03-25-2013, 12:34 PM
This is legislation I can get behind. From a Republican, too: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index...cart_river
![[Image: may-day-protest-43968ecb0c08cda0.jpg]](http://media.oregonlive.com/politics_impact/photo/may-day-protest-43968ecb0c08cda0.jpg)
Because of Oregon's ban on eavesdropping, it's technically illegal to film police if the video would pick up a conversation without the officer's permission -- even during public events like the 2012 May Day protest in Portland
Excerpt: "Want to film a police officer arresting your friend? You better warn the officer.
If you don't, you could run afoul of Oregon's wiretapping laws.
But a bill in the Oregon Legislature would change that, allowing citizens to turn their camera phones on police and public officials without warning.
House Bill 3064 was introduced by Rep. Jim Thompson, R-Dallas, but it's the brainchild of a constituent, Mike Nearman.
With a proliferation of electronic surveillance ranging from red light cameras and traffic radar, Nearman said he figured he ought to be able to surveil the public servants.
"It seems fair that I, a taxpayer and citizen, ought to be able to make a recording of public officials in the public, official performance of their duties," Nearman said.
Taking video of public officials in public is an increasingly popular pastime. Political campaigns hire trackers who follow and tape candidates. And recently an unnamed cameraman made national news by parking across the street from the home of Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, and filming her taking out her recycling.
But Oregon's wiretapping statute says anyone taping a conversation needs to inform the speakers before hitting the record button.
Since no conversations were captured, the Burdick incident wouldn't run afoul of Oregon law. But filming people up close with a smartphone typically does and sometimes results in an arrest.
In 2008 Hao Xeng Vang used his phone to record a Beaverton police officer who was arresting his friend. The officer soon turned to Vang, arresting him and seizing his phone.
In 2011, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that a Cottage Grove man didn't break the law when he recorded a conversation that a police officer was recording.
In that case, the court also argued that the law doesn't require someone recording a conversation to obtain permission before recording. They just need to say a conversation is being taped.
But under House Bill 3064, someone recording a police officer or public official wouldn't even need to give a warning.
Becky Straus, of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, said two issues are at play. Whether it's legal for police to seize a phone -- and its contents -- and the right of citizens to make video in public places.
"That's well established in other jurisdictions that that’s a free expression right to be recording officers," Straus said.
But in Oregon, it's different. In 2011, a bill similar to Nearman’s failed to move out of the Oregon House. Nearman said he hasn't started lobbying for the bill, but hopes to soon.
Brian DeLashmutt, a lobbyist who represents multiple police organizations, said the bills are unpopular with police because they worry with a blanket exemption, folks may be inclined to get too close to officers engaged in a dangerous situation.
"The problem that we have historically is that if you're giving outright immunity to anyone who’s filming in those situations you can create a situation where people are interfering with a police officer," DeLashmutt said."
Because of Oregon's ban on eavesdropping, it's technically illegal to film police if the video would pick up a conversation without the officer's permission -- even during public events like the 2012 May Day protest in Portland
Excerpt: "Want to film a police officer arresting your friend? You better warn the officer.
If you don't, you could run afoul of Oregon's wiretapping laws.
But a bill in the Oregon Legislature would change that, allowing citizens to turn their camera phones on police and public officials without warning.
House Bill 3064 was introduced by Rep. Jim Thompson, R-Dallas, but it's the brainchild of a constituent, Mike Nearman.
With a proliferation of electronic surveillance ranging from red light cameras and traffic radar, Nearman said he figured he ought to be able to surveil the public servants.
"It seems fair that I, a taxpayer and citizen, ought to be able to make a recording of public officials in the public, official performance of their duties," Nearman said.
Taking video of public officials in public is an increasingly popular pastime. Political campaigns hire trackers who follow and tape candidates. And recently an unnamed cameraman made national news by parking across the street from the home of Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, and filming her taking out her recycling.
But Oregon's wiretapping statute says anyone taping a conversation needs to inform the speakers before hitting the record button.
Since no conversations were captured, the Burdick incident wouldn't run afoul of Oregon law. But filming people up close with a smartphone typically does and sometimes results in an arrest.
In 2008 Hao Xeng Vang used his phone to record a Beaverton police officer who was arresting his friend. The officer soon turned to Vang, arresting him and seizing his phone.
In 2011, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that a Cottage Grove man didn't break the law when he recorded a conversation that a police officer was recording.
In that case, the court also argued that the law doesn't require someone recording a conversation to obtain permission before recording. They just need to say a conversation is being taped.
But under House Bill 3064, someone recording a police officer or public official wouldn't even need to give a warning.
Becky Straus, of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, said two issues are at play. Whether it's legal for police to seize a phone -- and its contents -- and the right of citizens to make video in public places.
"That's well established in other jurisdictions that that’s a free expression right to be recording officers," Straus said.
But in Oregon, it's different. In 2011, a bill similar to Nearman’s failed to move out of the Oregon House. Nearman said he hasn't started lobbying for the bill, but hopes to soon.
Brian DeLashmutt, a lobbyist who represents multiple police organizations, said the bills are unpopular with police because they worry with a blanket exemption, folks may be inclined to get too close to officers engaged in a dangerous situation.
"The problem that we have historically is that if you're giving outright immunity to anyone who’s filming in those situations you can create a situation where people are interfering with a police officer," DeLashmutt said."
