Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Omaha Steve

(108,951 posts)
Sat May 11, 2013, 09:42 AM May 2013

Omaha officers told: Don't interfere with citizens' right to record police activity [View all]

Source: Omaha World Herald

By Maggie O'Brien

Omaha police officers are hitting the streets with a clear directive: Don't interfere with citizens' right to record police action.

The department has refined its policy on the public's use of cameras and video in the wake of a YouTube posting of an arrest that led to the firing of four officers, two of whom are charged with criminal wrongdoing. The March 21 incident highlighted the sometimes contentious terrain that officers and citizens navigate when cameras increasingly capture their interactions.

“Individuals have a First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties, plain and simple,” said Deputy Chief Greg Gonzalez.

The department has long recognized that right. But the revised policy, which cites federal case law, states that citizens cannot be arrested simply for recording police or being near a crime scene.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20130511/NEWS/705119930/1685#omaha-officers-told-don-t-interfere-with-citizens-right-to-record-police-activity



52 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The rest of Police State America needs to realize our rights. DainBramaged May 2013 #1
An viceversa. Why do people who claim transparency not want cameras on them? graham4anything May 2013 #2
Post removed Post removed May 2013 #5
LOL pipoman May 2013 #14
i heaven05 May 2013 #21
So, you approve of ridicule? How stupid! - or is that alcoholic "humor"?, a.k.a. CRUELTY. nt patrice May 2013 #26
oh please heaven05 May 2013 #30
Worse than any petty ignorant tyrant is their LACKEYS. nt patrice May 2013 #27
Apparently you haven't kept up with graham.. pipoman May 2013 #41
No, I don't follow people around on here, but, whatever graham is doing, insults undercut patrice May 2013 #44
Because the police work for the people, not the other way around. n/t eggplant May 2013 #6
Yeah, I agree, in a public space, you have no expectation of privacy. bemildred May 2013 #7
To me that kind of PRIVATE expectation is a taking, like stealing, something that belongs to US, patrice May 2013 #15
That's a GOOD argument, and I tend to agree, to a point, but it's not the way it is now. bemildred May 2013 #17
Private property and private events are a workable criteria for me. I get that. nt patrice May 2013 #19
What constitutes "private" is what is not being agreed about. bemildred May 2013 #20
In some arenas, but not all. We live in groups. A rule of absolute individuality in such climates patrice May 2013 #25
Hmmmm. Look I really don't want to argue with you. bemildred May 2013 #31
I suspect that MOST of us agree about way MORE than we are allowed to pretend that we do. patrice May 2013 #36
That is what I believe I am saying when I say 80-20. People in America are like that. graham4anything May 2013 #42
No. Debate where they don't apply, and who they don't apply to. beevul May 2013 #46
So privacy in public spaces is the default and we specify exceptions? nt bemildred May 2013 #48
No. beevul May 2013 #50
Yes. bemildred May 2013 #52
K&R patrice May 2013 #28
ummmm.....no. n\t Scruffy Rumbler May 2013 #32
There is a difference, Graham4anything..... Th1onein May 2013 #33
Hello, Th1onein! <3 = hearts. nt patrice May 2013 #37
Hi, Patrice! Th1onein May 2013 #40
EXACTLY!! And we can have microphones recording everything everyone says too!! Douglas Carpenter May 2013 #38
Please post your email account user id and password toddaa May 2013 #45
... unless you want to lose your job, because we ARE watching. nt bemildred May 2013 #3
Bakersfield Police steal cellphones from eyewitnesses bobduca May 2013 #4
I was about to post something similar. NYC_SKP May 2013 #8
How can Police Commisioners get ahead of the SCOTUS fight? bobduca May 2013 #9
Start a new OP on Bakersfield and the camera confiscation matter. NYC_SKP May 2013 #11
Already been established. Th1onein May 2013 #34
And there was also this... beevul May 2013 #47
That video is probably still on that phone. NYC_SKP May 2013 #49
One would hope. beevul May 2013 #51
how heaven05 May 2013 #13
A rare exception. AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #10
One Of The Police Officers Charged DallasNE May 2013 #12
I have worked for the Omaha Police Dept (non-sworn civilian) since last Aug. Omaha Steve May 2013 #35
Let's Hope So -- It Is A Positive And Overdue Step DallasNE May 2013 #39
Individuals have a First Amendment right to record police officers AND our Gov at work. Sunlei May 2013 #16
Fucking asshole pigs gopiscrap May 2013 #18
What about the Omaha Mayor's campaign BensMom May 2013 #22
K&R+big thanks to Steve the great DUer from the area for keeping us posted alp227 May 2013 #23
Supreme Court, board meetings, etc. zbdent May 2013 #24
Youtube video here Ash_F May 2013 #29
A perfectly legitimate reason for Google Glass (with prescription lenses). mwooldri May 2013 #43
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Omaha officers told: Don'...