Man records police arresting his friend; gets arrested himself

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/10...arrest-friend/

Quote:

---

The settlement comes almost two years after Beaverton police arrested Hao Xeng Vang, who used his cell phone to capture the arrest of one of his friends at the Valley Lanes Bowling Center in Beaverton.


Vang made no attempt to hide his recording and even narrated what he was capturing, said his attorney, Kevin Lucey.


"He kept on saying, 'Don't worry. I've got it on tape,'" Lucey said.
After about 10 minutes, Officer Jason Buelt seized Vang's phone and arrested him. The city returned the phone in October, but the recording was deleted. Lucey said officials made copies.

---

We all know of the sometimes explosive results of police actions being recorded and made public. Everything from the Kent State University riots in 1970 (where police massacred protesting students) to the Rodney King beating have altered public perceptions of law enforcement and in many cases forced changes in the laws.

How do you feel about this? Do police officers have an expectation of privacy when performing their work (and receiving a salary from taxpayer money)? Do the people they interact with? Would this have been different if it had not been the guy's friend with a cellphone but a news crew with a camera?

I believe that filming an arrest, or any police action for that matter, is first of all pointless, and second of all, shouldn't be allowed, unless permitted by the officers on scene.

In town, a local blogger was out around town on one of the bar nights. A man was being arrested. The police were using force. Said blogger begins filming as soon as force comes into play. Stops filming when it stops. Puts it on his blog, accusing the police of being violent thugs. Force was justified, in this circumstance, because the individual being arrested was taking swings at the cops.

Now, it may just be me, but wouldn't it be easier for everyone if things like these were made more avoidable?

Like Demonhero said, I think they should only be filmed if they give their consent and/or violence breaks out and the video evidence would be important. As for their privacy, they're only doing their job. In my opinion, most of us wouldn't like to be filmed while we're working so I'm sure police officers are no different. If it had been a news camera I doubt there would have been any controversy.

On a lighter note..........Garda Siochana FTW!
http://www.icpsa.ie/thumbnail.php?fi...article_medium
http://info-wars.org/wp-content/uplo...+Garda_car.jpg

Change is good. Change is neccessary.

A world where anyone can film an arrest and have it uploaded on YouTube in minutes for all the world to see didn't exist not so long ago. That applies not only to police work by the way, but all circumstances whereas the state will act against individuals.

I understand very well the debate on what this does to privacy. That's a very important consideration. But, speaking in broad terms, I believe this change is an advance for humankind. And a setback for all repressive regimes the world over.

I am convinced the actions of such regimes, still numerous and still very much alive in our world, when broadcast and perhaps even cataloged for the "edification" of populations the world over will eventually force a change for the better in those unfortunate societies. Nor will repression of such practices will last, as the capacity to record and store video documents become easier, it seems with each passing year.

Alright. I'll be the old man in the rocking cair, smoking his pipe on the porch again... :)


I've seen the world change in that direction since I happened to be born on this planet in the sixties. Back then, it was still relatively easy to hide in your little corner of the world and be a despot. I have seen this insulation of populations gradually diminish since, with all the concomitant consequences. And I don't fear this. Not at all.

I firmly believe the closer we get to each other as populations, the more we will realize how much we have in common. I do not see the consequence of this as a forcing towards homogeneity, but rather a rejoycing and perhaps even a celebration of diversity within our common human family. :)



I've been painting in broad stokes here, I know. And perhaps derailled this thread towards a direction not intended. I apologize. To be sure, the larger the lens, the less obvious the faults and the fuzzier the details. A bad habit of mine, I know. :) :) :)

Wildor, I find it interesting that nobody seems to think that the rights of the accused might be safeguarded by the recording of public arrests.

There is a reason police have to record (usually by video) interrogations these days. Far too many "interrogations" involved beatings and intimidation to force confessions. I've seen a few arrests where the suspect "accidentally fell down a flight of stairs" while being walked from the curb to the police car. I'm personally of the opinion that people who are functioning on behalf of the taxpayers, while receiving a salary from the taxpayers, using tools paid for by the taxpayers, and supposedly in the interests of justice should have no fear of oversight. If they want to avoid people using selective clips that take things out of context, why not film it themselves?

Well FB, when it comes to filming their own actions, I know for certain that some municipal and state authorities have cameras equipped into all of their cruisers in the US, so some of what they do IS filmed. But when it comes to cruisers without those cameras, can the officers possibly be expected to set up a tripod so the arrest can be recorded (if alone), or have an officer stand idly and film the events? It doesn't seem all that effective.

I think the presumption of innocence means that the person being arrested has a right to privacy. Even those police TV shows blur the faces of criminals that don't sign consent forms to be shown. The cops do not have a right to privacy, since they are a public defense force. They have video cameras in their own cruisers, after all.

The police should allow the video, unless the perpetrator they are arresting says "get that camera off me" or makes it clear in some way that they don't want to be filmed(like putting their jacket over their head). Only then do police have a right to put their hand over the lens.

Either way, the police do not have the right to arrest someone for taking the video. They do have the right to arrest the videographer if he/she does something illegal to get the video(like trespassing on private property).

Maybe the police could be allowed to detain the videographer off to the side, out of view of the arrest. But, if this is allowed, then they let the person free after the arrested individual is secured into the cruiser. They definitely could not take the videographer to the station and process an arrest, if there was no illegal act done. Allowing this detention, or not, would be something for the courts to decide.


In short, I don't think the police have a right to expect privacy from video while doing their job. But, the perpetrators probably do have a right to privacy.

In the UK, if an arrest is taking place in public, then public and film cameras have the right to film.

I'm not sure about the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrotherhoodUK

In the UK, if an arrest is taking place in public, then public and film cameras have the right to film.

I'm not sure about the US.

---

This is the same in Canada, but video can look worse than the situation for all parties involved. I watched a couple of police officers watch a couple dumpster dive in the salvation army bin. They made a judgment call and walked on. I was pretty ticked but then I took a look around me and figured out the situation. I saw they were using cell phones and weren't in need, the police officers didn't because they had just come on the scene. About a half an hour before that across the street there was a stabbing and they had police dogs and everything (my neighbourhood isn't the greatest lol). They realized they had more important people to catch, but had I taken a video of it, I could have made them look negligent.

it should definately be allowed as to ensure that police do not abuse their power. There are even cases where people were arrested for videotaping police breaking the law.

Who will guard the guards?

I think that filming a public arrest is perfectly within a citizens rights.

Police officers are not the people we see on TV or in the movies who are unrealistically moral or evil incarnate. They are real people in a position of power.

Many humans in this position will abuse that power, and I am not just refering to police officers.

Holding them accountable is not a bad thing, and even the thought that some one maybe filming with their cell phone will keep the officers in check.

Our society as a whole needs to evolve with the changing times. The written word has long been our main form of communication but in an increasingly digital era, streaming video is almost par for the course.

The safeguards culturally and legally imposed need to keep up with these changes.


For example:

If Roger Ebert sees the new Twilight and says "That movie was really far from good"

Then when it comes out on blueray/dvd, the producers quote him on the cover as say "That movie was really good". Ebert would have legal recourse to one have his quote removed and possibly some kind of civil damages.

To parallel Demon Heroes example.

I video tape a man approaching cops and speaking with them, then the man attacks the cops, followed by the cops arresting him forcfully.

Then I edit it down to man approaches cops, cops arrest him forcfully and blast it all over the internet.

What will my liability be. Will it help the man in a suit against the police? Will it help the man in his criminal case?

These are unanswered questions at this point in the US, and they need to be answer because technology is not slowing down and waiting for us.

As far as I'm concerned, the police have no on duty privacy rights. As long as they are acting in the interest of the people, they should be liable for all actions. As long as the video isn't edited to change the situation into a favorable one for their point, I see no reason to not allow it.

As for the people they interact with, if they are being accused of a crime, I don't believe that they deserve privacy. They've done something to warrant the authorities involvement, and since they're acting in the public's interest, I believe the public should be able to know. For people who are innocent bystanders, they should have the option of not consenting to being video taped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoxyBunny

I'm personally of the opinion that people who are functioning on behalf of the taxpayers, while receiving a salary from the taxpayers, using tools paid for by the taxpayers, and supposedly in the interests of justice should have no fear of oversight. If they want to avoid people using selective clips that take things out of context, why not film it themselves?

---

I totally agree with this. I think the cameras should be rolling at all times. In my taxpayer-paid job, a person could record a random section of class on a cell phone and it could make me look hilarious, or smart, or lazy, or stupid, or grouchy - whatever aspect they wanted to capture. That would create a inaccurate overall impression of my job performance (for good or bad) because the sample of time observed is so small.

Public sector workers need the protection that video oversight would provide. Aside from anything else, viewing video footage of oneself at work leads to great self-reflections and subsequent improvements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webby189

To parallel Demon Heroes example.

I video tape a man approaching cops and speaking with them, then the man attacks the cops, followed by the cops arresting him forcfully.

Then I edit it down to man approaches cops, cops arrest him forcfully and blast it all over the internet.

What will my liability be. Will it help the man in a suit against the police? Will it help the man in his criminal case?

These are unanswered questions at this point in the US, and they need to be answer because technology is not slowing down and waiting for us.

---

The Rodney King case was exactly that, the video everyone got to see was the police using excessive force. No one got to see him almost running down a woman with a baby, or causing accidents that injured other drivers and even a police officer. All everyone saw was the end result. Now I am not saying the officers were justified in the amount of force they used, but it is understandable how they got to the point they did.

Too often videos are used to vilify authority figures without showing the full story. These videos have been used in court cases, again without the full story to try and prosecute. I do believe that police officers should be able to do their job without constant eyes on them. They have far more oversight than most people would like to believe and when an officer goes too far without being caught on video, they still get busted. There are many cases where an officer shot an unarmed person, or used excessive force and was not filmed yet received the punishment deserved and even jail time.

Oversight does work if we allow it too and as long as citizens keep on top of their politicians to make sure it keeps working. Everyone in every position has the ability to abuse their position, not everyone does though.

You mean the Rodney King who said, and I will use every word:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?...It's just not right. It's not right. It's not, it's not going to change anything. We'll, we'll get our justice....Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we're all stuck here for a while. Let's try to work it out. Let's try to beat it. Let's try to beat it. Let's try to work it out."

I think he was referring to the Rodney King who had a police officer behind him, trying to pull him over, and decided to run for it. I think he means the Rodney King who led police on a high speed chase that lasted well over an hour and crossed multiple counties. I think he means the Rodney King who treated myself and my partner, as we listened to the scanner, to the sounds of police officers screaming (yes, SCREAMING) into their radios that "This maniac just turned off the freeway into a residential neighborhood...He's going well over 100mph....OMG there are kids out on the street....he's going to kill someone! He just ran that person off the road!....he just missed a woman and her baby stroller....we gotta stop this guy!" I think he refers to the Rodney King who spent quite a bit of time during that chase ticking off almost every law enforcement officer in the state of California that day. I think he means the Rodney King who couldn't have been all that surprised that when they finally caught him they were overloaded on adrenaline, anger, and testosterone. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't just kill him.

I am not advocating or apologizing for what the officers did. They were wrong, and they should have gotten severe sentences and been removed from the force. I am glad someone videotaped that beating and brought it to light. I just also think that full disclosure would have provided a better picture for everyone. Had they also played the recordings of the radio conversations during the chase, the public would have been able to judge accurately what happened. I know that as I listened to the chase, I got so worked up that had I been an officer in a car that finally caught him, I may well have beaten him myself.

In Texas most if not all police cruisers are fit with video equipment already. I do not see the difference in a bystander video taping an arrest when the police are already doing the same.

The ability to video tape and allow juries to see if the accused was resisting arrest or if the officer overstepped his bounds I believe outweighs the officers right to privacy, especially when he is being paid by our tax dollars at work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amandajg

In Texas most if not all police cruisers are fit with video equipment already.

---

Not every police car necessarily is equipped, and if they are they don't cover all angles. Then there are police who are on foot too.


now for some relevant links

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/07/16/b...ideotape-cops/

http://lifehacker.com/5593080/why-ph...put-up-with-it

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

http://gizmodo.com/5571246/man-arres...-into-his-home

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...lick=pm_latest

It should be allowed. Having worked as a lead analyst for cities hosting major events with strong protests occurring as a result it is critical that freedoms not be infringed upon. It not only holds officers accountable it often illuminates actions of the arrested person just as much, the BIGGEST factor that makes this such a lightning rod is altering of the video or out of context film. Just as deleting video is bad on the police end (seizing could be justified at times), i have seen NUMEROUS attempts from protest groups to frame a video around the reaction to a situation. Example, arrested person A punches police officer B and the reaction is Police officer B agressive reacts to subdue and in doing so strikes the person A for a short period(say 3-4 punches while subduing). Now if you see the whole event most would think the reaction wasn't outrageous, but if the video was edited to show just the reaction it would cause civil unrest in certain circumstances. Often times it isnt a delibrate edit it may just by that by the time a friend was recording they caught a reaction as well. So in most cases involving this i always look to see if the whole situation was captured or just part. In todays society jumping to conclusions is common place with instant media and often goes uncorrected. Both sides have a responsibility to maintain order and regretfully both sides have members who do not do the right thing. But overall 99 percent of the time it is somewhere in the middle or there is a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoxyBunny

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/10...arrest-friend/



We all know of the sometimes explosive results of police actions being recorded and made public. Everything from the Kent State University riots in 1970 (where police massacred protesting students) to the Rodney King beating have altered public perceptions of law enforcement and in many cases forced changes in the laws.

How do you feel about this? Do police officers have an expectation of privacy when performing their work (and receiving a salary from taxpayer money)? Do the people they interact with? Would this have been different if it had not been the guy's friend with a cellphone but a news crew with a camera?

---

If the police felt that the actions of the filmer were interfering with their job and making the situation more difficult, then I say an arrest is OK. BUT, and this is a big but... police and law enforcement should not have a right to erase the video. Taking the camera/phone/video recorder? Ok. But erasing the info? Not OK. The device should have been held until a judge and lawyers made a decision about wheter or not it is OK to delete the info on it. Once a device gets into the hands of law enforcement it becomes state property. And if you tamper with it then that is against the law. It would be like police confiscating drugs but then burning the drugs or flushing them down the toilet at the police station. The drugs are evidence AND state property and police have no right to destroy anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japanpimp

If the police felt that the actions of the filmer were interfering with their job and making the situation more difficult, then I say an arrest is OK. BUT, and this is a big but... police and law enforcement should not have a right to erase the video. Taking the camera/phone/video recorder? Ok. But erasing the info? Not OK. The device should have been held until a judge and lawyers made a decision about wheter or not it is OK to delete the info on it. Once a device gets into the hands of law enforcement it becomes state property. And if you tamper with it then that is against the law. It would be like police confiscating drugs but then burning the drugs or flushing them down the toilet at the police station. The drugs are evidence AND state property and police have no right to destroy anything.

---

Not sure about judges/lawyers and or state officials being able to delete a citizens video either. Its either use it as part of a ongoing court case, use in a ongoing investigation, or release to the original owner, or if part of a classified ongoing investigation(federal type) it could be locked up for many years. Any deletion creates the illusion of government wrong doing even if it wasn't there.

As long as you are in a public place filming and photography should be allow. When someone is arrested in a private place they would need approval from whoever owns the property.

I think unfounded slander is wrong period, whether against law enforcement or against a normal person. It causes actual damage and the results of the slander should be tried on a case by case basis. If the slander ruins a man's career, that man should have the right to sue. Though I draw the line at making it criminal, there is a fine line between slander and simple misinformation, also making it criminal violates freedom of speech.

Essentially, Slander should be tried civilly not criminally.

As or the videos, I think they handled it wrong, but its understandable.

The problem is I can't think of any good way to handle this, ideally they would have film themselves, but that is impossible. Even the grainy, black and white kind would be too much, best they could do is putt the grainy black and white kind in their cars, but thats not going to help them if they have to chase a guy down.

People should have the right to videotape it, but they shouldn't be allowed to post it if its slanderous, but they shouldn't be charged criminally if they do.

There have been three recent incidences in my area causing controversy in regards to the actions of the officer(s) involved. *In order of occurance*
Surveillance Video Recorded (Nov 2008):
Prosecutors won't pursue another trial against former King County Sheriff's Deputy in connection with a jail cell incident caught on tape.
Sheriff Deputy's first two trials on a fourth-degree assault charge ended in hung juries.
Surveillance video showed the Deputy knocking down the 15-year-old girl in a holding cell in November 2008.
In January, a jury was deadlocked 11-1 to convict, and last Thursday the jury was split 11-1 to acquit, the King County Prosecutor's Office said.
The Prosecutor's Office said that "given that two juries were unable to reach a unanimous verdict, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors believe that a third trial is unwarranted."
The incident was caught on a SeaTac jail surveillance video and led to the fourth-degree assault charge. The Deputy also was fired last year for using excessive force.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl67F...layer_embedded

Freelance Cameraman Recorded Incident (Apr 2010):
Internal affairs detectives have launched a review after seeing a racially charged videotape of two Seattle police officers stomping on an innocent detainee.
http://www.kirotv.com/video/23482801/

Friend's Cell Phone (June 2010):
http://www.kirotv.com/video/23913876/
Controversy Grows Over Officer Seen Punching Woman In Face
June 15, 2010
SEATTLE -- More information has been released about what led up to an officer seen on video punching a young woman in the face during a scuffle on Monday.
Leaders of several community groups said the officer overreacted and that the punch was "wrong."
According to probable cause documents, 19-year-old and a 17-year-old girl were in a group of four people who had jaywalked to get to their friend.
Officer approached the group and was attempting to gather information when the 19-year-old began walking away, documents stated.
He said to her, "You have jaywalked and you are required to identify yourself so that I can issue a citation, if you refuse you will be arrested for obstruction." The 19-year-old continued to walk away, the officer said.
At this time, a witness started recording video of the scene.
The Officer walked up to the 19-year-old and grabbed her arm and attempted to handcuff her.
"The 19-year-old began twisting around and pull away in an attempt to get away," documents said.
The officer gave her a verbal commanded to stop resisting, but "The 19-year-old ignored those commands and continued to struggle with the Officer," documents said.
As the Officer was handcuffing the 19-year-old, the 17-year-old girl ran up behind the Officer and pushed him.
"The Officer found himself struggling with two people," documents said. Police said the struggle lasted for approximately two to three minutes.
Video showed the Officer throwing a punch and hitting the 17-year-old girl.
Documents said the 17-year-old girl complained of a sore spot on her face, but declined medical aid.
The 19-year-old was handcuffed and booked into the Youth Services Center for investigation of felony assault.
The 19-year-old was pulled away by witnesses, documents said. She was arrested and booked into jail for obstructing a police officer.
The News Team found court records that show the 19-year-old has been arrested for assaulting a police officer before. According to court documents, the 19-year-old kicked a sheriff's deputy in the stomach while she resisted arrest. She was living in the center last year in the care of Child Protective Services.
Acting Deputy Police Chief said the Police Department's Office of Professional Accountability is investigating the incident.
Acting Deputy Police Chief said at a news conference Tuesday the department is withholding judgment until the OPA investigation is complete.
"Force never looks good. It's never pretty," acting Deputy Police Chief said. But he also noted, "We do have a number of concerns about the tactics the officer used and employed at the time."
"We do train in the use of punching," acting Deputy Police Chief said, noting he was not commenting on Monday's incident.
The acting Deputy Police Chief said the two women who were stopped for jaywalking bear much of the responsibility for the incident for not cooperating and resisting arrest.
In a news conference carried live, Seattle Urban League CEO called the punch an overreaction that recalled the kicking two officers delivered to a Hispanic suspect in an April 17 incident caught on video. *noted above*
"The provocation of the 19-year-old may have presented a confrontation situation, but the use of violence in the form of a full-blown fist to the face was wrong," Seattle Urban League CEO said. "We thought that they (police) would learn their lesson about the overreaction of a non-violent situation based on the recent incidents of a Hispanic youth a month ago."
The president of the Seattle NAACP, said he is shocked that interim Seattle Police Chief is a finalist for the job of Seattle police chief.
"We have someone who is willing to hide the dirty deeds of his department," The president of the Seattle NAACP said. "He is not prepared to protect the people at the expense of the union."
The president of the Seattle NAACP said the Seattle Police Chief should "step away based on this incident and so many others on his own."
"At this stage, that would be the dignified thing to do," the president of the Seattle NAACP said.
"There is no way you can tell me for one moment this officer was trained to behave that way," said the Reverend of the Mount Calvary Christian Center.
"She was resisting arrest, but there is no way she, in anyway, had his life threatened," the Reverend said.
The 19-year-old girl appeared in juvenile court Tuesday and the judge released her to the custody of her state-appointed guardians pending a filing decision on charges.
She is a foster child who lives in a home for at-risk youth. She is expected to graduate from high school on Saturday.
"I just want them to know that this is good kid in a bad situation. It could be your kid, it could be your son, your daughter. Would you want the police hitting them?" said the 17-year-old?s guardian.
The teen will be back in court next week.
The 17-year-old is scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday.

That third one is certainly stupid. Two people at once? What was he supposed to do? Wrestle them both to the ground? That would have hurt both the women more then a punch.

I would just like to say that, I have worked for my local Police Station and know alot of the things that go on. For Example most people dont know this but once an officer puts on a Police Uniform his peace can no longer be disturbed meaning, The officer loses rights as soon as the uniform is on. U can swear at an officer yell at an officer and say things of that nature. So filming an arrest or recording one is not illegal. as an officer cannot complain about his rights being abused.