USDOJ Urges Judge To See Constitutionality Of Recording Cops In Pending Case

For the first time since the War on Cameras began in earnest, the U.S. Department of Justice has weighed in on a federal lawsuit regarding the right to record police in public, leaving no doubt that it is protected by the First Amendment.

The suit stems from the 2010 incident at the Preakness Stakes when Baltimore police deleted footage from a man’s camera after he recorded them making an arrest.

The ACLU last year sued the Baltimore Police Department on the behalf of Christopher Sharp, who video recorded the arrest. The above video was recorded by another citizen.

On January 10, attorneys from the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division wrote a "statement of interest" to the judge overseeing the case.

According to the Baltimore Sun:

The federal attorneys say the lawsuit "presents constitutional questions of great moment in this digital age." They asked U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg to rule that citizens have a right to record police officers and that officers who seize and destroy recordings without a warrant or due process are violating the Fourth and 14th amendments.

"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," Justice Department attorneys wrote in a "statement of interest" filed Jan. 10 in the case.

"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."

“At minimum, defendants should develop a comprehensive policy that specifically addresses individual's First Amendment right to observe and record officer conduct," attorneys wrote. "Morever, BPD should track allegations that an officer has interfered with a citizen's First Amendment right to observe and/or record the public performance of public duties."

Now it is up to the judge to make the ruling, but he would have to create laws out of thin air in order to rule against the wishes of the Department of Justice.

This Department of Justice’s statements might also influence the pending ACLU vs Alvarez case that is challenging the constitutionality of the controversial Illinois wiretapping law, which makes it illegal for citizens to records cops in public without their consent.

Comments

Wow the Obama DOJ taking this stance is kind of shocking.. Nice, but shocking.

This whole question is so obvious it is silly it requires this level of attention.. Unfortunately cops are not to bright and think THEY decide what is illegal..

Cops are not too bright for a reason: police departments don't want smart cops because they fear they will be easily bored with police work and will quit after undergoing expensive training. This was confirmed by a recent court case in Connecticut in which an applicant was rejected because he scored too high on a police IQ test. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the police department did not discriminate against the applicant, clearing the way for them to hire cops with lower levels of intelligence. So we shouldn't be surprised when cops have no clue about the laws they are supposed to enforce or, worse, who believe they can make things up as they go along. As Forrest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Cops often need more in-depth education in law. One came roaring out of the hospital my sister works in, threatening to arrest the staff for refusing to draw blood from a combative, unwilling subject. He bellowed about how the law is clear - persons in custody must surrender physical and forensic samples.

Sure, but what the law does *not* do is compel anyone to take those samples against their will. So short of a warrant/court order, buddy, head on down to the nearest fire station and see if they're more compliant.

Thats an interesting point, the guy may be compelled to give them, but you aren't compelled to take them..

I've never heard of a law that requires medical personnel to draw blood from an unwilling patient, even if the police demand that it be done.

And if the cop interfered with any medical treatment the suspect was receiving in order to demand his samples, he may be guilty of interfering with emergency services personnel.

This is HUGE. I'm really looking forward to seeing the outcome of this case.

Let’s say for a moment that the Judge does rule in favor of the Constitution. The problem is there is absolutely NO consequences what so ever for Cops who violate citizens Constitutional rights, none what so ever. So the judge rules in favor of the Constitution, cops will still arrest people for videotaping them and what’s the worst that’s going to happen to them? They get called into the principal’s office and told they didn’t follow protocol, or worst case they get a few days off with pay. Meanwhile a citizen would have to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend themselves.

With over 40,000 laws being passed in the U.S. last year alone, not to mention the millions of laws on the books one would think in the land of the free, home of the brave there would be some sort of consequences for cops who violate citizens rights.

If they took lawsuit money out of the departments budget rather than the general tax fund it would definitely have an effect. Bad dept's would be easy to spot, those would be the ones with the dented cruisers, old rusty guns, tattered uniforms and dry, cracked boots.

Ill disciplined dept's with rogue cops would be the laughingstock of police and citizens everywhere, because all the money cops get to buy spiffy new equipment would be paying off the lawsuits the asshole cops on the force engendered for it.
Bad boys get coal for Christmas.

Forget taking lawsuit money from the Dept. budget, take it from the union's pension fund.

Some cops already are taking money from those funds. A few actually get caught. Injustice Everywhere posts those types of stories all the time.

Cops DO face consequences for violating citizens' Constitutional rights. That is exactly was 42 USC 1983 is for.

For example, between July 1993 and November 1996, Philadelphia agreed to pay $32.6 million in settlements and civil jury awards arising from lawsuits alleging police misconduct.

It does not matter one iota what the man in the black dress decides.

No one can take away our Inalienable right to publicly film our EMPLOYEES in their duties.

Post new comment

Pixiq on Facebook

Join the 10200 Pixiq fans on Facebook

Share

  • Share

Subscribe

Get weekly updates from Pixiq. Short, sweet, and always interesting.