Congressman introduces resolution to protect citizens who videotape cops

[JoshLowry]

A U.S. Congressman has introduced a resolution that would protect citizens who videotape cops in public from getting arrested on state wiretapping charges. Edolphus Towns (http://www.house.gov/towns/index.shtml), a Democrat from New York, introduced the resolution on Thursday, the same day USA Today (http://carlosmiller.com/2010/07/15/usa-today-denounces-wiretapping-arrests-cops-offer-flimsy-argument/)wrote a scathing editorial denouncing these types of arrests.

These types of arrests have become an epidemic throughout the country as more people are carrying some type of video-recording device on them at all times.

But the case that has gained the most national attention has been the arrest of Anthony Graber (http://carlosmiller.com/2010/04/16/maryland-motorcyclist-spends-26-hours-in-jail-on-wiretapping-charge-for-filming-cop-with-gun/), a National Guardsman who is facing 16 years in prison because he uploaded a video of a Maryland State Trooper pulling a gun on him during a traffic stop.

More... [/URL][url]http://carlosmiller.com/2010/07/16/breaking-news-congressman-introduces-bill-to-protect-citizens-who-videotape-cops/ (http://carlosmiller.com/2010/07/16/breaking-news-congressman-introduces-bill-to-protect-citizens-who-videotape-cops/)

[angelatc]

I'd rather see a constitutional amendment. Not sure the Fed Gov is allowed this authority.

[hugolp]

Its just a complain, not really a law.

[BuddyRey]

Good news! I hope the bill passes.

[Matt Collins]

This needs to be done on the state level, not in the federal government (unless the bill only applies to federal agents).

[speciallyblend]

SAY WEED:) notice you get a better smile out of weed instead of cheese:) my fav when taping a cop is to ask them to say weed. so i get a smile;)

[michaelwise]

I think there should be a law against all public stationary surveillance cameras on public streets, unless in proven high crime areas and where the need is clearly demonstrated approved by a vote from the community. I don't like being survailed 24/7. Private citizens should be allowed all the mobile cameras they want.

[Reason]

hmmm

[Dr.3D]

I still can't figure out how making a video that is not connected in any way to a wire or telephone system, can be construed as a violation of a wiretapping law. A wiretap is just what the word implies, it is a tap on the wire to record a telephone conversation. Now with the event of the wireless telephones, I guess it would apply to recording any telephone conversation, but surely not to recording a conversation taking place on a public street.

[Matt Collins]

I think there should be a law against all public stationary surveillance cameras on public streets,Only if they are government operated. A private owner can have their own cameras on their own building on their own property, even if they just happen to record the street or other public views.


unless in proven high crime areasCameras do not prevent nor deter crime. Not only that, who decides what constitutes a "high crime area"?


and where the need is clearly demonstrated approved by a vote from the communityWe do not live in a democracy, the "community" doesn't get to vote on anything other than who runs the government. The most plausible exception where referendums would do good (that I can think of) would be for the raising or creation of taxes.



Private citizens should be allowed all the mobile cameras they want.I agree completely with this part.

[Matt Collins]

I still can't figure out how making a video that is not connected in any way to a wire or telephone system, can be construed as a violation of a wiretapping law. A wiretap is just what the word implies, it is a tap on the wire to record a telephone conversation. Now with the event of the wireless telephones, I guess it would apply to recording any telephone conversation, but surely not to recording a conversation taking place on a public street.
The conventional wisdom (and legal standard from my understanding) is that there is no expectation of privacy in public.

[GreedyHenry]

Only if they are government operated. A private owner can have their own cameras on their own building on their own property, even if they just happen to record the street or other public views.


In many cities it is required that certain business's have surveillance cameras and even have to be electronically linked to the city police.