It’s an image Eugene residents often see: dozens of protesters bicycling through downtown and Eugene police officers carrying video cameras taking it all in.
The protest, called Critical Mass, is part of a national movement advocating Earth-friendly transportation, and police typically issue several traffic violations at the event and videotape protesters.
The EPD videotapes other protests and marches as well, and the police “Party Patrol” regularly uses cameras while breaking up parties in the University area.
EPD officers say they use video cameras to collect evidence only in situations expected to lead to criminal activity, though some Eugene residents feel the video cameras are used to intimidate activists and partygoers.
“It seems to me that they’re pretty excessive in their use of video cameras,” said Trish Binder, co-founder of the Independent Police Review Project. “I’ve had video cameras trained on me while just walking along at a rally. It seems like a pretty big deterrent to exercising your First Amendment rights.”
Many activists fear that the EPD is using video cameras to collect information about protesters, which could be used to identify, harass and suppress them.
But EPD Special Operations Capt. Steve Swenson said video cameras don’t constitute intimidation and are vital tools for collecting evidence.
“We aren’t going to just show up and monitor things,” he said. “When there is an event with a history of violence, we use [cameras] so we can capture evidence and not rely on eyewitness accounts.”
Though Critical Mass doesn’t have a history of violence, Swenson said it has “a history of violations,” mainly traffic infractions. The event is videotaped in case protesters who receive citations appeal their fines in court, he said.
“A picture is worth a thousand words,” he said.

Lawfulness of taping in question
But many people who are captured on film question the legality of police videotaping.
“We’ve had many, many, many complaints about this,” said ASUO Legal Services attorney Ilona Koleszar. “We’re researching the propriety of it.”
According to the state attorney general’s office, Oregon law doesn’t contain a provision specifically addressing police use of video cameras. But a statute does exist that limits the police collection of information about political, religious or social activists and organizations.
Oregon Revised Statue 181.575 states that law enforcement agencies can collect information about activists only if the “information directly relates to an investigation of criminal activities, and there are reasonable grounds to suspect the subject of the information is or may be involved in criminal conduct.”
As long as police are filming in a public place and reasonably suspect that criminal activity is occurring or will occur, police have as much freedom to videotape as private citizens have, said Pete Shephard, special council to the Attorney General.
EPD spokeswoman Jan Powers said the department acts in accordance with this statute.
“Any time a criminal act is likely to occur, we can shoot video,” she said. “We certainly can’t just tape everybody on the street.”
But some activists say the EPD does exactly what it aren’t supposed to do ­­ tape footage of parties and peaceful protests to identify troublemakers and activists in the community.
“At any rally where the police show up, they always have their cameras trained on people,” Binder said. “Their use of training cameras on people has been absolutely oppressive.”

Creating hostile environments
Regardless of the legality of police videotaping, the use of cameras are worsening relations between police and the community, said University sophomore Elizabeth Boyarsky, who was videotaped at a party the EPD broke up on Oct. 15.
“The video cameras are very intimidating,” she said. “Now, I don’t feel I could turn to a cop if I had a problem, and I’ve had a few theft problems and safety issues at my home.”
Eugene-based author John Zerzan, an anarchist, said one of the reasons Eugene anarchists started wearing masks at protests is that they fear police videotaping and harassment.
“Some people don’t want to be known to the cops,” he said. “If you’ve got a camera on you all the time, you don’t want to come [to protests].”
But Swenson, who said the EPD began using cameras when they became more lightweight and affordable, said that video cameras are so widespread that they couldn’t be as intimidating as some activists say they are. Furthermore, he said, activists should appreciate the public record the videotapes make.
A videotape that doesn’t contain evidence of a crime is erased, and a tape that is saved is discarded after the corresponding case is closed, Swenson said.
Adam Weiner, a Portland attorney representing an activist who was pepper-sprayed in a protest on June 1, 1997, said the EPD videos shot at the protest will be helpful in court.
“From my perspective, it’s a good thing they videotaped, because what they taped I’ll be using as evidence,” he said.
But those activists who fear police harassment say the videotapes record protesters and not police.
“Who’s watching the police?” Binder asked.
Recently, activists have begun wielding video cameras themselves to record police. This was the intent of the local television programs CopWatch and Cascadia Alive!.
“We’ve begun fighting back to record their actions,” Binder said.