Cops Would Be Liable Arresting Citizens For Recording Under Conn. Bill

[CaseAgainstFaith]

The Connecticut state senate approved a bill Thursday that would allow citizens to sue police officers who arrest them for recording in public, apparently the first of its kind in the nation.

As it is now, cops act with reckless immunity knowing the worst that can happen is their municipalties (read: taxpayers) would be responsible for shelling out lawsuits.
Senate Bill 245, which was introduced by Democratic Senator Eric Coleman and approved by a co-partisan margin of 42-11, must now go before the House.

The bill, which would go into effect on October 1, 2012, states the following:

    This bill makes peace officers potentially liable for damages for interfering with a person taking a photograph, digital still, or video image of either the officer or a colleague performing his or her job duties. Under the bill, officers cannot be found liable if they reasonably believed that the interference was necessary to (1) lawfully enforce a criminal law or municipal ordinance; (2) protect public safety; (3) preserve the integrity of a crime scene or criminal investigation; (4) safeguard the privacy of a crime victim or other person; or (5) enforce Judicial Branch rules and policies that limit taking photographs, videotaping, or otherwise recording images in branch facilities.

    Officers found liable of this offense are entitled, under existing law, to indemnification (repayment) from their state or municipal employer if they were acting within their scope of authority and the conduct was not willful, wanton, or reckless.

http://www.pixiq.com/article/connecticut-senate-approves-bill

I wonder if this will make cops more conscience to how they conduct themselves or if they will really care in the end and it still be "business as usual".

[TenfoldMaquette]

I wonder if this will make cops more conscience to how they conduct themselves or if they will really care in the end and it still be "business as usual".

Given that they've been handed no less than five exemptions from having to follow this bill - and all of them broadly worded enough as to encompass just about any scenario you can envision - I'm inclined to think the later.

[erictheblue]

At first glance, this law is pointless. Police already have immunity from suit for actions carried out as part of their official duties. The exception is if they violate a person's civil rights. So either the officer is carrying out duties (and is immune) or is actually violating civil rights and is already liable. Governmental immunity has been found in the US Constitution and cannot be revoked by the states. 

[Osama bin Bambi]

It's actually very easy to secretly take videos of people now that most smartphones have cameras. Spies have been doing it for decades. So even if this law didn't pass, it wouldn't stop anonymous citizens from submitting electronic evidence they collected.

[Sylvana]

It's actually very easy to secretly take videos of people now that most smartphones have cameras. Spies have been doing it for decades. So even if this law didn't pass, it wouldn't stop anonymous citizens from submitting electronic evidence they collected.

I think the point of this bill is so that citizens don't need to take that evidence secretly. I doubt it will really have any effect though. Those exemptions are so broad that being anywhere in the vicinity can give the police grounds to confiscate someones camera. Personally I would love a law like this in my country. Whenever the bodyguards which are police officers screw up and kill an innocent they ruthlessly hunt down anyone who might have evidence against them.

[Shano]

At first glance, this law is pointless. Police already have immunity from suit for actions carried out as part of their official duties. The exception is if they violate a person's civil rights. So either the officer is carrying out duties (and is immune) or is actually violating civil rights and is already liable. Governmental immunity has been found in the US Constitution and cannot be revoked by the states. 

My personal interpretation would be that the law actually defines the scope of the governmental immunity not its existence. Indeed one cannot expect that any and all actions that an officer performs while in uniform are part of their official duties.

[The Bright Angel]

Nicely done Connecticut. Glad their some check to any government immunity. Makes them more accountable to the people.