# Police use HIPAA to charge person for recording them



## ffemt8978 (Jan 10, 2013)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...justify-charging-citizen-recording-them.shtml

Unfortunately, there's no link to the actual source yet.


----------



## usalsfyre (Jan 10, 2013)

ffemt8978 said:


> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...justify-charging-citizen-recording-them.shtml
> 
> Unfortunately, there's no link to the actual source yet.



Pretty sure since the charged individual doesn't transmit billing information it will be dismissed if HIPAA is the actual charge.

The reluctance of law enforcement officers to be recorded is HIGHLY disturbing.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 10, 2013)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

There are many fine officers, but the desire to catch the bad guy or save the world from ourselves gets the better of some.


----------



## Fish (Jan 10, 2013)

Seems like an absurd charge....... But being video taped is ANNOYING, nobody likes constantly being on edge. This in no way justifies the actions of the Sheriffs Office....... Just stating it is annoying, and rude to video tape.


----------



## JPINFV (Jan 10, 2013)

Unless the police officer is fired and charged with destruction of property, why should we trust police officers again?


----------



## Shishkabob (Jan 10, 2013)

> Henderson should insist that we take the deputy at her word, assume she collected the camera and its footage as evidence, and then we can all begin discussing how much prison time the deputy should be doing for destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice.


  That, PLUS a civil rights suit for illegal search and seizure.  


I'm usually against litigation but sometimes that's all there is against corruption.


----------



## Achilles (Jan 10, 2013)

We have a guy that films police here all the time.
Although everytime he is pulled over, he is breaking the lawn one way or another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFSiG455wz8&sns=em


----------



## mycrofft (Jan 10, 2013)

As was discussed a while back, there are actually laws in some states about this since surveilling officers is the first step in assassinating or blackmailing them. Others don't want it done at all because things are taken out of context. And some don't want it because they are corrupt.


----------



## Bullets (Jan 11, 2013)

Fish said:


> Seems like an absurd charge....... But being video taped is ANNOYING, nobody likes constantly being on edge. This in no way justifies the actions of the Sheriffs Office....... Just stating it is annoying, and rude to video tape.



Why is it annoying? Unless they are shoving the camera in the patients face, they have every right to be there. Unless you know you're doing something wrong and don't want it filmed. Seems like the only people who object to filming are ones who have attitude problems and feel like they are being questioned. And they don't like being questioned.


----------



## ExpatMedic0 (Jan 11, 2013)

usalsfyre said:


> The reluctance of law enforcement officers to be recorded is HIGHLY disturbing.





Veneficus said:


> Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> 
> There are many fine officers, but the desire to catch the bad guy or save the world from ourselves gets the better of some.



+1 to both


----------



## mycrofft (Jan 11, 2013)

Let's put cameras in the back of all ambulances and put the voice recorders back into AED's, with mandatory daily download to your local EMSA (not to mention maybe local newspaper or blogisphere?


----------



## Kevinf (Jan 11, 2013)

EMTs don't generally have the power to levy fines and imprisonment against any person they like in the back of an ambulance. Patient treatment is generally a private thing (though I wouldn't be opposed to recordings being made that are sealed unless a complaint is filed, ex. PT complains of inappropriate contact by provider, and the PT also has the option to have their transport video deleted) versus arrests and imprisonment which are public record (per the country's founding documents).


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 11, 2013)

mycrofft said:


> Let's put cameras in the back of all ambulances and put the voice recorders back into AED's, with mandatory daily download to your local EMSA (not to mention maybe local newspaper or blogisphere?



Strangely enough, I would find wearing a voice recorder to actually be useful. That way I wouldn't have to write a chart, I could basically dictate what I saw, thought, and wanted as I went.

Pathologists do this and it works really well. 

With video would be even better.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 11, 2013)

Kevinf said:


> EMTs don't generally have the power to levy fines and imprisonment against any person they like in the back of an ambulance. Patient treatment is generally a private thing (though I wouldn't be opposed to recordings being made that are sealed unless a complaint is filed, ex. PT complains of inappropriate contact by provider, and the PT also has the option to have their transport video deleted) versus arrests and imprisonment which are public record (per the country's founding documents).



But none of those apply to John Q. Public videotaping from a public area.


----------



## JPINFV (Jan 11, 2013)

mycrofft said:


> Let's put cameras in the back of all ambulances and put the voice recorders back into AED's, with mandatory daily download to your local EMSA (not to mention maybe local newspaper or blogisphere?


  4 of the trauma bays at one of the hospitals is video recorded for QA and training purposes.


----------



## VFlutter (Jan 11, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> 4 of the trauma bays at one of the hospitals is video recorded for QA and training purposes.



Same here along with some of our ICU and Neuro floors


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 14, 2013)

I can tell you I hate being video recorded and try to stay out of shots as much as possible. If we have a legitimate complaint against someone recording we will ask they leave the area and then get law enformcement to remove them. For example while running calls with the fire department if we have a fatality wreck or a very bad injury wreck on the highway, and someone tries to stop on the shoulder and record, the cops will tell them to leave then issue them a ticket for illegally parking their vehicle, same goes on all roads really. If they pull off in a parking lot owned by a business and try to record sometimes the police will tell them to leave and then warn them they will be issued tickets for loitering. Fact is I don't want to be the guy in uniform in the background on any news story about who's who died and the response time by EMS was twice the state average and dispatch got the wrong fire department and blah blah blah...

If someone wants to legally video us fine. If someone is in any way impeding us or annoying us, and we have a legal reason to request police to begin issuing tickets, we will.


----------



## usalsfyre (Jan 14, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> If someone wants to legally video us fine. If someone is in any way impeding us or *annoying us*, and we have a legal reason to request police to begin issuing tickets, we will.



Be a freaking adult. If you want to be a public servant...act like one. "Annoying you" is not a good reason to selectively enforce the law.

Your feelings don't enter into the equation.


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 14, 2013)

usalsfyre said:


> Be a freaking adult. If you want to be a public servant...act like one. "Annoying you" is not a good reason to selectively enforce the law.
> 
> Your feelings don't enter into the equation.



Protecting family that have not been notified yet is a good enough reason for me. Period. I'm not here to cater to the guy with his I-phone and his window down while he is driving past. A medical emergency is exactly that. A tragedy where people die is exactly that, I refuse to let myself be seen in a home youtube video because someone thought the crash was "cool". Now if the emergency part is over, the body has been transported, or the family has been notified. And the videoing is not endangering us or others, fine.


----------



## usalsfyre (Jan 14, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Protecting family that have not been notified yet is a good enough reason for me. Period. I'm not here to cater to the guy with his I-phone and his window down while he is driving past. A medical emergency is exactly that. A tragedy where people die is exactly that, I refuse to let myself be seen in a home youtube video because someone thought the crash was "cool". Now if the emergency part is over, the body has been transported, or the family has been notified. And the videoing is not endangering us or others, fine.


That's a clown excuse. You're simply trying to justify actions you know are wrong. News in this day and age is not limited to your definition.

You put yourself in the public eye. You don't want to be? Fine, leave Fire/EMS. I've been on covers of papers, ect almost always in connection with a tragic event. It is what it is. You infringing someone else's rights because you're uncomfortable being on camera is not acceptable.


----------



## Aidey (Jan 14, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Protecting family that have not been notified yet is a good enough reason for me. Period. I'm not here to cater to the guy with his I-phone and his window down while he is driving past. A medical emergency is exactly that. A tragedy where people die is exactly that, I refuse to let myself be seen in a home youtube video because someone thought the crash was "cool". Now if the emergency part is over, the body has been transported, or the family has been notified. And the videoing is not endangering us or others, fine.



You do understand that the law is against you on this right? It has been reinforced multiple times in the courts that you have zero expectation of privacy in public. If you don't like being photographed or recorded, don't be out in public.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 14, 2013)

*I should have been a lawyer.*

Anyway. I do not want to engage in this argument, but for the benefit of both parties would like to point out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_of_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution

Just something to keep in mind as you formulate your opinions.


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 14, 2013)

Aidey said:


> You do understand that the law is against you on this right? It has been reinforced multiple times in the courts that you have zero expectation of privacy in public. If you don't like being photographed or recorded, don't be out in public.



If the person photographing or videoing is breaking the law, and we have the available manpower to enforce the law. We generally do.


----------



## Aidey (Jan 14, 2013)

I'm not talking about people breaking the law. I'm talking about you're attitude that you have some right to not be recorded.


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 14, 2013)

Aidey said:


> I'm not talking about people breaking the law. I'm talking about you're attitude that you have some right to not be recorded.



People can record me if it does not in any way break the law or interfere with my scene or the safety of myself or others. I find that there are very few places where that is the case until after the incident is over or at least managed and controlled.


----------



## Aidey (Jan 14, 2013)

I think it is more likely that you've _imagined _that there are very few places where that is the case.


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 14, 2013)

Also as far as selective enforcment of law goes. I find that law is selectively enforced where the law enforcement are. If law enforcement is on my scene, that is where the law will be enforced, it won't be enforced at the parking lot 3 roads over, because they aren't there. So yes, it absolutely is selectively enforced in that regard.


----------



## usalsfyre (Jan 14, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> People can record me if it does not in any way break the law or interfere with my scene or the safety of myself or others. I find that there are very few places where that is the case until after the incident is over or at least managed and controlled.



I'm curious how videoing from always off would interfere with operations. For instance if there's an incident in view of my front yard, would me standing in my front yard videoing be interfering with your op?

My question is what are you afraid of being seen?


----------



## usalsfyre (Jan 14, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Also as far as selective enforcment of law goes. I find that law is selectively enforced where the law enforcement are. If law enforcement is on my scene, that is where the law will be enforced, it won't be enforced at the parking lot 3 roads over, because they aren't there. So yes, it absolutely is selectively enforced in that regard.


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 14, 2013)

Aidey said:


> I think it is more likely that you've _imagined _that there are very few places where that is the case.



Car wreck happens on a 5 lane road (2 each way one turning lane). There is a strip mall on one side and houses all across the street on the other side. It is illegal for anyone to park their car in the road and take pictures. It is illegal to park in the strip mall lot for the sole purpose of taking pictures (every strip mall around here has a no loitering sign). It is illegal to walk in the peoples yard or stand in their yard in front of the houses on the other side of the road (private property). and If I have an ambulance parked up over the sidewalk to keep it out of the way the sidewalk is closed for people to come near my scene. So if you want to take pictures you better be parked somewhere legally, and taking photo's behind the edges of my scene that I deem a working area, if you are doing that than I am fine with it. generally that is not in the immediate area. 

Car wreck happens on the highway, no excuse for anyone to stop on the highway for any sort of pictures or video, it is illegal, and it is unsafe. The only video or pictures will be from a news chopper and that is fine, unless we feel the need to fly someone out, in which case I will be darned if a news chopper comes anywhere near my airspace until after the person is flown out. 


my point is there are places you can take pictures or video at scenes I am at. They are not likely to be close, and the only way I tollerate them is if they do not interfere with my scene and do not interfere with anyones safety.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jan 14, 2013)

usalsfyre said:


> Be a freaking adult. If you want to be a public servant...act like one. "Annoying you" is not a good reason to selectively enforce the law.
> 
> Your feelings don't enter into the equation.



I will, however, say the moment the doors my ambulance close, I DO have an expectation of privacy and do have the right to ask them be shut off.  Not saying I have, not saying I will, just saying it's there.




Just like smoking. (Except I HAVE demanded them be put out, and WILL continue to do so as a condition of you calling 911 for my help)


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 14, 2013)

usalsfyre said:


> I'm curious how videoing from always off would interfere with operations. For instance if there's an incident in view of my front yard, would me standing in my front yard videoing be interfering with your op?
> 
> My question is what are you afraid of being seen?



I have no problem with you videoing in your front yard, however if three people who clearly don't live there pull their cars in your driveway and get out and start videoing, they will be told to leave. Its private property and they are breaking the law. 



I prefer to have one of our captains handle press. If someone wants a video interview or a statement about an incident they can come to the station or make a phone call. I will not appear in an interview, department policy states it will be handled by captain +. If its a large incident we will have a public information officer or one of the chiefs will be handling press. I am there to do my job, if the news wants to get interviews with me or the rest of the guys that work/volunteer at my station they can talk to one of the big wigs and get prior approval before interviewing.


----------



## usalsfyre (Jan 14, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Car wreck happens on a 5 lane road (2 each way one turning lane). There is a strip mall on one side and houses all across the street on the other side. It is illegal for anyone to park their car in the road and take pictures. It is illegal to park in the strip mall lot for the sole purpose of taking pictures (every strip mall around here has a no loitering sign). It is illegal to walk in the peoples yard or stand in their yard in front of the houses on the other side of the road (private property). and If I have an ambulance parked up over the sidewalk to keep it out of the way the sidewalk is closed for people to come near my scene. So if you want to take pictures you better be parked somewhere legally, and taking photo's behind the edges of my scene that I deem a working area, if you are doing that than I am fine with it. generally that is not in the immediate area.
> 
> Car wreck happens on the highway, no excuse for anyone to stop on the highway for any sort of pictures or video, it is illegal, and it is unsafe. The only video or pictures will be from a news chopper and that is fine, unless we feel the need to fly someone out, in which case I will be darned if a news chopper comes anywhere near my airspace until after the person is flown out.
> 
> ...



I'm going into the business but want to take some pics first. 

Is it trespassing if the property owner doesn't file a complaint?

You routinely close sidewalks and roll the patients over curbs? Is there any statute actually supporting you closing the sidewalk?

Why are you so bothered by this?


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 14, 2013)

Linuss said:


> I will, however, say the moment the doors my ambulance close, I DO have an expectation of privacy and do have the right to ask them be shut off.  Not saying I have, not saying I will, just saying it's there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I respect that. Although I am not even sure about the legality of demanding that ciggerettes be put out. I am all for it but unsure about that.


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 14, 2013)

usalsfyre said:


> I'm going into the business but want to take some pics first.
> 
> Is it trespassing if the property owner doesn't file a complaint?
> 
> ...



we routinely close sidewalks when there is a wreck blocking multiple lanes. Generally we have police cars and everything else up on the sidewalk. Plus if it is an extrication that sidewalk is within the "zone" that I don't want the public. If you park legally and go into the business fine. I assure you that we see much more of people illegally parking across 2-3+ spaces and then congregating in the parking lot. I'm not here to nitpick little situations. I prefer less video on my scenes, you are okay with more. I have law to back me up, so do you.


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 14, 2013)

usalsfyre said:


> I'm going into the business but want to take some pics first.
> 
> Is it trespassing if the property owner doesn't file a complaint?
> 
> ...




Question for you regarding this. Lets say you are running a medical call. You have a guy who stroked in walmart. It is just you, your partner, and a law enforcment officer on scene. This guy appears to be a stroke and his wife is with him. There are people gathering around pulling their cell phones out and taking video. Do you feel like you have the legal authority to ask the law enforcement officer to ask people to shut their camera's off and not take video, or audio recordings while you identify the man, and go over past medical history with his wife. Seems to me like you would be discussing private medical information out in the open as a medical neccesity to not delay treatment.  Do you think that is justifiable to have people shut off audio and video recording?


----------



## mycrofft (Jan 14, 2013)

Walmart is private property. They can shut the store. There will be a sign someplace that says "right to pass subject to owner's permission" or some such. 

I hated bystanders and I hate flashmobs on principle.


On a public area (road, sidewalk, park) I bet there are some case law guidelines as to what a reasonable zone of exclusion is.


----------



## Rialaigh (Jan 14, 2013)

mycrofft said:


> Walmart is private property. They can shut the store. There will be a sign someplace that says "right to pass subject to owner's permission" or some such.
> 
> I hated bystanders and I hate flashmobs on principle.
> 
> ...




I know all MVA's are considered possible gas leaks until proven otherwise, and I know that ERG reccomends 150 ft. So that is an official standard for starters which you could cite for booting people (anyone not in turnout pants, or not "trained") 150 feet from your MVA scene....


----------



## NomadicMedic (Jan 14, 2013)

Folks, as one of the CL's, I'm going to say this thread is going to be deemed "agree to disagree." 

It is reasonable to assume that as an EMS provider, you may be recorded at any time. Your behavior should reflect that. It is also reasonable that if the EMS provider feels his safety or the safety of others is being compromised, he may ask law-enforcement to intervene.

We can go round and round on this topic, But I feel that we're not going to get anywhere fast… 

Also, be aware that we do not issue any legal advice on this forum. I'll be keeping an eye on this discussion…


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 14, 2013)

n7lxi said:


> Folks, as one of the CL's, I'm going to say this thread is going to be deemed "agree to disagree."
> 
> It is reasonable to assume that as an EMS provider, you may be recorded at any time. Your behavior should reflect that. It is also reasonable that if the EMS provider feels his safety or the safety of others is being compromised, he may ask law-enforcement to intervene.
> 
> ...


You said it a lot nicer than I was going to.


----------



## usalsfyre (Jan 14, 2013)

n7lxi said:


> Folks, as one of the CL's, I'm going to say this thread is going to be deemed "agree to disagree."
> 
> It is reasonable to assume that as an EMS provider, you may be recorded at any time. Your behavior should reflect that. It is also reasonable that if the EMS provider feels his safety or the safety of others is being compromised, he may ask law-enforcement to intervene.
> 
> ...



The reason I can't "agree to disagree" is what's being talked about is selectively enforcing laws on shaky arguments because he's uncomfortable with what in most cases is a 100% legal action. These are not the actions of people who would tell you they're "public servants" on most cases, it's the actions of those that are abusing their authority because they're scared of something.


----------



## usalsfyre (Jan 14, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Question for you regarding this. Lets say you are running a medical call. You have a guy who stroked in walmart. It is just you, your partner, and a law enforcment officer on scene. This guy appears to be a stroke and his wife is with him. There are people gathering around pulling their cell phones out and taking video. Do you feel like you have the legal authority to ask the law enforcement officer to ask people to shut their camera's off and not take video, or audio recordings while you identify the man, and go over past medical history with his wife. Seems to me like you would be discussing private medical information out in the open as a medical neccesity to not delay treatment.  Do you think that is justifiable to have people shut off audio and video recording?



Easy...don't stay in WalMart. You have the option of removing the patient easily. No, I'm not going to ask the cop to start busting heads...I'm just going to load the patient and take him and the wife to the truck.

You seem very, very rigid and inflexible on this for reasons you still haven't really explained. You may think the law backs you up but in reality it does not.


----------



## NomadicMedic (Jan 14, 2013)

Okay. I think we're done here.


----------

