r/Glasgow Tools

Title
Author	dddiamonddd
Comment	> I am not a lawyer. But this isn't true and the memo doesn't say this. The memo literally says: > This, of course, does not affect an officer’s powers to seize items where they suspect there is evidence of criminality. Which is what I'm referring to? They can only seize if they suspect there's evidence of criminality. They can't just take people's phones unilaterally. And I'm not talking about data protection either? What grounds do you think the officer here has for seizing OP's phone? Because he doesn't articulate one in the video. >The memo does touch on that filming police can come under obstruction under the right context. I.E: A victim or witness may not feel comfortable giving testimony if they are being recorded. The reasons for this are fairly self-evident. I don't disagree. But merely filming the way OP does doesn't rise to that. If, say, the police and the woman in question tried to move away from OP to speak because she didn't want to be recorded and OP kept following them, then you can certainly argue that could become disruptive. As it stands, OP stood in the same position, the officer and the woman approached OP (well, the woman approached the officer, but by doing so essentially also approached OP), not the other way around. They would only be recorded speaking because they moved close enough to the recording device to be recorded. The remedy to that is to move away from it because there is nothing that legally prevents OP from recording. If OP does not allow them to remedy that, then you start getting into questionable territory. But not as things are presented here.
Reddit Link	https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/uwmmg9/follow_up_from_my_earlier_post_about_wether_the/i9siny8/
Created	Tue 24th May 2022 11:41am
Status	normal ()

> I am not a lawyer. But this isn't true and the memo doesn't say this.

The memo literally says:

> This, of course, does not affect an officer’s powers to seize items where they suspect there is evidence of criminality.

Which is what I'm referring to? They can only seize if they suspect there's evidence of criminality. They can't just take people's phones unilaterally. And I'm not talking about data protection either? What grounds do you think the officer here has for seizing OP's phone? Because he doesn't articulate one in the video.

>The memo does touch on that filming police can come under obstruction under the right context. I.E: A victim or witness may not feel comfortable giving testimony if they are being recorded. The reasons for this are fairly self-evident.

I don't disagree. But merely filming the way OP does doesn't rise to that. If, say, the police and the woman in question tried to move away from OP to speak because she didn't want to be recorded and OP kept following them, then you can certainly argue that could become disruptive. As it stands, OP stood in the same position, the officer and the woman approached OP (well, the woman approached the officer, but by doing so essentially also approached OP), not the other way around. They would only be recorded speaking because they moved close enough to the recording device to be recorded. The remedy to that is to move away from it because there is nothing that legally prevents OP from recording. If OP does not allow them to remedy that, then you start getting into questionable territory. But not as things are presented here.