JC: We talked about video footage of the police involved in the arrest of another person. What if you are in the center? If you are the star of this horrible show, do you have the right to say, “Officer, I want to turn on my recording device” or “Officer, I would like to film this during my arrest to protect my rights and preserve what is really going on”? Finally, Massachusetts` Interception Act is unique in that it prohibits secret audio recording of conversations, whether or not those conversations are private, and there is no consent from all parties. There is a case pending on the First Circuit that, under the First Amendment, challenges Massachusetts` wiretapping law in that it prohibits the secret recording of police officers engaged in non-private activities — that is, the performance of their official duties in public. The rule of simple vision also applies in this state because, as noted by the First Circle, the open folder is not secret. Update: In May 2021, the First Circuit ruled that individuals have the right to secretly record police officers performing their official duties in public. Even in states that normally require two parties to agree, federal courts have ruled that police officers do not expect privacy to be respected during traffic checks. The most likely scenario in which your recording will be considered illegal is if it violates Law 934.03 – Non-Consensual Audio Recording. If you can record without sound, don`t worry. If not, take the risk, register and trust the courts. Several recent court decisions have recognized the First Amendment right to film and record interactions between police and citizens. A main example is Glik v.
Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1. cir. 2011). Simon Glik was arrested by police after attempting to record officers` interaction with a young African-American man in the Boston House of Commons. After the charges were dismissed, Glik filed a lawsuit, alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. Stay calm, especially if your shot puts you in the middle of a confrontation with a police officer. It may not solve everything, but if it`s on video, it could prove your innocence in court. You have the right to register the policy under the First Amendment. Federal courts and the Department of Justice have recognized the right of individuals to register the police. Although the Supreme Court has not ruled directly on the issue, there is extensive Supreme Court jurisprudence that supports the right to register the police.
And the federal appellate courts of the first (update: also this First District), Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circle Courts directly upheld this right. EFF has argued for this right in numerous amicus curia briefs. It is always your decision to welcome a police officer and therefore you should be aware of the risks. If you follow these counsels, obey the law and leave the rest to those who have sworn to protect and serve. JC: Why don`t we progress from spectators to the people actually involved? Starting with the viewers, I mean, how many videos have you seen where the officer says, “Excuse me, sir. Turn off your camera. Or, “Excuse me, sir. Put your camera away. What is it? The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recognizes that photography in and around airline security checks is allowed, as long as you do not interfere with the screening process. The TSA is asking that its security screeners not be photographed, though it is unclear whether they have a legal basis for such a restriction if the monitors are clearly visible to the traveling public. In a new round of discussions this week on the formulation of a UN treaty on cybercrime, EFF calls for a strict limitation of the scope of the Convention`s provisions and guarantees of international cooperation to ensure that states respect human rights when responding to requests for mutual legal assistance. EFF belongs to a group of.
Another issue that has not been fully developed by the courts concerns the relationship between the right of registration and various data protection laws. (Kaminski, 167-68). The Seventh Judicial Circuit, for example, stated, “Nothing we have said here immunizes behavior that impedes or interferes with effective law enforcement or the protection of public safety.” The court added: “While an officer certainly cannot give a person an `additional movement order` because they are recording, police can order passers-by to disperse for reasons of public safety and order and other legitimate law enforcement needs.” When they ask you what you do, be respectful and remind them that it is your right to record. If you don`t interfere with their work and visibly stay safe, do what is required by law. Federal courts of appeal generally view the right to register the police as the right to register officers performing their official duties in public. So if the police officer is not on duty or in a private room where you are not allowed to be as well, your right to greet the officer may be limited. The right to register the police clearly includes the right to take photos and videos. There is an additional legal fold when recording audio – with or without video. Some police officers have argued that audio recording without their consent violates wiretapping laws.
The courts have generally rejected this argument. The Seventh Circuit, for example, found that Illinois` wiretapping law violated the First Amendment, which applies to audio recordings of police officers on duty. In many lawsuits, the question revolves around whether a federal court will recognize that the law was clearly established at the time the citizen was recorded or filmed.