Categories
Recent Blog Posts
Recent Forum Posts
In a 6-1 decision the Michigan supreme court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that police officers have a right to privacy while on the job. The suit was filed by a former police officer who was included in a DVD documenting a Dr. Dre concert when him and other officers tried to shut the concert down. The supreme court ruled that while on the job police officers have no right to privacy and can be video taped freely.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of rapper Dr. Dre in a case involving a very important legal principle — whether the police have a right to privacy while performing their duties. The state high court said no.
The suit was filed by Gary Brown, now a Detroit City Councilman but formerly a high-ranking police official. He and other officers were videotaped while threatening to shut down a concert featuring Dre and Eminem if they showed a sexually explicit video. The video was then included in a DVD produced about the tour.
The court, in a 6-1 ruling, dismissed the suit, saying that there is no right to privacy for police while on the job. The implications of this ruling are far more important than they may seem initially because it explicitly makes it legal in the state of Michigan to record the police while they perform their duties.
Read more: http://michiganmessenger.com/47523/m...les-for-dr-dre
The suit was filed by Gary Brown, now a Detroit City Councilman but formerly a high-ranking police official. He and other officers were videotaped while threatening to shut down a concert featuring Dre and Eminem if they showed a sexually explicit video. The video was then included in a DVD produced about the tour.
The court, in a 6-1 ruling, dismissed the suit, saying that there is no right to privacy for police while on the job. The implications of this ruling are far more important than they may seem initially because it explicitly makes it legal in the state of Michigan to record the police while they perform their duties.
Read more: http://michiganmessenger.com/47523/m...les-for-dr-dre
Michigan is certainly no stranger to unfair and illegal arrests of citizens videotaping police. In 2009 a bar owner was arrested after trying to video tape cops on the scene of his friend's suicide:
Police knew Colligan had a license to carry a concealed weapon and decided to search him for a gun. Colligan told the officers he was carrying his gun, which was taken away.
Colligan then began videotaping from N. Meridian Road. Green told Colligan to hand over the camera and Colligan refused. A short struggle for the camera ensued in a ditch, Green testified.
Moments later, Colligan was placed in handcuffs, which he resisted, Green said.
The prosecution contends Colligan's failure to follow orders hindered Green from doing his job at the crime scene.
Colligan then began videotaping from N. Meridian Road. Green told Colligan to hand over the camera and Colligan refused. A short struggle for the camera ensued in a ditch, Green testified.
Moments later, Colligan was placed in handcuffs, which he resisted, Green said.
The prosecution contends Colligan's failure to follow orders hindered Green from doing his job at the crime scene.
In Maryland a man is facing 16 years in prison for posting a video of a cop on YouTube, the state is alleging the man broke wiretapping laws:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...008566,00.html
So it's great to see such a high court rule in a 6-1 majority that cops have no right to privacy when they are on the job and we can video tape them freely. This shouldn't even be a question. And hopefully we will see similar decisions in our federal courts.
vBulletin Message