think that if the CPD gets more "gestapo" that we'll see a backlash of violence.

[Douglas Ward]

11:17 AM on 12/13/2010

I left hell to get well.
If it ever starts in my country I'll die in a hail of lead.........but not alone !

[fishnetdiver]

03:41 AM on 12/13/2010

We've got a local man who is sitting in county right now for 'obstructing governmental operations' because after he had answered the officer's, excuse me, 'DEPUTIE'S' questions (this makes sense when you watch the video) he refused to answer any others or allow the deputy to check his house without a warrant, as is his right.
This was all caught on video and has led to an internal investigation of the department.
it's a fine example of an officer letting the power of his badge go to his head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEpp31DmB8

[moutonnoir]

03:22 AM on 12/13/2010

Huffington post.. Why do you censor us this way? these 'community moderators' need to be stopped.

[dbrett480]

12:39 PM on 12/13/2010

I couldn't agree with you more. They want to turn Hpost into a forum where only like-minded viewpoints are heard.

[dbrett480]

02:11 AM on 12/13/2010

Fascinating how Hpost publishes any article that is remotely anti-law enforcement but not when an officer is killed in the line of duty or is honored.

[TakeSake]

08:36 AM on 12/13/2010

You are conflating two different subjects.

[anesthesia84]

10:03 AM on 12/13/2010

Law enforcement are employees paid for by our taxes. They are our employees. They don't do what they do for free. They get better benefits and job security than anyone in private industry. Furthermore, they signed up for a job that is inherently dangerous. No one asked them to. So when they get killed, that comes with the territory and that's nothing outside the realm of possibility for their job. And let's be clear, when I save a patient whose heart stopped beating in the operating room or respond to a code on the floor and resuscitate a patient, no one honors me. I get paid to do that and that's my honor. So enough with the nonsense about how we should honor cops or give the special deference because of how dangerous their job is.