Posted on

Glen Rock Police have issued a statement concerning video taping and photography at police incidents

Glen Rock, Labor Protests Upset Quite Neighborhood in Glen Rock

October 18,2017

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Glen Rock NJ, the Glen Rock Police have issued a statement  concerning video taping and photography at police incidents .

Glen Rock Police : We have heard that some people have been questioning the fact that photos of juveniles and others have been taken at police incidents in the past by members of the press or public.

The taking of photographs and/or videos by private citizens and media personnel is permitted within areas open to general public access and occupancy and is permitted under the US Constitution in the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Christopher Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Department, et. al.). No citizen has the expectation of privacy when they are in public regardless of their status as a victim, juvenile or offender.

A civilian may video record or photograph a police and public safety activities as long as they:
1. Remain at a reasonable distance;
2. Do not interfere with the duties and responsibilities of police and other public safety personnel;
3. Do not create a safety concern for the officer, a person detained, a victim, other persons or themselves.
A citizen’s right to record police activity is coextensive with that of the press. There should be no burden on an individual’s right to record police activity than they place on members of the press. A citizen does not need “press credentials” to record police officers engaged in the public discharge of their duties.

FYI :

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause

The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868, after the American Civil War, and addresses the equal protection and rights of former slaves. The 14th amendment limits the action of state and local officials. In addition to equal protection under the law to all citizens, the amendment also addresses what is called “due process”, which prevents citizens from being illegally deprived of life, liberty, or property.

Posted on

Legal showdown looms on cellphone privacy

168912_1826785114023_8079435_n

Legal showdown looms on cellphone privacy

APRIL 6, 2014    LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, APRIL 6, 2014, 1:21 AM
BY KIBRET MARKOS
STAFF WRITER
THE RECORD

As new technology continues to collide with privacy rights, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments this month in two cases involving police searches of cellphones that could have a major impact on the privacy of everyone who carries a mobile device.

The cases are being watched closely by the country’s top civil liberties groups, privacy advocates and constitutional scholars, many who’ve joined in with filings in defense of privacy. The high court’s stand will guide how courts across the country will apply constitutional privacy rights and the safeguards against unreasonable searches in the age of smartphones, tablets, phablets, Google Glass and “wearable” computers.

“Technology changes the nature of the game,” said Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at Vanderbilt University and author of “Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment.”

“The justices would need to rethink what the Fourth Amendment is all about,” he said. The amendment protects against unreasonable searches.

It was discord between courts at opposite ends of the country that landed the issue before the justices. In one case, police arrested Brima Wurie of Boston in 2007 on suspicion of selling drugs, and, after taking him to a police station, they seized two cellphones and searched his call log.

– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/legal-showdown-looms-on-cellphone-privacy-1.842607#sthash.keVxwnli.dpuf