They Shoot Bullets, We Shoot Film

With the latest pocket-size technology at our fingertips daily, there's a new movement around the world: citizen journalists videotaping questionable police activities and posting them on the internet for all to see.

There's also a new movement in response: police using intimidation, harassment, force and even the courts and legislatures to prevent this from happening. 

In a blog comment, "ThePoet" put it succinctly:

"Let me see if i follow this:
1. Bad cops broke the law, and hurt people.
2. We know this BECAUSE we have video that depicts it.
3. No more filming police on the street."

Our cameras, in their mind, are as potentially lethal to them as their guns are to us.  They're generally okay with the cameras in their cars that most departments have now (most don't still have VHS technology like we do)...because they, for the most part, control whether that video gets out or not, between legal manuvering at the courts to prevent release or the simple, classic favorites: "oops, we lost the video" or "oops, we accidentally rewound it" or "oops, it wasn't on."

Is it illegal to tape police officers? No more so than it is to stand there and watch them performing their duties. Are they going to try to outlaw our eyes next?

If You're Not Doing Anything Wrong, Why Worry? (Sound Familiar?)

They say it interferes with their duties. It "provokes them," even, as Houston's Chief exclaimed recently. It doesn't unless you are physically between them and the suspect. Okay, I'll buy being too close charges the situation (it certainly does charge the officer as McClelland admits), but you have to be a good 15-20 feet to really get a full image of two people interacting...at least. So if officers have a problem with folks being 25-30 feet away, then I think we have a much bigger problem than the videographer.

Apparently, all of the collected video of police brutatlity and harassment is prompting us to kill police officers, according to Chief McClelland and several other voices from law enforcement.  Where DO they come up with this stuff? This fictional "war on police" comes from the police themselves - for a very specific purpose.

Our police chief, luckily, publicly validates that it's not illegal, yet officers are occasionally overheard saying that it is. In fact, one officer (not the brightest lightbulb) reportedly assaulted a CopWatch videographer. Acevedo's told me he's instructing officers to not consider it illegal/not to resist it, such that he recognizes this is a problem, but at the end of this video you can see him brush off the assault accusation.  He says he's sent memos out to officers instructing them to stop saying it's illegal (waiting to see those)...but they're getting this mantra from somewhere, whether it be the national blue-shield grapevine or internally.

Bills are floating out there in some states to outlaw it - so far not in Texas, but don't discount an amendment being tacked on another bill at the last minute.

CourtWatch

In the courts in three states so far, police have tried to challenge it based on wire-tapping laws that say private conversations can't be legally recorded without consent, as evidenced by some frightenting cases in Illinois. The problem is when a police officer is in uniform, whether engaged in an arrest or talking on a phone to a citizen, he is officially on public duty. Certainly there is no doubt about an arrest being a public act. 

Unfortunately the Tiawanda Moore situation is about unconsenting audio recording (which she had very good reason for)...the trial's in May. The Christopher Drew case, however, is supposed to address both video and audiotaping. Also in the hopper is a Maryland man facing 16 years for "possession of an interference device," i.e., his videotaping being ticketed by an off-duty officer.

Texas' law, as one of the 38 "one party consent" states, is a little looser than the 12 "two-party consent" states where the above examples occured, but it's not inconceivable prosecution isn't on the horizon here.

Wins

Dr. Dre managed to help the people of Michigan by setting precedent there recently when their supreme court ruled police do not have a right to privacy while on the job. Let's hope this sets what's called "persuasive precedent" in Illinois, Maryland and consequently in any further cases in the nation.

Meanwhile, a court is now ordering another APD to back off citizen-journalists. CopWatch East Atlanta walked away with $40,000 in damage. Congratulations!  Let's hope more suits like this are filed to solidify the precedent.

So it doesn't seem their little war on videocameras is going as well as they'd like for them.

Who Will Chill First?

A FoxNews reporter out of Denver put it well:  "Many say that getting prosecuted for taking pictures of police is the end* of police and official intimidation, and when people are ordered to stop taking pictures of police, few want to test the veracity of those threats, most will comply. Those who don't will be arrested, but attorneys say it makes little sense to say the government can take our pictures without letting us take pictures of them. That could say something about the mentality of government." (*I think by "end" he means something like "final rung").

He brings up the chilling effect. We are more and more seeing police abuse and meanwhile, we are more and more hearing from police we have no right to oversee their actions...will their efforts work? Will they "chill" us into giving up our rights despite what we're seeing otherwise? I seriously doubt it. But that won't stop them from trying.

It would be better for them and us alike if they were the ones to "chill"...as in "chillax, dudes, it's just a camera."

I can see why they're scared of the public knowing how they act on the streets. It's not just about not wanting us to see the Rodney King incidents of the world, but they want to avoid the repetition of the less-egregious abuses so we aren't recording how often wrongdoing occurs.  15 or 20 people seeing this type of act on the street occur doesn't deter officers; but recording it and putting video up on the net for 1000s to see can persuade them to do right by us (or get fired).

Officers have been disciplined, even fired for videos of misconduct surfacing. You can see why the police unions are spending many a resource on spreading this trash fiction around that we can't record them. They don't want to lose any paying dues members, but they also can gain members by creating fictional wars and then passionately crying for more officers to address it.

Drunk Frat Boys are Bad Enough

While there is compelling evidence, we lack enough documentable proof of excessive steroid use by some downtown-beat officers. APD isn't testing officers much, even when there's specific cause to do so. Do you think "Austin's finest" Officer McRae got tested at the end of his shift this night?  I would ask, but I won't get the information. They say state law prevents me from having it (even though most other law enforcement agencies don't claim such). With more videocameras in hand, it would become harder and harder for APD to keep the 'roid ragers on the force, arguably the most dangerous of the bad apples.

Even in the most mundane instances where they're just being immature (some, not all, think that's the best way to handle drunk frat boys), with video, one can not only capture these moments which add up to paint a more complete picture...moments like pushing and shoving instead of speaking, later claiming they have a right to do so, when they actually don't because policy says they are to start with verbal commands.

(I once got an officer to stop pepper-spraying a crowd by yelling "use your words!" instead to instruct the confused, non-violent crowd--for real, it's like dealing with children sometimes).

Of course what really sticks in their craw is when you add a few simple effects for comedic purposes.

An Update to the 2nd?

Would the founders of our Constitution have added "camera" to the 2nd Amendment had the technology existed then? If police can bear arms (and deny us life and liberty), and we can bear arms, and they can videotape/surveil us, then shouldn't we have an innate right to videotape them...especially since they work for us?

RESOURCES

WANT MORE ON THE SUBJECT? Connect to CopBlock.

Click the link on this for the .pdf study of why videotaping is legal.

HAS AN OFFICER TOLD YOU TO STOP FILMING? Tell us your story...or HAVE A VIDEO OF LOCAL POLICE ABUSE?  email: copwatchaustin at yahoo.com & debmocracy at yahoo.com  ...  The Austin Police Monitor requests reporting to her as well. She confirmed for this story there have been complaints filed as to being told viderecording police is illegal.

Find Austin CopWatch on Facebook and join their Youtube channel.

A great short documentary on APD & discipline. A good piece by Jordan Smith (older but still relevant) on downtown policing issues and our potential reputation for "aggressive, overreacting policing in entertainment areas."