Disappeared News

by Larry Geller

The camera was running during the April 12, 2011 incident posted on the MauiTime website but the protagonists weren’t camera shy. MauiTime publisher Tommy Russo was able to record his own alleged assault by one of the security guards accompanying “Dog” Chapman and his entourage.

Later, when Maui Police arrived, he reports he was roughly confronted and told by an officer that he couldn’t take videos of the officer without consent.

Russo’s report documents what must have been a very ugly incident. Russo chose to assert his rights despite the police offer’s insistence that he must turn his camera off. The audio is clear, and the letters “MPD” appear on the officer’s shoulder if the picture brightness is turned up a little.There is enough detail to identify the officer who was speaking.

With the camera running, Russo has at least audio documentation of the incident.

Russo stood his ground. I imagine that most people would turn off the camera when requested to do so by the police. Perhaps that’s what separates journalists from the rest of us. In doing so, the incident became the most recent example of police insisting that they have a right to not be videoed or recorded. In some states that has become law and is being challenged. In other states wiretapping laws are abused by police. For example:

Troubled by the Maryland State Police's abusive use of state wiretap laws to prosecute a motorcyclist who posted a YouTube video of an MSP trooper making a traffic stop with his gun drawn, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland is providing legal counsel to ensure that First Amendment principles are protected and that citizens are able to hold law enforcement officials accountable through legitimate use of cameras and audio recorders.

[ACLU,org, ACLU Defends Rights of Citizens to Monitor Police by Representing Motorcyclist Prosecuted by State Police, 5/28/2010]

Related:

Almost a year ago in Honolulu, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms was caught on camera by a TV crew assaulting two peaceful protestors (see story here and here). In that incident also, an attempt was made—in front of the camera—to stop the videorecording. That incident is the subject of a civil lawsuit by the protestors that will no doubt cost taxpayers a bit of money.  Of course, this raises the issue of education of law officers, but it also reminds us that in our civil society, law officers seldom face meaningful consequences for their acts against ordinary civilians.

Russo doesn’t indicate in his article if he plans any legal action or what complaints he may file. Maui residents should be concerned, not only because they, too, may fall victim to law enforcement that doesn’t understand the law, but because taxpayers end up footing the bill for settlements.

(In my own insignificant incident last year I did stop taking pictures when a cop told me to do so, even though I knew I had a right to continue. It wasn’t that important to me, and arresting me would probably make his day and ruin mine.)

The issues raised by the MauiTime article are compound. The violent world depicted in “Dog the Bounty Hunter” it is not supposed to spill over into real life, and a citizen, journalist or not, is entitled to protection from police abuse.

Permalink posted by Larry @ 4/15/2011 05:26:00 PM