From "Serve and Protect" to "Hide and Sue"

Nobody likes being videotaped without permission, especially if the videographer is capturing stupid, foolish or illegal behavior.

But public servants just have to suck it up: you work for the taxpayers, and if one of them records you in the performance of your duties, that's tough.

From Raw Story, a Springfield, Massachusetts police officer is pressing criminal charges against a woman who recorded another officer beating a black suspect at a traffic stop.

A police officer from Springfield, Massachusetts has filed an application for a criminal complaint against a woman who recorded his fellow officer beating a black suspect while he stood by, according to The Republican.

In November 2009, Tyrisha Greene made a 20-minute recording of now-retired Springfield patrolman Jeffrey M. Asher repeatedly beating Melvin Jones III with a flashlight during a traffic stop. The recording shows a group of other officers standing around Jones without intervening.

Jones was partially blinded in one eye from the attack, and had bones all over his face broken. The officers claimed that Jones grabbed one of their guns as they tried to arrest him and that Asher struck Jones with his flashlight in order to "disorientate him."

But a grand jury rejected that claim, finding no evidence that Jones behaved aggressively towards them.

Michael Sedergren was one of the four officers disciplined for the incident. He was suspended for 45 days. Sedergren claims Greene violated the state's wiretapping laws by recording him without his consent.

This is one of many incidents around the country in which police are operating with impunity and insisting they cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Bon the Geek at Zandar's place back in January:

Two strangers are profiled in a New York Times article. They are both very different people, from different backgrounds. They have nothing in common, really. Except for one small thing:

About the only thing these strangers have in common is the prospect that by spring, they could each be sent to prison for up to 15 years. “That’s one step below attempted murder,” Mr. Drew said of their potential sentences. The crime they are accused of is eavesdropping.

These two individuals recorded the officers who they spoke with, and did not get their permission. There's a few things I think are a little off about this, and the article itself makes many good points. Police don't have to tell us that we are being recorded, and their cars run video and often audio. The article mentions that years ago when these laws were written, it wasn't common for people to have recording devices available. It is completely normal to carry a cell phone, so if the police were to argue that being recorded from the front of a cop car is common knowledge, these two can argue the same case.

Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his organization “absolutely supports” the eavesdropping act as is and was relieved that the challenge had failed. Mr. Donahue added that allowing the audio recording of police officers while performing their duty “can affect how an officer does his job on the street.”

That's sort of the point. It's hard to fake video, and this is a new level of accountability. If officers are conducting themselves properly, then the tapes would just reveal that and offer backup for any cops who found themselves on the stand. Because they are public officials, and the fact that their job is often done in public, it stands to reason that they shouldn't have an expectation of privacy.

Regardless of which way you fall on the topic, it majavascript:void(0)kes sense that expectations of privacy should be redefined. However, it shouldn't be redefined by law enforcement. I'm a little afraid of how it would go down, but at least we would know where we stand.

Liberals know that the more authority we give to law enforcement, the more we must hold them to account for their actions. Public servants are just that - those who serve the public.