Hey, there! Log in / Register
Boston Police misuse privacy rights law
By Anonymous on Tue, 01/12/2010 - 6:17pm
BostonLawyer at Blue Mass Group posted a diary called "Recording on-duty police officers should not be a crime":
The Globe reports today that Boston Police seem to have a policy of arresting folks who record them in action. It is more than a little disconcerting that a privacy law protecting individuals from surveillance without their consent has been so contorted by law enforcement. The police
do notshould not have a privacy right in their actions while on duty, especially not their behavior while dealing with civilians.
Go read the rest and leave a comment below if you agree with BostonLawyer. Or send an email with a question or concern to the Suffolk District Attorney's Office here.
Here is the story BostonLawyer is referring to:
Simon Glik, a lawyer, was walking down Tremont Street in Boston when he saw three police officers struggling to extract a plastic bag from a teenager’s mouth. Thinking their force seemed excessive for a drug arrest, Glik pulled out his cellphone and began recording.
Within minutes, Glik said, he was in handcuffs. ... The charge? Illegal electronic surveillance.
"Police fight cellphone recordings: Witnesses taking audio of officers arrested, charged with illegal surveillance"
By Daniel Rowinski
Massmarrier from the Marry in Massachusetts blog posted this on the topic, "Shining Light on Cops"
Here they have pitted their outrageous claims against First Amendment rights of citizens. Not only would they spit on Massachusetts law, but want to kick around the U.S. Constitution. Bad ploy.
The issue is the total misapplication of the commonwealth wiretapping law, Chapter 272, Section 99. The police have pulled this trick before and have come back again. Yesterday's Boston Globe has a long article citing several cases and how dishonest and dishonorable the cops here have been about it. The Citizen's Media Law Project is among the watchdogs on this case too.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Write Your Congressperson
According to the SJC, this is a problem for the Legislature, not the police, to deal with:
“Secret tape recording by private individuals has been unequivocally banned, and, unless and until the Legislature changes the statute, what was done here cannot be done lawfully,’’ the SJC ruled in a 4-to-2 decision.
Arresting citizens for video recording
Arresting citizens for video recording police conducting their duties in public is not a violation of the policeman's privacy rights becuase policeman have no reasonable expectation of privacy while on duty acting in official capacity.
A Badly Written Law
Read the law
here
Misapplication of a Law does not necessarily make it a bad one.
If you write to your Congressperson, you will not get very far, as this is a state law. You might want to try your state representative or state senator though. But you should consider the following.
While the legislature might not have ever intended the law to be used in the manner about which people are complaining, it does have value. In an era where audio editing can be done in a way that is undetectable to most people, I take a little bit of comfort in knowing that Massachusetts is a "all party consent" state (i.e., all parties being recorded must consent). I know people residing in "one party consent" jurisdictions who have had what they thought were private conversations recorded and edited to show them in a very unfavorable light. This is one thing if you are a politician - having things that you said taken out of context, unfortunately, comes with the territory - but it is different when it is done, say, in the context of a family dispute (my acquaintence's situation). For that matter, I have once used the law to protect myself when someone who wanted a leg up on me thought it might be a way of getting it.
But shouldn't there be a
But shouldn't there be a difference between when you expect privacy, and when a public official is publically performing actions?
A police officer on duty has no right to privacy. An individual, not out in public has every right to it. An individual, say in a public park, also has no right to it.
A police officer ..
interviewing someone or investigating a crime does have some right to privacy. That isn't what this law was intended for though.
Isn't he an agent of the public?
His power is imbued by the state...which is of the people, by the people, for the people (maybe even more so in a commonwealth than any other state).
Doesn't that make pretty much everything he does a matter of public interest? What privacy is he entitled to?
Im not talking about day to day things...
Im talking about going to interview someone that may have been a victim of a crime. People don't have the right to listen in on what kind of questions the officer is asking a victim. And they shouldn't be able to audio record it either.
Or maybe even arresting someone in public and asking people to leave the immediate area so they can concentrate on doing the right thing. Ever try to talk to someone with someone else behind you yelling at you or trying to talk over you or the other person? It intefers with the job you are trying to do and may intefere with the judicial process.
And on the basic level, you can't go a police records department and get whatever you want just because the records are "public".
2 issues with the boston.com article.
how are there "no hard statistics for video recording arrests?" This should be easy information to obtain.
What is also very important when it comes to this crime is whether or not other charges were filed against the people who were charged with audiotaping. Ive seen a bunch of people charged with this crime. 100% of them also intefered with an actual arrest or investigation. Im sure there are some rogue cops that go out of their way to grab someones cellphone, but Im willing to bet that isn't the norm. And again, there are "hard statistics" for this crime. The authors of this article were too lazy to get them, or at least explain why they can't.
intefered with an actual arrest or investigation
A policemen walks over to a citizen on the street who has been using his or her cell phone or digital camera to video record the policeman's arrest. The policeman asks, "Does that video reorder have audio?" When the person says yes, they put them under arrest.
What about that scenario makes you think the citizen "interfered with an actual arrest or investigation."
If they interfered already, it wouldn't matter if they were breaking another law by videotaping on a device that records audio, too.
If they interfered already, they'd be put under arrest for interfering.
Police are misusing a privacy law to shield themselves from scrutiny while in the call of duty, during which they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I wasn't there and neither were you.
Do we know what other charges were there if there were any? It wasn't included. But like I said, there are some rogue cops who probably abuse the law, and they should be taken care of. Did you not read that part of my statement, just like the authors may have left out the parts where they may have intefered with an arrest or investigation?
And again, from the few arrests I've seen involving this statute, 100% of the people did somthing more criminal than audiotaping in public. But thats only from the few that Ive seen.
My main point was that there was some lazy journalism going on here. How can you not find hard statistics here? Did the records department violate public records law or the FOI act? At least explain why you can't find this information. Thats really all I wanted to point out. Besides the fact that Ive actually seen arrests made around this statute, and not just read ancedotes about it on the internet.
Pete it's a hypothetical
no one was there.
Compare the fact set of the hypothetical to the incidents reported in the article. You'll find Boston Police using the law to confiscate video/audio recordings of them making arrests IN PUBLIC, where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, made by persons 1) not involved in the arrest (AKA innocent bystanders) and 2) not interfering in the arrest - a distance away, certainly not obstructing and 3) not at risk.
Moreover, if they were obstructing justice, they'd be charged with that. The fact they're charged with making video/audio recordings should tell you that the law is being abused.
That fact you want to pin it on shoddy journalism, well, we're used to you fingering everyone but the police.
First off, there were probably several people there.
The arrestee, the police, witnesses, other people involved, the person that may have called 911 in the first place. You and I don't know who was there though, because all we have is a few stories that someone wrote on the internet. We didn't see the police report or witness statements. You think there was just some cop walking down the street and some lawyer whipped out his cellphone and then got his civil rights trampled? If thats the story then yea, the cop was out of line. All I was asking for was for a little more of that story. When you come out and say there aren't any "facts" regarding arrest statistics for a specific crime, then that is lazy. This is the Boston Globe (Boston.com) for crying out loud not some moonbat blog.
And for the last f***ing time, there are rogue cops out there who use this law to bully people around. It happens.
The "incident" in the article is what one person says. I think it would be helpful if more facts were out about this. You say "if they were obstructing justice, they'd be charged with that". I say we have no idea what he was charged with because they don't mention it!
I come on here as a voice of reason sometimes because I have actually been there. You (or other anons) continue to say I never blame the police when I basically do all the time. I said rogue cops do stuff like this in every single post here about the subject.
Answer me this then anon: In what percentage of Boston Police arrests for disorderly conduct (or insert crime X here) do you think the person actually did something wrong? And then tell me what percentage of those arrests that the cop was corrupt, abused power or did something criminal. Then tell me how many actual disorderly conduct arrests you have actually seen.
"Disorderly Conduct" and
"Disorderly Conduct" and "Interfering with an Arrest" are catch all charges that cops use to take someone downtown. You've heard the saying: "you may beat the wrap, but you can't beat the ride". An honest cop could care less if you video tape them while handling their duties. I guess we should start arresting all the tourists taking video in Copley Square without the permission of everyone within earshot? For some reason the cops don't seem to worried about that encroachment on privacy. The amount of corruption in the BPD is ridiculous. Good cops besmirch their own reputation by looking the other way while it occurs. If someone gets in the way of the cops doing their job, then fine, charge them for that. But illegal wiretapping? Come on! What a joke. You have to be a fool to believe the cops are doing this for any reason other than to harass and intimidate.
you are so right on this one anon
I agree. People need to wake the f up.
I agree with BostonLawyer
I can't believe this is happening. Of course the police do not want citizens recording them while they harass people and abuse their powers! Because if no one records it then their is no proof of it ever happening. Then of course the police officer's words hold true of what happened and will be backed by fellow officers. Therefore leaving the citizen vicitmized and helpless.
The police officer only want to protect his/her ass and job. Especially with the technology we have now like multimedia cell phones and Youtube, they fear of being exposed for their wrongdoing. (remember the Rodney King video) What if that was never recorded? Recording police events is the only way we as citizens have left of freedom and justice! We all know there have been so many instances of police abuse of powers.
Besides do you know that police always record every phone conversation you have with them without your permission? Why is that ok? Sounds like a double standard. Also do you know that with the Patriot Act any of our private phones can be tapped and recorded at any time with out any type of warrant or permission.
If the officers are doing nothing wrong then why would they worry about you recording them?
So if i go outside in public with a recording device rolling I committed a crime and I can be arrested? Wow. This is insane.
Can you say Police State?
BTW people, If any of you
BTW people,
If any of you have iPhones or Android phones there's several Apps out here that will turn allow their video to stream and be stored onto websites immediately. Of course that will run afoul of the wiretapping law as it's worded; but it also will capture any acts unbecoming an officer that might be happening. At least that way your “evidence” isn’t “misplaced”.
I know one is called QIK, but there's a few others as well.
Why
would the Boston Police want to confiscate an video and audio recording of them making an arrest, in public, by a bystander not otherwise involved in the incident? What's more, why would they justify the arrest using a law intended to protect MA citizens privacy, subject to a test of a right to privacy not in a public place?
Boston Police Arresting People Who Record Them On Duty
When Public Officers are allowed to arrest people who record them to insure they don't abuse their authority, we will be looking at the first stages of a dictatorship. What they are doing is infact tampering with evidence.