It seems clear to me that police actively carrying out their duty have (and should have) immensely more obligations and fewer rights than citizens generally.
For example, while I certainly don't have the right to demand identification from a random person on the street, I better have the right to demand identification from a police officer giving me an order.
Just trying to point out situations where this can not be followed to the letter.
If someone is speeding away from a robbery the police should not be allowed to speed after them?
If someone is currently robbing a store should the police not be allowed to trespass to stop them?
I do agree that they should be held to a higher standard. I also think if malicious intent is evident in their actions they should be given harsher sentences because they are given so much public trust. But they must be allowed to break some laws or they wont be able to do their jobs at all.
There are countless tragedies caused by police officers speeding after criminals. So I would say no, they shouldn't go speeding off after the criminals. As the cops often say, "You can't outrun radio waves!"
In the robbing store case, there is probable cause to enter the premises.
Don't be ridiculous: of course there are circumstances under which a police officer is above the law that dictates he should identify himself.
If he's in a firefight and forcefully shoves you out of the way when you walk up asking for his identification, he has no obligation whatsoever to show you his ID. If he is in hot pursuit, you have no business stopping him to ask for his ID. If he has just broken his leg, you can't honestly expect him to identify himself. How many more examples do you want?
I understand the parent is being irrelevantly pedantic, but your comment isn't making it any better.
But (and in practice this is very similar in effect) there are situations where the law should and does have exceptions for law enforcement officers acting in an official capacity. The obvious one is their privelege to ignore many normal traffic regulations under appropriate circumstances. Similarly, many law enforcement agents are authorized and required to be armed in places where it would be forbidden for anormal citizen.
This is an important case to watch, and I think the precedent set will have compounding effects in the future, either leading to a more or less transparent government, depending on which way it falls.
I'm a little surprised at the tone of your observation. I thought U.S. citizens were the most empowered on the planet.
More transparent government is clearly the desirable. If the outcome of this case can determine that, then the outcome should be in favor of transparent government. If the law of the land doesn't agree, then it's time it's changed; isn't it?
Well that's what it looks like to me trapped under an oppressive government on the other side of the globe, idealizing the freedom of American citizens.
At any rate, in a Common Law system like the US's (and most other British Inheritors'), the outcome of a court case like this decides the law. The system relies on the judges to interpret the constitution's protections of rights. What they say goes. Of course, it can be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court but then that's the final word and the lawmakers don't have much to do with it.
Traditionally they don't, but they could if they wanted to. If the Supreme Court rules that something is not legal, the legislature can make it legal. The Constitution can also be amended, making the issue of constitutionality null.
Some of the most powerful Constitutional protection is in the form of amendments; the Bill of Rights. Technically, the freedom of speech is implicit in the text of the main body of the Constitution. (Any powers not specifically given to the Federal government falls to the States and People.) But the explicit text of the First Amendment has made it much easier for the People to retain their right to Free speech and press.
Well, yes. But an amendment is kind of a Big Deal. I have my doubts that this issue is of the type to inflame The People sufficiently that such ponderous wheels might be set in motion.
"Now, Glick - a criminal defense attorney, according to his lawyer"
I don't get it. Have Journalistic standards slipped so much that they couldn't even corroborate this simple piece of information? Or is it something I'm missing?
Because it's a comment on an ongoing case, the newspaper probably attempted to corroborate the fact with Glick himself, but he probably referred them to his lawyer. It's the smart thing to do, even (some might say especially) if you're a lawyer yourself. Comments on an ongoing case should go through the lawyers involved instead of the individuals involved: they have to be very careful about what they say so as not to tank the case.
I noticed that too. But it's not hard to verify his occupation, or at least that he used to practice law, either through court documents, LexisNexis, or newspaper archives.
One other thing that came up last night on the local public radio station: They interviewed someone from the ACLU who said that if the camera was hidden during the taping, that would be a violation of the law (it wasn't, apparently).
That made me wonder: If I had a Web cam on my computer facing outside the window, and it is not obvious that it is a camera (on an iMac it's impossible to see from more than a few feet away) and it captured such an arrest, could I be arrested for secretly taping the scene?
The article I referenced says that it varies by state, especially with regards to consent. Some states are single-party, some states require all party consent.
But if you're on the street in public, you'd think everything is fair game... especially if you're a public servant.
It's nice to see someone taking a stand and clearing it up (in one state at least).
So if this case succeeds and the two party consent law isn't valid in public, does that mean that the police could follow a suspect around and record their conversations with a directional mic without a warrant? (as long as the conversations took place in public)
This might end up being a case of "be careful what you wish for".
With the obligatory "I Am Not a Lawyer" out of the way, I should point out that in many places (it varies state by state) two-party-consent is not required. Two party notification is required. There can be some significant differences in some cases.
Again, far from an expert in law anywhere, but my understanding is that in most states you can go around in public openly recording conversations with no problems. The issue comes when you try to do it illicitly. A microphone that is obvious would cause no problems, but one that is concealed or otherwise nonobvious could be an issue.
If anyone really knows what they are talking about, I would be most appreciative for confirmation or correction.
As to how it should be, yes, I think that you should be able to record anything legally as long as the other party has no reasonable expectation of privacy (and yes, without their notification or consent as long as they do not then have a reasonable expectation of privacy). If you do something in a public place, you should assume it is being recorded. If you do something in the privacy of your own home or a bathroom stall, you should be able to do it with no fear of being recorded without your consent.
I know this begs the question of where we draw the line between public and private, but I think there will be little disagreement on most cases. Those fringe cases where there is disagreement I would tend to lean towards allowing recordings.
I think this should be true of all citizens, but I think it becomes especially important of public servants such as Police Officers whom the public has a right to demand accountability from. The Law Enforcement Agencies in America are fantastic, and I have the highest praise for them in terms of their performance and the effect they have on the streets of America. But they should never forget that they are public servants and (at least indirectly) accountable to the public in a Democracy.
IANAL. That said, I believe the relevant law is http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-99.htm and the key element will prove to be whether using a cell phone as a video/audio camera would constitute a "secret" recording of audio as required by definition B4. (Apparently, with Glick's original case dismissed, there's a chance that it would not suffice.)
In terms of his suit, anyone can sue anyone for anything. It's the winning that's hard. I can't imagine any cause for action on impairing his freedom of speech, nor that sufficient probable cause did not exist to effect the arrest. While I don't like how the law is written, and may not agree with the premise, the law is the law and it's easy for an officer to believe that they have probable cause for an arrest under that law. Frankly, I think they had PC for the arrest, even as I wish they didn't and wish that even if they had, they'd have chosen not to make that arrest. I can't see how Glick can meaningfully win this case...
Interesting point. Where does "obvious" recording stop and "covert" recording begin? Can you break the law by simply having a high-sensitivity microphone?
And note the recent case of a man being charged with indecency for being nude in his own kitchen - but visible from a public place. So if anything conceivably visible/audible from a public place is now classed as "public", a laser mike on a window, or a zoom camera recording mouth movements (which can be reliably decoded into speech) might arguably be permissible.
If the officers in question just do their work normal within the law they should not be afraid to be filmed, the behavior of these police officers is at least fishy in that perspective. Also it had to occur sooner or later that they arrested the wrong person, a criminal defense attorney no less.
Being Boston, I'm surprised the cops didn't paint it as a bomb scare. Boston PD has to be neck-and-neck with LAPD for most corrupt police department in the country.
These are only the ones I know of. Maybe there are more cases of Boston PD going nutso over some imagined bomb threat. It reminds me of the aftermath of 9/11, all of the soccer moms in my rural home town, running around and buying up all the bottled water and duct tape in town, like they expected The Terr'ists to be interested in bombing Middelofnowheresburg, PA.
I'm sure Boston is a great city, but stories like these make me never want to visit there, lest I worry if I forgot a half-finished Arduino blinky-light project in the back seat of my car. I don't view Boston as that important of a city for someone to want to bomb it.
It reminds me of the aftermath of 9/11, all of the soccer moms in my rural home town, running around and buying up all the bottled water and duct tape in town, like they expected The Terr'ists to be interested in bombing Middelofnowheresburg, PA.
Keep in mind that Flight 11 and Flight 175 - the two aircraft that struck the World Trade Center towers - departed from Boston Logan International Airport. It makes you wonder what happened internally in the Boston PD after that event. A very high profile incident in everyone's recent memory originated from an area under their watch, so my guess is the paranoia stems from their desire to never be associated with such an incident ever again.
The paranoia runs deep elsewhere. Though not the first skyscraper you'd ever think to target, Boston's John Hancock Tower (tallest building in New England) is similar to the World Trade Center towers in which the elevators and stairwells are all contained within the core of the building. Working in the building, I can definitely say that security gets a bit antsy when the turnstiles buzz when something may be awry.
I imagine the high incidence of LAPD officers has to do with the large movie industry in LA; people making movies in LA are more likely to set them there.
I agree with Mr. Nee that police officers "are entitled to the same rights as every citizen" because they, simply, are.
I believe any individual should be allowed to record anything they please. But I also believe the distribution should be controlled by those who can be identified in the recording.
The biggest deciding factor in this case should be if the recording was interfering with keeping the peace or not. If it's a personal issue, then the Officers were acting in a personal capacity and they were abusing their power. They should handle the situation the same way I would if someone were recording me.
If I reported to the Police that someone was unlawfully recording me, what do you think they would do?
Police officers do have the same rights as every citizen when off-duty, but when they are acting as agents of the state they should be held very accountable for their malevolent actions (not mistakes, intentional ones). For instance, calling an officer a dirty name is not cause for said officer to demand identification and threaten you with arrest (happened to me when he was acting exactly like said name). Unless there are reasons for privacy, while working as agents of the state they shouldn't get any unnecessary privacy. The vast majority of (US at least) police are laudable, but not holding the bad ones accountable kills their reputation. We should be encouraging citizens to tape, not intimidating them.
You don't have the right to control any video/photo recording of yourself that's done in a public place. All you can do is cover your face and walk away.
EDIT: the person recording only needs your permission if the photo or video is going to be used to promote goods or services.
"The lawsuit argues that public places are not covered by this law."
What if they were? Could the local news do a live broadcast from the street without fear that someone would walk up behind them, shout something, and then claim that his rights had been violated?
For example, while I certainly don't have the right to demand identification from a random person on the street, I better have the right to demand identification from a police officer giving me an order.