Witness police wrongdoing? There's an app for that

I just saw this on my local news - as in about 10 minutes ago. I can see this opening up a whole nuther can of worms as far as what law enforcement is willing to accept or tolerate...

Or, maybe not. There are stories we would never know about otherwise - all because we now carry around recording devices with us all the time. Now - your video goes directly to the ACLU - no time wasted

Video recordings cannot be deleted or destroyed before being sent directly to ACLU

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado has a new phone app that those who video record abuse by police can use to send the videos directly to the ACLU so they can't be deleted or destroyed.

Mobile Justice CO is available in English and Spanish for use on Android and iOS phones and can be downloaded for free through Apple's App Store or Google Play. The app also includes a built-in "Know Your Rights" guide.

"Several recent high-profile cases in Colorado and throughout the country have demonstrated the critical role that cell phone video recordings can play in holding law enforcement accountable for their actions," Nathan Woodliff-Stanley, director of ACLU Colorado, said in a news release. "Recording police is a fundamental right, and we encourage everyone to use it."

Get Mobile Justice Colorado!

Mobile Justice Colorado is a smartphone app that will empower Coloradans to record police and hold them accountable for their actions. It will have four main features:

Record– allows you to record your interactions with police officers in audio and video files that are automatically emailed to the ACLU of Colorado, so that they cannot be deleted or destroyed.

Witness– gives you the option to alert nearby Mobile Justice App users when you are stopped by police so that they can move toward the location and document the interaction.

Report– gives you the option to provide a more-detailed account of your interactions with police in an incident report, which will be transmitted directly to the ACLU of Colorado.

Rights– provides an overview of your rights and how to protect them when recording or interacting with law enforcement officers.

The app will be free for all users.

I know how I feel about it. I'm curious to hear if this is just a win/win - or are there drawbacks?

I'm sure there will be those who see this as intruding on their privacy.

Remember the cops who raided the legally-operating marihuana dispensary, and destroyed the cameras but missed one - who then later went on to say that "them being recorded without their consent is a violation of their privacy?"

Because it happened.

"If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide."

Now where have we heard this before?

Have you heard of, "The YouTube Effect?"

It's utter madness, and is essentially placing blame at video-taping police that is now interfering with their ability to do their job.

Many cops feel like they do not need to be recorded, they don't want to be recorded, and the see it is a violation of their rights and privacy.

The same # us "little peons" have been saying for years.

How holding a PUBLIC servant accountable by the PUBLIC is a bad thing - I simply cannot rationalize.

They just don't want to be recorded, as I would prefer not to, and I can dig that.

Except for I will record every single police encounter, why?

Because police are out there murdering people, its not safe to be around police unless if having a weapon or a camera.

Call it what you will, but a basic Google search (lol) will educate you enough to understand that no other major country has an epidemic of police violence like we do here in the States.

And besides, I would simply not be foolish enough to put my life, my families lives, or any of those I care about lives into the hands of a complete stranger, who is collecting a paycheck.

I do not know any sane person who would.

Bet it won't be too long before a state bill is introduced requiring a certain distance to be kept by all parties not directly involved in an incident.

a reply to: RomeByFire

How holding a PUBLIC servant accountable by the PUBLIC is a bad thing - I simply cannot rationalize.

This is how I feel too. But, I know some police officers will say they'll now be put in a position of not doing something they need to do for fear it will not look good later

Entrapment might become an issue...

Also - I can imagine the ACLU will now be flooded with completely random and unnecessary videos of moms grounding teenage kids, people not picking up their dogs potty and bus drivers not being polite

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: RomeByFire

How holding a PUBLIC servant accountable by the PUBLIC is a bad thing - I simply cannot rationalize.

This is how I feel too. But, I know some police officers will say they'll now be put in a position of not doing something they need to do for fear it will not look good later

Entrapment might become an issue...

Also - I can imagine the ACLU will now be flooded with completely random and unnecessary videos of moms grounding teenage kids, people not picking up their dogs potty and bus drivers not being polite

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Oh no doubt.

Videotaping police matters will soon become "interfering with police matters."

Anyone know what happened back in Rome with the stoning of slaves? If you interrupted the stoning, you were just as guilty as those throwing the stones. If you prematurely ended the throwing, meaning you killed the man being stoned too early, you also, would be found amongst those being stoned.

It's the same principle, IMO. Maybe not having literal stone in hand and chain on wrist, but instead gun in hand and camera on wrist.

It may not be the most perfect analogy and (of course) it doesn't speak to an ultimate truth (again, of course), but I see the parallels as similar enough to compare the two.

Getting involved in a police matter is - you guessed it - interfering. Which, rightly so - I mean, I have no intention of getting in the way of an American police officer while they're doing their thing. I value life, including my own.

But for the sake of discussion; flip the table, it's your wife, or your children being mistreated by police. What do you do? What do I do?

I videotape, because to get involved, almost certainly means death, or at the very least, being branded a criminal.

It is only a matter of time before videotaping itself becomes a matter of interfering with an ongoing police investigation, in my opinion.

Working an any job, there will be security measures, usually in the forms of cameras, metal detectors, etc etc

Why police, a public uniform and public servant, would be against such a thing, is truly telling of the agenda and motives of PD and LEO's across the nation.

For those unaware of The YouTube Effect, here is a few links. The amount of BS is to be determined by you and you alone.

m.washingtontimes.com...

valleycentral.com...

Rather than a bunch of crybabies blaming YouTube and "younger generations," for a supposed rise in violent crime against police officers, here is what the YouTube Effect actually embodies. But don't let that get in the way of your daily dose of propoganda.

foreignpolicy.com...

Interesting stuff.

Where we once blamed guns, now we blame YouTube.

God forbid we blame those committing the acts and blame them solely.

(The flying pizza man told me to do it!)

"We need to ban guns so this doesn't happen again!"

(Ignoring the facts of mental illness leading to ill behaviors, often lethal, and often on a masse scale)

a reply to: Shamrock6

Or the BS law that Illinois tried to come out with. That got slapped down hard and fast by a Federal judge, but they've twisted and modified it to a point that it's just as bad as the original. And it passed with a majority vote.

www.illinoispolicy.org...

The new version is nearly as bad as the old one.

Under the new bill, a citizen could rarely be sure whether recording any given conversation without permission is legal. The bill would make it a felony to surreptitiously record any “private conversation,” which it defines as any “oral communication between 2 or more persons,” where at least one person involved had a “reasonable expectation” of privacy.

When does the person you’re talking to have a reasonable expectation of privacy? The bill doesn’t say. And that’s not something an ordinary person can be expected to figure out.

There’s only one apparent reason for imposing a higher penalty on people who record police in particular: to make people especially afraid to record police. That is not a legitimate purpose. And recent history suggests it’s important that people not be afraid to record police wherever they perform their duties so that officers will be more likely to respect citizens’ rights, and officers who do respect citizens’ rights will be able to prove it.

I question why the authorities can't hold themselves to the same standards they hold the citizens to when they are under surveillance?

"It shouldn't matter if you aren't doing anything wrong."

a reply to: DAVID64

That's mind blowing. I hadn't heard about that, thanks for posting it.

That's just...holy crap. I mean okay, I'm interviewing an assault victim or something, he or she has a reasonable expectation of privacy. But that's on me to not stand on the sidewalk in front of everybody and ask questions. What the hell purpose could a law like this serve during a traffic stop? The officer has an expectation of privacy except when he gets to court and repeats everything you said?

Oh. Okay.

Bring us an app for citizen wrongdoing as well please.

I've seen more of that than abuse by the police.

I'd rather define when there is NOT an expectation of privacy: If you're yelling threats from the street, if you're inside someone else's home, and instances you're aware you're being recorded, like the classic news mic with the channel logo on it.

We have a 2-Party state in PA. You can record public officials in the course of their duties, inc cops. You can't interfere with the cops and a reasonable distance has been defined by supremeo court as like 15ft. Remember, until there is a police line clearly established, you can not be excluded from a scene....same rights a a credential journalist. You have the right to investigate your surroundings.

The law means both parties are AWARE they are being recorded, that is, it's not a permission situation, just knowledge of such. In some districts, merely seeing a camera or recording device is sufficient to make the party "aware" they are recorded. I've been threatened with wiretap charges, but I knew the law better than the judge and police.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Bet it won't be too long before a state bill is introduced requiring a certain distance to be kept by all parties not directly involved in an incident.

Hell, the Dallas Police Officers Association tried to slip a bill through that said the parties in the incident couldn't record or document the incident as well.

a reply to: Shamrock6

The original made it a Federal Offense, punishable by up to 75 years in prison, for recording a police officer. One guy got arrested and took it all the way to Federal Court where the judge slapped it down, thankfully. I've lived in several states and after being here for 15 years, I'm convinced that Illinois's reputation for corruption is well deserved.

a reply to: mikeone718

Average citizens don't take your cell phone and delete the footage.

originally posted by: mikeone718
Bring us an app for citizen wrongdoing as well please.

I've seen more of that than abuse by the police.

you shouldnt see any from the police. you know, the ones who sworn to bring citizen who do 'wrong' to justice...

the ones who take an oath to help stop and protect citizens from 'wrongdoings'.

the fact is there is a statistic for citizen 'wrongdoings' per year and there is statistics for police 'wrongdoings' per year too. and its all getting on par.

there was a principle who got caught up in a high school fight between students and got body slammed in the mix this past week, and there was also a cop who body slammed a female teen student in high school this past week.... i can prove this too. (thanks to you know what)

wt f'in f

... not everyone should be entrusted with authority. if video evidence can help cement that fact or even act as a deterrent , then good.


edit
those in CA, its perfectly legal to record 'them' when ever. just as its legal to record anything out in public.
CAjustice

a reply to: Spiramirabilis


Sounds good... just what we need in this time on increasing brutal police attacks and bully boy cops running around everywhere.

Every little helps.

and of course nobody will be making a list of those who download the app.

I mean what possible use could the ptb have for a list of people who want to catch out the police?

a reply to: johnb

I have s friend who says he was on the FBIs list back in the 60s. He's still doing ok

There really were lists...I'm sure there will be more

In fact - I'm guessing most members of the ACLU are on at least one or two lists

:-)