I'm not loitering. I'm trying to catch my breath. Asthma motherfarker

It's an improvement, and that's pretty sad.

Lesbian cop needs a good licking.

So, he never stops walking, but he's loitering. And then she demands his ID which you're not required to give to them. Gee, I wonder why they don't want to be recorded... And apparently loitering is an arrestable offense.

What exactly is the legal definition of loitering, anyway? Is it illegal to be out in public unless you're walking?

What if I record as I walk by?

So, how does news gathering work now? Will the station pay your loitering fines? How about parking that farking van?

If they want to be left alone then don't cover anything - awards ceremony's, when the chief wants to make a public statement -nothing.

Too much power/not enough brains.

REALLY!?!?!
I'm leaving.
REALLY?!?!?

jack21221: What exactly is the legal definition of loitering, anyway? Is it illegal to be out in public unless you're walking?

no lollygaging

It's all in the game.

Lawsuti? These lazy bastards don't even spell-check?

Officer, I am not recording you, I am streaming you. Live. Would you like the URL so you can watch yourself along with the rest of the net?

/beatdown ensues

I demand my right to interfere with and endanger first responders at any and all times.

Legal types, two questions:

1) Has there been any vindication of a constitutional right to video tape police? I thought I remembered hearing something like that, but I can't remember any details.

2) If so, are loitering statutes typically written to cover only loitering with no legitimate purpose? I.e., exercising your very high value constitutional right to record public officers performing their public duties would normally fall outside their scope, since staying in one place to do so is a legitimate purpose?

Will be interesting to see what happens when tiny, wearable cameras become ubiquitous.

RandomExcess: I demand my right to interfere with and endanger first responders at any and all times.

You have a really weird definition of interfere. Police officers aren't uncollapsed wavefunctions. Observing them doesn't interfere.

Honest Bender: So, he never stops walking, but he's loitering. And then she demands his ID which you're not required to give to them. Gee, I wonder why they don't want to be recorded... And apparently loitering is an arrestable offense.

Depends on your locale, but it looks like Maryland is in the clear.

Wiki (new window)

/IANAL
//whee slashies
///*thud*

Baltimore Sun August 5, 2010.

Hanging out on rowhouse steps is a typical Baltimore thing to do. Unless they're not your steps. Then you're loitering. Or trespassing. And probably up to no good. Cops spend their shifts ushering people off corners and other people's steps and they use the loitering law to stop and frisk thousands of people each year. It's harassment to some, a relief to others, and a tool for police to detain people in their war on drugs and guns. Loitering is a rarely prosecuted crime, but frustrated residents across the city have devised unique ways to try to keep people off their steps.

Honest Bender: And then she demands his ID which you're not required to give to them.

I think an officer can ask for ID without arresting you.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the most liberal cities have the most corrupt "public servants"

Unions: How do they work?

Ahh.

He was so distracting to the police that they drop what they're doing, ignore their suspect, and move to the guy filming them from across the street.

There are multiple takeaways, depending on who's version is right:
-That multiple officers standing around an arrest scene are unnecessary to protect any one officer from the person being arrested. (Otherwise, they wouldn't have left him for the photographer)

-That a person photographing the police arresting someone is more of a threat to the police then the person being arrested and calls for a greater share of on-scene resources to be directed towards the photographer.

-Despite the constant statements to the contrary, the police have a specific fear/hatred of any recording directed at the them. They show this when they zero in on a person recording and ignore any other non-recording bystander despite them "loitering" longer and/or standing closer. (not relevant here, but is in so many other cases).

When the police say they have no problem with being recorded then engage in a pattern of behavior that deliberately and singularly targets people recording, this makes them dishonorable and calls into question their credibility.

jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the most liberal cities have the most corrupt "public servants"

Arpaio.

Honest Bender: So, he never stops walking, but he's loitering. And then she demands his ID which you're not required to give to them. Gee, I wonder why they don't want to be recorded... And apparently loitering is an arrestable offense.

Technically, iirc you are required to identify yourself, and truthfully, even though you are not obligated to present actual documentation of your identity as such.

//Only know this because we had to go over the details as part of concealed carry training, since concealed carry actually changes this -- if you're carrying, you have to present ID, including your permit, to any LEO that requests it, whether they're asking for a related reason or not. Failure to do so is one of the many, many ways to lose your permit.

Trance750: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the most liberal cities have the most corrupt "public servants"

I dunno. Dallas County Commish John Wiley Price can run circles around them, in his sleep. and on one leg.

This thread was doing so good until you replied to him.

RandomExcess: I demand my right to interfere with and endanger first responders at any and all times.

Please explain how the person video taping them is endangering them or interfering with them. The guy with the video camera in his hand is the LAST guy the cops should be fearing...unless they're dirty cops. Why? Because the guy recording them is almost certainly not going to attack them and provide them with video proof of his actions.

How do the police explain the justification for a loitering arrest to a judge?

RandomExcess: I demand my right to interfere with and endanger first responders at any and all times.

jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the most liberal cities have the most corrupt "public servants"

Do you think that's a coincidence?

jack21221: What exactly is the legal definition of loitering, anyway? Is it illegal to be out in public unless you're walking?

According to my Black's Law Dictionary:

"The criminal offense of remaining in a certain place (such as a public street) for no apparent reason. -- Loitering statutes are generally held to be unconstitutionally vague."

That "no apparent reason" sounds suspiciously close to "no legitimate purpose" to me. Surely, if you can specify a legitimate purpose for hanging around somewhere--waiting for the bus, smoking a cigarette, or exercising a first order constitutional right to hold government accountable in a lawful, democratic society--you can't be loitering.

I really hope the city ends up paying attorney fees in this case. Better if it could come out of the thug cops' pockets themselves. But under current law, that's not possible.

I can sort of understand "loitering", but why was the lady cop telling him to TURN AROUND and walk away? The guy was walking, why isn't he allowed to walk backwards and film as he is walking away?



donut

How is the legal definition of loitering different from the general definition? To my mind, loitering means standing around not doing anything. This guy wasn't doing nothing, he was recording an arrest.

If the cops aren't doing anything wrong, then why are they so opposed to being filmed? What have they got to hide?

mikefinch: How do the police explain the justification for a loitering arrest to a judge?

They'll bring it up sometime on the back 9, four drinks in.

And I like how it takes 4 of the cops to walk up to the guy to tell him to leave.

zvoidx: Will be interesting to see what happens when tiny, wearable cameras become ubiquitous.

They're already mass produced and affordable. You just to have to buy them from vendors outside the U.S. Or, um, so I've heard.

jack21221: RandomExcess: I demand my right to interfere with and endanger first responders at any and all times.

You have a really weird definition of interfere. Police officers aren't uncollapsed wavefunctions. Observing them doesn't interfere.

Observing police, especially when you're using a device capable of recording video, prevents them from harassing people they don't like with impunity. Therefore, it is interfering.

/and publishing a video of cops arresting, macing, tazing and/or summarily executing someone for Existing While Not Being A Highly Photogenic Rich White Person puts those cops at risk of receiving some sort of punishment, possibly slightly worse than suspension with pay. therefore, filming cops endangers them

Brubold: RandomExcess: I demand my right to interfere with and endanger first responders at any and all times.

Please explain how the person video taping them is endangering them or interfering with them. The guy with the video camera in his hand is the LAST guy the cops should be fearing...unless they're dirty cops. Why? Because the guy recording them is almost certainly not going to attack them and provide them with video proof of his actions.

The fact that police officers don't want to be recorded performing their official duties conclusively proves the need to as much as their on duty conduct as possible. Ideally, an on-duty police officer should never be outside the sight of a camera and a microphone, recording his every move, breath, and word.

I'm walking by verrrrrrrrrry sloooooooooowly. With my phone out.

bugontherug: The fact that police officers don't want to be recorded performing their official duties conclusively proves the need to record as much as their on duty conduct as possible. Ideally, an on-duty police officer should never be outside the sight of a camera and a microphone, recording his every move, breath, and word.

Pardon me.

ggecko: And I like how it takes 4 of the cops to walk up to the guy to tell him to leave.

Two to beat him down if he doesn't cooperate.
One to take his phone and delete the evidence.

One to come post on Fark about how the guy was looking for trouble, the police did everything right, and that we can't know anything for certain until an investigation yields more evidence.

bmihura: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the most liberal cities have the most corrupt "public servants"

Do you think that's a coincidence?

Do you think jehovahs is ever writes a serious post, or more than once in any given thread?

Baltimore loitering statutes.
Important parts:

25-1. Public places.
(a) Definitions.
(1) Loiter.
"Loiter" means:
(i) to stand around or remain or to park or remain parked in a motor vehicle at a public
place or place open to the public and to engage in any conduct prohibited under this
law;

AND

(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to loiter at a public place or place open to the public and
to fail to obey the direction of a uniformed police officer or the direction of a properly
identified police officer not in uniform to move on, when not to obey such direction shall
endanger the public peace.


In other words, it's loitering when the cops tell you to go away and you don't.

Kumana Wanalaia: Arpaio.

Quite true. To which Maricopa county can respond NYC, DC, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, Seattle, Los Angeles (PD and Sherrif's dept.), Chicago. I don't know much about San Fran or Boston PD, do they belong here? Oakland might deserve mention too.

Yeah, Chicago's in there twice-they've really earned it.

Those cities can respond:
Las Vegas (to probably include Metro PD and next door neighbor Henderson PD)
Houston perhaps (though my limited understanding is that Houston is blue in a red state)

and on and on and on...

At the end of the day, you end up with significant corruption in the police departments serving jurisdictions that have, what, 70% of the population?

At any rate, the members of team blue have no basis to claim that the police in their cities are any better.