Trial date set for Brit police 'copter coppers over spying-on-doggers claims

Re: dragging them off by the rozzers

caught by the fuzz?

Re: Spotting chopper spotted chopper-spotting?

But did the Spotting chopper spotted chopper-spotting spotta whoppa?

I'm guessing they were outside (hence dogging), and if you're making the beast with two backs in an open area then those coppercopters can be a long way away and still make out recognisable features. I seem to remember an episode of Road Wars where they were quite chuffed with their new Eurocopter superzoom camera+FLIR, which could read number plates from more than a mile away.

I'm pretty sure I'd notice one hovering outside my window, even if I was "otherwise distracted".

Depends how fast you were going..

:)

I think it can become a crime if someone complains, but alfresco orgies are probably OK as long as they are kept discreet.

So how can recording or watching a crime in itself be a crime?

If the "crime" (which is IMHO up for debate itself, but hard to know from just the article) was in a secluded area like a garden, it was none of their business as it was NOT in public. At that point these coppers turn into a drone operators doing the same, just that their toys can be more expensive as the taxpayer is footing the bill. Observing events on private property can be termed surveillance, and that requires prior approval.

IANAL, mind, just having a stab (sorry) at the reasons these people were sent to court. Abuse of privileges must indeed be slapped down hard. Which again gets me perilously close to a euphemism :).

"Dogging is a crime as far as I am aware, public decency.

So how can recording or watching a crime in itself be a crime?"

This is a bit like the story of the old lady who goes into the police station and says that she can look out of her window and see her neighbours having sex in their bedroom. The policeman tells her that they shouldn't be doing that where they can be seen, and that she needs to keep a diary of when she sees them doing it, as that will be evidence.

"Oh dear," she says, "I can't do that, my son in law has taken his telescope back."

...and recording evidence of a crime can itself be criminal, e.g. making child pornography videos.

At a guess the were recording (and possibly sharing) footage when they weren't filming for the purposes of preventing crime. A helicopter is a very expensive resource to deploy, and using it against that sort of miscreant would seem unlikely. If they knew that the plods on the ground were unable or unwilling to respond, then to film the act would seem very likely to be for their own entertainment.

Having said that, this case involves (yet again) the serial bunglers of South Yorkshire plod. I'd guess that after a hugely expensive trial the case will collapse, and taxpayers will foot several hundred thousand quid of investigation costs, plus both prosecution and defence legal costs.

So how can recording or watching a crime in itself be a crime?

If someone's committing an offence it doesn't suddenly make it impossible for them to be victims of a crime; you presumably wouldn't have suggested that someone nicking their wallets, say, while they were "distracted" wasn't committing a crime?

Voyeurism !

On top of that one must ask what they did with the videos afterwards, YouTube , youporn, revenge porn etc .

And I would hate to think that the police now require helicopters in order to record dogging, it seems a rather overboard method for such a banal "crime"....

I'm not a lawyer but I believe you are incorrect.

There's nothing illegal in exposing oneself - as long as it isn't intended to cause offence. I don't even think the "I didn't see it but I'd have been offended if I had" argument works either. For there to be an offence someone who was watching had to be offended.

And it's not illegal to watch either, as long as the performers know and consent.

In fact, the illegal voyeurism was performed by the coppers: "operates equipment with the intention of enabling another person to observe, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, a third party doing a private act, and he knows that the third party does not consent to his operating equipment with that intention".

It is reasonable to assume that by having sex in a deserted area, at night, in a car, the doggers did not consent to the cops watching them.

And presumably this is indeed the case, otherwise the cops wouldn't be being prosecuted... "four counts of misconduct relating to watching and filming naked people without their consent and observing and recording people performing sexual acts".

@AC: "Dogging is a crime as far as I am aware, public decency."

Nope.

Sexual Offences Act 2003 - Section 66 - A person commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and

(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.

Section 67 - A person commits an offence if—

2) (a)he operates equipment with the intention of enabling another person to observe, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, a third person (B) doing a private act, and

(b)he knows that B does not consent to his operating equipment with that intention.

3) (a) he records another person (B) doing a private act,

(b)he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and

(c)he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention.

Dogging is a crime as far as I am aware, public decency.

Yes and no. Dogging and outraging public decency are a crime on public land or somewhere where you are easily observable from other people's private land or from public land.

You can do whatever you f***ing (literally) please on private land in a location which is not observable by neighbors with the landowner's permission and/or if you are the landowner. All you need to prove in court is that you had a reasonable expectation of privacy where you were doing it.

Using technical means to record activity in such cases falls under a range of statutes and these guys are getting nailed only under some of them. Though the ones they are being hit are the "worst" as far as they are concerned as a conviction will result in loss of police officer pension and benefits.

public decency

If no-one else was around, then ironically it would only become an offence of outraging public decency at the point the copper chopper turned up to view it. And then only if there were at least 2 coppers in the chopper.

Re: Police in court?

Put you tin-foil hat away; it's not unheard of for police officers t be prosecuted, and convicted of crimes, as well you'd know if you'd even bothered to do a cursory search on google.

It's also not that common (given the total number of officers), and understandably so, since most police staff are well behaved individuals, and have to undergo rigorous pre-employment checks in an effort to try to make sure that this is the case.

Re: Police in court?

sorry if I sound a little bitter - just had a actinic keratinoma/basal cell carcinoma lasered out of arm, any contact with the local NHS always puts me on edge.

Well, I'm sorry to hear about your suffering, and hope that all proceeds well. But why would you be bitter against the plods on account of the NHS trying to sort you out? I know we're talking about South Yorkshire police, (Motto: Est malum hoc facere) but I'm still not seeing the association?

And what are they watching from?

Because they are useful in some circumstances for catching criminals - i.e. it is safer to follow a getaway car in a chopper than in a high speed chase.

Just tooling around in the chopper 'looking for crime' seems like a giant waste of money though, as well as something that could be obviously abused in this way to peek on unsuspecting people who assume they aren't being spied upon, or more likely peeking in on ex-wives, ex-girlfriends, daughters and other illegal surveillance.

Four and a half years...

The prosecutor had the DVD and wouldn't give it back..