Another Camera Seized

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Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Pete D wrote:
"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:ZRBCl.20472$Db2.15294@edtnps83...

"Paul Bartram" paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au wrote in
message ...

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Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...

Paul


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; the company lawyers would have
him out in quick time, and there'd be hell to pay if the cops were
out of line -- which it sounds like they were.

Take Care,
Dudley



All he had to do is say I will delete the shots, de;ete them in front
of them and then undelete later, mind you the cops are overstepping
the mark and should be bought to account.

Whoa! BAD advice. The cop didn't say he wanted the shots deleted, he
said that he was seizing the camera as evidence. I don't know the
Vancouver laws but in Connecticut tampering with evidence can get you 5
years in the slammer, and deleting images right in front of a cop who has
just told you that he needed them as evidence is pretty much asking him to
arrest you on that charge.

Best thing to do if he want it as evidence IMO is ask the cop if you can
just give him the card rather than the camera, and make sure you get a
receipt from him detailing what was seized, the case number, and his badge
number, and make sure that he's got your contact information correctly so
that you have a chance of getting the camera back once the investigation
is over. He should have a form for this--often there's a tear-off receipt
form on the evidence tag.


So, the journalist should surrender the pics? What about the journalists
job?

This is harassment. By taking the guy's camera for an hour, he was unable
to continue doing his job. If they take his card / camera, the pics can't
be published in a timely fashion, and the guy loses his story.

The investigation will be continuing long after the story is dead. Copies
of the pics could be sent after the fact to the police.

Take Care,
Dudley

"TonyCooper" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 05:51:53 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"Paul Bartram" paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au wrote in message
...

"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...

Paul


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.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

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.

Take Care,
Dudley

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Dudley Hanks wrote:
"Paul Bartram" paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au wrote in message
...

"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...

Paul


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; the company lawyers would have
him out in quick time, and there'd be hell to pay if the cops were
out of line -- which it sounds like they were.

The cops have the right to ask for evidence. If you're a reasonable
person then you should be willing to provide it, after all, somebody is
_dead_ and the person responsible needs to be brought to justice. That
being the case, anything that you can do to help the investigation is
worthwhile. Don't get so caught up in defending your rights that you lose
sight of the big picture.

If you absolutely positively don't want to give up control of the images,
then tell the cop that you're perfectly willing to let the department make
a copy as long as you don't give up control, and if he's not sure of the
procedure for that then ask him to call his supervisor. They should
either be able to make a copy on scene or at the station.

Remember also that they have a responsibility to maintain the chain of
evidence--that means that the images have to be under their control from
the time they became aware of them on--that means that if they don't have
the camera in their possession then they need to have you with the camera
in their possession until the copies are made.

As a working journalist you also have a responsibility to maintain control
of _your_ chain of evidence--put it in those terms and any cop should be
able to understand the problem.

Also note that what the cops can and cannot seize depends on the
applicable statutes which vary from state to state and outside the US from
country to country.



In this case, the guy did not die. He was just wounded.

The reporter arrived after the incident, so he didn't have any shots of the
actual shooting, just the aftermath, and he explained all that to the
officers involved.

Let's not forget that the police aren't the only ones with a job to do in
cases like this...

Take Care,
Dudley

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

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

"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:ZRBCl.20472$Db2.15294@edtnps83...

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; the company lawyers would have him
out in quick time, and there'd be hell to pay if the cops were out of
line -- which it sounds like they were.

I imagine that the question going through his mind was not how long he was
going to spend in lockup, but rather how long he was going to spend in the
hospital--or in the morgue.

"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...

Take Care,
Dudley

On 2009-04-07 08:24:46 -0700, "HEMI-Powered" said:

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?

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.)

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.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

"Andrew Koenig" wrote in message
news
"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:ZRBCl.20472$Db2.15294@edtnps83...

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; the company lawyers would have him
out in quick time, and there'd be hell to pay if the cops were out of
line -- which it sounds like they were.

I imagine that the question going through his mind was not how long he was
going to spend in lockup, but rather how long he was going to spend in the
hospital--or in the morgue.



Oh, I doubt that was a concideration. A television news crew was in the
process of setting up...

Take Care,
Dudley

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