Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, July 5, 2012

The App That Allows You to Secretly Monitor Police

Posted by on Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM

The New Jersey branch of the ACLU has devised a smartphone app that allows civilians to secretly record police stops, thereby preventing police dashcam recordings that may provide evidence of civil rights violations from being erased or misplaced by officers:

"This app provides an essential tool for police accountability," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the ACLU of New Jersey.

The arrival of the app, called Police Tape, follows some high-profile cases in which police have clashed with citizens over their recording of officers. It also speaks to the notion that, anywhere, any time — whether it’s by a police department’s security camera or a motorist’s cell phone — everyone can be recorded.

Citizens have been hassled and even arrested after recording police officers in public places, said Alexander Shalom, ACLU New Jersey’s policy counsel. At times, their phones have been taken away and recordings deleted, he said.

"Police often videotape civilians and civilians have a constitutionally protected right to videotape police," Shalom said. "When people know they’re being watched, they tend to behave well."

It's an attractive idea. One of the downsides of police body cams, which the city is currently piloting, is that it puts even more data in the hands of officers—and our police department has a deplorable record with archiving and filling video record requests. Only 40 percent of video record requests are successfully filled, according to a recent city auditors report.

But this isn't New Jersey.

Unlike Goldy, I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but it seems to me this application wouldn't fly here—state law says you can't record people without their consent. But maybe there's a little wiggle room, like if you started the recording by first asking an officer for his or her consent?

 

Comments (9) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
I believe that only works for audio recording... pictures/video without audio are fine- So before you upload that video of the police officer pepper spraying someone outside Madison Pub, its best to remove the audio, just in case.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?…
Posted by UNPAID COMMENTER on July 5, 2012 at 1:56 PM
Will in Seattle 2
Actions in public maybe recorded with both video and audio, since the police are acting in public.

But releasing them online is a different matter.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on July 5, 2012 at 2:09 PM
3
IANAL, but recording private citizens minding their own business is different from recording police officers that are on-duty.
Posted by madcap on July 5, 2012 at 2:14 PM
4
The law of unintended consequences insures that some fool will whip out his cell phone to film a police stop and get shot.

Posted by mt on July 5, 2012 at 2:21 PM
5
You can record anything you want in a public place, or in any place where you may reasonably assume it is acceptable to use photo, video or sound recording equipment. That means you may also be free to record interactions in places which are owned privately but which are frequented by the public, and within which the owners or operators of the property have not expressly forbidden visitors to use recording equipment.
Posted by Carlito on July 5, 2012 at 2:28 PM
ratatosk 6
Only private conversations are protected by Washington statutes. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?…. Whether you need consent before recording it depends on whether you're having a private conversation with the officer.
Posted by ratatosk on July 5, 2012 at 2:44 PM
Eric Arrr 7
Cienna,

The state law you're thinking of is RCW 9.73.030, but you're misreading it. It prohibits the recording of private communications; any official interaction with a law enforcement officer is considered a public conversation.

Thankfully, SPD reads the law correctly and recognizes citizens' rights to record them. (See section 17.070 of the SPD policy & procedure manual, "Citizen Observation of Officers".)
Posted by Eric Arrr on July 5, 2012 at 3:21 PM
dangerousgift 8
Here in Oakland where I work as a legal intern for a civil attorney who occasionally sues city entities, I can tell you that the police either don't turn on, lose, or end up having their personal recording devices "malfunction" over 60% of the time. They cost $2000 a unit but their footage is rarely helpful to anyone, police or citizen alike.
Posted by dangerousgift on July 5, 2012 at 6:14 PM
9
Well, I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm about to take the bar, so I may, hopefully, become one. (which means don't rely on anything I say.) Even though this hasn't gotten up to the WA supreme court (meaning it's not on solid ground) from what I can tell in a few minutes on google scholar, WA appellate courts have held that the law preventing recording people without their consent does not apply to recording police officers performing their public duties because the statute only prohibits recording *private* conversations. Police do not have a valid privacy interest in their conversations on the job. There's also some federal precedent (from other circuits, so far as I know) that hold that the right to record police officers is protected by the first amendment, which protects gathering information as well as spreading it.

Which is all to say that this app might not get you into shit if you try it in WA.

If you feel like geeking out, here's the case: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c…. It gets relevant around paragraph 12.
Posted by notsnarkyever on July 5, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy