About the only thing these strangers have in common is the prospect that by spring, they could each be sent to prison for up to 15 years. “That’s one step below attempted murder,” Mr. Drew said of their potential sentences. The crime they are accused of is eavesdropping.
These two individuals recorded the officers who they spoke with, and did not get their permission. There's a few things I think are a little off about this, and the article itself makes many good points. Police don't have to tell us that we are being recorded, and their cars run video and often audio. The article mentions that years ago when these laws were written, it wasn't common for people to have recording devices available. It is completely normal to carry a cell phone, so if the police were to argue that being recorded from the front of a cop car is common knowledge, these two can argue the same case.
Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his organization “absolutely supports” the eavesdropping act as is and was relieved that the challenge had failed. Mr. Donahue added that allowing the audio recording of police officers while performing their duty “can affect how an officer does his job on the street.”
That's sort of the point. It's hard to fake video, and this is a new level of accountability. If officers are conducting themselves properly, then the tapes would just reveal that and offer backup for any cops who found themselves on the stand. Because they are public officials, and the fact that their job is often done in public, it stands to reason that they shouldn't have an expectation of privacy.
Regardless of which way you fall on the topic, it makes sense that expectations of privacy should be redefined. However, it shouldn't be redefined by law enforcement. I'm a little afraid of how it would go down, but at least we would know where we stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment