Omaha officers told: Don't interfere with citizens' right to record police activity

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Omaha World Herald

By Maggie O'Brien

Omaha police officers are hitting the streets with a clear directive: Don't interfere with citizens' right to record police action.

The department has refined its policy on the public's use of cameras and video in the wake of a YouTube posting of an arrest that led to the firing of four officers, two of whom are charged with criminal wrongdoing. The March 21 incident highlighted the sometimes contentious terrain that officers and citizens navigate when cameras increasingly capture their interactions.

“Individuals have a First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties, plain and simple,” said Deputy Chief Greg Gonzalez.

The department has long recognized that right. But the revised policy, which cites federal case law, states that citizens cannot be arrested simply for recording police or being near a crime scene.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20130511/NEWS/705119930/1685#omaha-officers-told-don-t-interfere-with-citizens-right-to-record-police-activity

---

[DainBramaged]

1. The rest of Police State America needs to realize our rights.

Video:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130506/NEWS/130509755/1685

[graham4anything]

2. An viceversa. Why do people who claim transparency not want cameras on them?

If there was a camera on every single street from all angles, then nothing could be
hidden.

Glad some finally are seeing the virtue in all sides having 100% 24/7/365 cameras in the street.

nothing is hidden if everything is filmed.

[pipoman]

14. LOL

[heaven05]

21. i

agree. Keep on keeping on bobduca.

[patrice]

26. So, you approve of ridicule? How stupid! - or is that alcoholic "humor"?, a.k.a. CRUELTY. nt

[heaven05]

30. oh please

take your pick. And only when it's true. I don't know who you think you are, but to me you are nobody. I don't always pick the right side, but the fact is, I DON'T need you to be on my side.

[patrice]

27. Worse than any petty ignorant tyrant is their LACKEYS. nt

[pipoman]

41. Apparently you haven't kept up with graham..

[patrice]

44. No, I don't follow people around on here, but, whatever graham is doing, insults undercut

the integrity of any point against him.

[eggplant]

6. Because the police work for the people, not the other way around. n/t

[bemildred]

7. Yeah, I agree, in a public space, you have no expectation of privacy.

Civility you should be able to expect in public space, and privacy if you are not in public spaces, but not privacy in places where everybody goes to do things and be seen. There you are protected by a recorded record, public protests in particular need to be recorded in detail to show just who, exactly, is making trouble, when there is trouble. And all public servants should be recorded 24/7 to make sure they are not corrupt.

[patrice]

15. To me that kind of PRIVATE expectation is a taking, like stealing, something that belongs to US,

something that we have de facto agreed upon what that public resource is for and how it is to be used.

If someone wants to change that "contract" in a substantial way, they should go through the agreed upon publicly defined processes for doing so.

[bemildred]

17. That's a GOOD argument, and I tend to agree, to a point, but it's not the way it is now.

If we want to create such legal protections for public spaces, then we need to have the debate about where and when those protections apply, and to whom.

[patrice]

19. Private property and private events are a workable criteria for me. I get that. nt

[bemildred]

20. What constitutes "private" is what is not being agreed about.

It is quite an old argument too.

[patrice]

25. In some arenas, but not all. We live in groups. A rule of absolute individuality in such climates

is fascistic, at the very minimum, at least, potentially.

[bemildred]

31. Hmmmm. Look I really don't want to argue with you.

And I'm sure this argument will never end, so, OK, you win. I'm sure I don't want to promote absolute individuality anyway, that's just madness.

[patrice]

36. I suspect that MOST of us agree about way MORE than we are allowed to pretend that we do.

That's why divide and conquer is so much more cultivated on the market than it is commonly perceived, but then . . .

.........................................................

I just spent the most AWEsome afternoon at a Domestic Violence Forum.

Really VERY forward stuff!!!!, I'm HAPPY to say.

LOVED it. All of did, because we listened and spoke honestly with one another.

Men and women together telling the truth about violence and abuse in their OWN lives and falling in love with one another in that discovery of what everyone wants: Love and Understanding in the Human Family.

ONLY one of the great lessons of the afternoon was/IS men's limitations when it comes to TALKING about their emotions and, yet, they have a LOT of repressed ANGER and justified resentment and also their own guilt to deal with, because we're human..

What a WONDER -Full discussion all of us had together in KC at 31st and Troost. It was/is/and will=be

Us,

One Heart

in beloved Communities in the

Family of Man.

Happy Mothers' Day, All.

p <3

[graham4anything]

42. That is what I believe I am saying when I say 80-20. People in America are like that.

and everything to the most people, are just small wedge issue divisions, not major ones

And in a broader picture in the USA
everyone wants to have their own peace without racism,sexism,homophobia,anti-this religion or that religion

(in NYC this past week 2 separate beatings occurred to what the perp assumed were 2 Gay couples walking in Manhattan, shades of 50 years ago. Presumed both to be hate crimes,
and odds are the same person, or perhaps one a copycat after the other was publicized.
That should not happen in 2013).

[beevul]

46. No. Debate where they don't apply, and who they don't apply to.

"If we want to create such legal protections for public spaces, then we need to have the debate about where and when those protections apply, and to whom."

No. Debate where they don't apply, and who they don't apply to.

Those would and should be the exceptions, rather than the rule.

[bemildred]

48. So privacy in public spaces is the default and we specify exceptions? nt

[beevul]

50. No.

Zero expectation of privacy in public places is the default, and we specify exceptions.

I think, now, that that is what you meant and I misunderstood.

My apologies.

[bemildred]

52. Yes.

No problem.

[patrice]

28. K&R

[Scruffy Rumbler]

32. ummmm.....no. n\t

[Th1onein]

33. There is a difference, Graham4anything.....

between videoing citizens and PUBLIC servants. Surely you see that, don't you? And, there is also a difference in wholesale and constant surveillance of the entire populace, and a citizen videotaping a PUBLIC servant in a PUBLIC place in the service of his duties to the PUBLIC. Surely you also see that, don't you?

[patrice]

37. Hello, Th1onein! <3 = hearts. nt

[Th1onein]

40. Hi, Patrice!

How ya doing?

[Douglas Carpenter]

38. EXACTLY!! And we can have microphones recording everything everyone says too!!

In fact why limit it just to the streets? Most of the worst of crimes occur in people's backyards and behind closed doors. Only those who are up to no good have anything at all to fear.

[toddaa]

45. Please post your email account user id and password

After all, most terrorist plots are planned out with email and encryption. I'm sure you won't mind trading a little bit of privacy for safety.

[bemildred]

3. ... unless you want to lose your job, because we ARE watching. nt

[bobduca]

4. Bakersfield Police steal cellphones from eyewitnesses

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x651132658/Debate-erupts-over-cell-phone-video-of-Silva-beating-by-officers-Witness-I-can-still-hear-him

David Silva was beaten to death by seven brave Bakersfield cops this week.

The cops confiscated the cellphones of the two eyewitnesses, and the sherrif's dept. have not released the videos, nor returned the phones. There is an incriminating grainy security camera footage that is already been released.

Cop Math:

7 cops with batons,
1 dead man,
2 eyewitnesses with videos showing the murder,
1 incriminating 911 call,
0 suspensions.

[NYC_SKP]

8. I was about to post something similar.

Maybe the B'field case needs to go to the SCOTUS to establish precedent and certainty as to this first amendment right.

[bobduca]

9. How can Police Commisioners get ahead of the SCOTUS fight?

(on edit: This Bakersfield story deserves its own thread, I looked and there's nothing yet.)

Seems like there needs to be some nationwide initiative that addresses this ahead of the SCOTUS fight.

What the Omaha police commisioner did seems like a good first step, tell officers to stop taking cameras.

[NYC_SKP]

11. Start a new OP on Bakersfield and the camera confiscation matter.

There was a post about the killing but not with the confiscation angle.

A police department can set policy that is either more protective or less protective of citizens' rights if they want to.

Unless they're called on it, there's little to stop them.

That's why this need to go to SCOTUS.

[Th1onein]

34. Already been established.

Already gone to court. They lost, the public won. Case closed.

[beevul]

47. And there was also this...

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/10/57519.htm

BALTIMORE (CN) - Baltimore police beat up a woman and smashed her camera for filming them beating up a man, telling her: "You want to film something bitch? Film this!" the woman claims in court.

Makia Smith sued the Baltimore Police Department, Police Commissioner Anthony Batts and police Officers Nathan Church, William Pilkerton, Jr., Nathan Ulmer and Kenneth Campbell in Federal Court.

Smith claims she was stuck in stand-still rush hour traffic in northern Baltimore when she saw the defendant officers beating up and arresting a young man.

She says pulled out her camera, stood on her car's door sill and filmed the beating.
"Officer Church saw plaintiff filming the beating and ran at her," the complaint states. "He scared her and she sat back in her vehicle. As he ran at her, he yelled, 'You want to film something bitch? Film this!'

"Officer Church reached into plaintiff's car and grabbed her telephone-camera out of her hand, threw it to the ground and destroyed it by smashing it with his foot.

[NYC_SKP]

49. That video is probably still on that phone.

Crushing notwithstanding, it might be retrievable.

[beevul]

51. One would hope.

Events like these happen far far too often, and it seems like its getting to the point where charging and convicting the offending officer of a career ending offense is what its going to take to eliminate these bad apples. They seem to have too many roads back into law enforcement otherwise.

[heaven05]

13. how

Last edited Sat May 11, 2013, 03:32 PM - Edit history (1)

is this justified. So he was intoxicated. What happened to let him sleep it off? What did he do, give lip to his gods? Yes, gods, they ended his life, didn't they. These f...... are out of goddamn control with the average citizenry. They are just as bad as any criminal out there. I did read the whole article. Rare exception? true.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. A rare exception.

[DallasNE]

12. One Of The Police Officers Charged

Is charged with destruction of evidence. The person shooting this did it between the blinds so as to not be detected by the police filming this. All of the police officers fired are suing to get their jobs back and my guess is that 3 of the 4 will. Don't see how the guy charged with destruction of evidence gets his job back. Now we need to see if this order sticks. My guess is that the police will continue to take cameras and cell phones from people and this is just a PR stunt. We have an election in 3 days.

[Omaha Steve]

35. I have worked for the Omaha Police Dept (non-sworn civilian) since last Aug.

It is not a stunt. No comment on the rest of your post for obvious reasons.

OS

[DallasNE]

39. Let's Hope So -- It Is A Positive And Overdue Step

I'm not totally neutral in this either. On Facebook, when this thing broke out, I learned that a nephew of mine was in an "altercation" a few years back with one of the police officers fired. No other details but I presume from that language that it got physical and that nephew played LB for TO several years ago so it probably got pretty physical. That nephew is now an attorney back in DC. He was also a bodyguard and campaign advisor to Dick Gephardt in his brief presidential run.

[Sunlei]

16. Individuals have a First Amendment right to record police officers AND our Gov at work.

You read this BLM? you need to stop obstructing the press and the people from watching you at work. You work for the American citizens!

[gopiscrap]

18. Fucking asshole pigs

about time this Nazi wanna be's had some oversight

[BensMom]

22. What about the Omaha Mayor's campaign

Thanks for posting this.
Has this been an issue in the mayors campaign?

[alp227]

23. K&R+big thanks to Steve the great DUer from the area for keeping us posted

as well as his many other contributions to the LBN forum from the Omaha.com AP wire!

[zbdent]

24. Supreme Court, board meetings, etc.

oops, found the loophole where they WON'T have cameras ...

[Ash_F]

29. Youtube video here

[mwooldri]

43. A perfectly legitimate reason for Google Glass (with prescription lenses).

Can't see without them, can't stop recording with them. Want the recording? Sorry it is already on YouTube, and it went viral.

(yes I know Google Glass *can* stop recording and doesn't have to upload anything right away but still this can cause an issue for the law enforcement officer who decides to interfere with a private citizens' observance of them at work. If the LEO takes away that person's glasses and they cannot see as a result... that'd be another problem).

There's groups out there that are advocating for LEOs to wear cameras in their day-to-day activities. They argue it protects the LEO and private citizens, and I believe this is a valid point. I do believe though that community policing is absent around these parts. I knew who our village constable was (even if I cannot remember their name). I have no idea which deputy sheriff patrols this area.