Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

New Bill in Colorado Would Protect the Right to Record Police

posted by janrinok on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the 'give-me-your-Bill'-said-the-officer dept.

bookreader writes:

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
New Bill in Colorado Would Protect the Right to Record Police | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 41 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:19PM

    by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:19PM (#167450) Homepage
    Indeed, this law really ought to be redundant, as, unless there's a prior law that explicitly permits officers to curtail recording and/or confiscate equipment, it's never been permitted. If there is such a law, then alongside the introduction of this new law, the old law should be repealed. Lack of such a repeal implies lack of such a law.

    So I'm in two minds over whether this is a good thing. A simple decision setting precedent using only prior legislation would have been better. Something which didn't burden the tax system (the taxpayer pays the $15K ultimately) would have been better too, actual punishment for the infractor more than just a mark on his record ditto.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2