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

[Kalis]

There is, but there is a lot of different jurisdictions and case law on it, which is used to define it.

Then why do you think the Scottish police will suddenly abuse obstruction laws, when they've been on the books for so long?

And why do you use the Mirror as a source? They are a tabloid. Why not use more reliable media that actually present an attempt at balance in their articles?

[GennGreymane]

For the people that need a TLDR. It's always been a crime to get yourself involved when the Police are arresting someone, the advent of smart phones didn't change this. If you want to stand on the other side of the street and record no one's going to stop you but if your getting yourself in the mix because you want to take a selfie with the arresting officers whilst they go about your duty then the police will tell you to go away, if you fail to comply they will take your smart phone since you've just demonstrated how utterly unready you were for such a powerful piece of technology.

Or we can have people filming way across the street having their phones taken away.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why do you think the Scottish police will suddenly abuse obstruction laws, when they've been on the books for so long?

And why do you use the Mirror as a source? They are a tabloid. Why not use more reliable media that actually present an attempt at balance in their articles?

I was describing the U.S. I mean you did bring up the U.S first after all.

[Kronik85]

Or we can have people filming way across the street having their phones taken away.

The article specifically describes the situation in which you will have your phone seized, it says when your causing obstruction. You can't cause obstruction from the other side of the street.

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.

[Kalis]

I was describing the U.S. I mean you did bring up the U.S first after all.

I was referring to post #67, which was your reply to Shadowmelded talking about law in the UK, not US.

[GennGreymane]

The article specifically describes the situation in which you will have your phone seized, it says when your causing obstruction. You can't cause obstruction from the other side of the street.

Yes you can. They will find a way to say you did. I do not like vagueness in laws.

- - - Updated - - -

I was referring to post #67, which was your reply to Shadowmelded talking about law in the UK, not US.

And my quote was to you as you did mention the U.S and I described how it in the U.S, but you said something about it being Scotland I was describing.

[Kalis]

And my quote was to you as you did mention the U.S and I described how it in the U.S, but you said something about it being Scotland I was describing.

This thread is about Scotland, I pointed out that the US is likely to have similar laws to obstruction and as you are training to be a lawyer, then you should have some knowledge of obstruction.

You're going to need to explain why you think this law will be abused now, when they aren't changing the law, just explaining it to the public.

[Noradin]

Yes you can. They will find a way to say you did. I do not like vagueness in laws.

That is independent of whether you have a phone out or not, and doing anything to the phone after they confiscate it is a crime.

[Kronik85]

Yes you can. They will find a way to say you did. I do not like vagueness in laws.

That's one for you and your lawyer mind I guess. The UK Police force don't seem to be doing it now though and they have always had access to this power so I don't see much reason for a dramatic shift in behaviour.

[GennGreymane]

This thread is about Scotland, I pointed out that the US is likely to have similar laws to obstruction and as you are training to be a lawyer, then you should have some knowledge of obstruction.

You're going to need to explain why you think this law will be abused now, when they aren't changing the law, just explaining it to the public.

What are the limits? That is my answer. What is obstruction? That is my answer. I could ask you and 100 other people, and I will get 101 different answers and 101 different situations.

[Kronik85]

What are the limits? That is my answer. What is obstruction? That is my answer. I could ask you and 100 other people, and I will get 101 different answers and 101 different situations.

Precedent? It's a big deal in the lawyer world isn't it?

[GennGreymane]

Precedent? It's a big deal in the lawyer world isn't it?

Depends on where you are. Although I believe Scotland and the U.S are set up in a similar way. If its newer action then there is not as much precedent which means in the mean time, we will see a lot of what can be seen as an abuse of power.

- - - Updated - - -

You should always be cautious when things are vague.

[Kalis]

What are the limits? That is my answer. What is obstruction? That is my answer. I could ask you and 100 other people, and I will get 101 different answers and 101 different situations.

Look up the law.

No police officer will get away with claiming obstruction if the person filming is clearly not interfering, the police aren't interested in creating additional work for themselves or collecting smartphones.

You aren't allowed to obstruct a police officer in the course of their duties as it stands, this is clarification for idiots who decide to get involved so they can put a video on Youtube, most people know not to obstruct the police anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Precedent? It's a big deal in the lawyer world isn't it?

Does Scotland work on precedent? They have a different legal system to England & Wales.

- - - Updated - - -

If its newer action then there is not as much precedent which means in the mean time, we will see a lot of what can be seen as an abuse of power.

Obstruction isn't new.

[Kronik85]

Obstructing a Police Officer - section 89(2) Police Act 1996
The offence of obstructing a police officer is committed when a person:

wilfully obstructs
a constable in the execution of his duty, or
a person assisting a constable in the execution of the constable's duty.
It is a summary only offence carrying a maximum penalty of one month's imprisonment and/or a level 3 fine.

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.

Examples of the type of conduct which may constitute the offence of obstructing a police officer include:

warning a landlord that the police are to investigate after hours drinking;
warning that a police search of premises is to occur;
giving a warning to other motorists of a police speed trap ahead;
a motorist or 'shoplifter' who persists in giving a false name and address;
a witness giving a false name and address;
a partner who falsely claims that he/she was driving at the time of the accident but relents before the breathalyser procedure is undertaken;
an occupier inhibiting the proper execution of a search warrant (if the warrant has been issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act, see also s.23 of that Act);
refusing to admit constables into a house when there is a right of entry under s.4(7) of the road Traffic Act 1988 (arrest for driving etc while unfit through drink or drugs).
Regard must be had to the factors outlined General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance which identify conduct too serious to charge as an obstruction. Then consideration should be given to charges of assisting an offender, or perverting the course of justice refer to Misrepresentation as to Identity, elsewhere in this guidance.

I bolded the bit I thought was most relevant. This law has been in effect since 96 so see if you can find any instances of the Police arresting someone for obstruction who wasn't anywhere near the incident.

[Xenryusho]

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

The issue is that it being that vague allows them to stop people not obstructing them in any real way as well, because they don't want evidence of their misdeeds and abuse of power being recorded. This allows them to take bystanders recording devices, then proceed to beat an unarmed man to death, and claim he was pulling a weapon and oh whoops look no evidence to say otherwise!

[Kronik85]

Does Scotland work on precedent? They have a different legal system to England & Wales.

I've no idea, poor choice of words on my part too. I was asking Genn to provide an example where they had behaved in the way Genn was fearful of.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue is that it being that vague allows them to stop people not obstructing them in any real way as well, because they don't want evidence of their misdeeds and abuse of power being recorded. This allows them to take bystanders recording devices, then proceed to beat an unarmed man to death, and claim he was pulling a weapon and oh whoops look no evidence to say otherwise!

This is in the UK.

[Kalis]

The issue is that it being that vague allows them to stop people not obstructing them in any real way as well, because they don't want evidence of their misdeeds and abuse of power being recorded. This allows them to take bystanders recording devices, then proceed to beat an unarmed man to death, and claim he was pulling a weapon and oh whoops look no evidence to say otherwise!

The police won't beat someone to death in the street. They have cells in the station for that.

[Kadil]

Just being in public does not give others a free reign to film you.

Depends on the country, here is does. I have a GoPro on my helmet and a dash cam in my car and if it records you walking across the road I can put it on Youtube or whatever and it's perfectly legal. You can cover your face if you see my camera but you can't touch my camera to stop me recording. The only time someone can't publish a video recorded in public is if it's a recording of a crime that is still under investigation, jury bias and all that.

[Kalis]

Depends on the country, here is does. I have a GoPro on my helmet and a dash cam in my car and if it records you walking across the road I can put it on Youtube or whatever and it's perfectly legal. You can cover your face if you see my camera but you can't touch my camera to stop me recording. The only time someone can't publish a video recorded in public is if it's a recording of a crime that is still under investigation, jury bias and all that.

Publicly recorded videos in Scotland are mainly going to be like this...

[Noradin]

Depends on where you are. Although I believe Scotland and the U.S are set up in a similar way. If its newer action then there is not as much precedent which means in the mean time, we will see a lot of what can be seen as an abuse of power.

- - - Updated - - -

You should always be cautious when things are vague.

England and the US, Scottland is different.

[AeneasBK]

Typical sentence by a Scot.

Samurai Jack is amazing.