Comments on: Federal Court: recording cops an unambiguous first amendment right

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:34:00 +0000

Not sure why the video showed the texas flag. We can record whatever
the hell we want. Only one party has to be privy to recording here.
Those northern blue states have way too much corruption to allow that.

Texas is not especially free from civic corruption.

By: Michael Colombo

Michael Colombo — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 03:42:00 +0000

you’re incorrect. It’s Suffolk County NY.

By: derin devlet

derin devlet — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:14:00 +0000

foobar, you dont know what your talking about. Shopkeepers do have special privelidges, regarding detaining people for sholifting. And “assault” and “battery” have special legal meanings, yet you throw them around like being accused of stealing involves them. It doesnt.

By: D Mac

D Mac — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:38:00 +0000

Suffolk County, Mass. NOT NY.

By: David Carroll

David Carroll — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:09:00 +0000

Not sure why the video showed the texas flag. We can record whatever the hell we want. Only one party has to be privy to recording here. Those northern blue states have way too much corruption to allow that.

By: William

William — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:48:00 +0000

@surreality:twitter , re: “[the policewoman] continued to shout at me about how I needed to learn respect.” There are some generations, and apparently some parts of the current generations, who believe in unearned respect. Even when respect is earned, it does not imply subordination of yourself — which is probably what she really meant. Yuck.

By: paul beard

paul beard — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:03:00 +0000

Not sure we’re on the same page. The argument in defense of CCTV is that no one should fear surveillance if they aren’t doing anything wrong. If this regime is OK for citizens, it should be acceptable to law enforcement. I don’t expect an officer to have the demeanor of a maitre’d during a traffic stop but I think a power trip or similar attitude is unacceptable.

By: Jack Holmes

Jack Holmes — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:50:00 +0000

That’s working on the assumption that there are no cops that are willing to call out bad cops. There may well be, but the problem is that there are so few resources for said officers–sure, some areas have Internal Affairs departments, but it may be safe to assume that those IA officers are going to protect their buddies, too. It’s a classic who-will-watch-the-watchmen problem, except that not all of the watchmen are bad.

By: Jack Holmes

Jack Holmes — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:46:00 +0000

Actually, I think that quote about not doing anything wrong very much applies in this situation–but as an argument for the other side. With greater oversight, whether from the public or from Internal Affairs, this kind of harassment could have been avoided. If you have a group of vigilant, watchful citizens and vigilant, watchful cops working together, that doesn’t leave a lot of room for bad eggs, as the bald douchebag in the above video learned the hard way.

By: Richelle Aura Power

Richelle Aura Power — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 05:16:00 +0000

Remind me again, who is policing the police?

By: Jason Fleischer

Jason Fleischer — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 04:25:00 +0000

The youtube video has nothing to do with the case. Click through to the article, go to the end, click on the last link which leads to the ACLU produced video that contains a snippit of the original cell phone video in question.

Really Boing Boing? If you can’t be bothered with something as basic as linking to the correct video, you might as well just use a clip from Law and Order or Reno 911.

By: surreality

surreality — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:26:00 +0000

I was on a playground after dusk and got hassled by a cop for crossing my arms and giving her a “look” because she whipped out a notepad and asked for our names and DOBs. I realize we were trespassing, but she then gave me a lecture, and even after I apologized continued to shout at me about how I needed to learn respect. I’m sorry she was having a bad day, but hot damn. I just hope she’s not having a bad day when someone straight-up talks back to her, because I’m afraid of what she’d do.

Related to the post: Is this a first for a federal court ruling? Do I need to RTFA more in-depth for that? I hope it sticks.

By: William

William — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:47:00 +0000

For its next trick, Massachusetts will allow the sale of alcohol on Sunday! (Ok, in fact the state already did that, but it took them until 2004 to realize that the Pilgrims aren’t really allowed to set policy).

By: foobar

foobar — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:41:00 +0000

The “shopkeeper’s privilege” does generally include detention sufficient for a reasonable investigation as to whether you’ve stolen from them, whether or not they’ve called the police (though it may be wise to do so). But it’s true that it does not include the right to search.

Shopkeepers don’t have any particular privilege. They can perform a citizens arrest, but if you aren’t actually guilty then it’s assault and battery (at least). They have to know absolutely that you’ve committed a crime before they take any action against you.

As for checking receipts, you are well within your rights to refuse. Their only recourse is to ask you to leave.

By: Donald Petersen

Donald Petersen — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:04:00 +0000

Someone oughta press that case, and make big loud noisy stinks at Fry’s Electronics or Guitar Center stores when asked to present receipts at the exit. Maybe they know whether they’ve got a legal leg to stand on, maybe they don’t.

Personally, I have a whole lot of better things to do with my time than fight that particular policy, especially since it costs me approximately three seconds and 0.06% of my dignity per visit. But I’m mildly interested in what the results of such a protest might be.

By: Brainspore

Brainspore — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:23:00 +0000

Only dirty cops are afraid of being videoed.

I’m not sure I’d go that far; I don’t think I’d be comfortable having someone taping me without my consent while I was working either. Of course, whether or not they are comfortable is completely irrelevant. It’s clearly legal and police need to recognize that whether they like it or not.

By: AnthonyC

AnthonyC — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:03:00 +0000

And me as well, of course.

By: EvilSpirit

EvilSpirit — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:59:00 +0000

The “shopkeeper’s privilege” does generally include detention sufficient for a reasonable investigation as to whether you’ve stolen from them, whether or not they’ve called the police (though it may be wise to do so). But it’s true that it does not include the right to search.

This all can vary by jurisdiction, though, and any actual lawyers should feel free to correct me.

By: AnthonyC

AnthonyC — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:47:00 +0000

TSA, I have no idea, but a department store has no legal right to search you or seize your property. They can ask you to leave. They can refuse to complete a sale right up until the moment money changes hands. I think they can even detain you if they call the police to accuse you of something. But that’s all. They can *ask* to check your receipt, but (unless you’ve signed a contract that says otherwise, like at Costco) they cannot require it.

By: efergus3

efergus3 — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:17:00 +0000

RICO them all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

By: querent

querent — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:28:00 +0000

Fuck yes.

Man, that cop was a dick, and I’ve been on the receiving end of that kind of treatment a dozen times.

Most cops I’ve dealt with think that you not doing what they say is a crime. Fuck the police. They fuck with the populace on the regular and with impunity.

We need a “public prosecutor’s office” so the poor can sue over police misconduct.

Even if you think many of them got into the force to help people (and I think those are the minority), take a look at the results Stanford Prison Experiment.

By: Car Pundit

Car Pundit — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:16:00 +0000

The court case was about Boston Police on Boston Common. Boston is in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which does not have police; it has a Sheriff’s Department, but they only handle the jails. Boston also has Suffolk University, which has police, but they don’t have guns.

The video shows Suffolk County, New York, police.

By: mzed

mzed — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:13:00 +0000

Just to be clear, the linked video has nothing to do with the Gilk case. Gilk was arrested for filming Boston Police on the Boston Common.This video shows a similar incident on Long Island; the county name is coincidentally the same.

By: Manny

Manny — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:07:00 +0000

I wish there had been someone recording a recent incident in Washington, DC. A drunken off-duty policeman shot several transgender people sitting in a car and has since been arrested and charged. Before he started shooting: “He pulled a gun on one of the victims, who then reported the incident to an off-duty D.C. police officer working security at the pharmacy, charging documents said. The CVS officer determined that Furr was an ‘off-duty officer, and therefore no further action was necessary,’ the charging document said.” There is then some confusion about whether he shot them and crashed his car into theirs, or crashed into them first and then shot them.Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/2011/08/officer-transgender-shooting-had-prior-alcohol-run-ins#ixzz1WXK4bF4k

By: SedanChair

SedanChair — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:32:00 +0000

Every department has cops like this. Every cop is complicit in this type of behavior because they allow it to take place.

By: realityhater

realityhater — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:30:00 +0000

smile , your fourth amendment rights have just been violated ! way too much of this type of thing going on. Too many “police” officers thinking laws do not apply to them and they can make them up as they go along – also way too many states standing behind officers that do wrong.
“To Protect and Serve” not “To Stop unconstitutionally and Harass”. I just watched another video where in Arkansas a man was arrested for not complying to an officers request to show vaild ID after he had been video taping them FROM HIS OWN GARAGE ! the officers stepped into his garage after he asked why they were acting like NAZI’s then demanded his ID citing he was causing “obstruction of justice ” obstructing an arrest that had already occurred and the officers were leaving the scene …….

By: Manuel Smirnoff

Manuel Smirnoff — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:11:00 +0000

If the “good” cops took their oaths seriously, there would be no bad cops: protecting and serving doesn’t mean protecting your buddies in the force and serving their interests. They know, and they keep quiet. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that there are NO good cops. When the goods ones want to stand up and clean things up, I will change my opinion, not until.

By: JBarnes01

JBarnes01 — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:01:00 +0000

Michael, there is a subset of your third identified group of individuals that decide to take the police career path–High School and Junior College football players who found the “badge” gave them the same power as donning the pads.

I point to my yearbook, then I point to my local police protection. That is all.

By: mikedt

mikedt — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:32:00 +0000

unfortunately the good cops back up the bad cops no matter what. It takes being caught with an underage boy before the rest of the blue line will shun you.

By: traalfaz

traalfaz — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:19:00 +0000

A keyfob camera is a nice “holdout” – you can use an obvious camera to let them know they’re being watched, and a less obvious one to catch them destroying evidence.

Cops really need to be aware that they simply can’t stop citizen evidence gathering. They need to be aware of the existence of services that stream video from cell phone cameras to online servers in real time. This means that they’re only making it worse for themselves by trying to seize cameras, because it’s possible that the video they’re trying to seize is already being watched by people 1000 miles away.