NYPD Drops Controversial Videotaping But Doesn't Tell NYCLU

After spending thousands of dollars in legal fees trying to stop the NYPD from videotaping political demonstrations, the NYCLU was surprised and angered to learn recently that the police department had already changed its videotaping practices back in April 2007 without telling them. The Times reports that had lawyers known this, they would have dropped the lawsuit, because the NYCLU is okay with the more restrictive rules, which allow videotaping only where there is illegal activity or for crowd control. Now they're demanding that the city reimburse them for legal fees, and also give them a heads up when they make policy changes. The NYPD insists that they notified both the court and the NYCLU, but one of the lawyers tells the Times, "It reminds me of that cartoon where somebody is running at a wall over and over, and suddenly the door opens, and you realize nobody told you there was a door there." Photo cred.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in News on November 11, 2008 4:01 PM

Comments [rss]

henricus

So wait...you are saying you don't want documentation of what occurs at protests? Riiiight. So Critical Mass protesters and others can throw up their videos which often have careful editing in place and be unchallenged.

And #5...what makes you think that your opinion is so important that you can disrupt my daily life? I saw what you did there though, trying to link your opinion to some kind of patriotic load of crap. Do you really think you convince anyone via protests? Mostly you make angry whose life you disrupt. Try reason rather than the mob sometime...

Jerky

There was an agreement in place that was removed

under the Bush/Giuiliani/Bloomberg "...we're doing it to find terrorisits..." excuse:

Handschu v. Special Services Division

http://www.nyclu.org/node/1084

"...The case was settled with a consent decree entered in 1985, in which the Police Department was prohibited from investigating political and religious organizations and groups unless there was "specific information" that the group was linked to a crime that had been committed or was about to be committed. The decree also established a system of record-keeping and procedures for approval of investigations by a three-member body, called the Handschu Authority. The system was designed to create a "paper trail" in order to ensure against abuse......

In September 2002, the New York City Police Department moved to modify the 1985 consent decree upon the claim that the decree impeded the Police Department’s efforts to investigate potential terrorists......

On Feb. 27, 2008, the Court ordered the NYPD to provide plaintiffs records of its videotaping practices. Plaintiffs sought production of these documents to help determine if the NYPD had been routinely videotaping political demonstrations in the absence of any reason to believe that criminal activity had occurred or was about to occur."

Outter Burrougher

legalist, as far as i know, that is the essential difference: what can then be done with the video.

i'm reminded of one of my college history professors talking about the Stasi (East German secret police). as a person, she was horrified by the cruel and oppressive behavior of the organization; as an historian, she loved them because you could go into their archives (now that there is no East Germany; obviously not so much before the wall fell) and see literally everything that went on. you could look up every single group that was not fully in favor of the government, you could look at a list of every person who attended every meeting and what was said. hell, the stasi were so pervasive that there were supposedly meetings where there were more secret police than actual dissenters.

my point is not to draw a direct comparison, but rather to say that this is the fear.

Legalist

By the essential difference, I do not mean "The police can use that against you. Protestors are just practicing their rights," unless that is the difference that counts.

Legalist

Can someone explain succinctly the essential difference between protestors taping police and police taping protestors? Just to clarify.

longacre

#5: It's one thing to assemble in front of the UN or City Hall or march over the Brooklyn Bridge.

It's quite another thing for dozens of bikers to speed through red lights and put pedestrians in danger.

schadenfreudian mensch

@longacre

"If you're a peaceful protester, you shouldn't care. If you're disruptive and block traffic and break the law, i.e. many Critical Mass riders, then yes, I want the cops to have you on tape."

RIIIIGGGHHHTT. So long as you don't make any waves, don't be disruptive, be acquiescence people will listen to you. It's only when they inconvenience you that they become a problem because the world revolves around you. Gosh. They should have done that prior to the Revolutionary War. Just protesting in silence and peacefully and Mother England would be well on her way back to the UK. Brilliant! Why didn't the forefathers of this country figure that one out?

NYCSniper

Interesting headline. Wouldn't it be great if Gothamist had an anti-Gothamist headline week. (i.e - go with THE OPPOSITE of your gut reaction, Jen).

And regarding the cartoons: I've never seen one like that either. Usually, the mischievous (i.e.-puck-ish) character *paints* a tunnel on a regular wall, upon which a rube slams.

longacre

If you're protesting in public, anyone can videotape you for whatever reason they want. If you're a peaceful protester, you shouldn't care. If you're disruptive and block traffic and break the law, i.e. many Critical Mass riders, then yes, I want the cops to have you on tape.

peanuthead

APRIL 2007????????

B U L L S H I T!!!!!

i have seen plenty of videotaping since then - done by folks in both undercover and uniform - definitely as recent as this summer.

of course, what can one expect. the NYPD has proven to be pathological liars!