Ohio Senate Bill 13 is a curious case of proposed legislations that seems like it shouldn’t need to exist.
Introduced by state senator Charleta Tavares, a Democrat from Columbus, the bill seeks to prohibit law enforcement officers from forcing citizens to stop recording them while they carry out their duties in public spaces. It also seeks to stop police from confiscating recording devices without a warrant or subpoena.
Additionally, the bill would make police liable for breaking, damaging or losing a video recording device or even destroying its video contents.
The funny thing about this bill is that citizens already have all of the protections it puts in place.
Twelve states require the consent of all parties for a conversation to be recorded, but Ohio is not one of them. Even in most of those 12 states, courts have ruled that the expectation of privacy does not apply to on-duty police, or anyone in a public place for that matter.
This means that recording a police officer during the course of their duties in a public place, like a street, sidewalk or park, is allowed.
But where the situation gets muddy, is when an officer claims that the person recording them is interfering with their ability to do their job.
For example, if an officer is making an arrest and feels the person recording is too close for safety reasons they can request that the person backs up to a safe distance.
The problem becomes that sometimes officers can order individuals to stop recording altogether or even attempt to confiscate the phone or recording device in some situations. In the most extreme situation an officer could charge a recording citizen with obstruction of justice, failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer or disorderly conduct.
At the Journal-Tribune we routinely cover traffic accidents scenes which local law enforcement officers are working. We almost never have any trouble doing so. We try to stay back, out of the way, and the officers are too busy with other issues to worry about us.
But there have been very rare occasions when we have been told to leave scenes or not take photos of events as they unfold. Often times it would involve a victim receiving medical care, and basically involved the officer feeling we were being nosy or invasive.
But sometimes sensitive situations unfold in public places and we shouldn’t be told what we can and can’t photograph. We try not put graphic or upsetting images in print, but sometimes human tragedy is impactful and needs to be shown.
Honestly, our reporters should be no different than any other citizen photographing or recording public happenings. If a residents sees an arrest and wants to record the incident in a public space from a safe distance, they should be able to do so without being harassed.
But let me also add, the people who antagonize police and record it with the hopes of capturing an unflattering response are the lowest kind of muck in society. Basically, if you are just trying to harass police, you deserve the consequences.
It’s funny that the legislation even needs to be debated. Essentially, if police go about their duties and citizens record in a responsible manner, both sides should be able to go about their day without a new government mandate.
-Chad Williamson is the managing editor of the Journal-Tribune.