Citizen Surveillance and Law Enforcement

“…secure the blessings of liberty…”

The founders and framers knew that if a government designed on the principles of democratic self-rule were to succeed, for themselves and their posterity, the adherences to the laws of their fledgling nation would need to be followed and respected by all her citizens; failure to do so would result in nothing but a dissolution of the republic and a return into the despotic rule of an anointed sovereign.

Their wisdom has guided this nation for more than two and a quarter centuries, and we as a people have accepted that America is a nation of laws, laws that must apply to all, lest they apply to none.

To secure our freedom, we entrust our law enforcement officials with wide ranging powers and a scope of enforcement that has no rival in the world.

It is therefore troubling to discover that some law enforcement agencies have opted to pressure state legislatures to impose restrictive sanctions upon its citizens if they, in the act of proper citizenship, hold police accountable for those officers’ actions.

To wit:

With the advent of cell phone videotechnology, more and more public conduct is captured digitally and posted on numerous Internet outlets designed the presentation for such public videos.

A recent case in point has received little notice, but should be troubling to the American electorate and thus must be addressed as a critical matter of public policy.

(as is the policy of the Madison Conservative, when appropriate, the specific names of the individuals involved have been omitted, to protect their privacy and to remain focused of the larger issue at hand)

The news reported this specific story as follows:

The video in question shows the 2009 Preakness. A woman lies bleeding on the ground inside Pimlico Race Course in Maryland after an altercation with police.

“How many times are you going to punch her,” someone yells at the five or so cops, who are holding the woman on the ground.

“Was that necessary?” another person screams.

An officer at the scene can be heard telling bystanders to stop videotaping the incident with their cellphones.

“Turn that off,” he says, claiming it’s “illegal” to tape the police in a public place. –(emphasis ours- in Maryland, the law can be construed to make this claim truthful))

 Questioned about the incident, a former detective and pro police organization spokesman offered this response:

“Police officers do not need citizens out there with cameras videotaping each and every move that they make.”

He says cameras get in the way of good law enforcement.

“They interfere with the arrests and, actually, that's exactly what happened with that arrest in Baltimore.”

He’s examined the videotape from Pimlico and he says spectators with cameras made the whole incident worse.

“These individuals were standing back hollering, taunting the police,” he said. “They were interfering and obstructing the arrest.”

The video itself is still available online, and citizens can make their own opinions relative to the conduct of the officers in question, and the video does not show what instigated the arrest or the conduct of the woman prior to the video being started.

For this issue, those particulars are not important, nor relevant.

The issue and the question that necessitates judicial clarification is the one that provides constitutional guidance to the citizenry.

Are the citizens of a free and democratic republic, allowed to record their law enforcement officials, in action? These police personnel are entrusted with a broad range of discretionary powers and they provide the security for the people of this nation, but are they immune to being recorded?

The questions of interference are clear; restricting the police from performing their duties is wholly unacceptable, as are attempts to video undercover or stealth based investigations. The issue is, if in no way a hindrance to the lawful fulfillment of their responsibilities, can an American citizen videotape the police?

For those who choose to ponder this question without resolution, it is suggested to consider in what other country is this even a debate?

That is not a lightly posed query: it goes to the heart of the answer.

If America is to remain free, a nation of laws, then no one, especially those entrusted with the safety of municipalities across this great nation, should be allowed to remain immune from those laws.

As our founders wisely instructed us, if we do not enforce the laws for all, we cannot enforce them for one, and that is a first step to the dissolution of the greatest democratic republic the world has ever known.