> Probably in a way that is most favorable to LEOs.
I think this makes sense. Would be bad if every time a police officer tries to stop a crime, suddenly 20 hard of hearing people need to crowd around him really close in order to record him. Oh look, the criminal got away again. There are situations where different laws will conflict, and I hope in those situations crime prevention and safety take precedence.
Modern phone cameras are really good and 25 feet isn't very far. Seems like a good compromise so that cops can do their jobs but there can be some citizen oversight.
> Would be bad if every time a police officer tries to stop a crime, suddenly 20 hard of hearing people need to crowd around him really close in order to record him
It would. Do we have credible examples? Because we have a lot of evidence of cops lying, and only being caught on account of recordings, with disastrous effects. If one side is hypothetical and the other substantiated, it strikes me as reasonable to favour one over the other.
There's a reasonable distance that a law enforcement officer (or paramedic, or firefighter) need to be in control of, in order to focus on their job. Maybe it's 1ft, maybe it's 50ft: the courts should decide.
There's also a reasonable public expectation to be able to record police officers doing their job, for subsequent review.
Hopefully we can all agree that someone loudly "recording" shoulder to shoulder with police officer disrupts their ability to resolve situations? Just as we can agree that not having any recording of a police officer's potentially illegal actions is antithetical to ensuring justice?
There are disingenuous protesters who abuse recording excuses to disrupt law enforcement.
There are corrupt cops who abuse recording limitations to disrupt transparency.
There are a lot of laws passed to clarify or elaborate on existing laws. Unless there's common law that already specifies this exact scenario, this just specifies a specific case for judges, citizens and first responders.
I get the impression this law exists more for political reasons than for practical application --not that it won't be applied. Floridian voters seem to like the police but hate taxes. Granting powers to the police to help them harass "undesirables" without any added cost is the kind of law they get excited for.
>If I'm on the ground and an officer is yelling at me, I do not want other people even within that officer's bubble of space.
If you're in that position, particularly for something as simple as he took something you said the wrong way, the cameras might keep the officer from going overboard too.
Oh, always-on cameras are a 100% prerequisite solution. The presumption needs to be that if a body camera is ever off, the worst thing happened while it was.
Along with ensuring that hardware reliability and UX clearly communicates camera functioning to officers. (I'm not young enough to still assume widely-deployed tech, procured by the government, in real world scenarios is always functional)
> we can all agree that someone loudly "recording" shoulder to shoulder with police officer disrupts their ability to resolve situations
Sure. We can also agree that throwing rotting sea slugs at anyone eating a hamburger is disagreeable. But absent evidence of it (a) happening and (b) going un(der)punished, any legislation to ban it is performative.
Performative legislation isn't bad per se. Ideally, it would have no effect. But given almost any increase in legal surface area brings rise to unintended consequences, the result is a net negative.
> are disingenuous protesters who abuse recording excuses to disrupt law enforcement
Again, do you have examples of people recording police disrupting law enforcement where those recording weren't punished (sufficiently)?
> Both of these things are wrong
If one is occuring more frequently, and moreover going more-frequently unpunished, then tipping the scale further in that direction is counterproductive.
If police abuse is running rampant while nobody can find unpunished instances of disruptive recording of the police, then these rules are more likely to further the abuse than facilitate legitimate law enforcement. (To say nothing of the wasted political capital, given the myriad of problems Florida has to deal with.)
> suddenly 20 hard of hearing people need to crowd around him really close in order to record him
It’s already against the law to interfere with an arrest. A mob of people surrounding officers attempting to arrest someone is already illegal, whether they have cameras in their hands or not.
Laws that rely on an officers/departments personal reading of a situation/interpretation are easily confused and abused, especially when it's something as fuzzy as "interference". Having clarity is nice. I personally think it's fine to give an officer some sort of personal space. If I were an officer arresting someone, I wouldn't want someone affiliated with them standing 5 feet behind me, where I would have to worry about being attacked. Not sure how this works indoors though, where 25 feet would make observation impossible.
This assumes sane body camera policies are in place, like immediate dismissal if the camera/mic is turned off/covered, during any part up to or during an arrest.
> This assumes sane body camera policies are in place, like immediate dismissal if the camera/mic is turned off/covered, during any part up to or during an arrest.
Assuming fantasies is rarely helpful when judging the effects of legislation.
> This assumes sane body camera policies are in place, like immediate dismissal if the camera/mic is turned off/covered, during any part up to or during an arrest.
I think every single copy would be fired because of this. I've yet to see any body cam footage during an arrest where the camera wasn't covered up at some point. And since you are the one proposing clarity and specifics here, you've just demonstrated by having these specifics in place don't always help.
After all, can you, with 100% accuracy, measure with just your eyes 25.1 feet? What's the cop going to do? Break out the measuring tape? Where do they measure from? Also, how do they prove the intent part. After all, that's subjective. If I'm recording but my intent is not to do anything that is listed in the law, it doesn't apply to me.
So, lots of lack of clarity in between lots of bad specifics.
> And since you are the one proposing clarity and specifics here, you've just demonstrated by having these specifics in place don't always help.
What I said is not the policy of most stations. I never claimed it was. But, it is a logical implementation that would protect against bad officers. For those places where it is policy, a failure of enforcement doesn't mean we throw out the concept of law, ffs.
> So, lots of lack of clarity in between lots of bad specifics.
You know what's harder to judge than, say, 25.0 feet? Having to completely guess, leaving it up to how grumpy the officer is.
It's OK to expect higher standards from police officers. Cameras should record all day and officers should only be allowed to mark timestamps they wish to be deleted later. The footage should still be logged in a black box, encrypted with something to make it not easily accessible. That way a cop could "whoopsie" their camera before beating someone, but it would still ultimately be possible to get that recording.
My proposal is simple: a cop is someone deputized by the State to be a cop who is operating a body cam.
Body cam is off? He's just a citizen with a nightstick. When he's tried, prosecution is held in contempt of court if they allow the jury in any way to know that, were his camera on, he would have been a police officer. Same with the defendant: if he mouths off about what was otherwise his job, he's going to jail for as long as it takes to convene a fresh jury, no bail, contempt.
Mandatory body cams were also dismissed by the cynical, and it's the rule in many forces now, perhaps even most. This is just an extension of that policy.
No, it isn't actionable. It would require constitutional amendments in multiple states, changes to state law, changes to multiple federal laws, and I wouldn't be surprised if it all got thrown out at multiple levels. That is no more an action than "thoughts and prayers".
That requires a reliable test that can filter them, including new officers. If you think you can easily filter "good" and "bad" people, acting in extreme circumstances, you're delusional.
Bingo, you have the answer. Now do the same suggestion for security cameras in homes for domestic violence, bathrooms for rape, politician's and judges offices for bribery, offices of government clerks, etc.
You'll realize people get very uncomfortable very quickly when you start heading down a near bulletproof solution. They want the chaos, the charade and they definitely want the "vagueness" of laws because they can't handle the black and white nature of a lot of laws that were drawn up lazily.
Sure, but less personal reading is a good thing for the public. For example, speed limits make it clear how fast you can go, requiring something exceptional for an officer to stop you, and acting as protection if they do [1]. Similarly, this makes it clear that they can't threaten you with claims of interference, beyond this distance, unless you're doing something exceptional.
Yup, though as a counter, police academies really focus on the ability to generate PC (probable cause). It’s a highly prized skill.
Something hanging from a mirror, a broken tail light, out of spec window tint, child seat improperly secured, load improperly secured, weaving in the lane, driving too slow for conditions, too fast for conditions, driving inconsistent speeds, not properly signaling, failure to maintain your vehicle in a safe condition (bald tires), illegally modified emissions controls (exhausts), using a cell phone while driving, etc.
Also, speedometers are notoriously out of calibration, and no one is going to believe the driver when they say they were going x speed without some evidence.
The vehicle code is huge, and it’s a rare driver that can’t be pulled over for something. ‘Fishing’ is a common activity that catches a lot of drug smuggling, people on warrants, DUI, etc.
Speed traps also generate a lot of revenue for many departments, depending on state laws.
If you look like you keep your nose clean, you’ll usually get left alone though, unless they’re bored.
I’ve personally had at least 2 instances where I was driving on rural highways at night, and was followed for 15+ minutes by police trying to find a reason to pull me over so they could search me though. They both let me go after it was obvious I wasn’t a drug smuggler or DUI.
I struggle to think of examples where a suspect has actually ELUDED law enforcement due to citizens recording an interaction or arrest, and I'd be very curious to see any such thing.
I will agree that such recording has interfered with the arrest process at times, and that is more problematic.
But I'm a paramedic/firefighter and often have to work on patients (in an MVA, for example) in much closer proximity to rubberneckers.
I've seen plenty of videos of police where the people filming are actively escalating tensions. It's usually by yelling though, not filming, but the yelling seems to usually be for the video, rather than anything productive.
As someone who works in emergency services, frankly, "so what?". If you can't tune that out as background noise, you're not going to be able to do your job effectively. Otherwise, what, you have police who can only do their job in ideal circumstances.
Like when I teach EMTs and paramedics, and we cover things like extricating patients from vehicles. "This is great. The vehicle is level, you're in an apparatus bay at a fire station, you have great lighting, no noise, it's not pouring rain..."
More often than not, I see police escalating situations with people of interest and bystanders, rather than the other way around.
I'm assuming you're not speaking about law enforcement since you didn't mention it specifically but I think there's a big difference between a chaotic and interested crowd vs an antagonistic crowd.
Law enforcement are often trying to handle a person they view as dangerous and, if there's a crowd of people around who are vocalizing their displeasure with you, you're going to feel more in danger.
I don't disagree with you about police escalating _violence_ in these situations which is why I specifically said "tensions".
IMO, a bad cop who is completely in the wrong and prone to violence will be more likely to commit violence if their attention is split between their suspect and the antagonistic crowd. Being surrounded by unfriendly people doesn't make people react better than they would have otherwise.
There are plenty of bad cops around. All I'm advocating for is that, if you're recording an altercation you believe unjust, record it and don't become part of it.
Why would it be bad? Surely sunlight is the best disinfectant? Let people film as much as possible. It's been demonstrated that police cameras don't always function... mysteriously.
My personal take about giving an inch on this topic is that it'll embolden people to "get involved" without much facts but having a lot of emotions about a volatile situation. E.g. Some rando drug dealer purposefully shouting at a nearby uninformed mob about "profiling", so everyone gets involved because hey "cops are bad, shame poor brown person", they all shout at the police officer, they all offer their opinion whilst not being a judge or jury. Next thing it's sheer Chaos for the simple encounter, because we forget that mob mentality is a real thing.
I don't want to open up that messy box. The rule should be simple, stay at least 25ft away and record if you want to. This shouldn't even be up for debate.
Like who even wants to be within 25ft of anything remotely dangerous unless someone you know is involved. Why are we even having this discussion.
My theory: Because people want to neuter the police so that they can sow chaos and destabilize society. Bonus points, they take away the people (police) keeping the violence and bullies at bay through the threat of fear and consequences.
Your personal take is that of someone who hasn't been bullied or abused by officers of the law, I'm assuming. Consider that some people have, and they may want police accountability, with no desire to sow chaos.
I'm not a drug dealer, but I did get not so nice treatment from police once. Well, more than once but this was the most applicable to this discussion.
I was profiled, verbally assaulted, shouted down, searched, etc. All while AK assault rifles were being waived around to scare me while my car was searched.
I knew I did nothing wrong and it was just corruption and intimidation and fishing. So I responded with yes sir, no officer, etc. Eventually it blew over.
No idea how it would have went if bystanders started getting involved and causing chaos with proximity to the police.
How come this kind of shit is only a problem in places where police are more likely to be involved in criminal events that involve brutalizing innocent people?
Does Norway have a problem with an excessive number of people filming police interactions in public?
I think this makes sense. Would be bad if every time a police officer tries to stop a crime, suddenly 20 hard of hearing people need to crowd around him really close in order to record him. Oh look, the criminal got away again. There are situations where different laws will conflict, and I hope in those situations crime prevention and safety take precedence.
Modern phone cameras are really good and 25 feet isn't very far. Seems like a good compromise so that cops can do their jobs but there can be some citizen oversight.