By Carlos Miller
A U.S. Congressman has introduced a resolution that would protect citizens who videotape cops in public from getting arrested on state wiretapping charges.
Edolphus Towns, a Democrat from New York, introduced the resolution on Thursday, the same day USA Today wrote a scathing editorial denouncing these types of arrests.
These types of arrests have become an epidemic throughout the country as more people are carrying some type of video-recording device on them at all times.
But the case that has gained the most national attention has been the arrest of Anthony Graber, a National Guardsman who is facing 16 years in prison because he uploaded a video of a Maryland State Trooper pulling a gun on him during a traffic stop.
H. Con. Res 298 states the following:
Expressing the sense of Congress that the videotaping or photographing of police engaged in potentially abusive activity in a public place should not be prosecuted in State or Federal courts.
Whereas prosecutors in several States are applying State wiretapping laws in the prosecution of individuals for the videotaping of police engaged in potentially abusive activity;
Whereas State and Federal wiretapping laws were not intended to be used for such charges;
Whereas some police departments have been using national security as a justification for the harassment, charges, or an arrest of individuals, based solely on a citizen recording, with no additional factors considered;
Whereas a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2000 indicated that 22 percent of police officers claim their fellow officers sometimes, often, or always use excessive force; and
Whereas the privacy and safety rights of the police officers in the line of duty must be balanced carefully with the public’s right to transparency and accountability of public servants: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that–
(1) citizen recording fills in gaps in existing checks against law enforcement abuses, when balanced with the needs of law enforcement, police privacy, and citizen privacy;
(2) national security alone is insufficient justification for harassment, charges, or an arrest for otherwise innocent behavior, such as videotaping; and
(3) members of the public have a right to observe, and if they choose, to make video or sound recordings of the police during the discharge of their public duties, as long as they do not physically or otherwise interfere with the officers’ discharge of their duties, or violate any other State or Federal law, intended to protect the safety of police officers, in the process of the recording.
The Washington Post, NPR Talk of the Nation and Gizmodo also reported on these types of arrests in the weeks leading to the proposed resolution with the Washington Post taking a strong stance against these arrests in an editorial.
Today, the Cato Institute, one of the most influential think tanks in the world, also reported on the issue as well as the Tucson Citizen (where I got my start in newspapers back in the ’90s).
These arrests tend to take place in states that have two-party consent laws regarding the electronic recording of conversations. These illegal wiretapping laws were created to protect people from having their phone conversations recorded, which is normally a situation where one would have an expectation of privacy.
However, police have twisted the law in their favor to arrest people who are videotaping them in public – where nobody has an expectation of privacy.
- In South Florida, a mother who was arrested last year for videotaping police arresting her son filed a lawsuit against the Boynton Beach Police Department this month.
- In Oregon, a police chief vowed that these types of arrest would continue even after his city had to dish out a $19,000 settlement and the city attorney sent out a memo stating that these arrests were not legal.
- In Massachusetts, a pair of activists were arrested this month for openly videotaping cops in public, even after they had received permission from another law enforcement officer to videotape.
- In Maryland, where one prosecutor is threatening to send Graber, the motorcyclist, to prison for 16 years in prison, a prosecutor in another county has a completely different interpretation of the law and has refused to prosecute a citizen who arrested on these same charges after she videotaped cops in public.
And here are more wiretapping stories from PINAC.
- Police continue to use wiretapping laws to crack down on people recording them
- Police increasingly using false wiretapping charges to prevent public video recording
- If police have nothing to hide, then they shouldn’t mind being videotaped
Popularity: 19% [?]
52 responses so far ↓
1 ongtroi // Jul 16, 2010 at 5:35 PM
Where is Johnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnny? No more shield for shit cops!
2 Rob // Jul 16, 2010 at 5:49 PM
This is absolutely incredible! The plight of photographers has made it all the way to Congress? I honestly thought I would never see the day.
I’d like to recommend that it be called, “Carlos’s Bill.”
Seriously, I wonder where we would be without this website. The three or so years of cases compiled on this site alone could hold enough sway to get the bill passed. Happy Days!
Rob recently posted..La Mesa Police
3 Paul // Jul 16, 2010 at 6:01 PM
I just wanted to say: It’s about time.
4 Iroc // Jul 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM
I don’t care what they call it, to me it always will be Carlos’s Bill.
Who would have thought there were still functioning brain cells in Washington.
5 adjinx // Jul 16, 2010 at 6:19 PM
Great news. But now we need to contact our Representatives to urge them to support this measure (or thank them for signing on if they already have). Contact your Senators to urge introduction of a similar measure in the Senate.
6 Jake Stichler // Jul 16, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Unfortunately, this bill will NOT protect anybody. It’s a resolution expressing the sense of congress, and nothing more. It will, however, do well in court when defending oneself against erroneous wiretapping charges, and it will get to the ears of those who are wrongfully using these wiretapping laws to arrest law abiding citizens. It may even prompt some states to further define their wiretap laws to specifically allow the audio and video recording of police.
But it will NOT stop these arrests from continuing.
Jake Stichler recently posted..How to go Bankrupt – Anatomy of a Local Case
7 Michaelk42 // Jul 16, 2010 at 6:36 PM
I’m waiting for the police unions to whine profusely register their displeasure with this resolution.
Then I’ll have a good laugh.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment
8 Roger // Jul 16, 2010 at 6:53 PM
We shale see.
9 Scott Smith // Jul 16, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Fuck and Yeah! It’s about time. People shouldn’t have to fear arrest for policing the police. If they weren’t doing anything wrong, they wouldn’t need to be afraid of the cameras to begin with.
10 Michael Owen Sartin // Jul 16, 2010 at 7:41 PM
Ok, my last post “This is great!” was just me doing my happy dance. Now, the real work begins.
Step 1. Go to http://www.house.gov (you will need your zip code and the four-digit extension that can be found on the junk mail you throw out daily.) Send an email to your representative in support of House Concurrent Resolution 298. Use your own words, doing so makes Step 2 more fun.
Step 2. While you are on the House’s site, note the phone number and address of your local, friendly congressperson. Give them a call this week, restate your position from Step 1 and add give an example from your own experience where you have failed to photograph, or chose to photograph surreptitiously, or were otherwise precluded from photography, or photographed only after having given the act a second thought because of police intimidation.
Step 3. If your printer is working, if you still own a typewriter or, if you handwriting is still legible, purchase an envelop and a stamp. Use the arguments you developed in Step 1 and Step two, but offer to meet with congressional staff in the home district office to discuss the matter. Write, sign, seal and mail.
Step 4. If you have not received a response in 7 days, call back (Step 2, redux).
A concurrent resolution does not have the force of law, but it is a magnificent first pass.
11 Rance // Jul 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM
I’m amazed that a corrupt, thieving bastard like Ed Towns introduced this.
I would like to see what’s in the bill before I start doing backflips, as Towns is no stranger to burying evidence.
12 Rance // Jul 16, 2010 at 8:07 PM
Nevermind the last line of my above comment. If there is no more text to RES. 298, it looks like a good bill. I wonder if this will be a mandated resolution for all 50 States? I hope it passes.
13 Odin Zifer // Jul 16, 2010 at 8:21 PM
I don’t know if I like this or not.
I
14 Bentor Tazenda // Jul 16, 2010 at 8:27 PM
While a Resolution doesn’t have the standing or enforcement of a statute (actual law), or implementing regulation; it goes a long way to showing legislative intent.
Legislative intent is a useful lawful defense even where a statute is applied to prosecute someone. This is because while a statute at large may give the technicalities behind a law, the legislative intent gives the rational for the law and who it really was meant for.
I have used legislative intent in proceedings using the session laws, showing that the revised code (actual codified state statutes) weren’t intended to be applied as they were.
15 Odin Zifer // Jul 16, 2010 at 8:27 PM
(sorry for the double post)
I don’t know if I like this or not.
I see this as more law there is no kneed for and may even say to some that “it was ok but now its not”.
16 Kol. Klink // Jul 16, 2010 at 8:56 PM
I can barely wait to hear Johnny Bootlicker change his tune from…
“If you don’t like if we act like thugs, get the law changed!”
to…
“I’ve got my panties in big bunches over this proposed law change!”
17 Sydney Carton // Jul 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Jake is right. This is not a law, it’s just a resolution which is empty. They pass them all the time celebrating apple pie and motherhood.
What could be done is a law that says no federal money will be provided to any state which makes it illegal under state or local law for people to film cops. Furthermore, if any local or state authority tries to arrest or prosecute someone for filming cops, all federal funding automatically ceases to the entire state as a whole.
That’d really have an effect.
18 Cam // Jul 16, 2010 at 10:39 PM
Much as I might still think he’s a jackbooted thug, Johnny has always been pretty consistent that he doesn’t have a problem with cops being recorded.
19 Hazy // Jul 17, 2010 at 12:50 AM
It’s a good addition to something that should already be well understood within the confines of the 1st amendment.
20 Pinandpuller // Jul 17, 2010 at 1:23 AM
When a photographer is detained can we put out a “Carlos Alert”?
21 figMiNT // Jul 17, 2010 at 1:29 AM
I don’t know if I like (1)’s “when balance with the needs of law enforcement, police privacy, and citizen privacy;” part. But I definitely like (3).
Then I decided to research what a congressional resolution is and then was saddened to discover that all it is is this man’s expressed opinion(s) or criticism. This has no effect on the law. As far as I know. And if I’m not mistaken, laws are meant to prohibit so what’s wanted would be a revision of the current wiretapping law. But then again, I’ve just started researching legal matters.
But hey, one lawmaker agrees with you so far. That’s a positive thing!
Really though, do you think outright bashing of other commenters is really going to help viewers take you seriously? While you may say whatever you feel like, you may also practice restraint.
While I’m pro-law you betcha I’m going to consult with the ACLU in regards to the RCW.
figMiNT recently posted..Response cached until Sun 18 @ 6:43 GMT (Refreshes in 23.24 Hours)
22 Citizen Camera // Jul 17, 2010 at 6:21 AM
Thank you Congressman Towns !
It is about time someone starts to look out for the safety of the Citizens of our country ! Video taping in public should always be legal, for everyone’s safety !
Shame on those who want to deny our rights and freedoms !
23 Lou Dean // Jul 17, 2010 at 8:25 AM
Good, because we HAVE to be able to keep the overzealous cops in check!
Lou
http://www.real-anonymity.net.tc
24 Scott // Jul 17, 2010 at 9:46 AM
I agree with the general intent of this law. However, it has a serious problem. The problem is it does the opposite of what it claims due to subtle wording problems.
“members of the public have a right to observe, and if they choose, to make video or sound recordings of the police during the discharge of their public duties, as long as they do not physically or otherwise interfere with the officers’ discharge of their duties, or violate any other State or Federal law, intended to protect the safety of police officers, in the process of the recording.”
This should read “members of the public have a right to observe, and if they choose, to make video or sound recordings of the police during the discharge of their public duties” and stop at that point. It’s already illegal to physically or in some otherways interfere with police doing their business. This new law will prohibit the videotaping or observing of police if the police feel that doing so in ANY WAY “interferes” with them. And guess what. You video taping does interfere with them in some ways, such as if they are bothered by it. These ways are not currently criminalized, but this bill prohibits videotaping if police feel it interferes in ANY way, which was not previously a legal justification to prohibit videotaping.
25 Nikolai // Jul 17, 2010 at 10:29 AM
It’s unfortunate that police many times act in such a way that folks need to take video to protect themselves, but this is the digital age, everyone now has a phone that can at least take images if not video recordings, and so the cops will be FORCED to generally clean up their act, and that’s a good thing.
26 Roger // Jul 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM
It’s a start. but needs refinement to be clear that it is a right in all cases. Also needs clear and certain punishment for violations. Other wise it will be ignored.
27 A. Magnus // Jul 17, 2010 at 1:30 PM
The first amendment protects freedom of the press; no police officer has the legal authority to arrest someone who may be gathering information for a media outlet. These arrests will not stop if congress says so; it will only stop if the officers making the frivolous arrests are fired and their corrupted departments disbanded. I trust privately armed citizens more than I’ll ever trust a uniformed thug any day of the week.
28 Reductio AdAbsurdum // Jul 17, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Have any defense attorneys thought of using this idea in the opposite direction? In other words, disallowing police videos, especially dashboard camera videos of a crime as unlawful wiretapping. Cops need to have a warrant to be able to wiretap anything. If taking a picture of a cop is illegal wiretapping, a cop using a dashboard camera without judicial approval is also breaking the law.
29 Michael // Jul 17, 2010 at 2:32 PM
I got into an argument with a friend about this the other day. He said the actions of a few bad cops were tarring the reputations of the many good one. I maintained that there weren’t any good cops, because good ones would come down on their abusive colleagues, and there wouldn’t be any bad cops, if that were true. This thread demonstrates that idea well.
30 what's the difference // Jul 17, 2010 at 3:05 PM
Resolutions do not have legal effect. This is a resolution. Therefore, it don’t mean shit in real life.
This is just more talk and grandstanding designed to put a politician’s name and picture on your screen, and associate those things with happy thoughts. And it’s working based on the ignorance the majority of these posts display regarding how LAWS are passed in the federal legislature.
Read up on the federal legislative process before you get excited or if you’re having trouble sleeping. Either way this yak-yak is meaningless.
31 hp // Jul 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM
The way the crooked Congress operates in this nation of cheaters and the cheated, I’d expect the final “resolution” to actually reverse 180 degrees and not only continue to protect the crooked and criminal police but also add the Congress themselves to the list of those immune to video evidence of crimes committed. (and of course Jews will be immune, but you knew that)
32 j r // Jul 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM
Michael is right, there really aren’t any good cops. Cops are just thugs in uniforms. Any decent person who joins the police quickly leaves or becomes another thug. But most decent people would not want to be cops because who wants to be (rightfully) considered a scumbag by most people?
33 Johnny Law // Jul 17, 2010 at 4:42 PM
“Michael is right, there really aren’t any good cops. Cops are just thugs in uniforms.”
Where do you people come from?
34 Jeff // Jul 17, 2010 at 5:20 PM
ok i don’t understand why does there need to be a bill? does the first amendment not fall under this? amazing
35 Simon Jester // Jul 17, 2010 at 5:44 PM
Johnny, we’re your neighbors. We’re the ones you try an intimidate. We’re the ones you are too socially inept to get along with and feel that you must control.
36 what's the difference // Jul 17, 2010 at 6:20 PM
“Where do you people come from?”
Reality.
I used to buy into the good cop/few bad apples lie. But then I grew up after seeing a few things. Now I’ll burn in hell with my back broken before I help a cop. It’s just too dangerous to even get involved with them.
37 Rob // Jul 17, 2010 at 6:40 PM
It seems like the comment thread of this post has gotten a little off topic. It’s not about cops being inherently good with a little bit of bad or vice versa. It’s about a step in the right direction from the powers that be.
Whether we are talking about a resolution or a law is irrelevant. Laws don’t prevent anything, they just spell out what the consequence for you will be if you break one. There are laws that prohibit murder, rape, tax evasion, assault and jaywalking yet those things still happen everyday.
What is important here is that the FIRST step has been taken in order to CREATE a law that will meter out a consequence for a cop if he or she tries to charge a citizen with a crime for photographing them in public while they are doing their job. A law or resolution that says it’s OK to photograph cops in public may not stop a cop from hassling us, but it WILL give us (photographers) legal legs to stand on if it does indeed happen.
Right now, we don’t have that, and Anthony Graber is the poster child for that argument. If a cop arrests, hassles, detains or beats a citizen up for photography in a public space where there is no expectation of privacy, all we can do now is hope the incident gets reported on Carlos’s site and gathers steam for public support. This resolution will enable us to take on the cops AFTER THE FACT, without having to randomly look for support on the internet.
Rob recently posted..San Diego Trolley Guards Prohibit Photography
38 figMiNT // Jul 17, 2010 at 7:31 PM
I get the whole Freedom of the Press argument, but what about victims and suspects right to privacy? Did anyone get Oscar Grant’s permission to show his final moments on Youtube? I have watched on the news and on shows like COPS faces being blurred out to keep the identity of the person(s) involved private.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.
If I’m not mistaken–and if I am please add your sensible input–if you are in a conversation where “convey(ed) threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands” are present then you may record that conversation as a one-party consent.
Damn, the law can be quite complex. I read a book by a terribly poor author, “Out of the Ashes” and the main thing I liked about the new society after a fallout was that the law was able to fit on one wall and was written in plain english that even a five-year old could understand it. Okay, a little digressive there. Heh-heh. Digressive. I amuse myself.
An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation.
Is my interpretation that divulge would include publishing a video, say on a news program or a website like Youtube? If so, then so long as you are getting the expressed consent of the speakers (including victims, suspects, LEOs, etc.) or they are aware that you are recording them in subsection–or is it section–(4).
I know that in Seattle they currently have fifty officers testing a prototype mini camera so that all duties of the LEO are recorded.
Personally, I feel that LEOs should expect and support any recording whether it has sound and/or audio during a public discharge of his/her duties, so long as it’s in a lawful manner.
If I have to have a conversation with an officer, I am definitely going to be recording.
figMiNT recently posted..Response cached until Mon 19 @ 0:47 GMT (Refreshes in 23.28 Hours)
39 Larry // Jul 17, 2010 at 7:36 PM
This is just a “sense of Congress” resolution — it’s not ever going to be a law, even if it passes. Holding a Congressional resolution in your hand isn’t going to do a thing to protect you from abusive police.
40 Rusty Carr // Jul 17, 2010 at 11:35 PM
“Michael is right, there really aren’t any good cops. Cops are just thugs in uniforms.”
Where do these people come from? Most likely another galaxie.
41 Rusty Carr // Jul 18, 2010 at 12:03 AM
There are plenty of good cops out there but let’s face it, they are in a minority.
42 A. Magnus // Jul 18, 2010 at 11:24 AM
“Where do these people come from? Most likely another galaxie.”
Hey Rusty, these people come from the real world, where people understand that giving humans like cops power will invariably give them the opportunity and incentive to abuse it. They also come from a place where people can spell the word ‘galaxy.’
43 Doug // Jul 18, 2010 at 2:43 PM
The police have always been the enemies of humanity and always will. Police are just the enforcers for whoever happens to be in power. Look back at history and you’ll see examples everywhere:
In the Robin Hood tale, the Sheriff of Nottingham was serving as the enforcer for the illegitimate usurper to the throne. He had no real loyalty to the real king, just to whoever happened to currently hold the power.
During WWII, when the Nazis came through the Baltic States, who was it that rounded up undesirables and took them out to the woods to be shot? The local police, of course. They knew who everyone was and fingered the people the Nazis wanted to exterminate, then helped them round them up to do the killing. When the Soviets came back, who was it that served the new masters? The local police of course. They knew who had been collaborating (who was not also a member of the police) and rounded them up for their newest masters.
44 Spunky // Jul 18, 2010 at 4:25 PM
I am involved in a case where the cops are clearly corrupt. San Diego? Who would have thought (extreme sarcasm). I am trying to video them mistreating the public, and ranting on unproffessionally. But I have a tip that most of these cops keep evidence in their trunks in plastic bags, so they can plant it on some sucker. Like a pistol, after they shoot the unarmed citizen. Premeditated murder. But I can’t get a search warrent.
45 ClintJCL // Jul 18, 2010 at 4:40 PM
Oscar Grant is dead, he doesn’t have any rights.
ClintJCL recently posted..TECHNOLOGY- Real-Blogging for large- Micro-Blogging for small- but what about medium
46 figMiNT // Jul 18, 2010 at 11:37 PM
And Oscar Grant’s death is posted all over the internet. What about his right to privacy? Would you want your death on the news and internet for the whole world to see?
Officer Timothy Brenton is dead too. Officer Maylon Thompson. Deputy Sheriff John Bernard. Special Deputy Marshal Stanley W. Cooper.
http://www.odmp.org/year.php
These men and women gave their rights helping keep the peace.
figMiNT recently posted..If you register your site for free at
47 Michaelk42 // Jul 19, 2010 at 5:41 AM
“And Oscar Grant’s death is posted all over the internet. What about his right to privacy?”
Dead people have no right to privacy anymore.
“Would you want your death on the news and internet for the whole world to see? ”
If some idiot, with a badge or not, murders me? Hell Yes.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment
48 Jasonn // Jul 19, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Why do we need another freakin’ law on the books when laws already on the books preventing taping should just be invalidated under the Constitution? We already have too many laws on the books and just need to get back to basics.
49 John // Jul 19, 2010 at 4:09 PM
I came across this blog being a supporter of the local blue and I take photos of the local PD all the time and the information on your blog raises my awareness! THANK YOU!
I have since contacted my representatives urging them the support of this bill.
50 Michaelk42 // Jul 19, 2010 at 11:26 PM
Oh yeah, Figment, I forgot. Here’s your Thin Blue Whine.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment
51 Jay // Jul 21, 2010 at 2:09 PM
I think cops should be monitored all the time, of course privacy (for the cops themselves) is compromised by this method. Since they do already record videos from their cop cars, I don’t see why they shouldn’t record audio (the camera in the car sometimes has audio, but what about ON the cops themselves). Obviously the footage doesn’t need constant monitoring, but once a complaint is filed – give the time and check the audio from the cop’s mic! This way you have real evidence and can “police-the-police” consequently.
Obviously, recording video from the cop is a taking it a bit too far (in my opinion) but the audio is a good idea! As you can often tell physical abuse from audio (for example verbal intimidation from a cop or complaints from the citizen). Obviously this works both ways as well, it can protect cops in certain cases!
This may seem a bit “alien” to you, but (although unrelated) it has been trialled and introduced into the service garages of Audi UK dealerships (a car manufacturer, if you haven’t heard of them). Where the the customer can wait in the waiting room and SEE and HEAR and interact with the mechanic. Sure people may consider this spying but thing about it, in this case: the mechanics won’t have a chance of wasting time during work hours; thereby getting the job done quicker! (If not done so already.)
But then there’s the problem of cops feeling awkward since they spend a lot of time in the car conversing with each other…
52 ralph // Jul 22, 2010 at 4:30 AM
Waiting for the day when we all have private total recall. Audio/Video recorded 24/7. It will start with the military, then police, finally the citizens. Orwell’s 1984 is around the corner. And I can’t wait.
I’ll be the first to join the thought police force.
Leave a Comment