Home / Connecticut Cop Assaults Woman for Video Recording him

Connecticut Cop Assaults Woman for Video Recording him

A cop in Connecticut assaulted a woman for video recording him on a public street after repeatedly telling her, “put the camera away.”

Not much information is available at this time for this video, which was posted to Youtube Thursday, but there is enough evidence to show the cop abused her rights.

The only reason I know it took place in Connecticut is because of the bus in the background that says CT Transit.

He informs her he needs to the camera to be put away to allow him to conduct his “investigation.”

Then a minute into the video, he grabs it from her.

Any cop who insists on a camera being turned off to conduct his investigation deserves ten cameras trained on him.

 

About Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller is founder and publisher of Photography is Not a Crime, which began as a one-man blog in 2007 to document his trial after he was arrested for photographing police during a journalistic assignment. He is also the author of The Citizen Journalist's Photography Handbook, which can be purchased through Amazon.
  • Jay

    Looks like the video is from a while ago. There’s leaves on the trees, everyone is in short sleeves.

    • Tim

      I think I saw this about 1 to 2 years ago????

      • Ian Battles

        Hey Carlos, this is in Hartford. I recognize the buildings across the street
        because I used to catch a bus from that exact spot. It’s the main bus hub around the corner from Constitution Plaza (how ironic). I double checked the location in Google maps and it gives me an address of 675 Main St.

  • Steve Steves

    I’d like to hear the cop’s side of the story, but yeah, If what’s on the video is all the relevant information, he should be fired and charged with assault.

    • wtf

      Its on camra that should be the only side you need!

  • BigPoppaAZ

    Douche nozzle with the flashlight is my favorite. Broad daylight under some sort of awning, yup time to turn on the flashlight, and narc on chica.

    • Difdi

      I own a rather bright tactical flashlight myself. If someone starts shining a powerful light in my eyes, I might shine mine right back. If it’s not assault for him to do it to me…

      • steveo

        What leos don’t understand is that a newsgathering videographer’s camera is different than almost any property that a leo seizes. All personal property is protected by the 4th Amendment, but seizure rules are heightened when the property is protected by the 1st Amendment, too. Leos need to start getting the memos.

        • Wandering_Bard

          LEOs got the memo. They just ignore it because they know that any disciplinary action will either be thrown out, or a paid suspension/vacation.

  • tiny

    fired out of a large CANNON! i would love to see that! what an asshole! beat down more like it.

  • rick

    I thought the other guy was holding a cellphone with it’s light on giving me the impression that he is recording also. I would love to see it from that angle

    • rick

      Capture from 0:46. The hand position threw me. After some slow motion views I believe him to be holding a small flashlight like a cigar.

      • steveo

        probably a leo working undercover. Doesn’t want his face on the internet. Surprise, Mr. leo we’re not supposed to have secret police in the US.

  • john

    She is rather well versed with a terry stop. She asks the officer if she is being detained or free to go. He responds with turn the camera off. She repeats the questions. Then I can not hear clearly what is being said to her. But the officer is not answering the question.
    The flashlight guy is trying to disrupt her video recording without success.

    • CL

      Probably not a flashlight. It looks like another camera with an IR range finder or night vision feature.

      • Ben

        Its not assault … its battery.

        • beniswrong

          according to CT law, you are also wrong.

          please be aware that states have different laws

        • Difdi

          Perhaps that’s how your state phrases the offense, but not every state uses the same statutory language. For example, in Washington state there is no such crime as battery mentioned in any statute.

          • pepemalanga

            slaves no more…

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Texas is the same. Common law “battery” is “assault” in Texas (by statute).

          • Difdi

            It’s the same in Washington. We have Assault but not Battery.

      • you’re wrong

        nope, it doesn’t, it looks like a flashlight, because it is

        • Ian Battles

          the moron obviously doesn’t understand how an apeture works. If he did, he’d know his attempt to obstruct the video would only work if it was dark out.

      • Kyle Macarthur

        By the way he’s holding the flashlight (like a weapon), it appears to be a flashlight…

    • Difdi

      Technically speaking, refusing to answer or evading the question is an answer. If you ask a cop if you’re being detained and he doesn’t say you are, then you are not detained.

      Walk away.

  • Jesse Clark

    Can we add a section on this site where you include follow ups to these. I just have to know that this guy eventually loses his job and is charged with assault.

    • $910553

      You probably don’t really want to see the follow-ups. Unless, of course, you want to get TOTALLY cynical. The follow-ups with the Blue Wall almost invariably show the Only One returning to work with full back pay.

  • James Nimmons

    Test police for steroids.. hehe i guess the NY trend of hring uneducatd cops with low IQs is spreading..yes they actually were outed has disdaining applicants who’s IQ is “too high” Cops should have to take a test each year to PROVE they know the laws they are supposed to uphold. They are not judge and Jury. When an officer breaks the law the punishment should be twice as severe becuase hes supposed to know it better than those he abuses.

  • Lefim

    I got a feeling there’s more to this. I mean: why would the woman be a subject of an “investigation” and why so many cops around? Was there some sort of street altercation previously involving her? Was she a witness who didn’t like the attitude of the investigating cop? Curious minds want to know.

    Looking around, one did find a couple of things on Connecticut. One it’s another of them funny “two-party” consent states, but with a “where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy” escape clauses – mosly covering phone conversations and “up-skirting” hidden camera type issues. Another thing is New Haven seems to have a bad rap about cops and cameras – at least I noticed a number of New Haven stories that popup on a search.

    Also, while looking, I stumbled across this PDF at http://www.aele.org/law/2012-07MLJ201.html summerizing photography cases since their 2009 report (Gilk, Kelly, Graber, the DOJ letter to Baltimore, a bit of Alvarez up to the injuction bit). In it, Gilk made a ten-foot “rule” for recording cops (Miller’s is twenty feet) but didn’t see anything about self-recording interactions with cops. It does have this interesting conclusion about the middle of the paper:

    “… it is clear that widespread video and audio taping of police activity is here to stay, and increasingly accepted and expected by the public and the courts. As a consequence, every law enforcement agency has an urgent need to make sure that it has comprehensive policies and effective training to cope with the reality of heightened scrutiny.”

    Now I understand cops don’t like one holding on small plastic objects that could go pounding upside their heads, but unless the woman is a suspect and should be detained on a public sidewalk, the cop shoulda use a little common sense.

  • steveo

    Get ahold of Mario Cerame and Father Manship. I’d bet my house that that cop is done. The four leos who arrested Father Manship in CT got fired and charged criminally for pretty much the same thing.

    I’m still baffled by leos who differentiate bystanders by the ones standing around watching with thumbs in their mouths and the bystanders who have smartphones pointed at them. I really don’t know what the heck is the difference.

    • Difdi

      The differences are that singling out the ones with the cameras is a federal crime and a violation of the police officer’s oath.

      No other differences.

  • moonmist

    Cops have become control freaks, they no longer protect and serve, they abuse and inflict harm to the people they are suppose to protect.

    • rick

      Police have always been control freaks. The difference now is the ubiquitous cell phone camera that exposes police (mis)conduct.
      “The pen is mightier than the sword” has changed to “the camera is mightier than the officer’s word.”

      • dr. angelface

        well put.

  • ToddG

    jack boot thug..

    • Al Dailey

      arrogant punk needs a good ole fashioned trip to the wood shed for a respect building session. bastard needs fired and charged with assault.

  • Bobbie Jo Justice

    try that with me and there’s going to be at least one less cop on this planet. QUIT BEING SHEEP.

    • pepemalanga

      well what do you expect google IQ to be excepted into police academy a cop,in nj…not over 100…can you say no critical thinkers on force

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        Wow! I’m impressed with your command of the English language. Except “excepted” doesn’t mean “accepted.”

        • Quad

          …and grammar troll is a troll.

          • Difdi

            Words have meaning. Since the point of using words at all is to communicate, using the wrong ones means you’ve failed in your attempt.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Probably. I do think that it is humorous that one who is berating police on their lack of IQ and critical thinking ability can’t write a simple sentence, using the appropriate words instead of improper ones. I didn’t even address the other grammar problems, but I would be happy to do so.

  • Jbroyles

    The girls name is Lindsey Wainwright, the illegal arrest came after an occupy hartford activity in April of 2012. A link to her story is here http://superchief.tv/dear-superchief-i-was-arrested-for-filming-in-public-and-held-in-jail-for-9-hours-on-5000-bail-in-a-french-maid-costume/

    • Rebecca

      Yep, I was there and it was ridiculous.

    • rick

      I couldn’t find any conclusion online to this story. Anyone else?

      • Dude

        http://occupyhartfordct.com/author/admin/

        Under report back section

        Diane – Lindsay’s court date – on 8.23.12, Lindsay accepted community
        service (at ASCPA?) because she will be leaving the country. Has to
        appear in court one more time to report that she has done her time – on
        9.17.12!

    • Jbroyles

      Being in Bristol right down the road, this caught my eye. I also was searching for updates but haven’t been able to find any. There was literally no media coverage around here on this arrest. I’ve sent some media queries today to see if there is any interest in covering the story. Rebecca, do you know more about how Lindsey faired in court? The security guard from the bank building should be identified and memorialized here for being a complete pathetic idiot.

      • Guest

        i just spoke to her today via facebook and she said after 5 court dates, the charges were dropped.

        • Cole Johnson

          America has gone nazi! from the traitor president on down to the lowest police officer! BEWARE A merica!

  • Dale

    Must sue in Federal Court under 42 USC Sec. 1983, Civil action for deprivation of rights – EVERY TIME !!!
    Sue the officer(s) personally, sue his/her department, sue the city/county they work for, and sue the state.
    Demand a jury trial ( Seventh Amendment ).
    7th Circuit Court of Appeals – ACLU of ILLINOIS v. ANITA ALVAREZ – http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/Q30SE2HK.pdf
    1st Circuit Court of Appeals – GLIK v. CUNNIFFE – http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf

  • Charlie

    Don’t get it there were more people( including men??) that were standing around doing nothing. All that needed to happen was to arrest the police donkey that was wat the hell out of line. You had video to back up the arrest. Seems this cop is a little man with a big chip on his shoulder.

  • bucofama

    another thug with a badge that needs the crap beat out of him

  • Davy V.

    This cop deserves to be fired.

  • Zoom

    This cop needs to be fired ASAP. And who ever trained him should be looked into. This is exactly the kind of behavior from cops that we do not need.

  • rick

    Leaves on the trees and short sleeves. I’m guessing she just got her phone back.

  • http://www.cafepress.com/bulliesforromney Bullies For Romney

    Seriously, at what point does the public rush to the defense of a citizen and restrain a cop, placing him under Citizens Arrest, until a supervising officer arrives? Ten cameras recorded this. C’mon, people. It’s time to defend out rights.

  • Derp

    I used to live a block from there. It’s Hartford CT just on the edge of downtown.

  • An American First

    He’s lucky it wasn’t my wife I would have his ass! I hope her husband gets some justice without using the court system. It’s time for all American’s to stand up to their police state bullshit!

  • Difdi

    Wherever the line is, most places in the country haven’t crossed it yet.

    But it’s well-established human psychology, that the more people present watching a crime or other emergency, the less likely any one of them is to take any action. Everybody assumes someone else will so they don’t have to get involved…so nobody does.

  • tomhoser

    Then boned up the ass for good measure.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tony.gregory.925 Tony Gregory

    I agree the cop should be fired.

  • Rebecca
  • hippybiker

    Pigs are crap eaters! They don’t play the sh*t where folks carry guns. They are mostly polite.

  • Robert Iacomacci

    Its Hartford Connecticut!!!!!!!!!

  • Florida Criminal Defense

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 18 USC § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States”