Find solution
Where Is The Ap High Court?

MI Supreme Court rules "there's no privacy expectation when police do their job" allowing citizens to video cops. Good/bad decision? Why?

  • DETROIT— The Michigan Supreme Court says Detroit city officials had no right to privacy when they were videotaped backstage at a 2000 concert involving hip-hop stars Dr. Dre and Eminem. In a decision released Saturday, the court overturned a ruling by the Michigan appeals court and reinstated dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Detroit councilman Gary Brown and others. In 2000, Brown was a high-ranking police official. He warned concert organizers that power at Joe Louis Arena would be turned off if they showed a sexually explicit video. The confrontation was taped and later included in a DVD of the "Up In Smoke" tour. Dr. Dre's lawyer, Herschel Fink, says there's no privacy when police are doing their job. The Supreme Court agreed in a 6-1 decision. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mi-drdreshow-lawsuit,0,7858852.story

  • Answer:

    So it should be .. the number of times that videos have caught the cops behaving like thugs is growing and is slowly weeding out the bad apples, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Wynper at Answerbag.com Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

I agree. The police have cameras in their cars, and sometimes even on their bodies, to video interactions with the public. The public should have the same right.

HungryGuy

I think it's a good decision, but not a giant step forward. I'm generally a big fan of police, but I think giving them extra incentives to stay honest and upright is fine. My only concern (and it's a big one), is that there is always a chance (and a big chance at that, given some incidents in recent events,) that a video will be accepted as evidence when it only covers a small portion of the actual events. A five minute video of police officers apparently beating a suspect looks terrible. That it's being done as part of repeated attempts to subdue him may be lost on viewers overwhelmed by the visual shock. The nature, the process of filming doesn't favor the police, because while the suspect is behaving recklessly, endangering the public or trying to hurt officers, would be filmers are still getting their cameras, or their phones, or just haven't thought to start filming yet (or those events have taken place elsewhere). A real step forward in my opinion would be to allow all people to use audio tape when they interact with the police, which is illegal in many states.

kagemusha

Bring it on I welcome it! I am a cop I don't give a hoots ass who videos me doing my job.....I say lets video the spouse abuser as she/he is beating the brains out of their so called loved one, or lets video that drug dealer that just handed off a few bags of coke to that 10 year kid who later gets shot in the back left for dead from a deal gone wrong, lets video the drunkin driver that does a hit & run and leaves a young mom dead in the streets......lets video all the bs that goes on that police respond to............bring it on I have nothing to fear and it is not gonna stop me from doing the job my oath calls for me to do!!!!!

Eileen

They are public employees. Why shouldn't they be subject to public scrutiny.

Anonymous

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.