Effects of Local Police Breaking The Law

The ruling by the most senior judges in England and Wales says that the current police policy of indefinitely keeping DNA profiles of people arrested but never convicted is excessive and violates privacy rights. Chief constables have continued collecting the DNA profiles of everyone arrested, whether they are convicted or not, and keeping them indefinitely on a national database. This is despite a ruling by the European court of human rights more than three years ago that it was a breach of privacy rights. More than 200,000 new DNA profiles of innocent people have been added to the national police DNA database since the ruling that their blanket retention was unlawful in February 2008, bringing the total to more than 1.1 million."It is important that, in such an important and sensitive area as the retention of biometric data by the police, the court reflects its decision by making a formal order to declare what it considers to be the true legal position. But it is not necessary to go further."Two of the seven judges in the case dissented, saying the appeals should have been dismissed when



Rule #1: Know the Law (Wherever You Are)



Conceived at a time when pocket-sized recording devices were available only to James Bond types, most eavesdropping laws were originally intended to protect people against snoops, spies, and peeping Toms. Now with this technology in the hands of average citizens, police and prosecutors are abusing these outdated laws to punish citizens merely attempting to document on-duty police. If you saw any



Rule #2 Don’t Secretly Record Police



In most states it’s almost always illegal to record a conversation in which you’re not a party and don’t have consent to record. Massachusetts is the only state to uphold a conviction for recording on-duty police, but that conviction was for a secret recording where the defendant failed to inform police he was recording. (As in the Glik case, Massachusetts courts have ruled that openly recording police is legal, but secretly recording them isn’t.)



Rule #3: Respond to “Shit Cops Say”



When it comes to police encounters, you don’t get to choose whom you’re dealing with. You might get Officer Friendly, or you might get Officer Psycho. You’ll likely get officers between these extremes. But when you “watch the watchmen,” you must be ready to think on your feet.



Rule #4: Don’t Share Your Video with Police



If you capture video of police misconduct or brutality, but otherwise avoid being identified yourself, you can anonymously upload it to YouTube. This seems to be the safest legal option. For example, a Massachusetts woman who videotaped a cop beating a motorist with a flashlight posted the video to the Internet. Afterwards, one of the cops caught at the scene filed criminal wiretapping charges against her. (As usual, the charges against her were later dropped.)



Rule #5: Prepare to be Arrested



Keene, New Hampshire resident Dave Ridley is the avatar of the new breed of journalist/activist/filmmaker testing the limits of the First Amendment right to record police. Over the past few years he’s uploaded the most impressive collection of first-person police encounter videos I’ve ever seen.

Local Police Breaking The Law is the biggest problem in these day's.











The ruling by the most senior judges in England and Wales says that the current police policy of indefinitely keeping DNA profiles of people arrested but never convicted is excessive and violates privacy rights. Chief constables have continued collecting the DNA profiles of everyone arrested, whether they are convicted or not, and keeping them indefinitely on a national database. This is despite a ruling by the European court of human rights more than three years ago that it was a breach of privacy rights. More than 200,000 new DNA profiles of innocent people have been added to the national police DNA database since the ruling that their blanket retention was unlawful in February 2008, bringing the total to more than 1.1 million."It is important that, in such an important and sensitive area as the retention of biometric data by the police, the court reflects its decision by making a formal order to declare what it considers to be the true legal position. But it is not necessary to go further."Two of the seven judges in the case dissented, saying the appeals should have been dismissed when Local Police Breaking The Law . The ruling was brought following an appeal by GC, who was released without charge after being arrested for a suspected assault on his girlfriend in 2007 and C, who was acquitted of rape allegations in 2009.Their requests for the DNA profiles and fingerprints to be destroyed were refused by the Met commissioner. The new legislation is going through parliament in the protection of freedoms bill proposed by the home secretary, Theresa May. If you choose to record the police you can reduce the risk of terrible legal consequences and video loss by understanding your state’s laws and carefully adhering to the following rules. 5 rules according policeConceived at a time when pocket-sized recording devices were available only to James Bond types, most eavesdropping laws were originally intended to protect people against snoops, spies, and peeping Toms. Now with this technology in the hands of average citizens, police and prosecutors are abusing these outdated laws to punish citizens merely attempting to document on-duty police. If you saw any Local Police Breaking The Law then inform the authority.In most states it’s almost always illegal to record a conversation in which you’re not a party and don’t have consent to record. Massachusetts is the only state to uphold a conviction for recording on-duty police, but that conviction was for a secret recording where the defendant failed to inform police he was recording. (As in the Glik case, Massachusetts courts have ruled that openly recording police is legal, but secretly recording them isn’t.)When it comes to police encounters, you don’t get to choose whom you’re dealing with. You might get Officer Friendly, or you might get Officer Psycho. You’ll likely get officers between these extremes. But when you “watch the watchmen,” you must be ready to think on your feet.If you capture video of police misconduct or brutality, but otherwise avoid being identified yourself, you can anonymously upload it to YouTube. This seems to be the safest legal option. For example, a Massachusetts woman who videotaped a cop beating a motorist with a flashlight posted the video to the Internet. Afterwards, one of the cops caught at the scene filed criminal wiretapping charges against her. (As usual, the charges against her were later dropped.)Keene, New Hampshire resident Dave Ridley is the avatar of the new breed of journalist/activist/filmmaker testing the limits of the First Amendment right to record police. Over the past few years he’s uploaded the most impressive collection of first-person police encounter videos I’ve ever seen.is the biggest problem in these day's.

Author Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives November 2013

Categories All

Law

RSS Feed