Law enforcement continues to crack down on photographers despite the law

[Bob Hubbard]

I phrased this title specifically.

Members of the law enforcement community in the following areas continue to be purposefully ignorant of the law, and the rights of citizens to legally photograph and/or video record them when they are in public performing their duties.

Cases in point:
Man Arrested for Videotaping Cops in Florida

Man records a cop doing a drug bust.
Cop notices he is being filmed, demands the video.
Man refuses.
Cop arrests man.
Friend of first man then begins to video.
He too is arrested.

Absent additional information, this looks to be an abuse by the cops in question.

New Jersey Cops Threaten Man With Arrest for Videotaping Them

"Put the camera away or I'm going to throw it on the ground," one cop threatens.

I wasn't aware that a law enforcement official, while in the performance of his or her duties, can threaten to destroy private property on whim.

"Put it away, you're going to be locked up for disobeying a police officer if you don't put it away," one of the new arriving cops tells him.

IF filming a LEO in public is legal, then the order to cease a legal act would seem to be unlawful, and civilians are under no legal requirement to obey an unlawful order.
Are they?

Atlanta Police Once Again Told They Must Allow Citizens to Videotape Them

$40,000 settlement.
Atlanta cops who are purposefully acting outside the law here have now cost the cash strapped city significantly, especially when you consider this is the second lawsuit, and legal action ain't cheap.

Federal Officers Detain Photographer; Destroy His Video Footage

I wasn't aware that it was at all legal for -ANY- law enforcement official to destroy evidence.

New York Woman May Win $70 Million Default Settlement After Photography Arrest

Ouch.
Secret Service Agents Detain Man for Taking Photos in Front of White House

The "SS" seems to be really poorly trained when it comes to dealing with the deadly "Kodak 35mm". A previous case had one poorly trained SS agent ready to draw and fire on a photographer...one who had previously done a portrait of his boss, you know, that guy folks call "Mr. President" that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Then there is this case:
Charges dropped against Florida student arrested for videotaping

Fabricating a report, exaggerating the situation, harassing a photographer. Naughty Naughty. Wait a minute...isn't this where we came in?


Atlanta's now had -2- major screw ups in how their police department handles photographer interactions. Want to bet there'll be another one soon, despite -2- rounds of 'correction'?

Miami continues to also attempt to harass and intimidate photographers, despite losing over a dozen cases, and repeatedly getting 'egg' on their faces.


Now I haven't mentioned my favorite bunch of scumbags, the TSA, but that's only because I said 'law enforcement' here, and anyone with a clue understands the TSA are -civilian- not -law enforcement-. Well, except the jack booted sex offenders and petty thieves in the TSA uniforms that is.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

For the record, when I shoot in public I carry a binder with all pertinent laws and court decisions. I know for a fact that it is 100% legal for a woman to be topless in NY, and that I can legally shoot her on any State Park or Beach provided I don't haul in a truck load of gear or try shooting nudes in the playground. Despite that, I won't shoot in Buffalo because the couple of cops I asked basically said "we don't care if it's legal, we'll find something to run you in on.". A different jurisdiction got me 2 offers to hold lights.

I don't post the OP here to bash, but to point out that despite serious attempts to fix a broken system, the 'guys in the trenches' continue to screw it up, and its looking intentional. This isn't good PR, and it doesn't make folks like me too inclined to trust the folks in uniform during encounters. Eventually, someones going to get really hurt.

Yes, some of these cases are idiots out looking for trouble, but more and more it's some average shmoe, or some hobbyist and that's just not good.

 

[jks9199]

Bob,

I'm tired. I'm grumpy. It's been a long couple of days. In short -- I'm in a mood to read this in a way that I know isn't what you mean...

There are plenty of otherwise good officers who either make up stuff if they don't know or are well intentioned, but just plain wrong. That doesn't make it some conspiracy by cops against cameramen. It's kind of like the Open Carry idiocy. They wait for that cop who isn't willing to admit that he doesn't know, and is sincerely trying to solve a problem... so he does or says something stupid. With the photographers, in some cases, there are also legitimate security concerns -- though they were handled the wrong way.

 

[ballen0351]

Honestly I believe most officers don't know the laws regarding filming them. I didnt until we had to babysit the Westboro Baptist Church freaks a few years ago. Its not usually a top priority in the Police academy. All they know is "I'm trying to do my job and this guys got a camera in my face he must be out to get me." Since lets be honest most times someones pointing a camera at us is usually followed with "I got you on tape now, I'm going to have your job." Since normally the only time anyone wants to tape us is when were trying to arrest someone and its normally someone thats being very uncooperative so were already irritated or amped up.
I know in My state you can take pictures and you can visually record me but you cant audio record me without my consent and If your using a video recorder I can legally tell you to stop. If you dont you can be charged. I believe there are 11 states that have similar 2 party consent laws with regard to audio recordings.

 

[MJS]

I think it'd be interesting to see the photo laws for each state, regarding LE. IMHO, unless there is an actual, set in stone law, as long as the person taking the pics. is not in any way, shape or form, hindering the investigation, then by all means, film away. Hey, I have to be careful and watch what I say and do at work, as everything is recorded, so that should apply to others as well, others being those in the field.

If the person taking the pics is standing within arms reach of the cop, then yeah, that guy needs to be removed, arrested, etc.

And if there are laws in effect, then people need to be made aware of them.

 

[Carol]

If your using a video recorder I can legally tell you to stop.

Citation please?

Is this a municpal, state, or federal law? If so, which one?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The police are public officials, doing their job in public. You can take photographs in public, and you can definitely take photographs of public officials. I'm sorry if cops don't like it, but them's the breaks.

 

[ballen0351]

Citation please?

Is this a municpal, state, or federal law? If so, which one?

If it records sound then its our states Wire tap laws. Were a 2 party consent state. Remember when Monnica Lewinski's friend recorded her calls she got in trouble because she was in Maryland. If its just video and no audio then you can film all you want. If its audio then I can tell you to stop. Now there is a case right now working thru the courts they may change that where a man on a motorcycle taped his traffic stop then was told to stop but didnt and put it on You Tube. He was arrested for wiretap violations. I believe this case will change that law regarding police

 

[ballen0351]

The police are public officials, doing their job in public. You can take photographs in public, and you can definitely take photographs of public officials. I'm sorry if cops don't like it, but them's the breaks.

I never understood why you would even want to take pictures of cops in the first place? You dont take pictures of your trash man so why Police?

 

[Carol]

If it records sound then its our states Wire tap laws. Were a 2 party consent state. Remember when Monnica Lewinski's friend recorded her calls she got in trouble because she was in Maryland. If its just video and no audio then you can film all you want. If its audio then I can tell you to stop. Now there is a case right now working thru the courts they may change that where a man on a motorcycle taped his traffic stop then was told to stop but didnt and put it on You Tube. He was arrested for wiretap violations. I believe this case will change that law regarding police

That is not a citation of a specific law.

Please cite a specific law -- either municipal, state, or federal that supports your statements.

 

[ballen0351]

That is not a citation of a specific law.

Please cite a specific law -- either municipal, state, or federal that supports your statements.

I dont have the book in front of me to give you the actual title numbers Im at home I dont have many law books at home. I know Its our states wire tap laws, we are a 2 party consent state which means both the person recording and the one being recorded have to consent to be recorded. The only exception is a state certified law enforcement officer has to advise you your being recorded but you cant refuse and thats because the NAACP won a suit requiring our state police to have in car cameras because they were accused of racial profiling and they didnt want the officers turning off the cameras. Also undercover operations are exempt as well but the recording device must be registered with the state and it has to be mentioned in the reports at time of trial and discovery rules apply

 

[Bob Hubbard]

There is an opinion that the use of the wiretapping laws to protect cops is an abuse, and will eventually be corrected by the courts.

The basic rule is, if you can see it from a public space, you can shoot it.
Meaning if I'm on the public sidewalk in front of my house, and the cop is on the public street, in plain view, I can legally photograph or video.

Absent a law against, it's legal.

As I've said before, there is a difference between the idiot who wants you to move the bodies around and the documentor who is a reasonably safe distance away.
Now, in those 2-party states, my question is this: Dash cams? Do they record audio? You do not have my consent. So, since I don't give my consent, do they get turned off? If not, why if the argument is safety can you record, byt I for the exact same reason, can't?

USA Today had a piece on this topic.
Our view on cops and cameras: When citizens film police, it shouldn't be a crime

Only in Massachusetts and Illinois is it explicitly illegal to make an audio recording of people without their consent, so officials there can prosecute those who tape police encounters. Ten other states, including Maryland, have "two-party consent" laws that require both (or all) people being audiotaped to approve, but the statutes apply to "private" conversations, such as a phone call. Generally, courts and prosecutors conclude that an officer arresting someone in a public place has no expectation of privacy.
In many jurisdictions, the police themselves record these encounters with dashboard cams in their cruisers. Most of the time, these cruiser-cam videos show law enforcement officers doing their jobs with great competence and restraint.
Occasionally, however, citizen videotapes show an entirely different set of events than the police report.

An opposing view was also linked, that I recommend reading. It echos what our own member LEO's have stated.
Opposing view on cops and cameras: Respect officers' rights

Our problem is not so much with the videotaping as it is with the inability of those with no understanding of police work to clearly and objectively interpret what they see. Videotapes frequently do not show what occurred before or after the camera was on, and the viewer has no idea what may have triggered the incident or what transpired afterwards.

No one can speak knowledgeably about a piece of video without viewing it through the prism of experience and training. It is not a question of whether a citizen has the right to videotape an incident, but a matter of ensuring that any officer involved has the right to due process and fair, objective treatment independent of subjective and sometimes ill-informed opinion based on a videotape showing but a vignette of a significant event.

Gizmodo:
Are Cameras the New Guns?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

http://gizmodo.com/#!5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.
On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.
The case is disturbing because:
1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.
2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."
3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.
Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.

This might be the Maryland law: Section 10-402

http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes/2005/gcj/10-402.html

Also, all states Electronic Surveillance laws
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13492

 

[ballen0351]

There is an opinion that the use of the wiretapping laws to protect cops is an abuse, and will eventually be corrected by the courts.

The basic rule is, if you can see it from a public space, you can shoot it.
Meaning if I'm on the public sidewalk in front of my house, and the cop is on the public street, in plain view, I can legally photograph or video.

Absent a law against, it's legal.

As I've said before, there is a difference between the idiot who wants you to move the bodies around and the documentor who is a reasonably safe distance away.
Now, in those 2-party states, my question is this: Dash cams? Do they record audio? You do not have my consent. So, since I don't give my consent, do they get turned off? If not, why if the argument is safety can you record, byt I for the exact same reason, can't?

USA Today had a piece on this topic.
Our view on cops and cameras: When citizens film police, it shouldn't be a crime



An opposing view was also linked, that I recommend reading. It echos what our own member LEO's have stated.
Opposing view on cops and cameras: Respect officers' rights




Gizmodo:
Are Cameras the New Guns?

As I said prior there is a case going thru courts now here that Im sure will change our law but as of today our policy is if your recorded your to tell them to stop. If they refuse get there information and forward it to the States Attys office so they can review and file charges. Our States Attys still say we have a right to privacy Just like others. I know that will change prob this year or early next year.
Now my personal feelings are I dont care if you record me. I have been recorded before and Ive never tried to get anyone arrested on Wiretap laws. As long as you dont put yourself in my investigation keep your distance I could case less. In fact theres a few local rap videos floating around Youtube and Face book with me in it them arresting people. I dont care and when the law does get changed it wont effect me. Now I do know officers they will not like the change not that they are bad cops they just don't want to be recorded.

 

[ballen0351]

A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.
On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.
The case is disturbing because:
1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.
2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."
3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.
Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.



Pretty Bias Article there.
1)Graber was doing 80+ MPH and popping wheelies in between cars. The trooper got out of his car with his gun out but never waived it around and didnt point it at Graber and as soon as he saw Graber was complying with his order to turn off the bike he put his gun away. The trooper asked if the camera was recording and Graber lied and said "no"
2)Silvermans full of crap that same court heard a similar case 9 months prior to this case Where a passenger in a car on a traffic stop recorded the officer with his cell phone camera and he was arrested (and I believe convicted) So if hes never heard of a case like this hes a bad lawyer then.
3) they didnt arrest him at the time because they didnt know he was recording the stop.

 

[Carol]

A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.
On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.
The case is disturbing because:
1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.
2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."
3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.
Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.



Pretty Bias Article there.
1)Graber was doing 80+ MPH and popping wheelies in between cars. The trooper got out of his car with his gun out but never waived it around and didnt point it at Graber and as soon as he saw Graber was complying with his order to turn off the bike he put his gun away. The trooper asked if the camera was recording and Graber lied and said "no"
2)Silvermans full of crap that same court heard a similar case 9 months prior to this case Where a passenger in a car on a traffic stop recorded the officer with his cell phone camera and he was arrested (and I believe convicted) So if hes never heard of a case like this hes a bad lawyer then.
3) they didnt arrest him at the time because they didnt know he was recording the stop.

You forgot to mention a critical detail -- the wiretapping charges against Anthony John Graber III were dismissed by a Hartford County Circuit Court judge. This was published in the Baltimore Sun on Sept. 27, 2010.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/09/motorcyclist_wins_taping_case.html
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...-20100927_1_police-officers-plitt-cell-phones

In a decision that could make it easier for citizens to record police officers in Maryland, a Harford County judge ruled Monday that state police and prosecutors were wrong to arrest and charge a man for taping his own traffic stop and posting it on the Internet.

This is a copy of the Motion to Suppress that was filed in said case -- in addition to the ruling here in State of MD v. Anthony John Graber III, there is also plenty of other justification in support of videotaping a police officer while in the line of work.

http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2010/Suppress.pdf

 

[ballen0351]

You forgot to mention a critical detail -- the wiretapping charges against Anthony John Graber III were dismissed by a Hartford County Circuit Court judge. This was published in the Baltimore Sun on Sept. 27, 2010.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/09/motorcyclist_wins_taping_case.html
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...-20100927_1_police-officers-plitt-cell-phones

This is a copy of the Motion to Suppress that was filed in said case -- in addition to the ruling here in State of MD v. Anthony John Graber III, there is also plenty of other justification in support of videotaping a police officer while in the line of work.

http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2010/Suppress.pdf

I didnt forget to mention I didnt know the case was over yet. I thought there was an appeal in this case. But See you proved my original point Most officers dont know. And now I have no clue other then to say in THAT county you can record police. Its still not a State wide thing until our state court of appeals rules on it so as far as I know we still follow the old rules. Ill ask our States Atty Wed when I go back to work.

 

[Archangel M]

When it comes to "cops and the law":

-There are the "easy laws" that are simple to determine and charge; someone is caught stealing property they get charged with larceny.

-There are some obscure or rare laws that a cop may have some specific expertise in due to their position (narcotics) or special experience. I became somewhat of a local expert on counterfeit sports apparel when people started complaining about buying bogus stuff. After a lot of research, meetings with DA's and calling in special investigators from the major league sports franchises who flew in from across the country, I was able to get warrants and put together some airtight cases.

-Then there are the "what the hell do I do situations" which I think some of these camera cases fall into. A cop runs into an unusual situation and he/she is not specifically familiar with the statute in question. He opens up his law book and sees that a statute appears to fit the situation. In some cases there are laws on the books (like these wiretapping laws) that on their face look like they can be charged legitimately. A cop sees that they are being filmed, they arrest and charge based on a specific statute that appears to fit the situation. Unless their local DA's office tells them to knock it off, their dept writes a policy telling them to knock it off or their state clarifies the wording of the law you get what we have here. It's a "lets charge it and see if case law is made" situation.

Then of course there are cops that intentionally "railroad" people on trumped up or misapplied charges.

 

[MJS]

I never understood why you would even want to take pictures of cops in the first place? You dont take pictures of your trash man so why Police?

Probably because the trash man isn't abusing their power. Now, dont misunderstand...I was raised to have the utmost respect for LEOs. My Grandfather retired as one, I have a number of friends that are, and I work with them daily. But, there are the proverbial bad apples, that ruin the image of the good ones. So Officer 1 beats the **** out of someone on a stop, and suddenly everyone is going to assume that it may happen to them.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Carol,
Thanks for the update on that one. I wasn't aware of it.

Arch,
To me, there's justifiable and then there's purposefully ignorant. The cases in Miami and Atlanta to me fall into the second, where there has supposedly been several court cases and repeated 'education' forwarded to the guys in the trenches who continue to make illegal arrests, and use bulling and intimidation techniques because their uniform and badge allow them to enforce personal whim as law. The 'what the hell do I do here, have to make my best guess and hope it's the right one' cases, I'm ok with unless there's a track record, like Miami and Atlanta. In those cases, who do you blame for continued violation of civilians rights?

As to purposeful ignorance, I'm tangenting slightly here:
2011 January 12. Seven sort-of topfree women shovelled snow off a sidewalk today in New York City. They wore coats that were open and no tops under them. A group of strippers traded their poles for snow shovels Wednesday in a topless attempt at clearing Times Square sidewalks. But police were having none of that, and ordered the nearly-naked ladies back inside.

It's been legal in NY state for women to be top free where ever men can be since July 7, 1992 when the NY Supreme Court issued a landmark decision. Despite that ruling, law enforcement agencies across NY continue to harass and arrest women exercising their right. NYC knows the law here, they paid out $29,000 in 2007 when they screwed up and their victim sued and won.

Here's one persons experience after his wife decided to walk on some local nature trails topless, and the local police dispatched.

http://tera.ca/articles.html#Buffaloed (warning, link has bare boobies so don't look if that bothers you or violates an HR policy)
The newspaper never did a story on Linda because the police department finally found that she was acting within her legal rights removing her shirt in the town park. But they weren't happy about telling me this.
I talked to the police department after we got home. Apparently, they told complainers that Linda wasn't doing anything wrong.

But it didn't begin so easily. That day we took a short walk through the park and stopped for a picnic. Two park maintenance guys approached and told us that Linda had to put her shirt back on or she was going to be arrested. I explained that she wasn't doing anything wrong and showed them the documentation to support that. They said they were going to call the cops.
I decided because the newspaper wasn't going to do the story that I was going to find out myself how many police departments in the towns around the area knew the law.
Buffalo said that if she was spotted, she would be arrested.
Tonawanda said that they knew it was legal---but gave me an attitude.
Lancaster said that even if it wasn't legal, they wouldn't mind.
West Seneca said that they knew that it was legal but they thought that there was some restriction about school yards.
Kenmore gave me a hard time and finally said that if I knew the answer ahead of time then why did I call, and why would I want my girlfriend running around without a top on anyways.
Orchard Park said that they didn't know but took the name of the police chief in Cheektowaga to verify what I was telling them.
Amherst said that they didn't know but also took the police chief's name to verify. They thanked me for informing them.
Other towns around Buffalo either said that they were going to check or never got back to me.
It really disturbs me that the Buffalo police department, the largest in the area, initially didn't know the law and, even after hearing what I had to say, said that Linda would be arrested anyways.

Now, I only cite the NY top free issue here as another example of cops willfully ignoring established case law and court decisions to enforce their personal views.

The cops who don't know, I can understand. You get them updated and educated and you have a better law enforcement officer, one who can focus on real crimes in an efficient way. The 'I don't care what the law says, I'll run you in anyway and let someone else decide' guys....eh, those I take issue with. Guy with a camera, woman with her boobs out, guy parked in the handicap spot without a permit...which of these 3 is actually breaking the law?

Now, alot of the LEO's on MT have said 'we don't know'. Some have said they'll check into it. A few of you have cited laws, and in some cases even made it easy for non-cops to look up.

When I shoot, I carry this:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Simply passing copies out at every police station in the US and requiring officers to read it would cut down on a number of needless harassment cases.

The flip side of my entire argument is also however, that just because you have something with a camera in it, that doesn't make you a photographer. Just because you bought an iPhone doesn't make you a reporter. People need to not be grade a "entitled" *******s, and realize that because you can doesn't always mean you should. A lot of these negative exchanges are the fools own damn faults. You don't poke a bear with a stick, pun intended.

Cops need better education on ALL laws, because you should know that which you are attempting to enforce.
People need better manners, and better education on the law as well, because when you do know the law you can both protect your rights, and avoid violating them. Sadly most who scream "I know my rights", don't.