![]() ![]() ![]() In May, The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals covering Illinois also declared the state’s harsh recording ban unconstitutional, ordering authorities to stop enforcing it. IMPORTANT UPDATES: As mentioned earlier, the First Circuit Court of Appeals covering Massachusetts declared the state’s ban on recording police to be unconstitutional. In other words, it’s technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police. But do not despair if you live in these states: All but 2 -Massachusetts and Illinois-have an “expectation of privacy provision” to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). Twelve states-California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington-require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation. ![]() But you will not be charged for illegally recording police. They might even arrest you for some catchall misdemeanor such as obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct. Police might still unfairly harass you, detain you, or confiscate your camera. The law in 38 states plainly allows citizens to record police, as long as you don’t physically interfere with their work. Now with this technology in the hands of average citizens, police and prosecutors are abusing these outdated laws to punish citizens merely attempting to document on-duty police. If you choose to record the police you can reduce the risk of terrible legal consequences and video loss by understanding your state’s laws and carefully adhering to the following rules.Ĭonceived at a time when pocket-sized recording devices were available only to James Bond types, most eavesdropping laws were originally intended to protect people against snoops, spies, and peeping Toms. So if you’re an aspiring cop watcher you must be uniquely prepared to deal with hostile cops. But in the meantime, police around the country continue to intimidate and arrest citizens for doing just that. Slowly but surely the courts are recognizing that recording on-duty police is a protected First Amendment activity. Prior to the settlement, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Glik had a “constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public.” The Boston Police Department now explicitly instructs its officers not to arrest citizens openly recording them in public. Last week the City of Boston agreed to pay Simon Glik $170,000 in damages and legal fees to settle a civil rights lawsuit stemming from his 2007 felony arrest for videotaping police roughing up a suspect. It’s been updated to include new information regarding recent rulings in favor of citizens’ right to record. This article by Steve Silverman originally appeared on April 5, 2012, in. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |