[Lowell Goudge]

Lowell,

No one said anything about this setting up a precedent for civil court or criminal court. Public awareness is key and you underestimate its impact on a jury whether its in a civil court or criminal court. These discussions are merely a step towards that awareness. You are very naive if you think a "formal complaint" is going to have all that much of an overall impact. It will come down to the Sheriff, Chief, Col./Commander of the Highway Patrol etc. and perhaps the IAD. Then it becomes a personnel matter and gets put in a confidential file. I have seen detectives in Tallahassee do unauthorized work and get a confidential informant killed by making her try to buy $13K in ecstasy and a gun because of a second offense being caught with 2 tablets and 2 grams of jane. Backup didn't come because the Lt was on the computer surfing when she should have been listening to the radio. She, the Chief and others got a reprimand from the state, and the detective got dismissed after an IAD investigation. The 2 guys that killed her, dumped her body 50 miles away got life without parole. However, the Fraternal Order of Police got the detective reinstated due to collective bargaining agreements. I don't see a formal complaint about a Tally PD Officer threatening to take some one to jail for taking pictures to make it by IAD or the local chapter of Frat. Order of Police. The Sheriff's office would be a different story in some counties due to the top cop being elected.

then what was the difference with minorities and the vote in the 1960's. It was ruled by law a violation of rights, and people went to court to get those rights insured. where is the difference. I agree that getting public awareness does help, but in the end public awareness does nothing without a court case and a final ruling. it all needs to come down to that in US legal system. Eventually someone needs to test it formally. Until then it is just a lot of discussion going no where.

As for your reference about the police getting an informant killed, and then re-instated due to the union agreement, that issue is not just with the poilce, but with many many unions. It is almost impossible to get someone dismissed for misconduct, even if they are caught braking the law themselves, especially in unions where public employees are involved. but that is another argument.

[Lowell Goudge]

Good thing. You aren't even in the same solar system that the real world is in on this one.
Some cop tells you to stop taking pictures and move on, and you do, then what are you going to complain about to a court?
That you voluntarily gave up your right to photograph when asked?
That might fly about as well as a thrown brick.

No,

not quite, you are asked to stop, you ask why, and the consequences if you do not. It may also be useful to ask them specifically the section of the law you are violating, and whether it is federal state/provincial, or county/municipal.

If you are told that it is illegal (when it is not) then you have stopped under duress and threat of arrest. That is the complaint you file. There are ample legal precidents that treat decisions made under duress or threats void.

As I said, the police cannot violate the law in order to perform their job, and threat of arrest (when unlawful) is a crime.

[Wheatfield]

then what was the difference with minorities and the vote in the 1960's. It was ruled by law a violation of rights, and people went to court to get those rights insured.

You might have missed the part about the race riots and the like.

No,

not quite, you are asked to stop, you ask why, and the consequences if you do not. It may also be useful to ask them specifically the section of the law you are violating, and whether it is federal state/provincial, or county/municipal.

If you are told that it is illegal (when it is not) then you have stopped under duress and threat of arrest. That is the complaint you file. There are ample legal precidents that treat decisions made under duress or threats void.

As I said, the police cannot violate the law in order to perform their job, and threat of arrest (when unlawful) is a crime.

Your entire argument is predicated on the possibility that the police are going to act within the law when from the outset they are acting outside of the law.
Where is your evidence? Do you think the cop is going to log that he illegally asked a citizen to stop taking pictures and said citizen complied after making a bit of a fuss?
Do you really think that the police are above using their badge and uniform as an intimidation tactic to ensure that the public complies with their wishes?
Do you really think that the police obey the law every step of the way?
You are showing an astounding level of naivety.
The only way you could make this work would be if there were several witnesses unrelated to the photographer (otherwise collusion rears it's ugly head)recording the altercation.
You can rest assured that in a he said/she said where it is your word against the police, the police will have a field day with you.
They come prepared for just the kind of situation you are describing, and they will win every time.
Unfortunately, the citizen has to escalate the situation to false arrest to make something happen.
Otherwise, it's just a conversation on the street, and nothing happened, and nothing will be made to happen.

[Leaf Fan]

I know it's not DC, but here's some pertinent info and some recent decisions by the British Government to review their laws that are being used to stop Photographers.

Photography is 'priority' in terror law review

Climbdown over train 'terror pics threat

[Lowell Goudge]

You might have missed the part about the race riots and the like.




Your entire argument is predicated on the possibility that the police are going to act within the law when from the outset they are acting outside of the law.
Where is your evidence? Do you think the cop is going to log that he illegally asked a citizen to stop taking pictures and said citizen complied after making a bit of a fuss?
Do you really think that the police are above using their badge and uniform as an intimidation tactic to ensure that the public complies with their wishes?
Do you really think that the police obey the law every step of the way?
You are showing an astounding level of naivety.
The only way you could make this work would be if there were several witnesses unrelated to the photographer (otherwise collusion rears it's ugly head)recording the altercation.
You can rest assured that in a he said/she said where it is your word against the police, the police will have a field day with you.
They come prepared for just the kind of situation you are describing, and they will win every time.
Unfortunately, the citizen has to escalate the situation to false arrest to make something happen.
Otherwise, it's just a conversation on the street, and nothing happened, and nothing will be made to happen.

with an approach like this you better hope you never - ever need the police because you describe them as a bunch of conspiring criminals.

Also, if this is a true statement, then every criminal case would be rightly thrown out of court because you imply that the police conspire prior to arrests that they will falsify evidence.

I really hope you are wrong in your assessment because it means the whole system does not work.

[MRRiley]

I know it's not DC, but here's some pertinent info and some recent decisions by the British Government to review their laws that are being used to stop Photographers.

Photography is 'priority' in terror law review

Climbdown over train 'terror pics threat

The worm may indeed be turning in the UK.... but the proof will be whether the police comply with the ruling and stop harrassing photographers or if they just work harder to claim that the shooter was acting "suspiciously."

[Blue]

then what was the difference with minorities and the vote in the 1960's. It was ruled by law a violation of rights, and people went to court to get those rights insured. where is the difference. I agree that getting public awareness does help, but in the end public awareness does nothing without a court case and a final ruling. it all needs to come down to that in US legal system. Eventually someone needs to test it formally. Until then it is just a lot of discussion going no where.

As for your reference about the police getting an informant killed, and then re-instated due to the union agreement, that issue is not just with the poilce, but with many many unions. It is almost impossible to get someone dismissed for misconduct, even if they are caught braking the law themselves, especially in unions where public employees are involved. but that is another argument.

The civil rights issues were involved far more than just the courts. MLK wasn't shot giving a speech from the balcony of a court house. The march in Selma wasn't in a court house. The riots in Detroit, Watts, Chicago etc. weren't in a court house. Ms. Parks didn't refuse to sit in the back of a court house. Condi Rice's dad refused to take a pole test for the DNC and joined the RNC in order to vote in Alabama elections. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't passed in a court room. George Wallace wasn't blocking the door of a Court Room. Churches were being bombed, not court rooms. Sure, the courts ordered busing and that caused more problems than were solved. My point is that the courts are only 1 part of the equation. 99% of the civil rights stuff would have never made it to the court had people not stood up at some point. Furthermore, all branches of government are supposed to get their power from the People, not the Government as per the Constitution.

Edit: You missed the point of the wrong doing example. If the detective essentially got away with a screw up that got a young college grad killed, do you think deleting someones pics, taking their film or camera is going to be a concern to the IAD and/or Frat. Order? (that's rhetorical)

---

Last edited by Blue; 07-13-2010 at 02:15 PM.

[Parallax]

The civil rights issues were involved far more than just the courts. MLK wasn't shot giving a speech from the balcony of a court house. The march in Selma wasn't in a court house. The riots in Detroit, Watts, Chicago etc. weren't in a court house. Ms. Parks didn't refuse to sit in the back of a court house. Condi Rice's dad refused to take a pole test for the DNC and joined the RNC in order to vote in Alabama elections. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't passed in a court room. George Wallace wasn't blocking the door of a Court Room. Churches were being bombed, not court rooms. Sure, the courts ordered busing and that caused more problems than were solved. My point is that the courts are only 1 part of the equation. 99% of the civil rights stuff would have never made it to the court had people not stood up at some point. Furthermore, all branches of government are supposed to get their power from the People, not the Government as per the Constitution.

I have a sudden urge to sing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic".

That was a great post, Blue.

[Wheatfield]

with an approach like this you better hope you never - ever need the police because you describe them as a bunch of conspiring criminals.

Also, if this is a true statement, then every criminal case would be rightly thrown out of court because you imply that the police conspire prior to arrests that they will falsify evidence.

I really hope you are wrong in your assessment because it means the whole system does not work.

That's bull, Lowell and you know it.
When the police are getting their way, they are pretty decent people, when they feel crossed, they aren't.
A cop who decides you need to move on and stop taking pictures is a cop who is taking the law into his own hands, and in this situation, the system is not going to work because the front line person of the system has decided that in the particular situation, the system is wrong.

What you are saying is akin to the entire Canadian road system not working because the Trans Canada got washed out near Maple Creek.

Do you think that the police don't ever falsify evidence? I believe that if you do a little research you will find some pretty compelling evidence that the RCMP more or less murdered a guy at the Vancouver airport a while back and did their level best to cover up their actions, and more recently you might find some evidence to suggest that the police at the G20 conspired to incite a riot, including burning their own cars for effect.

[Wheatfield]

The worm may indeed be turning in the UK.... but the proof will be whether the police comply with the ruling and stop harrassing photographers or if they just work harder to claim that the shooter was acting "suspiciously."

My British photographer friends aren't holding out much hope....

[straightshooter]

After reading this thread I decided to get a "professional" take on this so I called my brother (Mike and Mel, he's a deputy in Chesterfield county). His comment was he had never heard of any such thing. After thinking about it for a minute, he said the only instances he could think of where he would want to restrict photography would be to protect the family members in the event of a fatality and to protect the identity of either a confidential informant or and undercover officer. Both of those, to me anyway, are understandable as I don't think any of us would like seeing a deceased family member in some rag or online website nor do I think any of us would want to be responsible for the death of a c/i or an officer. Of course I'm not saying any of us would sell such pics but there are a lot of less than scrupulous people out there.

Builttospill, he said you should have gone ahead and took the shot followed by a quick call to the law offices of Wi, Cheetum and Howe. LOL

CW

[Wheatfield]

After reading this thread I decided to get a "professional" take on this so I called my brother (Mike and Mel, he's a deputy in Chesterfield county). His comment was he had never heard of any such thing. After thinking about it for a minute, he said the only instances he could think of where he would want to restrict photography would be to protect the family members in the event of a fatality and to protect the identity of either a confidential informant or and undercover officer. Both of those, to me anyway, are understandable as I don't think any of us would like seeing a deceased family member in some rag or online website nor do I think any of us would want to be responsible for the death of a c/i or an officer. Of course I'm not saying any of us would sell such pics but there are a lot of less than scrupulous people out there.



CW

The question though is would he use his badge to restrict photography based on these wants even though he has no legal grounds to do so?

[straightshooter]

The question though is would he use his badge to restrict photography based on these wants even though he has no legal grounds to do so?

Wheatfield, I didn't actually get into that with him and he didn't volunteer the information. However knowing him, in the case of a fatality and trying to protect the family, he would simply make it as hard as possible to get shots. Cars in the way, crime scene tape further back than normal...that sort of thing. In the other scenario, if he felt that he was protecting the life of someone, I'm sure he would use his authority to stop photography and then report what he had done to the Sheriff for review.

CW

[MRRiley]

After reading this thread I decided to get a "professional" take on this so I called my brother (Mike and Mel, he's a deputy in Chesterfield county). His comment was he had never heard of any such thing. After thinking about it for a minute, he said the only instances he could think of where he would want to restrict photography would be to protect the family members in the event of a fatality and to protect the identity of either a confidential informant or and undercover officer. Both of those, to me anyway, are understandable as I don't think any of us would like seeing a deceased family member in some rag or online website nor do I think any of us would want to be responsible for the death of a c/i or an officer. Of course I'm not saying any of us would sell such pics but there are a lot of less than scrupulous people out there.

Builttospill, he said you should have gone ahead and took the shot followed by a quick call to the law offices of Wi, Cheetum and Howe. LOL

CW

Thanks CW! Thats actually pretty much what I expected.

The 2 cases he cited are ones I think most ethical photographers (I'm not including paparrazi here) would understand and honor.

Sensitivity is required of all of us as human beings and I personally would never attempt to take photos of a fatality. Though I will admit that if it was a major celebrity (at which point in all fairness there is news value) I might start shooting but even then I wouldn't try to capture any gory details.

As for undercovers or informants, well, thats another case where I would understand, however, the police have a tough choice here. Do they just tell me to bug off, at which point my "photography is legal" circuits are gonna click in, or do they tell me they are protecting someones identity, at which point they have largely compromized the person anyway. Frankly it's probably better to hide people like these "in plain sight."

Mike

p.s. Please say thank you to your brother from me for providing his insights to this...

[Lowell Goudge]

After reading this thread I decided to get a "professional" take on this so I called my brother (Mike and Mel, he's a deputy in Chesterfield county). His comment was he had never heard of any such thing. After thinking about it for a minute, he said the only instances he could think of where he would want to restrict photography would be to protect the family members in the event of a fatality and to protect the identity of either a confidential informant or and undercover officer. Both of those, to me anyway, are understandable as I don't think any of us would like seeing a deceased family member in some rag or online website nor do I think any of us would want to be responsible for the death of a c/i or an officer. Of course I'm not saying any of us would sell such pics but there are a lot of less than scrupulous people out there.

Builttospill, he said you should have gone ahead and took the shot followed by a quick call to the law offices of Wi, Cheetum and Howe. LOL

CW

The question though is would he use his badge to restrict photography based on these wants even though he has no legal grounds to do so?

Wheatfield, I didn't actually get into that with him and he didn't volunteer the information. However knowing him, in the case of a fatality and trying to protect the family, he would simply make it as hard as possible to get shots. Cars in the way, crime scene tape further back than normal...that sort of thing. In the other scenario, if he felt that he was protecting the life of someone, I'm sure he would use his authority to stop photography and then report what he had done to the Sheriff for review.

CW

Thanks CW! Thats actually pretty much what I expected.

The 2 cases he cited are ones I think most ethical photographers (I'm not including paparrazi here) would understand and honor.

Sensitivity is required of all of us as human beings and I personally would never attempt to take photos of a fatality. Though I will admit that if it was a major celebrity (at which point in all fairness there is news value) I might start shooting but even then I wouldn't try to capture any gory details.

As for undercovers or informants, well, thats another case where I would understand, however, the police have a tough choice here. Do they just tell me to bug off, at which point my "photography is legal" circuits are gonna click in, or do they tell me they are protecting someones identity, at which point they have largely compromized the person anyway. Frankly it's probably better to hide people like these "in plain sight."

Mike

p.s. Please say thank you to your brother from me for providing his insights to this...

These are all valid points, but going back to the origonal post the issue is one of context which we never know.

As mike said, thank your brother for his insights