Between this sort of thing and the Free Range Kids stuff, I'm very worried for the US.

Classic case of a "contempt of cop" charge. I wish her well in the inevitable lawsuit.

I'm predicting that she will easily win a civil rights lawsuit; proving that the first amendment is alive and well. Unlike the dead career of this idiot cop. I love that he thinks he can just issue nonsensical "orders" to a peaceful and lawful citizen and make up law as he goes along.

This isn't a Constitutional crisis, its an idiot who needs to lose his job and a city that needs to be held accountable for putting such a poorly trained knucklehead in a uniform.

Well America, we had a good run...

Isn't it peculiar how police uniforms have gotten so much more militaristic and the military's missions have been turning into police missions...

Here in the Peoples' Democratic Republic of Illinoistan, it's illegal to record the police doing their thing. It's a felony here.

Yeah. But we were born free.

To those of you who think this is no big deal or that this woman will be able to sue the police:

This is a much bigger problem than you think. Cops routinely get away with this nonsense, using vague laws about interfering with police activities or wiretapping. Cops claim that they have a right of privacy and can't be recorded, but YOU, of course, have no such right when they routinely record you from their dashboard cams.

People go to jail for filming cops; it's not a joke and this is not an isolated instance.

There is a proper response to uniformed thugs harassing citizens.

It was demonstrated at Lexington and Concord a while back.

Ooohhhh boy that is going to be a pretty lawsuit for the city. My support is with you Emily.

I thought this would be about the extra boost the Government just gave to college speech codes. Wrong again.

Those lawsuits are interesting. Harm to the officer is exactly zero. Meanwhile, the Rochester taxpayer takes another beating.

I'd think it would be more productive to have the legislature affirm the right to record public actions by the police in performance of their duties, but they are busy beating their girlfriends or something.

I so wish I had a camera on me two years ago when. Was pulled over for speeding. I was speeding, but the cop was so violent in his manner, he made my seven year old in the backseat cry out of fear. He concluded his interaction with me by calling me a dumb bitch. When I went to complain to his Sargent, I was told it was his word against mine, and they had no reason to believe me. Or my kid.
Uh huh.

Here in the Peoples' Democratic Republic of Illinoistan, it's illegal to record the police doing their thing. It's a felony here.

Dude, in your state they will put you in jail for 14 years if you hit a construction worker on the highway.

You'll do less time if you just shoot the motherfucker.

@TJIC - That's what I'm afraid of. I don't want to have to shoot my neighbors to defend my rights. I like my neighbors. Frankly, I don't want to shoot anyone.

Here in the Peoples' Democratic Republic of Illinoistan, it's illegal to record the police doing their thing. It's a felony here.

Is there any legal action pending surrounding that law? It would seem like filming or photographing police actions (provided you are not disrupting them) should be protected by the First Amendment, as described above. I'd be surprised if that law would be able to survive Constitutional scrutiny.

When I went to complain to his Sargent, I was told it was his word against mine, and they had no reason to believe me.

The presumption that the word of a police officer is worth more than that of a private citizen is broadly shared by other police officers, government officials, prosecutors, and the public at large (i.e., a jury of one's peers). This is why being able to record the police is so important; often, it is the only way to rebut that presumption.

"The officer who arrested her talked about how he didn't feel 'safe' with her behind him."

Riiiight.

Here in the Peoples' Democratic Republic of Illinoistan, it's illegal to record the police doing their thing. It's a felony here.

Illinois, California have become fiefdoms, where elections don't matter much. B.O., Rahm, Jerry, ... it's becoming like Syria or Lybia.

One thought I had about this was whether the officer, in claiming he did not feel "safe" with the woman standing there was invoking a situation intended to give him some veneer of legal cover for his unlawful orders to the woman. I.e., that a cop can legally order you around in ways he could not otherwise if you are engaging in activities that might give him reason to believe his safety might be compromised. I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case. Anybody else know if this is the case?

Granted this is based just one hearing part of one interview with the police chief, but this is an area where LAPD may be progressive: He said that they encourage taping and in fact are installing video cams in the police cars (which of course isn't the same thing as citizen taping, but seems like a good idea nonetheless).

[sarcasm] I completely understand where that officer's coming from. I'd feel unsafe, too. After all, he only had a gun, a truncheon, a stun-gun, and possibly some pepper spray; she had a video camera. Imagine the damage that could have been done with that. [end sarcasm]

*sigh*

None of this bodes well for our future. 1984, anyone?

"Those lawsuits are interesting. Harm to the officer is exactly zero. Meanwhile, the Rochester taxpayer takes another beating."

Agreed. But it's the taxpayers that continue to vote for government officials who allow this sort of thing to occur regularly because they want to feel "safe" so it makes sense that they should pay for it. It puts the burden of paying for their poor choices back on them.

I believe him. I would not feel safe with her behind me either. Did the rest of you miss the area this is in? Not unrealistic for a cop to think someone might take a shot at him.

I've had cops tell me to go inside before when something was going on. They don't need distractions like that. It's no different than drs making people leave the room when they are concentrating on working on someone. Drs don't let you videotape, either.

If every cop car had videos, it wouldn't be an issue. Plus, she's sounding awfully whiny, not assertive. I HATE that tremulous whiny tone she's using. A lot of women use it. HATE it.

Momof4, I see your point, and I don't blame the cops for being on edge in that part of town. But they still don't have any good reason to arrest her. If she was standing there being beligerant or with her hands in her pockets concealing a weapon, it would be one thing. She's not.
She is on her own lawn. She is holding a video camera, not a gun. She's not interfering with the stop. She's not even talking. She's a non threat. What is there to make him feel "unsafe"? Now, they can ASK her to go inside because she's being a distraction. They can REQUEST for her to stop videotaping because it makes them uncomfortable. They cannot ARREST her for not doing so. Their "orders" in this case are not legally binding and she is not obligated to follow them. Being a distraction is perhaps annoying to them, but not illegal.
Sorry but your Doctor comparison doesn't fly. Doctors don't perform medical procedures in a public space. Cops may not like it, but that's part of the job.

"Anybody else know if this is the case?"

It is, at least in California (which, I realize, is not where this video is from). "Officer safety" is used to justify detentions, pat searches, and other police actions that would otherwise be impermissible. This woman was probably booked under the NY equivalent of Cal. Pen. Code section 148, which prohibits resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer. The cops will probably claim that her distracting them with her presence and her camera obstructed their ability to do their job.

Ms. Good was charged with violating this New York criminal statute:

§ 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference. . . .

Judging from the video, the prosecutor will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Good's physical proximity to the police officer amounted to an intentional obstruction. I don't see any other act that might violate the statute, and the police officer obviously made her physical proximity an issue.

I can imagine a videographer could interfere with police officers during an arrest by being too close so that the officers reasonably felt endangered, either because they were distracted from the suspect or because the videographer was physically threatening. But, if I was the judge and relied on only the videotape, I'd have to say that there was no reasonable grounds for the officer to feel endangered. The officer and the suspect were on the other side of the police car from the videographer, my guess would be 15 to 20 feet away. Unless the videographer threatened to interfere before she turned the camera on (which actually the police officer suggests by stating that she said "very anti-police things"), I think she's in the clear.

Before we nominate Ms. Good for citizen of the year, though, I think a little background may help, especially for these sentences from the WHEC news report:

I-Team 10 has learned she's no stranger to police. She was arrested in March with a group of others who tried to block a home on Ravenwood Avenue from foreclosure.

Hmmm. A search on the WHEC website for "Ravenwood" brings up this.

One by one, police arrested members of the housing advocacy group Take Back the Land Rochester. They had staged an eviction watch from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the house for the last two weeks. . . . City Councilman Dana Miller, who lives on the next block, says he was troubled by the large police presence. But he said a marshall tried to serve the eviction papers a couple weeks ago and was met by a large group of protesters. Miller says the protesters yelled insults at the Marshall, who asked for police assistance today.

So is this the community activists standing up to the big, bad banks? Well, I guess you can read it that way if you think mortgages, foreclosure and eviction are illegitimate. Me, I think the evicted grandmother had more than an opportunity to put things right:

A spokeswoman for Fannie Mae in Washington paints a much different picture. She says, according to Bank of America which owns Countrywide, Lennox claimed recently she didn't know who to send the payments to, and in fact made no payments for two years. There is no record of payments since 2008.

Here's a freebie legal tip: if you're unsure to whom you make your mortgage payments, or if two different companies are claiming a right to the payments, put the payments into an escrow account until the problem is resolved. Don't think you can get away without paying. Even if this woman was unsure to whom to send her payments, that doesn't absolve her from failing to pay on her mortgage for two years.

Back to Ms. Good. She and her activist buddies intimidated a marshal who came to serve a lawful eviction order. The marshal returned with a large police escort to perform his legal duty. Instead of obeying the lawful, reasonable police requests that they vacate the premises, Ms. Good and her friends were arrested and physically removed.

That history makes it more likely in my mind that Ms. Good wasn't living up to her name on the night she made that video. I wouldn't be surprised if she said some rather inflammatory things to the police before she turned the camera on. Her previous arrest for interfering with an eviction isn't admissible as evidence to prove she obstructed the police again; however, if she tries to defend herself with testimony about how she obeys reasonable police commands-- bingo, the prosecutor can rebut those claims with her history. And if she makes a Section 1983 civil rights claim against the police, her previous behavior of intimidating the marshal will be admissible to show that the police responded appropriately to her presence on that night.

So, yeah, I think citizens have the right to videotape the actions of police. I'm not sure that Ms. Good is a great flag-bearer for that cause.

Ed Hering wrote:

Here in the Peoples' Democratic Republic of Illinoistan, it's illegal to record the police doing their thing. It's a felony here.

Ugh. If anyone wants to see a poorly drafted statute, Illinois' eavesdropper statute is an example: make a broadly described action illegal (recording conversations without consent), and then carve out a multitude of exceptions and qualifications.

Not only is the result objectionable, the statute is practically unreadable.

Of course we should all remember the advice on Amy's post a few months back about not talking to the police without your attorney present. Here's a few simple guidelines to keep you out of trouble:

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

(Yes yes, it's the ACLU, but the advice is still sound.)

It is odd how much local government trod on people's right, yet people still think of the "big bad federal government."

Even into my youth, there were states and local governments that would stop people form voting, from free speech, and from marrying someone of a different race.

Today, there are local governments that can downzone my property, or take it by eminent domain. If I start a jitney service, serve alcohol, grow pot on my own property or try to sell it, practice prostitution, and even start up a push-cart food vending service, the local government will stomp on me. They can stop me from putting up a large sign on my property. I could go on, but the list is endless. Often local governments are deep in bed with local business to prevent competition. The entire liquor industry comes to mind.

These punky cops should have ignored to annoying lady with her stupid camera.

I believe him. I would not feel safe with her behind me either.
You're too trusting of the police. I suppose if you've never been unfairly hassled by the police or threatened with arrest without cause, that makes sense. I got fucked with enough as a teen to know better.

I don't believe him.

If a cop is scared of a woman armed only with an iPhone, it's not his health he's worried about. He just didn't want anyone recording him while harassing that guy. And he was mad because she didn't obey his unlawful order. So he arrested her. As noted by others above, it was for contempt of cop, not for being a potential threat.

If every cop car had videos, it wouldn't be an issue.

That would solve it. I'm sure that cops would preserve video of their malfeasance. The only thing that will solve things is if it's legal for anyone to record the police in the execution of their duties at any time, so long as he is not interfering. In this case, the woman was not interfering, she was not being threatening.

Plus, she's sounding awfully whiny, not assertive.

She sounded terrified. But still had the guts to stand up to that asshole. Good on her.

UW Girl, sometimes it works out. Many years ago, we lived in an apartment complex. The local police doubled as security. One day, they decided to harass my teenage daughters friend. THREE police cars showed up and the lead officer acted like a bully. When I attempted to talk to him in a reasonable manner, he threatened me with arrest. I called his commanding officer, who dismissed the whole thing.

Just recently, I moved back to the same apartments. I brought this incident up with the manager. She said that had ceased to be a problem when the city hired a new police chief three years ago and he truly cleaned house by firing all the bad apples and cancelling all moonlighting contracts. (Since then, someone told me that all the bad apples were hiring by the city just south of us, which explains why they have the worse reputation in the area.)

Unfortunately I forsee the phrase, inadmissible evidence being applied to th recording.
The neighbors however can be witnesses.
Though the idea of calling 911 on the police hits me as laughable.

Plus, she's sounding awfully whiny, not assertive.

She sounded terrified. But still had the guts to stand up to that asshole. Good on her.

I couldn't agree more, Christopher.

Imagine, momof4, that this happens to your daughter in about 15 years. I'm sure you don't think it will or could....but just imagine that's your daughter standing up for her rights and what she believes in. I wonder if you will be able to bring yourself to be disgusted by her whiney and if that's all you're able to remember (nothing of her brevity)....I know your kind and have known them....you only learn when it happens to you. LAME.

kg, if my child is arrested, I imagine I'll do what my parents did when I was arrested. Sympathize. Help her find a lawyer. Make sure she knows why she was arrested in the hope it doesn't happen again. Freak out on the cops? Doubtful.

My dad beat my ass once for not going inside when the cops were next door doing something, and the cops hadn't even asked us to yet. So I doubt I'd have a lot of sympathy.

Why should she have been terrified? Was she afraid she was going to get shot? Hmmm.....

Why should she have been terrified? Was she afraid she was going to get shot? Hmmm.....

No. Just guessing, but I assume she was scared of getting arrested. Asserting your rights against a bullying cop is frightening thing to do, because you know you might end up in jail for doing so. Which is why too few people do it – and our freedoms get narrowed as a result.

I usually try to avoid rude comments, but stuff like this really pisses me off. So, stop reading if you are easily offended. Have we hit the point where a cop can tell you to suck his cock and, if you refuse, he can arrest you for not following his order?

momof4,

I have five kids...four biological, one adopted. My oldest is 23 and youngest is 11...only two left at home. You don't know shit until you have raised a couple of teenagers. I understand you got it all worked out...I completely understand. And it's funny.

I'm still disgusted that you called the girl whiney when she clearly wasn't. She is a brave girl. I am proud of her diligence. These charges, if they stick, could affect every aspect of her professional life now and in the future. She takes a huge risk in exercising her rights against brute force. Nothing whiney about that.

Think about what would've happened if the officers beating Rodney King had been able to stop the guy from videotaping them.

Yeah, they would have all been automatically convicted, with no evidence that King was resisting arrest, even after being beaten to the ground multiple times.