Right to Photography

[Jibbles]

Good to know, IMO.

DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier

Last week, two years after Washington, D.C., cops told Jerome Vorus to stop taking pictures of a traffic stop in Georgetown and to stop recording his encounter with them, the Metropolitan Police Department issued a general order against such illegal interference with citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. The order, part of an agreement settling a federal lawsuit Vorus filed last year with help from the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation's Capital, "recognizes that members of the general public have a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and/or audio record MPD members while MPD members are conducting official business or while acting in an official capacity in any public space, unless such recordings interfere with police activity."

"A bystander has the same right to take photographs or make recordings as a member of the media," Chief Lanier writes. The First Amendment protects the right to record the activities of police officers, not only in public places such as parks and sidewalks, but also in "an individual’s home or business, common areas of public and private facilities and buildings, and any other public or private facility at which the individual has a legal right to be present."

Lanier says that if an officer sees an individual recording his or her actions, the officer may not use that as a basis to ask the citizen for ID, demand an explanation for the recording, deliberately obstruct the camera, or arrest the citizen. And she stresses that under no circumstances should the citizen be asked to stop recording.

If Chief Lanier's subordinates follow her instructions, it will not only help to avoid the expensive lawsuits that other cities have faced, it will also make for a more accountable police force. We hope that police chiefs around the country follow Chief Lanier's excellent example.

SO basically, let them do stuff or we might have to use taxpayer money to settle, like in the case of Simon Glik, where Boston had to pay $170,000 to settle a suit:

Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously ruled that Glik had a "clearly established" First Amendment right to record the actions of public officials on a public sidewalk. Boston finally admitted it had made a mistake earlier this year, and Boston taxpayers will now be paying for the screw-up.

Ah but lets not skip the most important part: "unless such recordings interfere with police activity." What is police activity? Thats a pretty nice loop-hole there.

Articles: http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/23/dc-pol...hotography
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/...ra-policy/