Simon Glik, man who recorded police in public, headed to trial

[BeauJangles]

Finally, Mr. Glik's trial is beginning in Boston. If you don't recall (I think there was a thread on him a year ago), in 2007 Mr. Glik was walking down Tremont St, near the Boston Common when he saw what he described as an usually forceful arrest. He pulled out his cell phone and began filming the police making the arrest.

When he was noticed, the police arrested him and charged him under the Massachusetts wiretapping act and with interfering with police business. After his arrest, the charges were dropped, but the ACLU picked up the case and filed a lawsuit against the Boston Police Department, claiming they had violated Mr. Glik's first and fourth amendment rights.

At the core of the case is the MA wiretapping act. Here is a nice summary of what the law prohibits and allows:

Massachusetts's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Massachusetts makes it a crime to secretly record an in-person or telephone conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99. If you are operating in Massachusetts, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording a telephone call or conversation, unless it is absolutely clear to everyone involved that you recording (i.e., it is not "secret").

The police are arguing three separate things in this case.

1. They're arguing that in 2007 there was no clearly established "right to record" in public, so the police could not have known they were violating Mr. Glik's rights.

2. They argue that no such right exists today.

3. The police allege that he is still in violation of the wiretapping act because it was not clear to police he was actually recording them. To be clear, Mr. Glik was standing on public property filming police on public property. He was stationed a short distance away and was holding his cell phone up in front of him, pointed at the police. He made no attempt to interfere, nor did he say or do anything other than record what happened.

This case is really important here in Mass and should be important across the country, not only for the rights of citizens, but also for the rights of media members and media organizations. Both the rights of citizens to exercise the first amendment and the 'rights' of media organizations to report the news could be seriously crippled by repeated rulings in favor of the police in situations like these.

It also creates an incredibly uncomfortable double standard with the application of such video / audio laws -- film the police doing something "good" and there is no problem, film them doing something "bad" and you can go to jail.

 

[Jaskalas]

If the public is expected to be recorded in public, then so should the police.

 

[wuliheron]

They can try to censor public videos if they want, but if will just come back to haunt them. There's no hiding from the birdie anymore.

 

[rudder]

3. The police allege that he is still in violation of the wiretapping act because it was not clear to police he was actually recording them. To be clear, Mr. Glik was standing on public property filming police on public property. He was stationed a short distance away and was holding his cell phone up in front of him, pointed at the police. He made no attempt to interfere, nor did he say or do anything other than record what happened.

you should always get the consent of all parties before recording a telephone call or conversation

How can the police claim a violation? he was not recording a conversation between himself and the police.

Police don't want to be held accountable for their actions plain and simple.

 

[Siddhartha]

If the police are obeying the law, why should they care if someone videotapes them? If they are breaking the law why should we as citizens tolerate this?

 

[fskimospy]

you should always get the consent of all parties before recording a telephone call or conversation

How can the police claim a violation? he was not recording a conversation between himself and the police.

Police don't want to be held accountable for their actions plain and simple.

It's pretty obviously in the cops' interest to suppress the ability of the public to record them, and arresting people for doing it is a great way to intimidate people to stop doing it.

In this case they are public officials conducting public business on public property. If for whatever reason the court rules that they can't be recorded, we need to pass a new law so they can be. Considering the number of police abuse videos that surface each year it's pretty clear that cops are doing a lot of things that need reining in.

 

[fskimospy]

If the police are obeying the law, why should they care if someone videotapes them? If they are breaking the law why should we as citizens tolerate this?

It would be pretty satisfying to use the 'if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide' line on law enforcement.

 

[Thump553]

CT is in the process of passing a bill guaranteeing the right to so record, so long as you don't interfere with the police officers doing their duties. Supposedly this will be the first law of this kind in the nation.

This should be a real interesting trial regarding the interplay of Glick's constitutional rights and that state statute.

 

[child of wonder]

you should always get the consent of all parties before recording a telephone call or conversation.

How can the police claim a violation? he was not recording a conversation between himself and the police.

Police don't want to be held accountable for their actions plain and simple.

This.

Some cops are worse than the criminals they pursue.

 

[BeauJangles]

you should always get the consent of all parties before recording a telephone call or conversation

How can the police claim a violation? he was not recording a conversation between himself and the police.

Police don't want to be held accountable for their actions plain and simple.

The statute applies broadly. Anyone recording audio must obtain the consent of everyone being recorded. The police claim that Glick is in violation of the statute is wrong, not because Glick wasn't party to the conversation, but because Glick made no effort to conceal his act of recording. He did not physically hide himself from view, he did not obscure his recording device, nor did he make any effort to conceal the fact he was recording them (by holding the phone to his ear like he was making a call or something).

They can try to censor public videos if they want, but if will just come back to haunt them. There's no hiding from the birdie anymore.

Except that using a device like that in public would be in violation of the wiretapping act unless you informed the person who you were recording or unless you only recorded video (which the statute does not cover).

 

[BladeVenom]

Police don't want to be held accountable for their actions plain and simple.

If people start recording them, they won't be able to cover up their crimes anymore.

 

[shira]

I agree that making audio and/or video recordings of law enforcement or other government employees while performing their duties in public ought to be legal. However, what if the recording includes private citizens?

Obviously, a private citizen being abused by the police would be happy if a recording were made; but what about a person who (for example) is shown being walked from his house and placed in a police car? There may have been no arrest - the person may merely be being brought to police headquarters as a "person of interest" or as a witness. Should it be okay to make a recording of an incident like that and spread it all over the internet? If it were I that was being questioned as a witness, I'd definitely NOT want to see myself on the internet.

 

[Scotteq]

If the public is expected to be recorded in public, then so should the police.

Quoted For Truth

- If I am accountable for whatever is in plain view, then equally: the police should be held accountable.

After all: It isn't like the Police *don't* have video cameras in their cars.

 

[MotF Bane]

It would be pretty satisfying to use the 'if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide' line on law enforcement.

This.

 

[Darwin333]

I agree that making audio and/or video recordings of law enforcement or other government employees while performing their duties in public ought to be legal. However, what if the recording includes private citizens?

Obviously, a private citizen being abused by the police would be happy if a recording were made; but what about a person who (for example) is shown being walked from his house and placed in a police car? There may have been no arrest - the person may merely be being brought to police headquarters as a "person of interest" or as a witness. Should it be okay to make a recording of an incident like that and spread it all over the internet? If it were I that was being questioned as a witness, I'd definitely NOT want to see myself on the internet.

I was always under the impression that you have no expectation of privacy when you are in public.

 

[mcmilljb]

How about we strike down all these dumb wiretapping laws. If you are on public property or in public view, you have no right to privacy. This includes the taking and recording of pictures, videos and audio. If you don't want people to see or hear you, get out of the public view. These laws are for intimidation and control. They are not legal and have no link to previous wiretapping laws. Wiretapping laws were needed to protect individuals having private conversations, and to give police the freedom to record at will a private conversation under certain conditions. Public officials and employees have less privacy because of their job and therefore cannot exercise privacy when carrying out their job in the public. They have offices and buildings for private matters.


You have the right to privacy, however you do not have the right to privacy in the public. Period. Stop the games.

 

[Darwin333]

Couldn't the lawyer subpena all of the dashcam videos from the police cars? I am sure there are more than a few in which the person who was pulled over was not informed that they were being recorded. Wouldn't that be an even clearer violation of the wiretapping law since the person being recorded couldn't see the camera?

 

[mcmilljb]

I agree that making audio and/or video recordings of law enforcement or other government employees while performing their duties in public ought to be legal. However, what if the recording includes private citizens?

Obviously, a private citizen being abused by the police would be happy if a recording were made; but what about a person who (for example) is shown being walked from his house and placed in a police car? There may have been no arrest - the person may merely be being brought to police headquarters as a "person of interest" or as a witness. Should it be okay to make a recording of an incident like that and spread it all over the internet? If it were I that was being questioned as a witness, I'd definitely NOT want to see myself on the internet.

The private part becomes public when you step outside. Sounds like you don't like the news people recording someone being taken into police custody either. Stay inside if you're scared of the world.

 

[mcmilljb]

Couldn't the lawyer subpena all of the dashcam videos from the police cars? I am sure there are more than a few in which the person who was pulled over was not informed that they were being recorded. Wouldn't that be an even clearer violation of the wiretapping law since the person being recorded couldn't see the camera?

Every wiretapping law has an exception for police. It just needs to made simpler and more specific. You don't need to make a bunch of exceptions or specific cases. Just be honest and say you have no right to privacy in public, and some might record you if you're in public. People will just have to get over it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Simon Glik, man who recorded police in public, headed to trial

Good, hopefully he gets life in prison.

Police can't make maximum revenue if interfered with.

Budgets need every dollar now.

 

[Exterous]

I was always under the impression that you have no expectation of privacy when you are in public.

Yeah - I am pretty sure that is the excuse they use to plant tracking devices in your car when it's in your driveway

 

[Craig234]

Recording events serves truth and justice. The large majority of the time, this will benefit police. The times it doesn't, are still better for truth and justice.

 

[PokerGuy]

Appalling. Absolutely appalling. Anything done in public, by a public official (officer) no less, should absolutely be subject to public recording and review. It's the best way to make sure rules are followed by everyone, including those charged with enforcing them.

 

[wuliheron]

Except that using a device like that in public would be in violation of the wiretapping act unless you informed the person who you were recording or unless you only recorded video (which the statute does not cover).

The Boston PD can argue till the crows fly home. The law will either be changed or amended or people will resort to surreptitiously recording whatever they want just as they do in North Korea.

 

[nobodyknows]

If the public is expected to be recorded in public, then so should the police.

And for that matter, any other public servants. They seem to have forgoten who they work for.