Another BFD: DoJ Stands Up For Right to Publicly Video Police

[ProSense]

Another BFD: DoJ Stands Up For Right to Publicly Video Police

by jpmassar

The Health Care Law was a BFD (just ask your local Tea Party if you don't think so). When the Department of Justice changed its stance from defending the Defense of Marriage Act to claiming that it was unconstitutional -- that was a pretty BFD too.

Now the DoJ has taken another BFD position. In a brief supporting the right of a citizen to video the police performing their public duties, Department of Justice lawyers wrote:

The right to record police officers while performing duties in a public place as well as the right to be protected from the warrantless seizure and destruction of those recordings, are not only required by the Constitution... They are consistent with our fundamental notions of liberty, promote the accountability of our governmental officers, and instill public confidence in the police officers who serve us daily.

The ACLU believes this is the first time the DoJ has taken such a stance:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, which is representing the plaintiff, Christopher Sharp, said it believes this is the first time the Department of Justice has weighed in on the topic of recording police.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/12/1054201/-Another-BFD:-DoJ-Stands-Up-For-Right-to-Publicly-Video-Police

[mysuzuki2]

1. Damn right!

We do not need "secret" police in this country!

[rhett o rick]

2. Bravo for the DoJ. This is a BFD. nm

[ProSense]

4. Yes, it is. n/t

[slay]

17. Indeed

if they can tape us - we should be allowed to tape them - good on the DoJ - for once.

[limpyhobbler]

3. they couldn't stop it if they tried

The cops have already tried to make video recording illegal. The people didn't care and persisted anyway. I welcome this guidance from the DOJ. I also recognize that this can be looked at as an admission of defeat.

In other words if it were politically feasible to outlaw filming cops, it would be outlawed without regard for the constitution or our rights. The Constitution can always be re-interpreted to suit political needs.

The real thing that protects our right to video record police is the fact that people insist on exercising the right even in the face of severe intimidation.

[PETRUS]

14. This point has serious merit. nt

[aquamarina]

5. It sure it. It is a MFing BFD

[proverbialwisdom]

6. Great.

[ProSense]

7. Kick! n/t

[rustydog]

8. I am glad they are taking this stance

My first impression was any officer confiscating cell phones and video recording without a warrant were in gross violation of the 4th amentment.

Police officers performing their duties before the public have no right to or expectation of privacy and cannot confiscate one's camera after they have captured the officer "kicking the mexican piss" out of a subject on the ground. Some officers have deleted the captured video...evidence tampering? Destruction of evidence?

It is about time.

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. Glik vs. Boston.

[ProSense]

10. Did

"Glik vs. Boston. "

...that case involve the DOJ?

<...>

The issue of recording police garnered attention in 2010 when a motorcyclist, Anthony Graber, was charged in Harford County with videotaping — on a helmet-mounted camera — his interaction with a state trooper who had pulled him over at gunpoint for speeding...The ACLU successfully defended Graber against criminal charges related to the taping, and the case sparked debate about Maryland's strict wiretapping laws and issues of recording law enforcement officers in public places.

The Maryland attorney general's office later issued an opinion advising police agencies that people have a right to record officers and that most interactions between police and the public cannot be considered private.

Deborah A. Jeon, legal director for the ACLU of Maryland, said in an email that the Justice Department's filing in the Sharp case indicates an intention to monitor the case as it moves forward.

"The opinion of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division matters very much, and the decision to offer this opinion in a private police practices case is quite extraordinary, particularly at the trial level," Jeon said in an email. "The fact that they have done so here reflects the importance of the issue, and the current administration's commitment to civil rights in this area."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-ci-aclu-doj-videotaping-20120111,0,7691935.story

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. Sorry, I have no idea. But any victory such as this can be made into precedent

which is also why repubs have always gone to small, obscure courts to attempt to gain legal precedent upon their pet projects.

[gulliver]

12. Sure, but it's probably usually dumb to do so.

Cops might warn people about a law if they aren't on tape. If on tape, they might feel they have to arrest people to keep from being seen as failing to enforce the law.

[Logical]

13. Proof of this???

[Scurrilous]

15. K & R

[Laelth]

16. This is impressive. Sadly, it is also surprising.

But, credit where it is due. I am thankful for the DoJ's limited support of the right of the people to know what their servants are doing in their name.

-Laelth

[kentuck]

18. That is a BFD.

Who woke up the DOJ?

[whatchamacallit]

19. Big Fucking Deal

[whatchamacallit]

20. Glad to see this

Honestly not what I would expect, but it's a welcome decision.

[duhneece]

21. Since Bushco filled the DOJ with non-liberals, when they could

I am always pleased when justice is actually encouraged. I pray for more liberal DOJ hires.