Is it legal to videotape PEP/Police/Park officials?

This covers audiotaping, videotaping and photographing any

on-duty NYPD/Park or PEP officer.
Never turn off the camera.
By law, you do not need their permission
to record them. Here are the details.

Videotaping the police: Is it legal?

by Robert Lederman

I am frequently asked this question by artists who are being harassed

by the police or who witness another artist or vendor getting a
summons or being arrested. Now that the weather is warming up we can
expect police enforcement to also, "warm up."

In court there is no better evidence than a videotape, photos or an

audiotape. I've used them in defending many of my 40 arrests and 60
summonses cases and have never lost a case yet.

If, for example, an officer claims you were too close a door, but your
video shows they did not measure the distance, you will win. Likewise
if an officer cites "exigent circumstances" (an accident, a parade, a
fire) but your video has him telling you to pack up your stand and
leave because a store made a complaint, you will win.

No doubt, there are many police officers who imagine videotaping to be

a crime. I've had cops threaten to arrest me under the Patriot Act for
taping them, and others have forcefully tried to grab the camera.

What I advise artists is to use the camera in such a way that

it does not present a threat. I've seen artists push it right

in a cops face. That kind of body language is threatening and should

be avoided at all cost.

Likewise reaching into a bag or fannypack for your camera and suddenly
pulling it out in such a way that an officer could imagine they saw a
gun. That's a serious no, no.

But is it legal to tape the police?

The NYPD Patrol Guide, code 116-53, clearly affirms the First
Amendment of the Constitution as it states:

"Members of the service will not interfere with the video taping
or photographing of incidents in public places. Intentional
interference such as blocking or obstructing cameras or harassing the
photographer constitutes censorship. Working Press Cards clearly
state, the bearer "is entitled to cross police and fire lines." This
right will be honored and access will not be denied. However, this
does not include access to interior crime scenes or areas frozen for
security reasons."

Both the law and the official NYPD policy as stated in the NYPD Patrol
Guide is that anyone can tape record, videotape or photograph police
officers who are working so long as they are not physically
interfering with them.

Below are some links to prove this. At the ARTIST website

is a link to this related document with State by State rules for

taping conversations:

Rules for taping conversations

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/9.html

Are you allowed to take pictures of the police?

www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/pdf/nmshldanalysis4pg.pdf

"June 27, 2003: At the recommendation of the CCRB (Civilian Complaint

Review Board), the New York City Police
Department issued an interim order (see page 4 of this document)
revising Patrol Guide procedure 203-09 (Public Contact –General). The
revision clarifies an officer’s

affirmative obligation to provide upon a civilian’s request his or her

name, badge number, or other identifying information."

Tuesday, 23 Jan 2007

by Eileen Clancy

By law we cannot arrest someone just because he may call a cop a

pig. We cannot arrest someone because he asks for a name or a badge or
takes a picture.

-Lorenzo Casanova, Deputy Police Commissioner, NYPD.

We know that NYPD officers harass photographers for taking pictures of

stuff that the police decide is "sensitive." But what if police
officers decide that they themselves are the "sensitive" stuff?

To see an example of what can happen when the police take umbrage at
being videotaped, see this WCBS story showing an NYPD official
striking a man who was videotaping the police.

Can the police simply decide that it is illegal for you to to

videotape them? Do you have the right to take pictures of police
officers at work in public places? Do you have even the limited right
to stand around and gawk at the police when they stop someone?

It turns out that the rights of "onlookers" at police incidents,

including photographers, in New York City have already been recognized
in federal court in a ruling that is still in effect today.

In the 1970s a class action lawsuit, Black v. Codd, was brought by the
New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of reporters, photographers
and onlookers who had been harassed, assaulted and/or arrested in the
vicinity of police officers at work. The five plaintiffs were a
diverse group: a WINS radio journalist; an Amsterdam News reporter;
two members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a far Right
LaRoucheite group; and a person identified by The New York Times only
as a "bookkeeper."

NYCLU attorney Paul Chevigny stated in court papers that between 1970
and 1973, 259 people had been "subjected to some sanction, such as
arrest, threats or physical abuse, because of criticism (or implied
criticism, as by taking a photograph or writing down a shield number)
of a police officer, including going to the precinct to make a
complaint." [2]

In 1977 the NYPD was forced to agree that onlookers at incidents where
the police are stopping people or making arrests are permitted to stay
nearby without being subject to harassment or arrest. The federal
court ordered that this understanding be incorporated into the NYPD
Patrol Guide, the internal rulebook about how to be a street cop. (It
appears in section 208-03.)

The federal consent decree in Black v. Codd reads in part:

... when a person (or persons) is detained, stopped or arrested in

public areas, a person or persons not involved in the conduct for
which the person is stopped or arrested may remain in the vicinity of
the stop or arrest as an onlooker or onlookers ...

None of the following constitutes probable cause for arrest or

detention of an onlooker unless the safety of officers or other
persons is directly endangered or the officer reasonably believes they
are endangered or the law is otherwise violated:

(a) Speech alone, even though crude and vulgar;

(b) Requesting and making notes of shield numbers or names of officers;

(c) Taking photographs;

(d) Remaining in the vicinity of the stop or arrest.

What does this mean out on the street? Explained in the forthright
language of Lorenzo Casanova, the Deputy Police Commissioner in 1977,
"By law we cannot arrest someone just because he may call a cop a pig.
We cannot arrest someone because he asks for a name or a badge or
takes a picture." [3]
Apart from Black v. Codd, the Patrol Guide warns against interfering
with photographers:

Members of the service will not interfere with the video taping or
photographing of incidents in public places. Intentional interference
such as blocking or obstructing cameras or harassing the photographer
constitutes censorship

-- NYPD Patrol Guide, section 116-53 [4]

In other words, a police officer's fear of criticism, without evidence

of a crime, is simply not a sufficient basis to harass or arrest
someone. And NYPD's own rules for police officers recognize that
interfering with cameras is censorship.

The upshot is: taking photographs or shooting video on the streets in

the United States of America is a constitutionally protected activity.
That includes taking pictures of New York's Finest.

[1] Peter Kihss, "Police Agree on Rights of Onlookers at Arrests," The

New York Times, June 7, 1977.

[2] Kihss, ibid.

[3] Kihss, ibid.

[4] Todd Maisel, "150 photographers seek answers at NYPD meeting for
RNC," National Press Photographers Association

PERMANENT LINK

http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/9.html
RELATED RESOURCES

[file-document]

Black v. Codd consent decree

CATEGORIES

The War on Cameras

ALSO SEE:

http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-black-v-codd