Is it legal for police to travel with a film crew and publicize arrest footage without consent?
<p>Am I right to assume that police bodycam footage is only allowed to be released as part of a court order / as evidence? </p>

<p>If this were true, than wouldn't a news crew accompanying the police officer be illegal? I'll explain this further:</p>

<p>I recently saw a video on Youtube where a person is being arrested by a traffic officer for a minor violation. Accompanying the officer is a videographer who apparently works for a news network. The traffic stop is being filmed as part of a <em>Cops</em>-type series called <em>Bad Drivers</em> or something. </p>

<p>If the news crew were to have simply stumbled upon the arrest, I can understand their right to publicize. But this situation happened on the side of the freeway, and it's clear the news crew was either following or being transported by the police. Furthermore, as the stopped driver is basically under arrest, the cop is the only one in this situation who can command the filmers to stop.</p>

<p>Since the filming would not occur without the cop's support, it seems like the cop should be responsible for the filming (and the same laws as body cameras should apply). </p>

<p>I am in San Francisco, California, USA, but interested in other areas' laws as well. </p>

<p>It's really the other way around: film crews can legally travel with the police.</p>

<p>This is very similar or identical to what you saw on YouTube. From <a href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2014/04/cops-and-suspects-rights-whatcha-gonna-do-when-they-record-you.html" rel="noreferrer">http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2014/04/cops-and-suspects-rights-whatcha-gonna-do-when-they-record-you.html</a> <em>(dated 4/18/2014)</em> </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Cops" will soon begin a 10-week filming stretch in San Jose,
  California, for the first time in the show's 26-year history, reports
  the San Jose Mercury News. The "Cops" crew will hit the streets
  alongside San Jose's finest to provide a window into what these men
  and women do in America's 10th largest city.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>More from that link:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When the officers on "Cops" arrest most of their suspects, the
  circumstances leading up to the arrest are out in public. However, in
  order to avoid unlawfully appropriating the images of those caught on
  "Cops'" cameras, the crew asks the arrestees to sign a release form.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The "news crew" are producers who have permission from the police to follow along. As above, they ask each suspect to sign a release after the arrest. These arrests take place in public, on public streets and right-aways, where filming of the public is legal. If the arrestee does not sign the release, their face is blurred in the resulting footage that is made public.</p>

<p>This does not mean the producers or videographers are automatically allowed into a private residence. They need a release to go onto private property (unlike the police involved in an investigation) and as such, the resident can actually forbid the cameramen from entering the house even while the police have entered.</p>

<p>The footage from the body cams of the police are a different story; they are  public employees of the local government and are bound by the laws of the locality. A search of Google News shows that in San Fransisco, the issues of the use of body cams by police and public access to that video is an ongoing issue; some laws have been finalized, others are bound to change.</p>

<p>Around the US, some localities at this point in time allow public access to the footage from police cams; others only after department or local governmental review; still others only on in as need basis for prosecutions.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>...the cop is the only one in this situation who can command the
  filmers to stop.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Even if the "news crew" is not a news crew and just someone from the general public, it is generally legal for the public to film the police, as long as they are not causing issues with the police and stay out of the way (re: all of the recent news regarding police shootings and the footage available on YouTube and in news sources). There is case law pertaining to that, but IANAL, so I'll let someone else outline that.</p>

<p>But <a href="https://photographyisnotacrime.com/" rel="noreferrer">https://photographyisnotacrime.com/</a> is a good resource. In the US, you pretty much have no expectation of privacy while in public.</p>

<p><strong>There is no expectation of privacy when in public.</strong></p>
<p>News crews (who despite the common misunderstanding of “press credentials” have no special privileges that an ordinary citizen does not have), can film whatever they can see while on public property. Some states are 1 party consent, others are 2 party consent, but that only applies when there is an expectation of privacy —- you can’t stand in the middle of the road and shout and also prevent people from recording you.</p>
<p>How the videographers get to the scene is irrelevant, as long as they have a legal right to be there and there is no expectation of privacy, they have a legal right to film.</p>
<p>The cops do NOT have the authority to tell the videographers to stop filming, at most they can tell them to keep a safe distance away (and since they brought them, even that would be a bit questionable or reduced as they most likely can’t claim fear of someone they brought).</p>

united-states california privacy police