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

Chris H wrote:
In message , tony cooper
writes
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.

No it's a matter of Law

I disagree.

Depends on jurisdiction but in most democracies the cop was wrong.


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.

Again in most democracies the bystander does have the right to take
photographs in a public place.

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.

That would be in Germany. "If it is not Permitted it is forbidden" most
democracies work on "It is permitted unless it is Forbidden"

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.

Correct.

There are laws regarding interference with a
police officer.

The officer was not being interfered with and at the point of arresting
the perp he had clearly identified himself as a cop.

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.

Free speech most certainly does apply in most democracies,. It does not
in Police States and dictatorships like China, N.Korea etc

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.

Quite likely. However that does not have any bearing on taking the
photos.

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.

I agree. It still does not make it right for the cop to delete the
photos.

I have taken photos in a similar circumstance and was asked by the
police not to used the ones that clearly identified them if the photos
were for publication.


A reasonable request, and should be honored, in the spirit of
'journalist integrity', which is almost non-existent these days.

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. he does *not* have the right to
reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
bystander.

No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property. And I
suspect that if the images were of use to the police then they could
quite legitimately have been confiscated as evidence.

The UK is threatening to make photographing policemen illegal, but so
far they have not done so. Although the untrained el cheapo jobsworths
they put out as "community support officers" sometimes think such a law
exists. Abuses of section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act are likely to
increase:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm

(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.

Deleting just the offending ones and then taking a few dozen random
shots would probably irreversibly trash the media containing the images
he wanted to destroy. Delete all images is far too easily undone on most
cameras. People hit the wrong buttons too often.

that's wonderful, but he broke the law. hopefully the bystander has a
good lawyer and also knows how to run an undelete utility.

Deleting all the images in the camera is nowhere near adequate if there
was an actual security risk to undercover personnel. The cop should have
asked for the media to use in evidence and issued a receipt for it.
(at least that is what I would expect a UK police officer to do)

Regards,
Martin Brown

In message , Ron Hunter
writes
Chris H wrote:
I agree. It still does not make it right for the cop to delete the
photos.
I have taken photos in a similar circumstance and was asked by the
police not to used the ones that clearly identified them if the photos
were for publication.

A reasonable request, and should be honored, in the spirit of
'journalist integrity', which is almost non-existent these days.

The request was honoured. I adjusted the faces in the photos The clear
goggles went dark etc. and the newspaper not realising I had done this
then put blackout patches across the whole face!

In another occasion I was asked to delete the pictures. This was in
Belgium where I was (for fun) photographing an Art Deco building close
to the back of a building that was a concrete monstrosity, no windows, a
couple of doors and a roller shutter.

A couple of Police officers arrived including a very pretty female
officer (all with large guns) They asked to see my photos and wanted any
with them in deleted. They then said could not take photos for the next
10 minutes.

In the next 10 minutes a bullion shipment arrived and wen into the
National Bank. At least I think it was a bullion shipment. Several
armoured security vans and a couple of military armoured cars. It was
all very fast and very slick.

For their own security they did not want detailed photos of them or the
delivery. That I can understand.



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

In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

the cop was very clearly in the wrong. he does *not* have the right to
reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
bystander.

No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.

erasing photos is destruction of property, particularly *unrelated*
photos. it's the same if it had been film and the camera back opened,
exposing it to light.

And I
suspect that if the images were of use to the police then they could
quite legitimately have been confiscated as evidence.

if they could be used as evidence, the cop would not have reformatted
the card it so clearly it was not of any use to them whatsoever.

In message , Martin Brown
writes
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. he does *not* have the right
to
reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
bystander.

No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.

As is deleting the picture so I am told be legal people. At least in the
UK

And I suspect that if the images were of use to the police then they
could quite legitimately have been confiscated as evidence.

Yes but not deleted. In fact they should request copies. Without a
court order you can refuse.

The UK is threatening to make photographing policemen illegal, but so
far they have not done so. Although the untrained el cheapo jobsworths
they put out as "community support officers" sometimes think such a law
exists. Abuses of section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act are likely to
increase:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm

They were doing it before the changes on the 16th Feb 2009


(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.

Deleting just the offending ones and then taking a few dozen random
shots would probably irreversibly trash the media containing the images
he wanted to destroy. Delete all images is far too easily undone on
most cameras. People hit the wrong buttons too often.

However the cop can not do that (at least in the UK) as that would be
destruction of property.

that's wonderful, but he broke the law. hopefully the bystander has a
good lawyer and also knows how to run an undelete utility.

Deleting all the images in the camera is nowhere near adequate if there
was an actual security risk to undercover personnel. The cop should
have asked for the media to use in evidence and issued a receipt for it.
(at least that is what I would expect a UK police officer to do)

Since when has the average UK cop been that sensible?
They can ask for copies. Most people would be OK about this but you do
not have to give them without a court order.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Martin Brown wrote:

I suspect even in US law there are plenty of places where the private
ownership of land creates a zone where you can visit freely but
photography is not permitted by the owner. Shopping malls, large stores
and supermarkets often fall into this category in Europe.

And often what are thought of as public parks. In some old cities
there are also sometimes anomalous bits of streets which belong to the
owner of the adjacent property, due to nobody ever having bothered to
shift ownership to the public authority. The owner is often some
public service organisation such as railways, post office, local
authority, power, etc.. Those create useful little spots where the
police can't move you on unless the property owner specifically
requests them to do so, so are often used as the gathering places for
political demonstrations.

It is largely academic these days with high megapixel mobile phones and
very small compact cameras. If you want to take pictures or video in a
no photography zone it is easy enough to do so without being noticed.

The silly thing is that the police and other "security" forces often
ignore people photographing the scene with compact cameras and mobile
phones, and pounce on the person with a conspicuous big black camera
with knobs on. They seem to think that people who want to take
photographs for illegal purposes would of course be very likely to use
the most conspicuous kind of camera in a conspicuous fashion, and be
most unlikely to use an insconspicuous camera unobtrusively.

Of course they don't think that! Even policemen aren't as stupid as
that!

No, what they think is that the user of a big black camera with knobs
on is more likely to be associated with the press, and so more likely
to publish an embarrassing photograph. But since there are no laws to
prevent the embarrassment of officialdom they just use any convenient
legislation such as anti-terrorist.

--
Chris Malcolm

In message , Chris Malcolm
writes
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Martin Brown
wrote:

I suspect even in US law there are plenty of places where the private
ownership of land creates a zone where you can visit freely but
photography is not permitted by the owner. Shopping malls, large stores
and supermarkets often fall into this category in Europe.

And often what are thought of as public parks. In some old cities
there are also sometimes anomalous bits of streets which belong to the
owner of the adjacent property, due to nobody ever having bothered to
shift ownership to the public authority. The owner is often some
public service organisation such as railways, post office, local
authority, power, etc.. Those create useful little spots where the
police can't move you on unless the property owner specifically
requests them to do so, so are often used as the gathering places for
political demonstrations.

On the other hand the owner of these "public" places such as shopping
malls, churches, parks etc can restrict photography (and almost anything
else) .

It is largely academic these days with high megapixel mobile phones and
very small compact cameras. If you want to take pictures or video in a
no photography zone it is easy enough to do so without being noticed.

The silly thing is that the police and other "security" forces often
ignore people photographing the scene with compact cameras and mobile
phones, and pounce on the person with a conspicuous big black camera
with knobs on.

This happens often

They seem to think that people who want to take
photographs for illegal purposes would of course be very likely to use
the most conspicuous kind of camera in a conspicuous fashion, and be
most unlikely to use an insconspicuous camera unobtrusively.

This seems to be a universal trend.
Really they should be monitoring all people in Internet cafes who use
Google Earth etc Remote monitoring from an anonymous computer... Do
Internet cafes have CCTV? Most Libraries don't

Of course they don't think that! Even policemen aren't as stupid as
that!

Poor naive fool :-)

No, what they think is that the user of a big black camera with knobs
on is more likely to be associated with the press, and so more likely
to publish an embarrassing photograph.

I am sorry that is just plain wrong. Our officers work to the highest
standards and never do anything wrong, suspect or not in the public
interest. (That is apart from those that got caught being misunderstood
by the press, public and a judge.)

But since there are no laws to
prevent the embarrassment of officialdom they just use any convenient
legislation such as anti-terrorist.

That is an unfair and cynical attack on our wonderful police force that
is based entirely on facts and [photographic/video] evidence

In a recent Jobs-worth /petty-offical attack on a transporter voiding
trains the statement of the railway company as to the behaviour of the
transporter was completely at odds with the video evidence :-) The
local newspaper and TV companies put up the statement and the video side
by side ion their web sites :-)))))

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

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:24:31 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

....

On the other hand the owner of these "public" places such as shopping
malls, churches, parks etc can restrict photography (and almost anything
else) .


I have been on both sides of that issue in Ohio.

Standing on public easement (a side walk that was required by
law for the property owner to install and maintain as well as to allow
public access) photographing the automatic car wash (which had damaged
several cars) I was told I could not photograph the car wash. My
response was I would photograph the car wash or I would wait until the
police were summoned and abide by their decision. The police informed
the property owner I was legal, and in the end a settlement was made
with the car owners.

On the other hand I was a manager in a store in a mall. Yes,
I could tell people with cameras they could not photograph inside the
store.

The difference was simple. The store or mall and sidewalk are
all privately owned properly. The sidewalk access is controlled by
the local government. The store or mall are privately owned property
and the public is allowed access only with the permission of the
owners. Same thing at public concerts where they may restrict cameras
or beer etc.

On 29 Mar 2009 14:36:23 GMT, 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.


Photography is a right, but it may be restricted under certain
conditions. (US)

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:24:31 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

....

On the other hand the owner of these "public" places such as shopping
malls, churches, parks etc can restrict photography (and almost anything
else) .


Exactly. The difference is between areas where the public may
have access and publicly owned property.