Prosecutors And Head Of FOP Defend Arrests Of People Filming Cops

[lashicoN]

My uncle in Kokomo saw police arresting one of his neighbors. My uncle was standing on his front porch, just looking. He never said a word, didn't have a camera. The officers told him to go inside his house or they were going to arrest him. If they are "to protect and serve" comments like that would never happen. It does seem rather tyrannous.

He should have went out and stood on his front porch with a bottle of Vodka and and AK slung over his shoulder and just kept watching, or better yet, get the camera at that point (in addition to the Vodka and AK). Moron cops should be provoked into doing something moronic so that we can get these idiots off the payroll and into the prisons.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

C'mon Kirk, I think we both agree there is a difference between banning recording and requiring recording.

The common foundation is to increase transparency, or rather the relunctance to be transparent. Banning recording and not requiring recording of confessions/interviews/field sobriety tests is an attempt to hide in the darkness that government craves.

Banning recording=not supporting required recording. They are two sides of the same coin.

One makes citizens into criminals,

Both do. Not recording was making citizens into criminals. That is why the Supreme Court is requiring it over the objections of law enforcement.

 

[Eddie]

The common foundation is to increase transparency, or rather the relunctance to be transparent. Banning recording and not requiring recording of confessions/interviews/field sobriety tests is an attempt to hide in the darkness that government craves.

Banning recording=not supporting required recording. They are two sides of the same coin.



Both do. Not recording was making citizens into criminals. That is why the Supreme Court is requiring it over the objections of law enforcement.

Recording lets the listener/watcher judge for themself what was said. Not recording puts the citizen in a hole because the trier of fact then has to decide between the credibility of the accused vs. that of the accuser. Recording a confession still doesn't fill in all the gaps by a long shot but it helps.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I think it all boils down to the simplest, if not the most naive of reasoning. Why should WE be penalized for filming a cop, when WE pay that cops salary? I know it sounds stupid, but what is the problem these people have with keeping them in check? I think we all know the answer to that question. It's coming to a head, a very nasty head. It really wouldn't bother me to have a camera on myself all day at my job, then again, I'm not gonna be violating anybodies rights during a typical day at work.

the ones who have nothing to hide are the ones who dont mind being filmed. the cops and politicians who are dirty and have everything to hide will never wanna be filmed.

 

[jsgolfman]

Lots of rep to go around in this thread.
+1 for freedom

 

[downzero]

I hope everyone checks out Cop Block|"Something must be done about vengeance, a badge, and a gun" and supports my friend, Pete Eyre, in defending against his felony charge in Mass.

 

[level.eleven]

I hope everyone checks out Cop Block|"Something must be done about vengeance, a badge, and a gun" and supports my friend, Pete Eyre, in defending against his felony charge in Mass.

I hear these guys on some radio shows from time to time. Have you ever been for a ride in MARV?

 

[Fargo]

The common foundation is to increase transparency, or rather the relunctance to be transparent. Banning recording and not requiring recording of confessions/interviews/field sobriety tests is an attempt to hide in the darkness that government craves.

They both involve recording. However, supporting banning recording and not supporting mandatory recording under certain circumstances simply are NOT the same thing.

As I said, if you support banning recording, I don't believe you have much interest in the truth/justice/your oath.

If you don't support mandatory recording, I disagree with you. However, it does not necesarily mean that you have abandoned truth/justice/your oath.

Banning recording=not supporting required recording. They are two sides of the same coin.

What the HE-hockeysticksx2 does "not supporting required recording" mean? Maybe you meant "not supporting requiring recording"?

I support requiring recording per the rules of evidence. I am a huge fan of dashcams, and button cams and recording of every interview. However, I don't automatically impute nefarious/evil/lazy motives toward those that disagree.

I do impute those motives to those that would criminalize recording.

Both do. Not recording was making citizens into criminals. That is why the Supreme Court is requiring it over the objections of law enforcement.

WRONG! It was not making them criminals, it was allowing certain evidence to be introduced. That is a far cry from making the actual behavior of taping an officer a crime.

One has to do with the ability to prove some independant criminal behavior. The other makes a facially neutral or good behavior malum prohibitum.

Best,


Joe

 

[Kirk Freeman]

WRONG! It was not making them criminals, it was allowing certain evidence to be introduced.

Yes, it was making them criminals by allowing the police to say what the defendant said without showing the jury what was really said thus making the innocent criminal.

For example, I've used the example of foreign languages or say Purdue students whose native tongue is not English and have a less than masterful command of English. As well, we've also had deaf individuals who were interviewed by officers not fluent in American Sign Language. The Supreme Court's issuance of 617 manifests that they do in fact know what is going on at the trial court level.

If there wasn't a problem, 617 would not exist.

I support requiring recording per the rules of evidence. I am a huge fan of dashcams, and button cams and recording of every interview. However, I don't automatically impute nefarious/evil/lazy motives toward those that disagree.

In an age when 12 year girls at the mall have cell phones with camera and video capacity, video security in far flung courthouses and video cameras come in cereal boxes, the only real not to support recording is that the government has something to hide.

 

[Fargo]

Yes, it was making them criminals by allowing the police to say what the defendant said without showing the jury what was really said thus making the innocent criminal.

The Corpus Delecti rule exists precisely so that what you allege cannot happen. You know full well a confession standing alone is never enough.

For example, I've used the example of foreign languages or say Purdue students whose native tongue is not English and have a less than masterful command of English. As well, we've also had deaf individuals who were interviewed by officers not fluent in American Sign Language. The Supreme Court's issuance of 617 manifests that they do in fact know what is going on at the trial court level.

If there wasn't a problem, 617 would not exist.

I never said there was not a problem, I just don't go so far as to demonize anyone who disagrees with me on the prudence of 617. You, on the other hand, seem to really want to impute both perversion of justice and bad faith with a very wide brush. I find that kind of interesting considering that it appears that the bulk of your practice is criminal defense and I am quite certain you would never want to diminish the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

In an age when 12 year girls at the mall have cell phones with camera and video capacity, video security in far flung courthouses and video cameras come in cereal boxes, the only real not to support recording is that the government has something to hide.

See bolded portion above. Don't be too quick to ascribe to malice that which is easily explained by other motives such as laziness.

BTW, how can you support 617 when it still allows the supposed horror of a untaped interview in misdemeanor cases?

Best,


Joe

 

[downzero]

I hear these guys on some radio shows from time to time. Have you ever been for a ride in MARV?

Nope, I've actually never been in MARV. I have only seen Pete a few times in the last three years. I missed hanging out with him in Chicago a couple times, and once in Philly when I was there. I did see him in May in Chicago though (met at a bar for a beer).

 

[CarmelHP]

These are interpretations and applications of the law that I'd like to see fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. Totally indefensible, idiotic, patently unconstitutional abuses of power by the police. Any prosecutor should be ashamed to bring these charges. Disgusting.

 

[Eddie]

The Corpus Delecti rule exists precisely so that what you allege cannot happen. You know full well a confession standing alone is never enough.


I never said there was not a problem, I just don't go so far as to demonize anyone who disagrees with me on the prudence of 617. You, on the other hand, seem to really want to impute both perversion of justice and bad faith with a very wide brush. I find that kind of interesting considering that it appears that the bulk of your practice is criminal defense and I am quite certain you would never want to diminish the principle of innocent until proven guilty.



See bolded portion above. Don't be too quick to ascribe to malice that which is easily explained by other motives such as laziness.

BTW, how can you support 617 when it still allows the supposed horror of a untaped interview in misdemeanor cases?

Best,


Joe

To me the difference is the level of control that the LEO has over the suspect when 617 comes into play. It is for custodial interrogation in a place of detention, not a street corner interview. They have the person at the police station, they aren't allowed to leave and now there isn't some citizen with a video camera filming the encounter. 617 just serves to level the playing field and make an accuate record of what the defendant really says when they "confess".

 

[Indy317]

As long as you don't get in the way or jeopardize the situation in any way, shape or form, what are the pro's for banning the filming of police officers?

Maybe your privacy, or the privacy of your friends and family. Here is a situation where the issue of filming cops has side effects that go beyond the recording of the officers. A man had a heart attack. He is unresponsive and cops and/or medics are doing CPR on the person. In these situations, you get tons of civilian rubber necks, wanting to catch the action. Is it OK to film the person who is hurt, detained by cops, whatever, in these situations? If you go with the "public realm" argument, I should be allowed to video tape a female with exposed breasts who is receiving CPR. The incident is happening in the public, so it should be viewed as no different than filming the cops.

Are there any situations, in public areas, where video taping shouldn't be allowed? Should civilians be treated different than cops? What if they are in a state of nudity due to whatever (ie: Drunk, having CPR performed on them, etc.)? Where do we draw the line, if we even draw a line? Is it wrong to female an unconscious female who has her shirt removed due to medical reasons if the cops aren't there, but if cops are there trying to help, then it should be OK to film, because well, we have cops present?

In the case I know of, it was an older male who was passed out and getting CPR preformed on him. An officer that was there said he was telling the voyeurs to keep moving. Deciding to play devil's advocate, I told the group we were talking with that I wouldn't order anyone away. Someone, maybe even me, threw out the topic: "What if someone decided to whip out a camera or phone and start filming or taking photos?" Comments were from allow the filming to continue to telling the person to stop to one person saying such an action would really tick them off and they could see some folks grabbing the phone and breaking it. Where do you folks stand? Would it make a difference if the man's wife was present? Should it make a difference if it was a female with exposed breasts, or a male or female exposed from the waist down?

Fact is, cops are humans. You point a camera at any random person, cop or not, and you will always get various reactions. Some good, some bad, some funny, and some a combination of all three. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule in these sort of cases.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You know full well a confession standing alone is never enough.

Never said it was. I am saying that what the police were testifying as to what did not happen.

The existence of 617 demonstrates that the Supreme Court believes this unsettling fact to be true.

I find that kind of interesting considering that it appears that the bulk of your practice is criminal defense and I am quite certain you would never want to diminish the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

This is because my clients deserve this presumption and my government deserves no such presumption.

BTW, how can you support 617 when it still allows the supposed horror of a untaped interview in misdemeanor cases?

I can support what I can get and the admission on 617 is a major victory. However, yes, I would like to see 617 expanded to photo line up identifications and the monkey shine that happens on those, field sobriety tests, chemical tests, misdemeanor interviews and the expansion beyond the place of detention.

It will take time but we shall overcome!

 

[Indy317]

You, on the other hand, seem to really want to impute both perversion of justice and bad faith with a very wide brush. I find that kind of interesting considering that it appears that the bulk of your practice is criminal defense and I am quite certain you would never want to diminish the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I somewhat see where Kirk is coming from. If the wrong person is convicted, they lose freedom, and everything that comes with it. If the person is found not guilty, or the prosecutor drops the charges, the person is still out thousands in legal defense funds and may have no way to recoup their loss. On rare circumstances, where there is proof one or more agents of the state actually lied, or omitted certain evidence, does the accused stand some sort of chance of being righted.

It won't be long before all cops have small clip on cameras that will be required to be turned on at the start of shift, and turned off at the end of shift.

 

[Coach]

My uncle in Kokomo saw police arresting one of his neighbors. My uncle was standing on his front porch, just looking. He never said a word, didn't have a camera. The officers told him to go inside his house or they were going to arrest him. If they are "to protect and serve" comments like that would never happen. It does seem rather tyrannous.

This threat should have been met with a two word reply.

 

[dross]

Maybe your privacy, or the privacy of your friends and family. Here is a situation where the issue of filming cops has side effects that go beyond the recording of the officers. A man had a heart attack. He is unresponsive and cops and/or medics are doing CPR on the person. In these situations, you get tons of civilian rubber necks, wanting to catch the action. Is it OK to film the person who is hurt, detained by cops, whatever, in these situations? If you go with the "public realm" argument, I should be allowed to video tape a female with exposed breasts who is receiving CPR. The incident is happening in the public, so it should be viewed as no different than filming the cops.

Are there any situations, in public areas, where video taping shouldn't be allowed? Should civilians be treated different than cops? What if they are in a state of nudity due to whatever (ie: Drunk, having CPR performed on them, etc.)? Where do we draw the line, if we even draw a line? Is it wrong to female an unconscious female who has her shirt removed due to medical reasons if the cops aren't there, but if cops are there trying to help, then it should be OK to film, because well, we have cops present?

In the case I know of, it was an older male who was passed out and getting CPR preformed on him. An officer that was there said he was telling the voyeurs to keep moving. Deciding to play devil's advocate, I told the group we were talking with that I wouldn't order anyone away. Someone, maybe even me, threw out the topic: "What if someone decided to whip out a camera or phone and start filming or taking photos?" Comments were from allow the filming to continue to telling the person to stop to one person saying such an action would really tick them off and they could see some folks grabbing the phone and breaking it. Where do you folks stand? Would it make a difference if the man's wife was present? Should it make a difference if it was a female with exposed breasts, or a male or female exposed from the waist down?

Fact is, cops are humans. You point a camera at any random person, cop or not, and you will always get various reactions. Some good, some bad, some funny, and some a combination of all three. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule in these sort of cases.

Anything a news camera is free to film, a citizen should be free to film.

 

[Indy317]

I can support what I can get and the admission on 617 is a major victory. However, yes, I would like to see 617 expanded to ... field sobriety tests, chemical tests, misdemeanor interviews and the expansion beyond the place of detention.

It will take time but we shall overcome!

We may overcome, but a part of me wonders if you will be out of business, at least as a criminal defense attorney. It seems there are a lot of lazy cops, and requiring video and audio tapping, especially with SFST, I wonder if we won't see a lot more "public intoxication" arrests instead of full blown DWI arrests? Worse yet, just a 'screw it' type attitude come into play with officers using terms and body language to get suspects to not want to talk, thus killing any possible chance of an arrest and criminals charges.

 

[mrjarrell]

I can support what I can get and the admission on 617 is a major victory. However, yes, I would like to see 617 expanded to photo line up identifications and the monkey shine that happens on those, field sobriety tests, chemical tests, misdemeanor interviews and the expansion beyond the place of detention.

I want to see the highly unreliable chemical tests they use in the field go away. They're based on outdated technology and have a seriously high false positive rate. The test was developed in the '30's and is not just antiquated, it's unreliable and has resulted in the false imprisonment of hundreds (if not thousands) of people.
Drug field tests are unreliable, says report