Police threaten to seize phones if officers are filmed on duty (UK)

[GennGreymane]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ficers-6795298
(Titled alter to indicate this is a United Kingdom issue, not a U.S one. This is because most police threads are about the U.S)

Police have raised concerns about the filming of officers by bystanders
Police have warned that bystanders who film officers making arrests could have their smartphones seized.

The move comes following a rise in the number of videos and still footage of police incidents appearing on social media sites.

The images often go online within minutes of being taken, the Daily Record reports .

Officers have been told to look out for members of the public trying to video them when they attend 999 calls.

Scottish police are concerned a small minority try to intimidate officers in a bid to prevent them performing their duties.

They say the warning isn't a ban on the public photographing incidents but 
anyone obstructing officers may be arrested and have their phones confiscated.

A police spokeswoman said: "Officers are aware members of the public may film them in the course of their duties.

"Such action is not a criminal offence unless it causes an obstruction to the officer carrying out their professional duties.

"Any individual causing an obstruction will be warned about their behaviour.

"If such actions persist, they face being arrested and their equipment being seized.”

GettyPolicePolice: Phone can be seized if officers think people are being obstructive
Two years ago, camera phone footage of two police officers dealing with a difficult motorist in Glasgow who refused to give his personal details became an internet hit.

The officers pulled over a van driver who was suspected of using his mobile phone at the wheel.

He claimed he was eating a banana.

The YouTube video has since been viewed almost 900,000 times.

Association of Scottish Police Superintendents president Niven Rennie said officers generally adopt a common-sense approach to being filmed by the public.

He said: "Officers are made aware during their training that they may be captured on film and how to react."

FBI boss James Comey claims officers being filmed on smartphones has led to a rise in violent crime in the US.

[unbound]

So, citizens are told repeatedly that being monitored is just something you have to accept. But police can expect privacy in public?

WTF?

[Jaelian]

Its about time some proper action is taken on this, too many times I have seen videos of people putting cameras in officers faces when they are trying to do their job, and most of the time the officer isnt able to do anything about it.

I'm pretty sure that no one else would appreciate someone walking into their workplace, and shoving a cameraphone in their face, demanding what they are doing or that they are wrong about the way they are doing their job. Police should be afforded the same courtesys as any other person would.

Luckily when I was serving I didnt have this issue - yeah there was an incident where someone threatened to upload footage of me and my Inspector taking down a drunk who was refusing to do as he was told - but we both happily gave our collar numbers, I never saw any evidence of it.

Also something the Mirror havent pointed out, if someone is filming a crime which is still being committed when the police arrive, and that person decide to shove a phone in to the middle of it, the officer is well within their rights to seize it, as it may contain evidence to what happened and something the officer did not see which can help the case.

[Tradewind]

"obstructing officers" is the key here.

Filming events isn't a problem. Getting in their face with your vertical video recording iphone shouting bullshit is.

[Decra]

Click bait title, basicly if you get in their faces with a camera while they are trying to do their jobs they can take take it off you nothing wrong with that.

[the game]

So UK cops don't like being filmed either? What do they have to lose if they're doing the job right?

[GennGreymane]

Causing obstruction is a vague term though. Its not like they specify what that means.

[Jaelian]

From the Police act 1996

Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both.

So basically if you are preventing an officer from making an arrest by being in their way with a camera phone shouting abuse at them, you probably would be judged to be wilfully preventing him executing his duties.

EDIT: further information from the CPS

A person obstructs a constable if he prevents him from carrying out his duties or makes it more difficult for him to do so.

The obstruction must be 'wilful', meaning the accused must act (or refuse to act) deliberately, knowing and intending his act will obstruct the constable: Lunt v DPP [1993] Crim.L.R. 534. The motive for the act is irrelevant.

Many instances of obstruction relate to a physical and violent obstruction of an officer in, for example, a public order or arrest situation. This standard only deals with conduct which can amount to an obstruction in the context of an interference with public justice.

[procne]

Causing obstruction is a vague term though. Its not like they specify what that means.

Yes, it is vague. What does this article change though?

To me the article states the obvious - police will stop people obstructing their work. It has always been like that. It has often been abused in many countries through the past decades. It has often been not abused too. What's new?

Although your thread title is not vague at all, so you did all the judgement already.

Vague statement by police officer, not vague judgement by a news "reporter", plus a sensationalist thread title. You would do a great job in some tabloid

[GennGreymane]

Thread title is the exact article title. Only alteration is stating its a UK measure to avoid automatic clickbait.

[Cerus]

Its about time some proper action is taken on this, too many times I have seen videos of people putting cameras in officers faces when they are trying to do their job, and most of the time the officer isnt able to do anything about it.

I'm pretty sure that no one else would appreciate someone walking into their workplace, and shoving a cameraphone in their face, demanding what they are doing or that they are wrong about the way they are doing their job. Police should be afforded the same courtesys as any other person would.

Luckily when I was serving I didnt have this issue - yeah there was an incident where someone threatened to upload footage of me and my Inspector taking down a drunk who was refusing to do as he was told - but we both happily gave our collar numbers, I never saw any evidence of it.

Also something the Mirror havent pointed out, if someone is filming a crime which is still being committed when the police arrive, and that person decide to shove a phone in to the middle of it, the officer is well within their rights to seize it, as it may contain evidence to what happened and something the officer did not see which can help the case.

What a bullshit comparison. Police are public servants paid for BY the people. Not some office lacky in the private sector.

[procne]

Thread title is the exact article title. Only alteration is stating its a UK measure to avoid automatic clickbait.

So, after reading that article, seeing its sensationalist title, and how vague the quotes are, still thought it's worthwhile to repost it?

Is Mirror one of those sensationalist tabloids in UK?

[Cerus]

Causing obstruction is a vague term though. Its not like they specify what that means.

It's whatever the particular officer wants it to mean at any given moment. Easiest form of police power abuse.

[the game]

UK is quickly turning into a police state. this needs to be stopped. Body cameras should be in place and better training of the cops needs to be done.

[Strangebrew]

"I don't have anything to hide"

[Jaelian]

What a bullshit comparison. Police are public servants paid for BY the people. Not some office lacky in the private sector.

I think people forget that despite police being Public Servants they also pay taxes to the same value that everyone else does, so technically they also pay for themselves.

You dont see people going up and shoving cameras in the face of Paramedics, or even the Fire Brigade - who are also public servants, so they shouldn't for the Police.

UK is quickly turning into a police state. this needs to be stopped. Body cameras should be in place and better training of the cops needs to be done.

I wouldnt agree the UK is becomng a police state in any way - But I agree for the protection of officers and those they interact with body cameras should be mandatory for every officer - training for UK officers is fine, having been a Special Constable (who get compressed training) I felt I was given enough to be able to go out confidently and serve - however followup and retraining is required, this isnt done enough for officers as things change.

[ComputerNerd]

From the Police act 1996


So basically if you are preventing an officer from making an arrest by being in their way with a camera phone shouting abuse at them, you probably would be judged to be wilfully preventing him executing his duties.

EDIT: further information from the CPS

And if your filming is negatively influencing the behaviour of those involved, then that is also obstructing.
Unless you have a damn good reason to film it, DON'T.

[GennGreymane]

I think people forget that despite police being Public Servants they also pay taxes to the same value that everyone else does, so technically they also pay for themselves.

You dont see people going up and shoving cameras in the face of Paramedics, or even the Fire Brigade - who are also public servants, so they shouldn't for the Police.

Except there are huuuugggggeeeee differences in the duties and rules of police vs fire depts or paramedics.

[Strangebrew]

I think people forget that despite police being Public Servants they also pay taxes to the same value that everyone else does, so technically they also pay for themselves.

You dont see people going up and shoving cameras in the face of Paramedics, or even the Fire Brigade - who are also public servants, so they shouldn't for the Police.

Nor do paramedics and the fire brigade go around wearing you know, a gun.

[Noradin]

Thread title is the exact article title. Only alteration is stating its a UK measure to avoid automatic clickbait.

The title seems to have no foundation in the actual text of the article.
Maybe you shouldn't just copy/paste in cases such as this?
Just because it is the original title of the post doesn't make it any less of a bait and you are responsible for reposting it and for adhering to the forum rules.
Just resposting it like this imples it mirrors (no pun intended) your own opinion on the matter.