Another Camera Seized

On 2009-04-07 12:30:00 -0700, Chris H said:

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Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...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

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.

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.

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.

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

True.

....and if you are using a D3 with redundant writing to two CF cards,
just give him one.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

In message 2009040715443336579-savageduck@savagenet, Savageduck
writes
On 2009-04-07 12:30:00 -0700, Chris H said:

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

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Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...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

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.

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

...and if you are using a D3 with redundant writing to two CF cards,
just give him one.

I thought of that but I don't have a D3.... OTOH the Fuji 7000S Zoom
DSLR look alike had two cards.. An SD and a compact flash and If memory
serves (despite what I was saying to the contrary a few posts ago :-)
internal memory... However the internal memory was only for 1 or two
pictures I think. I suspect the internal memory is normally used as the
buffer for the memory cards when not in demo mode. SO it would I presume
slow up card writes and the ability to take pictures.

I like the WiFi idea because you can transmit the pictures back to a
laptop a friend has set up in a cafe. That will be difficult to spot as
most cafes are full of people using laptops... at least in UK cites they
are.

Or back to a laptop in the car which (AFAIK, IANAL) the police will
need a warrant to search if it is legally parked and locked. If they can
work out what you are doing and which is your car.

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

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
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 /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/




There is no shortage of video footage / still shots showing the Boys in Blue
at their worst; as is there many more instances of their heroic efforts.

Coming from a family which has produced a few law enforcement officers and
military servicemen, my sympathies ultimately coincide with the LEO's. And,
of course, my son hopes to join the thinning ranks here in Edmonton within a
few years.

Given the heated nature of most encounters where the imperitives of the
investigation meet the necessity of transparency, one would hope cooler
heads prevail, and quickly. But, as I've noted before, every now and then
an incident pops up and deliberate, assertive effort must be directed toward
protecting our hard-won civil liberties, regardless of whether one is from
Canada, the States or Europe.

Take Care,
Dudley

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009040715443336579-savageduck@savagenet...
On 2009-04-07 12:30:00 -0700, Chris H said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

True.

...and if you are using a D3 with redundant writing to two CF cards, just
give him one.
--
Regards,
Savageduck


Hey, that just might work...

Take Care,
Dudley

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:14:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote Re Another Camera Seized:

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.

Yes, all police states maintain a similar system.

"Caesar Romano" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:14:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote Re Another Camera Seized:

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.

Yes, all police states maintain a similar system.

That's funny...

Take Care,
Dudley

On 2009-04-07 16:58:19 -0700, Caesar Romano said:

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:14:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote Re Another Camera Seized:

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.

Yes, all police states maintain a similar system.

....and just whereabouts in Alabama is it you live?

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:14:20 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

The person involved is a news reporter.

I love the way stories take on new details as the thread progresses.
It's like that game in grade school where one child whispers something
in another child's ear, and by the time the story gets around the room
it has changed completely.

According to the newspaper article, he's a photographer. Not a
reporter. Unless the newspaper he works for is a weekly advertising
broadsheet, as a photographer he doesn't write stories.

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?

Photographs don't provide a professional summary. A photograph is a
visual accessory to the news. The article stated that the
photographer arrived on the scene after the incident occured. All he
could have recorded was the physical scene as he found it.

The newspaper would not have delayed publication due to lack of a
photograph. Text would provide the professional summary.

Photographs were submitted by other people at the scene. There's a
photograph in the _Edmunton Journal_ showing of Payne *with* his
camera on the scene:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...373/story.html


The police were wrong in what they did, but let's not re-write the
story to make it a stronger case.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

J. Clarke wrote:
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.




If the cop simply wants me to assist in their investigation by seeing
the images I may have captured with my camera, fine, I'll be glad to any
way I can. OTOH, trampling on my rights without due cause *is* harm,
and I'll gladly spend time in jail, even risk personal injury to defend
my rights. My attorney is as good as theirs, and it doesn't cost me a
dime to prove that.

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

"TonyCooper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:14:20 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

The person involved is a news reporter.

I love the way stories take on new details as the thread progresses.
It's like that game in grade school where one child whispers something
in another child's ear, and by the time the story gets around the room
it has changed completely.

According to the newspaper article, he's a photographer. Not a
reporter. Unless the newspaper he works for is a weekly advertising
broadsheet, as a photographer he doesn't write stories.

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?

Photographs don't provide a professional summary. A photograph is a
visual accessory to the news. The article stated that the
photographer arrived on the scene after the incident occured. All he
could have recorded was the physical scene as he found it.

The newspaper would not have delayed publication due to lack of a
photograph. Text would provide the professional summary.

Photographs were submitted by other people at the scene. There's a
photograph in the _Edmunton Journal_ showing of Payne *with* his
camera on the scene:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...373/story.html


The police were wrong in what they did, but let's not re-write the
story to make it a stronger case.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Sorry, Tony, I know a few photographers who are also reporters / writers, so
I tend to treat the two as interchangeable...

Take Care,
Dudley