Of course anybody can be a journalist but independent people doing things like this have to have some kind of boundaries. Dan mentions about Channel Two but would a professional news organization record and run audio from an incident such as this? I've never seen it. To me, the conversation between that officer and the detainee was private and recording the audio of that is a crime. However, a cop's interactions with the public are pretty important. Perhaps walking cops will someday wear recording devices that make audio records of their interactions with the public, just like the car video/audio setups.

Conversations held on a public sidewalk are never private.

The conversation between the officers and the "detainees" occurred on a public street. They have no expectation of privacy.

"In my view, a journalist is an interested party asking questions about the state of things, so that other citizens don’t necessarily have to. The journalist doesn’t need to be working for an established news outlet, in fact, they are likely to ask better questions if they aren’t."

Wait a second... What about when you said this, "As a professional I think so-called “citizen journalism” devalues our profession, and imbues false hope in amateurs without the drive to commit, full-time."

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2007/10/citizen_journalism.php

Although as public employees, police officers should be treated differently, there are cases that I see where being on a public street can be a private situation. If two people are having a conversation in a normal voice and there's nobody else around and somebody is using a shotgun microphone to record it from across the street, that doesn't seem right to me. The law specifically addresses that "expectation of privacy" in many states but I can't really tell if it's ever been seriously tested.

So I had an interaction a few weeks ago with the same officer that issues Joe a ticked when he was taking pictures of me with his cell phone as I was taking pictures of him. Here is a telling thread of emails that I have been hiving with the PPB info line:

--------------

From Portland Police Information and Referral
to jasunwurster@gmail.com,
date Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:45 PM
subject Re: Police taking photos of citizens


Reply


I can't find any policy on this issue and doubt one exists. You can check on the website www.portlandonline.com/police and search the Policy's & Procedures manual but I haven't been able to locate it. You can also call the Chief's Office to inquire about policy at: (503)823-0000.

cc: mcb

>>> "Jasun Wurster" 03/30/08 10:27PM >>>
Hi,

Thank you for your reply.

Can you please clarify one more question for me?

What is the policy of an officer using their cell phone to capture video with audio?

Thanks,

Jasun Wurster

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Portland Police Information and Referral wrote:

I checked with an officer and there is no policy against officers taking photos. Officers as with any citizen may take a photo with a camera or cellphone of whatever they wish.

cc: mcb

>>> "Jasun Wurster" 03/11/08 09:38AM >>>

Hi,

This has happened a few times to me and I would like a clarification.

What is the PPB's policy about on duty officers taking photo's of citizens (please provide a reference to the directive)?

More so is there a policy about officers using private photographic equipment (such as their personal cell phone) to capture images of citizens while they are on duty?

Thanks,

Jasun Wurster

even though the conversation was on the street, which is considered public domain, he may be hindering the investigation by publicly airing the conversation.. perhaps preventing a fair trial, and causing a criminal to be set free, or a misstrial down the road.. As a recent crime victim, i could care less what the public and often invasive media knows, as long as the criminal gets a fair trial and is (if guilty) put away for their crimes.

DLS3: How can I be expected to keep track of my opinions from one week to the next? It's a fair cop. I assume I was playing devil's advocate, or that my opinion has since changed.

You have to be careful, I have a photographic memory. I never forget anything I read or where I read it... As long as I'm not going to be tested on it.

ORS 165.540 makes exceptions for "Officers, employees or agents of a telecommunication or radio communication company who perform the acts prohibited by subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of this section for the purpose of construction, maintenance or conducting of their telecommunication or radio communication service, facilities or equipment." Maybe a judge will rule that an amateur videographer with a website qualifies as an "agent of a telecommunication service."

Matt-
I was totally going to call you out on that too and was looking for that post when I saw that dls3 already posted it. but may we delve a little further?

you say: "As a professional I think so-called 'citizen journalism' devalues our profession"
and then: "The journalist doesn’t need to be working for an established news outlet, in fact, they are likely to ask better questions if they aren’t."

did you just (professionally) devalue your own profession or explain WHY 'citizen journalism' devalues 'professional journalism'? (because they ask better questions)

Careful now; you don't want to run from the sniper fire, you might miss the greeting ceremony!

Perhaps more importantly, if the police have nothing to hide, why should they worry about it? Maybe the telling part is after the one subject backs up and is then pushed in the chest by the officer. What may have happened it the camera wasn't there? Maybe another falling on(beating death) by a police officer? Maybe they need to wear audio and video ALL the time.

They should have constant surveillance while on the job. We're talking about a possible deadly situation for all involved, cops, citizens, the mentally impaired, the innocent. They should be drug tested too and don't leave out steroids either. I'd like to hear a good reason why they should not be under surveillance and held accountable at all times to a higher standard than the general public.

I don't think the officers would have had a problem if it were a camera crew from "COPS".

They seem to be able to record those conversations and there is no expectation of privacy – just a police officer mugging to the camera to tell us all how they are here to "protect and serve" and then make some snide comment like they are auditioning for CSI.