Question from a reader:
I heard that the police have started using wearable cameras during stop-and-frisk encounters. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that filming private individuals constitutes a violation of portrait rights unless they are committing a crime or have recently committed one. What legal basis does the police have for filming in this context? Is it necessary to obtain
permission each time they film?

Police Stop-and-Frisk and Wearable Cameras: Legal Basis and Portrait Rights Issues

Recently, I heard about the police using wearable cameras during stop-and-frisk encounters. In response to this, a reader asked how the police have the legal basis to film and whether they need to obtain permission to do so. As someone majoring in psychology at university, I am also interested in the legal aspects. Additionally, I work part-time at a judicial scrivener’s office, so I have some knowledge of the law. This time, I would like to delve a bit deeper into this topic.

Background of Wearable Camera Implementation

First, let’s consider the background of the police implementing wearable cameras. This aims to enhance transparency and build trust with citizens. By recording whether police duties are being carried out fairly, it is believed to help prevent unjust stop-and-frisk encounters and acts of violence. From a psychological perspective, making these actions visible creates a sense of psychological security for citizens. Stop-and-frisk is a necessary measure for the police to prevent and investigate crimes, but it can sometimes cause anxiety for citizens. The introduction of wearable cameras can be seen as one means to alleviate such concerns.

Legal Basis: Police Authority

Now, let’s think about the legal basis for the police to film using wearable cameras. Article 2 of the Japanese Police Act states that the police’s duties include “preventing and investigating crimes.” Stop-and-frisk is positioned as part of this, allowing police officers to act within the scope of their authority. Specifically, when a police officer judges that there is a suspicion of a crime or determines that it is necessary to prevent a crime, they are granted the authority to carry out their duties. In this context, filming with a wearable camera is often considered part of that duty. However, what is important here is the purpose of the filming. The purpose of the police recording with a wearable camera must be to maintain the appropriateness of their duties. This includes the need to prove that the content of the stop-and-frisk and the actions of the police officer were appropriate. This serves as the legal basis.

Portrait Rights and Their Application

Next, let’s consider the issue of portrait rights. Portrait rights are the rights that limit others from filming one’s image without permission and are regarded as an important aspect of privacy. The Supreme Court has ruled that filming constitutes a violation of portrait rights unless the individual is committing or has recently committed a crime. Therefore, if a general citizen is unrelated to a situation, police filming could potentially infringe upon their portrait rights. However, in the context of police stop-and-frisk, a different perspective is necessary. When police officers film for the purpose of investigating or preventing a crime, portrait rights may be restricted. In other words, if a citizen being stopped is suspected of a crime, their portrait rights are not necessarily absolute in that situation.

Need for Permission

So, is it necessary for the police to obtain permission when filming? This depends on the purpose and circumstances of the filming. Generally, it can be said that police officers do not need to seek permission to film during a stop-and-frisk. This is because stop-and-frisk is carried out as part of their legally granted authority, and there is no need to seek prior permission. However, if filming is deemed inappropriate for the general public or if it is judged that the filming exceeds the scope of their duties, different considerations may need to be taken into account. This is a delicate line to draw, but fundamentally, it is believed that there is no need to seek permission in the context of stop-and-frisk.

Personal Opinion

I personally support the introduction of wearable cameras. I believe transparency is crucial for building trust between the police and citizens. However, we must not forget to respect individual privacy. Regardless of the duty, it is undesirable for citizens’ privacy to be unconditionally violated. I feel that strict rules and guidelines are necessary regarding the use of wearable cameras. For instance, if the filming captures unrelated scenes, it is essential to clarify how that footage will be handled and stored. By ensuring transparency, I believe we can gain the understanding and cooperation of citizens.

Conclusion

The use of wearable cameras during police stop-and-frisk encounters has a legal basis, but it is crucial to balance this with citizens’ portrait rights. Consideration of the purpose and circumstances of filming is required for appropriate implementation. To build trust between the police and citizens, operations must be conducted transparently. I believe this issue will continue to provoke social discussion in the future. It is important for us citizens to deepen our knowledge about police duties and to hold opinions on the matter. Reflecting on this issue from legal and psychological perspectives will contribute to guiding society in a better direction.