# Woman arrested for refusing to hand over video camera



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 25, 2010)

*Arrest witness loses freedom for 18 hours over  video 
                  Officer who tried to seize woman's camera is fighting 15-day  suspension for disobeying sergeant      * 
 By Phil Trexler 
 Beacon Journal staff writer
Published on Monday, Jan 25, 2010 



> For parts of two days, the 48-year-old woman was confined in the  Summit County Jail before she made bail.
> 
> Her crime: refusing Officer Schismenos' demands that she turn over  the camera she used to document his arrest of a rowdy drunk.
> 
> ...


http://www.ohio.com/news/82574547.html
http://carlosmiller.com/2010/01/25/ohio-officer-fights-suspension-over-wrongful-video-camera-arrest/

Reading the news story, it looks to me that the officer over stepped his authority. It also looks like the woman was rude, however being rude to a cop is not a crime worth a night in jail. Of note is the fact that charges against her were dropped.

Regarding Akron, I worked there a decade ago doing IT work inside City Hall. City reminded me of a cleaner and safer Buffalo. I quite liked it there and never ran into any cops that made me nervous. Every one I did was rather polite and professional.


----------



## Carol (Jan 25, 2010)

This wasn't a still camera, it was a video camera.   That's where things get messy.  Video cameras typically record audio along with the video, and according to the article there was definitely audio recorded.

Ohio is a single-party consent state, which means at least one party to the conversation must know about the recording.  If this was a recording of a policeman arresting a drunk and neither the policeman nor the drunk were advised of the recording, then she broke the law.  Much like a manager cannot hide a tape recorder in the company lunch room to record the conversations of his reports.  

Note:  because security cameras and CCTV cameras do not capture audio, they do not run afoul of the law.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 25, 2010)

Local law prof says he needed a warrant though.


----------



## Carol (Jan 25, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Local law prof says he needed a warrant though.



Ohhh....well, that does muck it up a bit.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 25, 2010)

Public 'event' in a public place?


----------



## Carol (Jan 25, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Public 'event' in a public place?



Appears to be so, but the laws and practices regarding audio recordings are different than that of still images.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 25, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> It also looks like the woman was rude, however being rude to a cop is not a crime worth a night in jail.



We used to call it _"Felony Contempt of Cop."_  No, that's not really a crime.  Just a lot of cops thought it ought to be.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 26, 2010)

Carol said:


> Ohio is a single-party consent state, which means at least one party to the conversation must know about the recording.  If this was a recording of a policeman arresting a drunk and neither the policeman nor the drunk were advised of the recording, then she broke the law.



No.  Not if she was party too and made the consent.  If her voice appeared on the tape making a comment in any way, she was a participant and therefore could give the one party consent.


----------



## Carol (Jan 26, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> No. Not if she was party too and made the consent. If her voice appeared on the tape making a comment in any way, she was a participant and therefore could give the one party consent.


 
Good point! The police officer knowing she had the camera prolly helps too.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 16, 2010)

*Akron cop fighting suspension ends up with  triple the time*



> The mayor wrote the following in a letter to Schismenos, according to  the Akron Beacon Journal:
> _&#8220;Your actions have brought disrepute to the Akron  Police Department and yourself by causing both to be cast in a negative  light to the public,&#8221; Plusquellic wrote in a letter to Schismenos.  &#8221;Additionally, you have been counseled previously about your  interactions with citizens.&#8221;_
> _&#8221;The severity of your disregard for your sergeant&#8217;s reasonable  directive to you warrants the maximum penalty,&#8221; the mayor wrote in his  letter. &#8221;Your blatant disregard for your sergeant&#8217;s reasonable directive  led to a citizen spending a night in jail prior to the charges against  her being dropped.&#8221;_​


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 17, 2010)

It's about damn time someone stood up for the citizen. Good job.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 17, 2010)

From reading Bob's link above, it sounds like there were other problems with the officer.

On the one hand, I appreciate some of the frustration officers might feel being recorded on cameras and camcorders. I feel that I do my job well, but I would not want to see my day-to-day works put on YouTube for other people's entertainment.

The officer demanded the woman to turn over personal property without cause; he ignored the directive of a superior; he put a citizen in jail for not yielding to his demand. Abuse of power, plain and simple.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 17, 2010)

Gordon Nore said:


> I feel that I do my job well, but I would not want to see my day-to-day works put on YouTube for other people's entertainment.


 
Ahhh come on Gord! Show us some video!!


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 17, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Ahhh come on Gord! Show us some video!!



If you insist.






I'm the guitar god in the video.:headbangin:


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 17, 2010)

Gordon Nore said:


> If you insist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Gord, that was great!! 
If I lived in Toronto I'd be happy that my tax dollars pay your salary!


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2010)

Carol said:


> If this was a recording of a policeman arresting a drunk and neither the policeman nor the drunk were advised of the recording, then she broke the law.



Carol, can you provide a link to the actual law?  I see documentary film makers using cameras without advising subjects all of the time.  Some of these subjects are police and they claim they are protected by the 1st amendment.  Are they also breaking the law?


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 17, 2010)

Gordon Nore said:


> If you insist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dude, you rawk!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 17, 2010)

In the US, -ANY- individual in plain view in a public place can be photographed, without the subjects consent.

That includes cops.  If I see a cop sitting on a park bench, I can take his photo. He has no, zero, ziltch, right to touch me, touch my camera, insist on reviewing the shots, order me to delete them, or delete them himself.

I challenge any cop who thinks otherwise to produce a specific law that says so.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm


See also http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-rights_x.htm


> The law in the United States of America is pretty  simple. You are allowed to photograph _anything_ with the  following exceptions:
> &#8226;	Certain military installations or operations.
> &#8226;	People who have a reasonable expectation of  privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to  the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a  telephoto lens.




Video usually falls under the same laws AFAIK.  

This shows some information on recording conversations with links to sate resources
*Is it legal to record a conversation with a person  without their knowledge or consent?*


Ohio Law


> Ohio
> It is not a crime to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic  communication if the person recording is a party to the conversation, if  one party has consented to taping, or if the conversation is not taped  for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious offense. Ohio Rev.  Code ann. § 2933.52. Under the statute, consent is not required to tape a  non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a  reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition  of &#8220;oral communication,&#8221; Ohio Rev. Code ann. § 2933.51(b). The Ohio  Supreme Court has held that prisoners do not have a reasonable  expectation in their communications, for purposes of the wiretapping  law. State v. Robb, 723 N.E.2d 1019 (Ohio 2000).
> Cordless telephone conversations purposely picked up by a neighbor&#8217;s  baby monitor were considered &#8220;oral communications,&#8221; accompanied by a  reasonable expectation of privacy. Ohio v. Bidinost, 644 N.E.2d 318  (Ohio 1994).
> Illegal interceptions are felonies and also carry potential civil  liability for the greater of actual damages, $200 per day of violation  or $10,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees, and litigation  expenses. There is a two-year statute of limitations to bring a civil  action. Ohio Rev. Code ann. § 2933.65.
> Ohio also has anti-voyeurism law that prohibits surreptitiously  invading a person&#8217;s privacy for sexual purposes. Ohio Rev. Code ann.  §2907.08.


----------



## blindsage (Feb 17, 2010)

SWEET, so I can sue that show Cheaters before they air the footag...uh..hehe....just, um, nevermind.  :uhoh:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 17, 2010)

Publication is different that recording.   Just because I took your picture, doesn't mean I can do anything I want with it.  That's a whole different topic.  Usage Rights.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2010)

Does social media like Facebook or Youtube count as publishing?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 17, 2010)

Yes.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Yes.



If that is the case, then why aren't these public figures who get ambushed in some faux paus suing the people who post their videos?  Is it just too hard to prosecute people for this kind of publishing?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 17, 2010)

The answer there is long and complex.
Short version: Does the subject have an expectation of privacy, and does it fall under journalistic rules.

There are also some laws covering national secrets, courts, and so on.  

But, a cop in plain view on a public street performing their job, or any other actions is photographable and filmable. You can publish it as news. In the end, a court will decide that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The answer there is long and complex.
> Short version: Does the subject have an expectation of privacy, and does it fall under journalistic rules.
> 
> There are also some laws covering national secrets, courts, and so on.
> ...



Oh wow, so you just don't know until AFTER you are sued.  That is messed up.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 17, 2010)

I said short version. News reporters, papers and stations get sued all the time.  Most are tossed or settled.  
Photography uses model and property releases. Info http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer.html
I believe video work requires the same.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 18, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Oh wow, so you just don't know until AFTER you are sued.  That is messed up.



No that is exactly how the US justice system is designed.

It starts with a rather ambiguous constituation, and a whole bunch of precedent and case law down the line. Case law and precedent are basically what makes 'the law' and you usually don't want to be the first one to explore a new corner.

Like it or, not, the system was set up to be like this. It was a break from the common law system iirc that we still have, in which precedent has far less legal power and cases are tried based on the specific laws as they were put down by the responsible instances.


----------

