Be the Spark!

contribute now

Cops, Laws and Videotape

AIR DATE: Monday, September 22nd 2008
Download the mp3 for this show.
When and how should we be able to record officers of the law?

Seventeen years ago, a video of the arrest of a Los Angeles resident named Rodney King raised questions about recording police officers. Many of these legal and ethical questions still resonate in Oregon and elsewhere today. A Portlander who recently had his camera confiscated and received a citation for taping cops in action, intends to sue the Portland Police. The Oregon law used by officers to confiscate observers? equipment is somewhat ambiguous. It?s unclear how the law applies differently to video than it does to audio recordings.

For now, police observers continue to use video as a tool, and police officers continue to decide how to address the practice one case at a time. The city of Beaverton, for example, just decided not to pursue charges against a man who was arrested for recording another arrest.

What are the benefits and drawbacks of recording audio and video of police officers? Have you ever observed an arrest or other police action? What did you see? If you?ve ever been stopped or arrested by police, how did you feel about being observed by your fellow citizens?

GUESTS:

Tagged as: law · police · videotaping

The people who are hired to enforce the laws are civil servants. The notion that they can intimidate witnesses to their work is extra ordinary. They must always act as though every action they take has to be defended to the public. Otherwise, they are secret agents.
Additionally, a few officers in Portland and some deputies in the Metro area have shown a penchant to shoot or beat up citizens first and then let the city or the county pay the price later. Taxpayers must have the facts to decide whether and how much they will tolerate expensive abuses of authority.
dalleslady —
Anyone should video any police officer at any time. This information will either prove them guilty or innocent of any misdeed. Current law allows police too much latitude in their actions. Perhaps videoed proof of activity will give our legislators the courage to change the several laws which need to be changed.
Gordon Hillesland —

What is this supposed to mean?

tetrasodium edta

helpgodme —
I have (fortunately) no personal experience along these lines, but given the number of times cops have been filmed beating and shooting people for no apparent reason or beyond any obvious provocation, it seems to me people should be free to film whatever they damn please. Let's face it -- the license of power and the right to use it can go to people's heads, and frequently does. Police review boards are too often in the pocket of the police unions. Until there is some institutional solution that is widely trusted, citizen activism is our last defense.
drh97229 —
Absolutely, members of the community should be able to hold the police--public servants, after all--directly accountable for their actions, and this includes watching and documenting how the police do their job each and every time there is a stop. Without video and audio documentation of an arrest, regular folks are subject to the formidable "my word against the cops" scenario, an inherently unfair situation with the balance of power tipped heavily in favor of the police. As well, if the police knew they were being observed and recorded, they would likely be far less likely to engage in violence or other misconduct while doing their jobs.

truthtopower —
Let me offer my reply to this topic in the context of criminal law. This is my first post here. Go OPB!

When prosecuting a criminal case, the state needs to have proof that the defendant did what they accuse him of. Not just any proof, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Objective proof is the best kind; it's incredibly difficult to argue with if you are a defense attorney, like me. DNA is a flashy example, but photos and video and audio recordings rarely leave room for interpretation.

I practice criminal defense in a small town in Eastern Oregon, but I believe most police citizen encounters across the state are not recorded in either a temporary or permanent format. I believe this is a shame given the relative affordability of decent recording equipment.

Police officers need to be recorded nearly all the time for objective, truth-telling purposes. Partly because I would like to spend less time pursuing half-truths a small percentage of my clients may feed me, and partly because police officers are people too and are capable of forgetting from time to time. Police forgetfulness can impact a court hearing in many ways.

I have recorded police action on my cell phone. I was not told to stop, but for other reasons they told me to back away. I backed up and continued discussing the scene with a DA/friend of mine.

I like citizen observation of times when the power of the state encounters individuals. Usually it involves Constitutional Rights, which our founding fathers believed in. I believe police have largely treated me fairly, so I have never needed a recording. Some of my clients do not share my sentiment, and from time to time a recording would be nice to have to show my client or the court.

How could more truth be a bad thing?

Will
Eastern Oregon


Will Perkinson —
If my tax dollars are going to fund their jobs, I better be able to make a audio-visual record of their, on-the-street, on-the-job actions! Furthermore, since they can videotape protests and other activities undertaken by citizens, why can't we do the same?
creneau —
As I understand it the courts have ruled repeatedly that blanket surveillance cameras installed in public places are constitutional. If the police are allowed to film the people, then it's only fair that the people should be allowed to film the police. The police film traffic stops with audio, and the person being arrested is not asked if they want to be recorded; again, it is only fair that the people should be allowed to record the police.
Jesse42 —
A law that keeps citizens from recording, in any way, civil servants that have the ability to injure or kill citizens in the course of performing their job, is plain and simple, Facism. Please, someone provide a logical or ethical argument as to why this law is necessary.
PDXOutdoors —
My understanding is that, although many states outlaw recording of telephone calls without both parties consent, Oregon allows a telephone call to be recorded even if only one party is aware of the recording. Is that true? Why should this be different in this situation?
nilram —
Most police have cameras mounted on their patrol cars. Many of these officers also have a microphone on to record their conversations therefore recording the conversation they are having with me. When I have been stopped for a traffic ticket I have never been informed that I am being recorded on video and audio. Doesn?t this law work both ways or are the police exempt from this law?
bowerman61028 —
The guest said that Portland police don?t have cameras but what about Oregon State Police, County Sheriff?s and other cities around Oregon. I know for a fact many of them do have dash mounted cameras.
bowerman61028 —
When I was in college in Forest Grove, OR I happened to be out walking at night when the police showed up at a local bar on Main St. Whatever the call was, the police showed up with 8 police cars. I was suprised by their arrival in such large numbers and proceeded to take a few photographs from across the street where I was walking. Two officers came over to me and told me to stop, questioned me about what I was doing and were very condescending in their tone. They said that I could be posing a threat to their safety, and specifically mentioned posing a threat to their Captain. I am the one who felt my saftey was in danger when they approached me in such a hostile way! I was across the street and staying well clear of their activities. Citizens should absolutely be able to photograph and even video record the actions of public servants while in public.
demo5253 —
Police departments in the Portland area have lost a great deal of trust and confidence from the public in recent years by misunderstanding their changing role within the community. Here again police administrators enlarge this gulf by hiding within a loophole.

Who watches the watchers? An age old question not to be defined by the watchers - in this instance they are public servants, paid by public dollars, hired to protect and to serve, not to hide and mislead.
Jason Renaud —
While I agree that police carrying out their duties can be video taped, I'm wondering about where the video showing all the so-called violations are? Police critics often cite police brutality, but yet I haven't seen the massive amounts of video documenting these abuses. Where are they? Anytime there is video tape of police abuse, it is shown worldwide (Rodney King, et. al). So where are all the police beatings happening in Eugene? According to Eugene Copwatch (where I live), these beatings and abuses occur daily, yet we see nothing. Where are the videos? Show us the videos...or quit making the accusations.
Scott O'brien —
I'm a professor of film at PSU, as well as a lawyer, and I've been detained (not in Portland, but in my old home state of NJ) for videotaping in a state park. I was shooting video images of birds and some pleasant shots of the Hudson River, and I was detained by four police cruisers for two hours for videotaping without a permit. I have since filed a number of administrative queries (no formal legal action yet) to ask that the police authorities make VERY clear their rules about video, photographic, and other recording methods.

The general rule of law here, by the way, always has to do with regulations or laws that are overbroad (they can hit more targets than they're aimed at) or vague (they can be used for any purpose). I'm surprised that this standard hasn't been mentioned yet. I'm not sure the police authority, as it's currently articulated, can meet those standards.
mjdclark —
All citizens deserve the civil liberty and free speech protections inherent in the Constitution of the United States and explicitly outlined in the First Amendment.

I submit a Denver Post article here for consideration: http://www.denverpost.com/politicswestnews/ci_10363015

There is similar (mostly alternative) press coverage and video footage available for the recent political events in Denver, Colorado and Minneapolis, Minnesota where citizen journalists were illegally detained or arrested for videotaping alongside activists who engaged in peaceful, nonviolent protest. Many detainees had their property seized and in at least one case tortured (while in custody a teenager was subdued with pain compliance and had multiple tazers - seven - used on him for causing a 'disturbance' when he cried out for food and water which he was being denied.

I also suggest people watch and consider this video http://glassbeadcollective.blip.tv/file/784711/ which includes footage of NYC police officers assaulting citizens who video taped and photographed bicycle activists participating in a critical mass ride.

There is no question in my mind that police want complete control over documentation of their activities despite their protestations of openness and accessibility.
cxrfreeman —
Can someone tell me why this action is not protected by the first amendment, freedom of the press? Media and peer to peer grassroots journalism (ireport at cnn.com, or liveleak.com for example) make every citizen a reporter. Would they have arrested a camera crew from channel 8? There is no expectation of privacy on the downtown streets: not for me, not for you, not for the cops.
MarkMedina —
This issue reminds me of what Richard Nixon used to say. He said if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide which makes me think the police feel they have something to hide. They need to remember they may have the law on their side now, but if they anger enough people, there is something in this state called the initiative process.
akampfer —
I think it's hard for most people to believe that interrupting the police to announce that they're being videotaped and recorded won't make them more likely to react negatively towards the person doing the recording. I would almost certainly expect to catch a charge of interfering with the arrest in such a case.

thechamp —
Mike Reese's claim that the Portland PD's primary concern is for the privacy of those being arrested is without a doubt rubbish in the particular case being discussed. The person being arrested knew and did not object to the recording, the officers did. And if privacy is the main concern, why would the insist that the videographer shut down the camera when only he and the officer were in conversation?
number-six —
If there is concern about audio being taped why do law enforcement officers allow for reality shows like, "COPS" in which media are following police around recording live images and audio with the intention of havign the public viewing them?
nsh1968 —
Time and again we read and hear in the news that there is NO expectation of privacy when in public. Using the Oregon law against audio recording is lame and a stretch. When privacy is required during a police interaction they can arrange to make that happen. Privacy cannot be assured when in a public area anyway so what is the point of their objecting? Furthermore, take note that when a police officer begins these interactions and told they are being recorded one is not given a choice in that matter. Police should not have a choice, either. Considering how often the Portland Police Bureau has used deadly force on the citizenry one would think they would embrace being recorded to dispell this fear. What do they have to fear, anyway?
Dr Loco —
I work in public safety, a fire fighter, there are times when I need to protect my patient/family from the public; somethings are private, no matter where they occur. In those cases I either move the patient or ask the public to move back. That said, I find the argument by the police captain as weak. If the officer is conducting an interview that is private, move it to a private spot. In the case given as an example, the officers could have moved the conversation elsewhere. It appears Portland PD has found a way to use a law in a manner not intended by the law makers when written. This only adds suspicion as to the police motives/actions. As a public servant, I act as if every action I take will end up on the front page of the paper.
Andy Louden —
if the person being interviewed tells the cop he wants to record the interview, would the cops say ok?
captjohn —
Isn't it true that police are legally considered public figures, the same as elected officials, and therefore have a legally diminished expectation of privacy? By virtue of the fact police are entrusted with lethal power, ie guns, courts have repeatedly held that they are legally public figures. If the specific circumstances require privacy, such as a confidential conversation with a witness or victim, the police are always free to move the interaction somewhere other than the street.

optomistic-orwell —
Every person, officer and civilian alike, queried on this assumes that use of a video camera includes audio recording. As long as the video camera is visibly in use, isn't that a de facto announcement that audio recording is occurring?
nilram —
If officers are acting as intended, I see no reason for the fear of being filmed. They're already under public eye, as are the rest of us, with multiple cameras on buildings and posts. If their actions are above board, then why the heavy hand?

There are a few things in the video displayed that are of note to me.
1. The primary officer pushing the 'suspect' back and asking if he needs help doing so. This was after the man had just givien him his ID and I saw no threat in his stance.
2. The second officer spits a nice gob on our public streets. As a person who's ridden the bus in the downtown transit areas, I've seen people cited for this. He does it knowing he's on tape. Petty, but come on...
3. DOes the officer ever state under what pretense the person filming needs to give up his camera?

The people who are questioned may not be angels. I would also gather the job these police are doing is not simple. But, if this were a drug deal being filmed, they'd be psyched to have it on tape. As they would if either participants were resisting or getting violent.

In today's age of digital media, cameras and audio recording, I feel there's no escaping this type of thing. It goes both ways.
mnelson@ptiglobal.com —
I think it's appropriate, yet also misleading to discuss concerns about victim and witness rights for videotaping police activity. I would venture to guess that generally when there is controversy over taping, it involves an arrest or other police activity not centered around dealing with a victim or witness. In fact the person taking the video probably perceives the person being arrested as a victim, and they themselves are a witness to the event.
henry pootel —
"Cops, Laws and Videotape"

Or who watches the watchers, and what are the rights of both.
Tom D Ford —
Hi I am realy confused about the law as it applies to audio recording. I recently was a juror in a trial in which the only evidence agenst the accused was a phone conversation, recorded by the police,in which the alledged victim attempted to entrap the accused in to making statements. The jury was instructed my the judge that the tape was addmisable under oregon law, even though the accused was not aware he was being recorded. Which is it do both parties have to be aware they are being recorded? thks mk
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
thewizard99 —
It should be every persons right to video tape, including audio, all public occurrences. If a citizen/victim requests privacy, the courts can legally pursue obtaining the recording.
One of the things about today's program that bothered me was that the host clearly had a bias against the police point of view. Of all people, the host should stay completely neutral, yet he clearly displayed his bias.
Another thing that occurs to me is that our society NEEDS the police force. The more that we who are law-abiding citizens support our officers, rather than fostering adversarial relationships with law enforcement, the better results we will have from them. If a particular officer crosses the line, he should be properly punished; but it is not in the best interest of society to treat all police officers like adversaries. Regardless of what some Oregonians think, anarchy is NOT a better option.
rowawe —
Mike Reese was being VERY disingenuous [& alittle full of it] when he suggested that this was ready about "the victims'" expected right to privacy. I have to call BS on that, as cops generally don't care at all about an indivituals' right to privacy. Every time out Forth Amendment is shredded just alittle more, it's a victory for the police.
The police are irked by the by the idea that some "pesky-joe-anybody" would have the audacity to actually make sure that cops are on their best behaviour - THAT'S what this is realy about.
Lastly, as a young Black male, i would want AS MANY CAMERAS AS POSSIBLE WATCHING every time i'm approached by police!
DamosA —
Benefit of videoing police in action is there is another record of whether police do their jobs legally and safely. Citizens gain some leverage in the "my word against the policeman's word" context.

Drawback occurs if a citizen videoing police obstructs the police's ability to do their job.

Frankly, I have a love-hate relationship with surveillance technology. I feel it infringes my desire for privacy and to be left alone.

On the flip tip, as a resident of color in northeast, and in the back of my mind, I want witnesses if I get pulled over by Portland police because they have been heavy handed or deadly on occasion. I purposely go out of my way not to attract police attention but I wish I didn't have to think about that.

Low level paranoia and fear is part of the unresolved race issue. People of color end up looking over their shoulders which creates permanent tension, animosity and ambivalence toward police. This negativity ends up being counter productive when considering the next point.

Police have a tough job because many citizens are trouble makers and can not be handled with kid gloves or candy canes. Our society's civility and personal responsibility have eroded such that we have thousands of police to keep us safe from, well, ourselves.

My experiences with police have been positive overall. I think police in a few Oregon small towns have ticketed me to "meet their quota", but I view that as tough luck on my part because I haven't gotten caught every time I've violated the law. It's a wash.

Citizens talk about their rights but they are not quick to take up their responsibilities for the safety and well being of others. Police can't do it all and citizens have to do their part.


trurl9 —
I also want to add that the reason cops are soo resistent to citizens video-taping them is because they simply DO NOT look good on camera. They have but THEMSELVES to blame for this, ofcourse. The police prefer NOT to have cameras around in much the same way little children prefer to sit in the back of the bus - so that they can mis-behave!
I know, on personal level, that the police are NEVER to be trusted. WE, as citizens have to be the ones to hold law enforcement accountable.
So that, whenever cops MURDER someone, it can be fairly determend whether or not they had reasonable cause for doing so!
DamosA —
I do find it a bit odd that no one is considering a citizen's right (or functional lack there-of) to record video when the officer comes to talk to them.

In other words, if I'm accosted, I have no rights in a ?my word vs his/her word? argument. I can't record video/audio to back me up, but they can (and to my knowledge, I can't subpoena their recording either). Seems a bit of an issue to me.
tpohara —
As I listened to this program today, I was very tempted to call in. I was involved in a very high profile case from 1996 when the local district attorney approved the secret tape recording of a sacramental confession between a Catholic priest and a jailed inmate at the Lane County Jail in Eugene, OR. That outrageous attempt to seek evidence, perhaps self-incrimination, of a suspect in a triple murder case of the time, was appalling. The case was pushed to the level of the 9th Circuit Court. I was that priest and have written a book on the story of that entire event that will be published in the next few months. It might be interesting to speak about First & Fourth Amendment protections, the religious rights of jailed prisoners, and how such protections have been pushed to the limits at times both in the courts, in investigations, and perhaps in similar threats to privacy from other related events. How secure are such Constitutional protections?
Fr. Tim —
Here the impression that I got of what happened
(I listened to it via the podcast so couldn't call in)

- the cops simply didn't like being taped
and so they thought, being in the position of power,
they could just take the video camera from him

but then they saw that he was walking to the police station to complain
and so they asked him to meet them (I guess instead of filing a complaint),

and then while he waited in the lobby,
it sounds like they took about 20 minutes to think about SOMETHING they could charge him with...

And since there's no law saying you can't do what he was doing
they used another law against eavesdropping/wiretapping or something on him
because his video recorder also records [i]audio[/i] (shocking!).

And I must say, I found the whole talking-point about
[i]"Well, the simple reason we don't let people record audio is because we ask every single jaywalker to have a three minute discourse with us about their HIV status as well as their checking account numbers"[/i]
as extremely disingenuous.
JJJJJJ —
The federal courts have ruled on this issue numerous times. Each time, the ruling has been the same: individuals have a Constitutional right to film, photograph, or record anyone who is located in a public place such as on the street. They have gone further to say that since police are public employees that the public is especially permitted to photograph them in the course of their duties. The only restriction the courts have place on photographing police is that you may not physically interfere with the arrest or cross a police line when filming.
mydogatemyemail —

Comments are now closed.

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics