Second,
“Many officers are also uncomfortable that their activities might be displayed on the Internet and otherwise widely distributed,” says Portland, Ore., lawyer Bert P. Krages, who specializes in the area. “Some also have the impression that photography presents a security risk and are acting according to a post-9/11 mentality.”
Adds Krages: “Law enforcement personnel are still grappling with the idea that ordinary citizens have the right to take images, whereas previously such photographs and videos were taken by professionals employed by traditional media companies.”
Well, some more "No, you DON"T have qualified immunity for this" rulings and the subsequent lawsuits would probably help get the idea across.
It would also help if they started reminding cops, from the academy on, of that
Constitution thingy that has a place in their oath; and a good course on Peel's Principles would probably help, too.
5 comments:
A brass plaque with Peel's principles for every small town police station would probably help, too, but I think the cost would be prohibitive, even if there were a charity that collected money to make the things.
I think Windy is right, such a costly burden would undoubtedly mean the withdrawal of policing "services" from many areas, in order to remain within budgets which are already down to the bone...
Well, there are a few Police Depts that treat the public with some respect. I had coffee with the Mayor and Police Chief of my little corner of Heaven a while back, and asked what they'd do if one of our "Thin Blue Line" behaved like the idiot in Ohio did a few months back threatening to kill a citizen for not kowtowing quickly enough and not showing proper worship of the uniform. The Chief told me they had a protocol in effect. That officer would have been put on unpaid leave until an investigation by an uninterested third party was completed. If the officer was found to have probably done the ill deed, he'd be arrested and charged with the same offense(s) as any other citizen an additional charge of "Under the Color of Authority" which trebles the punishment. If found not to have evidenceto be charged he'd be put back on duty with a notice that he was being watched.
As to people videoing police officers on duty, our Police Force simply regards the images and sound recordings as possible evidence and would require the recording instrument to be made available so the images and such could be copied, then returned intact to the owner. (If necessary) The person doing the recording would be regarded as a witness. No confiscation, no arrests, just a polite request followed by a search warrant if needed. Personally unless the data were needed to save life or limb, I'd ask for a search warrant, then I'd take my camera or whatever to the cop shop myself. It's amazing what I'll do for someone who simply asks "please".
Ahhhh--
So that whole "if you're not doing something illegal, you don't have to worry" thing only applies to non-cops, huh?
Well, it's the Portland Police Department.
If I was them, I might not want my activities displayed on the Internet either.
(Okay, I kid a bit.
PPD's much improved from their legendary "30 shots fired, no hits on the target, two civilians down" days.
And to be fair, as well, my own very occasional interactions with PPD have been nothing but professional on their part.)
Post a Comment