Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity

Jer wrote:

My attorney is speed dial #3, and she's been witness to more than one
threatening situation. Yes, all calls to her office are recorded.


It is not legal in many states to record a phone call without direct
indication before hand. Thus ... anything on such a call may not be
admissible in court.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
wrote:
Jer wrote:
My attorney is speed dial #3, and she's been witness to more than one
threatening situation. Yes, all calls to her office are recorded.

I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to go about finding a good civil
liberties lawyer in advance, let alone in an hour of need.

That's not necessarily what you need though! A lawyer that is
familiar with police actions/operations/rules is appropriate...
which is to say that any experienced criminal trial lawyer will
probably do.

Read the newspaper to find one! Not the classified ads though.
Look for pictures of folks headed for the slammer, and what you
want is the fellow in a suit sitting next to him!



Great --- you pick a lawyer whose clients end up in jail. Excellent ;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

ASAAR wrote:
Or you
simply could have run into a cop that's a control freak or a bully.
I'm sure that most cops aren't like that, but the police force
attracts certain types, just as the priesthood attracts other types.

Maybe in your experience. My experience is the opposite. Most cops ARE
control freaks and bullys, that's one of the main appeals of the job.
The other big one being the "perks" available to make lots of money on
the side.

As for priests, I better bite my tongue, as I'm a recovering Catholic
who'd love to burn the Vatican to the ground!

On 11 Aug 2006 in rec.photo.digital, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

Jer wrote:

My attorney is speed dial #3, and she's been witness to more than one
threatening situation. Yes, all calls to her office are recorded.

It is not legal in many states to record a phone call without direct
indication before hand. Thus ... anything on such a call may not be
admissible in court.

IANAL, but in this case, the caller (Jer) has been informed in advance
that the call will be recorded. Or he could make a point of beginning
his call by saying something to the effect of 'Make sure you are
recording this call.'

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe

no_name wrote:
wrote:

no_name wrote:

From the news story, the case is probably a slam dunk. He was standing
on his own back porch taking a photograph of something happening in the
street.
If he sues, he's got a good chance of collecting actual and punative
damages.


It looks like Cruz got it wrong, and the reporter didn't seek
clarification from anybody. Cruz wasn't actually arrested. The
police "threatened" to charge him with a lot of stuff.
Cruz was merely "taken into custody." This is a key point.
The police will intimidate or worse to stop the public from
photographing, but they apparently won't arrest.


Where I come from, "taken into custody" = arrested.

In a similar situation in 1997, I was thrown to the ground by a
plainclothes policeman who wrenched my camera from my
hand after I had _insisted_ that he arrest me if I was
doing anything wrong. The ACLU helped my get my camera
back, but they apparently weren't interested in pursuing
it further, though I didn't ask them to.

Police are vicious about this, and I can't put my finger
on any reason why. A couple of months ago a violent
hit-and-run crash down the street drew me out of my house
with camera in hand. an officer saw it and said
"Who are you with?" My neighbor looked me and said, puzzled,
"Uh, we're just residents." The officer then said that
if I took any pictures he would seize my camera "for
evidence." Since it was dark anyway, I decided not to
try, but also because I didn't want to cause a scene --
and didn't want my camera to be damaged in a struggle.

--
Charles Packer
mailboxATcpacker.org
http://cpacker.org/whatnews


I would have taken the pictures. And if they tried to impound my camera,
I would have sued.

And won.

Then again, I would have asked the officer what business of his it was
who I worked for.

You're probably right about winning the suit. However, I wouldn't want
to win a big lawsuit to help pay for the hospital bills you'd have
incurred had you been as foolish as you say you would have been. You
certainly talk the talk...

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
Jer wrote:

My attorney is speed dial #3, and she's been witness to more than one
threatening situation. Yes, all calls to her office are recorded.


It is not legal in many states to record a phone call without direct
indication before hand. Thus ... anything on such a call may not be
admissible in court.

It is legal in almost every state to do exactly that. It is also
within Federal law to do that.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
wrote:
Jer wrote:
My attorney is speed dial #3, and she's been witness to more than one
threatening situation. Yes, all calls to her office are recorded.

I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to go about finding a good civil
liberties lawyer in advance, let alone in an hour of need.

That's not necessarily what you need though! A lawyer that is
familiar with police actions/operations/rules is appropriate...
which is to say that any experienced criminal trial lawyer will
probably do.

Read the newspaper to find one! Not the classified ads though.
Look for pictures of folks headed for the slammer, and what you
want is the fellow in a suit sitting next to him!


Great --- you pick a lawyer whose clients end up in jail. Excellent ;-)

You've picked a lawyer who made sure that a *guilty* person got
a fair trial, was provided due process and that justice was
done. Otherwise the poor fellow who shoplifts a $10 item might
end up being executed at dawn.

It is *exactly* what you need in the described situation.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Bill Funk writes:

I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
picture of police activity in plain sight.

There is no such law.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

HEMI - Powered writes:

But, I do know this: If you are accosted for doing something with
a camera of /any/ sort, cell phone, P & S, or sophisticated DSLR
where a legitimate law enforcment officer takes issue or even if
a private security guard take issue, your best course of action
is to immediately park your ego, stand down, get polite and very
contrite, and try to calm down the person accosting you. Absent
so really sincere humility, some amount of hassle will definitely
come your way, all the way to a police arrest for anything as
small as disturbing the peace, misdemeanor photography of a
police investigation, to felony obstruction of justice or a
believed attempt to contribute to the crime being investigated,
planning of a future crime, or the worst of all, the planning or
execution of a real or perceived terrorist attack.

In other words, throw all your rights out the window. Sorry, but
that's not how the United States was founded.

The latter is so ill-defined that it is difficult right now to
even talk about what does or does not constitute an "attack" by a
common citizen taking a picture with their cell phone camera or
saying something seemingly innocuos like "gee, here's a good
example of police brutality in progress!". And, I wouldn't advise
ya to yell "Big Brother!" if you are in a similar situation.

What would you advise? Cowering under the bed?

So, as to whether it is or is not against the law to take
pictures of anything, including a police action, only a qualified
attorney can answer that, but likely, it will become a matter for
state or federal courts to decide and may wind its way through
the appellate court system all the way to the Supreme Court,
which really makes me wonder where the Hell the ACLU has been
during all of this over the last 4-5 years ...

The ACLU is trying very hard to protect civil liberties. But with
most of the population rolling over and throwing away its freedoms
just as you suggest above, it's an uphill battle.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

HEMI - Powered writes:

And, the quick answer to that is, it doesn't matter. You are right,
it only matters what the law is, but in all likelihood, neither the
person making the search or the searchee knows the complete law as
applied in their particular instance and resisting will cause you
nothing but pain, sometimes literally.

So just throw your rights away?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.