YouTube member ShoginArmada raises a valid point:
2011 shaping up to be one hell of a year to get away with police abuse.
YouTube member ShoginArmada raises a valid point:
2011 shaping up to be one hell of a year to get away with police abuse.
“Police Tape,” by Josh Wolf, is a film that examines the impact of police recordings in our society over the past 20 years, from the Rodney King beating captured by a bystander to the killing of a 7-year-old Detroit girl under the watch of reality TV cameras.
This is the same Josh Wolf who was arrested and jailed for almost a year because he would not hand over his video of a 2006 anarchist demonstration to a federal grand jury.
Wolf has the project listed on Kickstarter, and he’s already exceeded his financial goal with 11 days to go, so presumably this is a subject that captures the public’s interest.
To read more about his project and see the trailer, go to the Kickstarter page here.
UPDATE: MTA Chief Ralign T. Wells has come out against agency employees who have sought to prohibit photography, telling the Baltimore Sun, “We don’t have a policy restricting photography. The actions of some of these officers are not reflective of the agency stance.” He said he will work to settle with the ACLU before any lawsuit can be filed.
The Maryland ACLU may sue on behalf of Christopher Fussell, a train enthusiast, who was taking photos of a Baltimore train station and told to stop this past March. Fussell takes photos of trains and railroad stations all over the US — he takes about 15,000 to 20,000 a year — but it was the Charm City that gave him trouble. He was taking photos of Baltimore’s Cultural Center station when an employee ordered him to stop and threatened to call police.
The [ACLU] warned that unless the agency meets a series of conditions by Sept. 1, it will take the MTA to court — where it expects to win.
…
Civil libertarians and rights advocates say police have been given no new powers to curb photography since 9/11. In many cases, they say, police are making up laws and rules on the spot and issuing orders they have no right to give.
Interestingly, the ACLU worked to settle a 2006 incident amicably, where one of their own staffers was told to stop taking photos by the MTA, but they say they’re not going that route this time. Staff Attorney David Rocah says they’ve been trying that for five years and it hasn’t brought about change.
Often it takes a big lawsuit to get people’s attention.
Howard Stern’s sidekick, Joseph “Joey Boots” Bassolino, was issued a criminal summons for taking photos of National Guardsman in New York’s Penn Station this past week. NYPD charged him with interfering with traffic.
“I was keeping my distance to not interfere,” said Bassolino, who goes around the city photographing and documenting “all the interesting things I see about the city.”
MTA spokesman Salvatore Arena said photography is allowed in the station, “but you are not allowed to pursue your subject in an harassing manner.”
Source: New York Daily News
Absolutely nothing.
Reason.tv takes on photography and the police in this great video, “The Government’s War on Cameras.” (I particularly like all the clips of misinformed and/or rights-trampling authorities.) We finally get to see Antonio Musumeci, he of NYCLU lawsuit against the government fame, and the main message is hammered home — photography is your right, but not even the authorities know that sometimes.
NPR’s “Morning Edition” did a report on photographers’ rights this morning, featuring specifically the cases of teenager Khaliah Fitchette in Newark, NJ, and motorcycling wiretapper Anthony Gruber in Maryland. You can listen to it here.
As former police officer and current Boston University Professor Tom Nolan says:
“The police will get the message when municipal governments and police departments have got to write out substantial settlement checks,” he says. “Standing by itself, that video camera in the hands of some teenager is not going to constitute sufficient grounds for a lawful arrest.”
I was detained again recently (actually handcuffed and placed in the patrol unit) in Hollywood while photographing some people I’ve been following for a couple of weeks. My account of what happened, along with my footage (which is securely online already and stored on multiple hard drives that are not at my residence), will be released in the near future, but the experience has motivated me to finally comment on some letters I received in November 2010 from LAPD’s Chief of Police Charlie Beck and Paul Espinoza—the Northeast Patrol Division officer who unlawfully detained me because I photographed him and his partner performing a traffic stop on Hollywood Boulevard in February 2010.
The first paragraph of Chief Beck’s letter states the following:
An investigation into your complaint that was reported on February 21, 2010, regarding the conduct of an employee of the Los Angeles Police Department has been completed. The investigation has gone through several levels of review, including myself and the command staff of Internal Affairs Group. Your allegations that an officer was discourteous and unlawfully detained you were classified as Sustained. This means the investigation determined that the act alleged occurred and constitutes misconduct. An appropriate penalty will be imposed; however, Penal Code Section 832. 5 precludes me from disclosing the specific penalty.
And Paul Espinoza’s apology letter says:
I am the officer with whom you had contact on February 21, 2010. You should know there was a complaint lodged against me and I am sure you will be informed by the Department that complaint has been sustained. I wanted to write you a personal letter to apologize for my actions on that day. The Department has provided me training and I assure you I will handle similar situations in the future much differently. I am very proud to be a Los Angeles Police Officer and will do my best to serve you and the community to the best of my abilities in the future.
I hope the next time we meet it is under better circumstances. Again, please accept my apologies.
When I first received the letters I was initially pleased and certainly felt vindicated—especially towards my harshest online critics who inaccurately claimed that I was never detained and should have waited for the supervisor to arrive to say whatever it is that they thought I should have said to him.
Well, as all will know now, as some of us already knew then—I was unlawfully detained and treated disrespectfully. It’s that simple, and for full-brained people it really isn’t all that hard of a reality to grasp once you see the video.
As for the people who criticized me for not sticking around to speak to the supervisor, what they may not realize is the fact that speaking to a supervisor might well not resolve anything. More important, I don’t need to complain to Espinoza’s superior at the time; I can complain by filing a complaint with LAPD later. The two do not go hand in hand. Which, are both very good reasons why I left.
This was not my first time being detained, and I understand how the detainment and complaint process works. Plus, I have a lawyer friend who I can contact when I need advice or a legal question answered.
So once all the Monday-morning shutterbugs decide to stop taking family portraits, studio shots of fruit and martini glasses, and macro-shots of flowers and bugs and get their detainment cherry popped for taking legal pictures in public (which are decent enough to share with the rest of the world), then I’ll listen to what they have to say.
Sorry to digress, but all things must be addressed.
Then I read the letters again and thought about the outcome a little more. What did they do to make sure Espinoza wouldn’t do something like this again? And why does California Penal Code Section 832.5 (as well 832.7) prevent me and the public from knowing Espinoza’s “appropriate penalty”? For all I know, Espinoza’s appropriate penalty was to write a forced apology letter because he was caught on video screaming about his First Amendment rights, while at the same exact moment derailing my constitutional rights.
I should have the right to know Espinoza’s penalty, and so should you. We have the right to know the complaint history against all law enforcement officers in this country. This should be easily accessible information, rather than locked up and hidden from public scrutiny.
Penal codes such as 832.5 and 832.7 (which prevent LAPD from releasing information even about complaints that were determined valid), should not exist because all they do is raise credibility issues within the confines of law enforcement and stir contempt throughout the public.
We need to change this.
If this were anybody else other than a cop, they would be in jail right now. But we all know how the law doesn’t work when it comes to cops breaking the law and violating people’s civil rights. The settlement from this lawsuit needs to come out of this cop’s own wallet and not the taxpayers. But before that happens, this hero should be fired and then face a judge.
To voice your concerns regarding this officer’s behavior, contact Vallejo’s Chief of Police Robert W. Nichelini:
Chief Robert W. Nichelini
111 Amador St., Vallejo, CA 94590
(707) 648-4321
In a recent article on the Newark Star-Ledger site, George Berkin, a contributor to something called “NJ Voices,” writes on the case of Newark teen Khaliah Fitchette who was unlawfully detained in March 2010 for taping a medical emergency on a city bus with her cell phone. During the incident, Fitchette was handcuffed, her cell phone was seized and the video was deleted, and the police tried to charge her with obstruction of justice. Last week, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal court on her behalf.
Berkin is a big fan of the bible and Sarah Palin but not of abortion and evolution. So if you want to take a wild guess on where he’ll come down on the issue, go ahead. If you’re stumped, for Berkin, it all comes down to being thoughtful.
A thoughtful person would have realized, “Now I understand why the police, angered by my defiance expressed by my refusal to stop taping, would have handcuffed me. I certainly did not enjoy being handcuffed and being held in custody for several hours. But,” a thoughtful person would have concluded, “I certainly brought that unpleasantness upon myself.”
Fitchette wasn’t being thoughtful when her rights were violated, and she should just learn some thoughtfulness and not attempt to tape anything in public because it might hurt someone’s feelings, and if she is unlawfully detained and her constitutional rights are violated because of her thoughtless behavior, she should accept that and not participate in the ACLU’s vendetta against the Newark police department. (A police department, mind you, that has a well-earned reputation as one of the most corrupt in the nation.)
Here’s an interesting twist for Berkin, who hates government spending: Lawsuits like these cost taxpayers A LOT of money. And they are entirely avoidable.
Source: Newark Star-Ledger