Rochester Woman Arrested After Videotaping Police From Her Own Front Yard

[CptSternn]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_882122.html

NEW YORK -- In May, the Rochester Police Department arrested a woman on a charge of obstructing governmental administration after she videotaped several officers' search of a man's car. The charge is a criminal misdemeanor.

The only problem? Videotaping a police officer in public view is perfectly legal in New York state -- and the woman was in her own front yard. The arrest report of the incident also contains an apparent discrepancy from what is seen in the woman's own video.

That video, uploaded to the Internet this week, more than a month after Emily Good's May 12 arrest, begins by showing a black male being questioned by a police officer at about 10 p.m. The red and blue flashes of a police cruiser illuminate the scene on Aldine Street.

"I just got out of the house, man, I'm sick, man," the man who has been pulled over says. Other police officers search his car.

Then one of the officers, identified as Mario Masic in the arrest report, turns to the camera and asks, "You guys need something?"

"I'm just -- this is my front yard -- I'm just recording what you're doing. It's my right," Good replies.

"Actually, not from the sidewalk," the officer replies, incorrect about the legality of Good's actions.

"This is my yard," Good says.

"I don't feel safe with you standing behind me so I'm going to ask you go into your house, you understand?" Masic says.

From there, the conversation escalates into a confrontation, with Masic alleging that Good is threatening his safety, and that she expressed other, unspecified anti-police statements before the videotaping began.

"Due to what you said to me, before you started taping, I think, uh, you need to go stay in your house, guys."

Good's public defender, Stephanie Stare, told HuffPost she believes from her conversations with several neighbors who were present that Good made no threatening comments before the tape begins.

Ryan Acuff, a friend of Good's who witnessed the exchange and picked up the video camera after she was arrested, agreed.

"None of us was talking to them until they came to us," Acuff said. "The first contact was definitely on tape."

For more than a minute of the video, the officer and Good argue about whether she is threatening his safety. Finally, it appears, Masic has had enough: "You know what, you're gonna go to jail. That's just not right."

Acuff claimed that he and Good were complying with the policeman's order to return to their porch when she was arrested.

"The real reason they arrested her was because she was videotaping," Acuff said. Both he and Good are activists who have previously protested foreclosures in the area.

Acuff has posted his own account of the arrest on Indymedia. He said he and Good were videotaping the traffic stop out of concern about police misconduct.

The police report of the arrest contains another apparent discrepancy from what appears on the video: Masic writes that the traffic stop targeted three individuals who "were all chalkem south gang members."

"This gang is known for drugs guns and violence," Masic notes, underscoring the danger of the situation.

The video, while dark, appears to only show one man led out of the car. Good's public defender says that as far as she has been able to determine, only one man was pulled over.

The Rochester Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a statement released to the press, Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard said that while he had "researched" the incident, "With the case still pending and my unfamiliarity with the specific details, any assumptions at this time would be premature."

The police department has launched an internal investigation.

Good is scheduled to appear in court on Monday, where her public defender hopes the case will be dismissed.

If that doesn't happen, Stare said, she was not afraid of bringing Good's case to a jury trial.

"She was well within her rights."

[CptSternn]

This is like the third time this year this has happened. Each time the video hits YouTube, it goes viral. American police seem to be dumb as bricks, I mean, once they are on video do they think arresting a person for this is going to go down well? If they are that stupid then they really shouldn't be police officers.

[CptSternn]

Oh yeah, if you want to voice your complaints to his superior, here is the email address for the Rochester Chief of Police - shepparj@cityofrochester.gov

[Ben Lahnger]

That police are sometimes overbearing, abusive and capable of misconduct comes as no surprise to me. I've blogged and posted before about how the law-enforcement career track is a magnet for people who harbor an inner bully and want a power trip.

What's distressing to me about stories like this is the line that is crossed where the police officers determine that they can decide what is against the law at the moment, creating "laws" on the spot. And the most distressing thing is that there isn't more outrage on the part of the public at large that cops can operate like this, making up laws on the spot, without any serious immediate corrective action by supervisors or politicians in positions of responsibility over those officers.

[Saya]

Isn't it kinda cool though that in 1984 it was assumed technology would be used to monitor the people and the government would use it against them, but what really happened is that governments are learning to fear technology, specifically the internet?

[Ben Lahnger]

With the kinds of things that are being bantered about in Congress, let alone the evaporating defense of Net Neutrality, I think the government being overly concerned with the people's internet power is a bad thing.

[Saya]

Absolutely, but I think in the end its going to be a losing battle for them. Hacktivists have been getting around China's firewall for years, pain in the ass but there's a way to do it. There was a huge backlash up here after Telus blocked union blogs, and I think every political party is supportive of net neutrality except the Conservatives.

[Renatus]

They would be fucking themselves over if they got rid of net neutrality, think about it.
1. All the porn lovers in America would be pissed off with nothing to get off to.
2. Gun lovers across America would be pissed off with no guns to look at or talk about.
3. All Gamers in America would be pissed off with nothing to shoot at.
4. All the hackers in America would be pissed off due to less people on the internet for them to hack.
4. The soldiers of America would be pissed off with no family/friend contact to console them, or porn to get off to.

So what happens when you combine mobs of angry horny people, angry gun lovers, angry gamers, and angry soldiers and everything in between?

You get millions of blue balled men and sexually frustrated women who are tech savy, well trained, armed to the teeth, and pissed off.

[Ben Lahnger]

Renatus, killing net neutrality doesn't mean the end of the internet. It means a CONTROLLED internet. None of those points you made really matter, because there would still be porn, games and guns (conservatives aren't against guns). Hackers would still be able to hack, although it would be harder. Soldiers would still have access to those things. But political dissent and the free dissemination of information would be subverted.

Sounds like you need to read this: What IS Net Neutrality?

Saya, yeah, but relying on hackers to save the internet is a bit like relying on moonshine distilleries and bootleggers to restore my right to freely drink alcohol during prohibition. That is definitely not my preferred first recourse.

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Renatus, killing net neutrality doesn't mean the end of the internet. It means a CONTROLLED internet. None of those points you made really matter, because there would still be porn, games and guns (conservatives aren't against guns). Hackers would still be able to hack, although it would be harder. Soldiers would still have access to those things. But political dissent and the free dissemination of information would be subverted.

Sounds like you need to read this: What IS Net Neutrality?

Saya, yeah, but relying on hackers to save the internet is a bit like relying on moonshine distilleries and bootleggers to restore my right to freely drink alcohol during prohibition. That is definitely not my preferred first recourse.

I've read before what it is, but with all the fees that have been proposed, I doubt anyone will be able to do much of anything on the internet.

[Ben Lahnger]

Fees don't have anything to do with Net Neutrality. They're just ... FEES, you know? They could be tacked on whether we have neutrality or not - that's a completely separate issue.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Saya

Isn't it kinda cool though that in 1984 it was assumed technology would be used to monitor the people and the government would use it against them, but what really happened is that governments are learning to fear technology, specifically the internet?

SHHHH! Don't bring it up or government will tell corporations to stop putting cameras in cell phones!

Seriously, it is very cool. Capitalism has resulted in companies that want to sell products that will make money, and what is in demand that consumers will trade for money? Cell phones with cameras. Capitalism has led to transparency, which has in turn led to checks and balances in favor of liberty.

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Fees don't have anything to do with Net Neutrality. They're just ... FEES, you know? They could be tacked on whether we have neutrality or not - that's a completely separate issue.

They wouldn't be just any fees, they would be fees for viewing any and all websites, facebook for example from what I saw would be quite expensive to visit.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by Renatus

They wouldn't be just any fees, they would be fees for viewing any and all websites, facebook for example from what I saw would be quite expensive to visit.

Again, that would be bad and a challenge, but that's not Net Neutrality. You've got a grave misunderstanding of what the issue is.

Here it is in a nutshell. Without Net Neutrality requiring them to provide fair and equal access to the internet to all source info creators, major internet distributors (let's use AT&T for an example) can sell access to individual entities and exclude others. For instance, AT&T takes money from Walmart so that anytime you search on a search engine for swimwear, the resulting Walmart links are easily accessed and the page loads fast, while clicking on a resulting link to Victoria's Secret takes forever to load or fails to load the first couple of attempts. AT&T makes money off of selling access to the internet, and Walmart unfairly uses their financial leverage to squeeze out competing products in the internet marketplace.

After a while, people go to Walmart instead of Victoria's Secret because the page just loads faster and easier ... and you never have any idea what's gone on behind the scenes.

[Saya]

A good example was Telus blocking union sites when facing a strike.

Originally Posted by HumanePain

SHHHH! Don't bring it up or government will tell corporations to stop putting cameras in cell phones!

Seriously, it is very cool. Capitalism has resulted in companies that want to sell products that will make money, and what is in demand that consumers will trade for money? Cell phones with cameras. Capitalism has led to transparency, which has in turn led to checks and balances in favor of liberty.

Erm, you mean the same cell phone cameras they have in China, Iran, Egypt? The ones capitalism dictates should be made in Chinese factories where the workers kill themselves from being overworked, ethics be damned, because its cheap? The ones made from conflict minerals in the DR Congo, which they refuse to give up?

[Ben Lahnger]

Saya, now THERE'S some TRANSPARENCY!

[Ben Lahnger]

Woman who recorded police is off the hook
The Rochester New York District Attorney has dismissed charges against Emily Good, who was arrested while videotaping police making a traffic stop in front of her home.

SOURCE

June 27, 2011

After a protest by supporters today outside the Rochester, N.Y., Hall of Justice, authorities dropped all charges against Emily Good, 28, who was arrested last month for video recording the police from her front yard and refusing an officer’s order to go into her house, NBC station WHEC reported.

Good said she was recording a traffic stop in front of her home May 12 because she suspected that the driver, a young black man, was the target of racial profiling.

In a joint statement supporting the decision to drop the charges, Rochester's mayor, City Council president and police chief said today:

"Whatever the outcome of the internal review, we want to make clear that it is not the policy or practice of the Rochester Police Department to prevent citizens from observing its activities — including photographing or videotaping — as long as it does not interfere with the safe conduct of those activities."

Police across the country have come under scrutiny for arresting otherwise uninvolved bystanders who pull out video cameras and phone cameras to document their activities — a practice many civil liberties advocates say is protected because police officers are public officials performing public duties.

The American Civil Liberties Union contended in an Illinois lawsuit last year that "individuals ... may make audio (and video) recordings of police who are performing their public duties in a public place and speaking in a voice loud enough to be heard by the unassisted human ear."

Other advocates warn that police first have a duty to protect the public — which can include bystanders with cameras, as well as other bystanders who may be imperiled by the officer's distraction with the camera.

"An officer who takes his or her attention away from the task at hand to worry about a person running video is going to suffer from split-attention deficit," Sgt. Ed Flosi of the San Jose, Calif., Police Department told PoliceOne, a journal for law enforcement professionals. "When a person is forced to focus on more than one item, the amount of focus on either item suffers. In other words, they may miss something that the primary suspect(s) is doing that could get them hurt or killed."

How about we spend a little less time worrying about whether your officers have split-attention deficit (the man with ADHD says laugingly) and more time worrying about whether they actually know the laws they're charged with enforcing.

[CptSternn]

I would follow up with a lawsuit if it were me for unlawful imprisonment.

[CptSternn]

Did ye see this?

http://boingboing.net/2011/06/24/roc...olice-use.html

[Ben Lahnger]

Wow! Unbelievable. I don't think any lawsuit would be effective, but a campaign to remove the chief of police from office (if he's elected) or (if he's not) then a campaign to remove the mayor from office in protest might have some impact.

I guess the citizens of Rochester need to make sure they know the laws that the police might choose to enforce there. What a bunch of crap.