Judge Bans NYPD Videotaping Of Political Protests

[Cryozombie]

Source: WNBC (NY)

Title: JUDGE BANS NYPD VIDEOTAPING OF POLITICAL PROTESTS

More than 20 years after a court settlement framed guidelines for police investigations of political activities, a federal judge rapped police for videotaping demonstrations.

U.S. District Judge Charles S. Haight said New York Police Department videotaping of two recent protests was as egregious as police conduct at anti-Vietnam War demonstrations 35 years ago that led to permanent court oversight of police surveillance and intelligence collecting methods at large gatherings.

The judge said Thursday that police cannot routinely videotape demonstrations when they involve purely political activity. He said the city had violated the Handschu guidelines, named for the lead plaintiff in a case that included 1960s radical activist Abbie Hoffman and others as plaintiffs. The guidelines date to 1985.

<snip>

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

So what they're saying is that they can't even do what private citizens can do now. I wonder how he came to that conclusion?

 

[bushidomartialarts]

So what they're saying is that they can't even do what private citizens can do now. I wonder how he came to that conclusion?

many of our laws and guidelines (for example the bill of rights) say that police and other representatives of government aren't allowed to do some things private citizens can do. it's one of the basic principals of our society: limiting the power of groups that can limit the freedom of individuals.

 

[Cryozombie]

So what they're saying is that they can't even do what private citizens can do now. I wonder how he came to that conclusion?

In the early 70's open surveilence of political protest was contested and won by the Black Panthers... the judge was ruling based on that precident, and the guidelines for surveilence that created.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

many of our laws and guidelines (for example the bill of rights) say that police and other representatives of government aren't allowed to do some things private citizens can do. it's one of the basic principals of our society: limiting the power of groups that can limit the freedom of individuals.

Based on the fourth amendment right of search and seizure, case law (granted, federal case law, not the laws of individual states) has stated that if an individual citizen has the right to be there, then the police do as well. For example, if you can go into an open business, then so can the police. If you can photograph someone on the street without their consent, then so can the police. If you can video tape someone, or in this instance a group, then so can the police.

And I would be interested to know what powers you think individuals have that the police don't have.

I''ll also have to check out the court cases that were cited in the original post. Sounds interesting.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Based on the fourth amendment right of search and seizure, case law (granted, federal case law, not the laws of individual states) has stated that if an individual citizen has the right to be there, then the police do as well. For example, if you can go into an open business, then so can the police. If you can photograph someone on the street without their consent, then so can the police. If you can video tape someone, or in this instance a group, then so can the police.

A lot of case law doesn't support your point about photography and video. (This thread for example). A photo taken by a tourist that just happens to catch a bad guy in the act is admissable evidence. A photo taken by a cop because he's after a bad guy has to have a paper trail of warrants and permissions to be admissable.

And I would be interested to know what powers you think individuals have that the police don't have.

As an individual I have freedom of action and thought that an armed representative of the state doesn't have. I can cross the street because four young men of a different race are coming towards me. A cop who does that is profiling. I can refuse service to somebody simply because I don't like him. I can enter into a self-defense situation with the intent of maiming or killing my attacker. I can choose not to buy from somebody because of his religion. Not that I'd likely do any of these things, but I get to and cops don't.

Police do have a broad range of powers the average citizen doesn't. But because of those powers, they are watched, limited and governed in ways you and I would find intolerable.

As I said in my original post, the Bill of Rights is in place to limit the power of government and government representatives. It's normal, good and necessary that cops can't do everything we can.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

A lot of case law doesn't support your point about photography and video. (This thread for example). A photo taken by a tourist that just happens to catch a bad guy in the act is admissable evidence. A photo taken by a cop because he's after a bad guy has to have a paper trail of warrants and permissions to be admissable.



As an individual I have freedom of action and thought that an armed representative of the state doesn't have. I can cross the street because four young men of a different race are coming towards me. A cop who does that is profiling. I can refuse service to somebody simply because I don't like him. I can enter into a self-defense situation with the intent of maiming or killing my attacker. I can choose not to buy from somebody because of his religion. Not that I'd likely do any of these things, but I get to and cops don't.

Police do have a broad range of powers the average citizen doesn't. But because of those powers, they are watched, limited and governed in ways you and I would find intolerable.

As I said in my original post, the Bill of Rights is in place to limit the power of government and government representatives. It's normal, good and necessary that cops can't do everything we can.

What case law? You say alot, and if you can, please provide those cases. I would be interested to know.

Remember, this case that is cited refers ONLY to political demonstrations. It says nothing about video taping or photographing any other activity.

And a cop can do all of those things that you mention, although some of those are non-sequiturs. A cop wouldn't cross to street to escape (if I catch your meaning correctly) four people of a different race who were a threat (or percieved threat).

You can refuse service, but I don't know of a business today that wouldn't get sued for such refusal, including the police. Even still, there is no crime in doing so, just civil penalties.

A police officer can enter into that same self-defence situation with the same intent, believe me. They don't usually, just like most people don't. And I would question someone's motive to call it a self-defence situation (which is usually reactionary), who has the time to form the INTENT to kill or maim.

And if it is found that the force used by a civilian is above the reasonable amount necessary to stave off the threat, then he can go to jail. It's been clearly established by law.

And who says, that as a police officer, I am forced to buy something from someone just to seem fair. I can go to the 7-11 owned by the Pakistanis or the liqour store owned by the Koreans as I see fit. (Stereotypes intentional).

I don't know where you get your information about what decisions cops can and can not make, but, respectfully, you are way off the mark on this one.

And to really understand the Bill of Rights, it is used to prevent the government from going to excesses, not to limit the reasonable intrusion by the government which civilians do not have.

A civilian can not get a search warrant to enter someone's dwelling without the owners permission. They cannot arrest someone for felonies, whether they have in fact occurred or not. These are all law enforcement powers that the police have, that civilians do not. Civilians cannot detain traffic violators for infractions.

"Oversight" by the courts of police and governmental processes is absolutely essential to curb the excesses of government. I agree with that. But denying them this particular ability is ridculous.

I could go on, but I have a lovely belated Valentines trip with my beautiful wife to take. SEE YA!!!

 

[grydth]

I do believe there were a series of cases from the 60's and 70's holding that police and government intelligence agencies could not film and keep files on people who were not the subject of criminal investigations.

That being said, I wonder how much practical effect or legal vitality this ruling still has in the face of the pervasive spread of surveillance cameras. These things have spread so quickly and so insidiously that many people are being watched most of the time that they are out of their homes.

So what if police cannot film a particular protest event...... but multiple cameras, public and private, watch every person in that area every day. For better or worse, the snoopers have won.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I dont think its so much the taping itself as it is the storing /recording of intelligence fies. And I agree with 5-0, this is a diversion form what is usual. Cops should be able to photo, talk to people just like any other citizen. In my criminal justice classes from college I seem ti remember that cops have as much right to walk up to someone and ask them a question as I or you would. They dont have the right to detain them w/o probable cause, but they can talk. I would think its the same for cops. If a co drives around with his own personal dig. camera, what prevents him from snapping any pictures he wants as long as he is in a place anybody else is allowed to be?? Makes no sense.

 

[Cryozombie]

If a co drives around with his own personal dig. camera, what prevents him from snapping any pictures he wants as long as he is in a place anybody else is allowed to be?? Makes no sense.

The initial ruling came because of what was being done with those pictures. They weret for personal use, they were being passed around to law enforcement groups and others to be used to set up operations against the people who were phographed. At that point Id say it becomes surveilence. Of cours, then you get into the whole idea of reasonable expectation fo pivacy which you dont have in public... etc, etc...

I'm just for limiting governmental power, and this does so, so its a good thing.

 

[jks9199]

A lot of case law doesn't support your point about photography and video. (This thread for example). A photo taken by a tourist that just happens to catch a bad guy in the act is admissable evidence. A photo taken by a cop because he's after a bad guy has to have a paper trail of warrants and permissions to be admissable.

As an individual I have freedom of action and thought that an armed representative of the state doesn't have. I can cross the street because four young men of a different race are coming towards me. A cop who does that is profiling. I can refuse service to somebody simply because I don't like him. I can enter into a self-defense situation with the intent of maiming or killing my attacker. I can choose not to buy from somebody because of his religion. Not that I'd likely do any of these things, but I get to and cops don't.

Police do have a broad range of powers the average citizen doesn't. But because of those powers, they are watched, limited and governed in ways you and I would find intolerable.

As I said in my original post, the Bill of Rights is in place to limit the power of government and government representatives. It's normal, good and necessary that cops can't do everything we can.

What case law? You say alot, and if you can, please provide those cases. I would be interested to know.

Remember, this case that is cited refers ONLY to political demonstrations. It says nothing about video taping or photographing any other activity.

And a cop can do all of those things that you mention, although some of those are non-sequiturs. A cop wouldn't cross to street to escape (if I catch your meaning correctly) four people of a different race who were a threat (or percieved threat).

You can refuse service, but I don't know of a business today that wouldn't get sued for such refusal, including the police. Even still, there is no crime in doing so, just civil penalties.

A police officer can enter into that same self-defence situation with the same intent, believe me. They don't usually, just like most people don't. And I would question someone's motive to call it a self-defence situation (which is usually reactionary), who has the time to form the INTENT to kill or maim.

And if it is found that the force used by a civilian is above the reasonable amount necessary to stave off the threat, then he can go to jail. It's been clearly established by law.

And who says, that as a police officer, I am forced to buy something from someone just to seem fair. I can go to the 7-11 owned by the Pakistanis or the liqour store owned by the Koreans as I see fit. (Stereotypes intentional).

I don't know where you get your information about what decisions cops can and can not make, but, respectfully, you are way off the mark on this one.

And to really understand the Bill of Rights, it is used to prevent the government from going to excesses, not to limit the reasonable intrusion by the government which civilians do not have.

A civilian can not get a search warrant to enter someone's dwelling without the owners permission. They cannot arrest someone for felonies, whether they have in fact occurred or not. These are all law enforcement powers that the police have, that civilians do not. Civilians cannot detain traffic violators for infractions.

"Oversight" by the courts of police and governmental processes is absolutely essential to curb the excesses of government. I agree with that. But denying them this particular ability is ridculous.

I could go on, but I have a lovely belated Valentines trip with my beautiful wife to take. SEE YA!!!

I'm not going to repeat a lot of this... 5-0 Kenpo said it well. I wrote a nice post, but you'll have to take my word on it 'cause the evil gremlins in my computer decided to eat it when I posted it. :uhohh: :disgust: :ticked:

The bottom line is that I'm not aware of any case law, other than this ruling, which prohibits police surveillance of lawful assemblies for intelligence purposes. I've taken part in such surveillance, and we didn't have a court order or warrant. So long as we were lawfully in the position to observe, and we weren't using certain techniques (thermal imaging cameras, for example) that penetrate beyond what is protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy, we're not violating the Constitution. I think this judge's ruling is an aberration.

As was said -- the Constitution and the Bill of Rights define the relationship between the citizen and the government; it sets limits on the government's ability to limit the actions of and interfere with the citizens.

One part that really worries me in the first post above is the idea that a person can enter into a self-defense situation with the intent to kill; neither a police officer nor a civilian can use more than than the force reasonably necessary to defend themselves from an attack, and both can use any and all force necessary, up to and including lethal force. They just have to justify the force they use. Note that neither is required to use the MINIMUM force possible, but instead are required to use only that force reasonably necessary. The calculus of determining what force is reasonable is complicated, and has subjective elements. It's concievable that an experienced martial artist might find himself judged more harshly than a police officer!

Police officers are also held to a higher standard than the public and even politicians, in some ways, in their personal lives. An officer is generally prohibited from associating with known criminals outside of his official duties, for example, and is subject to punishment for "conduct unbecoming" in every agency I'm aware of. This can cover anything from traffic tickets to public drunkeness, and lots of other stuff. Cops can (and have) lost their jobs or been punished at work for traffic violations received off the clock... But, honestly, there are plenty of others that are subject to similar concerns, such as people with security clearances or people who's job requires a clean driving record.

Simply looking at the issue here, police videotaping of lawful public assemblies with no objective evidence of potential criminal activity, I don't personally see a problem. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy to your presence in a public place. Quite simply, there are many groups that have two faces; one face is the "lawful assembly expressing their 1st Amendment rights", but the other is the one that causes disruption. For example, within the environmental movement, most people are law abiding and simple civil protestors. But... tucked among them are groups like EarthFirst, and other eco-terrorists. Or... The Hell's Angels (and many other 1%er Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs) do toy drives, fund raisers for senior centers, and lots of other things in their community. The fact that they're also known and highly organized narcotic trafficers, who commit many violent attacks and murders, is an unavoidable part of who they are. Surveillance of the lawful assemblies often identifies participants in the unlawful acts.

The police aren't going to monitor a Boy Scout meeting... But they will monitor the assemblies of groups with known criminal aspects, even if that particular assembly has no immediately apparent criminal potential.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://jameswagner.com/mt_archives/003463.html

Handschu guidelines restored - maybe
The New York Police Department has been slapped for its "operational ignorance" and its threat to constitutional rights.

Charging he had lost confidence in the NYPD's methods of investigating political activity, a federal judge yesterday restored limits on the department that he had lifted only five months ago.

[In February the judge had agreed to ease the rules restraining police surveillance and interrogation excesses out of concern about heightened threats to security. The original rules have come to be known as the Handschu agreement. Handschu was the first listed plaintiff in a 1971 lawsuit which succesfully charged that the Police Department's so-called Red Squad harassed political advocacy groups.]

Blasting the department at its highest levels, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Haight reversed his March ruling in which he had accepted the Police Department's assertion that terrorism concerns justified an easing of the restrictions.

Haight said he changed his mind after the disclosure that on Feb. 15 the police had arrested 274 people protesting the war in Iraq and questioned them about their political beliefs, entering their responses on what the department called a "demonstration debriefing" form.

Remarkably, the NYPD seems to believe nothing has really changed in the guidelines they must observe.
At a news conference yesterday, [Police Commissioner Ray] Kelly said that Haight's ruling would "not change any modification made by the judge ... For me, the important thing is the modification ... continues to stand."

Chris Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union said of Kelly's statement, "I don't know what the commissioner means since the judge clearly ordered that new restrictions will be added to the court order governing the department's surveillance."

The judge's ruling did not specify what restrictions would be imposed in initiating a probe.

Neither the Newsday story nor the NYTimes account leave us with any clear understanding of the impact of the judge's ruling yesterday.
Yesterday, Judge Haight did not impose new restrictions on the police in the wake of the interrogations, which first came to light after the New York Civil Liberties Union received complaints from protesters. Nor did the judge decide the issue of whether the interrogations violated the protesters' constitutional rights.

But he said he would formally incorporate the recently eased rules into a judicial decree, to make clear that lawyers could return to court and seek to hold the city in contempt if they believed that a violation of the rules also violated an individual's constitutional rights. [from the Times]

 

[Blotan Hunka]

From what little Ive read on the net about this, this "Handschu" stuff is limited to NYPD only and not nation wide. It looks like its a "pee pee slap" on the NYPD for some naughty stuff they did back in the 60's-70's.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0251,lee,40627,1.html

The NYPD relinquished its spying autonomy as a result of a 1971 class-action suit filed by a diverse group of activists who accused police of using dossiers and undercover agents to chill and punish lawful dissent. Officials eventually admitted as much. In a historic settlement over a decade later, police promised to heed certain guidelines and be monitored by an oversight body when investigating constitutionally protected activity. Federal Judge Charles Haight signed the settlement&#8212;known as the Handschu agreement after one of the plaintiffs&#8212;into effect in 1985.

So this was a lawsuit deal made by the NYPD. So if they break it, then what? Hold the city in contempt? That better be one BIG jail!

Thats a fairly good explination of this thing.

 

[jks9199]

Blasting the department at its highest levels, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Haight reversed his March ruling in which he had accepted the Police Department's assertion that terrorism concerns justified an easing of the restrictions.

Haight said he changed his mind after the disclosure that on Feb. 15 the police had arrested 274 people protesting the war in Iraq and questioned them about their political beliefs, entering their responses on what the department called a "demonstration debriefing" form

There's also a big difference between detaining or arresting someone without at least reasonable, articulable suspicion that they are or are about to be engaged in criminal activity and simply monitoring a political activity. I don't know what happened here; I'm not in NYC and I'm not part of NYPD. But if they didn't have some sort of justification beyond mere intel gathering for detaining or arresting 200+ people... There's a problem.

Policing these demonstrations is a huge, complex challenge -- as events over the last several years around the country have demonstrated. Innocent people simply in the area or people legally participating can get grabbed up, or worse, get hurt in the confusion, and sometimes officers working the crowd just don't do what they're supposed to.