# Police also have the right to take photos



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 25, 2009)

*Police also have the right to take photos*



> *By Carlos Miller*
> An Indiana city attorney gets so drunk one night that he passes out inside his neighbors garbage can. Neighbors wake up to find the man with his feet sticking out the overturned garbage can. They call police, perhaps thinking he was dead.
> Police arrive on the scene and help him home, which was next door, rather than take him to jail as they could have because he is not only publicly drunk, he is passed out in the street, as you can see in the photo.
> However, one of the officers snaps a photo while he slept in the garbage can and distributes it to the media.
> ...


I'm curious on 2 things here. LEO opinion on the actual story, as well as what your take is on cops photographing situations, etc.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 25, 2009)

A police officer who is on duty and representing public authority should not be photographing people he is dealing with for media distribution. It MAY not be against the law per se, but he would (and should) be subject to departmental discipline.

But an attorney passed out in a trash can could be considered too hard to resist....

If anything, the officer should apologize for breaching protocol and policies, if he did so. He should not apologize to this lawyer for the LAWYER'S behavior. IMO.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 25, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> A police officer who is on duty and representing public authority should not be photographing people he is dealing with for media distribution. It MAY not be against the law per se, but he would (and should) be subject to departmental discipline.


 
Be that as it may.....It's still funny!


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 25, 2009)

Taking the photo and distibuting it to the press was unprofessional, at best.

Truthfully, there're a few attorneys that I'd be tempted to do the same to, given the opportunity.  But it wouldn't be worth the ramifications...  I don't need a defense attorney (or many of them) with an ax to grind making every case a pain in the ***...


----------



## arnisador (Jun 25, 2009)

Taking photos made in the course of an investigation and making them public is generally inappropriate. What if I call them to my house due to a robbery and they take photos of us undressed? Even the drunk is innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 26, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Taking the photo and distibuting it to the press was unprofessional, at best.
> 
> Truthfully, there're a few attorneys that I'd be tempted to do the same to, given the opportunity.  But it wouldn't be worth the ramifications...  I don't need a defense attorney (or many of them) with an ax to grind making every case a pain in the ***...



Unless they are already doing so, of course........I know a few prosecutor's with ongoing disputes with law enforcement agencies based on the prosecutor's performance (or lack thereof).......I know one prosecutor who was fighting with both the local police and the state highway patrol over statements she made about individual officers.........wait, scratch that......EX-Prosecutor who just resigned after (a VERY publicized) domestic dispute with her husband got the local PD called on her. 

Of course any individual officer who engages in the kind of behavior described in the article is being foolish (though it's certainly understandable)........lawyers and politicians (the Mayor) always seem to find a way to twist things around to blame some poor civil servant.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 26, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Taking photos made in the course of an investigation and making them public is generally inappropriate. What if I call them to my house due to a robbery and they take photos of us undressed? Even the drunk is innocent until proven guilty.


 Photographs aren't really punishment.........they tell a story......this is a story of a drunken lawyer.

I can guarantee if an off duty police officer was passed out drunk in a trash can, a LAWYER wouldn't miss a chance to snap a picture.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 26, 2009)

Blah, blah, blah...

He should take responsibility for the fact that he freely made the choice to get trashed and then nap in it. 

I'm so very sick of poeple not taking responsibility for their actions. So what if the picture got leaked? 

On the other hand, I also don't know why the community would be in such an uproar over it either. The guys human after all. At best it should only be an ammusing story to tell. Raise your hand if you've never done anything embarrassing...

I've tied one on more than once and woke up in some pretty strange places (though never a trash can). Who cares? Some people need to have surgery to remove the large stick they have lodged in their anus.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 26, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Blah, blah, blah...
> 
> He should take responsibility for the fact that he freely made the choice to get trashed and then nap in it.
> 
> ...



Quite right........the officer should apologize for his moment of weakness and the attorney should apologize for being a drunken jackass.  End of story.


----------



## MJS (Jun 26, 2009)

Its not against the law to take pictures.  Of course, what you're taking pics. of and what you're doing with them could very well be against the law.  I have to laugh, because the article is painting the cops in a bad light.  I was glad to read that it was said in the article that the lawyer is a public figure as well, because its the truth.  IMO, if you're representing the city, town, etc, whether you're on duty or not, you should be professional.  Of course, we all know that doesn't always happen.

Sounds like the mayor of the town is trying to go into operation cover up for the lawyer.  Fact is, the guy got drunk...so drunk in fact that he passed out.  No excuse for any of the actions in this case from all parties involved.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 26, 2009)

There are some cases where anyone, including police should not pubicize any pics. That accident case with the near decapitation for example.

This one, eh.  The lawyer was a public figure, it was embarrassing, but he was still alive. Now if he'd been found bare assed naked and they sent around a picture of his little buddy, that'd be different.

I don't think the cops did anything wrong here unless they violated some department reg. If it's legal for me to take that photo (it is) it's legal for them to take it too. It was a public place. I also could have taken all of their photos as well. Again, legal.


----------



## MJS (Jun 26, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> There are some cases where anyone, including police should not pubicize any pics. That accident case with the near decapitation for example.
> 
> This one, eh. The lawyer was a public figure, it was embarrassing, but he was still alive. Now if he'd been found bare assed naked and they sent around a picture of his little buddy, that'd be different.
> 
> I don't think the cops did anything wrong here unless they violated some department reg. If it's legal for me to take that photo (it is) it's legal for them to take it too. It was a public place. I also could have taken all of their photos as well. Again, legal.


 
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but, as I said in my post, what is done with those pics or the purpose of taking them, could possibly be against the law.  In other words, Pam and Tommy Lee make a sex tape.  They're doing it..no pun intended.....for their own enjoyment.  The tape now ends up in the hands of the gardner, who sells it to every porn producer he can think of, to make $$$ for his own gain...well, that isn't right.  

If the cops snapped a pic or two, kept it quiet, etc it probably would never have blown up the way it did.  These pics were made public.  Was the purpose to discredit the lawyer?  If that is/was the case, then I'd say that they were in the wrong for taking them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 26, 2009)

Right. But there are other laws that apply.
For example, if you're walking down the street, in plain view reading the label of a bottle of Gas-X, there is no expectation of privacy.  If you're in the drug store, making an effort to hide what you're reading, there is.  
I can tape me and the wife/gf/fwb/etc doing whatever. legal
I can publish it. Usually legal.
You can't. Invasion of privacy, copyright violation, etc.

It can also be argued that the pics fall under journalistic rules, which are different.


----------



## MJS (Jun 26, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Right. But there are other laws that apply.
> For example, if you're walking down the street, in plain view reading the label of a bottle of Gas-X, there is no expectation of privacy. If you're in the drug store, making an effort to hide what you're reading, there is.
> I can tape me and the wife/gf/fwb/etc doing whatever. legal
> I can publish it. Usually legal.
> ...


 
The journalistic rules that you mention....can you go into more detail?  Do the cops present at that incident, fall under those rules?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 26, 2009)

Short version:
You and your wife goto the local burger joint for dinner. You as private citizens expect to eat in peace.
The Obama's go to the same place. They will be photographed 100 times. As public citizens, there is less of an expectation of privacy.

This -may- fall into such a gray area.

The attorney here isn't just a rank n file 1 in 10,000 lawyer, he's the city's top lawyer. As such, he's a public person.  So a picture of him, passed out drunk in  a garbage can, could classify as news.



> *In most countries you may publish any photography (not obscene) for newsworthy, editorial or journalistic purposes. For such occasions, you as a photographer are protected by freedom of press, or &#8220;fair use&#8221;.*         To elaborate on &#8220;fair user&#8221; further, the "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. However, such practice should never harm the commercial value of the work.
> When your photography subjects are people, you should take their &#8220;rights of publicity&#8221; into consideration. Editorial usage however is not classified as personal or commercial beneficial usage.


link

Also, a long excellent read with several case law examples is here
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/chapter5.html


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 26, 2009)

MJS said:


> If the cops snapped a pic or two, kept it quiet, etc it probably would never have blown up the way it did.  These pics were made public.  Was the purpose to discredit the lawyer?  If that is/was the case, then I'd say that they were in the wrong for taking them.


 True, however.......perhaps the intent was to expose misconduct on the part of public officials......in which case punitive action against the whistle blower could be considered a violation in itself........at least that's what my lawyer would argue.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 26, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> *Police also have the right to take photos*
> 
> 
> I'm curious on 2 things here. LEO opinion on the actual story, as well as what your take is on cops photographing situations, etc.


 
I am not a LEO, but if it were a case of the police taking a photo for evidence, then I have no problem for it. Just like the patrol car cams that record stops, I support those and think every police vehicle should have one. 

The Tape protects both the officer and the citizen from wrong doing on either side. Of course I know it does not stop bullets from flying, but it is there to make sure everyone know that the citizen swung first or fell out of the car when asked to exit and the officer did nto touch them. 



Archangel M said:


> A police officer who is on duty and representing public authority should not be photographing people he is dealing with for media distribution. It MAY not be against the law per se, but he would (and should) be subject to departmental discipline.


 
Is this true of all departments, or just yours? 

And what if the discipline was determined to be nothing, as the officer did not PROFIT from the act? 



Archangel M said:


> But an attorney passed out in a trash can could be considered too hard to resist....


 
This is like walking into a hungry lion or tiger cage with food(steak) straped to your body. It could be a case of insighting a riot. The DA Drunk in the street in a garbage can is funny.    



Archangel M said:


> If anything, the officer should apologize for breaching protocol and policies, if he did so. He should not apologize to this lawyer for the LAWYER'S behavior. IMO.


 
If the local department had such a regulation then yes an apology for breaking the regulation would be the minimum discipline I would expect and I would expect the officer to offer it first before a discipline meeting occurred. 





jks9199 said:


> Taking the photo and distibuting it to the press was unprofessional, at best.


 
I agree it may have been unprofessional even if there was no regulation. 

I also think a case for favortism could be made, such that if the normal citizen was found in the street, would the average officer take them him from the call or whould they walk them home? 

They are in the street and a danger to themselves or others, they should end up in the back of the car with the lights on and then get lots of pictures and prints taken downtown. 

To me that would be the professional way to have handled this situation. 



jks9199 said:


> Truthfully, there're a few attorneys that I'd be tempted to do the same to, given the opportunity. But it wouldn't be worth the ramifications... I don't need a defense attorney (or many of them) with an ax to grind making every case a pain in the ***...


 
You mean it is OK for a DA to hold a grudge against an officer or a Defense Attorney to also hold a grudge, but I thought they were their to represent their client and not to be judgemental of those who brought in the case. 

I guess they are human then. 

Well since they are human and make mistake, and are public figures, then that in my opinion makes them open to having their picture taken and made fun of. 




arnisador said:


> Taking photos made in the course of an investigation and making them public is generally inappropriate. What if I call them to my house due to a robbery and they take photos of us undressed? Even the drunk is innocent until proven guilty.


 
Yes, I think pictures should have been taken. I then also think they should have cuffed him and brought in more cars and maybe an amulance to get more attention (* I have seen officers do this to people they pull over in their neighborhoods who are sober *) and this way he could be taken downtown and processsed officially.  

Can a DA hold the job if processed for such a crime? I mean the pictures would tell the story and be used as evidence. 

Now if his wife came out of the house, I would not expect pictures of her to be taken, unless she did something to make herself part of the crime such as attacking an officer. 

They should be held as evidence, and not be used for monetary gain. 



sgtmac_46 said:


> Photographs aren't really punishment.........they tell a story......this is a story of a drunken lawyer.
> 
> I can guarantee if an off duty police officer was passed out drunk in a trash can, a LAWYER wouldn't miss a chance to snap a picture.


 
I also wonder if that smae lawyer would not hold it over on the officer. Human nature and all. 



celtic_crippler said:


> Blah, blah, blah...
> 
> He should take responsibility for the fact that he freely made the choice to get trashed and then nap in it.


 
 I agree he should admit he was drunk and in public and made a mistake. It would go a long way for his appearance and I bet also for any officer stepping forwarding who might be afraid of being the target of an investigation for their picture. 



celtic_crippler said:


> I'm so very sick of poeple not taking responsibility for their actions. So what if the picture got leaked?


 
They should take responsibility. I agree. For the act and for the picture being sent to the media. 




celtic_crippler said:


> On the other hand, I also don't know why the community would be in such an uproar over it either. The guys human after all. At best it should only be an ammusing story to tell. Raise your hand if you've never done anything embarrassing...


 
I wonder as stated above if he had been convicted of his crime of public intoxication and or listed as being a danger to himself, if he could still hold his job or if he would have been kicked out. 




celtic_crippler said:


> I've tied one on more than once and woke up in some pretty strange places (though never a trash can). Who cares? Some people need to have surgery to remove the large stick they have lodged in their anus.


 
Well, for local news, I would laugh and be gald it was not another article about more unemployment and lost jobs and poor economy and dull future and ... , well you get my point. A simple story that brought a smile to my face. 




MJS said:


> Its not against the law to take pictures. Of course, what you're taking pics. of and what you're doing with them could very well be against the law. I have to laugh, because the article is painting the cops in a bad light. I was glad to read that it was said in the article that the lawyer is a public figure as well, because its the truth. IMO, if you're representing the city, town, etc, whether you're on duty or not, you should be professional. Of course, we all know that doesn't always happen.


 
Yes the cops were painted in a bad light. And I think they were in a bad light as they did not drag his *** downtown and process him to the fullest extent of the law. That was their mistake in my opinion. 



MJS said:


> Sounds like the mayor of the town is trying to go into operation cover up for the lawyer. Fact is, the guy got drunk...so drunk in fact that he passed out. No excuse for any of the actions in this case from all parties involved.


 
I agree that DA should loose his job as I think he should have been processed. 

The Officers did a nice thing and get heat for it, they should have arrested him. 

The Mayor is making it worse and should be looked at for what else he may have swept under the rug.




Bob Hubbard said:


> Short version:
> You and your wife goto the local burger joint for dinner. You as private citizens expect to eat in peace.
> The Obama's go to the same place. They will be photographed 100 times. As public citizens, there is less of an expectation of privacy.
> 
> ...


 
I agree that just the average person can expect some privacy, but a public figure is another issue. If I go to a seminar and just work out I have no expectation of being photographed, but if I am an instructor then I fullyexpect that people will ask to have their photo taken with me. 

Also if I do something stupid, I recognize that it is much more likely that people will take a picture of being doing said stupid act. 


I think it was news, and as such the people should be made aware of it. 



sgtmac_46 said:


> True, however.......perhaps the intent was to expose misconduct on the part of public officials......in which case punitive action against the whistle blower could be considered a violation in itself........at least that's what my lawyer would argue.


 
Good point.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 26, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> Is this true of all departments, or just yours?
> 
> And what if the discipline was determined to be nothing, as the officer did not PROFIT from the act?



We have a catch all section of policy called "conduct unbecoming"...I think I could make an argument that an officer "on duty"..taking pictures of his "customers" and distributing them for personal/political/non-departmental purposes could be construed as "conduct unbecoming". The punishment could be whatever the Chief decided.

And...this sounds like a copper with his own camera finding a shot that he just couldnt pass up. I highly doubt that they photograph drunk and disorderlies  for evidentiary purposes. And if they did take photos for evidence thats misuse of departmental property.

However..the big stink here has more to do with the politics between this attorney, the Mayor and the PD than it REALLY has to do with the propriety of this officers actions IMO.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 26, 2009)

*Attorney found in trash can resigns*



> Larry Wilder, the embattled lawyer for the Jeffersonville City Council, has resigned following the release of photographs of him sleeping in a garbage can after a night of drinking.
> 
> Connie Sellers, president of the Jeffersonville City Council, said Wilder told her Monday that he was resigning, telling her "I can't put my friends through this."


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 26, 2009)

I dont get that either...a attorney/ADA isnt allowed to go out and get a little crazy every now and then? While it is embarrassing and not something to be proud of, whats the REAL issue here (unless this is a symptom of a recurring problem)? If thats the worst this guy has ever done then BFD. At least he wasnt driving...

Much ado about no big deal all the way around here as Im seeing it. Everybody should get a pee-pee slap and go about their business. 

There is obviously some political gamesmanship going on here.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 26, 2009)

Side Note:


> *Lawyer in trash can* 1:35
> A prominent attorney has resigned after photos of him asleep in a trash can were leaked to the media. WAVE reports.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 27, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I dont get that either...a attorney/ADA isnt allowed to go out and get a little crazy every now and then? While it is embarrassing and not something to be proud of, whats the REAL issue here (unless this is a symptom of a recurring problem)? If thats the worst this guy has ever done then BFD. At least he wasnt driving...
> 
> Much ado about no big deal all the way around here as Im seeing it. Everybody should get a pee-pee slap and go about their business.
> 
> There is obviously some political gamesmanship going on here.



Oh i'd say there was definitely some political gamesmanship going on here.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 28, 2009)

[yt]Qf5ohNGPjHM[/yt]

[yt]XYYbXavYY1Y[/yt]


----------



## MJS (Jun 28, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Short version:
> You and your wife goto the local burger joint for dinner. You as private citizens expect to eat in peace.
> The Obama's go to the same place. They will be photographed 100 times. As public citizens, there is less of an expectation of privacy.
> 
> ...


 
Good points, and thanks for the clarification.  I posted an article, not long ago, in the LEO section, about the use of video during the booking and interview process.  The link had shown an intoxicated town rep and her antics and comments towards the officer.  Even went so far as to make threats about the fact that the town rep pays the officers salary.  This video was shown on tv, so in a way, this is kinda the same thing.  

I still think that at times, things are done out of spite.  Going back to the Pam and Tommy sex tape.  I highly doubt that the person that made that tape public did so, to show that the couple have a healthy sex life.  They did it for 1 reason, and 1 reason only....to make some $$$$$$.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 29, 2009)

Can you imagine in this day and age actually hearing someone say 'He's an excellent police officer, what he does in his personal life is his personal life'?


----------

