Woman Jailed After Filming Her Own Traffic Stop

[ferider]

This baffles me. Much of the reaction to this thread baffles me, but this really baffles me.
: : :
I see no reason to assume that she was driving under the influence or recklessly.

She was illegally driving in the car pool lane. That's a big deal for me as a motorcyclist, in particular when people illegally enter it in front of me on a whim and without signals (which transforms a possible expensive ticket into reckless driving and possible arrest). I totaled my bike and was almost killed a few years ago by a woman just like that, and the courts faulted her, even though the first thing she did after the accident was lying to the police. Thank god I had witnesses.

But, my main point was that we don't know why she was arrested. There might be very good reasons. In case of doubt for the accused and that includes both her and the officer being assumed guilty by many posts here. Second, her actions (audio taping) had nothing to do with photography. Third, maybe she was asked to stop recording for practical reasons (hand cuffs - standard for an arrest). Forth, what the h*ll this case has to do with Fox News, the current government, why we apparently don't have pro-photo RFF members any more, etc., is totally beyond me.

Can't hold your cell phone when the cuffs are put on. Get it ?

I'm all for the First Amendment; the thing is I don't know if it was violated here or not, and you don't either. But for sure, I know a rude and dangerous driver when I see one.

Do you or Roger even know what an HOV lane is ? Last time I was in Alaska or Southern France I didn't come across one.

--

My last post in this thread. Have fun.

 

[NY_Dan]

Someone on this forum wrote in reply to one of my comments wait till happens to you. He jinxed me! 5 hours or so ago I was in on the same block as Grand Central Terminal in NYC. A few cops were escorting what appeared to be a homeless man to an ambulance for transfer to a shelter. He didn't appear injured. So from about 12 feet away I snap a few photos with my Rolleiflex. I'm on the sidewalk. A cop comes over, puts his hand on my arm and starts moving me away. He tells me to go away and that I'm an annoyance (he must be an RFF member 🙂 ). I say nothing but continue to shoot, and stay in the area. All the while he's shooting me dirty looks. I didn't get into an argument with him as he walked back to his group and the opportunity for any conversation really wasn't there. But I think he was out of line for one touching me, and two interfering with my lawful behavior. Oh well, I might have gotten one okay photo.

 

[Ranchu]

But I think he was out of line for one touching me, and two interfering with my lawful behavior. Oh well, I might have gotten one okay photo.

Maybe you got a smart one.

"A 2010 Michigan State University study found that cops with a two or four-year degree resorted to using force 56 percent of the time, while those with only a GED or high school diploma used force 68 percent of the time. The Bureau of Justice Statistics found in 2003 that 83 percent of U.S. police agencies require cops only to have a GED or high school diploma, and only one percent require a four-year college degree."

http://opnateye.com/?p=1011

 

[Frontman]

Maybe you got a smart one.

"A 2010 Michigan State University study found that cops with a two or four-year degree resorted to using force 56 percent of the time, while those with only a GED or high school diploma used force 68 percent of the time. The Bureau of Justice Statistics found in 2003 that 83 percent of U.S. police agencies require cops only to have a GED or high school diploma, and only one percent require a four-year college degree."

http://opnateye.com/?p=1011

Not many people are going to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a degree in order to get a job which pays as poorly as law enforcement.

Not shown in the statistics are a breakdown of the demographics. Law enforcement officers with lower levels of education are more likely to work in high-crime areas than those with higher educations. Those few officers with degrees tend to work as detectives, adminsitrators, and specialists, and are less likely to deal with physical arrests.

Law enforcement is not the most pleasant occupation. Police officers are seldom welcomed whenever they deal with the public. Their work involves dealing with the worst of people at the worst of times. Traffic stops, accidents, robberies, fights, and worse. When dealing with officers who see the worst things which people can do on a regular basis, and who for their own protection have to assume the worst-case scenario in every situation, it is best to be non-confrontational. Poking an angry dog with a stick is likely to result in your getting bitten, and after years of dealing with the worst which humanity has to offer, police officers are easily angered.

I worked in law enforcement myself for some time, and have been photographed and videotaped on several occasions. One time that I recall was a kid (a 17 year old black kid, 6 feet tall) who ran after being pulled over in a stolen car. He had been arrested several times for stealing cars since he was 13. He had also been arrested a few times for drug dealing and possession, evading arrest, and burglary, a real class act. He was also the father of three children by three different women, one of these women he had beaten nearly to death in an argument. The last time he was arrested, he bolted from the scene, and was tackled a short distance away. A bystander started screaming that we were abusing the young car thief, and began recording the arrest with her cell phone, screaming that she would give the video to "help me Howard". She was leaning over us, screaming and carrying on, and honestly, it was a little hard to get the kid in cuffs with all this going on. She then starting kicking another officer, and ended up going to jail as well. In the young man's pants we found a gun, and a bag of crack rocks. It turned out the gun had been used in a couple of previous shootings in the area.

Stories like this were a daily occurrence, and working in this kind of environment does not make police officers very soft or kind-hearted. I have been pulled over by other officers in other jurisdictions, and seen them come up slowly behind my car with their guns drawn. I stay calm and do what I am asked; I know how intense a traffic stop can be, and how impossible it is to predict what people do. You always have to assume the worst thing may happen. In this situation, if the person being stopped does something unexpected, it is better to act quickly and, if necessary, physically, for everyone's safety. Many police have been killed and injured during traffic stops, and as it generally happens when least expected, you must always expect it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . .
Do you or Roger even know what an HOV lane is ? Last time I was in Alaska or Southern France I didn't come across one. . .

Yes, I know what they are: I used to live in California and I've driven across the United States several times, coast to coast. Yes, as a fellow motorcyclist I share your concerns about their being used improperly. But I am also concerned for the rule of law, not the rule of law enforcement officers. I am also concerned about people who seemingly WANT to be enslaved, especially if they want to impose their dog-like obedience on others.

Did you read my comment above? "It seems that this case actually concerns audio recording and not photography. So? The basic principle is the same. We all accept that it is bad form to photograph someone unflatteringly, just because we can. If however we can photograph an alleged "public servant" being an arrogant [insert insult here] and thereafter bring their behaviour to the attention of their employers (the aforementioned public), then we are failing in our civil duty if we do not do so".

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Law enforcement is not the most pleasant occupation. . . .

Quite true. It's also true that the vast majority of police are honest, hardworking professionals doing a difficult job. I go out of my way to be nice to them, especially when they're angry and shaking with fear (as happened once when I was stopped for speeding on a deserted road in California -- the poor fellow was driving a Chevy Caprice and had to catch me from a standing start). But if they can't stay civil, that's bad, and if they start getting delusions of grandeur, they make other cops' lives more difficult. My friend and acquaintances who are/were policemen take exactly the same view.

Cheers,

R.

 

[hepcat]

and thereafter bring their behaviour to the attention of their employers (the aforementioned public), then we are failing in our civil duty if we do not do so".

R.

That we can and should be able to record a "public servant" in the performance of their job isn't at question. The question here is whether a person who is the subject of a contact with police can attempt to use that to interfere with or delay investigation into their activities. The woman in the article claims she was arrested because she was doing something constitutionally sanctioned. The court will have to decide in this case whether her attempted exercise of her first amendment right trumps the need for an officer to control a traffic stop situation.

 

[Roger Hicks]

That we can and should be able to record a "public servant" in the performance of their job isn't at question. The question here is whether a person who is the subject of a contact with police can attempt to use that to interfere with or delay investigation into their activities. The woman in the article claims she was arrested because she was doing something constitutionally sanctioned. The court will have to decide in this case whether her attempted exercise of her first amendment right trumps the need for an officer to control a traffic stop situation.

Indisputably true. I do not necessarily defend her behaviour -- I don't think any of us has enough facts to say who was in the right -- and as noted above, I have a great deal of time for the vast majority of policemen. But I do attack, enthusiastically, those who appear to think that we should always and without question do what the police tell us.

Cheers,

R.

 

[nongfuspring]

Roger, I'm completely with you. I can barely believe there is even an argument here.

In related, and perhaps more photographically relevant news, It seems that a few countries, including the UK, NZ and some US states are rolling out wearable police cameras that cannot be switched off and can be monitored easily. The price of the technology has dropped to a point where departments are now able to afford it. According to a Cambridge University study done on a trial of the body mounted cameras on the Californian Rialto Police officers complaints dropped by 88% and officers used force 60% less after cameras were implemented. No doubt it will go a long way for building accountability on both the side of the police and the public.

 

[JHutchins]

That we can and should be able to record a "public servant" in the performance of their job isn't at question. The question here is whether a person who is the subject of a contact with police can attempt to use that to interfere with or delay investigation into their activities. The woman in the article claims she was arrested because she was doing something constitutionally sanctioned. The court will have to decide in this case whether her attempted exercise of her first amendment right trumps the need for an officer to control a traffic stop situation.

Where the exercise of first amendment rights is the mere recording of the traffic stop, I believe the answer will be a quick and clear "of course." I'm not sure how the question of "whether a person who is the subject of a contact with police can attempt to use that to interfere with or delay investigation into their activities" is raised here. I'd suggest people listen to the recording, which is available online in its entirety. With respect to the idea that third parties have a right to record police conduct while the person actually interacting with the police does not, I would say the case is in fact stronger, not weaker, than that of a third party. As Judge Posner points out in his defense in Alvarez, while the police officer may not be entitled to any privacy in the conduct of official business in public, a person being interviewed, detained, or arrested may be and Alvarez's clear holding that the right to record is nevertheless protected does potentially impinge on a privacy interest. Where the person doing the recording is the person who owns that privacy interest, even Judge Posner's concern vanishes. The idea that members of the public are not allowed to maintain records and gather information about the conduct of police *toward themselves* strikes me as even more disturbing than the idea that members of the public are not allowed to maintain records and gather information about the conduct of police toward others.

And to answer a question from someone else -- before I lived in Alaska I spent eight years 20 miles outside of and commuting in to Washington, DC and thirteen years in Southern California. I can probably claim as much experience with HOV lanes as anyone, but I wonder why it matters? This goes back to jerks have the same rights as everyone else. And the truth is, people driving in HOV lanes without the requisite number of passengers aren't even necessarily jerks. It isn't that hard to find yourself accidentally in one -- e.g. if you set out on a trip around 4pm and don't notice that you're still to the left at 4:30 (or whenever the lane converts), or you find yourself unable to merge right to get out of an HOV lane (especially one that splits off & becomes separated by a barricade) because the folks driving in the other lanes are being dicks about letting you in. Jerk or no jerk, a police officer does not have the authority to demand that you stop a recording that is being made or to seize your phone without a warrant because it is making a recording.

 

[hepcat]

I'm not sure how the question of "whether a person who is the subject of a contact with police can attempt to use that to interfere with or delay investigation into their activities" is raised here. ... The idea that members of the public are not allowed to maintain records and gather information about the conduct of police *toward themselves* strikes me as even more disturbing than the idea that members of the public are not allowed to maintain records and gather information about the conduct of police toward others.

... Jerk or no jerk, a police officer does not have the authority to demand that you stop a recording that is being made or to seize your phone without a warrant because it is making a recording.

I confess that I have not listened to the recording. I'm not sure I have enough interest to bother, but there are a couple of things that are interesting here. There are a number of conflicting interests in this case. Privacy issues have to be weighed against the the State's (the Police) need to detain individuals based on reasonable suspicion, and the State does, in fact, the power to restrain a person during the time that they are detained. The State can also, of necessity, dictate the person's activities during that period.

And the warrantless seizure of the phone might, in fact, be appropriate if the officer believed that the phone contained evidence that would tend to incriminate or exonerate... in this case, an audio recording made by the 'suspect.' A warrant should probably be obtained to examine and seize the contents of the phone (audio recordings/photos,) but the seizure of the phone may be perfectly appropriate.

All that said, there's a saying in law enforcement that bad cases bring about bad case law. It's going to be interesting to hear how the courts sort this out.

On edit... and another thought... the officer involved in this is a Lieutenant which would tend to indicate that he has some tenure, and has gained some authority in the agency. My assessment is that he would likely be better versed than a rookie officer in the administrative and legal issues, and be less likely to overstep his authority. That is not to say that there aren't competence issues in every rank... I'm just making a general observation, and general assumptions from that observation.

 

[E__WOK]

Roger, I'm completely with you. I can barely believe there is even an argument here.

In related, and perhaps more photographically relevant news, It seems that a few countries, including the UK, NZ and some US states are rolling out wearable police cameras that cannot be switched off and can be monitored easily. The price of the technology has dropped to a point where departments are now able to afford it. According to a Cambridge University study done on a trial of the body mounted cameras on the Californian Rialto Police officers complaints dropped by 88% and officers used force 60% less after cameras were implemented. No doubt it will go a long way for building accountability on both the side of the police and the public.

Are the camcorders making the police act nicer than they would without it or will it show valid proof of falsified complaints against them?


Some cities are firing cops because they can't afford to keep them on payroll so why would they spend money on recording devices?

 

[Scrambler]

Here in Queensland (one party consent) most police officers I have met carry their own recording device. I think, as they obviously do, that a recording can only assist an officer, assuming they are performing their duties with reasonable diligence.

I notice in the recording that she alleged to the officer that there was no infraction of the traffic code and that she was only in the HOV lane when it was open for all vehicles.

 

[E__WOK]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8dflSXvQME#t=206

 

[nongfuspring]

Are the camcorders making the police act nicer than they would without it or will it show valid proof of falsified complaints against them?

Most likely a bit of both I'd say.

Some cities are firing cops because they can't afford to keep them on payroll so why would they spend money on recording devices?

You should ask the police departments, but I read in an article the average cost per unit was 100 - 400 USD, which is not much. Consider how much a lawsuit costs. My guess is that video recording may actually reduce administrative costs - less wasted time in court and since the cameras are on all the time I imagine it would allow police to spend less time writing reports and more time in the field, not to mention the greater efficiency that comes with direct oversight.

 

[Turtle]

Following on from hepcat's comments about the militarisation of the police in the US, it's perhaps interesting to note that the Afghan police were militarised from the outset, with their roles barely differing from the army in some areas. While this might seem to be necessary in such an environment, I disagree, strongly.

In Northern Ireland, while the British Army operated in a military capacity, the police did policing. Where motorists were being stopped at checkpoints, this was mostly done by the police with soldiers in attendance to provide security. This meant that motorists interfaced with those who had a good understanding of the law and the right skill set. The soldiers got to hang out in bushes and protect the policeman. While some may regard the Royal Ulster Constabulary (that came before the Police Service of Northern Ireland) as partisan, I am talking about the general set up here.

Back to Afghanistan: the police are almost universally hated. This is not only because they are mostly corrupt, but because they have absolutely no interest in and grounding in the law. Right from the outset, they were set up as another armed faction and complete lip service was given to hiring people with the education and aptitude for the role. it was clear to me from the my first moments in the country that a grave mistake, with catastrophic consequences, was underway. They should have trained far fewer, more competent, better paid people as policemen and trained the rest as soldiers to protect them (but ultimately not directly interfacing with the public). This would have completely changed the relationship between the public and policing/the law.

While this might seem irrelevant to some, it was the US that established this system, where guns, firepower and enforcement were made the priorities and law and the proper relationship between police and public largely dismissed as 'of secondary importance'. Its a horribly slippery slope and in Afghanistan, where we attempted 'state in a box' the consequences of failing to establish the right balance between 'police support' and 'law enforcement' have accelerated into view in double quick time.

I too find the militarisation of the police very worrying. I say this as someone who has worked in conflict zones for over a decade and is ex-military.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

You should ask the police departments, but I read in an article the average cost per unit was 100 - 400 USD, which is not much. Consider how much a lawsuit costs. My guess is that video recording may actually reduce administrative costs - less wasted time in court and since the cameras are on all the time I imagine it would allow police to spend less time writing reports and more time in the field, not to mention the greater efficiency that comes with direct oversight.

My son in law's team have been issued wih "cop cams" and saw a big drop in false complaints, almost from day one. The courts, unfortunately, aren't yet accepting them as primary evidence but, on the other hand, he tells me that a lot more "guilty" pleas are going through, once the legal representatives see the tapes. 😉