Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:49PM   Printer-friendly
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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
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 gman003 on Tuesday April 07 2015, @04:35PM

    by gman003 (4155) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @04:35PM (#167492)

    What if a dirty cop goes free to murder more people because we don't have this?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday April 07 2015, @10:09PM

    by JNCF (4317) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @10:09PM (#167615) Journal

    I think morgauxo was only explicitly arguing against one part of your proposal, the part where we throw out all pending criminal cases the dirty cop had any involvement with. I'm sketchy on how that relates to the dirty cop getting free.

    • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:29AM

      by gman003 (4155) on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:29AM (#167648)

      It's one of those "fear of the punishment keeps people from committing the crime in the first place" ideas, except with the addition that it also punishes those who would otherwise have an interest in hiding the crime. Which is, of course, the real problem with thug cops - they're protected by the rest, for various understandable (but still wrong) reasons, and it takes an extraordinary event and massive effort to break that protection.

      The idea was also motivated by the fact that a thug cop is inherently an unreliable source of evidence, which has obvious effects on the cases they're involved in.

      I will admit that throwing the cases out entirely may be too much - simply excluding all their evidence would suffice for the quality-of-evidence issue. However, our laws are harsh and unforgiving to non-police criminals - I see no reason why the punishment for corrupting the course of justice should be any less brutal.

      • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:15PM

        by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:15PM (#168337)

        "It's one of those "fear of the punishment keeps people from committing the crime in the first place" ideas"

        Why does a cop on his way to prison care about the outcome of what were previously his ongoing cases? He has more personal things to worry about.

        "a thug cop is inherently an unreliable source of evidence"

        I would want to know what the evidence was before determining that and automatically throwing EVERYTHING out. His word? Not worth much. Winesses he discovered? Were they in on the crime with cop or totally unrelated? What is their motivation for testifying? Photographic evidence? Well.. get an expert to check it out, make sure it wasn't photoshopped.

        And how does the case relate to what the cop did? Is a cop who took a camera away because someone was taping him harassing a minority less reliable when he is trying to put a white guy away for raping white women? (reminder - I'm not arguing for keeping the bad cop, only for continuing to prosecute the rapist)

    • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:06PM

      by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:06PM (#168331)

      That is correct