Pre-beginnings

Openings, whether by telephone or face-to-face, are typically preceded by a pre-beginning phase (Schegloff Reference Schegloff and Psathas1979; Whalen & Zimmerman Reference Whalen and Zimmerman1987; Zimmerman Reference Zimmerman, Watson and Robert1992; Mondada Reference Mondada2009; De Stefani & Mondada Reference De Stefani and Mondada2018; Kidwell Reference Kidwell2018), where participants undertake a range of actions to establish the conditions needed for entry into focused interaction. In co-present encounters in public, this typically involves the movement and positioning of bodies in space so as to achieve coordinated establishment of an interactional space (Mondada Reference Mondada2009). In encounters between police and copwatchers, however, pre-beginning activities usually take on a different shape. Rather than preparing the grounds for, and projecting the start of, focused interaction, copwatchers generally prioritize avoiding interaction with police (see also Llewellyn & Burrow Reference Llewellyn and Burrow2008; Mondada Reference Mondada2022) in favor of documenting/recording police activity.Footnote ⁴ These practices produce a peculiar interactional configuration that renders the openings of these encounters distinct from many others (cf. Pillet-Shore Reference Pillet-Shore2018 for an overview). As we show below, VGs’ pre-beginning activities propose an asymmetric participation framework (Goodwin Reference Goodwin2007) that only obliquely enables focused interaction between the parties.

Videographer approach and positioning. While the ways in which LEOs and VGs come into co-presence may vary, the prototypical case in our data consists of LEOs being engaged in an operation in public (traffic stop, welfare check, etc.) and the VG walking up to the scene. VGs sometimes actively seek out such occasions to record the police (e.g. by listening to police radio and following a call), but these occasions can also be more opportunistic or serendipitous in nature (e.g. VGs incidentally spot LEOs-in-action and decide to start filming then and there). We also find a mixture of these, as when VGs do a daily round in their neighborhood (Huey et al. Reference Huey, Walby, Doyle and Monahan2006:152) or visit places to film whatever ‘remarkable sightings’ they come across. As they approach, VGs typically (try to) adopt a fairly stationary position that allows them to capture police activity on camera (i.e. a practically purposive visual angle), while also maintaining some distance from the scene itself, usually around three to ten meters away (see also Huey et al. Reference Huey, Walby, Doyle and Monahan2006:153). The following images from a video shot by a copwatcher in California illustrate this kind of orbiting approach and border positioning.

Figure 1.

Typical VG approach and positioning: VG approaches scene with pre-present LEO and detainee (1A, direction marked by arrows and feet); VG walks toward circled area, which is some distance from the scene of interest (1B–1C); VG positions self and aims camera at scene (1D).

This kind of approach and positioning is an integral component of VGs doing ‘being an uninvolved observer’ (see Garfinkel & Sacks Reference Garfinkel, Sacks, John and Edward1970). By adopting a stationary position near the border of police activity, VGs make themselves a relatively enduring feature of the scene and become recognizable as ‘bystanders’ rather than ‘passers-by’ (cf. Goffman Reference Goffman1979:8, 10). Moreover, by coming to the scene camera in hand, they display the opposite of the ‘civil inattention’ (Goffman Reference Goffman1963) that strangers ordinarily owe one another in public (Hirschauer Reference Hirschauer2005). At the same time, by remaining on the borderlands of the scene, they present themselves as mere ‘onlookers’ who, while recognizably monitoring (and recording) the ongoing operation, do not seek to physically interfere with it. This kind of self-positioning accommodates officers’ concerns around safety and interference—which are bound up with spatial proximity (Huey et al. Reference Huey, Walby, Doyle and Monahan2006:156; Newell Reference Newell2019:69)—and can thus be understood as an aligning move on part of the VGs. It projects no physical interference with the ongoing operation and allows LEOs to treat them just like any other uninvolved bystanders.

Though seemingly trivial, it is important to register that maintaining distance from a dynamic scene may require active ‘work’. In the following case (Figure 2), a VG has approached the scene of an arrest and assumed a stationary position at some distance from two LEOs and the suspect (Figure 2A). When the LEOs begin to move the suspect towards a wall, and in the direction of the VG (Figure 2B), the VG responds by moving out of their way to the other side of the street (Figures 2C–D) and repositioning himself there (Figures 2E–F). Notably, he initiates this repositioning on his own accord, thereby displaying a sensitivity to being potentially ‘in the way’. So, by moving ‘out of the way’, he works to avoid a possible involvement in the operation (cf. Hirschauer Reference Hirschauer2005:51), while also maintaining a visual angle that allows him to continue capturing the scene (Figures 2D–F).

Figure 2.

VG moving ‘out of the way’ of an arrest. Arrows in C–D mark the VG’s movement and repositioning.

Another part of doing ‘being an uninvolved observer’ is seen in how VGs typically remain silent during their approach and positioning.Footnote ⁵ Where they do produce talk, this often serves to provide commentary for the virtual/future audience and is done at a volume that prevents it from being hearable as addressing the LEO(s) (cf. Goffman Reference Goffman1964:136). While such sustained silence renders their approach and co-presence recognizably distinct from other kinds of social encounters (Kendon Reference Kendon1990; Mondada Reference Mondada2009, Reference Mondada2022; Hoey Reference Hoey2023; see Pillet-Shore Reference Pillet-Shore2018 for an overview), their silence is akin to how strangers in elevators have ‘undoing presence’ as one of their practical tasks in enacting mutual indifference (Hirschauer Reference Hirschauer2005:61). But whereas elevator riders’ silence is coupled with gaze avoidance, VGs’ silence is notably paired with targeted recording/monitoring of others. As such, VG approaches are recognizable as approaches-for-observation rather than approaches-for-interaction: they prioritize monitoring/recording police activity, project no physical interference with it, and display limited (if any) availability for, or interest in, interaction with the LEOs.

Sighting. A second key element of the pre-beginning phase and another precondition for interaction consists in the parties becoming mutually aware of one another. In encounters between LEOs and copwatchers, this process is typically characterized by a structural asymmetry which shapes the emerging participation framework. Whereas copwatchers will already have spotted LEOs-in-action when they come to a scene and begin recording, LEOs are often initially unaware of their presence, typically sighting them only in the course of monitoring their surroundings (Farmer Reference Farmer2016:97; Brown Reference Brown2016:303). This asymmetry rests, in part, on ‘an important operational attribute of modern Western-style policing’ (Goldsmith Reference Goldsmith2010:915), namely, the visibility of police personnel: officers in recognizable uniforms, often conspicuously positioned in public areas, driving around in marked vehicles. It also emerges via the relative undetectability of the VG, who often approaches scenes of police activity in silence. This is seen in extract (3) below. Here, two LEOs are engaged in a traffic stop at night: LEO1 has just started searching the driver’s car and LEO2 is there as backup. The transcript begins when LEO2 summons LEO1 to inform him of someone approaching them from the rear side. The recorded footage is from LEO1’s body-worn camera (BWC).

Figure 3.

Approaching person (circled) is spotted by LEO2 (dotted line) and approached by LEO1 (footsteps and solid line).

This extract shows how spotting can happen early, while the VG is still approaching the scene. More commonly, it happens later, after the VG has come to a stationary position (see Figure 1D). LEOs often spot the VG as part of their general apperception and monitoring of the scene, but their noticings may also be occasioned by VG movement, by audible talk that VGs produce for their recording, or by suspects’ orientations towards them. To the VG (and the outside observer), it may not always be transparent if and when they have been spotted. Occasionally, however, their sightings are recognizable as sudden bodily-visual (re)orientations towards the VG (e.g. redirections of gaze, lateral head turns, body torque). Figures 4–8 illustrate such sightings (see also Figure 1D).

Figures 4–8.

LEOs sighting the VG.

The asymmetric organization of sightings relates to the fact that these parties do not in the first place seek to accomplish reciprocal visual accessibility. Rather than making themselves visible and monitorable for one another so as to enable coordinated entry to interaction, as with the pre-beginnings of many other social encounters (Pillet-Shore Reference Pillet-Shore2018), here the parties are more invested in the visibility and monitorability of the other. This shapes the organization of the pre-beginning phase and, as we see below, has repercussions for how the participants engage with one another later on, too.

Occasion-relevant categorization. Coupled with sighting is the practical matter of categorizing the sighted party in an occasion-relevant way. And similar to sighting, there is an asymmetry here in categorization: VGs have already categorized police officers as such (indeed, this is required to engage in copwatching in the first place), but LEOs must practically categorize the (person who turns out to be a) VG. To determine this, LEOs engage in split-second, online categorization work (Mondada Reference Mondada2009:1983; see also De Stefani & Mondada Reference De Stefani and Mondada2018:250–53) based on visual appearances (Sacks Reference Sacks and Sudnow1972) and relying on categories recognizable ‘at a glance’ (Jayyusi Reference Jayyusi1984:68–70). Such categorization is addressed to answering questions like ‘what kind of person is this?’, ‘what are they holding?’, and ‘what are they doing (here)?’. More specifically, LEOs must instantaneously determine whether the person constitutes a threat to their safety or not. This categorization may pose difficulties in the case of VGs, who wield small (often black or shiny) objects aimed toward the officers (see accounts in Wall & Linnemann Reference Wall and Linnemann2014:135; Newell Reference Newell2019:68). And low visibility, for instance during nighttime operations, may compound these difficulties, as in the following case. Here, a copwatcher is already present at the scene (reportedly his neighborhood) as the officers arrive. Just before the transcript, the VG approached three arriving police cars, raised his camera, and pointed it towards them. This then occasions reactive measures from LEO1, who draws his gun and aims it at the VG.

This encounter could have ended fatally for the VG. The LEO’s gunpoint from behind his car door (Figure 9) and his immediate command to “Put it down” (line 3) indicate that he initially mistook the VG’s camera for a weapon. It appears that he revises this (mis)apprehension as he cuts off his repeated command (line 3), lowers his gun, and exits the vehicle. Moreover, rather than issuing further commands, he begins to admonish the VG for his misleading appearance (lines 3–5). Examples like this show how LEOs must make split-second decisions based on visual-perceptual appearances and the categorial identifications they afford. Especially with persons pointing objects at LEOs, visually determining what they are doing and whether they pose a threat may not always be straightforward.

Figure 9.

LEO points gun at VG.

The pre-beginning components we have described provide for potential interaction between LEO(s) and VG(s) in a rather oblique sort of way. As we have shown, VGs’ pre-beginning activities—silent approach, peripheral positioning, and early sighting/categorizing—propose an asymmetric participation framework in which the observation and recording of police activity is prioritized over interaction with police. Though doing ‘being an uninvolved observer’ sets up a scene of unidirectional monitoring, we suggest that it weakly aligns with police activities, insofar as it recognizably proposes non-interference with them. At the same time, the participation framework proposed by VGs instates them as documenting observers rather than passers-by. Their persistence on the scene and the coupling of their actions to those of the police (see extract (2)) thus also bring them into the orbit of police activity. And by positioning themselves within some policeable perimeter, VGs become potentially policeable subjects. This sets up a problem for LEOs as to whether and how to engage VGs. We turn to this problem next.

Minimal openings vs. substantive openings

In opening an encounter with someone recording them, police officers may be brief in doing so, or they may produce something more substantial. Given their involvements in ongoing operations, such decisions of whether, when, and how to engage the VG are informed by considerations related to the practical coordination of multiple activities (Haddington, Keisanen, Mondada, & Nevile Reference Haddington, Keisanen, Mondada and Nevile2014). Perhaps most minimally we see this in how openings may be done ‘in passing’ or as an ‘aside’, like in Figure 10 below. Here, the LEO is returning to his patrol car and simply looking at and waving to the VG from the other side of the road after having spotted him. This constitutes the entirety of their interaction with one another (see also Sacks Reference Sacks and Jefferson1992:553–54) and displays LEO’s prioritization of his main activity over that of engaging with the VG beyond an acknowledgement/greeting.

Figure 10.

LEO minimally engaging the VG with a look and wave done in passing from across the street.

With the mere acknowledgment of the VG’s (enduring) presence, the LEO ratifies the VG’s participatory status as an ‘uninvolved observer’. The use of such casual and designedly routine greetings or pro-forma personal state inquiries (Schegloff Reference Schegloff1986; Duranti Reference Duranti1997) is also seen in extract (5), which consists of reciprocal ‘How are you’-type turns and a compliment-appreciation sequence.

Such minimal and routine forms of engagement can be considered aligning because they embody mutual non-interference and enable ‘peaceful coexistence’ between LEOs and VGs. They constitute ways of interactionally ‘enacting indifference’ (Hirschauer Reference Hirschauer2005:59) by attending to the situation as ‘business-as-usual’. We must note, though, that even such minimal engagement accredits the VG a special status in the setting, since other, non-filming bystanders ordinarily remain unaddressed in our data.

Such minimal, routine exchanges happen to be rare in our data. Fewer than half of LEO-initiated openings in VALED feature routine opening actions like greetings or personal state inquiries as (part of) the first turn or at all. Instead, our data regularly show more substantive openings.

With more substantive openings, LEOs either dispense with routine openings completely in favor of immediately problematizing the recording activity, or they combine routine opening items with problematizing actions in the same turn (see De Stefani & Mondada Reference De Stefani and Mondada2018:250 on public encounters between strangers). Such opening actions disalign with the VG’s project of remaining an uninvolved observer, because they reflexively transform the situation into one in which VGs are now in an encounter with the police as a policeable subject (Heritage Reference Heritage1984:106–10), which is something the VGs—like most ordinary citizens—generally prefer to avoid (Kidwell Reference Kidwell2018:292). Substantive openings thus embody an elementary disalignment between the VG’s self-imposed role of ‘uninvolved observer’ and an other-imposed role of ‘policeable subject’ (i.e. they contest the participation framework proposed by the VG’s pre-beginning activities). This elementary disalignment may engender uncooperative or even antagonistic behavior by VGs (compare Goodwin Reference Goodwin2007:62–68), as is seen in extract (6). This takes place after the VG has approached the scene of an arrest and the LEO has spotted him. The entire exchange is done as ‘cross-play’ (Goffman Reference Goffman1979:9): the LEO remains near the detainee (Figure 11) and engages with the VG as an ‘ancillary involvement’ through her use of body torque (Schegloff Reference Schegloff1998).

Figure 11.

LEO cups ear to hear VG.

From the start of this interaction, we see a fundamental disalignment between LEO and VG in their willingness to engage one another. The LEO’s initial greeting (line 1) goes unreciprocated (line 2) as the VG instead produces live commentary for his virtual audience (lines 3 and 6). Still, the LEO attempts to engage the VG by issuing an offer of assistance, which, after a five second gap, she reissues with greater intensity (lines 8–10). Her pursuit is overlapped by the VG’s talk (line 11), which the LEO treats as inaudible talk addressed to her: she cups her hand behind her ear to initiate repair (line 12) (Mortensen Reference Mortensen2016). At this point, the VG responds with a firm dismissal of her offer, treating it not only as having been unsolicited but also as being situationally inappropriate (line 13). In this case, then, the more substantive opening builds upon and occasions even more disaligning actions and orientations.

In most of the substantive openings in our collection (n = 63), LEOs approach the VG, and in doing so, they either suspend their ongoing operation entirely or seize a moment when they are not principally involved in it (e.g. when serving as backup). By placing the spotlight of police attention on the VG in a separate focused encounter, LEOs strongly disalign with the VG’s proposed participatory status as ‘uninvolved observer’. Moreover, as shown below, their approaches almost always involve problematizing the VG’s recording activity in some way, leading to prolonged arguments about legality, ethics, rights, and so forth. In what follows, we examine how certain types of actions by LEOs can further manifest disalignment regarding the parties’ competing agendas, projects, and concerns.

LEO (opening) actions that directly problematize VG recording

Our data showed that LEOs routinely behaved in ways that straightforwardly problematized the act of recording at the start of their encounters with VGs. We describe three of these below: recording obstructions, recording interdictions, and departure directives.

Recording obstructions. LEOs may deal with VGs by undertaking to obstruct their recording activity. Drawing on embodied and/or material resources, these techniques are independent of any verbal engagement with the VG and may be deployed with or without talk. That is, they may be a component of pre-beginnings, openings, or any other phase of the encounter.

Two obstructive techniques recurred in our data: physical blocking (LEOs obstructing the view of the camera with their bodies, hands, or cars) and ‘blinding’ (incapacitating the camera by shining a flashlight or patrol car spotlight towards its lens) (see also Simonson Reference Simonson2016:430–31). Blocking requires LEOs to be mobile and is thus typically done by those who are not principally involved in the main operation (i.e. backup officers). Blinding is usually done during nighttime operations and therefore affords a kind of ‘official’ accountability (see below).

An instance of blocking appears in extract (7) below. Here, a VG has assumed a stationary position at some distance from a group of LEOs, who are huddled around a detainee in front of a police station. The transcript begins with one LEO walking into the VG’s shot and positioning himself between the camera and the police huddle (line 1, Figures 12–14). This is recognizable as blocking (and comes to be treated as such) due to its conspicuous obstruction of the recording.

Figures 12–14.

LEO blocking camera.

Being (recognizably) deployed as obstructive measures, blocking and blinding clearly embody disalignment with regard to the recording activity. For this reason, they typically engender VG complaints or complaint-implicative reactions, as we see in VG’s complaint-implicative account solicitation (line 2) and accusation of willful intent (line 7). Such obstructions are also potentially problematic from a legal standpoint. They can be construed as ‘prior restraint’ of freedom of press (e.g. Cornell Law School n.d.), which, indeed, the VG invokes here as part of the emerging argument (line 11). At the same time, recording obstructions may be defeasible (see lines 3 and 8) if presented as merely incidental or unintentionally obstructive. They may even be defended as functional: blocking may simply be a part of ‘huddling together’ or self-grooming, and blinding may simply be an unavoidable consequence of dealing with poor visibility. In extract (7), LEO’s initial positioning with his back to the VG permits an account whereby he was not blocking the VG’s view but merely monitoring the detainee as part of his job.

Recording interdictions. Among the verbal actions that LEOs use to directly problematize VG activities, we find recording interdictions (n = 17), that is, explicit requests or directives to not record or to discontinue recording. Getting somebody to abandon what they are currently doing, thereby treating it as unwanted or undesirable, clearly embodies disalignment with that activity. Compared to recording obstructions, which may remain defeasible, recording interdictions officially go ‘on record’ as disaligning moves. However, given that filming in public is lawful and generally harmless, such interdictions are equally problematic. Indeed, VGs routinely resist and/or challenge them, typically with reference to the legality of their actions. Consider extract (8), which shows three LEOs who have detained a man on a busy daytime street, with the VG standing nearby on the pavement. Another bystander (potentially a friend of the detainee) is also involved in this exchange, which begins as LEO3 loosens the detainee’s handcuffs.

Here, LEO1 appears to notice that the VG is filming the arrest as she steps towards LEO2 to say something to him (lines 2–4, Figures 15–16), whereupon she immediately issues a recording interdiction “C’n you: stop please” (line 6). This request is accompanied by a manual ‘stopping’ gesture (itself a form of blocking; Figure 17) and is echoed by another bystander, who joins the exchange by repeating the request twice (line 9). In response to these interdictions, the VG politely refuses the request (lines 8, 10), appending a reference to being “in public” as an account for his refusal (line 11). His place reference is doubly indexical: it not only invokes the VG’s legal right to record in public but also treats that connection (between being in public and recording lawfully) as transparent enough for “I’m in public” to work as a self-explanatory warrant for his refusal. That is, he treats the local legal framework as ‘knowable’ (cf. Raymond et al. Reference Raymond, Jungleib, Zimmerman, Jones, Douglas and Heritage2022) and not requiring further explication.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

For officers, this presumption appears to be generally justified, as they, by and large, claim awareness of citizens’ right to record the police in public (e.g. Farmer Reference Farmer2016:96). However, under certain circumstances LEOs may nonetheless deem it appropriate, useful, or necessary to issue recording interdictions. In extract (9), two LEOs are dealing with a detainee who had swung a hammer at a delivery driver. The VG has just started filming, positioning himself in the adjacent parking lot, when LEO1 approaches him with a recommendation not to film (line 3).

This interdiction is designed as a recommendation (“‘t’s prob’ly: best not to fi:lm”), which moderates its deontic force and frames it as a non-enforceable matter. Still, the VG resists the recommendation with reference to his right to record in public (lines 5, 7), which the LEO acknowledges as known (line 8). Indeed, the LEO’s initial “NO” marks her turn as undertaking third-position repair and serves to reject the VG’s displayed treatment of her as unaware of his right to record (Schegloff Reference Schegloff1992). Note further that, at this point in the sequence, the LEO has already taken a different tack by asking the VG to reposition himself in line 6 (see Relocation attempts below). And although the VG has resisted the LEO’s recording interdiction, he does comply with her relocation request by moving towards the pavement while the LEO acknowledges his right to record (lines 7–8). In light of the LEO’s claim to be aware of the VG’s right to record, her initial recommendation may be seen as having been made ‘against her better judgment’. We see this in lines 9–10, where the LEO mobilizes aspects of the situation and her concern for its possible escalation as grounds for her initial recommendation (and the relocation request as an alternative solution).

On some occasions, rather than being provided post-hoc in the face of VG resistance, accounts are directly built into the recording interdiction. In extract (10), the LEO addresses the VG shortly after having spotted him (see Figure 6) and issues the following recording interdiction.

Here, too, the LEO acknowledges the VG’s right to record by framing the interdiction as a non-enforceable suggestion (lines 1–2). Moreover, an account is directly built into the suggestion: the LEO invokes the compromised dignity of the person they are dealing with (lines 1–2) and appeals to a shared morality by characterizing the VG’s filming as counterproductive to this end (lines 4–5). The LEO then incrementally expands his turn with an assurance of their benevolent motives (“We’re tryin’duh he:lp him”, line 7). This reassurance engages with, and seeks to dispel, a possible suspicion or mistrust the VG might hold towards the police and treats it as what motivates his filming. By invoking unwarranted mistrust towards someone who ‘only means well’, this turn expansion ups the moral ante and indirectly condemns the recording activity as unnecessarily invasive.

These cases show that many LEOs are aware of citizens’ right to record the police in public and orient to recording interdictions as being accountable actions. And yet, for the police, the situational specifics (e.g. an aggravated or distressed subject) may still warrant an interdiction, with corresponding accounts being built into or appended to those actions. Such interdictions are also commonly framed as requests, suggestions, or recommendations rather than as commands or orders.Footnote ⁶ But regardless of their formatting, since recording interdictions seek to stop the recording, and thus work against the VGs’ objectives, they are routinely met with resistance and manifest disalignment.

Departure directives. Practically equivalent to recording interdictions are departure directives (n = 9), with which LEOs tell the VG to ‘move on’ or otherwise leave the scene, often produced in passing or from afar. Like recording interdictions, such directives (if complied with) prevent the possibility of further recording, and are therefore disaligning with the VG’s core objective. And indeed, VGs seem to respond to such directives with the same kind of resistance seen above. Below, for instance, a VG is filming from afar and is accosted by LEO1, who directs him to “Go on mate” and “Carry on” (line 1).

These departure directives convey ‘moving on’ or ‘not lingering’ rather than (genuine or sarcastic) encouragement of the VG’s filming. The VG responds by referring to his right to record in public (similar to extract (8)–(9)). LEO1 acknowledges this with a multiple saying (Stivers Reference Stivers2004) “I know I know”, before accounting for the directive nonetheless with reference to the subject’s privacy (lines 6–7, compare to extract (10)). More generally, departure directives essentially impinge on the VG’s right to move freely in public places. Perhaps for this reason, they are rather rare in our data (n = 9), with roughly half (n = 4) issued in subsequent (re)openings and issued on behalf of, or with reference to, aggravated or distressed subjects.

The outlined LEO practices for directly problematizing the recording activity show how matters of visual accessibility are not only dealt with in the pre-beginning phase of interaction, but can re-appear in opening actions as well. Recording obstructions plainly orient to, and seek to counteract, the visibility of action, thus attempting to undermine VGs’ ability to record. Likewise, recording interdictions and departure directives straightforwardly oppose and disalign with the VGs’ observational project. Consequently, they are typically met with protest or resistance from VGs.

LEO opening actions that indirectly problematize VG recording

The VG’s recording activity may also be problematized in more indirect ways. We discuss three of these below: account solicitations, offers of assistance, and relocation attempts. At least superficially, these indicate no problem with the VG’s recording. However, as we will show, they are nevertheless treated by VGs as pretextual measures.

Account solicitations. LEOs may open their interactions with VGs by soliciting an account for the VG’s current activity (n = 18).Footnote ⁷ This treats the VG’s reasons for recording as not transparently explicable. Such questioning, on its face, indicates that an account is not obviously locatable and can, moreover, reflexively suggest that there are no good reasons for recording. Account solicitations may thus serve as an indirect vehicle for challenging or criticizing the recording activity (Bolden & Robinson Reference Bolden and Robinson2011). Consider the following extracts, each of which show an account solicitation.

As these demonstrate, LEOs’ account solicitations may be formatted in various ways. They can include a prefatory “C’n I just ask you” (extract (12)), which softens the challenge inherent in the account solicitation. By contrast, LEOs may solicit accounts in ways that make no efforts to conceal the challenge, like with a bare solicitation “WHY’RE YOU HERE RECO:RDIN’” extract (13)), or they may in fact imply that no suitable account exists, as with “What’s the point” (extract (14)).

In response to account solicitations, VGs regularly treat their recording as specifically unaccountable insofar as particular reasons are not given (see Sacks Reference Sacks and Jefferson1992:23–24 on ‘account apparently appropriate, negativer’). This is perhaps most evident when VGs counter account solicitations by asking “Why not?” (extracts (13)–(14)), but the same orientation informs responses like “public photographe:h” (extract (12)), which justify their recording in mundane (and lawful) terms. What these sequences reveal, then, is a fundamental divergence between LEO and VG stances towards the activity of recording and specifically its (un)accountability.

Offers of assistance. Among LEOs’ opening actions we also find offers of assistance (n = 16, see also extract (6)), which typically appear in the ‘reason for making contact’ slot (following potential greeting items) and precede other actions sequentially. Such offers can indirectly problematize the VG’s recording in a structurally parallel manner as account solicitations. For while they appear to fulfill the mission of law enforcement ‘to protect and serve’, they presume not only some situation of need, but one in which the proper resolution is provided by the LEO. And where the anticipated response to the offer is “I don’t need any help”, then the implication is “Then why are you here?” or “Then you can move along”. Take extract (15), which begins as VG films LEO1 during a traffic stop.

Here, LEO1, upon exiting her vehicle, addresses the VG from afar with a greeting and an offer of assistance (line 2). Her offer is formatted as a wh-question (“What c’n we help you with”), which presupposes VG’s need for help. When no immediate response is forthcoming (line 3), LEO1 follows up with a problem solicitation (“‘t’s going on”, line 4), while the VG dismisses the relevance of the offer by challenging LEO1’s presumption of a need for help (lines 5, 8). With the relevance of an offer now having been dismissed, LEO1 more directly problematizes the VG’s actions by inquiring into his doings (line 10). Yet again, the minimal type-conforming response from VG suggests his orientation to his activity as unproblematic and transparently accountable (Fox & Thompson Reference Fox and Thompson2010). Moreover, it formulates VG’s current doings in terms of an innocuous and lawful activity (“Takin’ pictures”, line 12). Much like the minimal references to being in public, such activity formulations indexically invoke a relevant framework of (legal) unaccountability (see also the VG’s response to the account solicitation in extract (12) in this respect, where both are combined). At the same time, formulating what one is visibly doing is a way of ‘stating the obvious’ and pushes back against the askability of the LEO’s question (see Stivers Reference Stivers, Stivers, Mondada and Steensig2011). In these ways, then, the VG’s responses embody disalignment with the LEO’s orientation towards the activity as accountable, let alone one that would warrant an offer of assistance.

Extract (15) highlights another feature of these offers, namely that they are generally unsolicited: VGs neither request help, nor do they behave in ways that would suggest that they are searching for help (Kendrick & Drew Reference Kendrick and Drew2016). Consequently, they may be heard as ‘pseudo-offers’, serving as ‘off record’ devices to problematize the VG’s activities (cf. Jefferson & Lee Reference Jefferson and Lee1981). LEOs may thus hearably mobilize an institutionally-licensed action (offering assistance) as a vehicle for reflexively problematizing the VG’s actions.Footnote ⁸ And as extract (15) and (6) show, VGs are attuned to such hearings and generally dismiss/challenge offers of assistance, if they respond to them at all.

Relocation attempts. The final indirect method found to recur in our data for problematizing VG’s recordings are relocation attempts (n = 41), with which LEOs aim to get VGs to move to or stay away from specific areas. While similar to departure directives in doing spatial management, relocation attempts are less restrictive because they permit VGs to stay on the scene, if in a certain area. They typically involve LEOs attempting to reposition VGs somewhere that allows for (peripheral) monitoring, often somewhere further away from the scene than where VGs had positioned themselves. Even when VGs are recognized as not an immediate threat to the officers’ safety, LEOs may nevertheless attempt to relocate them because they might aggravate the situation by interacting with victims, witnesses, or suspects (Newell Reference Newell2019:69; see also extract (9)). In these and other ways, spatial management, specifically regarding the VG’s position relative to the scene, is bound up with officers’ safety concerns. For LEOs, then, relocation attempts may be treated as an ‘additional task’ beyond their main one, as can be seen in how they are commonly treated as a distraction from and/or an obstruction with police operations. Consider extract (16), which begins as LEO3 arrives on the scene as backup and is briefed by LEO2 regarding the VG, who is standing nearby. Amid this briefing, LEO3 addresses VG directly with a greeting followed by a relocation request.

Extract (16) highlights the ambivalent and delicate character of relocation attempts. On the one hand, insofar as VGs wish to remain ‘uninvolved bystanders’ (see lines 11–12), and insofar as the LEO is understood as acting to preserve mutual non-interference, relocation attempts may lead to aligning and cooperative responses (see extract (9)). This is possible because, unlike compliance with departure directives or recording interdictions, complying with a relocation attempt does not wholly preclude the possibility of continued filming (note the disclaimers built into lines 1, 6–7).

On the other hand, such re-positionings restrict how an event can be recorded (e.g. a fixed position or a static angle, greater possibilities for blocking, inaudible talk). And indeed, when it comes to dealing with video activists, police are known to employ ‘[s]patial strategies of isolation and containment [as a…] counter-neutralization move’ (Wilson & Serisier Reference Wilson and Serisier2010:169). As such, relocation attempts are vulnerable to be understood as pretextual measures, aimed at hampering the recording. So even when they are made accountable as enabling mutual non-interference, it is not guaranteed that they will be understood as such. In fact, VGs typically resist them, such that they constitute the single most common source of disagreement and contention in our data. Part of the problem with relocation attempts, which is visible in extract (16), is that what counts as interference or obstruction from the officers’ point of view is often not transparent (see lines 11–14). Our data suggest that this intransparency can be an obstacle to achieving compliance with relocation attempts, though not an insurmountable one if interactional effort is invested (Küttner & Hoey Reference Küttner and Elliott2025).

These observations expose how interactions between copwatchers and police are predisposed to disalignment. Though LEOs do not explicitly indicate a problem with the VGs’ recording, their opening actions are nevertheless treated that way. For hearable within account solicitations, offers of assistance, and relocation attempts are ulterior motives and/or other projectable actions down the line: having no obvious reason to film implicates stopping the recording; needing no assistance implicates leaving the scene; and relocating to another area, while respecting the right to record, could nonetheless impair recording quality. In this respect, citizen mistrust of police may manifest in VGs’ treatment of such actions as pretextual measures for indirectly problematizing their recording activity.