Dashcam
video gets SPD officer suspended for 15 days
Man
arrested after refusing to give camera to police at crash scene
Woman
Charged With Wiretapping After Filming Massachusetts Cop
Dashcam
video gets SPD officer suspended for 15 days
Elisa Hahn reports
Seattle Police released the
dashcam video from an incident in October of 2013 that resulted in an officer’s
15-day suspension.(Photo: SPD)
Seattle Police on Monday
released the dashcam video from an incident in October of 2013 that resulted in
an officer's 15-day suspension.
In the video, you can see she
is chasing the suspect, and it's the language she uses that gets her in
trouble.
"You're gonna get your ass
shot boy," she says.
Sources confirm the officer's
name is Jennifer Hunt
According to the office of
police accountability, what was at issue was her racially insensitive comments
and dangerous driving.
The investigation into the
officer's conduct did not come from a complaint, but from a supervisor who
flagged it and referred it to the chain of command.
Former chief Harry Bailey
imposed the 15 day suspension.
Man
arrested after refusing to give camera to police at crash scene
A New Jersey man who claims to
be an independent journalist films as a police officer demands his video
camera. It doesn't end well.
by Chris Matyszczyk
Andrew Flinchbaugh, arrested
for refusing to hand over his video camera. NBC10 screenshot by Chris
Matyszczyk/CNET
"This is not a
negotiation. Do I sound like I'm negotiating with you?"
When you hear those words
spoken by a police officer, their intention seems unmistakable. They mean:
"Do what I tell you or I'll arrest you."
This, indeed, is what happened
when 23-year-old Andrew Flinchbaugh filmed the aftermath of a single-vehicle
accident in Ocean County, N.J.
Flinchbaugh, who has
contributed in the past to a local news Web site, claims he was given
permission to film by those first on the scene. However, one police officer
seems to have taken exception to Flinchbaugh's presence.
Flinchbaugh posted a 10-minute
video of the events to YouTube and the footage appears to show him cooperating,
while refusing the police's principal request: to give them his camera as
"evidence."
As NBC 10 reports, the police
officer in question was a detective from the Ocean County prosecutor's office.
Though Flinchbaugh offered to give him a copy of the video, for reasons that
are still unclear, the detective wanted the camera.
He believed it was his legal
right to take the camera. When Flinchbaugh refused to give hand it over, the
detective arrested him for allegedly obstructing administration of law.
"I refused because I
believe that that's our First Amendment right," Flinchbaugh told NBC 10.
When the officer threatened him
with arrest, the video shows that Flinchbaugh calmly said: "Then you're
going to have to place me under arrest."
To this, the detective replied:
"Don't push me like that."
It's unclear why the detective
was so concerned about Flinchbaugh's camera. He certainly isn't, though, the first
to be suspicious of a member of the public filming. One San Diego police
officer described a Samsung Galaxy as "a weapon."
In some cases such as this, the
authorities immediately defend the behavior of the officer. In this case,
however, it is different.
Flinchbaugh and his camera were
released. Moreover, Ocean County prosecutor Joseph Coronato told NBC 10:
"It would be my opinion that we'll probably be dismissing the
charge."
He added: "We never would
have looked at the video without getting a search warrant and, based on our
information, we didn't have the legal right to get the search warrant at that
point."
There may be a personal element
to this case, as the individual involved in the accident was reportedly another
detective in the prosecutor's office.
I have contacted the Ocean
County prosecutor's office to ask why the detective believed he had the right
to seize the camera and will update, should I hear.
It isn't the case that most
police officers behave with excessive hubris. However, gadgets have become one
of the centerpieces of today's policing. Just as citizens film the police in
action, so various forces are now experimenting with body cams.
Indeed, Salt Lake City police
this weekend revealed body cam footage of an incident that ended with a police
officer shooting dead a man who had allegedly been reported to the police as
suspicious.
As KUTV reports, the police
believe the footage "speaks for itself." In Flinchbaugh's case, that
also appears to be true.
When it comes to filming the
police in action, the Supreme Court is clear that, as long as you're not
obstructing the police in performing their duties, you can film.
When every member of the public
is in possession of a camera, there is a greater probability of information
emerging instantly. That may be what some police officers fear the most.
Woman
Charged With Wiretapping After Filming Massachusetts Cop
By Michael Allen, Sun, January
11, 2015
Pamela Petrino was arrested
last Tuesday night after filming a police officer with her cellphone in
Braintree, Massachusetts.
According to The Patriot
Ledger, Petrino was charged with unlawful wiretapping for filming the officer.
She was also charged with disorderly conduct and illegal possession of
prescription drugs. Petrino pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Officer Blake Holt noted in his
police report that he recognized Petrino from an earlier incident while he was
outside a Victoria’s Secret store with a suspect in a local mall.
Petrino allegedly accused
Officer Holt of inappropriately touching her daughter during the prior
incident, which happened on Dec. 30, 2014.
Officer Holt claims that while
he was walking away with the suspect, Petrino was holding her cellphone and
recording their conversation.
Officer Holt believed that
action violated the mall's rules and a state law.
However, in 2011, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled in favor of a man who was charged
with unlawful wiretapping for recording Boston police with his cell phone.
The court ruled that "the
filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place,
including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably
within these (First Amendment) principles..," noted Cnet.
