police

A new Arizona bill introduced by Senator John Kavanagh will make recording a police officer a criminal act if passed.

The bill, SB 1054, which Senator Kavanagh says he proposed as a measure to ensure the safety of police officers and those videotaping, would prohibit video recording police officers from a distance of 20 feet or less.

Members of the American Civil Liberties Union have attacked the bill as unconstitutional, citing that it violates the First Amendment. Professor Paul Bender, the dean emeritus of the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University was quoted in an article in the Guardian as saying the bill was “on the face of it unconstitutional” and problematic.

The bill supports a person’s right to videotape a police officer outside 20 feet and within that distance on private property, or in their own residence if the person records from an adjacent room.

However, the bill would also give police officers the right to end any video recording, regardless of distance, if the police officer deemed the recording an interference in law enforcement activity.

“The language in bill SB 1054 that’s most concerning for law analysts is the section that gives law enforcement officers the right to supercede the previous sections securing a citizen’s right to film law enforcement from more than 20 feet,” said Chris Corso of Corso Law Group.

“This bill would allow any police officer the right to stop citizens from recording arrests, no matter the circumstances,” said Corso, “and would subject those who refused to stop recording to legal prosecution.”

Under protection of the First Amendment, Americans have the right to film police officers while they are on duty. This right has been pivotal in recent, high-profile court cases that have been successfully defended based on video evidence taken at the scene and involving police officer misconduct.  

One such high-profile case involved the shooting of Walter Scott, a South Carolina man who was shot in the back by Officer Michael Slager as he ran away. Video coverage captured by a witness was used to strengthen the case.

In America, the right to film police has already been established and includes specific regulations. For example, although the right to photograph police is protected by the First Amendment, officials do have the power to stop anyone from filming who they believe is legitimately interfering with law enforcement, according to the ACLU.

“Photography is a form of power, and people are loath to give up power, including police officers,” Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU, said in The Atlantic. “It’s a power struggle where the citizen is protected by the law but, because it is a power struggle, sometimes that’s not enough.”

Although police may tell people to stop recording and ask that they turn over their footage, a guide for photographers by the ACLU, Know Your Rights, says it’s illegal for police to confiscate photos or videos without a warrant.

The First Amendment protects a citizen’s right to take pictures of anything in plain view in public space, including police officers.

With so many protests resulting in violence, mass arrests and illegal use of force, what exactly are your protesting rights? The Scottsdale attorneys at Corso Law Group explain your rights and how to stay safe while participating in demonstrations and protests.

Threats and Violence

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, which includes the right to protest. While this does mean that there are no restrictions on the content of your speech, it does not protect all types of speech.

While you are certainly within your rights to express your opinion, no matter how extreme or unpopular, threatening or violent remarks could be considered criminal threats, which could result in jail time.

Private Property

You’re legally allowed to protest government actions and participate in demonstrations individually or in a group setting, but there are specific rules and restrictions to follow.

Typically, if a protest is large and involves loud speakers or any special equipment, a permit is required, even if the demonstration takes place on public property, while smaller, unobstructive protests do not.

These rules apply only to public property such as streets and sidewalks. The moment a protest moves onto private property, the owners of that property have the right to ban or restrict protesting altogether. If protesters do not comply with the owner’s rules, they can face trespassing charges.

Police Restrictions  

Even if a protest takes place on public property, police can limit protesters to protesting zones to keep other citizens safe.

For example, blocking roads, obstructing traffic and closing off entrances to businesses could create a dangerous situation, and doing so during a protest could get you arrested.

Media

Although media coverage can help bring attention to whatever cause a group may be representing, some protesters are reluctant to interact with or even allow media coverage to take place during a demonstration.

Recently, during protests against racial injustice at the University of Missouri, mass media professor Melissa Click was recorded confronting photographer Mark Schierbecker, telling him to leave the demonstration.

Click was recorded threatening force to get Schierbecker to leave, saying “Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here.”

Even if a protester doesn’t want to be filmed, members of the media have every right to cover public protests. The First Amendment, the same right that protects the right to protest, also protects freedom of the press and allows reporters the right to cover public events.

The recent news concerning Sandra Bland, who died while in police custody in Texas, and other police altercations has led many Americans to wonder what legal rights they possess when being stopped by an officer.

Was Ms. Bland obeying the law or breaking the law? Were the officer’s actions legal or was he using unnecessary force?

As we await the final outcome of this case, it’s critical that Americans are properly informed about their rights when being stopped by an officer.

You’re protected by the Fifth Amendment: Legally, you can’t be punished for refusing to answer a question.

While most of us understand the general meaning of the Fifth Amendment (the right to remain silent), this still remains a question on many civilians’ minds. Typically, the appropriate and safest thing to do is to respond politely to an officer’s questions without excessive description.

However, if you feel uncomfortable revealing specific information, know that you’re legally protected by the Constitution.

After given your ticket or warning, you’re free to leave.

After you’re given your ticket or warning and if the situation has not resulted in a more severe consequence, you are technically and constitutionally allowed to leave. If the conversation or investigation (which is lawful on the officer’s part) begins afterward, the situation has now progressed into a separate occurrence.

You can video record police (sometimes)

Depending upon the state and situation, this is completely legal. Some states have laws that prevent people from recording others without their consent and if your video is obstructing an investigation, you can be arrested. Otherwise, the ability to record police officers has led to some of the most widespread cases across the country including video of a North Charleston, S.C. shooting and police officers responding to a pool party in Texas.

We all know that privacy settings are essential on social media sites. We try our best to protect ourselves, keeping in mind that what we post, like or comment on could hurt our family or friends or even cost us a job opportunity. What we don’t consciously think about while tweeting, instagramming or posting is that we could face legal ramifications for our social media actions.

How Could I Be Engaging in Incriminating Actions?
There are multiple ways in which you could be engaging in incriminating actions. For example, the most obvious way to engage in such actions is to incriminate yourself directly. Stating openly or even posting a related picture on social media implying that you had any connection with a crime can and will be used against you. A social media post can be viewed as an admission, so if you feel that you may have made a social media connection with a crime, consult your attorney.

Connections and associations will also be taken into consideration when law enforcement agencies are investigating a crime. Even if you had absolutely nothing to do with the crime, being Facebook friends with a suspect could lead to trouble for you. If you aren’t consciously aware of your association with a potential suspect of a crime and tell police enforcements that you do not know them, they can see if you are affiliated with them via social media and you could face charges for perjury.

Location is a social media setting which we are not typically aware of but could cause a great deal of trouble. If you were to post a photo or status in which the location can be traced then your location can be pinpointed by anyone who you are digitally connected with, or even law enforcement. You do not have to be at the scene of the crime to be a suspect, but if you checked in somewhere else a few miles away, it is possible for them to launch an investigation on your whereabouts. While you can avoid using location services on social media for your own protection, you should be cautious and know that many apps are continuously tracking you on your phone and can share locations with your contacts.

While you may argue that you have the right to privacy and have secured your social media profiles to the best of your abilities, there are ways for law enforcement to access your profiles and go through them. It is crucial be aware of what you are posting whether a large crime like a drug ring busted in New York via Facebook, or even if you are petitioning for custody of your children.

What Your Lawyer Might Tell You About Social Media
Your lawyer may advise you to monitor your social media profiles even for court disputes that are not crime related like injury suits or divorces. An insurance claim investigator may view your photos and attest that your injury isn’t related to an accident that an insurance agency or other client may have to cover, but something else that they saw you were engaged in via your social media sites, like skydiving. Similarly, if you are in the middle of a divorce and fighting for custody of your children, your spouse could easily use posts or photos which portray you in a negative light. Your lawyer may advise you to shut down your accounts so make sure to speak with them and see what they feel is the best way to protect you from your own social media accounts.

Other Social Media Crimes
You may be reading this and think that none of the situations described above apply to you. Can you still be affected by what you say or do on social media? Absolutely. It is important to know that while we enjoy the freedom of speech, we could face trouble if we take that freedom too far. For example, any form of harassment, menacing behavior, threatening behavior or offensive comments could lead to ramifications. You may claim that your rants are “therapeutic” like Anthony Douglas Elonis who was arrested for threatening comments he made against his ex-wife.

What you say, or even repost could get you into trouble. Social media monitoring may feel like a violation against your rights, but in the long run it protects against negative outcomes like bullying and harassment. Be aware of the repercussions of what you are posting via social media. You may want to leave that thought for your diary rather than your digital profile, which will follow you around forever.

The right to remain silent is one reserved for those who are suspected of committing a crime, but what happens when the arresting officer is the one whose words are used against them?

A Phoenix police officer recently lost his job after allegations the officer was verbally abusive toward suspects. The initial claim that lead to an internal investigation came from the mother of a suspect the officer encountered in 2011. The mother made claims the officer was both physically and verbally abusive to her son during the police encounter.

A valley news source, AZ Central, said the footage from the incident captures officer Richard Greco cursing at suspects and witnesses, and making disparaging remarks about them to other officers, including referring to one as “retarded,” calling another a “jack*ss” and another a “b*tch.”

While Greco claims that the instances where he used inappropriate language toward suspects were isolated, an internal investigation decided to review 30 days of the officer’s camera footage. The video footage revealed multiple instances of the officer’s misconduct. The Phoenix Police Department concluded the officer’s repeated offenses and inappropriate tactics were used enough to validate his termination. AZ Central claimed the decision to terminate Greco also involved the 2008 disciplinary action Greco received for making inappropriate comments about female co-workers in the presence of other police officers.

So what does this mean now for other police officers?

“Police officers should always try to adhere to the policies and procedures set out,” said John M. Rhude, Esq. “Video cameras or no video cameras, law enforcement officers should be held accountable for their actions and professionalism.”

Big Brother is Watching

The investigation of Richard Greco has opened the door for questions and concerns about the constant and continued presence of video cameras. On one end of the argument, the cameras ensure police officers will comply with policies and any disputes can be solved with accurate evidence. On the other end, the cameras can be viewed as a tool to provide police supervisors with a way to isolate incidents of officers’ misbehavior.

In an AZ Central interview with Sgt. Trent Crump, the police spokesman brought up a compelling point in the argument of the hinderance versus helpfulness of police camera footage. He states cameras are out there, whether they are the cellphones of suspects, witnesses or they are worn by the police, and the technology is not going anywhere, so police should learn to work as if they are always being watched.

But are police officers really always being “watched”?

The answer to that question is no. In Arizona, dashboard cameras that are utilized by other states are very uncommon. In most cases there are no cameras in Arizona police cars. Why? In DUI cases, the video usually weakens the case. The field sobriety tests and the conduct of the accused driver is never as bad on video as it is when described in the words of the officer in a police report. So because of that reality, all of the dashboard cameras were removed from patrol vehicles”

“This type of case proves that cameras may be a necessary to ensure the fair treatment of all parties involved,” Christopher P. Corso, Esq. “It’s not necessarily about mistrust, it’s about doing what is right with or without supervision.”

Mounting a Defense

Another concern with these cameras occurs when you contemplate their role in a court case. From a defense standpoint, it can be very difficult to determine if the camera was used or not.

Since policies don’t dictate that the cameras have to be turned on even when available, the state can claim that there is no video footage and the defense may never get a chance to see the footage or any of the exculpatory evidence that might be contained in the footage.From a criminal defense standpoint, that means the defense attorney has to rely on the candor of the officer involved.

Lingering Questions

It’s easy to see the issues that can arise when camera footage is available for an incident. It’s yet another sign of changing times and it illustrates how important it is that your lawyer stay on top of changes in the law regarding such technologies.

One thing remains clear: though Greco’s trial is over, the question still remains: is it unfair to use specific instances of a police officer’s misconduct against them?