This is about the right to film a public place vs. the right to privacy. In a recent edition of the new Brattleboro newspaper 'The Commons'*, former Brattleboro Selectboard member Pat DeAngelo reported on the neighborhood controversy over a Clark St. resident who had been videotaping with a camera set up in his window which has a view straight up Clark St., and giving the tapes to the Brattleboro police. Some area residents are upset with being videotaped by the man’s camera.
Potentially, such a surveillance camera could help identify persons committing a crime in the area. A few months ago, a man was beaten and stabbed in his apartment on Clark St., and the violent culprits jumped into a car, taking off in the direction of the house with the camera. It happened early in the morning and perhaps he didn't have his camera running then. The incident was not reported to the news by the police as would be expected. The Brattleboro Reformer had to find out about it a week later from me, after I heard about it from people.
Area resident Shela Linton said at a meeting of the Clark/Canal Association that the videotaping stigmatized the community and is an intrusion of people's privacy. The heated discussions about it at the Association's meeting resulted in Pat proposing a law against what the man has been doing. Pat wrote that she had suggested they should press Windham County legislators to introduce a bill that would criminalize the act of videotaping anyone in public! The article indicated that most of the Clark/Canal Association folks were for this.
There of course have been past court cases regarding filming in public, and the consensus has been that ONE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WHILE IN A PUBLIC PLACE SUCH AS A STREET. Such a law would make it a crime to do what people everywhere have been doing, especially since the advent of inexpensive video cameras, such as taping your youngster when graduating from school etc. since others would be in the shot. Had a law like this been in effect years ago, Abraham Zapruder’s famous 8 mm footage of the Kennedy assassination could never be presented if just one person in the whole scene had objected.
These simple facts and the right of someone to film a public area seem lost on Pat, who indignantly told me she feels one should have to get permission to film from everyone in their camera’s field of view even though the view is of a public place. I noted that such a law would have far reaching effects and not only violate one’s right to record in public, also meaning that camera toting media people would be severely limited, but that police and city surveillance cameras would be outlawed. Pat cheered on that idea, and there we have some agreement; that we can and should limit what our public servants do when it comes to being like ‘Big Brother’ and putting up electric eyes all around. The bottom line is, such a law cannot be passed anywhere in America, and if it were, it would be null & void from its inception because of its unconstitutionality. The famous case of Marbury v. Madison and similar ones make that clear!**
This USA Today article points out what I'm talking about in more detail-
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
The related recent controversy and contention of Bellows Falls residents over having police cameras in town had some claiming the same objection, that they don’t want to be videotaped. But legal wise, it is not a case where the people would have a strong claim to say that their privacy is violated while on Main St. just because a camera is pointed at them. The taxpaying residents of the town do however have a say as to what their public servants do with cameras, especially since most applications of video surveillance by municipalities in public areas cannot be proven to be an absolute public safety need nor a very effective prevention of crime.
This relates to all of that-
http://www.constitutionproject.org/libertyandsecurity/article.cfm?messageID=179&categoryId=3
Pat was applauded by many including myself for her support of the Brattleboro Resolution against the unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act when she was on the Selectboard, but now she doesn't seem to understand that this law she wants passed is just as much of an infringement on individual liberties. Pat and anyone else who wants such a law may have good intentions, but they are at the least rather naive to believe such a law would have legal standing and be enforceable. Hopefully state lawmakers are not as ignorant about rights and what can and cannot be lawfully mandated.
In Nashua New Hampshire right now, a law is being unconstitutionally being enforced against a homeowner for simply having a security camera in his own home! We especially need to stand behind people like this and their (and our) right to have a video system in our own homes! Check out--
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121
*The Brattleboro Commons article by Pat
(scroll down to "Clark/Canal debates video")--
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:hOJ_wWg7_3QJ:www.commonsnews.org/pdf/COMMONSjune.pdf+brattleboro+commons+%22pat+deangelo%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
**Marbury v. Madison-http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:5-Ytrah-oXAJ:laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html+marbury+v+madison+repugnant&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1#Scene_1