There has been some review of the legality of recording the actions of police officers when interacting with members of the public:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-illinois-effort-to-block-people/article_17e62e6a-ee48-52fe-92ac-3e0315892d31.html
In Canada, the public became much more aware of the persuasive power of videotaped, or otherwise recorded, police interactions with members of the public through the Robert Dziekanski incident. Here was fairly clear evidence (in the best sense of that word) that the RCMP officers arriving at this prolonged scene, acted with some degree of haste in their efforts to control Mr. Dziekanski. As we now know, Dziekanski died as a result of this interaction with the RCMP and the Braidwood Inquiry (Parts One & Two) have provided police, policy-makers, and politicians with substantial insights into the use (and abuse) of Conducted Energy Weapons (CEDs), as well as, surfacing organizational, operational and procedural difficulties directly relevant to the RCMP.
Whether it's referred to as 'citizen journalism' or simply a form of freedom of expression, it seems completely reasonable that members of the public should be permitted, perhaps encouraged, to record the actions of public servants who are tasked with the provision of public safety, law enforcement, assistance to victims, emergency response, and crime prevention. Police leaders across Canada speak in terms of their openness to increased accountability, integrity, professional standards, and transparency. Clearly, transparency is by its very nature a concept that countenances the capacity of citizens to record, retain, and reproduce the work done by police officers.
In the United States it should suffice to merely mention one name: Rodney King. The videotaping of the Los Angeles Police Department officers in their actions toward Mr. King made for compelling viewing and left little doubt as to the culpability of the officers involved. They also served to ignite riots in LA as a backlash to this particularly violent form of police brutality.
In the United Kingdom, the images captured by a bystander were of a local newspaper seller, Ian Tomlinson, being slammed from behind by a large constable. It was quickly determined that Tomlinson was disabled and his death sent some serious ripples through the community in response to this behaviour on the part of the police. As with the G20 protests in Toronto (Ontario), those which took place in London, England brought riot officers out in considerable numbers.
In the case of Ian Tomlinson, the events surrounding his death challenged the public's trust in the police. Ultimately, the conduct of the officer involved in Tomlison's death, PC Simon Harwood, was found guilty of gross misconduct and was relieved of duty. The Metropolitan Police were compelled to offer a public apology for this officer's actions. However, in a move that is analagous to the events surrounding the death of Robert Dziekanski in Vancouver as a result of multiple applications of a TASER weapon by the RCMP, the Metropolitan Police initially found no wrongdoing on the part of their officers and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) were not told about witnesses to this incident for a considerable length of time and it was videotaped evidence provided by a member of the public which provided the leverage for decisive action.
Clearly, the police, as public servants, need to be protected in the pursuit of their lawful duties and activities. Accordingly, it seems appropriate the police officers should have access to the latest in recording equipment and technology to ensure that they are safe in their workplaces. However, it stands to reason that these same technologies should be available to the public for use when things go awry, as they did for Rodney King, Robert Dziekanski, and Ian Tomlinson.
No comments:
Post a Comment