Cops Beware; Your being Watched!

[nebraska_deputy]

I had an instance not to long ago where someone recorded one of my arrest on a camera phone. Of course you know they only recorded bits and pieces of the arrest. They didn't record the suspect running, or the part once he was caught me telling him to sit down, or the part where the tried walking off with the handcuffs on.

The recording didn't start till after I assisted the suspect in sitting down. They made it a point to record the part where hes yelling I broke a certain body part, and me refusing him an ambulance. The funny thing was I didn't even touch the side of the body he was complaining I broke the body part on. When I saw the guy the next day at the gas station getting a case of beer using his broken body part I had to shake my head.

Also these people in this story seem to be the same kind of people who would complain that they are being harassed if we recorded things they were doing. Obstructing sounds good to me, and add to that disturbing the peace.

[djack16]

It's pretty hard to get "burned" if there isn't any kindling around. We just had a video on here that was nice; Judge Judy telling some little dip that her false report would result in her losing $5,000. The officer was not only vindicated by $2,500 richer. What some people around here seem to believe is that the department that investigates a complaint, and believes every word of it resulting in them terminating that officer, is a common problem in our nation. Somehow...I doubt it.

Oh and I need to amend what I said earlier. What I mean is most people with common sense will comprise most of the valid complaints. The girl that complained about that police officer on Judge Judy did so out of emotion, like you mentioned DOA, and she was trounced.

And don't tell me I don't care about the career of officers. You're being absolutely ridiculous. I just don't care about the career of officers who disgrace the field and betray the public's trust.

I haven't ever heard of the ACLU defending a person's false allegation against a police officer. I have heard of Al Sharpton doing it but not the ACLU. When you mention people who monitor the police with malice are you referring to people simply taping an encounter between police and citizen? Some people on this board apparantly think that it takes malice to do such things.

[DOAcop38]

Wrong. Police are just as capable of criminal conduct as citizens. Even in the performance of their duties. Police need to be policed as well. That is unless you can argue there is no such thing as excessive force, a bad shoot, a false report, etc.

No one here has a problem with the police being "policed",except when those who are doing the "policing" do it with malice or to harm those in uniform.and sadly thees same people rarely apologize for the careers they destroy the jobs they ruin,or the emotional and physical harm they do.you see the ACLU have no problem with defending people who LIE on a police officer,but they won't left a finger to help that police officer who loses his job and has to fight for several yrs to get it back, or faces emotional stress from being "black balled" by the FALSE accusations of a 3 time felon,a violent drug dealer or a coked out prostitute.Police officers face this regularly "as part of the job".I had a fellow co worker kill himself over "bogus" complaints and another have a nervous break down over them.

It is expected that citizens report misconduct they witness from a police officer. Granted, a lot of citizens don't understand use of force guidelines but common sense will lead most people to bring valid complaints.

In a population that had nearly 33 % illiteracy, and can't even show you where Washington DC or even their OWN state capitol is? you think "common sense" reigns???Most complaints are made based on emotion,not on observation or opinion.If A wht cop stops a blk kid in an SUV,its"racism",no the possibility that the kid was driving poorly or had an equip violation. Even the recent "immigration",err "illegal aliens demanding to be MADE citizens" protest we had here in L.A. was rife with complaints of RACISM and brutality when in fact there was very little unauthorized force used to clear the protesters and most of the officers were of the SAME ethnicity as the rowdy crowd they were legally authorized to disperse.

The police,as an entity ,and the lowest representation of the government, has become an easy "Target" for whatever gripes the public has against the "System",especially in L.A. homeless problem? lets focus on why the police are arresting transients for using dope or peeing on bldgs downtown. Gangs terrorizing the community? lets focus on those cops punching out one of these violent little urban terrorists. Excessive violence in the urban center? Police are the "problem" as they harrass young Blk or hisp men.

What you don't see,nor clearly care about is that a police officers career and personal life is now a cheap trade off for the poor mgm't and leadership of local gov't.File any complaint you want- who cares if it is the truth or not,warranted or not.Its easier to burn a cop,then make sure your streets are safe and clean or you're schools function properly......

[DOAcop38]

It is obvious that the LAPD and the media are way out of touch. Something needs to change because more and more each day, LEOs are being made like animals with a badge.I can understand that there are some bad apples out there, but, they should not let it ruin it for every PD out there.

Oh well. . .

Wrong,sorry to disargee- but working in the city of L.A. where media is KING ( and think themselves "god"). both federal and local civilian mgm't have made policing in this city FAR more open to the public than many other Depts nationwide.The concern is not whose watching but whether or not they are protraying the "truth"-video ,like any other media ,can be misrepresented and distorted,and sadly,as a public official,you DON'T really have the right to civil (tort) redress like you think you have( try it,and watch the ACLU come down like a hammer to beat you in any lible or slander suit you have). Public officials are supposed to be held up to scrutiny-but alot of these "Self styled" critics of the police wield their cameras with malice and are only concerned with how they can harm L.E. not curtail errant behavior.you need also be concerned about the truly vindictive anti-police groups out there.Hyper gangs like the amorphous "crips",MSX13 ,and Folk/people nations,plus neo nazi type groups relish such info as "intell" to help thwart or even confront and defeat police officers(in a recent CNOA training course we watched as seemingly "unsophisticated" gang members had set up a series of surveillance posts complete with audio and video,to record police units and operaions while on patrol of that neighborhood !).Just tell me how often "false" reports or info about police incidents are retracked in local and national media?if at all......

[fair witness]

Cops watch people because it's our job, we have a respnsibility to watch people and look for things, i.e. criminal behavior, suspicious circumstances....there is no reason for anyone to "watch" us.

Would that you were 100% right about that. But while a great many complaints may be based in misunderstanding or bad feeling, some are NOT. History definitely does not back you up on that "no need to watch us" thing.
Nothin' personal, I'm sure YOU'RE beyond reproach

[Kpdpipes]

Been in our country long?

The FUNNY thing, si that even as the people being prosecuted for filing fals complaints that are fefutedby in-car cameras are being Publicized, there are STILL idiots who make the false complaints.

[Redders]

Wrong. Police are just as capable of criminal conduct as citizens. Even in the performance of their duties. Police need to be policed as well. That is unless you can argue there is no such thing as excessive force, a bad shoot, a false report, etc.

It is expected that citizens report misconduct they witness from a police officer. Granted, a lot of citizens don't understand use of force guidelines but common sense will lead most people to bring valid complaints.

Been in our country long?

[djack16]

Cops watch people because it's our job, we have a respnsibility to watch people and look for things, i.e. criminal behavior, suspicious circumstances....there is no reason for anyone to "watch" us.

Wrong. Police are just as capable of criminal conduct as citizens. Even in the performance of their duties. Police need to be policed as well. That is unless you can argue there is no such thing as excessive force, a bad shoot, a false report, etc.

It is expected that citizens report misconduct they witness from a police officer. Granted, a lot of citizens don't understand use of force guidelines but common sense will lead most people to bring valid complaints.

[MEM-TEK]

Ya know, if someone asked me a bunch of questions about a stop I made, I would tell them, "Do you want me to voilate the right to privacy of the person I stopped? No, I don't think so. Ask them if they want their business spread all over the internet. If they do, they can tell you what happened. Have a nice day....er.....drive safely."

I like this response to bystanders who try to ask a bunch of questions. It is a nice response with the hopeful intent to get them to drop it and watch the proceedings in court if they really are that interested or concerned. True, the stop and the arrest (if made) become a matter of public record, but only the briefest amount of information is printed in the local paper. I think that is a good thing. We all have seen way too many cases tried in the media and seen how it can and does affect jury decisions.

Over the years I have witnessed a few incidents where officers had to use considerable force to subdue a suspect, yet if I were in the officer's shoes I would have done the same thing considering the aggressive behavior of the suspect. Yet other bystanders probably interpreted the same situation as use of excessive force by the officers, simply because they have never witnessed such a situation.

So nope, I don't feel that officers should have to patiently answer any and all questions posed by bystanders. It needlessly delays officers from resuming their duties.

Just my two cents worth!

[beachcop05]

I disagree, if it involves LE and an arrest, it is public information. How do you think the suspect's name gets printed in newspaper in the morning. . .

It's public information once it's been investigated and officially released by the dept, otherwise it's private and I'm not releasing any info.

[Redders]

I disagree, if it involves LE and an arrest, it is public information. How do you think the suspect's name gets printed in newspaper in the morning. . .

Actually it's the court system not the law enforcement agency that gives that information, well here in Nebraska anyway. You wouldn't be able to go to my office on monday and request information on a citation you watched me write this weekend. There is confidentiality when it comes to situations until it becomes public record through the court system.

Anyways, cop watch wouldn't get anything from me other than no comment and here's my card talk to the boss tomorrow.

I've got no problem being filmed, if you've got an in car camera and your using it right your on film the majority of your day anyway. St. Pattie's Day here is a big one for being filmed.

[beachcop05]

If nobody's doing wrong, there's nothing so bad about being watched. Interfered with is another story. But c'mon. Cops watch people. People watch back. Problems only arise when either side does wrong. Misunderstandings can certainly arise without that, but should be possible to resolve those if everybody sticks to innocent until proven guilty.

Cops watch people because it's our job, we have a respnsibility to watch people and look for things, i.e. criminal behavior, suspicious circumstances....there is no reason for anyone to "watch" us.

[JSandi]

Cops who get upset about being filmed while doing their job, making arrests etc... are the same ones who bitch about the use of cameras in their cars being mandated on every stop and encounter.

If you do your job well and within the law you have nothing to worry about.

I've been filmed before and I would not do my job w/o an in-car camera system.

[Raiden]

There is NO LAW requiring police officers on the street to say jack shizoly to a curious spectator. Unless I am missing something .....

No, you miss my point, obviously during the heat of things, I don't expect LEO Eastwood to be willing to up front information to me, John Q. Public; especially if he or she just finished wrestling with John Q. Criminal.

However, when I go to the PD station, in NY state, as long as it is record, I can request a F.O.I.L. However, that request is subject to the following:

Deniable records include records or portions thereof that:

1. are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute;
2. would if disclosed result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
3. would if disclosed impair present or imminent contract awards or collective bargaining negotiations;
4. are trade secrets or are submitted to an agency by a commercial enterprise or derived from information obtained from a commercial enterprise and which if disclosed would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the subject enterprise;
5. are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which if disclosed would:
1. interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings;
2. deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication;
3. identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relative to a criminal investigation; or
4. reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures;
6. could if disclosed endanger the life or safety of any person;
7. are inter-agency or intra-agency communications, except to the extent that such materials consist of:
1. statistical or factual tabulations or data;
2. instructions to staff that affect the public;
3. final agency policy or determinations; or
4. external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government;
8. are examination questions or answers that are requested prior to the final administration of such questions; or
9. if disclosed, would jeopardize an agency's capacity to guarantee the security of its information technology assets, such assets encompassing both electronic information systems and infrastructures; or
10. are photographs, microphotographs, videotape or other recorded images prepared under authority of section eleven hundred eleven-a of the vehicle and traffic law.

[FrankCastle1]

We were taught that you always assume that you are being watched and recorded. It is just the way of the world today. Someone is always looking for the big payday with a lawsuit. During our defensive tactics classes they showed us more of what we can't do than what we can. I must of heard the word liabilty 1000 times during training.