This will surely help with PR for the Police

[Fly320s]

That cop has now been suspended from the department, along with another officer.  The state is considering pressing charges.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/criminal-investigation-pending-for-salt-lake-city-officer-who-brutally-arrested-nurse?utm_source=COTR&utm_medium=COTR&utm_campaign=COTR

[Scout26]

Notice nothing was done until the video went viral.   The proper response should have been.

We are well aware of what happened in the video.  The officer was suspended and is facing termination as we make sure all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed with the FOP, so that not only is he fired from the SLC PD, but that he can never work as a police officer anywhere again.  In addition, he is currently facing several criminal charges.

We will not tolerate police officers abusing their police powers, nor willfully violating the rights of anyone, as in this case, both the patient and the nurse.

We apologize to the people of SLC, and will continue to work to insure that this never happens again.

[RoadKingLarry]

And this is why video recording of cops is quietly being pushed as illegal.

http://lawofficer.com/news/no-first-amendment-right-to-film-police/

And it is illegal in some places.

https://www.flexyourrights.org/7-rules-for-recording-police/

If you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.

[MikeB]

Notice nothing was done until the video went viral.   The proper response should have been.

To be fair something was done, the one office was removed from the blood draw duties and they updated some policies.  

That is the problem though, I bet nothing else would have been done and they only did what they did do because of literally world wide condemnation. And that is the problem with police and government these days. This happened in July, there is no excuse for the officers involved not to have already been fired and criminally charged. If government and police want to have respect, they need to start holding public employees accountable immediately and to the full extent of the law. It doesn't take over a month to investigate something like this.

I doubt seriously anything else will even be done in this case. I suspect that there will be a long drawn out investigation where the officers will face minimal discipline and be back on the job. They probably won't even lose any pay. I hope I'm wrong, but we see this over and over so at this point I expect not to be wrong.

[cordex]

If you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.

While I support the idea that in public someone has less of an expectation of privacy, even more so as a public employee, and that filming cops should be completely legal, I don't agree with the statement above. I don't like that line one bit when it is used to justify government surveillance of the rest of us either.

[brimic]

And this is why video recording of cops is quietly being pushed as illegal.

http://lawofficer.com/news/no-first-amendment-right-to-film-police/

And it is illegal in some places.

https://www.flexyourrights.org/7-rules-for-recording-police/

If you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.

Holy wow! So the judge stated that since there is no law allowing the filming of cops, it's therefore illegal?
That judge needs to be defenestrated.

[Ben]

I doubt seriously anything else will even be done in this case. I suspect that there will be a long drawn out investigation where the officers will face minimal discipline and be back on the job. They probably won't even lose any pay. I hope I'm wrong, but we see this over and over so at this point I expect not to be wrong.

My bet is that worst case scenario, he will resign from SLC and be hired by a smaller agency somewhere else. Sadly, there are plenty of areas in the country where people are not pro police, but rather police worshipers. They are quite happy to live under "If you do nothing wrong (and do everything the police say, without question, because they are always right, even when they're wrong), you have nothing to worry about". I seem to recall a few cops that we've brought up here over the years regarding extremely abusive behavior, ended up being hired at some small town force somewhere.

Also, I may be in the minority here, but I think (given that the facts as known are accurate), that the Lieutenant that issued him the order to arrest should actually be equally, if not more liable, than the arresting officer. This is one area where I'd like to see a bit of "militarization" of police: Cop on the street screws up, his boss (aka CO) gets the boot too.

I lean pro police, but man, it gets really hard to defend that view when bad cops are not punished for their actions, and any cops who break the law are not punished to an equal extent of none LE. As much as I hate a surveillance society, I once again plead for 100% enforcement of body cams for all cops.

[Ben]

From one of RKL's links:

Absent any authority from the Supreme Court or our Court of Appeals, we decline to create a new First Amendment right for citizens to photograph officers when they have no expressive purpose such as challenging police actions.

Well when the hell else are you going to want to record cops? If a cop pulls me over and things get ugly, I don't want to say, "excuse me officer, I'd like to record this now." I want to be recording the exchange from the git go to make sure there are no problems for either of us.

In that same paragraph:

The citizens are not without remedy because once the police officer takes your phone, alters your technology, arrests you or applies excessive force, we proceed to trial on the Fourth Amendment claims.

So the cop confiscates and/or destroys my evidence for Fourth Amendment claims, but gee, they're going to be nice and let me proceed with the claims sans evidence. Nice thesis.

[Hawkmoon]

I doubt seriously anything else will even be done in this case. I suspect that there will be a long drawn out investigation where the officers will face minimal discipline and be back on the job. They probably won't even lose any pay. I hope I'm wrong, but we see this over and over so at this point I expect not to be wrong.

Or they'll handle it like senior officers in the military -- he won't be charged criminally, and he'll be allowed to retire with a healthy pension. "For the good of the service."

[Scout26]

And this is why video recording of cops is quietly being pushed as illegal.

http://lawofficer.com/news/no-first-amendment-right-to-film-police/

And it is illegal in some places.

https://www.flexyourrights.org/7-rules-for-recording-police/

If you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.

I remember when that law passed in Illinois.  I'm glad the courts have pretty much struck it down.

[Hawkmoon]

And this is why video recording of cops is quietly being pushed as illegal.

http://lawofficer.com/news/no-first-amendment-right-to-film-police/

And it is illegal in some places.

https://www.flexyourrights.org/7-rules-for-recording-police/

If you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.

There was a case a couple/few years back in which the cops in a nearby town were harassing Latino residents and business owners, basically because they weren't Italian. (Yes, seriously.) It came to a head when a Roman Catholic priest who was in a Latino-owned convenience store started taking video when two cops walked in and started harassing the owner. One of the cops noticed the priest (who, BTW, was not Latino) and started with the typical, "Hey, what do you think you're douing?" bit. The priest calmly said he was taking video, the cop told him to turn it off, the priest stated that he had a right to do it -- so they arrested him.

The priest was charged, and I don't recall if the charges were dropped or if he went to trial and was found not guilty. The two cops are currently in prison. (That incident wasn't their first.) The police department in that town is operating under federal oversight.

[MikeB]

From one of RKL's links:

Well when the hell else are you going to want to record cops? If a cop pulls me over and things get ugly, I don't want to say, "excuse me officer, I'd like to record this now." I want to be recording the exchange from the git go to make sure there are no problems for either of us.

In that same paragraph:

So the cop confiscates and/or destroys my evidence for Fourth Amendment claims, but gee, they're going to be nice and let me proceed with the claims sans evidence. Nice thesis.

The not funny thing is the cop used that fourth amendment argument with the nurse. He actually said that if he wasn't legal in taking the blood that it could be dealt with later in court.

[HeroHog]

Film straight to the cloud so if they destroy your device, you still have the evidence!

[HeroHog]

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/uploadcam-camera-app-for-cloud-services/id624658188?mt=8

[Ben]

Film straight to the cloud so if they destroy your device, you still have the evidence!

Given some of the apps out there, it's a good plan, as long as you have adequate broadband service, which in a whole lot of the US you don't.

[HeroHog]

Given some of the apps out there, it's a good plan, as long as you have adequate broadband service, which in a whole lot of the US you don't.

That's why I went with Verizon, they had the most coverage pretty much anywhere I would go and I pay for extra data.

[Ben]

That's why I went with Verizon, they had the most coverage pretty much anywhere I would go and I pay for extra data.

Doesn't matter what service you have (I have Verizon as well), at least out West, where you can drive for hours with no service or only 1X. In many ways I'd be more concerned with being able to video an interaction out in the sticks (recall the Bundys and Oregon) where it's just me and the cop (or game warden or whoever) versus in a city or town with witnesses (and 4G) all around.

[HeroHog]

I understand. In those cases, unless ya have a mini cam that is easily hidden, yer pooched.

[Ben]

I understand. In those cases, unless ya have a mini cam that is easily hidden, yer pooched.

I suppose if someone was really paranoid, they could hide a wireless mini-NAS or something in their trunk.

[MikeB]

I suppose if someone was really paranoid, they could hide a wireless mini-NAS or something in their trunk.

Nah, they would find that during the inventory of the car after they tow it. You know that inventory to protect you, not to get around needing a warrant.

[Hawkmoon]

Nah, they would find that during the inventory of the car after they tow it. You know that inventory to protect you, not to get around needing a warrant.

Just like taking the burned truck driver's blood was to protect him ...




{Pssst ... hey, Buddy, wanna buy a nice bridge in Noo Yawk?)

[RoadKingLarry]

While I support the idea that in public someone has less of an expectation of privacy, even more so as a public employee, and that filming cops should be completely legal, I don't agree with the statement above. I don't like that line one bit when it is used to justify government surveillance of the rest of us either.

That was intended as irony.
 

[AmbulanceDriver]

My view on most cops objecting to being filmed by the public:

https://youtu.be/Dx32b5igLwA

[MillCreek]

Doesn't matter what service you have (I have Verizon as well), at least out West, where you can drive for hours with no service or only 1X. In many ways I'd be more concerned with being able to video an interaction out in the sticks (recall the Bundys and Oregon) where it's just me and the cop (or game warden or whoever) versus in a city or town with witnesses (and 4G) all around.

lar

Word. Here in Washington state, the cell phone service pretty much follows the urban areas and major highways.  The further away you get from an urban area or major highway, the less likely you have service.  Here in Snohomish county, large swatches of the county have no cell phone service at all, much less broadband speeds.

[RoadKingLarry]

lar

Word. Here in Washington state, the cell phone service pretty much follows the urban areas and major highways.  The further away you get from an urban area or major highway, the less likely you have service.  Here in Snohomish county, large swatches of the county have no cell phone service at all, much less broadband speeds.

Same around here. Once you get away from the major highway corridors and metro areas cell service goes to crap in a hurry.
When I first got assigned to the area I cover now (12 years ago) I was regularly missing pages and calls. My boss and his boss were of the opinion that I was blowing off the calls and pages to get out of work.
Boss came up to talk to me about it prior to beginning disciplinary action. I took him for a ride on the route I used to travel between offices.
7 miles from my home office I pulled of into a wide spot in the road and told him to go ahead and make a call. No service, no coverage most of the way in to the next town. Followed the route to the next town then started the 2nd leg of the loop I would make. 6 miles out, no service. It was about a 60 mile loop I would drive every day no coverage for 75% or so of the drive.
They left me alone after that.
It's only a tiny bit better today