Have You Seen This: 15 Year in Prison for Taping Police?

[GuyRelford]

Bill, I believe the IC Guy is referring to is for intercepting electronic communication.

Indiana Code 35-33.5-1

I'm pretty sure recording in public is legal, unless your violating one of the statutes above.

Yep - the "other than the sender or the receiver" language is what I was referring to earlier by "one party to the conversation" knows it's being recorded. The videotaping of something going on in public, where there is no expectation of privacy, simply doesn't fall within the wiretapping statute mentioned.

 

[Hammerhead]

Bill, if you're a third party videoing or audio recording an "isolated incident", you are still considered to be the one party who knows of the recording.

 

[newtothis]

You can record an incident, however, the footage can be confiscated and used as evidence (in the event that an incident results in the arrest of an individual, or allegations of misconduct are made against an officer). I've seen police take down names and residency information so that in the event of something going to court, that video evidence can be subpoenaed.

However, police can seize video evidence if an individual records an officer's face, or if the officer tells them to stop recording (I've seen the excuse, whether legitimate or not, that by recording the police, they are interfering with a police investigation).

It can go either way, depending on your location at the time of the incident.

 

[GuyRelford]

If anyone ever has their property seized while videotaping a public event, please call me.

 

[Bunnykid68]

It is funny(NOT) that two of the FOP leaders claim that officers being video taped may due their job improperly, but seemed to miss the point that their own POV and dash cams are recording, does that not cause them problems doing their job.

 

[Benny]

Seriously, what good could possibly come from outlawing video-taping police encounters?

WTF is the downside? I'd honestly like someone to name ONE.

 

[thebishopp]

Yes there are three states that have tried to hide police misconduct by outlawing recording them in action by saying it requires two party consent. Maryland, IL, and Massachusetts.

Maryland recently had a case where they charged a motorcyclist with felony wiretaping/eavesdropping.

Story Lab - Charges dismissed against Md. man who taped traffic stop

That charge was dismissed by the judge who stated:

"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. 'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."

Big props to the Maryland Judge. He hit the nail on the head and really we need more judges like him.

In Massachusetts they arrested a guy back in 2008 and that charge was dismissed by the judge.

Charges nixed vs. lawyer who recorded cops - BostonHerald.com

Who stated:

“Photography is a form of expression which is entitled to First Amendment protection just as the written or spoken word is protected.”

Massachusetts tried it again in 2010 and the charges were dismissed.


IL has about 7 cases that are supposed to be going to trial this year or sometime in the future. The problem is no one is fighting it. So far everyone has taken a plea deal to a lesser charge in order to avoid the possibility of a felony conviction. So of course IL keeps doing it.


The big problem is there is no repercussions for the police or prosecutors that keep trying to do this.

It should be noted that other states have tried (ie; Pennsylvania and a few others) but so far all but IL have had the cases tossed out (to my knowledge).

 

[rambone]

One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'

- Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Magnum]

Stuff like this literally makes me want to move off into the mountains and live off the land. You obey the law, pay your taxes, be a model citizen, and you get some crappy cop in a crappy mood and the law stands behind him in creating the means for him to wreck the whole rest of your life. I know bad cops are the exception and not the rule, but I have seen cops get s***** with people for no reason. We shouldn't have to worry about needing protection from the people protecting us, but we do. I need to just breathe and get away from this topic, but I cannot believe there are no protests over these atrocious laws being passed left and right. If someone organized a protest, I'd be there. You know, I'd be there fearing for my life that riot control will show up and spray us with mace, shoot us with tasers and rubber bullets, and possibly confuse their Sig 226 with their X26.

 

[thebishopp]

You can record an incident, however, the footage can be confiscated and used as evidence (in the event that an incident results in the arrest of an individual, or allegations of misconduct are made against an officer). I've seen police take down names and residency information so that in the event of something going to court, that video evidence can be subpoenaed.

However, police can seize video evidence if an individual records an officer's face, or if the officer tells them to stop recording (I've seen the excuse, whether legitimate or not, that by recording the police, they are interfering with a police investigation).

It can go either way, depending on your location at the time of the incident.

As for the first part of you statement they can not "seize" the video unless they have some kind of exigent circumstances. IMPD just had this happen to them recently and there is a pretty good chance they are going to be sued (if they haven't already offered a settlement:

Man Who Refused To Hand Over Arrest Video Acquitted - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

As for the 2nd part of your statement it is just flat out wrong. So far every case (other than in IL) where someone has been charged/arrested for exactly what you are talking about, has resulted in a dismissal. In many of them civil suits (successful) against the cities.

NY is has been in the news a bit for this as well for the past several years and a case just happened recently. They just don't learn, they have been paying out settlements left and right. In fact it is kind of a running joke among photogs that if you want to make a little extra cash just go up to new york and film/take photos of either the subway or a few traffic stops / accidents. The average payout has been about 30k per incident.