Take a photo with Santa - now you're under arrest

[Bill Mattocks]

'Tis the season, eh?

http://wvgazette.com/News/200912090794

Quote:
Photographer arrested at mall after taking holiday photos

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- An award-winning video journalist was arrested by Charleston Police Tuesday after he took pictures of Santa Claus and a choir at the Town Center Mall.

Scott Rensberger, 47, of Washington is charged with battery on a police officer and resisting arrest, according to criminal complaints filed in Kanawha County Magistrate Court.

 

[seasoned]

He sealed his fate when he said he would also take a picture of the officer. Another reason, when approached by LEO, to state your answers to their questions, in a clear and concise manner. When you lose your cool, you can heap a lot of do-do onto yourself.

 

[Tez3]

I was wondering if the Santa had a photographer with him to sell photos to families and this chap was seen as 'competition'?
Is it usual for officers to moonlight?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I was wondering if the Santa had a photographer with him to sell photos to families and this chap was seen as 'competition'?
Is it usual for officers to moonlight?

Yes, Santa generally has a photographer selling parents photos. And yes, off-duty officers often moonlight as private security for extra money. Typically, department policies allow them to wear their uniforms and some even permit the use of a police car for such off-duty work. Theory being that officers are technically police officers 24x7.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

He sealed his fate when he said he would also take a picture of the officer. Another reason, when approached by LEO, to state your answers to their questions, in a clear and concise manner. When you lose your cool, you can heap a lot of do-do onto yourself.

Felony contempt of cop? Last I heard, it was legal to take a photograph of a police officer.

 

[Tez3]

Yes, Santa generally has a photographer selling parents photos. And yes, off-duty officers often moonlight as private security for extra money. Typically, department policies allow them to wear their uniforms and some even permit the use of a police car for such off-duty work. Theory being that officers are technically police officers 24x7.

I suppose that means the departments don't have to pay their officers as much!

 

[seasoned]

Felony contempt of cop? Last I heard, it was legal to take a photograph of a police officer.

Yes, my wife and I did take some pictures of State troopers at the state fair this summer. They even held signs saying Happy Birthday, for my son who is deployed. Great bunch of guys, but if the circumstances were different, and I was being questioned about a complaint concerning my camera, common sense would prevail. This would not be the time to fill my picture album with our states finest.

 

[DerekB]

You can take pictures of anybody as long as there not for profit, if they are for profit or advertisement then a waver needs too be filed. If somebody objects with you taking there picture the quickest and best way too deal with it is what he did erase the shot. Having said that there is a need for common sense, the world has changed a lot and because of a few sick people there is a need too be careful of your subject matter.
When doing contract photography I always carry a copy of the letters to backup what I am trying too explain. Even as a tourist taking pictures it looks very suspicious when yoou have taken a pile of pictures of a Govt. building from all angles, or lots of pictures of little kids.
Unfortunatly for him he pushed the wrong buttons, as previously stated always answer Leo's questions, and if the reason for the questions is picture taking DON'T offer to takes the Leo's picture.
Just my 2 cents worth as a photographer

 

[Tez3]

Any photographers found around our way are certainly questioned and may be arrested, anyone taking photographs of anyone in uniform without persmission with almost certainly be arrested as we are in a security area covered by the Official secrets Act however there's plenty of signs up warning people along with the ones about the guard dogs. The exceptions are for parents, friends family etc of the recruits on their passing off parades.There's certain people would ban that too...for commercial reasons though, a professional photographer is employed and the Army gets commisson from him.

 

[crushing]

I was wondering if the Santa had a photographer with him to sell photos to families and this chap was seen as 'competition'?
Is it usual for officers to moonlight?

With concern mostly over "little girls" being photographed, it looks like either they were concerned about him being a pervert, or they were using that angle to help justify his ouster from the mall.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

With concern mostly over "little girls" being photographed, it looks like either they were concerned about him being a pervert...

Noted also that photographing little girls in public is also not a crime. Your own children or someone else's. Does it make parents nervous? Sure. Still not a crime.

 

[seasoned]

You are most correct Bill, but I know, no other way to get ones *** kicked, then to take little girls pictures, uninvited. Little boys included. Now I know that the kicker would be breaking the law, but, we take it as it comes.

You seem a bit on edge, did you sleep well last night.

:asian:

 

[crushing]

Noted also that photographing little girls in public is also not a crime. Your own children or someone else's. Does it make parents nervous? Sure. Still not a crime.

I hope I didn't imply that taking these pictures was illegal, I was making a guess as to what prompted the conflict which escalated into the "confrontation" the the policeman.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The "correct" answer is of course, comply with whatever the person claiming to be a cop says, no matter it's legallity, after all what's wrong with that".

The laws vary of course. US applies below.
Unless the mall it self says "No photography", it's legal to take photos there, as it is in any public space.
If the mall says it is not allowed, it is still legal. If you are told to stop and continue, you can be asked to leave. If you refuse to leave, you can be charged for trespass.
Cops do not have the right to review your shots, insist you delete them, nor take your gear.
You do not need peoples permission to photograph them in any public space.
It is legal to take pictures of cops in public. The fact that they may be "undercover", may not like it, may have a stick up their *** about it, doesn't matter.
It's legal.
Please note, I'm not saying it's always right, but it's almost always legal.
In the US you can photograph almost anything and anyone, provided you aren't breaking other laws (trespass, invasion of privacy, etc).
What you can then do with those photos depends on what if any releases you may need/have.

I can go down to the beach, sit there all day long, and take 1,000 photos of little kids in little swimsuits as they play in plain view on a public beach, and unless the beach has a rule against photography, it's 100% legal. At most, they can ask me to leave. They have no right to review the shots, nor confiscate my camera, nor delete shots.

As to the UK, well, it seems it depends on if the cops got the memos and read them on if it's even legal to be near a camera.
Some UK police did not get last week’s memo
It is now legal to take pictures in public in the UK
UK cops still having problems with suspected terrorists carrying cameras

Of course, in the US we can't even get it straight if it's ok to take pictures to enter into an official photo contest for Amtrak, so it's universal panic and FUD it seems.Situations like this, you need to balance "legal" and "correct. It sounds like the photographer did everything right, but ran into someone who felt he was the law, while unaware of the law, who assaulted the photographer. I've taken photos of cops, haven't had any problems yet. I avoid sensitive situations, and if I ever do have an issue will try to diffuse it politely. Worst case, I will delete the shot. Then after he's gone, I'll swap the card out, use recovery software later and restore the shot.

 

[jks9199]

A few observations:

First, we only have the photographer's version. In it -- he is approached by two people about taking pictures of their kids. He seems to have acted reasonably, and deleted the pictures -- but apparently, he didn't ease their concerns completely, because they went to the police. While they're talking to him, he decides he's going to take a picture of the cops, too. The officer attempts to block or grab the camera, and there is some sort of struggle over the camera. When the officer decides to arrest him, he argues and complains about his shoulder position -- and probably did struggle against it being moved.

I don't know what happened; as I said, we only have one side of the story. I'm skeptical that the police escalated that rapidly without cause -- though it's definitely not impossible. While common law does allow you to resist a wrongful arrest, I strongly suggest that the most practical course of action is to comply with the police, and sort it out later. The cops are almost certainly going to "win" in the street, and you will still go to jail -- and if a court finds that your interpretation of wrongful wasn't the same as the judge's, even if the initial charges are dismissed, the resisting charges will stick.

And, I want to make it clear that I am not at all saying the cops were automatically right because they're cops; they're human. They can be just as tired, just as stressed as anyone else, and make mistakes. Allegations of inappropriate behavior towards kids really fire up most cops, as well. I hope there was nothing malicious in the situation.

Second -- photography in public places. My understanding is that it is generally legal, and generally legal to take pictures of kids. Any argument of some sort of perversion in the one picture shown is weak, I think. But I do think that, sadly, any photographer would be well advised to be careful about photographing kids (or infrastructure... but that's a different issue) today, or make contact with the parents.

Third -- Police working as security. The first point here is that the cops may not have been "security." Lots of agencies either open up OT positions during the holiday season at the malls to deal with the seasonal rise in offenses, including shoplifting, pickpocketing, larcenies from vehicles, stolen vehicles, and more, or simply have officers assigned to the malls as a rule to spare a patrol unit from responding to the mall all day. (FYI, folks, with the economic stresses right now on people, the world's turning into a madhouse. Every agency I know is seeing a rise in violent offenses as well as non-violent right now.) Secondly, generally, when a cop is in uniform, working an off-duty security gig, it is done at least with the approval of the department, and often done through the department. Many of these are paid to the officer directly through the department as part of their paycheck; others are essentially done as an independent contractor, paid directly to the officer. It's rare that a cop can work a security gig in uniform without approval -- and some departments won't approve any off-duty work that might involve using police authority in any fashion that's not done through the department.

Last -- "cops are cops 24/7." This depends on the state laws; I actually have no authority where I live, unless I'm there in an official capacity, because I don't live in the jurisdiction where I work. Statutorily, my authority is limited to the jurisdiction where I'm sworn; I do have full authority there, anytime I'm there. Functionally, if I'm at home, or elsewhere outside my jurisdiction, and I end up taking police action -- yeah, odds are good (though not absolute; one nearby prosecutor has a rep for prosecuting cops -- and losing.) that the police I'm dealing with are going to work with me.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Related article to the idea of photographers rights.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-rights_x.htm

Oh, btw, it is legal to photograph in an US airport, except for the EDS/ETD screens and images. TSA is not allowed to confiscate or destroy the gear or film. Xray machine images are on the "NO" list. State or local laws may apply as well. However, it's the local LEO's job to enforce those, not the TSA. You can even photograph the screening areas, as long as you aren't interfering with a TSO's ability to work, or blocking traffic. Commercial work requires a permit.
(Source - TSA)

 

[Tez3]

In France you take a photo of someone it then belongs to them.
We live in difficult times, balancing public concerns with public safety with peoples freedoms. It's easy to criticise, much much harder to put things into practise with different agencies having different concerns.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

There are various places and people here that you are forbidden to photograph, me at work is one of them (smirk, suits my vanity, I hate having photos taken), I think however in every country photographing military establishments is illegal and in some places will get you shot. I understand that photographers need to have their freedoms respected but it's a difficult juggling act, I wonder sometimes if people understand what a policeman's workload is like with their responsiblities for public safety as well as preventing and detecting crime. Mistakes are made but the powers that be do try to rectify them. When one is on the end of what one perceives to be an injustice it's hard to see the bigger picture.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I read the article and I was not there so I have no actual comment beyond this statement

Question, are there signs at all mall entrances saying no cameras allowed unless you tell mall management

mall marketing director Lisa McCracken.

When a working journalist takes photos in the mall, they are supposed to let mall management know, she said.

"A lot of our merchants don't want people to come in and film inside their store," she said

Or is this an unwritten "rule" (not law) that the mall assumes everyone knows

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Every mall I've checked (NY/OH/GA/FL) had signs stating no photography or a clause in their 'rules' list posted by the entrances and on mall directory's.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Every mall I've checked (NY/OH/GA/FL) had signs stating no photography or a clause in their 'rules' list posted by the entrances and on mall directory's.

I've actually never seen a 'no photography' sign or notification on any mall entrance. Of course, I tend not to go into malls these days, but still.