Legal Research

Police and Cameras

By Michael Lines

It seems Canada is not experiencing the same level of conflict over the issue of citizens photographing police as our neighbours are. In the UK, the US, and Canada, the general rule seems to be that a person is allowed to take pictures of whatever is visible while standing in a public place. But, as always, the devil is in the details.

In the UK the Counter Terrorism Act of 2008 makes it an offense to photograph certain types of police (see s. 76) where the photos could be useful to a terrorist (with the onus of proof on the defendant). The section works in conjunction with section 43 of the Terrorism Act of 2000, which allows officers to stop, question and search people suspected of terrorism. The sections open the door to perceptions of racial profiling and other tough subjects.

In the US there has been any number of conflicts around this activity, perhaps the most incendiary in recent years being the police killing of Oscar Grant in Oakland, where citizen videos of the incident played a role in court. Contrary to the ambiguous legality prevailing in many states, where wiretapping laws seem to be often applied to restrict recording that has an audio element, Connecticut has introduced a Bill acknowledging the legality of such recording and providing a civil remedy.

Charmingly, this Montreal incident, where a citizen claims to have been concerned for the safety of the officers, and therefor approached a patrol car with camera rolling, seems to have had a pretty reasonable outcome. When the sleeping officers awoke, they noted the ‘citizen journalist’s’ failure to park correctly, and issued him a ticket.

Not to trivialize this issue, of course. It is an approach to issues of police abuse of power, and as in Libya right now, of speaking truth to power generally. Here is a nice article looking at some of the history and where we are today.

Full post as published by Slaw.ca on March 04, 2011 (boomark / email).