SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the 'give-me-your-Bill'-said-the-officer dept.
In the light of the heated discussions about a certain bill signed in Indiana, here is a more refreshing news about a proposed bill in Colorado. The state of Colorado is considering a bill that outlines punishments for police officers who interfere with photographers. House Bill 15-1290 is titled "Concerning Prohibiting A Peace Officer From Interfering With A Person Lawfully Recording A Peace Officer-Involved Incident".
The bill states that if a person is lawfully documenting a police officer and then has their imagery seized or destroyed without a warrant, they are entitled to $15,000 for actual damages plus attorney fees and costs. The bill also would be applied when a police officer intentionally interferes with a person's ability to capture images.
It seems the bill came up as a result of the number of news reports about police officers telling people "Give me your camera", or taking the data away.
The story is covered further in The Denver channel and PetaPixel.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:15PM
If they were not, there would be no need for this law, prosecutors would *already* have cops in the dock all across the country under charges starting with deprivation of civil rights under color of law, and continuing in many cases with asault and theft via threat.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday April 07 2015, @05:17PM
I haven't read the law but there is a huge clue that says it isn't going to work that way: attorney fees. Note that there is no mention of jail time. This sounds like they are creating a private __civil__ cause of action. No prosecutor involved anywhere. You get your camera trashed, go hire a private attorney and sue. If you win, the city pays you $15k and whatever it cost to sue it (legal fees and costs).
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Tuesday April 07 2015, @05:22PM
Yep -- so I RTFA'd:
The summary indicates:
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:06PM
Even without the prosecutor involved, courts are still loathe to mess with police, but even if it works perfectly as written, so what?
The award comes out of the taxpayers pocket, not the offenders. And if you think a $15k judgement will get someone fired, think again. Many cops around the country have triggered much larger payouts and it's extremely rare to see one lose their job over it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:09PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:21PM
I agree that the officers should face personal consequences, but the flip side of that is that if the officer is judgment proof, and the law did not specifically say you can sue the police department, it might actually be weaker because you couldn't collect anything. Plus without the law, their would sovereign immunity issues most probably.
So -- is it perfect? No. Does it address the problem? Yes, in the most important way possible: front page headlines specifically pointing out that it is legal to video cops. The teeth it has are to make that headline happen.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:10PM
The whole idea, unfortunately, fails. The new law is unlikely to ever be enforced, for all the same reasons that the many already existing laws on the books will not be. Prosecutors are deathly afraid to offend the police.
This bill allows citizens to sue directly over infractions. No prosecutor required