Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right

tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones said:

Very interesting article.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...ndment_ Right

NJ

Photography

is a First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.

Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
First Amendment.

In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.

My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
card.(2)

Criminal vandalism.

The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.

Nope. No such right.

Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.

The rights of citizens override the wants of government employees.

--
Ray Fischer

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:04:25 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

ray wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:48:59 -0400, Neil Jones wrote:

Very interesting article.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/
Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_ Right
NJ

Hell of a stretch to get from freedom of speech and press to your right
to photograph any damned thing you want.

Freedom of the press has been interpreted to allow news photographers to
intrude on the privacy of any person who is 'in the public eye', so I
guess it does. Frankly, a press card shouldn't give one a right to
visually trespass, in my opinion.

'in the publice eye' is a big restriction there - that's the difference.

On 2009-03-29 13:28:00 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones said:

Very interesting article.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...ndment_ Right

NJ

Photography

is

a First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.

Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
First Amendment.

In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.

My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
card.(2)

The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.

Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.

(1) Love that cop talk!
(2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
around the Menu of any camera.



Having just retired as a Lieutenant after 25 years in Law enforcement,
and having been a "photographer" for some 48 years I am always ****ed
off when I hear of police infringing of rights under the color of Law.

Then regarding your son's "undercover" cop friend, I have my own opinion.

For the most part "undercover" cops are not usually directly involved
in arrests.

Once an arrest is made, and the case along with the role of any
"undercover" agents is evaluated. If there is sufficient evidence to go
ahead with prosecution the cop's identity will be revealed.
If he is part of an arrest team (planned or unplanned) he, and his own
report will be included in the complete arrest report, which is
available to all parties, defense and prosecution, as part of
discovery. It will also be part of any Probation report. Protecting ID
is no longer an issue.

If they are involved in ongoing investigations, they will remain
"undercover" until the entire case matures. Again they would normally
not be a part of an arrest team. They will be one of the prosecution
witnesses and their identity will be revealed in Court. At this time
their "undercover" role is over.
Again protecting ID is no longer an issue.
They may continue their careers in drug enforcement, or other roles. In
the future, if they are particularly skilled, they may work
"undercover" again in different areas (drug enforcement is not the only
crime investigated by "undercover" cops.)

I somehow doubt that your son's "undercover" cop friend was doing
anything more than telling a "war story" to a civilian for aaah effect.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:47:39 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
card.(2)

The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.

Both sides have a point.

the cop was very clearly in the wrong.

That's a matter of judgement. I disagree.

he does *not* have the right to reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
else that was on it.

The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A "right" is
something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
Constitutional rights.

There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
police officer.

Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.

at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
bystander.

You say "manhandled the perps" and he'd say "exerted the necessary
force". Considering that these were drug buyers and sellers, and not
exactly shining examples of our community and upright citizens, I
suspect the policemen's version is accurate.

Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.

his identity is made known the moment he flashed his badge.

That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.

after
that, there is nothing to protect. he's also in public and is subject
to being photographed. and rest assured that word gets around what the
undercover cops look like, photos or not.

(1) Love that cop talk!
(2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
around the Menu of any camera.

that's wonderful, but he broke the law.

You're throwing **** against the wall with a statement like that.
What law was broken?



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:19:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-03-29 13:28:00 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones said:

Very interesting article.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...ndment_ Right

NJ

Photography

is

a First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.

Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
First Amendment.

In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.

My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
card.(2)

The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.

Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.

(1) Love that cop talk!
(2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
around the Menu of any camera.



Having just retired as a Lieutenant after 25 years in Law enforcement,
and having been a "photographer" for some 48 years I am always ****ed
off when I hear of police infringing of rights under the color of Law.

Then regarding your son's "undercover" cop friend, I have my own opinion.

For the most part "undercover" cops are not usually directly involved
in arrests.

He's part of a drug task force that does make arrests. As I
understand it, they hang out in places where drug deals are made, and
make arrests on-the-spot. He's not "planted" in some gang like you
see in the TV shows.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:19:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-03-29 13:28:00 -0700, tony cooper
said:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones said:

Very interesting article.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...ndment_ Right

NJ

Photography

is

a First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.

Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
First Amendment.

In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.

My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
card.(2)

The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.

Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.

(1) Love that cop talk!
(2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
around the Menu of any camera.



Having just retired as a Lieutenant after 25 years in Law enforcement,
and having been a "photographer" for some 48 years I am always ****ed
off when I hear of police infringing of rights under the color of Law.

Then regarding your son's "undercover" cop friend, I have my own opinion.

For the most part "undercover" cops are not usually directly involved
in arrests.

He's part of a drug task force that does make arrests. As I
understand it, they hang out in places where drug deals are made, and
make arrests on-the-spot. He's not "planted" in some gang like you
see in the TV shows.




The Boys in Blue, or out of it, have to walk a tight line between getting
the job done, and respecting the perps' civil rights. With everything on
the line, things can get out of control. It's up to photographers to find
their own line between not getting in the way and exposing obvious abuses
of authority.

Given that those perps could just as easily be targeting my kids, I prefer
to give the benefit of the doubt to the cops. But, if I'd have been there
for Rodney King, my camera would have been pretty busy...

Take Care,
Dudley

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:21:24 -0700 (PDT), Nicko
wrote:

On Mar 29, 3:28*pm, tony cooper wrote:

My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
working drug enforcement. *During an arrest awhile back, some
bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
the ground. *My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
card.(2)

I know it's kind of off-topic, but how hard is it to recover the files
from a reformatted SD card?

I have no idea. If the bystander had the same amount of knowledge on
the subject as I do, he shrugged let it go.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:47:39 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
card.(2)

The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.

Both sides have a point.
the cop was very clearly in the wrong.

That's a matter of judgement. I disagree.

he does *not* have the right to reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
else that was on it.

The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A "right" is
something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
Constitutional rights.

There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
police officer.

Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.

at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
bystander.

You say "manhandled the perps" and he'd say "exerted the necessary
force". Considering that these were drug buyers and sellers, and not
exactly shining examples of our community and upright citizens, I
suspect the policemen's version is accurate.

Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
his identity is made known the moment he flashed his badge.

That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.

after
that, there is nothing to protect. he's also in public and is subject
to being photographed. and rest assured that word gets around what the
undercover cops look like, photos or not.

(1) Love that cop talk!
(2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
around the Menu of any camera.
that's wonderful, but he broke the law.

You're throwing **** against the wall with a statement like that.
What law was broken?



What the average citizen sees is not always what actually happened.
Slamming a perp against a wall may seem abusive, but if it stuns him for
long enough to allow cuffs to be put on, it may save both the cop, and
the perp from further injury. Slamming his head against the wall
several times, after the cuffs were on would be abuse.
Unfortunately perps, especially those who sell drugs, don't always stand
meekly with their hands behind them for the cops to put on the cuffs.
Putting them on the ground is the accepted method of gaining control in
order to prevent either party from being injured further.

tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:47:39 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled
onto the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted
the SD card.(2)

The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.

Both sides have a point.

the cop was very clearly in the wrong.

That's a matter of judgement. I disagree.

he does *not* have the right to reformat the card, destroying not
just photos of himself but everything else that was on it.

The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A "right" is
something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
Constitutional rights.

There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
police officer.

Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.

at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
bystander.

You say "manhandled the perps" and he'd say "exerted the necessary
force". Considering that these were drug buyers and sellers, and not
exactly shining examples of our community and upright citizens, I
suspect the policemen's version is accurate.

Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.

his identity is made known the moment he flashed his badge.

That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.

after
that, there is nothing to protect. he's also in public and is
subject
to being photographed. and rest assured that word gets around what
the
undercover cops look like, photos or not.

(1) Love that cop talk!
(2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his
way around the Menu of any camera.

that's wonderful, but he broke the law.

You're throwing **** against the wall with a statement like that.
What law was broken?

Do the world a favor and move to China. You'll be happier, we'll be
happier, and who knows, maybe the Chinese will be happier.

On 2009-03-29 17:04:52 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:19:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-03-29 13:28:00 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones said:

Very interesting article.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...ndment_ Right

NJ

Photography

is

a

First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.

Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
First Amendment.

In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.

My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
card.(2)

The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.

Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.

(1) Love that cop talk!
(2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
around the Menu of any camera.



Having just retired as a Lieutenant after 25 years in Law enforcement,
and having been a "photographer" for some 48 years I am always ****ed
off when I hear of police infringing of rights under the color of Law.

Then regarding your son's "undercover" cop friend, I have my own opinion.

For the most part "undercover" cops are not usually directly involved
in arrests.

He's part of a drug task force that does make arrests. As I
understand it, they hang out in places where drug deals are made, and
make arrests on-the-spot. He's not "planted" in some gang like you
see in the TV shows.

For special task forces such as you have described, and other units
such as tactical units SWAT teams, the idea of ID confidentiality has
become a stale procedure.

As I said before, if there is any involvement in an arrest the
protection of ID is a moot issue, due to the arresting officers and
investigators later role in Court.
The usual procedure is for such units (drug & vice etc.) to "borrow"
officers from other divisions, districts, precincts, etc. outside of,
and not known in the target area, to act in the "undercover" role,
leaving the arrests to the team members.
Local knowledge and intelligence is developed by such task force teams
and most of the players are not surprises to Law enforcement, in that
their crimes are well documented long before any arrest. The use of an
"undercover" operative can be useful if an overt act is needed to make
the case, especially in conspiracy to traffic of deal in narcotics
cases.

Most drug/narcotic arrests are made by accident, incidental to other
encounters with uniformed police other than special task force teams.

Agreed, what is depicted in TV shows is removed from reality.
I still believe your son's "undercover" drug task team member friend,
is embroidering his role as a "war story". I can't think that a
responsible special team member would need the ego stroke of
emphasizing his role and unnecessary behavior.
--
Regards,
Savageduck