Your cell phone is a dangerous weapon, cops say.

[kimmy]

Wasn't sure what forum to file this under. It seems equally applicable to Canada and the US, as both countries have had a multitude of incidents where police have been recorded acting like, well, pigs.

I watched this one this morning:

http://boingboing.net/2013/04/19/san-diego-cop-smashes-phone.html

...in which a police officer, angry at being recorded, alleges that cell phones can be used as dangerous weapon and confiscates it.

A lawyer for the National Press Photographers Association says:

Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, told NBC News Thursday that "it doesn't surprise me that I'm hearing this new wrinkle of a cellphone being a weapon. These are just pretextual arguments that police officers are using to prevent people from exercising their First Amendment rights."

In short, it's BS, and the cops know it's BS, but it's BS that they can use to keep you from recording them.

Courts have maintained over and over again that people have the right to videotape the police when they are on duty, and police have continually fought against that. Why? Because they don't like being held accountable for their actions.

Why should people record the police in the first place? Because stuff like this happens:

...and if there is no video of it, the police have total impunity. The obvious and extreme example, of course, is the Robert Dziekanski slaying, where the RCMP "internal investigation" had completely whitewashed the entire incident and cleared the officers involved of all misconduct. Only when the cell phone recording became public did people learn that the RCMP explanation was an enormous stack of lies.

I guess I decided to put this in "Moral and ethical issues" because the issue is "who watches the watchmen?" In an age where we all have video recording devices in our pockets and the ability to publish to the whole world instantly and for free, the police are looking for ways to maintain their "blue cone of silence".

-k

[eyeball]

The solution is

.

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure what the question is. Should people be allowed to record cops while they're working. Absolutely. They should be held accountable for their actions. Who watches the watchmen indeed.

However, how do we reconcile that with what just happened in Boston? The police had to beg people not to reveal their tactical positions, so as to insure their safety and not to compromise their search. Is this an obvious exceptional circumstance? Are there other circumstances where there should be an exception?

Another thing to consider is the perpetrator. If we record the police, which again I tend to agree with, what's to protect the privacy of an innocent person before they have their day in court?

[Moonlight Graham]

The reasoning by the cop is ridiculous. Obviously he doesn't want to be filmed. But ANYTHING could be turned into a weapon. A shoe-gun, pencil-knife, pen-gun, laptop bomb, belt whip...would that mean a cop could confiscate ANY private property they wanted just because it "could" be a gun? The cop would need valid reasons on his part to think the cellphone was in fact modified into a weapon for him to confiscate it. That wouldn't hold up in court for a second and I wouldn't give the phone to the cop.

[Bonam]

Clearly it is absurd for a cop to allege that a cellphone is a "dangerous weapon" unless there are real circumstances which make it so (not the case 99.99999999999999% of the time). The public has every right to record the actions of police on duty out in a public area.

[GostHacked]

There were a couple states that have passed laws against the video taping of police officers.

Illinois had a law which was struck down by a state judge.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/02/judge-rules-against-states-ban-on-recording-police-officers/

This was in the early part of 2012

CHICAGO (CBS) — A judge on Friday tossed out the controversial Illinois eavesdropping law, which makes it a crime to record police officers, according to a published report.

Criminal Court Judge Stanley Sacks ruled that the Illinois Eavesdropping Act criminalizes “wholly innocent conduct,” and thus is unconstitutional, CBS 2 reports.

He was taping his own arrest which is the real kicker. One other state that I can say that also had these laws were Maryland. This is why the constitution is such an important document. So many laws have been passed that marginalize the founding document to the point where some government officials were calling for the abolishing of it.

If we are aware that out in public there is no privacy, then there should be no problem with taping law enforcement.

There are a lot of bad cops out there, and the ones that are good are peer pressured into keeping their mouth shut with the threat of harm or outing of some kind. They have a big culture of protecting their own from prosecution. Cops are not above the law.

[g_bambino]

If we are aware that out in public there is no privacy, then there should be no problem with taping law enforcement.

But, what of cybercoma's legitimate questions?

[ed.: -]

Edited April 22, 2013 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

But, what of cybercoma's legitimate questions?

[ed.: -]

The first question is the cops telling people to keep the info private or not to reveal their positions. But tactical positions? Was that a direction for the police and security forces and not just the general public?

If they truly needed information on who the bombers were , then they would have accepted all the information. With the amount of people there and the information that could have been gathered could have indeed overwhelmed them to the point of over saturating the information. The other side of that is telling the public to shut up and let the officials tell the story. This could have been an attempt to control the information and how it was doled out to the public. Basically doing the same as Bush did after 9/11 'We will not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories'. .... I don't trust the officials or the system to give you 100 % accurate and true information.

The second question is - Protection of privacy of an individual in recording the arrest. In many cases it could completely exonerate the person getting arrested or abused while being arrested. In a way that is protecting his privacy and his rights at the same time. But there is no expected privacy in a public place so there really is not a question here at all.

If you do feel that you should have some level of privacy while out in the public, then you would have a problem with all the Big Brother technology that monitors you in public. How many CCTV cams can I put you down for?

[g_bambino]

The first question is the cops telling people to keep the info private or not to reveal their positions. But tactical positions? Was that a direction for the police and security forces and not just the general public?

Of course it was for the public; why would the police be concerned about the police knowing the police's tactical positions? The police were attempting to track down suspected perpetrators of a crime; any recordings by the public of them doing so could be posted online and thus immediately available to those whom they're searching for.

The second question is - Protection of privacy of an individual in recording the arrest.

He says nothing about the privacy of the person recording an arrest. His focus is those accused of crimes. Though, reading again what he wrote, I'm not sure what his exact worry is: I thought at first it was vigilantism.

[Sleipnir]

That wouldn't hold up in court for a second and I wouldn't give the phone to the cop.

Wouldn't the cop charge you with obstruction of justice for not following his orders?

[cybercoma]

Of course it was for the public; why would the police be concerned about the police knowing the police's tactical positions? The police were attempting to track down suspected perpetrators of a crime; any recordings by the public of them doing so could be posted online and thus immediately available to those whom they're searching for.

He says nothing about the privacy of the person recording an arrest. His focus is those accused of crimes. Though, reading again what he wrote, I'm not sure what his exact worry is: I thought at first it was vigilantism.

the concern is vigilantism, but could also simply be stigmatization for a crime that you didn't commit. Regardless, it's about the privacy of the accused before trial.

[Moonlight Graham]

Wouldn't the cop charge you with obstruction of justice for not following his orders?

The cop could charge me with whatever he wanted, doesn't mean it would hold up in court, If he did I'd counter-charge the cop for stealing my private property without probable cause or any indication of danger. People don't have to follow the "orders" of cops just because they tell you to do something. Their orders have to be based on law. The law protects us from arbitrary actions by the state. The guy with the phone was collecting evidence because he was being written a ticket, which was his right. He was not breaking the law in any way other than smoking on a sidewalk.

[GostHacked]

Of course it was for the public; why would the police be concerned about the police knowing the police's tactical positions? The police were attempting to track down suspected perpetrators of a crime; any recordings by the public of them doing so could be posted online and thus immediately available to those whom they're searching for.

Yes but the police and officials told them to not release the information. The police wanted to control the whole narrative from the start.

He says nothing about the privacy of the person recording an arrest. His focus is those accused of crimes. Though, reading again what he wrote, I'm not sure what his exact worry is: I thought at first it was vigilantism.

The police do not want to be recorded as it would mean they would actually have to act like upstanding individuals. But time and time again, I have seen it online where cops get pushy with people taping their own arrests or pull overs by the police.

Privacy of the person recording the arrest? Good question. But if the person recording the arrest is observing abuse, he becomes witness to a crime scene. So not sure how privacy comes into play for that person.

[g_bambino]

Yes but the police and officials told them to not release the information.

They asked; or begged, as cybercoma put it. But, what if someone doesn't comply?

The police wanted to control the whole narrative from the start.

Oh, lord. You're not suggesting some conspiracy theory, are you?

[guyser]

The cop could charge me with whatever he wanted, doesn't mean it would hold up in court, If he did I'd counter-charge the cop for stealing my private property without probable cause or any indication of danger.

I cannot say you are wrong, however it would be ultimately foolish of you to do so. You could well be denied entry on travels, not to mention the cost to prove yourself right....with a slight chance of conviction occuring.

As for the counter charge, wasted time Sir !

People don't have to follow the "orders" of cops just because they tell you to do something. Their orders have to be based on law. The law protects us from arbitrary actions by the state. The guy with the phone was collecting evidence because he was being written a ticket, which was his right. He was not breaking the law in any way other than smoking on a sidewalk.

The time to follow orders is when they are given, correct or not. Otherwise the handcuffs go on hard, the baton may find some soft melon in the meantime. All of this can occur when you are correct.

In court is where you fight that charge, not the sidewalk in from of the JBT 's.

Obviously if it is a grevious violation of law and ordered to do so one should say no, but for more run of the mill shite, no.

Edited April 22, 2013 by guyser

[GostHacked]

They asked; or begged, as cybercoma put it. But, what if someone doesn't comply?

What is the charge for not complying?

Oh, lord. You're not suggesting some conspiracy theory, are you?

What is so conspiratorial about police wanting to control what information is released to the public? It happens all the time, there is no conspiracy theory here , this is simply a fact.

[g_bambino]

What is the charge for not complying?

Well, I don't believe there is one. I think the question was more about whether or not there should be concern over unlimited filming of police at work.

What is so conspiratorial about police wanting to control what information is released to the public?

That depends, I guess, on what the main goal is.

[jacee]

Ya but the thread is about confiscating a cell phone on the excuse that it is a weapon.

[Argus]

Speaking of the airport video, it's been years now and none of those cops has yet been punished. They're all still mounties making their generous salaries. Funny how slow justice moves when it's the cops involved. At the rate it's moving here they'll all be on full pensions before the crown ever gets around to trying them for perjury. As for the mounties punishing them... thhhtp. The RCMP evidently believe these four are excellent examples of the kind of men they want working for them and wearing their uniforms.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Argus

[cybercoma]

Ya but the thread is about confiscating a cell phone on the excuse that it is a weapon.

which is obviously ridiculous, so I've asked some other questions that I have a hard time squaring with my belief that we should be able to film police in public.

[GostHacked]

which is obviously ridiculous, so I've asked some other questions that I have a hard time squaring with my belief that we should be able to film police in public.

There should be no issue with people taping police actions that are out in the open. You should have no moral issues with it.

But the cops may see it as a weapon. But it is actually a tool in documenting crime, be it from the police or the suspect they are apprehending.

[cybercoma]

But I've outlined two plausible ways in which it could pose a moral issue. 1) when it endangers the officers by giving away their positions when hunting for a dangerous person, and 2) when it violates the privacy of an innocent person, who is accused of a crime they may not have committed, potentially leading to vigilantism or stigmatization.

[guyser]

2) when it violates the privacy of an innocent person, who is accused of a crime they may not have committed, potentially leading to vigilantism or stigmatization.

There is no right to privacy in public.

[GostHacked]

But I've outlined two plausible ways in which it could pose a moral issue. 1) when it endangers the officers by giving away their positions when hunting for a dangerous person, and 2) when it violates the privacy of an innocent person, who is accused of a crime they may not have committed, potentially leading to vigilantism or stigmatization.

How does video taping an officer give away their position? In the Boston case, the cops actions were delivered live to multiple news stations at the same time. So I don't buy the giving away their position bit.

If you are out in public there seems to be no sense of privacy, hence you can tape away. I personally don't like cameras everywhere, but this a fact of life now. So there is no violation of privacy when taped in public. But there is a double standard in how this is applied.

The real reason taping the cops is pushed back on is because their actions can be held accountable.

[jacee]

The time to follow orders is when they are given, correct or not. Otherwise the handcuffs go on hard, the baton may find some soft melon in the meantime. All of this can occur when you are correct.

nope. Ordering me to give up my phone is an illegal order and I'm walking away because I've done nothing illegal and I'll lay charges against them and sue their asses. They know it now so they'd be stoooooopid to push it.

We'll film them if we want. We pay their salaries and we are all watching. They can get used to it, or resign.

But they can't steal our phones.

Edited April 23, 2013 by jacee