Growing Number of Prosecutions for Videotaping the Police

[petros]

We are all video recorded daily in public. If you do something embarassing while being being video recorded, not a single business or individual is required to give that recording up for any reason.

It's pretty simple. Don't do stupid things and you won't end up on YouTube.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Regarding Canada, to quote Superintendent Dave Pickford, Windsor Police Service:

"I am unaware of any laws that prohibit the taking of pictures of anything that is viewable in a public venue. The only restriction that I would see if a person was to take photographs of the interior of a private dwelling or business while on the public right of way. There is nothing to prohibit the taking of photos of buildings, public transit vehicles or even accidents. Although some people may find it distasteful in having their picture taken in public, I am unaware of anything that would prohibit it. The exception would be of course if someone is physically accosted or obstructed so that a picture can be taken.

There may be restrictions on persons taking pictures where the public is welcome but the property is private, such as a mall or a sporting complex. Although the public is welcome, there may be restrictions on the taking of pictures.... it is best to check with the administrative staff that owns or controls the property.

With that said, there is nothing to prohibit a person from taking civil action against a person for taking a picture especially if the picture is subsequently published in a less than favourable light. Whether or not the person succeeds is dependent on the courts.

Bottom line......... if it is viewable to the public, I see nothing wrong with taking a picture of it."

Oh yeah, the above quote comes from here:

 

[petros]

You're better than John Madden with a light pen.

 

[lone wolf]

There's the Andy Griffith version of police work (and a hell of a lot of Barney Fyfes) and there's the grit of reality. I grew up in the former - and REALLY grew up in the latter. The day law went in search of conviction at the expense of justice was the day it all changed. I might have slept through it. I still don't know when it happened - but I've seen it happen in my lifetime.

Cop was a calling to Uncle Mike. I saw that change the day after they had to break up protesters somewhere in Toronto. They weren't enemies. They were kids Uncle Mike might have taken by the shoulders and dug with his eyes. The order said set an example. That evening, I caught Uncle Mike crying because he did. The Job was never the same for him after.

For ten years, my son was a cop in Toronto. As a Cadet, he was posted to City Hall - policing the welfare line. My son was never a bully. He told me his gut churned when the boss encouraged belligerent attitudes - "...to discourage the rif-raff..." I suppose he was just following orders.

In those ten years, he was approached, twice, to testify on behalf of some cop he'd never met, much less know what he'd done. Twice, he denied the Church. As he explained to me when he left his gal and daughter behind so he could accept a post in Edmonton: His time with that ... GANG ... was about over.

Just over six months into a nice assignment in Edmonton, he was asked to testify that "on ....".

How would Norman Rockwell paint it?

 

[karrie]

How does someone give a video to the courts? Doesn't it have to go through
the Police (or a lawyer...which may be beyond the means of a witness) where
it might be lost or misplaced, or deemed never to have existed in the first place.

If an officer isn't doing anything wrong, then the releasing of a video (or picture)
taken in a public place (where the expectation of privacy is nullified) should be
a non-issue. Releasing it publicly (via the Internet) costs nothing (unlike a Lawyer)
and ensures that the video doesn't disappear or get permanently misplaced.

True, so long as there's no danger to the officer in doing so. if there IS danger in it for the officer, then a COPY ought to be given to the police service, court system, whoever, and the property of an individual should remain their property.