Woman Arrested for Filming Police from her Yard

Diana Hignutt · Jun 22, 2011

http://www.pixiq.com/rochester-police-arrest-woman-for-videotaping-them.html

A woman was arrested for videotaping police from her front yard in Rochester, New York.
The woman, who is unidentified at this point, was recording a traffic stop where police had a man handcuffed on May 12th. The video was uploaded to Blip TV today.
The cops noticed her recording and started hassling her with absurd notions.
“I don’t feel safe with you standing behind me, so I’m going to ask you to go into your house,” the cop said.
“You seem very anti-police … due to what you said to me before you started taping me.”
It is not clear what she said before she started recording, but if she said anything threatening, they would have arrested her at that moment.
She ended up getting handcuffed and taken away after she refused to walk into her house, even though she was clearly on her own property.

They let the guy they were handcuffing go to arrest her.

The last country this free was Nazi Germany. Or, I'm just getting carried away. Your thoughts?

Don · Jun 22, 2011

Radley Balko over at The Agitator documents a lot of similar stories.

Like this one and this one, and this one about recording.

In this article, he references this editorial from USA Today.

It's even reached non-political sites like Daily Tech and Popular Mechanics.

Photography is Not a Crime documents lots of similar stories.

Injustice News Feed on twitter is more generic than just photography issues.

But I'm sure this is just an isolated instance, and nothing to worry about.

sassandgroove · Jun 22, 2011

They let the guy they were handcuffing go to arrest her.

That is bothersome.

Roger J Carlson · Jun 22, 2011

*sigh* [sup]TM[/sup]

It's too bad the times when police are polite or take abuse professionally don't make it to press.

Diana Hignutt · Jun 22, 2011

Roger J Carlson said:
*sigh* [sup]TM[/sup]

It's too bad the times when police are polite or take abuse professionally don't make it to press.

Yeah, you'd think their PR people would get on that, tbh. I always smile and wave at our local cops and they sometimes even wave back.

Plot Device · Jun 22, 2011

The cops were standing on a public street --not on private property. So they have no right to object to being photographed.

She was standing on her own property with nothing but a camera --not a weapon, a camera.

This was NOT a "riot situation." Nor was a case where Martial Law had been declared. Therefore a cop cannot order someone to go into their own house. There wasn't even a situtaiton of an insane sniper taking pot shots at people from the hillsides. Cops just CANNOT order someone into their own house.

I hope she sues them and wins.

tjwriter · Jun 22, 2011

“I don’t feel safe with you standing behind me, so I’m going to ask you to go into your house,” the cop said.

How far away was she taping from, I wonder. If she was sitting on her porch taping something on the street, she probably wasn't close enough to make him feel threatened. The office probably could have said that if she was very close and I would find the comment understandable. People are unpredictable.

We used to have deputies work security at the diner I where I worked nights. Some of the best guys out there and they kept us safe while we worked.

Plot Device · Jun 22, 2011

It looked to me like she was standing at a disatnce of 5 feet minimum --6 or 7 feet more likely.

It was a 3-ft-wide sidewalk, and then it looked like a small grassy strip of an additional 2 feet separated the sidewalk from the cop.

Sounds like a typical "crowd distance" to me.

Don Allen · Jun 22, 2011

Basically the cop got pissed at the idea that the lady was looking to document a "Rodney King" moment and decided to teach the bystander a lesson.

So, she'll sue and get some money, he'll get a write up, and some lawyer somewhere will add 30% of an award to his bank account.

In the end the tax payers get to pay for the cops bad judgement.

Michael Wolfe · Jun 22, 2011

Plot Device said:
The cops were standing on a public street --not on private property. So they have no right to object to being photographed.

She was standing on her own property with nothing but a camera --not a weapon, a camera.

This was NOT a "riot situation." Nor was a case where Martial Law had been declared. Therefore a cop cannot order someone to go into their own house. There wasn't even a situtaiton of an insane sniper taking pot shots at people from the hillsides. Cops just CANNOT order someone into their own house.

I hope she sues them and wins.

Agree.

Don · Jun 22, 2011

Don Allen said:
Basically the cop got pissed at the idea that the lady was looking to document a "Rodney King" moment and decided to teach the bystander a lesson.

So, she'll sue and get some money, he'll get a write up, and some lawyer somewhere will add 30% of an award to his bank account.

In the end the tax payers get to pay for the cops bad judgement.

Funny how it most always works out that way, isn't it?

Plot Device · Jun 22, 2011

Don Allen said:
Basically the cop got pissed at the idea that the lady was looking to document a "Rodney King" moment and decided to teach the bystander a lesson.

From what I could see, the cops were treating the guy in handcuffs pretty decently, using polite tones and being resectful as they frisked him (as respectful as one can be when frisking[/TSA angst]). So there was no Rodney King fodder there. Up until they harassed the lady, it would've been a fine moment for an episode of "COPS."

Don Allen · Jun 22, 2011

I agree plot, just my guess. The cop was out of line, and way to easily distracted by the women. If he interpreted her as a threat he should have put the handcuffed driver in the car and called for back-up or a supervisor, instead he made a bonehead move.

...And you should know police policy is to NEVER contradict an officer in the field, if he makes a bad call, so be it, they'll address it later, you're going to jail now....

Don Allen · Jun 22, 2011

As I wrote the above post it dawned on me how many people really don't understand that once an arrest decision has been made by an officer, it almost never will be rescinded in the field.

The cop could be asshole backwards in his assessment, or just a prick, and it don't matter.

That's why people seemed to get bent out of shape over an arrest, but truth be told, that policy is in place so that bystanders can't cajole a cop into changing their minds.

Plot Device · Jun 22, 2011

The lawyer has officially asked for the charges to be dropped. And truthfully, the lawyer does NOT want the charges dropped because if they are, the lawyer then cannnot sue. So the cops are doing their we-won't-budge dance. And the lawyer is doing his I-am-exhausting-all-reasonable-avenues dance. And in the end, this WILL go to court.

shelleyo · Jun 22, 2011

Plot Device said:
The lawyer has officially asked for the charges to be dropped. And truthfully, the lawyer does NOT want the charges dropped because if they are, the lawyer then cannnot sue. So the cops are doing their we-won't-budge dance. And the lawyer is doing his I-am-exhausting-all-reasonable-avenues dance. And in the end, this WILL go to court.

I didn't see it in the article. What the hell could they have charged her with?

Shelley

Don · Jun 22, 2011

shelleyo said:
I didn't see it in the article. What the hell could they have charged her with?

Shelley

Maybe "operating a camera without a license?" Those things are much more dangerous (to the status quo) than an automobile or a gun; I just don't understand why just anyone is allowed to have one. Videotaping is a privilege, not a right, and it should be limited to the collective of the properly licensed state ~~militia~~ media. It says so right there in the first amendment, in the part about 'shall not be infringed.'

I think her real crimes were being aware, inhabiting her lawful residence, and observing, speaking to, and videotaping a police officer.

Apparently those are all bookable offenses these days.

blacbird · Jun 22, 2011

Plot Device said:
The lawyer has officially asked for the charges to be dropped. And truthfully, the lawyer does NOT want the charges dropped because if they are, the lawyer then cannnot sue.

I think there are grounds for litigation on the basis of false arrest even if the charges are dropped. In fact, if the charges do get dropped, isn't that an open admission that the arrest was faulty? That's probably why the authorities are dragging feet on dropping them.

blacbird · Jun 22, 2011

Roger J Carlson said:
It's too bad the times when police are polite or take abuse professionally don't make it to press.

So you want the news on this event to read:

Police in Rochester, New York, made 347 arrests yesterday, and 99.7% of them were legal.

rugcat · Jun 22, 2011

blacbird said:
I think there are grounds for litigation on the basis of false arrest even if the charges are dropped.

Yes there are. And the PD will settle eventually and pay, you can be sure of that.

MattW · Jun 22, 2011

If I cant turn the common phrase around on The Man: if the cop's not doing anything illegal, he has nothing to be afraid of.

Monkey · Jun 22, 2011

Just a question...

Could it be argued that the woman resisted the lawful order of a police officer?

Also,
It seems to me like if he'd simply asked her to back up (rather than go into the house), and she did so (rather than ignoring him), there wouldn't be an issue, here.

rugcat · Jun 22, 2011

Monkey said:
Just a question...Could it be argued that the woman resisted the lawful order of a police officer?

Well, that's the question. Was the order lawful?

If you're arresting, or even restraning a person in a volatile situation, like a domestic dispute, and a neighbor stands five feet away and starts filming, or saying "what's going on here, they are a distraction and a potential threat. A cop has every right to tell that person to back off, or even shut up. If they refuse, they can be arrested for interference.

But someone taping from a distance cannot be ordered to go back in their house, unless the cop can reasonably show that the person's actions either interfered with the police investigation or exacerbated the situation.

Without the tape, they could probably make case for that, but from what I see here that's not goings to fly at all.

Monkey · Jun 22, 2011

Very sensible distinction. Thank you for clearing that up.

Don · Jun 22, 2011

MattW said:
If I cant turn the common phrase around on The Man: if the cop's not doing anything illegal, he has nothing to be afraid of.

Careful, Matt. You're very close to expressing an egalitarian sentiment there. I'm not sure that's allowed anymore.

Woman Arrested for Filming Police from her Yard

Very Tired

All Living is Local

Sassy haircut

Moderator In Name Only

Very Tired

A woman said to write like a man.

Emerging Anew

A woman said to write like a man.

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

Jambo Bwana

All Living is Local

A woman said to write like a man.

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

Seeking a Sanctuary of Intelligence

A woman said to write like a man.

Just another face in a red jumpsuit

All Living is Local

Lost in the Fog

Company Man

Is me.

Lost in the Fog

Is me.

All Living is Local