Another Camera Seized

Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

Without actually booking the guy, no statements go on record,
either from the reporter or the officers. With a booking,
everything has to be explained and justified.

Sorry for not following this thread, but under what
circumstances would one WANT to be booked? Doesn't that pretty
much forever some sort of criminal record even if you never go
on trial? Or, are you perhaps suggesting this as a way to
provide the proof that the cops at least had the opportunity to
mess with the camera images for later use in a civil suit? I'm
neither a lawyer nor a LEO, but it seems that simply being
booked is hardly a definitive statement about what one did or
didn't do, and certainly little to do with a camera.

I have long held the belief that the hassle and expense of ANY
entanglement with cops over alleged First Amendment rights to
photograph something is FAR more onerous than just sucking it
up and talking nice to everyone involved. I understand that
freedom is precious and must be vigorously defended, but the
common thought that goes through every one of these debates is
that there's some unalienable right to protograph whatever one
pleases when it just isn't so - or at least NOT without taking
a REAL chance of getting into trouble.

And, wrt your point about booking creating a paper trail,
doesn't it also provide for the arrested person to accidently
incriminate themselves, as well as likely resulting in a HUGE
legal bill?

Far be it from me to refute your belief; I would adopt the same
stance myself in most situations.

Thanks for the courtesy, Dudley.

However, if I were a professional journalist and was being
impeded by the police from legitimately performing my duties, I
think I would be tempted to push to the limit to retain my
freedom.

I understand, and again, I apologize for not reading the earlier
posts in this thread but I just spotted yours this morning.

Your situation is entirely different than mine, of course, your
livelihood depends on your photographic skills and if you'd not
have had the time to upload your images prior to being detained,
you might well have lost considerable income or perhaps even
incurred some liability from a client. Moreover, if you did lose
income, you would definitely need to prove that the police were the
proximate cause in order to bring a civil cause of action against
them'

In the States, you have a constitutionally entrenched freedom of
speech. In Canada, the press has its rights to document crime
scenes similarily entrenched. Hence, any legal proceedings to
prosecute journalists for legitimately doing their job would
result in judgements that more clearly establish precedents to
delineate police authority in such situations.

Here is where I always fall off the table on the Bill of Rights.
Ordinary people and the mass media attempt to assume that the First
Amendment ensures absolute freedom of everything just like the folk
think that the Second Amendment gives them a God Given right to
carry a Dirty Harry down the street. In fact, neither do, nor are
ANY of the many rights, freedomes, in the Bill of Rights and
subsequent Amendments absolute in ANY sense.

I've already said I'm not an attorney, but I am a thinker and a
reader of these documents. However, I am not foolish enough to
believe that I have any understanding at all of state and federal
court decisions regarding the rights of a photographer nor do I
have any clue on precedents and case law.

You make an excellent point that whether it be in Canada or even
the US with it's much strong codified statement of rights, it is
still the seeming purview of the government to attempt to limit
it's liability and/or simply ignore the law. Without going into any
details, I'm sure all of us Americans can cite numerous examples in
the last 7 or 8 years right up to this very hour of the Feds
ursurping rights, freedoms, and protections seemingly with
impunity, and with apparently little action from the public
including our vaunted protectors of the liberal freedoms, the ACLU.
And, I also firmly believe in the need to vigorously defend our
freedoms, although I temper that opinion with the need to be
practical.

By establishing a paper trail, I simply meant that reports have
to be written whenever someone is arrested (booked), and
statements have to be recorded, both the statements of those
arrested and the statements of the arresting officers. Those
statements would then be used in any subsequent court
proceedings. If the police can't legally justify the arrest,
then, hopefully, disciplinary actions would be taken in order to
ensure that a similar abuse of authority would not happen again.

I knew what you meant by a paper trail, my question was if you felt
there were any RISKS to insisting on being booked. Those that come
to mind is an improper documentation of the case by the police, the
capriciousness of a prosecuting attorney, potential improper
behavior by a judge, even an incorrect jury verdict if any in a
criminal case.

Again, I (now) understand why your case is so much different than
Mr. and Mrs. America who doesn't have the time or money to fight an
obvious abuse by the police.

Obviously, your average Joe would not have access to similar
legal resources as a journalist from one of the large media
chains, so compliance might be the best way to go. But, put
into a similar situation, I'd be tempted to whip out a digital
voice recorder and say, "No, you can't have my camera, but I
will give you my name and phone number so that you can serve me
with a warrant, should you decide it is necessary. BTW, what is
your name and badge number?" Then, stick the recorder in the
cop's face and wait for his response.

I'm sure that you and your many friends in the media have vastly
more resources and insights into all of this than I do, or the
average Joe. Still, doesn't this really require both a criminal
lawyer's opinion as well as one that specializes in such things as
copyright law and civil rights law?.

And, I'm not disputing your light hearted approach to using a
recorder to get the cop's report in sound, but might giving the
fuzz a hard time perhaps result in an "accident" befalling you
whereby your camera is somehow broken by the cops in the ensuing
struggle? I'm sure you know what I mean. Often, perhaps always,
when dealing with the police it is important to be both firm but
meek at the same time, while gently asserting your various rights
and insisting on proper documentation.

What I mean is that at times, not necessarily in the instance
you're referring to here, it MAY be possible to finesse the cops
and get your camera back rather than putting your foot down and
going through the booking process and perhaps spending a night or
two in the slammer until your PAID attorney could get you out.

Am I off base here?

While not exactly on the same scale, I have used this technique
with other government officials when my rights have been
ignored, and it has almost always resulted in a quick change of
attitude...

You've insisted on formal charges being filed, forced the agency to
formally document the circumstances where you believed your rights
were being violated, forcefully using a recorder to document
everything yourself, all of the above or something else? Again, I'm
just curious, but have you ever had any negative reactions by the
police that made you wish you'd taken a more even strain?

Thanks for your comments and have a nice evening.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
bumper sticker

Savageduck added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

Sorry for not following this thread, but under what
circumstances would one WANT to be booked? Doesn't that pretty
much forever some sort of criminal record even if you never go
on trial?

This is certainly true in California where we use CLETS
(California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System). In this
system every contact made with a California Law enforcement
agency is documented, even if this is a detention and release
and not a formal arrest. This creates a very detailed "Rap
Sheet" which includes professional license applications, or
background checks for Mall rent-a-cop jobs. Some States have
reciprocity with California and share this system, others have
systems which fall far short. The FBI maintains a similar system
NCIC, but is actually less detailed than CLETS.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/clets/

I have no idea what we have in Michigan but even though I
completely believe you and have confidence in your view of your
protections in California, I am still personally quite skittish
about pushing too hard with the police in a potential confrontation
over my asserting my rights/freedoms to take certain photos.

But, I also understand (now) that my amateur/personal situation is
much different than Duncan's professional one.

I can't speak for Canada, but I would imagine the RCMP would
maintain a symilar system and if booked the photographer would
have that encounter as part of his permanant record.

Can't speak to Canada, or Great Britain for that matter, as I'm not
at all knowledgeable about their system of government, but I have
talked to a number of citizens of each country on various Usenet
sites and the first thing they usually say is that they do not have
the general protections guaranteed by our Constitution. One fellow
I recall talked at length about British law being established as an
extension of British Common Law by both precedent and legislation,
rather than having a single document their highest court
presumabily must obey.

But, I could be entirely wrong about these countries.

For anyone who is not familiar with reading these reports they
can be confusing. For example; an entry may show an arrest for
187 PC "murder" but there is no linked Court action. Further
examination might show that this was a classic murder
investigation interveiw, of the "we need to speak to you
downtown" nature, not an arrest or detention at all. The contact
is documented and is part of the individual's permanent record.

The lesson here is, any extended contact with Law enforcment can
become part of your permanent record.

This is what I would fear most, even if I avoided court action
initially. I wouldn't like to have future rights possibly infringed
because I had some sort of record. A rediculously easy example
might be if I wanted to get a CCW for a handgun in my state and ran
afoul of the background check.

And, wrt your point about booking creating a paper trail,
doesn't it also provide for the arrested person to accidently
incriminate themselves, as well as likely resulting in a HUGE
legal bill?

Until civilians, including reporters understand that officers
dealing directly with an incident have a hyper-focus on the
incident and are doing a job isolating, containing and
controlling the incident. Elements which appear to them to
hinder that process have to be dealt with. Arguing with a
reporter or other civilian is hindering or obstructing the
officer from doing what he/she needs to do in the moment.
In this case it was not taking photographs in a station, it was
a shooting incident which has serious implications.

Personally I have found little reason to stop the news media
from doing their job unless they truly interfere with the
resolution of an incident or investigation.
Photographic evidence at crime scenes has been produced by
incidental witnesses, the perpertrator(unwittingly), security
cameras, sometimes the press and bystanders who might not be
aware they had recorded a crime until some days later. Very few
news photographers who for the most part are chasing tips from
police/ambulance scanners capture anything valuable.

I wish I had more/any personal knowledge of all of this beyond the
various cop shows on TV, which are obviously not at all
instructive. But, I would think that the cops at a local, county,
state, federal, or Homeland Security (for us Americans) would take
a very dim view of a photo journalist impeding their investigation
by even trampling on a potential crime scene, as in the shooting
incident you cite.

When busy cops can be touchy. Bear in mind they are doing a
difficult job and in just the last 10 days 7 officers have been
murdered, and several more shot and wounded in the line of duty.

I completely agree. The police must balance public safety with
their own safety and at the same time be aware of and protect the
rights of the accused, should someone be arrested. And, modern
police are ever more under fire from the public, the media, and the
ambulance chasing lawyers among us for all manner of alleged police
brutality or racial profiling allegations, to name just two.

Confrontation with a Law enforcement agency will always have the
potential for debate when it is your ox being gored. The thing
to remember is there certainly are officers who appear to step
over the line and are in the wrong. There are also headstrong
reporters and civilians who do the same. It would be somewhat
like barging into an operating room to take photographs while a
neuro-surgeon was working, and being indignant that your First
Amendment Right to record the surgical event was being infringed
on. (I know that is a poor example, there is implied privacy in
the medical field.)

Yes. I think the fine line here that one doesn't want to needlessly
cross is when to protest and when to use discretion as the better
part of valor. I am a realist, yet the idealist in me does like to
believe that by far the vast majority of LEOs are themselves law
abiding and not abusive of their powers. The trick is to be able to
recognize police abuse when one sees it, and take decisive yet
appropriate action.

Thanks for any further comments you may have to refute my
belief that one should "go along to get along".

Ultimately everybody involved should use common sense and
discretion. In this case it appears some restraint on the part
of the photographer and police supervisors led to a sane
resolution of the problem.

I'm happy to hear that. Thanks muchly for your detailed comments
and have a great day!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
bumper sticker

Dudley Hanks wrote:
Edmonton Journal
(2009-04-06)
News
Journalist's camera seized by police
Vancouver police shot a man Sunday -- and seized a newspaper photographer's
camera
as he took pictures at the scene.

The man was driving a large black pickup truck when police boxed him in.

The man was taken away by ambulance. No further information on the shooting
was available by press time.

When Province photographer Jason Payne arrived at the scene just moments
later, the man was lying on the street as more police arrived.

As he was taking photographs, "a constable pushed me away. Another officer
ran up and pushed me back into the street," said the veteran photographer.

Payne said he identified himself as a news photographer, but the police
demanded his camera.

"They said I was obstructing justice and they were going to confiscate my
camera as evidence. They ended up taking my camera from me. It was either
that or be arrested," he said. "They were manhandling me."
- End of Article -


While I normally would give the benefit of the doubt to the cops, it seems
some are getting a bit grabby when it comes to sezing cameras which could
contain damning evidence.

Perhaps it's time for photographers to contact their legislators and demand
more clarification / protection.

Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands off my
camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.

Take Care,
Dudley




So, the confiscation of the camera (and images) was relevant to a
criminal complaint against the journalist, not the confiscation of
evidence relevant to the shooting prior to the journalist's arrival on
the scene.

Answer: Kiss my ass, and then book my ass into your jail. Need I
remind you that tampering with evidence is also a criminal charge, no
matter who commits it, so the images stay right where they are.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Chris H wrote:
In message , J. Clarke
writes
Paul Bartram wrote:
"Dudley Hanks" wrote

Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands
off my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.

In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind is,
why seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images
are on a tiny card, not the camera itself?

Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...

So you're saying that there are no film cameras left anywhere in the
world?

99.9% of press photographers use digital They have to.

Depends what they are doing but it is a high proportion.

With digital most press photographers can get their images to the news
desk in a few minutes. I think that at the Olympics It was estimated by
a couple of agencies they could get their photos on to their customers
news desks globally within 15 minutes of the picture being taken in the
stadium.

Another advantage is with WiFi or 3G enabled devices the images can be
already away and onto a second remote system long before the camera is
confiscated. Very hard to do that with film.

Other news coverage is similar. So how is going to use film that has to
go to a dark room, be developed and printed then scanned to be sent to a
news desk? The competition will have got them an hour or two ago.

Also with digital the photographer can check their pictures as they take
them not an hour later in the dark room when they can not take anymore.

That is a double edged sword. People seem to stop thinking about
composition as a result. Polaroid was popular in days long gone as an
insurance policy for one off events that would be hard to replicate.

And that there are no cameras that store information only as internal
memory, not on a card?

Name one... I don't know of any that don't use a card.

Oldest one I can think of is the Kodak DC120. There are others with just
enough internal memory to allow the camera to be demonstrated in store
without inserting a memory card. A devious trick would be to put the key
photos on the internal memory and let the jobsworth wipe or confiscate
the memory card. You don't usually get many shots on the internal memory
though. Most mobile phones can use internal memory for photographs and
they are ubiquitous.

There's nothing wrong with asking the cop, politely, if the memory
card from the camera will suffice.

True.

Usually if you are polite and businesslike with them then they are
reasonable in return (at least in the UK). I don't consider putting your
camera on the ground and standing on it as non-confrontational. Keeping
it around your neck and talking to the guy about what they want and why
is far more effective. Negotiating a compromise is a far better option.

Both individuals are just doing their job and there is no need to
deliberately escalate the encounter gratuitously. The police may want to
secure the evidence chain in case there are important images on the
camera. Digital images are much easier to fake than classical film so
there is good reason for them to want to keep them closely watched until
they are sure there is no important evidence on them.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Dudley Hanks wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Paul Bartram wrote:
"Dudley Hanks" wrote

Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands
off my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.
In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind is,
why seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images
are on a tiny card, not the camera itself?

Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...
So you're saying that there are no film cameras left anywhere in the
world? And that there are no cameras that store information only as
internal memory, not on a card? Or are you saying that all cops are
experts on identifying cameras and the type of storage media they use?

There's nothing wrong with asking the cop, politely, if the memory card
from the camera will suffice.

A news reporter should not have to surrender even the memory card if he /
she arrives after the crime has been committed and starts taking pics.
Certainly, the cops have their job to do, but so does the reporter. If the
cops think that the reporter's shots might help their investigation, copies
could be made available fairly quickly.

In this case, the culprit was captured, so it's not like they needed the
pics to identify a dangerous fugitive that was still at large.

Take Care,
Dudley


I news photographer, with identification would NOT be required to
surrender anything by US law. Such a case would be cause for the cop to
be fired, and probably charged with violating civil rights of the
photographer.

In message , Martin Brown
writes
Chris H wrote:
Another advantage is with WiFi or 3G enabled devices the images can be
already away and onto a second remote system long before the camera is
confiscated. Very hard to do that with film.

I have recommended this system to other people who are photographing in
contentious situations.

And that there are no cameras that store information only as
internal memory, not on a card?
Name one... I don't know of any that don't use a card.

Oldest one I can think of is the Kodak DC120.

Mea Cupla.... I have a DC120 sitting on the desk in front of me :-)
Should have remembered.

There are others with just enough internal memory to allow the camera
to be demonstrated in store without inserting a memory card.

Point taken

A devious trick would be to put the key photos on the internal memory
and let the jobsworth wipe or confiscate the memory card. You don't
usually get many shots on the internal memory though.

Exactly which is why I discounted it. A press photographer will have
taken quite a few shots.

Most mobile phones can use internal memory for photographs and they
are ubiquitous.

Which is why the police hassle photographers with big cameras and
tripods in case they are doing a recce for terrorists but ignore the
camera phones who incidentally can usually trasmit the photos to
anywhere in the world in seconds... never mind a DSLR with a WiFi unit
:-)


There's nothing wrong with asking the cop, politely, if the memory
card from the camera will suffice.
True.

Usually if you are polite and businesslike with them then they are
reasonable in return (at least in the UK).

Some times in the UK... but more often not these days. The press and
camera magazines are increasingly carrying stories of Police harassment
of photographers under section 76 of the counter terror laws. In fact
one UK photo magazine now has a permanent legal feature in each issue

I don't consider putting your camera on the ground and standing on it
as non-confrontational.

Neither do I.

Keeping it around your neck and talking to the guy about what they
want and why is far more effective. Negotiating a compromise is a far
better option.

I agree. If you can take the heat out of the situation they can some
times actually start being helpful....

Both individuals are just doing their job and there is no need to
deliberately escalate the encounter gratuitously.

I agree. Besides if you do it makes it worse for the next photographer
they encounter

The police may want to secure the evidence chain in case there are
important images on the camera.

True. On the other hand they may want them so there are no awkward
photos in the press. In the case in this thread they had shot at some
one.

Digital images are much easier to fake than classical film so there is
good reason for them to want to keep them closely watched until they
are sure there is no important evidence on them.

That is one reason there are others for the more cynical.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

Without actually booking the guy, no statements go on record,
either from the reporter or the officers. With a booking,
everything has to be explained and justified.

Sorry for not following this thread, but under what
circumstances would one WANT to be booked? Doesn't that pretty
much forever some sort of criminal record even if you never go
on trial? Or, are you perhaps suggesting this as a way to
provide the proof that the cops at least had the opportunity to
mess with the camera images for later use in a civil suit? I'm
neither a lawyer nor a LEO, but it seems that simply being
booked is hardly a definitive statement about what one did or
didn't do, and certainly little to do with a camera.

I have long held the belief that the hassle and expense of ANY
entanglement with cops over alleged First Amendment rights to
photograph something is FAR more onerous than just sucking it
up and talking nice to everyone involved. I understand that
freedom is precious and must be vigorously defended, but the
common thought that goes through every one of these debates is
that there's some unalienable right to protograph whatever one
pleases when it just isn't so - or at least NOT without taking
a REAL chance of getting into trouble.

And, wrt your point about booking creating a paper trail,
doesn't it also provide for the arrested person to accidently
incriminate themselves, as well as likely resulting in a HUGE
legal bill?

Far be it from me to refute your belief; I would adopt the same
stance myself in most situations.

Thanks for the courtesy, Dudley.

However, if I were a professional journalist and was being
impeded by the police from legitimately performing my duties, I
think I would be tempted to push to the limit to retain my
freedom.

I understand, and again, I apologize for not reading the earlier
posts in this thread but I just spotted yours this morning.

Your situation is entirely different than mine, of course, your
livelihood depends on your photographic skills and if you'd not
have had the time to upload your images prior to being detained,
you might well have lost considerable income or perhaps even
incurred some liability from a client. Moreover, if you did lose
income, you would definitely need to prove that the police were the
proximate cause in order to bring a civil cause of action against
them'

In the States, you have a constitutionally entrenched freedom of
speech. In Canada, the press has its rights to document crime
scenes similarily entrenched. Hence, any legal proceedings to
prosecute journalists for legitimately doing their job would
result in judgements that more clearly establish precedents to
delineate police authority in such situations.

Here is where I always fall off the table on the Bill of Rights.
Ordinary people and the mass media attempt to assume that the First
Amendment ensures absolute freedom of everything just like the folk
think that the Second Amendment gives them a God Given right to
carry a Dirty Harry down the street. In fact, neither do, nor are
ANY of the many rights, freedomes, in the Bill of Rights and
subsequent Amendments absolute in ANY sense.

I've already said I'm not an attorney, but I am a thinker and a
reader of these documents. However, I am not foolish enough to
believe that I have any understanding at all of state and federal
court decisions regarding the rights of a photographer nor do I
have any clue on precedents and case law.

You make an excellent point that whether it be in Canada or even
the US with it's much strong codified statement of rights, it is
still the seeming purview of the government to attempt to limit
it's liability and/or simply ignore the law. Without going into any
details, I'm sure all of us Americans can cite numerous examples in
the last 7 or 8 years right up to this very hour of the Feds
ursurping rights, freedoms, and protections seemingly with
impunity, and with apparently little action from the public
including our vaunted protectors of the liberal freedoms, the ACLU.
And, I also firmly believe in the need to vigorously defend our
freedoms, although I temper that opinion with the need to be
practical.

By establishing a paper trail, I simply meant that reports have
to be written whenever someone is arrested (booked), and
statements have to be recorded, both the statements of those
arrested and the statements of the arresting officers. Those
statements would then be used in any subsequent court
proceedings. If the police can't legally justify the arrest,
then, hopefully, disciplinary actions would be taken in order to
ensure that a similar abuse of authority would not happen again.

I knew what you meant by a paper trail, my question was if you felt
there were any RISKS to insisting on being booked. Those that come
to mind is an improper documentation of the case by the police, the
capriciousness of a prosecuting attorney, potential improper
behavior by a judge, even an incorrect jury verdict if any in a
criminal case.

Again, I (now) understand why your case is so much different than
Mr. and Mrs. America who doesn't have the time or money to fight an
obvious abuse by the police.

Obviously, your average Joe would not have access to similar
legal resources as a journalist from one of the large media
chains, so compliance might be the best way to go. But, put
into a similar situation, I'd be tempted to whip out a digital
voice recorder and say, "No, you can't have my camera, but I
will give you my name and phone number so that you can serve me
with a warrant, should you decide it is necessary. BTW, what is
your name and badge number?" Then, stick the recorder in the
cop's face and wait for his response.

I'm sure that you and your many friends in the media have vastly
more resources and insights into all of this than I do, or the
average Joe. Still, doesn't this really require both a criminal
lawyer's opinion as well as one that specializes in such things as
copyright law and civil rights law?.

And, I'm not disputing your light hearted approach to using a
recorder to get the cop's report in sound, but might giving the
fuzz a hard time perhaps result in an "accident" befalling you
whereby your camera is somehow broken by the cops in the ensuing
struggle? I'm sure you know what I mean. Often, perhaps always,
when dealing with the police it is important to be both firm but
meek at the same time, while gently asserting your various rights
and insisting on proper documentation.

What I mean is that at times, not necessarily in the instance
you're referring to here, it MAY be possible to finesse the cops
and get your camera back rather than putting your foot down and
going through the booking process and perhaps spending a night or
two in the slammer until your PAID attorney could get you out.

Am I off base here?

While not exactly on the same scale, I have used this technique
with other government officials when my rights have been
ignored, and it has almost always resulted in a quick change of
attitude...

You've insisted on formal charges being filed, forced the agency to
formally document the circumstances where you believed your rights
were being violated, forcefully using a recorder to document
everything yourself, all of the above or something else? Again, I'm
just curious, but have you ever had any negative reactions by the
police that made you wish you'd taken a more even strain?

Thanks for your comments and have a nice evening.

--
HP, aka Jerry


I was tempted to snip a lot out of the message, just to get it down to a
more manageable size, but you make a number of good points which I couldn't
bring myself to snip out. So, I'll try to lump a few points into each of a
couple of responses and hope I cover most of the bases...

First of all, I should clarify that I was not involved in the incident, nor
am I a professional journalist. I was just bringing to the group's
attention the breaking news story of a reporter in Vancouver, Canada, who
had a run-in with some police officers while reporting on a police shooting.

Now, to illustrate that I try to practice what I preach, I'll just relate as
briefly as possible an incident which ocurred in my younger days:


I was walking down the street, carrying a case of beer with a couple of
friends. A cruiser full of cops (3) drove by and decided to check us out to
see if we were of age. In Alberta, legal age is 18, and I was about 23 at
the time.

The cops asked me for my identification, so I asked them why we were being
stopped.

The lead officer said it was a routine check to verify that we were old
enough to be in possession of alcohol. I asked him what crime we had
committed. He said that it is an offence to possess alcohol when under the
age of 18, and I might be under-aged, so he had to check.

I told him that routine checks weren't good enough, he had to have a strong
belief that I was under-aged in order to ask for ID. He said he just needed
to suspect...

I told him I wasn't going to give him any ID, since he didn't have any
grounds to think we were under-aged, and I turned to walk away.

The cop grabbed my wrist to cuff me, but I pulled my arm away and spun
around, striking the officer on the jaw with as hard a blow as I could
muster. His head spun to the left, his hat went flying, and the scrap was
on.

Yes, the three cops took me down, and, yes, they kicked the crap out of me
in the cellblock, but, things didn't go so good for them in court.

When I brought it to the judges attention that one of the three officers sat
next to me in my grade 11 math class and knew how old I was, the judge
wasn't impressed.

When delivering his verdict, the judge started by saying, "Mr. Hanks, I
cannot condone people going around and assaulting police officers..." So, I
thought I was in deep ****. But, his next sentence was, Neither can I
condone police officers who exceed their authority... And, he kicked it out
of court.

Certainly, I was the target of some rather unrelenting police attention,
going so far as to be arrested for "tampering with a motor vehicle" when I
was car shopping after hours on a car lot. The cop came up to me while I
had the hood of an old Camarro up, 15 minutes after the dealership had
closed. Sales staff were still in the showroom.

But, things have a way of working themselves out. The Crown's own witness,
the manager of the dealership, said, "No," when I asked him if he cared
whether people dropped by and popped the hoods of cars after hours. He also
said that he had personally made several sales which had started in that
sort of fashion. Also, he said that the car had not been damaged. Of
course, the cop had to admit to the judge that I didn't have any tools on my
person when I was busted, so any tampering under the hood would have been
something done with my bare hands.

Another case punted by another judge.

If you go back far enough in Canadian legal history, these files will still
be on record, I believe, as will a few others.

Of course, everything didn't go my way. I was also busted for "threatening
to kill" the brother of one of the officers. His word against mine. I
could have fought it, but, the charge was "verbal assault," and the fine was
$500, so I pleaded guilty and went back to work.

Neither that conviction, nor any residual record of the other incidents has
ever come back to haunt me. But, I have to say the reputation I gained at
the time probably kept me out of more bar fights than you can shake a stick
at...

So, yes, you'll have to deal with the ramifications of what you do, but
those ramifications aren't always as severe as people, including the cops,
would want you to believe.

In such incidents, it can boil down to a sophisticated game of chicken.
With the cops over-inflating the repercussions of not complying with their
demands, and the individual placing too much reliance on his / her supposed
rights.

And, of course, you are spot on when you say that a mixture of meek and firm
are a good rule of thumb to follow. My point is that every now and then
somebody needs to put his / her neck on the line to keep the system
accountable.

Since that time, I have studied political science in general, and have taken
specific courses in Constitutional Politics, studying both your American and
our Canadian Constitutions, not to mention the British unwritten
constitutional tradition. I am by no means an expert in the field, but I
know enough to agree with you that people tend to think they have more
rights than they can in fact lay claim to.

For me, the bottom line in this case is that the journalist was doing his
job, and the cops got carried away, probably because of a couple of high
profile videos that proved a couple of officers weren't being entirely
truthful under oath.

In this case, though, the reporter got there late, took a few pics of a
truck with its window shot out and the perp lying on the ground, bleeding,
and they didn't want anyone coming back to question their takedown. From
the sound of things, they needen't have worried (although, I wasn't there,
maybe they did...) They should be professional enough to let other
professionals do their work.

I'm not sure if I've addressed all of your concerns with this rather lengthy
response, but I hope I have. If not, perhaps we can break it up into
smaller chunks for further elaboration...

Take Care,
Dudley

Dudley Hanks wrote:
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

I'm just surprised that this guy didn't go the distance. He's
a professional journalist, and he should know his rights. So,
maybe he spends a couple of hours in lockup;

That would have worked to the police's advantage. If he was
locked-up, his personal effects - including his camera - would
have been taken from him and held.

I could have been to the photographer's disadvantage. He would
not know if particular images had been deleted while the camera
was out of his possession.

It sounds like the camera ended up outside his possession for
about an hour anyway. Either way, the cops get his camera to
themselves, so why not get booked and create a paper trail that
has to be accounted for?

Without actually booking the guy, no statements go on record,
either from the reporter or the officers. With a booking,
everything has to be explained and justified.

Sorry for not following this thread, but under what circumstances
would one WANT to be booked? Doesn't that pretty much forever some
sort of criminal record even if you never go on trial? Or, are you
perhaps suggesting this as a way to provide the proof that the cops
at least had the opportunity to mess with the camera images for
later use in a civil suit? I'm neither a lawyer nor a LEO, but it
seems that simply being booked is hardly a definitive statement
about what one did or didn't do, and certainly little to do with a
camera.

I have long held the belief that the hassle and expense of ANY
entanglement with cops over alleged First Amendment rights to
photograph something is FAR more onerous than just sucking it up
and talking nice to everyone involved. I understand that freedom is
precious and must be vigorously defended, but the common thought
that goes through every one of these debates is that there's some
unalienable right to protograph whatever one pleases when it just
isn't so - or at least NOT without taking a REAL chance of getting
into trouble.

And, wrt your point about booking creating a paper trail, doesn't
it also provide for the arrested person to accidently incriminate
themselves, as well as likely resulting in a HUGE legal bill?

Thanks for any further comments you may have to refute my belief
that one should "go along to get along".

--
HP, aka Jerry


Far be it from me to refute your belief; I would adopt the same
stance myself in most situations.

However, if I were a professional journalist and was being impeded by
the police from legitimately performing my duties, I think I would be
tempted to push to the limit to retain my freedom.

In the States, you have a constitutionally entrenched freedom of
speech. In Canada, the press has its rights to document crime scenes
similarily entrenched. Hence, any legal proceedings to prosecute
journalists for legitimately doing their job would result in
judgements that more clearly establish precedents to delineate police
authority in such situations.
By establishing a paper trail, I simply meant that reports have to be
written whenever someone is arrested (booked), and statements have to
be recorded, both the statements of those arrested and the statements
of the arresting officers. Those statements would then be used in
any subsequent court proceedings. If the police can't legally
justify the arrest, then, hopefully, disciplinary actions would be
taken in order to ensure that a similar abuse of authority would not
happen again.
Obviously, your average Joe would not have access to similar legal
resources as a journalist from one of the large media chains, so
compliance might be the best way to go. But, put into a similar
situation, I'd be tempted to whip out a digital voice recorder and
say, "No, you can't have my camera, but I will give you my name and
phone number so that you can serve me with a warrant, should you
decide it is necessary. BTW, what is your name and badge number?" Then,
stick the recorder in the cop's face and wait for his response.

While not exactly on the same scale, I have used this technique with
other government officials when my rights have been ignored, and it
has almost always resulted in a quick change of attitude...

With a cop it might be "Oh, more evidence. I'll have that too, thank you."

If it's really an issue of evidence (as opposed to using "evidence" as an
excuse to bully you) then the police letting you leave the scene with the
camera breaks the chain of custody, which may mean that a criminal walks.
"No, I'm not going to give you the camera unless you take it from me by
force, but I'll be happy to let one of your forensics people copy the images
either here or down at the station" resolves that issue at the cost of your
time. Now, if there is something else on the card that might incriminate
you or that might lead police to a source to whom you have promised
anyonymity or some such then I can see where you might resist this. But
witholding real evidence in a criminal case when you are not being harmed in
any way other than petty annoyance by providing it, even if it's lawful for
you to withhold it, seems to me to be putting your rights before the good of
the community.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Dudley Hanks wrote:
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

I'm just surprised that this guy didn't go the distance. He's
a professional journalist, and he should know his rights. So,
maybe he spends a couple of hours in lockup;

That would have worked to the police's advantage. If he was
locked-up, his personal effects - including his camera - would
have been taken from him and held.

I could have been to the photographer's disadvantage. He would
not know if particular images had been deleted while the camera
was out of his possession.

It sounds like the camera ended up outside his possession for
about an hour anyway. Either way, the cops get his camera to
themselves, so why not get booked and create a paper trail that
has to be accounted for?

Without actually booking the guy, no statements go on record,
either from the reporter or the officers. With a booking,
everything has to be explained and justified.

Sorry for not following this thread, but under what circumstances
would one WANT to be booked? Doesn't that pretty much forever some
sort of criminal record even if you never go on trial? Or, are you
perhaps suggesting this as a way to provide the proof that the cops
at least had the opportunity to mess with the camera images for
later use in a civil suit? I'm neither a lawyer nor a LEO, but it
seems that simply being booked is hardly a definitive statement
about what one did or didn't do, and certainly little to do with a
camera.

I have long held the belief that the hassle and expense of ANY
entanglement with cops over alleged First Amendment rights to
photograph something is FAR more onerous than just sucking it up
and talking nice to everyone involved. I understand that freedom is
precious and must be vigorously defended, but the common thought
that goes through every one of these debates is that there's some
unalienable right to protograph whatever one pleases when it just
isn't so - or at least NOT without taking a REAL chance of getting
into trouble.

And, wrt your point about booking creating a paper trail, doesn't
it also provide for the arrested person to accidently incriminate
themselves, as well as likely resulting in a HUGE legal bill?

Thanks for any further comments you may have to refute my belief
that one should "go along to get along".

--
HP, aka Jerry


Far be it from me to refute your belief; I would adopt the same
stance myself in most situations.

However, if I were a professional journalist and was being impeded by
the police from legitimately performing my duties, I think I would be
tempted to push to the limit to retain my freedom.

In the States, you have a constitutionally entrenched freedom of
speech. In Canada, the press has its rights to document crime scenes
similarily entrenched. Hence, any legal proceedings to prosecute
journalists for legitimately doing their job would result in
judgements that more clearly establish precedents to delineate police
authority in such situations.
By establishing a paper trail, I simply meant that reports have to be
written whenever someone is arrested (booked), and statements have to
be recorded, both the statements of those arrested and the statements
of the arresting officers. Those statements would then be used in
any subsequent court proceedings. If the police can't legally
justify the arrest, then, hopefully, disciplinary actions would be
taken in order to ensure that a similar abuse of authority would not
happen again.
Obviously, your average Joe would not have access to similar legal
resources as a journalist from one of the large media chains, so
compliance might be the best way to go. But, put into a similar
situation, I'd be tempted to whip out a digital voice recorder and
say, "No, you can't have my camera, but I will give you my name and
phone number so that you can serve me with a warrant, should you
decide it is necessary. BTW, what is your name and badge number?" Then,
stick the recorder in the cop's face and wait for his response.

While not exactly on the same scale, I have used this technique with
other government officials when my rights have been ignored, and it
has almost always resulted in a quick change of attitude...

With a cop it might be "Oh, more evidence. I'll have that too, thank
you."

If it's really an issue of evidence (as opposed to using "evidence" as an
excuse to bully you) then the police letting you leave the scene with the
camera breaks the chain of custody, which may mean that a criminal walks.
"No, I'm not going to give you the camera unless you take it from me by
force, but I'll be happy to let one of your forensics people copy the
images either here or down at the station" resolves that issue at the cost
of your time. Now, if there is something else on the card that might
incriminate you or that might lead police to a source to whom you have
promised anyonymity or some such then I can see where you might resist
this. But witholding real evidence in a criminal case when you are not
being harmed in any way other than petty annoyance by providing it, even
if it's lawful for you to withhold it, seems to me to be putting your
rights before the good of the community.



The person involved is a news reporter. Surrendering his equipment would
result in the community getting a professional summary of the event later
than is necessary. How is this in the best interest of the community?

Take Care,
Dudley

In message , Chris H
writes
In message , Martin Brown
writes
Chris H wrote:


The police may want to secure the evidence chain in case there are
important images on the camera.

True. On the other hand they may want them so there are no awkward
photos in the press. In the case in this thread they had shot at some
one.

Digital images are much easier to fake than classical film so there
is good reason for them to want to keep them closely watched until
they are sure there is no important evidence on them.

That is one reason there are others for the more cynical.

And right on cue from the UK counter terrorist NG

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7988828.stm

A man who died during the G20 protest was pushed to the ground by a
police officer, video footage has shown.

Ian Tomlinson, 47, collapsed from a heart attack during protests outside
the Bank of England last Wednesday.

Newsagent Mr Tomlinson, who was not protesting, is seen receiving a
two-handed push from a police officer.

A New York fund manager recorded the footage, saying he came forward
with the video because Mr Tomlinson's family "were not getting any
answers".

_______________

No wonder the police don't like to be filmed!

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/