From Indianapolis, a story of how to not handle the public (assuming this is the full story).
Indianapolis cops must allow citizens to film police activity after $200k settlement
The terms of a recently settled lawsuit in Indianapolis, Indiana will require the city’s police force to remind officers that it’s legal for civilians to videotape on-duty cops, but it will also cost the department more than just that.
In addition to having to adopt an official policy recognizing the right for citizens to record law enforcement officials, the City of Indianapolis is also cutting a $200,000 check for a local man who was arrested and injured by police in 2011 after he refused to stop filming a nearby arrest.
Willie King was watching Indianapolis police officers arrest a young man in his neighbor’s driveway three years ago this month when he decided it would be a good idea to grab his cellphone and start recording. The cops weren’t too keen about being caught on film, however, and ordered King, then 66 years old, to hand over his phone.
“Sir, you know that if he resists any more they can take your phone as evidence,” an officer was caught saying, according to transcripts published this week by local news network WISH-TV.
“I don’t give a [expletive] what you do, y’all just don’t harm him,” King responded.
When King refused to stop recording from his neighbor’s porch, he was tackled to the ground, arrested and charged with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and public intoxicating.
King was ultimately found not guilty of those charges, but turned around and filed a civil suit against the city over alleged First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations.
That case was scheduled to go to trial starting March 10, but it’s now been reported that the city decided to settle this past January.
King is being awarded $200,000 from the city as part of that settlement, but the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department is also being forced to institute a new policy prohibiting police officers from bothering with eyewitnesses who are recording their actions.
According to excerpts of the policy published on Thursday by WISH-TV, local law enforcement officials have 60 days to adopt a policy that states “police officers should not interfere with civilians who are observing or recording their actions by video or audio in public, so long as the civilians maintain a safe and reasonable distance if necessary from the scene of a police action, do not physically interfere with the officers’ performance of their duty and do not represent a physical danger to the officers, civilians or others.”
“Willie King was wronged when the officers stopped his videotaping and took away his cellphone,” King’s attorney, Richard Waples, was quoted as saying by The Indiana Lawyer website. “We want to make sure that in the future police officers understand that people have the right to video record their actions."...
Sunlight cleans things up and I have no issue with being videotaped. I will require you to do it from a safe distance, e.g. across the street, but I have to agree with this ruling.
I agree completely.
ReplyDeleteThere are limits. No free person needs to live in a surveillance society; I'd be against installing cameras in your police car, for example, to record your every movement and utterance. But when you're out and interacting with the public, I can see how recording is good. In fact, you and I have discussed how it might be good for you to have your own tiny camera on your uniform to record for your own benefit and protection.
In my job as a teacher, I'm interacting to a degree that would be like you being with the public every second. I don't have any "down time" in the class. Since it's not right to be recorded every moment of the day, I haven't figured out how to handle that obvious conflict there.
Darren, we're starting to field cameras to all patrol officers. It's a small camera (about half the size of a pack of cigarettes) that attaches to the front of the shirt. Still working out the kinks in the system (e.g. how long to retain "routine data) but it's progress. From what's I've read the video's, after an internal affairs complaint is filed, generally supports the officer.
DeleteIt seems to me if you don't have anything to hide why would you care if you are being taped? People don't trust police because of issues like this. I think it should be mandatory for all officers to be recording during any stop. Seems to me this is in your best interest. You have public jobs and you are sworn to uphold the law. Any other thought would be just plain stupid. If the suspect is causing problems you will be protected by your own video. If you violate someones rights you will be arrested and hopefully fired. You serve the public you own them honest hard work and respect. Even if the folks you are dealing with don't show it to you.The public is your boss. They pay your salary if this is a problem you can always choose a different type of employment.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
DeleteI agree for the most part. Sometimes there are things I need to hide from the public (e.g. an undercover officer, the identity of a complainant or witness, etc.) but again, if it's the public, there is no expectation of privacy.
As far as your blanket statement "People don't trust police..." it seems you have an ax to grind on this. Yes, I'm a public employee and the public (at least initially) deserves respect. After you call me a few choice names, threaten to take my badge, job and pension, interfere with my investigation and then say I'll come after my family (and yes, I've had all that happen in my career) forgive me if I don't treat you like the nice old church lady. Also it seems you missed something, the chance is I won't be taped, but you will. If the camera is attached to the front of my shirt, it will record the audio of both of us, but the video of only one of us. A car camera will video tape both me and the driver as long as we are within the viewing range of the camera.
Again, back to your ax to grind, "If the suspect is causing problems you will be protected by your own video. If you violate someones (sic) rights you will be arrested and hopefully fired". The classic case of sometimes the video doesn't show you everything is Rodney King. The tape was almost 10 minutes long. The part shown over and over again (I swear the news had it on a loop) was the part where King was on the ground and the officer hit him in the head. To answer your challenge before you bring it, no, that was not justified. That is use of deadly force and the officers did not have "reasonable fear for life or serious bodily injury" However, what was not shown over and over and over and over and over again was King taking the officers on a high speed pursuit, getting out of the car, charging the officers, getting up after being TAZED twice, etc. Did those four men have justification for use of intermediate force? Oh yes. Not that the video shown would show that. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. See my post of Albuquerque shooting (above).
As far as your comment of "They pay your salary...", hate to tell you this but the customer is not always right. In the case of law enforcement, that is often the case. Some simple cooperation on the part of the citizen would help, such as simply identifying yourself when asked and keeping your hands where I can see them, especially after I have told you that multiple times. I’m not there to be the final judge. If you think you are innocent (and I’m supervising a jail staff right now, just ask our citizens, they “didn’t do it”) there is a time and place to make that case, a court. If you think the officer was unprofessional, you can speak with his superiors. But again, I’m here to protect your ass. Not to kiss it.