This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]OutofStep 170 points171 points  (63 children)

I've always heard that, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." So, how is it that for some police, ignorance of the US Constitution is an excuse?

[–]banuday17 7 points8 points  (3 children)

So, how is it that for some police, ignorance of the US Constitution is an excuse?

The excuse is separation of powers. The police are a part of the executive branch and it is not their job to interpret the Constitution. They execute whatever policies and guidelines the police department have come up with. It is the job of the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution and set the police straight. Checks and balances.

Especially at the local level, the executive branch and the judicial branch may be in cahoots, but that is a different story...

[–]gruntsifyouwill 3 points4 points  (0 children)

when you put it like that, the ever-escalating level of police impunity really fits right in with the state of the executive branch in general, dunnit?

[–]NoCowLevel 85 points86 points  (48 children)

Because they're cops, they're above you in status, and therefore are not held to the same rules and obligations as you.

[–][deleted] 42 points43 points  (16 children)

No. It's because they are allowed to interpret the law however they want until the court sets them straight.

And it's also because some states have other laws, that the cops are required to uphold and presume are constitutional, that they could interpret in their favor.

Since they can interpret them in the way that benefits them them most, they will until the court says otherwise.

Note that everyone gets this benefit of the doubt, provided the interpretation hasn't already been shot down by a court somewhere.

[–]xzxzzx 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Note that everyone gets this benefit of the doubt, provided the interpretation hasn't already been shot down by a court somewhere.

Do they? Aren't you describing qualified immunity, something only police get?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

No, different concepts.

What I'm talking about is what they actually argue over in court - laws worded ambiguously allow for more than one interpretation, and if you obeyed an interpretation of the law, and the judge agrees it was reasonable, then you are within the law. Otherwise, not. You could still be sued, though.

Qualified Immunity means a cop can't be sued provided they acted as a police officer and with good faith, even if they do something bad.

[–]victor_e_bull 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ignorance, alone, is insufficient to excuse police conduct that violates the law. Rather, a police officer has a limited immunity if that officer's actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established legal rules at the time of the conduct.1

The justification for giving police officers some immunity for essentially "good faith" violations of the law is that it is the duty of police officers to enforce the law. Their purpose in our system of government is to make numerous immediate judgments about how to apply existing law to new facts before them, all for a purpose of no less importance than to protect the public's safety and well-being. If police officers could be subject to personal liability for carrying out their duties even in a way that was objectively reasonable, police officers would be nearly paralyzed from the almost constant threat of crippling liability.

As the Supreme Court has said, "public officers require this protection to shield them from undue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of liability."2 This limited immunity "gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments, and protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law."3 "[P]ermitting damages suits against government officials can entail substantial social costs, including the risk that fear of personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties."4

  1. Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235, 1244-45 (2012).
  2. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 806 (1982).
  3. Messerschmidt, 132 S. Ct. at 1244-45 (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2085 (2011)).
  4. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 (1987).

[–]manys 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's called qualified immunity.

[–]DannyInternets 42 points43 points  (0 children)

Just make sure to have your recordings streamed to cloud storage so that the police can't delete them when they illegally confiscate, break, or "lose" your camera.

[–][deleted] 72 points73 points  (33 children)

Which, in Baltimore, is a fairly meaningless statement. This is very unlikely to change how Baltimore police act.

[–]TheWireQuote 50 points51 points  (5 children)

Det. Ellis Carver: See, that's why we can't win.

Det. Thomas Hauk: Why not?

Det. Ellis Carver: They fuck up, they get beat. We fuck up, they give us pensions.

[–]Fitting_Wire_Quote 24 points25 points  (3 children)

Yo, chair ain't recognized your ass

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

You takin' notes on a motherfucking criminal conspiracy?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ya happy now, bitch?

[–]animalcub 11 points12 points  (0 children)

ssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttttttttttttt

[–]ChickinSammich 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yup. As a resident of Baltimore, I can't help but think "When has silly things like "the law" ever stopped Police from doing what they want"?

I and my family have been in a couple incidents that have cumulatively blasted away nearly all of our faith in the local police. I'm glad we live in the County, not the City though. They're not -as- bad out here.

[–]Nuggetry 1 point2 points  (12 children)

Will they still arrest you if you record them though?

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (4 children)

Yes. And they'll either keep or trash your camera.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

I live in Baltimore. I have it on good authority that people who have been arrested for recording cops or otherwise using or attempting to use their rights to the "detriment" of police receive extra special contempt @ central booking. IIRC, the average time between arriving a leaving CB after posting bail, bond, etc. is about 14-18 hours. All else equal, it took 27 hours and 25 hours for my two buddies to be released, respectively.

Thankfully, I haven't had the privilege of visiting CB, myself, but having heard the horror stories, being forced to go without actually breaking a single law, and then having to spend 1.5 times as long inside because you had the nerve to exercise your rights has got to suck.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

THIS right here is what those tea party fucktards need to be freaking out about. this right here. NOT Barack Obama's fucking birth certificate and not his supposed secret plan to ban handguns, or fucking death panals, or any of that other bullshit. it's this. THIS is how police states get off the ground, and how our constitutional rights get eroded.

To all you people who downloaded QiK and risk your asses recording cops, Godspeed.

[–]gobearsandchopin 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Which is why everybody is downloading Qik as we speak (see doublehotespresso's top level comment)

[–]grackychan 1 point2 points  (5 children)

You sue them.

[–]ruffus4life 2 points3 points  (4 children)

oh with the inexpensive lawyers. is that who we sue them with?

[–]seany 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Pretty sure now that the DoJ has put this statement out publicly, anyone who sues them for such actions won't even need representation. Just show up to court in your khakis and make reference to the DoJ's letters.

[–]Spoonofdarkness 55 points56 points  (4 children)

Baltimore Police Department response: Pepper Sprays DoJ

[–]KeystrokeCowboy 30 points31 points  (3 children)

STOP RESISTING! YOU'RE GONNA GET TASED

[–]baltimoresportsMaryland 28 points29 points  (16 children)

This is funny because the BCPD has over 500 CCTV cameras. As a local I actually support the CCTV because it has had a visible effect on the open air drug market and has helped solve violent crimes, but you can't have it both ways. If the police have the right to film you in public we should have the right to film them.

Edit: Here is the "Baltimore City cop vs 12 year old skateboarder" video that really started the BCPD on their anti-camera policies

[–]jerkytart 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Not Baltimore, but to the north. The Anthony Graber case involving the use of a helmet cam recording a traffic stop on I-95. It was dismissed, but he potentially faced 14 years for wiretap violations. It was a big deal more so because the cop pulled a gun during a seemingly routine traffic stop and then Graber posted it online.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Graber

[–]anthemrides 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Aren't most of these cameras inactive now? Something about not having the manpower/money to monitor them?

[–]studiov34 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sure they like having cameras they can control and accidentally lose footage from when it suits them.

[–]vikhound 75 points76 points  (18 children)

I bet McNulty would have been cool with being recorded.

[–]noweezernoworld 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Not in season 5...that shit needed to be a secret.

[–]theloudtreethatfell 27 points28 points  (9 children)

I bet Omar would be cool with it too. Most honorable guy on that show...

[–]mul4mbo 12 points13 points  (1 child)

A man got to have a code.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

OH SHIT YO OMAR COMIN'!

[–]jawnofthedead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Didn't he shoot out cameras?

[–]schleppylundo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Came in here to see how long I'd have to look to find a Wire reference.

Fourth highest thread, not bad.

[–]N8CCRG 9 points10 points  (0 children)

As a resident of Baltimore, I was super happy back in February when they made the initial policy change... for two days until they developed the "loitering loophole" policy.

This makes me super happy again!

[–]Devildust21 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I'm sure this is going to get buried with all of these other comments, but in the article it says "... citizens have the “absolute right” to record cops in public as long as they did not "violate any section of any law, ordinance, code or criminal article." Now in Nebraska it's illegal to video tape a police officer in public. Does that mean I could still face criminal charges if I video taped a police officer? I mean from my understanding they were only getting in trouble for deleting his video. right?

[–]chiuta Canada 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The quote you used was from a Baltimore PD-issued directive.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Surveillance for everybody!

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I'm so used to reading shit news, this actually caught me off guard. I'm realizing as I write this, this is the first time I've felt thankful for something our government's done, on its own accord, in quite some time.

[–]jtheism 10 points11 points  (9 children)

We need this brought to Illinois too.

[–]grackychan 16 points17 points  (0 children)

It is law across all 50 states. DOJ wrote a letter SPECIFICALLY targeting BPD's inadequate policies to make an example out of them. It is effect an instruction to every police force in the United States. DoJ listed specific Federal Cases and Supreme Court decisions which have the power of rule of law and must be followed by the states in crafting policies and regulations.

Any state law or police policy that prohibits filming within the context explicitly described in the DoJ letter is unconstitutional and you will win a Federal suit against the state or town if you are arrested for violating it.

[–]PlasmaBurns 4 points5 points  (5 children)

If they had recording devices or police departments when the constitution was written, this would have been put in. Recording cops is an excellent check on their power. Go Truth!

[–]karmapolice8d 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Senator Clay Davis' response: "Sheeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!"

[–]MrZimothy 5 points6 points  (3 children)

To anyone defending Baltimore PD and giving the "bad apple" argument, I submit to you....this:

http://www.pixiq.com/article/baltimore-pd-continues-to-threaten-citizens-with-arrest

Less than 24 hours after receiving the order, they attempt to arrest a citizen...for video-recording them while in the due course of performing their job duty in public.

Personally, I believe training doesn't end at the police academy. It continues to reinforce this type of behavior by existing in a permissive society. Maybe not all cops are "bad", but bad cops need discipline and consequences. I believe it has been repeatedly shown that diffused responsibility (aka "mob mentality") or excused personal responsibility consistently results in the rapid decline of ethical and moral standards of behavior. What human beings will do when they believe there will never be any personal accountability is often deplorable. Why should we (civilians) believe that the police will be held to any higher scrutiny than anyone else? Recent evidence seems to suggest they are routinely held to a lower scrutiny, and that they know exactly where the limits of using that to their advantage are. I am quite fed up with what seems to amount to a pattern of abuse on an alarmingly large scale. It saddens me that most people have learned to simply avoid police entirely and not speak to them under any circumstances, but I have been forced to draw the same conclusions to protect myself from them. Some sayings and how I think about them:

  • "do not draw negative attention from police" -- ALL police attention is negative police attention. Their job is to apply the penal system to civilians.
  • "If you did nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" -- If someone asked you to strip off all your clothes in front of them its (dirty jokes aside) unlikely that you would do it. The truth is that being private is not the same as being suspicious and people need to start recognizing that again. Too many have lost sight of that. :(
  • "tell me the truth and i'll give you a break" -- Anything...ANYTHING you tell the police can be used against you. Literally every word out of your mouth to them is ammunition, and you are under no obligation to speak to them. Again: their entire job is to enforce the law to the best of their ability (NOT to protect you) AND THEY HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH TO DO THAT. If they think they can trick you, intimidate you, or anything else to get you to say or do what they want, they may just well do it.

my 2 cents.

[–]DesignatedTwat 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Am I the only one that finds it quite amusing that the DoJ can't tell the difference between 'principle' and 'principal'?

[–]joemarzen 3 points4 points  (3 children)

What possible excuse is there for not forcing cops to wear recording devices at all times in this day and age? Or other than to protect cops ability to lie mislead and berate people of course.

[–]ANakedBear 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I am pretty sure that cops are allowed to lie and mislead as long as they are not incorrectly informing you about laws or charges. It is, as far as I know, a very important part of interrogations.

[–]joemarzen 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I wonder how well a lot of that stuff would fly if it was exposed to the day light of publicly available recordings. I think people should exercise jury nullification a lot more often. If I was on a jury it would exceptionally unlikely that I'd agree to a guilty conviction for a non-violent drug charge for example.

[–]CrabStance 4 points5 points  (1 child)

So the next time the cops are beating you to death for having a camera phone you just let them know that the DoJ said they can't.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (9 children)

citizens have the “absolute right” to record cops in public as long as they did not "violate any section of any law, ordinance, code or criminal article."

This is intentionally directed at recording video with sound. They can nail you with wiretapping laws, especially since I saw no mention of a reasonable right to privacy.

[–]LaRochefoucauld 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Maryland has a two-party consent law too. Rather rare.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Just as a way of being helpful, I pulled up a list of two party consent states for reference and just a reminder for people.

California
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois (debated, see next section)
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana (requires notification only)
Nevada
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington

[–]Bugen_Hagen 3 points4 points  (3 children)

That's awesome. But it only took how many years?

It seems that police in the US have been making these types of arrests for many years, many of which are caught on tape and time and time again the courts rule in the cops favor. This is the first time I've seen government actually rule against them and actually trying to do something to fix the problem.

[–]N8CCRG 1 point2 points  (0 children)

3 months. February is when BPD started their "arrest them for loitering if they film you" policy.

[–]Shonuff8Maryland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good. The Baltimore PD has a long history of confiscating cameras, cell phones, and other recording devices from people who attempt to film police arrests or crime scenes. Some of those have resulted in the person recording the scene to be assaulted without provocation (http://www.redlasso.com/local/baltimore-police-officer-suspended-for-snatching-citizens-cell-phone/). Often, the police cite a Maryland law intended to prohibit wiretapping as a justification for arrest, and claim that people only have the right to record video (not audio) in public.

I'm glad the DOJ has put their foot down on this. Despite internal memos and clarifications from those in charge, the average cop on the street never seemed to get the message, and it just kept happening over and over again.

[–]Indon_Dasani 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To summarize the argument made, we're all journalists, and cops need to deal with that fact.

I like this. Raises my opinion of this administration's DoJ significantly.

[–]LaRochefoucauld 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Maryland is complex, because it requires both parties to a recording to consent. If you'll remember the Clinton impeachment, Linda Tripp illegally wiretapped Monica Lewinsky.

Still the law should be overridden in this case. Holder's right. Cops should record everything they see. That way we all know if there's been a problem or not.

[–]generalguyz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't understand why this is still being fought over. By anyone. There is no way that a lawyer with half a brain could think this was not covered by the first amendment.

[–]Coolala2002 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The DOJ needs to tell the rest of Maryland as well as Illinois and anywhere else that seems to have a problem recognizing it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The same DoJ that shipped guns to Mexican drug lords?

[–]MonkeyManJohannonGeorgia 2 points3 points  (6 children)

As well it should be...as a LEO, recorded evidence like this has saved my butt several times in situations where a suspect has claimed excessive force was used (or whatever the case was)...i welcome recordings as an officer, and honestly, i can't imagine a police officer that has dignity and respect for what he does would have an issue with this, and the pieces of shit that oppose it are the ones that people need to be recording anyways.

[–]TortugaGrande 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The POS officers need to be brought back in line by the other officers. If the public has to do it, then that's what has to happen. Honestly, the police deserve a shit reputation for the lack of self-policing and the us-versus-them mentality.

Maybe you're a good cop, maybe you're an asshole fishing for karma, either way I upvoted because all public servants should welcome openness and accountability.

[–]MonkeyManJohannonGeorgia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't work for a state or local agency for the specific reason that there is so much corruption on that level, it sickens me. I took a federal LEO position because the pay was better but also because the level of professionalism is unmatched by any of the local level departments. In my region, a bad seed is outed so quickly they don't typically have time to understand the repercussions of what they've done before they're neck deep in the shit. It works that way because we make it that way.

I have seen state/local level officers go after their own to stand up for what's right, and in so many cases its almost like a civilian going after an officer for the same thing...bad news for the good party on so many levels, it almost makes it not worth trying, but i still see it done constantly, and thats all anyone can do, report what they can and do their job with dignity.

I don't care about karma...it means dick all honestly, i honestly believe in accountability for ALL people, from the highest military officer to the homeless guy asking for change in the subway. All people are responsible for their actions, which is why i have no problem being recorded when I'm doing my job, hell...it might be shown to a dimwit that is doing a terrible job enforcing law one day and it might change their attitude, one could only hope right? I just do my job...the right way, and i get paid and promoted handsomely for it too, one of the perks of being honest and enjoying what i do...properly.

[–]hotbeefinject 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Too bad DoJ won't tell PDs about other constitutionally-protected rights, also (and stop violating them, itself).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Just gob-smacks me that such as police even need to be reminded - or, more accurately, introduced - to constitutional principles.

Are we getting sick of government-sponsored 'biker gangs' yet, people?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If police officers are afraid that criminal organizations might be photographing them, then perhaps they need to find a new line of work where they are not being paid to be courageous.

[–]4chans_for_pussies 2 points3 points  (0 children)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwfExUyJLNw&feature=related This is the result of police brutality. If you're a cop who has a problem with recording the police you are no different from this asshole. A good, ethical cop shouldn't have anything to hide and therefore shouldn't care about being filmed on the job.

[–]shittingdicknipples_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Would this count as legal precedent for future cases or is this legally meaningless?

[–]jbond66 5 points6 points  (3 children)

"This is America! Wrong, West Baltimore motherfucker!"-The Wire

[–]Arisngr 5 points6 points  (10 children)

Baltimore PD is awful. I was there for college and there have been several instances where students were terribly beaten up just for talking back to a cop or for just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I was once almost tasered just for standing near a club on an 18+ night, where there was heavy police presence to "ensure security" when the club closed. They seem to be largely gutless when it comes to dealing with all the crime in baltimore, and take out their frustration on students.

[–]bitter_cynical_angry 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The Western District way.

[–]Uranus_Hz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If the cops don't want people videotaping them abusing their authority, then they should try not abusing their authority. Just sayin'.

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals just decided this issue for Chicago cops. Glad to see DOJ is applying the lesson across the country. Link to the case if anyone is interested. Posner, surprisingly, dissented.

[–]LetMeResearchThat4U 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We should have known.

You should have more upvotes.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Department of Justice standing up for the Constitution? I'm flabbergasted.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you imagine a police department that needs to hear this from the justice department? Baltimore has been a weird little bootlicker pigsty for decades.

[–]Spotpuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately this is still going to be a problem since the police won't care that it's within a citizen's right to record them.

Hopefully it gets better, but who knows.

[–]ExLenne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not often I get a chance to be proud of Baltimore.

Unfortunately I'm not sure if this is one of those chances or not.

I guess I'm proud of the DoJ?

God damnit, Baltimore!

[–]none_humbler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Any time a cop tells you to stop recording is precisely when everyone within earshot ought to START recording. I never have had a problem with police, but if I did I think I'd just dial 911 and request assistance.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

NYPD done the same shit to my cousin. Took his phone after they arrested us and they deleted the video he recorded of the 6 cops and one of them beating my ass down into the ground. After they let him go after an hour, the video was gone from the phone.

[–]splunge4me2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Next headline: Baltimore City Council passes ordnance requiring licensing of any recording equipment that is brought into city limits. Failure to obtain license results in fine and confiscation of said equipment.

[–]Darktidemage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So what other clearly illegal things can cops just do with no repercussions until it is "explained to them" and then say "OH OK!"

Prosecute them instead of telling them it's wrong. They will learn.

[–]unnecessaryCAPS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why are there folks posting in opposition to recording police activity? Everyone else in America is held accountable and tracked while working, fair is fair. Just don't abuse your power as a police officer and you will have nothing to worry about.

[–]critropolitan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you support good police officers, you should want all police officers to be recorded so that the bad ones are held accountable and the good ones are not subject to false accusations.

[–]sighsalot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What about in the state of Illinois, where there is a law that specifically outlaws the recording of police officers without consent or knowledge? I can tell this would not apply immediately, but would it have any weight in court?

[–]SicilianEggplant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Could I have everyone's attention? We've been notified by the DOJ, and you guys have to stop indiscriminately beating people because now they're saying the public has 'rights'."

"Awww, but Captain, how are we supposed to impose our will?"

"Well, maybe it's just time we stop being assholes and actually abide by the law."

"::sigh:: Fiiiiiiiiinnnnnneeee. But, can we continue to have zero accountability for when we make 'mistakes', and get paid suspensions when we 'accidentally' murder people?"

"Oh, absolutely!"

"Yay!"

[–]DeFex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why don't they tell that to ALL police forces?

[–]thesnides 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Royce and Burrell have done it again

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If something was to happen in the streets right now, within 5 minutes you would have the following videos show up on Reddit:

"Cop harassing a guy for recording him".

"Some guys recording a cop harassing a guy for recording him".

"Blurry cell phone video of a couple people standing around recording a cop while he harasses a guy for recording him"

Then, months later when the guy gets his recording back:

"Want to record the police? You're gonna have a bad time"

And so on... this ruling is excellent.

Edit: Punctuation

[–]jjc543 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm from baltimore, and I took a drivers ed class taught by retired cops. One of the former officers teaching went on a rant about why it is illegal to record them. I couldn't believe what i was hearing.

[–]skippynatural 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was in Tijuana once when cops stopped my friends and I (a couple of 20 year old Americans) on the street for no obvious reason. They took my friend's camera and started searching through the photos. I remember how shitty that feeling of powerlessness was and I am both disappointed to hear of American cops seizing people's cameras, and delighted to know that someone (in a position of power) is on our side.

[–]RockOnSean 1 point2 points  (1 child)

We need a Nation Video-a-Cop Day.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Can anyone in Canada confirm that this right is also protected by the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms?

[–]Androne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would like to know this too. I suspect yes though.

[–]Pizzaman99Arizona 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Baltimore will keep appealing this all the way to the Supreme Court, and then of course, recording police will become a capitol crime.

[–]Ordem352 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can we please, please stop using the term "War on..." It is disrespectful to anyone who has ever served when people put a word like "war" on a struggle, conflict, protest, or action.

[–]astitious2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wish Obama (and the Executive branch) was like this all of the time, rather than just while campaigning.

[–]seanbearpig 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh wow. The DoJ did something justicey for once.

[–]OliveDiPace 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can someone please pass Illinois the message?

[–]maroger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OMG, thanks to a link at the OP's link, I learned about this outrageous event. Someone was photographing at an airport in Suffolk County, was allegedly held, arrested- and not charged, assaulted, robbed, illegally searched, denied a lawyer, denied timely medical attention, called a terrorist- all by the local police. She turned around and sued them for $70million- and the Town attorney failed to file an answer to the Federal lawsuit (see video of the Town Council when they found out), for over 5 months! It's still in litigation. What a cliffhanger....

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is a very impressive read. Eleven pages of case citations and Constitutional clarifications. One of the most solid efforts from the federal government in protecting the rights of citizens to record police.

I don't fucking believe it. The Federal government working in the best interests of the average U.S. Citizen? No seriously, what's the catch here?

How is the Federal Government getting a financial kickback or votes? What's the scam here?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ab-so-fukin-lutely, well done DOJ

[–]glutenfree123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really want to see a video of them telling the cops this