NYPD Sends Out Official Memo Telling Officers They’re Allowed to Be Photographed

[revelarts]

just passing by to drop off 2 items for your perusal.

NYPD Sends Out Official Memo Telling Officers They’re Allowed to Be Photographed

Published on August 11, 2014 by Gannon Burgett
http://petapixel.com/2012/07/24/washington-dc-police-commanded-to-leave-photographers-alone/
NYPDBadge


The NYPD has sent out an internal memo that tells officers they aren’t allowed to take action to stop someone from photographing or filming them. This comes a whopping two years after Washington DC’s police chief sent out an almost identical memo (http://petapixel.com/2012/07/24/washington-dc-police-commanded-to-leave-photographers-alone/).

According to the New York Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-cops-told-memo-filmed-article-1.1898379), the chief of department’s office sent out the memo to the various command centers across NYC on Wednesday. And the memo doesn’t mince words. Here’s a relevant section:

Members of the public are legally allowed to record police interactions. Intentional interference such as blocking or obstructing cameras or ordering the person to cease constitutes censorship and also violates the First Amendment.

However, while the cameras can keep snapping, this memo doesn’t give license to a free-for-all. As common sense would dictate, photographers and videographers are still prohibited from interfering with police operations.

This news should produce a sigh of relief for the many vigilant, camera-toting citizens that call NYC home. Of course, this isn’t going to solve all the issues — it seems some less professional officers will say just about anything to get you to stop taking pictures — but it’s definitely a step in the right direction.

Duh,
so NYC police are told to obey the law on this issue.
about time.

Any reprimands, sanctions or penalties on those who've already broken the law,
or do we just forgetaboutit and just let the cops off with a warning for all those other times?

[jimnyc]

just passing by to drop off 2 items for your perusal.

NYPD Sends Out Official Memo Telling Officers They’re Allowed to Be Photographed

Published on August 11, 2014 by Gannon Burgett
http://petapixel.com/2012/07/24/washington-dc-police-commanded-to-leave-photographers-alone/
NYPDBadge



Duh,
so NYC police are told to obey the law on this issue.
about time.

Any reprimands, sanctions or penalties on those who've already broken the law,
or do we just forgetaboutit and just let the cops off with a warning for all those other times?

I agree with you, Rev. This was the law all along, and has been abused way too many times, in many more places than just NY. I can't speak towards what should happen to the officers who ignored the law - but I do think that anyone charged with a crime, arrested, jailed, fined or whatever, should get at least the minimum relief in the manner of refunds for whatever they paid - at minimum. That's a starting point at least.

[Gunny]

I agree with you, Rev. This was the law all along, and has been abused way too many times, in many more places than just NY. I can't speak towards what should happen to the officers who ignored the law - but I do think that anyone charged with a crime, arrested, jailed, fined or whatever, should get at least the minimum relief in the manner of refunds for whatever they paid - at minimum. That's a starting point at least.

It's a technicality, but this is a police memo, not legislation. Not following the rules is a violation of company policy, no the law.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. If they violate a law, they should be subject to the same punishment anyone is. My point is, if there's no specified law, nor punishment, then I'm thinking slap on the wrist.

Unless they do it to a minority. Then, let the looting and violence begin.:laugh:

[jimnyc]

It's a technicality, but this is a police memo, not legislation. Not following the rules is a violation of company policy, no the law.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. If they violate a law, they should be subject to the same punishment anyone is. My point is, if there's no specified law, nor punishment, then I'm thinking slap on the wrist.

Unless they do it to a minority. Then, let the looting and violence begin.:laugh:

I wonder what would happen if someone were to challenge a prior fine/conviction on something like this? Wouldn't the memo, to an extent, confirm that these officers should have allowed the filming at the time some folks were arrested, for filming? You are correct, it is just a memo, I'm just wondering if someone were to challenge on this. Hell, I don't know if a memo is even grounds to appeal.

[revelarts]

I wonder what would happen if someone were to challenge a prior fine/conviction on something like this? Wouldn't the memo, to an extent, confirm that these officers should have allowed the filming at the time some folks were arrested, for filming? You are correct, it is just a memo, I'm just wondering if someone were to challenge on this. Hell, I don't know if a memo is even grounds to appeal.

Sure it's "just a memo" but it's stating that there is NO law against filming.
therefore anyone arrested was under FALSE arrest, which is against the law in most states.
So there are a grounds for charges on that level. Also, it's possible that if they took folks cameras or film then that'd be theft or unlawful confiscation of property. And possibly since the photographers were within their rights, the police could be charged with harassment. Since there was no LEGAL grounds to arrest detain confiscate or order around the photographers.

[jimnyc]

Sure it's "just a memo" but it's stating that there is NO law against filming.
therefore anyone arrested was under FALSE arrest, which is against the law in most states.
So there are a grounds for charges on that level. Also, it's possible that if they took folks cameras or film then that'd be theft or unlawful confiscation of property. And possibly since the photographers were within their rights, the police could be charged with harassment. Since there was no LEGAL grounds to arrest detain confiscate or order around the photographers.

That's what I meant, if they never broke the law, then they shouldn't currently have an arrest record, and they should never have paid any associated fines. Next thing is, while people have been arrested for filming, were they actually convicted in court. If so, they need to hire an attorney and file an appeal. I can't imagine they were convicted of a crime for a statute/law that doesn't exist. So if no appeal, what is next, perhaps a civil rights lawsuit? I honestly don't know, nor do I know the statistics of arrests or convictions. But I agree, the whole things stinks, and a lot of people were bent over based on laws that weren't on any books, based on power hungry police, or inept police. I have an issue with those that fuck with the police for a response, and then tape it. But although I don't like it, it's still legal. My main issue is with the folks who simply record an arrest when they see it, or they record their own self being pulled over, or recording someone getting beaten - they absolutely should be allowed to record.

[Gunny]

I wonder what would happen if someone were to challenge a prior fine/conviction on something like this? Wouldn't the memo, to an extent, confirm that these officers should have allowed the filming at the time some folks were arrested, for filming? You are correct, it is just a memo, I'm just wondering if someone were to challenge on this. Hell, I don't know if a memo is even grounds to appeal.

How do you win though? The bureaucracy will just drag it out and bleed your bank account. The laws and courts would have your money, and probably more than the original fine.

I'd bet though that they'll cover their butts real quick and rule that because the memo was not in effect at the time, the cop was just doing what he believe to his job.

[jimnyc]

How do you win though? The bureaucracy will just drag it out and bleed your bank account. The laws and courts would have your money, and probably more than the original fine.

I'd bet though that they'll cover their butts real quick and rule that because the memo was not in effect at the time, the cop was just doing what he believe to his job.

Some will fight back on principle alone, and likely try to get the ACLU involved to cover their costs. But you're right, I think in the end they cover their asses and simply point to the memo for "going forward" changes.

But from a true legal standpoint, if there is no statute barring the filming, then any arrest was invalid. That's why I think if it goes to court, a judge tosses it and gives them their property back, as their is no statute to follow through with.

OR, were they told it was illegal, and then charged with perhaps disorderly conduct or similar, which is a another can of worms!

[Gunny]

Some will fight back on principle alone, and likely try to get the ACLU involved to cover their costs. But you're right, I think in the end they cover their asses and simply point to the memo for "going forward" changes.

But from a true legal standpoint, if there is no statute barring the filming, then any arrest was invalid. That's why I think if it goes to court, a judge tosses it and gives them their property back, as their is no statute to follow through with.

OR, were they told it was illegal, and then charged with perhaps disorderly conduct or similar, which is a another can of worms!

Correct. By rule, best I can tell, that memo uses the 1st Amendment as its basis. In that case, one could file in Federal court, and I think the 1st Amendment pre-dates cameras/i-phones. :laugh:

[Baba Booey]

The concept that the "authority" can publicly (and privately to a degree) monitor you via video, audio, electronic, etc. without your prior consent is a slap in the face when it's decreed that citizens cannot photograph and/or videotape the "authority".

These are things that the people should be rising up and storming the governers mansion with pitchforks and torches.

But sadly it doesn't happen that way, we collectively just chew the cud curiously eyeing the couple of dissident sheep who are getting beaten by the shepherd, just happy that wasn't us.

[revelarts]

The concept that the "authority" can publicly (and privately to a degree) monitor you via video, audio, electronic, etc. without your prior consent is a slap in the face when it's decreed that citizens cannot photograph and/or videotape the "authority".

These are things that the people should be rising up and storming the governers mansion with pitchforks and torches.

But sadly it doesn't happen that way, we collectively just chew the cud curiously eyeing the couple of dissident sheep who are getting beaten by the shepherd, just happy that wasn't us.

agreed. thanks for saying so.
and welcome sir.

[revelarts]

How do you win though? The bureaucracy will just drag it out and bleed your bank account. The laws and courts would have your money, and probably more than the original fine.

I'd bet though that they'll cover their butts real quick and rule that because the memo was not in effect at the time, the cop was just doing what he believed to be his job.

Don't the cops and the courts tell us "civilians" that "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?
Does that work for police and public officials too?
I think your right they'll manage to get some cover or legal dodge, possible even get an official pardon of some kind if enough people started to file.

[fj1200]

Such kerfuffle over a memo. It's unfortunate one needed to be sent but it is correct right?

[Born2DecadesLate]

So, if I'm reading this right. Some of you believe that people have been charged with crimes and possibly fined and or sent to prison because police in NYC were incorrectly arresting people for filming them?

It's doubtful that happened unless the NYC D.A.'s office also wasn't aware that it isn't illegal to film a police officer. Police officers don't charge people with a crime. They merely arrest people they suspect have committed a crime.

And surely the judges in NYC realized this wasn't a crime.

Hell, i SUSPECT that police knew it wasn't a crime and hence weren't actually arresting anyone, they were merely harassing people hoping they didn't realize it wasn't a crime, and then arresting them if the hassle turned into a tussle.

Which would bring up an interesting question. If there are people in jail who have been arrested for resisisting when the police harrassed them about filming would those people be freed? Because you clearly have a right to resist an unlawful arrest.