North Carolina Keeps Public From Seeing Police Camera Videos
Source: Associated Press
Recordings from law enforcement body and dashboard cameras will not be considered public records in North Carolina under a law signed Monday by Gov. Pat McCrory.
Civil libertarians and social justice activists said the law will make it more difficult to hold officers accountable.
Bystander videos posted online have fueled protests nationwide following last week's killings of black man by white officers in Louisiana and Minnesota, and the attack by a black sniper that killed five officers at a march in Dallas. Police videos of these crime scenes have yet to be made public.
The law clarifies that body and dashboard camera recordings cannot be kept confidential as part of an officer's personnel file a practice that has kept some images from being scrutinized indefinitely.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/north-carolina-public-police-camera-videos-40501565
By ANNA GRONEWOLD, ASSOCIATED PRESS RALEIGH, N.C. Jul 11, 2016, 7:37 PM ET
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Everywhere.
A couple years ago there was news link that showed 911 dispatches. Not a lot of detail but an indication that an emergency was occurring that warranted a response.
In the interest of better information for the population, the news feed was dropped in favor of a local city web site.
The local web site was never implemented.
I guess the frequency of crime calls was disturbing to those pretending we are a "safe" city.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)and I get shouted down for being "alarmist", "hyperbolic" and "irresponsible".
Red Mountain
(1,735 posts)We'll let you know what you should, thanks for asking.
Red Mountain
(1,735 posts)We'll let you see the video just as soon as the furor dies down and we've exonerated the police officer in question. People ask such pointed questions with real political implications that might just challenge the status quo if we release these things before we've had a chance to bury the incident.
Again, thanks for asking!
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)North Carolina must be damn proud of electing a scumsucker like McCrory.
cstanleytech
(26,299 posts)PSPS
(13,603 posts)Many people have the wrong idea about what the 1st amendment is. It affects only government control over private speech. It has nothing at all to do with:
- Private control over private speech (i.e., Facebook/Google/CBS/etc. can decide what to carry with impunity.)
- Government control over government documents/recordings/etc. (This is controlled by statute, not the 1st amendment.)
JustinL
(722 posts)This was one of the awful Burger Court opinions, where the Court ruled that there is no right to government information.
I prefer the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Brennan and Powell. From pp. 31-32:
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." 9 Writings of James Madison 103 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).
It is not sufficient, therefore, that the channels of communication be free of governmental restraints. Without some protection for the acquisition of information about the operation of public institutions such as prisons by the public at large, the process of self-governance contemplated by the Framers would be stripped of its substance. (22)
( Footnote 20 ) "What is at stake here is the societal function of the First Amendment in preserving free public discussion of governmental affairs. No aspect of that constitutional guarantee is more rightly treasured than its protection of the ability of our people through free and open debate to consider and resolve their own destiny. . . . It embodies our Nation's commitment to popular self-determination and our abiding faith that the surest course for developing sound national policy lies in a free exchange of views on public issues. And public debate must not only be unfettered; it must also be informed. For that reason this Court has repeatedly stated that First Amendment concerns encompass the receipt of information and ideas as well as the right of free expression." Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843, 862 -863 (POWELL, J., dissenting).
( Footnote 21 ) See A. Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government 26 (1948):
"Just so far as . . . the citizens who are to decide an issue are denied acquaintance with information or opinion or doubt or disbelief or criticism which is relevant to that issue, just so far the result must be ill-considered, ill-balanced planning, for the general good. It is that mutilation of the thinking process of the community against which the First Amendment to the Constitution is directed."
( Footnote 22 ) Admittedly, the right to receive or acquire information is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. But "the protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from . . . abridgement those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful. . . . The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S., at 308 (BRENNAN, J., concurring). It would be an even more barren market-place that had willing buyers and sellers and no meaningful information to exchange.
lostnfound
(16,184 posts)Any way we could get public access to government information seen as "arming ourselves"? Protected by the right to bear arms?
Guess not.
JustinL
(722 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)As when the press demands to see it and they say no, there is the press violation.
Speech: It's a bill of attainder, targeting one group (police) for protection from the government.
cstanleytech
(26,299 posts)the NSA?
JustinL
(722 posts)This was a Supreme Court case involving strict restrictions on press access to a California prison. The conservative majority upheld the restrictions. From pp. 34-36 of the dissent:
In this case, however, " r)espondents do not assert a right to force disclosure of confidential information or to invade in any way the decisionmaking processes of governmental officials." (28) They simply seek an end to petitioner's policy of concealing prison conditions from the public. Those conditions are wholly without claim to confidentiality. While prison officials have an interest in the time and manner of public acquisition of information about the institutions they administer, there is no legitimate penological justification for concealing from citizens the conditions in which their fellow citizens are being confined. (29)
( Footnote 26 ) In the case of grand jury proceedings, for example, the secrecy rule has been justified on several grounds:
"`(1) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; (3) to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (5) to protect innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt.'" United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 -682, n. 6, quoting United States v. Rose, 215 F.2d 617, 628-629 (CA3 1959).
( Footnote 27 ) In United States v. Nixon, supra, we also recognized the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties, explaining that "the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process." 418 U.S., at 705 .
( Footnote 28 ) Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S., at 861 (POWELL, J., dissenting).
( Footnote 29 ) The Court in Saxbe noted that "`prisons are institutions where public access is generally limited.'" Id., at 849 (citation omitted). This truism reflects the fact that there are legitimate penological interests served by regulating access, e. g., security and confinement. But concealing prison conditions from the public is not one of those legitimate objectives. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 , decided this Term, does not suggest a contrary conclusion. The effect of the Court's decision in that case was to limit the access by the electronic media to the Nixon tapes to that enjoyed by the press and the public at the time of the trial. That case presented "no question of a truncated flow of information to the public." Id., at 609.
What is the legitimate justification for concealing from citizens the manner in which traffic stops and other public police encounters are conducted?
lostnfound
(16,184 posts)Great to know
Politicub
(12,165 posts)What do they have to hide?
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Politicians suck...ugh
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Because you can be damned sure it will be introduced as evidence when it suits them.
Rebl
(149 posts)governor just signed a similar law in the last couple of weeks and he's a Democrat! Even if he had vetoed it,the jerks in the statehouse(mostly republican) would over ride it. Disgusting.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)defendant caught on these cameras who wasn't adjudged guilty in the end. We need to think through the laws affecting this carefully, to protect the identity of bystanders and other innocent people.
cstanleytech
(26,299 posts)it will be just blocked from automatically being open to the public but it can be used in court cases both for and against the police as well as subpoenaed for evidence in a civil lawsuit?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Videos of police shootings across the country have become critical to determining what happened in situations that turn deadly. In some cases, strapping cigarette pack-size cameras to officers uniforms has been framed as a way to curb police brutality and stem deteriorating trust in law enforcement.
Its not that simple. While the recordings may help get to the truth of an incident with police, they also record distraught victims, grieving family members, people suffering from mental illness and citizens exercising their rights to free speech and civil disobedience. Cameras may solve one problem but create others.
Any policy that categorically shields or opens up body-camera footage is probably wrong, said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union.
Judi Lynn
(160,545 posts)Akicita
(1,196 posts)your opinion that the whole world has a right to that footage causing untold embarrassment to your daughter?
Igel
(35,320 posts)If you're a woman and the cops break up a rape, that footage can--and some argue, must--be revealed to all by the press.
The woman covering up, the woman's being distraught. When the police take her, in shock, to the hospital for examination. It's all public information and those who want to know about this woman's trauma are entitled to it. Because it's a government record.
And if the media blur out her face and other parts, it means that the press is depriving the citizenry of the right to know.
It gets silly. People see a small piece of something and assume that's all their is. "I want this information because it'll prove what I'm saying and make those that I want to look bad look really bad. Screw everything and everybody else. I want this information, and ... What? There's more information? LA-LA-LA-LA, I can't hear you, LA-LA-LA-LA, I have these fingers in my ears!"
SheriffBob
(552 posts)is an obstruction of justice.
malthaussen
(17,205 posts)If such videos are only for internal use, then once again the public is thrown back to trust of the institution to police itself. Which was the point in question.
A lot of mileage can be made over "protecting innocents" with these recordings.
-- Mal