Key court case tests right to record the police with a cell phone

By Timothy B. Lee |

If you pull out your cell phone to make a video of police officers arresting a suspect, are you "secretly recording" them? "No" seems like the obvious answer, but that's precisely the claim that three police officers made to justify their arrest of a Boston man. In arguments before the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Wednesday, the city also denied the man's claim that his First or Fourth Amendment rights had been violated.

The case will be an important test of whether the Constitution protects individuals' right to record the police while they are on duty.

Not so secret

In 2007, a man named Simon Glik witnessed another man being arrested on the Boston Common. After hearing a witness say, "you are hurting him, stop," Glik pulled out his cell phone to document the encounter. When a police officer confronted him, Glik informed the officer that he had witnessed an officer punch the suspect, and acknowledged that he was recording the incident. The officer responded by arresting Glik.

Many states have "one-party notification" wiretapping laws that allow any party to a conversation to secretly record it. But under the strict "two-party notification" laws in Massachusetts, it's a crime to "secretly record" audio communications unless "all parties to such communication" have given their consent. The police arrested Glik for breaking this law. For good measure, they also charged Glik—who did no more than stand a few feet away with his cell phone—with "aiding the escape of a prisoner" and "disturbing the peace."

more

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/if-you-pull-out-your.ars

And if people shouldn't expect privacy when they're committing crimes, how can the police when they're arresting them?

:headbang:
rocktivity

The police are our employees, are they not?