# Photograph Police, Go To Jail



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 30, 2006)

*Cell Phone Picture Called Obstruction Of Justice*

*Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity*

"Cruz said that when he heard a commotion, he walked out of his back door with his cell phone to see what was happening. He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene."I opened (the phone) and took a shot," Cruz said.Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate."He opened the gate and took me by my right hand," Cruz said.Cruz said the officer threw him onto a police car, cuffed him and took him to jail."...
http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 30, 2006)

Another one:
" A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man&#8217;s sons.

Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon&#8217;s wife, Janet Gannon, and police"
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 30, 2006)

Interesting articles on some cops abusing their authority.

So, the cops in that first town think that making up a law and intimidating someone is ok. The ones in the second one don't want any video evidence of their own behavior.

If I had a video camera in my car, I'd have been able to document several local cops shortcutting things. Store video has caught them stealing food and drink while investigating robberies at convenience stores, and who knows how many lights they run when not actually on a call. NY is a hands-free cell phone state, but I regularly see them on cell phones while driving. 

So, now the new tactic seems to be the idea that "9-11" prevents you from videoing or photographing cops. Some cops have even gone so far as to physically assault someone over the simple act of taking a picture.

So, the question is, "Can you photograph the police?"
Yup.  There are some limitations, like you can't interfere with an investigation, shove your way into a crime scene, or trespass.  But, if everything is in a public place (ie in front of our house), you can legally take that picture.

For more information on the legalities see:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007wb3
Berkley CopWatch http://www.berkeleydaily.org/article.cfm?archiveDate=01-28-02&storyID=9813
and Bert P. Krages II &#8212; Attorney at Law : Photographers Rights http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm



More stories of cops harassing photographers:
http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=469&year=2002
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t256830-police-checkup.html
http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/28-3/new-dontshoo.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0309,cotts,42136,6.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 30, 2006)

Additional Resources:
USA photographers rights guide www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Australian photographers rights http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml

UK photographers rights http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jul 30, 2006)

Nothing will happen to the bad cops. They lie to protect their own.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jul 30, 2006)

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> Nothing will happen to the bad cops. They lie to protect their own.



That's why there is IA watching the watchdogs.  

As a citizen of the Loony Bin that is Los Angeles, I can tell you that the police here opperate under a microscope that all but garantees they will look bad.  If a police car so much as pulls into a parking lot with it's lights on, they are being photographed, filmed and watched by newcasters, the cell phone toting public, and the dude with a video camera and dreams of being the next Michael Moron.  Truth be damned, all they want is a sound bite.  

Frankly, under those conditions not one person in the world could hope to look good for long.  Why?  Because it is the police officers JOB to interact with people having the _*worst day of their lives.  *_They have to fight, subdue, talk down and arrest people who, lets face it, don't want to be caught.  So after twenty minutes of news footage where the officers try every way they can think of to get the perp to let his mother go and put down the gun, they are forced to fire on him, killing him.  They use several rounds of amunition to do this - say 35 - but it was 12 cops firing.  That's two or three rounds a piece.  I know I'd fire more than that.

The headline on the news, accompanied by 5 seconds of that 20 minute film of a man getting shot to death, states; "Police gun down suspect in a hail of bullets at his home - neighbors complain of continued police brutality."

What's my point?  Take it all with a grain of salt.  There will always be excesses, and we do need to do all we can to stomp it out, but would you want _*your*_ pic on the news if you were an undercover police officer?  Or after you just had a fight for your life?  Especially when you _*know*_ it's going to be used against you and the force?

Of course not, but typically for us Americans, we want to have our cake and eat it too.  "Do your job officer, but don't hurt anybody."  So at this point, even the best cops know that a picture can get them in trouble, just for doing their job.  So now there is a law against taking pics, and cops are supposed to enforce the law - not interpret it - so we give them crap for doing this as well.  It's a no win situation for them and just increases the "us vs. them" mentality we see in this thread.

Just playing Devils Advocate here.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Aug 1, 2006)

http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=-1JiE_jBOtg&eurl=http%3A//martialtalk.com/forum/newreply.php&iurl=http%3A//sjl-static13.sjl.youtube.com/vi/-1JiE_jBOtg/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJNg_Y38qhgXVC1B-EAkpMe


----------



## Drac (Aug 1, 2006)

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> Nothing will happen to the bad cops. They lie to protect their own.


 
You're full of it!!!!


----------



## DeLamar.J (Aug 1, 2006)

Sometimes I feel for the police because they have a very hard and important job. However, if your not doing anything wrong, than you shouldn't be stressing about someone recording you. I have had my experience with dirty police, and it's no picnic. 
This is for the people with rose colored glasses on.........Dirty cops are out there, and they get away with more than you will ever know. Other officers turn their heads and let it happen because it would damage their comradery in the department.
Who do you call when the police are the ones hurting you?? If you try to prove it by recording the encounter, you are arrested!. If you fight back yourself, you have just allowed them to legally hurt you instead of illegally. 
So either way you lose. Have you ever heard of having to defend yourself from a police officer? Of course not, because if you do, you die. Just hope some one, or some device is there to tell your tale.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Aug 1, 2006)

Drac said:
			
		

> You're full of it!!!!


I see your a leo drac. I just want you to know I mean no offence with my previous post. It's just a sad truth, and it's a shame good cops have to be looked at in a bad way when one of their own starts turning dirty.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 1, 2006)

It's disgusting how a small minority of our LEO's can act.  Not only because it makes the rest look bad, but I believe that they SHOULD be held to a higher standard.  If your job is to protect peoples rights, you should not be infringing on those same rights.  Most LEO's follow that standard thankfully.

Jeff


----------



## HKphooey (Aug 1, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> It's disgusting how a small minority of our LEO's can act. Not only because it makes the rest look bad, but I believe that they SHOULD be held to a higher standard. If your job is to protect peoples rights, you should not be infringing on those same rights. Most LEO's follow that standard thankfully.
> 
> Jeff



Good one Jeff!

Also...
Just like all other news stories, the media concentrates on the negatives!  Plenty of officers have put themselves in harms way and have even died.  These poeple were just bad people in general.  Police officers are not bad, maybe these police officers were bad people.

For the first guy, he was an idiot to come out in the middle of a police confrontation, take a metallic object and point it at police officers.  People get shoot for stuff like that and then it is the LEO or military's fault.  

I agree some LEO can take this too far, but walk a mile in their shoes before you pass judgement based on media accounts.


----------



## tradrockrat (Aug 1, 2006)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Sometimes I feel for the police because they have a very hard and important job. However, if your not doing anything wrong, than you shouldn't be stressing about someone recording you.


 
And yet many in this country - in fact many of the ones who decry the police and villify them - go absolutely apeshit at tha thought of our government doing this to us.  Just look at the threads here about the patriot act and wiretaping - it's the same argument - you're a good, law abiding person - so what if the government watches your e-mails and recorde your phone conversations, goes through your mail, films you in your house, etc...


And worse, can we all admit that sometimes a police officer is forced to get violent?  If so how can you possibly know if the 5 seconds of footage showing the police officer beating a suspect isn't warranted or even necessary?

Well the police certainly know that if you film them that will be the only 5 seconds shown on the news that night.

Gee, I wonder why they want to confiscate it?

And last but not least - again, the police officers job is to *enforce *the law - and this is a law.  They *have* to do it.  It's their job.

Now don't get me wrong here -I am most definitley one of those who feel that bad LEOs deserve major penalties and must be held to the highest standards, but I'm also one of those that feels they need to be allowed to do their job without undue harrassment from an ignorant public.  It's one thing to for (a) police officer(s) to beat down a suspect until they are no longer a threat to the police or the public, it's another to beat an unarmed man to death in the street - the problem is - we never know which one it was because we weren't there.

Again - just playing Devils Advocate


----------



## Drac (Aug 1, 2006)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> It's just a sad truth, and it's a shame good cops have to be looked at in a bad way when one of their own starts turning dirty.


 
Yes you are correct..The bad ones do get caught and they are made to suffer, meaning they are no longer a part of the brother/sisterhood of law enforcement....For all the good they did they will ONLY be remembered as a DIRTY COP that finally got caught..


----------



## Drac (Aug 1, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> And worse, can we all admit that sometimes a police officer is forced to get violent? If so how can you possibly know if the 5 seconds of footage showing the police officer beating a suspect isn't warranted or even necessary


 
Good post..The camera man didn't arrive until AFTER the suspect smacked and bloodied his wife and child...He didn't see the suspect violently resist arrest by kicking and spitting in the face of someone charged with keeping the peace..They ALWAYS seem to arrive when the cop is running out of steam and knows this person must be cuffed and resorts to tactics you NEVEr saw on T.J.Hooker



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> Well the police certainly know that if you film them that will be the only 5 seconds shown on the news that night


 
Yes.. At 6 and 11 and its a safe bet that it will be the lead story and used as a teaser to get you to tune in...


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 1, 2006)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> It's just a sad truth, and it's a shame good cops have to be looked at in a bad way when one of their own starts turning dirty.


It is, nonetheless, a hasty generalization at best to look at these examples of piss poor judgement and infer that it is representative of the group.  Of course James, I know you know that.

However, it does dishonour the uniform.

It's interesting; IA was mentioned.  The greatest irony that I've ever been exposed to within my relationships with police officers is this underlying hatred for the IA guys, this "us vs. them" mentality from the street guys.  They feel as though IA is 'out to get them', yet, it is IA that is trying to protect the honour of the uniform and local department.  It's all really quite silly.  If you're behaving honourably and fulfilling your oath, what's not to like about Internal Affairs?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 1, 2006)

I have friends who are LEO. I have family that are LEO.  I have the utmost respect for the honest cops. They do a thankless job, in situations that I honestly couldn't handle.

I also have nothing but utter contempt for the "Bad" cops.  The ones who abuse their authority, who get off on pushing people around, and those who make up laws just to intimidate folks.



> *  Photography student is detained and his IDs 'reviewed' after taking night-time photos of a firehouse [photo.net].
> * Man was physically intimidated and threatened by private security and police after photographing, from public property, a commercial chemical plant.
> * Young photojournalism student in Provincetown is roughed up by Provincetown police after shooting some pictures of cops beating a bunch of drunks.
> * MBTA has never permitted photography anywhere on its property, and is well known for its officers harassing photographers. NYC just instituted a no-photography rule in the last year or two.
> ...



Know your rights.
Protect your rights.
Know the law. 

*Web Resources:*
USA photographers rights guide www.krages.com/phoright.htm
http://www.kantor.com/blog/2005/12/l...graphers.shtml

Australian photographers rights http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml

UK photographers rights http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

Discussion on Canadian photographers rights

Books:
USA: "The Law, In Plain English, For Photographers"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...31168?v=glance


UK: The Photographer & The Law, by Don Cassell. Found occasionally on eBay.


----------



## HKphooey (Aug 2, 2006)

After that, search Google for:

police officer saves
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-41,GGLD:en&q=police+officer+saves

police officer dies
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-41%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=police+officer+dies

police athletic league
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-41%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=police+athletic+league

Just wanted to give examples of the other side so that this thread does not end up like the media. 

Officer Brian A. Aselton, KILOD 'RIP'
Master Officer Peter J. Lavery, KILOD "RIP'


PS- Bob, I know you have respect for LEO and I appreciate/value your opinions on the subject.


----------



## Kreth (Aug 2, 2006)

When it comes right down to it, if you take any sample group of the population, say "LEOs", or "martial artists", or "bikers", or "military personnel", you're going to have both the good and the bad. The problem is that the media emphasizes the bad.


----------



## Drac (Aug 2, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> The problem is that the media emphasizes the bad.


 
Always has and always will..


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 29, 2008)

Raising the dead here to add a few more links.

Two students and Kernel photo adviser arrested at RNC
September 2, 2008 

Arrested Photographer's Photo Shows Police Using Knee On Protester's Neck
MINNEAPOLIS, MN (September 2, 2008)


Amy Goodman Arrested at RNC
Follow ups:


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 29, 2008)

The kneeling on the upper back thing is a common and valid technique for immobilizing a suspect for cuffing..its hyperbole from a writer with an agenda. With the riot visor and kneepads on he may be a little high on the back but there is daylight showing through the area of the throat and the ground so obviously there isn't pressure being applied to the trachea etc.

The other story about the press getting OC sprayed and hit with crowd control devices...when you are IN the crowd thats the risk you run.



> &#8220;I think it&#8217;s important to acknowledge the police do have a job to do and we don&#8217;t condone the destruction of property,&#8221; Kirtley said, &#8220;but the point is journalists have a job to do and that they should not be impeded from doing that work. Their First Amendment rights should be respected.&#8221;



So its "control the crowds officer..its your job..just take your time and be sure you dont hit our reporters in the crowd.." Bah!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 29, 2008)

That's kinda my take on these too.  The only thing is, while I understand that in some situations there simply isn't time to be gentle and check every ID (it's a riot, not a tea party), in at least the Goodman case, it looks that she was pulled across the line, stripped of her ID and arrested. Stripped of the ID by someone (Secret Service) who could have on the spot validated it, and handled the matter better.  The fact that all charges against her and her 2 coworkers were dropped a couple weeks later would indicate their innocence.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 30, 2008)

Yeah, it's a shame that it comes to this. BUT, you only look at this side of the story from a professional photographers point of view.

Now, let's look at the other side of things.  Police are investigating something and you have people out their photographing them.  Seems simple enough.  Take it a step further (true accounts, not hypothetical)...those photographs are used by gangbangers to log and build intelligence files on the police.  They also use those same photgraphs to put hits out on the police.

There are website out there FOR FREE, that all you need is a name and I can get back your spouse's name, address, phone number etc.  For a little bit more money it will even give you financial info.

I would have to know the whole story before judging why someone was arrested for ONLY taking a picture.  Usually there is a lot more to it than what is reported.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 30, 2008)

I do understand that, however the police are not an anonymous group, and people in the US at least, are constitutionally protected.  To be clear, if you are a cop, and I walk by and take you picture, you have zero legal right to stop me, no right to demand my camera no right to detain me, no right to insist that I erase that photo, and no right to lay a hand on me, nor sieze my equipment, nor destroy my equipment. None.

What I as a photograher may do with that photo is however restricted by copyright and use laws.  I can't sell it, without your permission (release needed). I can't usually display it without permission either.   Journalistic needs are allowed, however I may be guilty of other offenses depending on how/if it's captioned.

If I cross the tape as it were, I am breaking various laws, however I can still photograph as long as there is no expectation of privacy.  So, if there's 50,60+ people gathered around, I can take the picture.  I can't follow him into the john however.

If I am interferring with an investigation, if I am compromising the scene, if I am accessing areas I shouldn't be, if I am getting in their face, shoving them, spitting on them and the like, I should be taken to task.  If I choose to place myslf in the middle of a mob, I should expect possible damage due to the fluid nature of the event, and the fact that a cop can't be expected to take the time to check all my ID's while others are tossing rocks at him.

But, standing on the side taking photos of an event, is perfectly legal.


----------



## zeeberex (Oct 30, 2008)

Drac said:


> You're full of it!!!!



Are you serious?


----------



## zeeberex (Oct 30, 2008)

DeLamar.J said:


> I see your a leo drac. I just want you to know I mean no offence with my previous post. It's just a sad truth, and it's a shame good cops have to be looked at in a bad way when one of their own starts turning dirty.



Drac's free pass, denied. A cop I've known for years just got caught with kiddie porn on his pc at work, and I thought I knew the guy. Don't you dare condescend to tell that you guys (Cops) don't cover for each other. happens every day and you damn well know it.


----------



## Drac (Oct 30, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> Drac's free pass, denied. A cop I've known for years just got caught with kiddie porn on his pc at work, and I thought I knew the guy. Don't you dare condescend to tell that you guys (Cops) don't cover for each other. happens every day and you damn well know it.


 
So what happened to the copper with the kiddie porn??? I don't know about where *YOU LIVE *but here the only covering I have ever heard of or participated in is covering a shift so someone can have the night off...


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 30, 2008)

Dont bother Drac. That guy is the quickest "ignore lister" Ive come across since visiting here. Obviously has LEO "issues".


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 2, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> Drac's free pass, denied. A cop I've known for years just got caught with kiddie porn on his pc at work, and I thought I knew the guy. Don't you dare condescend to tell that you guys (Cops) don't cover for each other. happens every day and you damn well know it.


 
So your evidence that cops cover for each other is that a cop that you have known for just got caught for having child porn on his pc.  

Question: Who caught him?

Probable answer: Other cops.  And the reason that you know about it is that those cops turned him in.

Question:  Who do you think administers discipline when the police are convicted of administrative/criminal inquiries.  

Answer: Other cops, which include the sworn administrative members of the department.  

Just by way of asuaging your assumptions about the police covering for one another:

In my department, over the last year or two, we have fired about 15 officers for various indescretions: having sex with prostitutes, DUI, etc.  They were fired by the Chief of Police, a sworn police officer.  They were investigated by members of Internal Affairs, sworn police officers.  

If all cops cover for one another, how would any cop, barring a media blitz of video showing obvious criminal behavior, ever be fired.

I am afraid that your ignorance of what actually goes on behind the scenes in a police department leaves alot to be desired.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 2, 2008)

Not to be a dick, (like thats a stretch latley)

But I find it funny in this thread all the LEO memebers of the board are sticking up for one another and their kind in general when it comes to them doing somthing "not quite legal" (with regards to the photography issue) while claiming they don't all cover for each other.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 2, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Not to be a dick, (like thats a stretch latley)
> 
> But I find it funny in this thread all the LEO memebers of the board are sticking up for one another and their kind in general when it comes to them doing somthing "not quite legal" (with regards to the photography issue) while claiming they don't all cover for each other.


 
Wow, thats funny, because I have not stuck up for anyone in this thread.  Just pointing out some obvious holes in the logic.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 2, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Wow, thats funny, because I have not stuck up for anyone in this thread.  Just pointing out some obvious holes in the logic.




regardless, it's not illegal, and cops DO cover each other, maybe not every time but don't tell us it doesn't happen.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 2, 2008)

Drac said:


> Always has and always will..




Thats sadly where the ratings come from.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 2, 2008)

Drac said:


> So what happened to the copper with the kiddie porn??? I don't know about where *YOU LIVE *but here the only covering I have ever heard of or participated in is covering a shift so someone can have the night off...



It was found on his work pc where he's a cop and  i believe on his pc where he was a dispatcher one town over. He was fired and brought humiliation to his family given that he was a well known cop in a smallish town for years, as was his brother who is his twin. Given that, the price being paid should be obvious. The fired him but there was an effort to keep it quiet, maybe for the sake of his family but then you're delving into hearsay.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 2, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Not to be a dick, (like thats a stretch latley)
> 
> But I find it funny in this thread all the LEO memebers of the board are sticking up for one another and their kind in general when it comes to them doing somthing "not quite legal" (with regards to the photography issue) while claiming they don't all cover for each other.


 
Example?

I dont see anybody here really discussing the photography issue. Just that the kneeling on the back is no biggie and that photographers in the middle of a mob are probably going to be treated like the mob. Where is there an example of an LEO "supporting" something "not quite legal"? I think you are projecting.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 2, 2008)

Go back and re read the thread Arc.  Howsabout the "Well, the photographers always come in late" and "How would you like it if it were you" and the "You arent looking at this from a LEO's point of veiw" stuff?

And if we arent discussing the photography issue, then we are off topic and should return, hmmm?


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 2, 2008)

Sorry. Still dont see it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 2, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Sorry. Still dont see it.


 
Shocking.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 2, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> regardless, it's not illegal, and cops DO cover each other, maybe not every time but don't tell us it doesn't happen.


 
What is not illegal?

And of course it happens.  What I resent is people making the vast police conspiracy theory that all cops stand up for one another come hell or high water.  Thats just not true.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 2, 2008)

Not illegal: Photographing cops.

Do they cover for each other? Yes sometimes.  And when it comes out, heads usually roll. 
Do some get away with it? Yes.  Same as any other crime, sometimes people do get away with it. But most police forces in the US are honest and self-policing.


----------



## Drac (Nov 3, 2008)

Personally speaking I have usually been too busy at whatever scene I am on to worry about people taking my picture..Now a crime scene is usually secured with an officer and if you cross the taped line attempting to take photographs *THEN* you get into trouble...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2008)

And that makes sence. If someone crosses the line or otherwise is interfering with the investigation, there''s a problem.  But if they are on an accessible spot, not interfering, then it's legal and they shouldn't be bothered.


----------



## Drac (Nov 3, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> And that makes sence. If someone crosses the line or otherwise is interfering with the investigation, there''s a problem. But if they are on an accessible spot, not interfering, then it's legal and they shouldn't be bothered.


 
Agreed..At bad MVA scenes even the media is kept at a distance..They can photograph and send all live feed of the Squads and marked units arriving and departing to their hearts content, just DONT cross the line...


----------

