Man records police arresting his friend; gets arrested himself

[FoxyBunny]

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

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?

[Demonhero]

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?

[Richie_B]

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!

[Wildor]

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.

[FoxyBunny]

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?

[Demonhero]

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.

[Boleslav]

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.

[Rota]

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.

[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.

[AbstractAngel]

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.