Officer Michael T. Slager is being charged with murder for the appalling shooting of an unarmed black man in North Charleston, S.C., for one reason only: The incident was caught on video by a nearby citizen. Otherwise Slager’s version of events would either have been accepted or, in all probability, clouded the truth enough to keep this killer from spending a day in prison.
The video’s importance is hardly a news flash, of course, and we mention it only by way of underscoring how critical it is that recordings of police encounters with civilians — all kinds of recordings — be encouraged and protected, including in Colorado.
Denver police and other departments are in the process of experimenting with body cameras for officers, which could become a critical check on disputed claims offered by police or citizens. Denver’s pilot program, which has logged more than six months in the field, shows great promise despite flaws outlined in a recent report by the city’s independent monitor.
The other side of the video equation is of course citizen recordings of the sort released in North Charleston. The good news is that courts in recent years have largely affirmed a citizen’s right under the First Amendment to record police behavior — or anything else — in a public location. And attempts by police and municipal officials around the country to suppress or even outlaw such recordings have greatly subsided since the early days of smartphones and tablets.
Nevertheless, incidents still occur in which police admonish or threaten those filming them, or even seize the recording device.
One such event appears to have occurred last year in Denver involving the arrest of two drug suspects. says police seized his tablet without permission and erased the video clip. He claims he was able to restore it from “the cloud” — and his version of events, while disputed by police, appears supported in part by video from a city-operated HALO camera, according to Fox 31.
Such incidents provide the rationale behind House Bill 1290, which would create a right to sue a police agency if an officer seizes a recording without obtaining the consent of the owner or a warrant. That same right to sue (for actual damages and $15,000) would apply if an officer interfered with a recording, or retaliated against the individual making it.
At a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in late March, law enforcement officials and prosecutors objected to HB 1290, and a vote was delayed so sponsors could craft amendments. Critics of the bill say police ought to be able to seize recordings to prevent evidence from being destroyed. And of course if police have a legitimate reason to believe vital evidence would be destroyed, then they probably deserve some leeway.
But that hasn’t been the motive behind most incidents of police interfering with recordings or seizing videos. Quite the contrary. The officers have objected to the very fact that civilians are recording at all. Yet it so happens that those videos are personal property, subject to the search and seizure protections of the constitution.
HB 1290 may need tweaking, but the sponsors — Democratic Reps. Joe Salazar of Thornton and Daneya Esgar of Pueblo — should stand by their basic goal. Gratuitous police interference in the freedom to record should trigger a right to private civil action.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
