Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Tuesday April 07 2015, @05:22PM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @05:22PM (#167507) Journal

    Yep -- so I RTFA'd:

    The summary indicates:

    The bill creates a private right of action against a peace officer's employing law enforcement agency if a person records an incident involving a peace officer and a peace officer destroys the recording or seizes the recording without receiving consent or obtaining a warrant or if the peace officer intentionally interferes with the recording or retaliates against the person making the recording. The person who recorded the peace officer incident is entitled to actual damages, a civil penalty of $15,000, and attorney fees and costs.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:06PM

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:06PM (#167513) Journal
    A good correction, but unfortunately the idea still fails.

    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

      by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:09PM (#167545) Homepage
      They'll just need to confiscate more stuff that they think may be the fruits of illegal activity (so-called civil forfeiture) in order to recoup their losses. That camera looks valuable...
      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

      by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:21PM (#167552) Journal

      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.