Ruling Against Boston Police

Status
Not open for further replies.

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,698
First Circuit Upholds Right To Videotape Arresting Officers - Law Blog - WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Glik.pdf

Boston Police were wrong when they arrested a man who recorded them making an arrest.

There is extensive information here regarding the importance of the public sharing of information about governmental activities.

The pdf of the court's ruling is only about a dozen pages long - it is not too hard to read. Perhaps you could take out the words 'video' and 'cellphone', and insert "scanner".

Openness
 

garys

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Messages
4,642
Location
Eastern MA
No you can't since one is an active process that is covered by law and the First Amendment and one isn't.
 

garys

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Messages
4,642
Location
Eastern MA
[Another link with some comments]


Court upholds 'citizen's right' to film cops

Appeals Court: Arresting Guy For Filming Cops Was A Clear Violation Of Both 1st & 4th Amendments | Techdirt

The ruling (pdf) from United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/10-1764P-01A.pdf (PDF LINK)

Other Link:

June 08, 2011 - Videotaping the police: A brief legal analysis
Videotaping the police: A brief legal analysis

June 08, 2011 - Videotaping the police: Officer safety and policy issues explored
Videotaping the police: Officer safety and policy issues explored
I've only read a synopsis from which it wasn't clear to me if the issue covered video only or video and audio. Video or still photography of anyone on a public area has always been legal. Audio taping is different and has long been illegal in the state without either a court order or the consent of all parties being recorded. If the case involved video only without audio, then this is not a change in the law. If the case involved both, then it's a major change to the MA wiretapping laws and might be appealed to SCOTUS.
 

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,698
Just for general info - garys is on my ignore list - has been for many years - so I dont see his posts
 

ecps92

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
10,570
Location
Taxachusetts
Of Course he can re-write / interpret / suppose / think aloud / ponder all he wants to re-write anything , but as you point out... there is no change, no matter how hard we "WISH" / "THINK"

BTW - Congrats Gary :D

I've only read a synopsis from which it wasn't clear to me if the issue covered video only or video and audio. Video or still photography of anyone on a public area has always been legal. Audio taping is different and has long been illegal in the state without either a court order or the consent of all parties being recorded. If the case involved video only without audio, then this is not a change in the law. If the case involved both, then it's a major change to the MA wiretapping laws and might be appealed to SCOTUS.
 

UPMan

Uniden Representative
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
13,288
Location
Arlington, TX
Other issues notwithstanding, I found the following sentence in the ruling to be pretty broad:
"Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting 'the free discussion of governmental affairs.'"
 

kc9cra

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
101
Location
Evansville, IN
Gary, where in the constitution does it say that audio isn't covered. I know that laws made after the constitution might make that disernment, but they are unconstitutional. After all, how is a scanner different from a video camera? I know a scanner doesn't record, but even recording, what's wrong with that? I know some things might be offensive or wrong, but that doesn't mean they should be illegal or that they are even any of the government's business to control. After all, some may say recording is wrong, while others say it's perfectly fine. It's funny how people support the legislation of morality. They believe the people creating these laws have the same beliefs that they do, and that the laws will be enforced exactly the way they wanted. Surprise!
What bugs me about wiretapping laws, and yes, this might be a little ot, but it annoys me that someone can break in to your home, steal your property shoot your dog, rape your wife, molest your kids, kill you, burn your house down, and steal your identity from your wallet, but you can't record what this person says. You can't even put a wireless listening device in your own home that transmits what is said, so you can monitor it. I understand if you're going to someone else's house, but this your own home. Someone invading your home apparently has the right to keep what they say private, so if they plan on robbing you, then sending their buddies to beat you up, you're not allowed to hear or record that electronicly. Also, I don't know about MA, because I've heard everything's illegal in Massachusetts, but there have been changes in the laws about tellin people they've been recorded. Now, at least in Indiana, if Iunderstand the law correctly, if one party concents to being recorded, they may legally record a conversation. Jus fyi
 

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,698
The case is pretty simple actually - Glik says he has a right to
videotape the police to keep them in line - the police say you are
cramping our style - the Court ruled that Glik was the winner

Here are some interesting quotes from the Court decision

The First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press, and the self
expression of individuals, to prohibit government from limiting the
stock of information from which members of the public may draw

"there is an undoubted right to gather news 'from any source by means
within the law' "

Gathering information about government officials in a form that can
readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment
interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of
governmental affairs"

"News" helps in "uncovering abuses" and has a "salutary effect on the
functioning of government"

The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the (? Supreme ?)
Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of
the news media; rather, the public's right of access to information is
coextensive with that of the press - (this is something that David
Pinero talked about on his Openness website a long time ago)

The right to videotape police and government officials " is a basic,
vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment
 

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,698
The Public

What if the public is blocked from filming improper EMS? Which is more important - the privacy of the patient, or the quality of care?
 

Citywide173

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,660
Location
Attleboro, MA
The Public

What if the public is blocked from filming improper EMS? Which is more important - the privacy of the patient, or the quality of care?
Well, I can understand why you have Gary blocked....you don't have a clue about this stuff, and don't want to hear from anyone that does.

Filming EMS is ABSOLUTELY allowed, provided that there is no HIPAA requirement incumbent upon the photographer, and it is done from a place where the public normally has access. There is nothing that says that the EMS providers HAVE to let you photograph unimpeded. They are actually required by HIPAA to protect the privacy of their patient to the highest extent possible. So if they stand in between the patient and the camera, they are upholding their Federal Mandate. They can't take your camera or tell you to turn it off, but they don't have to cater to you either.
 

ff-medic

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
727
Location
The Appalachians - Next to the tent and campfire.
Well, I can understand why you have Gary blocked....you don't have a clue about this stuff, and don't want to hear from anyone that does.

Filming EMS is ABSOLUTELY allowed, provided that there is no HIPAA requirement incumbent upon the photographer, and it is done from a place where the public normally has access. There is nothing that says that the EMS providers HAVE to let you photograph unimpeded. They are actually required by HIPAA to protect the privacy of their patient to the highest extent possible. So if they stand in between the patient and the camera, they are upholding their Federal Mandate. They can't take your camera or tell you to turn it off, but they don't have to cater to you either.

"Oh, Mr or Ms Trooper / Deputy / officer. back them away please. About 200 feet back."

Let the cops take care of that stuff. A patient bleeding, primary and secondary assessment, clothes cut off , stabilizing the patient for ambulance transport or aero-evacuation..let the cops set up about a 250 foot barrier. A female, upper chest exposed for cardiac arrest treatment, and EMS / Fire needs a safe zone ; Hah , perfect for Law Enforecement.

Don't make it any more difficult that it is, if you can prevent so.

FF - Medic !!!
 

ff-medic

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
727
Location
The Appalachians - Next to the tent and campfire.
The Public

........ Which is more important - the privacy of the patient, or the quality of care?

BOTH ; equally important. There is no distinction between the two. Absolutely. " I want to look." " I want to see." That is most people comments if someone is injured and in a public place/ locale/ highway. If it was them, If they were the injured person --> " Oh ; please cover me up." " Back them away, I dont want anyone seing me like this."

The morons, on the sidelines taking pics. I want to just put them in the grass, and take trauma sheers to their clothes while everyone is snapping pics and filming. Let them be on the receiveing end of an embarrasing event, incident. I have had enough trouble in the past, just getting a injured person, male and female ; in the back of an ambulance ; to trust me. Why would they trust Joe or Jane Schmoe on the street.

FF - Medic !!!
 
Last edited:

ff-medic

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
727
Location
The Appalachians - Next to the tent and campfire.
Quote from article - " Glik whipped out his cell phone and started videotaping the arrest. An officer asked Glik if he was recording audio. When Glik said that he was, the officer arrested him for allegedly violating the state’s wiretap law, the opinion notes."

So the difference between a cell phone with audio, and a news camera from a news / media organization...is what?

Quote from article - "After the charge was dropped, Glik filed a lawsuit, claiming his free speech rights had been violated. The officers claimed they were immune from the suit because they were acting in their official capacity."

Just a few of the reasons, a Law Enforcement Officer is not immune, if in the performance of their official capacity, and or duties, if they are - Reckless, Neglegent.

Or...performance/ actions / activity, outside the color of the law. Which, as I intepret in the courts decision,Police did.


FF - Medic !!!
 
Last edited:

Citywide173

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,660
Location
Attleboro, MA
"Oh, Mr or Ms Trooper / Deputy / officer. back them away please. About 200 feet back."

Let the cops take care of that stuff. A patient bleeding, primary and secondary assessment, clothes cut off , stabilizing the patient for ambulance transport or aero-evacuation..let the cops set up about a 250 foot barrier. A female, upper chest exposed for cardiac arrest treatment, and EMS / Fire needs a safe zone ; Hah , perfect for Law Enforecement.

Don't make it any more difficult that it is, if you can prevent so.

FF - Medic !!!
Cops on an EMS call, that's a good one. Come to work with me sometime and you'll realize that they don't go on their calls where I work.

And after reviewing things, I believe the post I was replying to meant filming by the patient, not bystanders, which isn't an issue in my book until it starts interfering with patient care.
 
Last edited:

ff-medic

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
727
Location
The Appalachians - Next to the tent and campfire.
Cops on an EMS call, that's a good one. ....... you'll realize that they don't go on their calls where I work..
Well, maybe where " YOU " work.

And after reviewing things, I believe the post I was replying to meant filming by the patient, not bystanders,..
My intepretation was by the crowd, or citizens in the area. A patient filming with their video camera. Oh-Kay. How is an accurate patient care and treatment supposed to take place?

...which isn't an issue in my book until it starts interfering with patient care.
Simple. Put the cell phone down and I will treat you. I don't have the time to manupulate your assessment and treatment around you filming me.

Verbal communication between the care provider and the patient.

FF- Medic !!!
 

ff-medic

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
727
Location
The Appalachians - Next to the tent and campfire.
...... There is nothing that says that the EMS providers HAVE to let you photograph unimpeded. They are actually required by HIPAA to protect the privacy of their patient to the highest extent possible. So if they stand in between the patient and the camera, they are upholding their Federal Mandate. They can't take your camera or tell you to turn it off, but they don't have to cater to you either.
"Stand between the patient and the camera." " Upholding their Federal Mandate."

I believe you meant filming from a crowd.

FF - Medic !!!
 

Citywide173

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,660
Location
Attleboro, MA
"Stand between the patient and the camera." " Upholding their Federal Mandate."

I believe you meant filming from a crowd.

FF - Medic !!!
Yes, that reply was made as I initially interpreted the post the same way you did. After listening to the referenced material, I believe that the poster was referring to a patient filming.
 

Citywide173

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,660
Location
Attleboro, MA
Just for a point of clarification to those outside Massachusetts. The law pertaining to surreptitiously recording someone only applies to audio recording. There were several cases in the 90's where people were secretly videotaping others in various acts, and the decision of the State Supreme Court was that if it didn't contain audio, the law didn't apply to it.

Of course, the police seemed to think that someone openly filming them in the performance of their duty somehow was covered by the same statute if audio was recorded. They seemed to miss the facts that as public employees, they have no right to privacy while on duty, the camera wasn't hidden, and as long as they were in a place where the public normally has access, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top