A bill will make it legal to record police officers while creating a 15-foot camera-free zone for the police. State Representative Jill Ford authored HB #448. The highlights of the bill are:
* One can't record the police less than 15 feet away on public property.
* The restriction does not apply to the person who is the "subject" of the law enforcement encounter. The bill states:
Any person who is the subject of contact with a law enforcement officer may record all contact with the law enforcement officer, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test without being required to obtain the permission of the law enforcement officer and without interfering with the lawful actions of the law enforcement officer.
* If law enforcement activity occurs in a building on private property, the recording can take place less than 15 feet away from the incident unless the recording interferes with the officer or unsafe conditions exist.
* The penalty is a fine of $500 to $1,000 and/or a jail sentence of less than six months. The offense is classified as a misdemeanor. The maximum penalties double on a conviction of a second offense.
The bill was filed in response to an incident that took place in McComb last August. A MHP trooper arrested Eugene Lewis during a traffic stop. His brothers appeared on the scene and recording the incident while screaming profanities at the trooper. Lewis video of arrest.
The bill codifies what the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2017 in Turner v. Driver et al:
We conclude that First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” News-gathering, for example, “is entitled to first amendment protection, for ‘without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated,’” even though this right is not absolute. The Supreme Court has also recognized a First Amendment right to “receive information and ideas,” means within the law....
The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” Filming the police contributes to the public’s ability to hold the police accountable, ensure that police officers are not abusing their power, and make informed decisions about police policy. Filming the police also frequently helps officers; for example, a citizen’s recording might corroborate a probable cause finding or might even exonerate an officer charged with wrongdoing....
We agree with every circuit that has ruled on this question: Each has concluded that the First Amendment protects the right to record the police....
The court noted that the First and Seventh Circuits have ruled that citizens have a right to videotape police. Earlier post
Kingfish note: The bill seems to be a serious attempt to balance the interests of law enforcement and the public. It keeps a group of people from shoving their smartphones in a cop's face while he tries to make an arrest. However, it protects the public and the accused's right to record the police during an encounter with law enforcement.
The legislature should pass the bill.
44 comments:
The 15’ restriction is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Expect a challenge if this is passed
Some stupid MF going to get shot by a perp because they are 16 feet away legally filming.
Question - will it still be ok to scream obscenities at the po po while filming them?
DIdn't read the 5th circuit language, did you?
Just a question, is there a "no" missing?
"the recording can take place less than 15 feet away"
sounds reasonable to me.
"Question - will it still be ok to scream obscenities at the po po while filming them?" Technically, Yes.
As you already know, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech. Because of the Amendment, police officers generally cannot arrest people, nor can the government prosecute them, simply for what they've said.
There are, of course, exceptions to the prohibition against punishing speech. Statutes that outlaw speech that's likely to incite violence constitute an example. But officers can't use laws of this ilk simply to punish people who mouth off to them, even those who use profanity. (Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987).)
Jill has been watching too many Facebook videos. I support the right to video a police interaction, but some of those social media auditors are just assholes looking for clicks. I don't support that.
15 foot no camera zone? How about a 15 foot no people zone. 15 feet is plenty of room for you to stand around and watch. So, Jill is saying if you don't have a camera, you can stand 3 feet away from a police interaction with a perp?
hopefully there will be language in the bill that if a dumb cop doesn't know the law, that any charges of disorderly conduct, failure to obey, etc will be dismissed, and that a videographer does not have to identify themselves.
It is fairly tricky to film one's own handcuffing. It's not impossible. But, it is a little challenging. Sadly, this bill will get a lot of attention at the Legislative chapter of the Mensa Society (V.P. - Jill Ford.)
This just sounds ripe for abuse
"The penalty is a fine of $500 to $1,000 and/or a jail sentence of less than six months. The offense is classified as a misdemeanor. The maximum penalties double on a conviction of a second offense."
Who is this penalty language directed at? The police officer that disregards this law? Is he liable personally or is the department liable (LOL)?
Or is the penalty only applicable to a citizen that interferes with a LEO?
Why? 5th ruled cops can't ban filming encounters. State can only regulate manner, etc
The 5th Circuit allowed reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. A limitation such as “so long as it doesn’t interfere with the officer in the performance of his duties” would be ok, but a blanket 15’ restriction for all situations is arbitrary. What if the configuration of the location does allow for 15’ of distance, such as inside a public building?
I never had a problem with people filming me, but people need to back the “F” up, I mean they would be so close that if something did happen all you’d see is my ear. Most of the time the person I interacted with would tell the person to stop recording because it was annoying. They need to teach a class on recording police interactions and also making sure they show the whole thing and not the good part to get people all emotional.
If you are one of these auditors that has nothing better to do than to harass law enforcement you are part of the problem. There a lot of things that are legal to do in this country but that doesn't mean that they aren't stupid.
Bunch of losers !
11:06 am here. I meant “doesn’t allow” for 15’.
Should be 30' or outside yellow crime-tape, whichever is greater. Shell casings and other evidence can easily be out over 15' from a shooting, for example. 15' is only five steps away, not far enough. Smart phone cameras can zoom in from 30' easily.
If filming wasn't allowed, how would we know about Jason Young MHP E31. We need more accountability not less.
Fischer's recording would have been legal under the bill. he was the subject of the encounter. He used his dash cam video as well as his phone. Also, most of the video you have seen actually came from the trooper's dash cam.
The bill needs to be amended to include the requirement that the camera be held HORIZONTALLY!!!!!!
Auditor here.
I am single-handedly defending your civil rights every single day from the New World Order.
Show some gratitude!
The police are serving and protecting the globalists and central bankers.
Don’t criticize me and call me a loser when you are a clown who just sits home and drinks your corn syrup while watching TV!
As long as the police officers do the right thing with their body and dash cams recording, they have no reason to fear their actions being filmed. 15 feet seems arbitrary, but unless there is a specific number, police officers will abuse the discretion and say a mile is still close enough to interfere.
This is just another example of low hanging bill hopper dropping. Jill is seeking attention. How about tackling real issues of importance to the people of this state.
But, I guess if you live in a bubble...
I thought we already had this right?
You go, Jill!
It is not uncommon for legislatures or congress to codify a court ruling.
Yes, Mr. Auditor, because going into a post office lobby and filming people just for the fun of it is protecting us all.
This is going to get tabled.
How is this going to be enforced? Will there be a measuring stick or something? 15 ft is arbitrary but it definitely has a specific effect. It doesn't allow for a good camera angle in most cases. Imagine if George Floyd weren't filmed but from at least 15 ft away.
The issue here is the safety of the police. Cops will tell you about the 21 feet rule. You can close on someone with a knife at 21 feet before they can unholster and bear down on you. 30 feet sounds good and use the zoom feature. No one should have a problem with that. Cops will tell you they don't have an issue with someone recording just stay far enough back they can defend themselves.
12:02 pm
Jill currently has a tiny space in your head!
Haha
Bill will pass!
Wait for it !
12:34
It’s more than what you are doing.
You are literally a globalist propagandist!
Btw postal workers are lazy thieves.
Very liberal bill. So it creates an unconstitutional zone.
Fifteen feet is too far. What am I going to be doing? Cam with one hand and retrieve an OJ Simpson knife and commit my attack? Just outside arm's length is fair.
And "back duh fuck up" is ambiguous. Just how far shall we back the fuck up, Officer? Thirty feet? A football field? Across the interstate?
This is a good attempt at compromise, but 15 feet is too far. Props to Jill Ford, though, whoever she is.
And while he's not perfect, I will stand with auditor.
@ 11:39 I've stood a post and protected freedom. Have you ?
Looking at prior comments; It seems 21ft training distance was arbitrarily chosen but has now been researched by Texas State Univ and Missouri State Univ and found that 21ft is not adequate to protect officers, should be over 30 ft. So our legislator has cut this "at risk" distance in half and some feel this is still not close enough. So,how close do you want to be?
https://www.police1.com/officer-safety/articles/research-why-21-feet-is-not-a-safe-distance-hqhPkS6wViECV6Fq/
Hey Kingfish... maybe something for you to dig into.
I noticed that they haven't set a bill up to require the "PREMIER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY" (aka the Mississippi Highway Patrol) to get body cameras even though proposed HB 927 requires police and sheriff departments to get them. MHP was left out. If anyone needs body cameras it's those guys and girls.
Trooper accused of shooting family dogs in Chickasaw County and ol' E31 looking for Jimbo in Desoto County are just two of the long long long list of where body cameras on Troopers would be nice.
4:03 Not too sure about your attack on 11:39.. you actually may be on the same page?
And, I will say, that most men we all know (maybe some women) who have actually served in 'situations' in the service, don't swell up and blow bellicose challenges to others... rather remain silent and refrain from attention grabs you've displayed here. Learn a lesson from those before you.
In spite of that, thank you for your service.
So if officers being recorded isn't an issue, then how about we just enforce the myriad of laws already on the books to deal with these situations instead of making new ones that could potentially make it a crime to have a friend video tape your interaction with officers for you if say your hands are not free to wield a camera at the best angle?
Interfering with an Officer is already a crime, assaulting an officer is a crime, disorderly conduct, etc. etc. The officers in the video had no issues putting those guys in cuffs as it was. From watching the video I think the reason they wound up in cuffs was more "failure to respect my authority" than anything else but yah, laws already exist. You don't need more laws that could potentially make it illegal for my wife to calmly sit in the passenger seat and film me getting a ticket.
The 17 year old girl who filmed the murder of George Floyd was only 6 feet away.
She would go to jail in Mississippi.
10:31 pm makes a good point.
This bill needs more thought.
Once the person is contained ( surrounded, disarmed, on the ground,or in cuffs,
Fifteen feet is too far to catch where a knee is and not all phone zoom without distortion.
It's far better to require body cams on police to be turned on the moment they decide to stop or pursue a car, with calling it allowed.
It protects the police and proves they followed procedure to wear a body cam. It is pushing a button ,people.
They should have the coordination in their job to push two buttons within 4 seconds easily. For the slow: count 1,1000,2,1000,3,10000,4 and see how many buttons you can push with your pointer finger on your non-dominant hand.
Kingfish - The subject line of House Bill #448 also includes the following language: TO REQUIRE ANY PERSON WHO IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT TO OBTAIN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S PERMISSION BEFORE RECORDING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER; It seems to me that all the officer needs to say is “Don’t record this!” and any and all bystanders must stop recording. I think the real purpose of the bill is to restrict recordings rather than allowing. The 15’ distance restriction is a smokescreen to the intent.
So these guys were apparently 15 feet away. What was the disposition of the arrest on these guys that were videoing the arrest? https://tw.tv.yahoo.com/yahoo-news-katie-couric/viral-video-mississippi-arrest-sparks-213353940.html
Not a protection for the citizens to remove the right to video by the citizens. If the police were doing their job it wouldn’t matter if it was videoed. Our elected officials and law enforcement are tired of getting caught in their wrong doing? This state is ridiculous in corruption. When I’m videoing their wrongdoings without their permission I’ll be happy to go to jail. The fine will get paid by the taxpayers. What about journalists? Are they subject to this unconstitutional bill? 3rd world Mississippi.
Post a Comment