Posted on 08/22/2008 10:15:22 AM PDT by marktwain
A British man was jailed for five hours after he photographed a cop reversing the wrong way up a one-way street. After Andrew Carter snapped the cop van, officer Aqil Farooq leaped out, hit the camera to the ground, handcuffed him and bundled him into the back of the vehicle. The plumber, 44, was arrested for supposedly being drunk, resisting arrest and assaulting the officer with the camera. He was kept in cells before finally being released on police bail at midnight. Carter, of Bedminster, Bristol, said: “I was nearly knocked down there once so when the police van went the wrong way I sort of said, ‘Hey mate. no entry’. But he just shouted out of the window, ‘(expletive) off — this is police business’.
“It was very frightening. All I had done was photograph these police officers doing something illegal, but I was the one who ended up being arrested.”
Farooq and an unnamed WPC said they were at the fish and chip shop to review CCTV footage of another incident. A week later bachelor Carter spent another five hours at the police station with his solicitor.
Carter was never charged, but complained of wrongful arrest, and Farooq apologized at a disciplinary hearing.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It is.
“...officer Aqil Farooq leaped out, hit the camera to the ground...
Hmmmmm....Aqil Farooq.
Hmmmmm...
“It should be accepted law in all the United States, that video/audio recording of public officials involved in their public duties is always legal.”
I don’t even think we should be allowed to talk about “public officials involved in their public duties”. Who in the world are we to second guess them?
LOL, I'll bet that was a heartfelt apology..
You ever make a six year old apologize for hitting his brother? Right, dripping with sincerity.
Beyond legal, it should be encouraged.
California is one of the few states that requires all parties to a conversation to give consent before the taping is considered legal, or so I understand.
“California is one of the few states that requires all parties to a conversation to give consent before the taping is considered legal, or so I understand. “
Oddly enough, one can record video, but audio is a different matter. I believe it is owing to laws made before there was widespread ability for consumers to record video.
Similar things have happened in Massachusetts.
http://thephoenix.com/boston/News/56680-Echoes-of-Rodney-King/
At least there will be consistency in trampling the citizen rights while we create this veil of legality around any particular action the police might decide to take.
As an aside: Apparently US Border Agents are under a different set of rules :-)
Cheers,
Lloyd
Farooq should have been sacked, at a minimum.
Police officers have no privacy rights greater than a citizen. when a person is in public, they can have no expectancy of privacy. When those people sue for violations of their civil rights, they will win big.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.