Police violate agreement, tape protesters

[cal04]

Newsday also shows a policeman with a camera, in the pic section of
NYC photos of the day.
http://www.nynewsday.com/?track=topnav



New York City police have violated an agreement which legally prohibits them from videotaping protesters. The photographs, acquired by RAW STORY this evening, show a police officer videotaping protesters who are not engaged in illegal activity. The photographer submitted the officer’s badge and precinct number to authorities.

Under law, unless there is an actual crime taking place, or reason to believe that one was about to – more than simply the protest march itself – the NYPD cannot videotape activists as a result of a 1971 class-action lawsuit filed by activists who accused police of using dossiers and undercover agents to punish lawful dissent.

More on that law from the Village Voice.

The NYPD relinquished its spying autonomy as a result of a 1971 class-action suit filed by a diverse group of activists who accused police of using dossiers and undercover agents to chill and punish lawful dissent. Officials eventually admitted as much. In a historic settlement over a decade later, police promised to heed certain guidelines and be monitored by an oversight body when investigating constitutionally protected activity. Federal Judge Charles Haight signed the settlement—known as the Handschu agreement after one of the plaintiffs—into effect in 1985.

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=265

[cal04]

1. Pic of Police with camera

[JohnnyRingo]

2. Looks like he was trying to keep it discrete

That's not a very big cam. In fact, I bet there were 100 more that NO ONE saw.

[SCAROLINAHISTORYCOCK]

3. Ladies and Gentlemen....

Welcome to your free America. I am a college student at a southern state supported university and its nearly destruction of your good name and reputation if you speak out against Bush. I just completed an intensive course on the rise of Fascism and Nazism in Europe, and this is deeply concerning. Oh well...as long as they let me vote i think i can keep the rage under control

[Ravy]

4. Not to rain on the parade, but ...

... if there was no illegal activity, why is the guy being put in handcuffs?

Not to say it didn't happen (taping of innocent protesters) but the picture posted doesn't seem to indicate that.

[Minimus]

5. maybe they can tape an arrest

for their protection and the arrestees protection so no one can claim "this or that happened" later. just a guess.

[Toots]

6. Guilty until proven innocent...the Bush* Amerika way

Just because someone is being held by authorities doesn't mean they did anything wrong.

[Ravy]

7. Well, I understand that... but when it says that

police can videotape if they witness illegal activity, or suspect it is about to happen, and we post "proof" that they violated this by showing a picture of them videotaping someone they are putting in handcuffs, we look a bit silly.

I was wondering if the pic was posted in error or if there was more to the story than posted here.