Woman arrested for refusing to hand over video camera

[Bob Hubbard]

Arrest witness loses freedom for 18 hours over video
Officer who tried to seize woman's camera is fighting 15-day suspension for disobeying sergeant
By Phil Trexler
Beacon Journal staff writer
Published on Monday, Jan 25, 2010

For parts of two days, the 48-year-old woman was confined in the Summit County Jail before she made bail.

Her crime: refusing Officer Schismenos' demands that she turn over the camera she used to document his arrest of a rowdy drunk.

His supervisors say the officer went against his sergeant's orders ''to let it go'' and instead slapped Watkins with a felony arrest warrant.

Charges against Watkins were ultimately no-billed, or dismissed by a county grand jury, and now Schismenos is fighting a 15-day suspension.

The Watkins confrontation last summer has also put Schismenos on the radar of the city's police auditor.

''I don't understand how one can only be given 15 days for taking someone's freedom away from them, locking them up for two days, disobey a direct order, be less than truthful during an investigation and file false charges against someone,'' said Phil Young, the city's police auditor.

Schismenos did not respond to a phone message and e-mail note seeking comment. He eventually declined comment through his union president, citing department policy that prohibits officers from publicly commenting without authorization.

However, in police documents released by the city, Schismenos is contesting his suspension and is insistent that he handled Watkins' arrest properly.

http://www.ohio.com/news/82574547.html
http://carlosmiller.com/2010/01/25/ohio-officer-fights-suspension-over-wrongful-video-camera-arrest/

Reading the news story, it looks to me that the officer over stepped his authority. It also looks like the woman was rude, however being rude to a cop is not a crime worth a night in jail. Of note is the fact that charges against her were dropped.

Regarding Akron, I worked there a decade ago doing IT work inside City Hall. City reminded me of a cleaner and safer Buffalo. I quite liked it there and never ran into any cops that made me nervous. Every one I did was rather polite and professional.

 

[Carol]

This wasn't a still camera, it was a video camera. That's where things get messy. Video cameras typically record audio along with the video, and according to the article there was definitely audio recorded.

Ohio is a single-party consent state, which means at least one party to the conversation must know about the recording. If this was a recording of a policeman arresting a drunk and neither the policeman nor the drunk were advised of the recording, then she broke the law. Much like a manager cannot hide a tape recorder in the company lunch room to record the conversations of his reports.

Note: because security cameras and CCTV cameras do not capture audio, they do not run afoul of the law.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Local law prof says he needed a warrant though.

 

[Carol]

Local law prof says he needed a warrant though.

Ohhh....well, that does muck it up a bit.

 

[CanuckMA]

Public 'event' in a public place?

 

[Carol]

Public 'event' in a public place?

Appears to be so, but the laws and practices regarding audio recordings are different than that of still images.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It also looks like the woman was rude, however being rude to a cop is not a crime worth a night in jail.

We used to call it "Felony Contempt of Cop." No, that's not really a crime. Just a lot of cops thought it ought to be.

 

[Cryozombie]

Ohio is a single-party consent state, which means at least one party to the conversation must know about the recording. If this was a recording of a policeman arresting a drunk and neither the policeman nor the drunk were advised of the recording, then she broke the law.

No. Not if she was party too and made the consent. If her voice appeared on the tape making a comment in any way, she was a participant and therefore could give the one party consent.

 

[Carol]

No. Not if she was party too and made the consent. If her voice appeared on the tape making a comment in any way, she was a participant and therefore could give the one party consent.

Good point! The police officer knowing she had the camera prolly helps too.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Akron cop fighting suspension ends up with triple the time

The mayor wrote the following in a letter to Schismenos, according to the Akron Beacon Journal:

“Your actions have brought disrepute to the Akron Police Department and yourself by causing both to be cast in a negative light to the public,” Plusquellic wrote in a letter to Schismenos. ”Additionally, you have been counseled previously about your interactions with citizens.”
”The severity of your disregard for your sergeant’s reasonable directive to you warrants the maximum penalty,” the mayor wrote in his letter. ”Your blatant disregard for your sergeant’s reasonable directive led to a citizen spending a night in jail prior to the charges against her being dropped.”
​

 

[shesulsa]

It's about damn time someone stood up for the citizen. Good job.

 

[Gordon Nore]

From reading Bob's link above, it sounds like there were other problems with the officer.

On the one hand, I appreciate some of the frustration officers might feel being recorded on cameras and camcorders. I feel that I do my job well, but I would not want to see my day-to-day works put on YouTube for other people's entertainment.

The officer demanded the woman to turn over personal property without cause; he ignored the directive of a superior; he put a citizen in jail for not yielding to his demand. Abuse of power, plain and simple.

 

[Ken Morgan]

I feel that I do my job well, but I would not want to see my day-to-day works put on YouTube for other people's entertainment.

Ahhh come on Gord! Show us some video!!

 

[Gordon Nore]

Ahhh come on Gord! Show us some video!!

If you insist.

I'm the guitar god in the video.:headbangin:

 

[Ken Morgan]

If you insist.

I'm the guitar god in the video.:headbangin:

Gord, that was great!!
If I lived in Toronto I'd be happy that my tax dollars pay your salary!

 

[Makalakumu]

If this was a recording of a policeman arresting a drunk and neither the policeman nor the drunk were advised of the recording, then she broke the law.

Carol, can you provide a link to the actual law? I see documentary film makers using cameras without advising subjects all of the time. Some of these subjects are police and they claim they are protected by the 1st amendment. Are they also breaking the law?

 

[shesulsa]

If you insist.

I'm the guitar god in the video.:headbangin:

Dude, you rawk!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

In the US, -ANY- individual in plain view in a public place can be photographed, without the subjects consent.

That includes cops. If I see a cop sitting on a park bench, I can take his photo. He has no, zero, ziltch, right to touch me, touch my camera, insist on reviewing the shots, order me to delete them, or delete them himself.

I challenge any cop who thinks otherwise to produce a specific law that says so.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm


See also http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-rights_x.htm

The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions:
• Certain military installations or operations.
• People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens.

Video usually falls under the same laws AFAIK.

This shows some information on recording conversations with links to sate resources
Is it legal to record a conversation with a person without their knowledge or consent?


Ohio Law

Ohio
It is not a crime to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication if the person recording is a party to the conversation, if one party has consented to taping, or if the conversation is not taped for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious offense. Ohio Rev. Code ann. § 2933.52. Under the statute, consent is not required to tape a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Ohio Rev. Code ann. § 2933.51(b). The Ohio Supreme Court has held that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation in their communications, for purposes of the wiretapping law. State v. Robb, 723 N.E.2d 1019 (Ohio 2000).
Cordless telephone conversations purposely picked up by a neighbor’s baby monitor were considered “oral communications,” accompanied by a reasonable expectation of privacy. Ohio v. Bidinost, 644 N.E.2d 318 (Ohio 1994).
Illegal interceptions are felonies and also carry potential civil liability for the greater of actual damages, $200 per day of violation or $10,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees, and litigation expenses. There is a two-year statute of limitations to bring a civil action. Ohio Rev. Code ann. § 2933.65.
Ohio also has anti-voyeurism law that prohibits surreptitiously invading a person’s privacy for sexual purposes. Ohio Rev. Code ann. §2907.08.

 

[blindsage]

SWEET, so I can sue that show Cheaters before they air the footag...uh..hehe....just, um, nevermind. :uhoh:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Publication is different that recording. Just because I took your picture, doesn't mean I can do anything I want with it. That's a whole different topic. Usage Rights.