Op-Ed

Controversy Over Videotaping Cops

Published

10 years ago

April 13, 2015

By George E. Curry
NNPA Columnist

Feidin Santana, the young Dominican immigrant who videotaped North Charleston, S.C. police officer Michael Slager firing his gun eight times, killing Walter Scott, an unarmed Black man who was fleeing, was a hero. His quick decision to videotape the unfolding action on his telephone led to the arrest of Slager for murder.

However, in some states, instead of being hailed as a hero, Santana would be the one behind bars.

Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have used their wiretapping laws to prevent videotaping police in public places. Some states are moving in that direction.

But, as we can now see, videotape can be a game changer.

This was vividly illustrated in 1991 with the brutal beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles. More recently, the July 17 choking death of Eric Garner in New York City was captured on video as he pleaded, “I can’t breathe.”

Thanks to a passerby, we also saw the July 1 video of a California Highway Patrol Officer Daniel Andrew straddling Marlene Pinnock, a 51-year old Black woman near a Santa Monica freeway and punching her 10-15 times. She reached an out-of-court settlement that required a $1.5 million payment and the resignation of Andrew.

Although no one can creditably deny the value of citizens being able to videotape on-duty police officers operating in public spaces, courts are sharply divided on whether that’s protected under the First Amendment.

In an article titled, “The Legal Right to Videotape Police Isn’t Actually All That Clear,” the Atlantic Citylab noted, “… The truth is that courts have not uniformly recognized that a right to record police actually exists. Though the U.S. Department of Justice has expressed its support for the right to record, only four federal appeals courts have ruled that such a right exists; others have either not ruled at all or narrowly rules that no right had been ‘clearly established.’”

I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV. But the best available legal advice seems to be that generally speaking, it’s legal under the First Amendment to videotape on-duty police officers as long as it is on public property and you are not interfering with them performing their official duties. As noted above, some state laws ban such recordings.

One legal site, findlaw.com, recommends that you:

• Tell police you are recording them;
• Comply with their requests to step back or identify yourself;
• Keep your camera out of the way (low and close to your body); and
• If need be, calmly remind them of your right to film them.

Another site, reasons.com, lists seven rules for recording police, including knowing your state’s law and passcode protecting your cellphone.

Given recent success, you can expect police unions around the nation to push for legislation that would bar citizens from videotaping such incidents involving police.

Even before the recent spree of police killing African Americans, there was strong resistance. A woman in Rochester, N.Y., for example, was arrested and charged with obstructing governmental administration in 2011 after videotaping three White police officers interrogating a Black man from her front yard. Charges were later dropped against the woman, Emily Good, 28.

What would have happened to Officer Slager in South Carolina had there been no videotape?

In a word –nothing.

In fact, the officer had radioed, “Shots fired… Subject is down. He grabbed my Taser,” a charge not supported by the videotape. Instead, what we see in the video is Slager dropping the Taser near Scott’s motionless body. The cover-up was underway before Scott’s body could be moved to the morgue.

The local newspaper reported the next day:

“A statement released by North Charleston police spokesman Spencer Pryor said a man ran on foot from the traffic stop and an officer deployed his department-issued Taser in an attempt to stop him.

“That did not work, police said, and an altercation ensued as the men struggled over the device. Police allege that during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer.

“The officer then resorted to his service weapon and shot him, police alleged.”

Of course, that was a lie.

According to the Washington Post, Victoria Middleton, executive director for the ACLU of South Carolina, said: “…I think one of the concerns that immediately comes to mind is the discrepancy between the initial story, the kind of rush to judgment, the rush to say that procedures were followed and this was justified, and then when the video surfaced that quickly unraveled. That could raise concerns about other incidents in which we have been assured that nothing was out of order and the officer acted completely properly but there were no witnesses or video documentation to dispute that.”

And that’s why we must resist all efforts to prevent citizens from freely videotaping police while they are supposedly acting in a lawful manner.

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine, is editor-in-chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service (NNPA) and BlackPressUSA.com. He is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. Curry can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com. You can also follow him at www.twitter.com/currygeorgeand George E. Curry Fan Page on Facebook. See previous columns at http://www.georgecurry.com/columns.

###

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Phillip Pannell was Gunned Down, too

Don't Miss

Should African Americans Endorse Whites over Blacks?

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Juneteenth: Celebrating Our History, Honoring Our Shared Spaces

It’s been empowering to watch Juneteenth blossom into a widely celebrated holiday, filled with vibrant outdoor events like cookouts, festivals, parades, and more. It’s inspiring to see the community embrace our history—showing up in droves to celebrate freedom, a freedom delayed for some enslaved Americans more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed.

Published

4 days ago

June 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Wayne Wilson, Public Affairs Campaign Manager, Caltrans

By Wayne Wilson, Public Affairs Campaign Manager, Caltrans

Juneteenth marks an important moment in our shared history—a time to reflect on the legacy of our ancestors who, even in the face of injustice, chose freedom, unity, and community over fear, anger, and hopelessness. We honor their resilience and the paths they paved so future generations can continue to walk with pride.

As we head into the weekend full of festivities and summer celebrations, I want to offer a friendly reminder about who is not invited to the cookout: litter.

At Clean California, we believe the places where we gather—parks, parade routes, street corners, and church lots—should reflect the pride and beauty of the people who fill them. Our mission is to restore and beautify public spaces, transforming areas impacted by trash and neglect into spaces that reflect the strength and spirit of the communities who use them.

Too often, after the music fades and the grills cool, our public spaces are left littered with trash. Just as our ancestors took pride in their communities, we honor their legacy when we clean up after ourselves, teach our children to do the same, and care for our shared spaces.

Small acts can inspire big change. Since 2021, Clean California and its partners have collected and removed over 2.9 million cubic yards of litter. We did this by partnering with local nonprofits and community organizations to organize grassroots cleanup events and beautification projects across California.

Now, we invite all California communities to continue the incredible momentum and take the pledge toward building a cleaner community through our Clean California Community Designation Program. This recognizes cities and neighborhoods committed to long-term cleanliness and civic pride.

This Juneteenth, let’s not only celebrate our history—but also contribute to its legacy. By picking up after ourselves and by leaving no litter behind after celebrations, we have an opportunity to honor our past and shape a cleaner, safer, more vibrant future.

Visit CleanCA.com to learn more about Clean California.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark

Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

Published

4 days ago

June 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook. Courtesy of Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook

As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.

Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.

Our community is hurting. Things have to change.

The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.

Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.

I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.

SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.

For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.

This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.

Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.

Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.

About the Author

Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Council Approves Budget to Invest in Core City Services, Save Fire Stations, Invest in Economic Development

I am most proud of our ability to fund these critical city services without the use of one-time fixes. We are still suffering the consequences of last year’s budget, where a majority of the Council, myself not included, chose to incorporate anticipated proceeds from the sale of the Coliseum to fund essential services. Since the sale has still not yet been completed, the lack of funds led to drastic cuts in city services, including the temporary closure of fire stations, staff layoffs, and the cancellations of many service contracts.

Published

1 week ago

June 14, 2025

Oakland Post

District 4 Oakland City Councilmember Janani Ramachandran. Photo courtesy City of Oakland.

By Janani Ramachandran, District 4 Oakland City Councilmember

On Wednesday, June 11, City Council took a bold step to prioritize investing in essential city services to get our beautiful Town back on track. As Chair of the Finance Committee, I am proud to have led a collaborative process, alongside Councilmembers Rowena Brown, Zac Unger, and Charlene Wang, to develop a set of amendments to the proposed FY 2025-2027 budget which passed successfully with a vote of 6 – 1. Despite facing a $265 million structural budget deficit, we were able to restore funding to ensure that all 25 fire stations remain open, fund 5 police academies, invest millions of dollars to combat illegal dumping and sideshow prevention, improve our permitting processes, fund a “business incentives” program to revitalize our commercial corridors, improve upon our homelessness prevention work, amplify the city’s anti-trafficking programs, re-instate our tree services division, staff up our Auditor’s office – all while preventing any layoffs of city staff, keeping our senior centers and after-school programs open, and crisis services like MACRO funded.

Our budget comes in response to the widespread and consistent calls from across Oakland’s diverse communities asking us to prioritize funding solutions to the issues that have most directly impacted our residents’ safety and quality of life. Our priorities are also inspired by our belief that Oakland is on the way not only to financial recovery, but also to global recognition. Oakland can attract and preserve businesses of all sizes with safer, cleaner streets. We can and will have more large-scale festivals that celebrate our culture, concerts that uplift our incredible local musicians, conferences that attract patrons from across the world, and award-winning restaurants that top national charts. We are on our way to rebuilding a thriving economy and having a cultural renaissance will create more jobs for Oaklanders while also generating more revenue for the City through sales and business taxes.

I am grateful for the close partnership with our new Mayor Barbara Lee, and know that she shares our values of ensuring we are prioritizing keeping Oakland’s residents safe, our streets clean, and our businesses prosperous in an open and fiscally responsible manner. I am also thankful to our City Administrator, Jestin Johnson, and former Interim Mayor Kevin Jenkins’ efforts to produce the initial proposal that our Council budget team used as a starting point for our amendments, and for their shared commitment to transparency and ethical government. I am especially grateful for every resident that took the time to make their voice heard throughout this rigorous budget process. I have no doubt that we are on the verge of true change, and that together we will bring Oakland back to being the world-class city I know it can be.