District Attorney Dismisses Charges Against Woman Who Filmed Cops
from the good-for-them dept
Last week, we wrote about the absolutely ridiculous situation, in which a woman who filmed the police in the process of a traffic stop in front of her house was arrested and charged with “obstructing government administration.” The whole thing was clearly a sham, involving law enforcement that didn’t like having their actions scrutinized in perfectly legal ways. The vast publicity that story generated apparently made law enforcement in Rochester think twice about going ahead with the case. Shane alerts us to the news that the district attorney decided “after reviewing the evidence” that “there was no legal basis” to continue the case and asked for it to be dismissed, which the judge granted.
This followed reports over the weekend that, during a meeting over the weekend in support of the woman, police went on a selective enforcement rampage, looking for any reason to give the supporters parking tickets, including being parked more than 12 inches off of the curb.
“We believe that the incident that led to Ms. Good’s arrest and the subsequent ticketing for parking violations of vehicles belonging to members of an organization associated with Ms. Good raise issues with respect to the conduct of Rochester Police Officers that require an internal review. A review into both matters has been initiated.”
“Police officers must be able to cope with a high degree of stress while performing oftentimes dangerous duties, relying on their training and experience to guide their behavior. As routine as a traffic stop may appear, it has proven over time to be a potentially dangerous activity for police. Nonetheless, police must conduct themselves with appropriate respect for the rights of those involved or who are observing their actions.”
“There is a mandated legal process that governs our internal response when police officer behavior is called into question. We must respect this process and that may be frustrating to those who may have already made up their mind about the outcome. We have confidence that the review will be fair and impartial and invite Ms. Good and anyone else with firsthand information to participate. We will withhold our judgment until the review is completed.”
“Whatever the outcome of the internal review, we want to make clear that it is not the policy or practice of the Rochester Police Department to prevent citizens from observing its activities – including photographing or videotaping – as long as it does not interfere with the safe conduct of those activities. It is also not the policy or practice of the Department to selectively enforce laws in response to the activities of a group or individual. This has always been the case and it is being reinforced within the Department, so that it will be abundantly clear to everyone.”
Of course, given all that, one thing still not explained is why the DA pressed charges in the first place. While it’s good that they’ve now decided that there was no legal basis, isn’t the point to determine that before you press charges?
Comments on “District Attorney Dismisses Charges Against Woman Who Filmed Cops”
These cops still need to be investigated for their harassing actions. This kind of vengeance behavior is unacceptable for police! Anyone and everyone involved in that farce need to be FIRED!
Re: Re:
she needs to file some complaints and go after the cops bonds.
Still not a good idea...
to visit Rochester. It seems to be such a dangerous city that the cops hate law-abiding citizens as much as they hate the criminals, or maybe they can no longer tell the difference. Maybe they don’t even care. The mayor and the others are just trying to quiet the situation down, but that will do nothing to stop the police from abusing innocent citizens. They have acquired a culture where they are out there not to protect citizens but to arrest criminals. It is a culture that is becoming more widespread in the cities, something like battle fatigue. Between the cops and the criminals the cities are no longer safe at night.
I’d much rather deal with a mugger who only wants my wallet or cell phone than an angry cop. The mugger will take what he wants and leave. The cops are likely to throw you down, cuff you, charge you with whatever they can dream up, and toss you into the squad car. It costs a heck of a lot more money to extricate yourself from baseless charges and injuries than it does to deal with loss of wallet and phone.
And for some reason, the cops still wonder why people don’t trust them. The answer is simple; the police are not to be trusted.
Re: Still not a good idea...
I’d much rather deal with a mugger who only wants my wallet or cell phone than an angry cop.
It’s almost like the cure is worse than the disease…
Re: Re: Still not a good idea...
Not to mention the simple fact that if you’re a licensed concealed carry holder you have the option of defending your life against a mugger who threatens it… but you’ll rot in jail for defending your life against a police officer who threatens it unnecessarily in the midst of a power trip.
Re: Re: Still not a good idea...
Just like the TSA
Re: Still not a good idea...
As a current resident of Rochester I can tell you it is not dangerous and it is not unsafe.
However I agree with you about the mugger, the law will throw the book at you and bury you in arrests, court cases and a police record.
Re: Re: Still not a good idea...
As a former resident of Rochester (who misses Abbott’s terribly), I can tell you that Thomas lives on a desert island. I know this for a fact because he is unaware that nitwits infect every level of the public and private sector and the only way he could not know that is if he lived on a desert island.
Re: Still not a good idea...
It’s terrible when we cannot even trust our own cops. Who can we trust then?
Selective enforcement..
is typical for corrupt police departments. Why should anyone trust cops who do things like that?
f**k 'em
Of course, given all that, one thing still not explained is why the DA pressed charges in the first place. While it’s good that they’ve now decided that there was no legal basis, isn’t the point to determine that before you press charges?
The DA pessed charges in the first place because they thought they could get away with it, the same reason they ticketed the group supporting miss good. As has become abundantly clear in the last few years the police/various DA’s will do whatever they believe they can get away with and only stop abusing innocent citizens when enough people call attention to it.
It also goes to show how out of touch these people are, it took this long for them to realize how bad the press was on them, I saw this literally hours after the fact; before it got on techdirt it was floating around drudge and google news.
I mean its pretty obvious the police are desperate to hide how abusive they are, this is about the 5th repot of police seizing, threatening, or arresting someone for filming their actions in the past few weeks. You can bet your bottom dolla that there are more we haven’t heard of because the police were successful in oppressing citizens speech/actions
They would have gotten away with it but for a few mitigating circumstances:
The woman arrested wasn’t going to roll over and play dead for anyone,
The cops didn’t realize she wouldn’t and kept pushing buttons to make the situation worse,
and lastly:
It went viral on Twitter and the Internet. That’s what you call street justice-and everyone will pile in on your butt if you do it.
That’s why the charges were dismissed-the case made world-wide headlines in a matter of hours-something the cops and the City of Rochester didn’t count on.
They couldn’t justify such a stupid bone-headed arrest and make it stick.
That being said, I hope the woman gets a good lawyer and sues the crap out of them. She will win. I can almost smell the money from here.
Re: Re:
That being said, I hope the woman gets a good lawyer and sues the crap out of them. She will win. I can almost smell the money from here.
I have a better one. When is the next election? The Chief of police may not be an elected position, the Mayor he reports to certainly is. This also applies to the DA.
Re: Re:
Double posting my comment from this thread:
We should make an app that streams the audio and video feed from the phone to an online storage at the press of a button. Lets call it something cool like the iWitness (tee hee).
If you are abusing your authority, and somone had the iWitness on you, you are screwed.
You can’t make the user delete it (the app does not support it), and you could pulverize the phone and it would not help.
You could threaten the filmer, arrest them, even shoot them. But it is too late. Your misdeeds are in an cyberlocker halfway around the world.
What has been seen cannot be unseen. Your actions have been recorded and you will have to face the consequences.
And flipping out on the first guy that iWitnessed you will only get you in more trouble as other people on the scene bring out their iWitnesses.
There is no hope, no way out. The only option is to preemptively follow the law and stay within the boundaries of your legal autority.
About time the authorities learned what chilling effects feel like, neh?
It would also probably work on criminals to some degree, if it becomes widespread enough for it to be common knowledge.
Re: Re: Re:
People sometimes go over their heads regarding their positions. We should never abuse our powers.
I’ll bet they were upset that the upright citizen they wrongfully arrested was named Ms. Good.
Aptonym FTW!
*sigh* how did i miss that this was in my old home town?
and the next time anyone wants to make an absurd definition as to who is or isn’t a journalist – techdirt and the online sources had this story before all of the rochester news outlets did.
She should sue them for damages.
Let us investigate the police.
Police officer
Why do you abuse us so?
We’re not criminals
Did anyone else catch that some of the Rochester papers are saying the police chief won’t release the results of the internal investigation? I read it this morning but can’t find the link. My wife used to date a state trooper; they classify this as an HR issue and the whole thing is swept under the rug as SOP.
This isn’t going away just yet. =)
DA's Role
“Of course, given all that, one thing still not explained is why the DA pressed charges in the first place. While it’s good that they’ve now decided that there was no legal basis, isn’t the point to determine that before you press charges?”
Everything up until yesterday’s hearing (her arrest, booking, incarceration, and being released on bail) could have possibly happened without any input from the DA at all. Yesterday’s hearing was her first court appearance since being arrested, so I’m not surprised that that’s when the charges were dropped.
The cops were asshats, to be sure, but I’m not really sure the DA had much of an active role in pushing this forward. True, he could have pre-emptively dropped the charges before yesterday’s hearing, but she was already out on bail so it’s not as if she was languishing in jail awaiting her court date.
Re: DA's Role
Not true. The DA should have thrown this out after a glance at the charge and report, ORDER the police to release the woman immediately and then chew the captain out for having such idiots on the force. The DA is /in charge of/ the police, not a hapless bureaucrat standing by while THUGS with badges roam doing as they wish.
Re: Re: DA's Role
> The DA is /in charge of/ the police
Nonsense. The police do not work for, or report to, the district attorney. The police chief’s superior is the mayor or the city council, not the district attorney.
Same thing on the federal level. I don’t work for the US Attorney and he/she has no supervisory authority over me. My agency’s director reports to the Sec. of Homeland Security, who in turn reports to the president. We’re not even a part of the Department of Justice, let alone subordinates of the US Attorney’s office.
Future Headline: In other news...
The internal investigation on the arrest of Ms. Good and subsequent ticketing of her supporters cars for parking more than 12 inches away from the curb has been concluded.
Based on the findings of the internal investigation, no disciplinary action to any officers involved will be taken, for the following reasons:
(1) the arresting officer of Ms. Good was merely enforcing the little known law against copying law enforcement reflected photons (with her camera), which was passed by the City of Rochester yesterday, and predated to make it a crime the day before Ms. Good took her video, and also misappropriating the officers publicity rights by making the video available on YouTube without his permission.
(2) parking tickets are allowed to be selectively enforced as long as a pink ruler is used in the ticketing process (also passed by the City of Rochester yesterday and predated).
Case Closed.
"why the DA pressed charges in the first place"?
IF your silly questions are rhetorical habit, I wish you’d stop. If from some misguided notion of “impartial”, I wish you’d come down unequivocally against gov’t and on the side of freedom, because it’s past time to decide.
Anyway, to agree with as already answered above; gov’t is a sheerly criminal gang and they tyrannize us as much as they dare. They are no longer anywhere honorable public servants — even resent that title though it’s the essence of America: gov’t is to be a /servant/ of the people, not our masters. Remind them of that at every turn, as they intend to reverse the little truth to it left.
Imagine if things had turned out differently and the traffic stop resulted in something tragic like………… an officer being stabbed. She having the video and evidence backing the police would have been held up proudly by the police as being a concerned neighborhood watch citizen who facilitated by her actions of video taping a bad man being arrested.
Re: Re:
Or like….the traffic stop gets out of hand and the result is that the guy the cop was stopping starts making statements about police brutality to the press.
She having the video and evidence backing the police would have…
The Cops won this
… the cops won in this episode!
They successfully hassled the woman with a false arrest — and will receive not the slightest punishment. Getting handcuffed, pushed around, booked, and jailed — is very unpleasant… even if the charges are later dropped.
Cops know they can get away with this stuff … and have long had a catch-phrase for it : “Ya can beat the rap — but you can’t beat the ride {..to jail} !”
“Dis-respect” any cop in any way… and they can severely hassle you with a false arrest, knowing full well they are safe to do so.
The DA should immediately prosecute the those cops for false arrest, assault and kidnapping– but of course, there’s not the slightest chance of that happening. Cops & prosecutors are above the law everywhere in the U.S.
Re: The Cops won this
“and will receive not the slightest punishment.”
Seems a little early to call this one, don’t you think?
Re: Re: The Cops won this
Perhaps it is, yes but this does prove one thing I’ve tried to drill into my own communities thick skulls regarding their apathetic behavior – politicians and PO-lice HATE public scrutiny so the best thing to do is take an interest and express outrage when appropriate.
Works every time.
Re: The Cops won this
> The DA should immediately prosecute the those
> cops for false arrest, assault and kidnapping
It would be kind of hard for the DA to do that, considering the DAs office initially accepted the charge against Good when she was arrested. If it was false arrest, then the DAs office is complicit in that offense.
Re: The Cops won this
Their punishment will be citizens that follow them around 24/7 with cameras for the rest of their lives.
This has “backfire” written all over it.
It was on private property. If the officer didn’t have the supposed ‘probable cause’ – he should be charged with trespassing as well.
Hey – *WE* (the citizens) should not be the only ones who are held to the law, right?
Or is this police state of a country not like that anymore?
Apparently ?to protect and serve? has been replaced with ?to fleece and service?.
For further surprises check out copblock.org
hey btw, i dont know if anyone else notices the watermark on this video…
BUT THIS KINDA THING IS EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE INDY MEDIA
Selective Enforcement
This followed reports over the weekend that, during a meeting over the weekend in support of the woman, police went on a selective enforcement rampage,
And Mike is a big fan of selective enforcement. When he’s the one doing the selecting, that is.
Re: Selective Enforcement
The supporters are lucky that they only got parking tickets. I wouldn’t have been surprised if they had been arrested on some trumped up charge. God help the supporters since the cops will target them in the future for speeding 1 mph over the limit and God knows what else.
“Police officers must be able to cope with a high degree of stress while performing oftentimes dangerous duties, relying on their training and experience to guide their behavior. As routine as a traffic stop may appear, it has proven over time to be a potentially dangerous activity for police.”
Heh, “police officer” isn’t even in the top 10 of most dangerous professions. It’s more dangerous to be a convenience store clerk than it is to be a cop.
Danger
“Police officers must be able to cope with a high degree of stress while performing oftentimes dangerous duties, relying on their training and experience to guide their behavior. As routine as a traffic stop may appear, it has proven over time to be a potentially dangerous activity for police.”
Heh, “police officer” isn’t even in the top 10 of most dangerous professions. It’s more dangerous to be a convenience store clerk than it is to be a cop.
…the worst that’ll happen to these cops is that they’ll be temporarily put on “Administrative Leave” (paid vacation)… while their bosses pretend to do an honest ‘investigation’ of the matter.
The mayor, police chief, head DA, and local judges don’t care about the criminal behavior of these cops… or these cops wouldn’t have badges & guns in the first place (they are all on the same team — the ‘government’ ruling team against the citizenry). But they do care about ‘bad publicity’– so they will pretend to take issue seriously, while they sweep it under the rug… and wait for the media/public to lose interest.
…the worst that’ll happen to these cops is that they’ll be temporarily put on “Administrative Leave” (paid vacation)… while their bosses pretend to do an honest ‘investigation’ of the matter.
The mayor, police chief, head DA, and local judges don’t care about the criminal behavior of these cops… or these cops wouldn’t have badges & guns in the first place (they are all on the same team — the ‘government’ ruling team against the citizenry). But they do care about ‘bad publicity’– so they will pretend to take issue seriously, while they sweep it under the rug… and wait for the media/public to lose interest.
Re: Re:
You’re right – the mayor, police chief, DA, and judges don’t care what the cops do as long as there is no bad publicity.
The police chief is there to protect his officers, NOT enforce the law. Cops regularly harass minority groups and poor people and get away with it cause the victims don’t have the money or political power to defend themselves.
The days are long past when the cops were there to protect citizens.
“Police officers must be able to cope with a high degree of stress while performing oftentimes dangerous duties, relying on their training and experience to guide their behavior. As routine as a traffic stop may appear, it has proven over time to be a potentially dangerous activity for police. Nonetheless, police must conduct themselves with appropriate respect for the rights of those involved or who are observing their actions, or find a less dangerous and stressful occupation.”
Fixed it for him.
“Police officers must be able to cope with a high degree of stress while performing oftentimes dangerous duties, relying on their training and experience to guide their behavior. As routine as a traffic stop may appear, it has proven over time to be a potentially dangerous activity for police. Nonetheless, police must conduct themselves with appropriate respect for the rights of those involved or who are observing their actions, or find a less dangerous and stressful occupation.”
Fixed it for him.
“Police officers must be able to cope with a high degree of stress while performing oftentimes dangerous duties, relying on their training and experience to guide their behavior. As routine as a traffic stop may appear, it has proven over time to be a potentially dangerous activity for police. Nonetheless, police must conduct themselves with appropriate respect for the rights of those involved or who are observing their actions, or find a less dangerous and stressful occupation.”
Fixed it for him.
Police Chief's statement:
“Whatever the outcome of the internal review, we want to make clear that it is not the policy or practice of the Rochester Police Department to prevent citizens from observing its activities – including photographing or videotaping – as long as it does not interfere with the safe conduct of those activities. It is also not the policy or practice of the Department to selectively enforce laws in response to the activities of a group or individual. This has always been the case and it is being reinforced within the Department, so that it will be abundantly clear to everyone.”
Bull. they are only saying this cause they get caught. Nothing will change.
Re: Police Chief's statement:
“It is also not the policy or practice of the Department to selectively enforce laws in response to the activities of a group or individual. This has always been the case and it is being reinforced within the Department, so that it will be abundantly clear to everyone.”
They need to fire everyone involved, not just remind them. In reality, the only thing they’re really doing is just reminding them to not get caught.
Where's the ACLU?
The result of the internal investigation will be nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Ms. Good and the ACLU need to sue the police for false arrest and the DA for bringing false charges. Maybe a court decision will get their attention.
It's too bad
First off, I am all for the public filming the police so don’t take me wrong here.
I talked to several Rochester officers after the first video was released. The car that they had pulled over had three people in it that the police would classify as ‘gang members’. Needless to say when the cops walked up to the car they knew all three of the people without looking at their licenses. There was drugs in the car, these were problem people, the cops were not wrong in what they did with them.
Apparently that woman had said a few things before she started filming that really caught their attention. I’m sure they were already very uneasy about the situation they were dealing with and having that woman there, after just saying something uncalled for which we don’t know what that was because she didn’t have the camera rolling yet, make them more uneasy. In their eyes they now have to watch this woman off to the side because they don’t trust her.
She was asked several times to please step back and out of the way. She was making them uneasy. It would have made me uneasy too. This wasn’t a normal traffic stop. What if a cop got shot that night? What if all hell broke loose and that woman got hurt? Could the cop have told her about how dangerous these guys were? NO! He doesn’t have the right to disclose their personal information. It’s against their rights even though they are getting arrested. I personally feel that woman went out to start the trouble and cause this whole situation. Well she picked a really bad traffic stop to do it.
Do I agree with what happened? No. But do we know both sides of all stories? No.
I really have no comment for the ticketing at Flying Squirrel. The people at the Flying Squirrel cause a lot more trouble around town than a simple filming incident. That doesn’t mean that I don’t support them.
Re: It's too bad
You’re all for it? ‘cept when you’re agin’ it. Right. Got that. Understood.
Troll harder.
Which really would have justified having the cops go all Rodney King on those ?problem people?.
But the woman with the camera got in the way. The cops got uneasy about getting spectators to rightly understand the proper solution to “problem people”.
And now you’re warning folks that something bad could happen to a woman caught videoing things she shouldn’t ought to be videoing. Something real bad. Really bad things could happen to her.
Which is exactly why the Rochester cops told you how dangerous these guys were. Because the Rochester cops you talked to?wait. Stop. They do or don’t have the right to tell some random person ?how dangerous these guys were??
Re: It's too bad
There was drugs in the car, these were problem people, the cops were not wrong in what they did with them
If there were drugs in the car, the problem people would have been arrested. But guess what, they were let go. Hmm.
Most of you are crying foul on the police. All that woman had to do was go inside. She could have videotaped from her front window if she really wanted it filmed. It’s the police’s job to decide if they don’t feel comfortable with someone being behind them. She chose to be rebelious.
This is terrible! How can they behave that way?
I don’t think it’s right for cops to be vengeful…actually nobody should be vengeful.
People look up to policemen. They should be role models.