In 2003, Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr., gave the NYPD greater freedom to videotape and investigate public gatherings for "security reasons" (God, I hate that phrase), especially events where the police had an expectation of lawbreaking, or terrorism. All they had to do was follow some simple guidelines that the judge laid down, including applying to an oversight committee for permission to film.
Turns out the cops saw this as carte blanche to videotape every event they wanted, including funerals, peaceful gatherings, and political rallies where there was absolutely no indication of illegal activity, or even political activity at all. The police even disguised themselves as protesters and mourners and participated in the activities, pretending to be upset and shouting when the uniformed cops showed up.
Oh, and they never bothered ONCE to go get permission, like they were supposed to.
From the article:
"Judge Haight noted that the Police Department had not produced evidence that any applications for permission to videotape had ever been filed."
Nothing like the law enforcers ignoring the laws themselves. It's great to use the ubiquitous "for security reasons" argument to throw out the Constitution and do whatever the hell you feel like doing, isn't it, fellows?
Well, Judge Haight has apparently had enough. Yesterday he savaged the NYPD for ignoring his orders, and as punishment further restricted the events that the NYPD can videotape. Now,
"Under the guidelines, the police may conduct investigations — including videotaping — at political events only if they have indications that unlawful activity may occur, and only after they have applied for permission to the deputy commissioner in charge of the Intelligence Division."
The judge has threatened contempt charges against the police if his orders are not followed this time.
Between this ruling and the mayor and police commissioner of New Orleans being held in contempt of court this week for their illegal confiscation of residents' firearms during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it's looking like the judiciary is recognizing that the Constitution is still in effect in this country. As Martha Stewart would say, "It's a good thing!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I'm not entirely clear why the police need special permission to engage in an activity that's completely legal for anyone else in this country to do - video record in public areas. Even pretending to be a protester doesn't sound particularly illegal to me. I suspect there have been more than one occasion where the police have taped the evening news and used footage displayed as evidence (obviously, I'm too lazy to look for specific examples, but wasn't the guy who nearly beat to death a truck driver during the LA riots convicted primarily due to the helicopter footage that the media shot?).
I would certainly agree that having cops running around with video cameras randomly taping events is a wild misuse of resources. Given the judges ruling, expect NYPD to place an emphasis on installing more fixed surveillance cameras for "security reasons" - heck, they'll probably add the word "homeland" to that phrase. I think that phrase is used more often these days then, "it's for the children!"
As for our favorite weasels in New Orleans, I can't imagine the mayor or police chief will ever suffer the consequences for violating the constitutional rights of the people who (foolishly) stayed behind to ride out the storm. Minorities can earn millions of dollars through federal civil rights lawsuits for both real and imagined mistreatment by law enforcement. It would sure be nice to see the same type of lawsuits filed by the gun owners in New Orleans.
I was unclear as to the exact argument, as well. I had to read the article 3 or 4 times to get at it. I think that the groups had sued in the past, alleging Big Brotherish monitoring of their activities, and the government settled by adopting something called the "Handschu Guidelines" for investigating political groups. Judge Haight's 2003 order broadened these guidelines, with strict limits, which the NYPD promptly threw out the window. That's what got them the smackdown yesterday.
As to the New Orleans situation, I couldn't agree with you more that you or I would be sitting in jail for this level of contempt of court. I especially like how their lawyer "admitted in Court that he had “no good reason” to explain his actions and has been ordered to pay partial legal fees to NRA’s attorneys for their wasted time and money."
These cases will be interesting to follow to their respective conclusions.
Post a Comment