Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:30PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:30PM (#167527) Journal

    I'd prefer that the officer is directly fined for damages. Money loss is a better deterrent.

     
    If a person drives a forklift for a living and they hit someone they aren't (generally) personally liable. The police definitely need a good reigning in but the same general concept should apply.
     
    Keep in mind that forklift incidents are the leading cause of death in general industry so it's closer to an apple-to-apple comparison than you may think.

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

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Tramii on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:52PM

    by Tramii (920) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:52PM (#167539)

    If a person drives a forklift for a living and they hit someone they aren't (generally) personally liable. The police definitely need a good reigning in but the same general concept should apply.

    If I was struck by accident with a forklift, that's one thing. But if I was struck *intentionally* then yes, I would expect that employee to be personally held responsible.

    Any cop who intentionally seizes/destroys my personal property in order to cover up their misdeeds, should indeed face personal liability.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:07PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:07PM (#167544) Journal

      Any cop who intentionally seizes/destroys my personal property in order to cover up their misdeeds, should indeed face personal liability.

       
      Well now you are talking about intent, conspiracy and the ciminal justice system. Those are very different things with different punishments and evidenciary requirements.
       
      The bill in question does not require a finding of intent, is a civil infraction and has a much lower standard of evidence. The intent part is important because you don't have to prove anything about the Officer's motives.
       
      They newbie cop who is simply mistaken due to too much CSI will also be sanctioned for confiscating your phone.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by chromas on Tuesday April 07 2015, @09:48PM

        by chromas (34) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 07 2015, @09:48PM (#167607) Journal

        They newbie cop who is simply mistaken due to too much CSI will also be sanctioned for confiscating your phone.

        Nothin' wrong with that. He should be familiar with laws before he goes around enforcing them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @04:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @04:24AM (#167727)

      In California, if a school bus driver gets in an accident. The driver IS personally liable. The district may or may not decide to help out with legal expenses (I drove school buses in college, and I quit after this happened to another driver-- the district chose not to help out the 20 yr. old college student).

      In California, if a cop shoots an unarmed, face-down and restrained man in the back, and he and his buddies steal the phones of anybody around to cover up the murder (the murder of Oscar Grant), nothing happens to any of the cops.

      Cops should not be immune from going to jail (probably every cop in the US has committed crimes that would have landed them in jail, if they were not cops), but even some financial burden upon them would probably improve things. Make every settlement involving a cop as well as this $15K damages come out of their pension fund. And, if the pension fund is completely drained (which will happen pretty quickly if current abuse rates by cops hold up), then start using asset seizure, and seize the criminal cop's houses and other belongings (there is precedent for this sort of thing when dealing with criminals).

  • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday April 07 2015, @09:58PM

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @09:58PM (#167613) Journal

    Your employer can dock your pay as a means of reimbursement.

    Side note: I am licensed to operate a forklift in NY and I can confirm that people do some really stupid things while operating them.