Caught on Film: What the Law Says About Filming the Police in Europe

The rise of social media and easily shareable video allows members of the public to film interactions with the police. But across Europe, this is now increasingly a contested issue.

As he was entering a suburban rail station in Paris last September, Guillaume Vadot heard intense cries of pain. He looked around and caught sight of a middle-aged black woman being forcefully handcuffed by officers. The university researcher pulled out his phone and began to film. But, according to Vadot, it was only a minute before officers snatched the device, tasered him, threatened to rape and kill him, and then insisted that he delete the video. Vadot later explained that he had been reminded of the case of Adama Traoré, a young black man who had died two months before under disputed circumstances, shortly after being taken into police custody.

In France, police face regular accusations of brutality and racial profiling, and tensions with minority communities have boiled over into protests and riots. Filming police interventions potentially creates a measure of accountability and an objective record of events.

Yet reports of harassment and prosecution of those who film the police are widespread across Europe. Just recently, Amal Bentounsi, a French anti-police brutality activist, was arrested for filming the police and sharing the video on social media. She is facing charges of “rebellion.” So what is the state of the law, and is there a right to film the police?

The European Court of Human Rights has not addressed the issue, beyond stating in general terms that the presence “watchdogs” during the policing of a demonstration is a guarantee that the authorities can be held to account. This has allowed national approaches to vary.

In some countries, moves are afoot to curtail documenting police actions. Spain in 2015 enacted the Citizen Security Law (better known as the gag law) that threatens a hefty fine for the unauthorized publication and dissemination of images of the police. In Belgium, a video blogger is appealing a €300 fine imposed by a court for filming and uploading two police officers’ response to an incident at a café, which in the court’s view violated their privacy. The Belgian interior minister is reportedly considering a formal legal ban. The lower house of the Dutch parliament recently adopted a motion calling for a change in the law that would result in the prohibition of the publication of recognizable images of police officers.

Despite the violent police response to Guillaume Vadot, French law, in fact, allows journalists and individuals to film or photograph the police in the public space and to publish the images—Ministry of Interior procedure allows for only limited exceptions. The Police in England and Wales follow similar rules, although here, too, practice on the streets is not always in tune with the law.

The right to film or photograph the police is a key safeguard of human rights and civil liberties in situations, particularly in situations that present a high risk of violations, such as stop-and-search operations, identity checks, or protests. Activists have argued that filming the police in action is a way to de-escalate tensions and potential violence, as the police officer is forced to behave in accordance with the law. Where abuses do occur, victims often find their version of events will not be believed unless video and photo evidence are available to support their claim against the police.

The fact that information creates accountability seems to be well-understood by police forces that have embraced the use of body-worn cameras by officers. Body cameras have been widely deployed in the United States since the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson in 2014, and European forces are exploring their use. Since December 2016, French officers have to wear them during identity checks in urban zones considered “risky,” as part of a one-year experiment. Ostensibly, body cameras should increase police accountability—but in New York City, for example, the terms under which the resulting material is used are being contested by critics. The Center for Constitutional Rights (which receives funding from the Open Society Foundations) has argued that the New York police program turns cameras into “an additional tool for police to investigate and charge” people, rather the protection against unconstitutional police stops that it was intended to be.  

If the police are able to film—placing them in control of the record of events—it is wrong that citizens are being denied the right to “film back.” A general right to film the police—subject only to limited and appropriate exceptions (such as the need to safeguard the rights of persons being detained and to avoid physical obstruction of police work)—would ultimately benefit their work, by helping to create an objective record of contested incidents and, in the long run, building public confidence in their work as a result of increased transparency and accountability. Filming the police also takes on particular importance in the context of public gatherings. The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly emphasizes that it is everyone’s right to observe and monitor public assemblies. Recording the law enforcement operations is one way of doing this. Under international law, all states should protect this right, and prohibit the seizing or destruction of recording equipment.

Learn More:



Such legislation is urgently necessary to document and eventually stop those utterly brutal and unlawful behaviour of police forces - not only in France but everywhere in the world

People, especially anyone who might be taking photos of incidents (of many possible kinds) - journalists, lawyers, rights workers, community activists, academics no less, anyone indeed anywhere -should know about the Guardian Project:
There are some apps of potential significance germane to this story.

If police are doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear - isn't that exactly the argument they use in other circumstances? People filming the police should have legal protection, not least from restrictions on recording speech with warrant or consent. There is no infringement of a police officer's privacy: as public officials, they have no claim to privacy in carrying out their duties. If someone is really obstructing the police in carrying out their duties, police can arrest them - but on condition that they are charged so that a court has an opportunity to determine if there was a real need to intervene, Police need to get over their self-illusions: they are public servants working on behalf of the public who have every right to record how their police go about their duties. Senior officers should be encouraging public filming: don't they want to know if their officers are behaving badly?

This anecdotal incident epitomises the widespread misuse and abuse of police power throughout the world, more so in the developed countries than in the developing ones. It also underlines that on the one hand digital convergence and mobile network has empowered civilians and armed whistleblowers to highlight the tyranny and excesses of police power, some of whom have developed an innate disposition to harass and torture their suspects or a 'suspected suspect' or a member of the public. It is hightime that journalists as well as citizen journalists should rally support from trade unions, governing bodies, civic organisations and seek a clarification and guarantee from the court. After all it is participatory audience which has to ensure that these harassment is not repeated in any part of the world by some miscreants who victimise people jsut for the sake of kick or thrill.

I found this piece to be very informative and educating. Now I know why police officers in Sierra Leone have mistreated and prevented citizens and journalists alike from taking pictures and or filming them when they are misbehaving in public. Somehow the thinking and behavior of the blues boys and girls are the same everywhere and shamefully, the law seems to condone that even in the developed world. For those of us in the last world where police brutality are mostly politically motivated and done out of discretion to prevent accountability, the right to filming and documenting police aggressions and providing them as evidences in any public fora is most welcome. Let's keep up the campaign!!!

Filming Police should be a Criminal effence. Why risk Police with Families be reconized and shoot down. For an example it happended in Sweden. its sickening.

What the hell are you talking about? If that were to ever happen that would be a very rare, isolated incident. People don't just go looking for police officers and murder them or their families, in Sweden least of all. That is an astronomically small risk for all the people it could be saving by filming them.

The first sign of a facist society is to have their police be uncountable to the same law their citizens are meant to uphold. All Police lie when faced with allegations of abuse. Video evidence is the only defence an innocent citizen has because in the eyes of the court, Police officers can do no wrong. This has been going on for too long. We need to make the Police accountable otherwise they are no different than the robber barons of old.

In the United States filming the police is a guaranteed constitutional right. It should be the same way in Europe, as these laws are crucial to ensuring safety of both police officers and citizens. Police should not be guaranteed to any privacy while carrying out their public duties, such as in Belgium, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and they should be ashamed of themselves. A public official should not have any expectation of privacy when in a public place, carrying out a public duty. There needs to be a universal constitution in European countries that guarantees the same constitutional rights to freedom of press and free speech. There is not always a lot right that the United States does, but the First Amendment is certainly one of them.

Supreme Court Case Law in Ireland, No. 264/2008 and 354/2008 implies that Video evidence can NOT be used in the Prosecution of Crime. This Anarchy implies that even the Police can NOT use Video evidence in Prosecuting Crime. The DPP ignored the same Video evidence and the DPP is in Contempt of High Court Order No. 2006/1114P since 2007. That Anarchy implies that the DPP is NOT entitled to Prosecute any Crime, likewise, the Police as the Police Prosecute under the office of the DPP. You will NOT find the above Corrupt Case Law on . The above is confirmation of total Anarchy on the Island of Ireland. How long will the E.U. and International Investors continue to fund a State Of Anarchy ??.

Add your voice