Radley Balko, senior editor at Reason Magazine summarizes the law on videotaping on-duty police officers in the various American states:
This summer the issue of recording on-duty police officers has received a great deal of media attention. Camera-wielding citizens were arrested in Maryland, Illinois, and Massachusetts under interpretations of state wiretapping laws, while others were arrested in New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Florida, and elsewhere based on vaguer charges related to obstructing or interfering with a police officer.So far Massachusetts is the only state to explicitly uphold a conviction for recording on-duty cops, and Illinois and Massachusetts are the only states where it is clearly illegal. The Illinois law has yet to be considered by the state's Supreme Court, while the Massachusetts law has yet to be upheld by a federal appeals court. Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler recently issued an opinion concluding that arrests for recording cops are based on a misreading of the state's wiretapping statute, but that opinion isn't binding on local prosecutors.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
2 comments:
"...Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler recently issued an opinion concluding that arrests for recording cops are based on a misreading of the state's wiretapping statute..."
A "misreading." Now there's a kind interpretation of what's going on.
I am surprised that recording a public event can be regarded as illegal in any enlightened society as a recording is merely a more accurate rendition of what is seen anyway. You can record what you see with pen and paper, but if you go for something more accurate, such as a video, you're committing a crime?
If you don't want to be recorded by a private person doing 'whatever' in a public place, don't do it.
Is there any justification for these laws? Presumably, the police forces in question are enforcing the laws to prevent exposure of frequent abuses of power that we all know and love. The example of this abuse that immediately comes to my mind was the beating of Rodney King in L.A. Of course, the broadcast of that abuse led to the "Rodney King riots" in L.A., which probably should have been called the "corrupt L.A. police riots". Aren't the police essentially justifying this crackdown on citizen journalism by saying "exposing the criminal behavior of police officers is against the public interest"?
Post a Comment