Photos of Police in action / legality

[meady100]

Hi All,

Tonight I went to photograph a church and when I arrived there was a road traffic accident being mopped up right outside. I read someone say 'shoot first and ask questions later' so I walked in to the middle of the closed-off road and started framing up a beautiful ultra wide angle with a flashing panda car in the foreground and numerous others and the illuminated church in the background. One of the police was straight over in a flash, and to be fair he let me finish my shot and told me to get out the road. The unbearable 25 second exposure finally finished and I scuttled to the pavement. Whoops, I had left mirror lock up on, and captured nothing! I can't tell you how much it hurt. But then, I thought I could pretty much take photos anywhere in a public place, so I stood on the pavement and thought I had nothing to lose, even if it wasn't such a good angle. The policeman was over again within seconds - this time warning me that there was a possibility of my gear being seized by accident investigators in case I captured something they didn't. Grrrr! With that I moved along. I can't complain as he was never less than polite and professional. Is what he said true? To top it all I trod in a dog turd as I backstepped in my last futile attempt at a shot. Now *that's* a great nights work. I'm open to invitations to speak at lectures and gallery openings, by the way :-D

[stathunter]

I agree. Always photograph then ask for forgiveness. They can threaten all they want but if you know your rights you should not worry. They can arrest you with interfering with a crime investigation but all they are really doing is giving you a hard time--------you will see they will threaten but rarely do much else. (that is unless you live in China--- yikes!)

[deadpass]

they could probably take your CF card, but not your whole set up since the image isn't stored anywhere else, and even then it would be after the fact when they were investigating down the road. However it was mostly a threat because that's what cops like to do.

so did you get the shot you wanted? are you going to post it on here?

[cosworth]

Taking your card is unlawful seizure and a judge won't enforce it.

So... just as you start going into burst mode switch your 1 series to "backup". Wen they demand your CF card you have all your images on your SD card. Sold.

That's if you have two slots.

[meady100]

Nope I totally screwed the shot up. The first one because of the lockup and the second cos I just couldn't get it setup in time before I got moved along. So, so gutted! It taught me to check all my settings before I strode out into view for my one chance only shot.

[ryant35]

I agree not to argue, you may in in the long run in court. But if you go to jail tonight, you lose.

[Atomic79]

legal-rights-of-photographers (http://photojojo.com/content/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/)

For reference only. "I ain't no lawyer ;)"

[KIPAX]

will see they will threaten but rarely do much else. (that is unless you live in China--- yikes!)

no if he is stepping in dog muck then its gotta be england he lives.

[JawsofLife252]

So yeah, if a cop (in the United States) takes your card he or she can lose their job. However, they can take your information down and get a warrant for it. Then your screwed.

In my experience if you are polite and tell a cop that you are there and what you are doing, they'll let you shoot away. When your sneaky about it, then you arouse suspicion and they will come and stir up trouble.

[dekalbSTEEL]

Hi All,

so I walked in to the middle of the closed-off road

I think this is where you went afoul of the officers on the scene.

[Keith R]

Is what he said true?

Assuming you're in the UK (you don't say. It matters - UK and US law are often very different on this subject) then no, PC Plod is talking out of his hat.

He would need specific grounds to seize your card and a court order, and "you might have photographed something we didn't see..." would not constitute cause at that stage in the investigation.

Plod might ask for your name though (or you could offer), on the basis that if their investigation comes up empty-handed they could come back to you on a consensual basis in the first instance and ask for your pictures (if you had any! ;)) in case you did indeed get something they missed.

A refusal might result in a court order/witness summons (which can also just be an order for the release of information).

[Keith R]

So yeah, if a cop takes your card he or she can lose their job.

Not very likely in the UK...

[JawsofLife252]

Not likely in the UK...

OK sorry, meant in the US.

[CincyShooter]

Myself being in Law enforcement, you crossed into a Scene from the sounds of it. When they mentioned investigators someone was seriously injured most likely, and you were in a "crime scene." Of course, that is my own thinking, and I know that there are officers out there, that are total *******s who will make up all these false statements ie Taking your gear. You may be asked to leave, but if you did not cross into a crime scene, not knowing your local laws, you are free to do as you please. Look at these cop watch people, I for one have never had to deal with them, but they go right up next to officers and film their every move. Who knows! Of Course I am not a Sworn LEO yet so take everything I said with a Grain of salt...for now at lease ha

[haisai-ojisan]

That's bascially it, giving you a hard time.
That way if you got out of hand they could arrest you and confiscate your gear.
Only to try out your camera to help him decide whether he should buy a Canon or not;)

I think the dog poop may have chased him off...

[NZDoug]

I agree with dekalbSTEEL.
If you got flattened on the road the cop would be in the poo. :o
Creating a hazard of yourself at an accident scene tells the cop that perhaps you arnt to bright. You definitely got off to a bad start. :p
Im sure your a bright person but on First Aid courses your taught to make the scene safe.

[xa-coupe]

No one has really understood what the police officer said, they said they could seize it if they thought that he had captured something or believed he had captured something they didn't .. and being the seizure of evidence it's 100% legal and every judge in the US and most other places that have a similar legal structure, would enforce it. In fact, if the police thought you had something they didn't on the card they would be guilty of failing to properly investigate the crime / collision or whatever.
Obviously he saw the difficulty you were having and left you with the card :)

[neilwood32]

They cant just confiscate private property without due cause and process. If that was the case, then any photographer (journalists included) would be subject to stop and search at any potential crime scene.

All they would be entitled to do (imho as im no lawyer) would be to ask for the images or possibly at a later date get a court order to view them.

IMO the police officer in this case did not know his rights (a surprising amount dont in reltation to photography) and was bullying you to cover for it.

It didnt help that you got on his bad side by walking into the middle of the road (potentially blocking emergency vehicles). It marked you out as someone to watch.

[Jeff]

Always photograph then ask for forgiveness. They can threaten all they want but if you know your rights you should not worry. [\quote]

Cops can and do operate under the same principle. Confiscate now, give back later. They win.

[quote=neilwood32;5139628]IMO the police officer in this case did not know his rights (a surprising amount dont in reltation to photography) and was bullying you to cover for it.

I'd say he did know his rights (and their limits) and bullying was the only thing he could do.


BTW, OP shouldn't have gone into the closed area. He became one more problem the cops had to deal with.

[xa-coupe]

They cant just confiscate private property without due cause and process. If that was the case, then any photographer (journalists included) would be subject to stop and search at any potential crime scene.

All they would be entitled to do (imho as im no lawyer) would be to ask for the images or possibly at a later date get a court order to view them.

IMO the police officer in this case did not know his rights (a surprising amount dont in reltation to photography) and was bullying you to cover for it.

It didnt help that you got on his bad side by walking into the middle of the road (potentially blocking emergency vehicles). It marked you out as someone to watch.

I was a police officer in another life and I know I am right.
In this case the policeman did not stop and search or take anything as he obviously didn't think that there was anything in it. If they believe you have something that is pertinent to the investigation, that's all the process and procedure they need.. as long as they give you a receipt.
You are right in that in that he was just pushing the OP around as he was standing in the middle of the road and then wasn't wise enough to let it go. You are just wrong in your law.
I know what it's like to have people crawling all over accident scenes getting in the way and exposing themselves to risk. It's quite common for secondary collisions to occur from rubberneckers and anyone in the wrong spot is likely to get bowled over.

[ChrisRabior]

Ok.. anyone else a criminal justice major or a cop? I love the firsthand legal accounts from people who actually have a leg to stand on from experience/education. I'll toss my two cents towards this one.

Like what has been said above, your big mistake was entering the actual scene. An officer has every right to stop you and question what you're doing if you're in an active crime scene. Being that it was a crime scene under investigation, it's the cop's responsibility to do so.

The second part of the issue is a bit more touchy. You were shooting from a public sidewalk. IF that sidewalk was still within the bounds of the crime scene, you're still subject to that officer's commands. If it wasn't part of the scene and you weren't interfering with their investigation, then they can't touch you. From the sounds of it, you said you were still on the pavement, and it's likely you were still within the area they designated to be their crime scene. Next time, if you're approached and asked to move, ask where you can shoot from.

As far as confiscating your gear, it's laughable. Could they? Sure. And in return you could hit them with a civil suit. Not in the cop's best interest.

Could they take your card? The cop would need probable cause. If you captured the face of a criminal running from a shooting, then yeah.. expect your card to be 'borrowed' once they figure out you got the shot. Since you were just shooting an accident scene, there's really not a pressing need for those images in the immediate frame of time. Requesting your information would have been more in line.

Sounds to me like the guy was on a power trip. You should drop a line to the department and inform them about what happened, and that had this guy followed through on his threats the department could be facing a lawsuit.

What really brings a smile to my face is the notion that they'd confiscate your card in the event you caught something that they missed. Glad to see your tax dollars hard at work for accident investigators for whom the local police have no confidence.

[Newfoundland_RCMP]

I'm a Police Officer and a Photographer so I can see this arguement from both sides. When police are called to an accident or a crime scene there is usually a lot of interest from the public and I can understand why photographers would want to take pictures. I always have my camera in the police car with me when I am working and at the appropriate time I will take pictures.

You have to put yourself in the officers situation. Imagine you are at your place of work and a complete stranger walked in and started taking pictures over your shoulder. What I would suggest you do in the future is get the attention of one of the officers at the scene and tell them you want to take a couple pictures. Tell them why you are taking them and have a card available to show who you are. If you do this you will get a lot more cooperation, they may even tell you when something interesting will happen. As an example several years ago I attended a fire scene where a man had died. As I entered the house a photographer started walking in behind me without speaking to me or any other officer. This was a crime scene and no place for a photographer. I sent him on his way and had nothing else to do with him. A couple years ago we had a boat sink and two people drowned along our coastline. The bodies washed up at the bottom of a cliff. A reporter showed up on the scene and introduced himself and said he wanted to take some pictures. I asked that he not take pictures of the body has it was being pulled up over the cliff. He agreed and said he only wanted pictures of the ambulance as it pull away and pictures of what was left of the boat. Since he was cooperative I told him when the largest pieces of wreckage were located and told him when the ambulance was about to pull away with the body.

Basically show some consideration to the police officer or whoever you are taking pictures of and you will get a lot more cooperation. Sure you will still run into the occasional officer who does not want anyone taking pictures but you will run into those people in all walks of life.

[ChrisKraftPhoto]

+1; In the same business, been in the same situation and have the same opinion on this. Well said.

I'm a Police Officer and a Photographer so I can see this arguement from both sides. When police are called to an accident or a crime scene there is usually a lot of interest from the public and I can understand why photographers would want to take pictures. I always have my camera in the police car with me when I am working and at the appropriate time I will take pictures.

You have to put yourself in the officers situation. Imagine you are at your place of work and a complete stranger walked in and started taking pictures over your shoulder. What I would suggest you do in the future is get the attention of one of the officers at the scene and tell them you want to take a couple pictures. Tell them why you are taking them and have a card available to show who you are. If you do this you will get a lot more cooperation, they may even tell you when something interesting will happen. As an example several years ago I attended a fire scene where a man had died. As I entered the house a photographer started walking in behind me without speaking to me or any other officer. This was a crime scene and no place for a photographer. I sent him on his way and had nothing else to do with him. A couple years ago we had a boat sink and two people drowned along our coastline. The bodies washed up at the bottom of a cliff. A reporter showed up on the scene and introduced himself and said he wanted to take some pictures. I asked that he not take pictures of the body has it was being pulled up over the cliff. He agreed and said he only wanted pictures of the ambulance as it pull away and pictures of what was left of the boat. Since he was cooperative I told him when the largest pieces of wreckage were located and told him when the ambulance was about to pull away with the body.

Basically show some consideration to the police officer or whoever you are taking pictures of and you will get a lot more cooperation. Sure you will still run into the occasional officer who does not want anyone taking pictures but you will run into those people in all walks of life.

[Jeff]

Sounds to me like the guy was on a power trip. You should drop a line to the department and inform them about what happened, and that had this guy followed through on his threats the department could be facing a lawsuit.



One of the police was straight over in a flash, and to be fair he let me finish my shot and told me to get out the road.

The OP says the cop was good enough to let him finish the shot even inside the closed area.

[meady100]

Just to close this with a few points to clear up. I'm in the UK. It wasn't a major crime scene, just a small collision. There were no ambulances or serious injuries. Indeed it was more a case of officers standing round with hands on hips as cars were hauled onto pickups. The road I walked into the middle of was completely closed both ways, so I was in no danger at all. On the other side I'm sure it is quite annoying having a nosey parker wandering around. I don't mind and he was pretty polite. I just hope next time I get a chance like that I take it with both hands. Take heed and check settings *before* striding boldly into the scene! Thanks for all the interesting comments!

[ChrisRabior]

The OP says the cop was good enough to let him finish the shot even inside the closed area.

I stand corrected. Upon re-read, sounds like the cop was just trying to keep his scene clear. Can't really fault him for that.

I still think the threat of 'confiscating' of his gear was a bit over the top.

[The_Camera_Poser]

As a lawyer (one of 4 in my family, licensed in the US tho not living there anymore) my advice to everyone is do what the bloody cops tell you to do. The wrong cop can make your life hell, and there's nothing you can do about it. Even as a practicing trial atty, former clerk for a judge who was also best friends with my parents, well known in the community, and with unquestionable integrity, I used to get bullied and threatened by cops from time to time during business. I even had one threaten, during court nonetheless, to drop a bag of crack into my car during a routine stop if I didn't lay off a civil rights suit against him. I laughed in his face, but made sure I didn't drive through his little kingdom without company after that.

So, go ahead. Tell him to respect your rights. Just remember, your nose itches really badly when you're handcuffed, and it sucks if you're unable to scratch it for 6 or 7 hours because of a backlog in booking. And they'll be real careful with your camera gear when you're in the lock-up. :-)

[xa-coupe]

As a lawyer (one of 4 in my family, licensed in the US tho not living there anymore) my advice to everyone is do what the bloody cops tell you to do. The wrong cop can make your life hell, and there's nothing you can do about it. Even as a practicing trial atty, former clerk for a judge who was also best friends with my parents, well known in the community, and with unquestionable integrity, I used to get bullied and threatened by cops from time to time during business. I even had one threaten, during court nonetheless, to drop a bag of crack into my car during a routine stop if I didn't lay off a civil rights suit against him. I laughed in his face, but made sure I didn't drive through his little kingdom without company after that.

So, go ahead. Tell him to respect your rights. Just remember, your nose itches really badly when you're handcuffed, and it sucks if you're unable to scratch it for 6 or 7 hours because of a backlog in booking. And they'll be real careful with your camera gear when you're in the lock-up. :-)

to summarise, work with them not against them as the pain isn't worth it ?? :)

[The_Camera_Poser]

to summarise, work with them not against them as the pain isn't worth it ?? :)

That's what they rely on. And, well...it works...:rolleyes:

[Bumgardnern]

From my experience as a pj what I usually do is go up to an officer that I think is in command and show them my press credentials and usually never have any problems. They often time will let you in as close as possible and don't seem to mind to much. I really don't like hard news so I generally stay away from these situations.

[Steve Parr]

I think this is where you went afoul of the officers on the scene.

Yep.

Interesting how so many have glossed right over that, as if an area being closed off shouldn't pertain to them. More often than not, when the police close down a road, it's closed not only to vehicular traffic, but to foot traffic, as well...

[Karl C]

Yep.

Interesting how so many have glossed right over that, as if an area being closed off shouldn't pertain to them. More often than not, when the police close down a road, it's closed not only to vehicular traffic, but to foot traffic, as well...

Funny, I thought the same thing. The OP readily admitted to positioning himself on a "closed off" road, which was probably due to the accident. Unless he's a PJ on assignment with the proper credentials, he has no business being inside a working accident investigation scene.

Use the experience as a lesson for next time.

[mike_wahl]

Ive a few similar experiences with this as a journalist branching into PJ. Recently (I posted the pics a while ago) A driver had a heart attack while driving and launched his SUV into the side of a skyline chili restaraunt. When I arrived on the scene I introduced myself to the fire captain and he simply asked that I not take any pictures while they were getting the man out of the vehicle until they knew how bad he was injured. He was very polite and very professional and once the man was out the SUV, he welcomed myself and another photographer from the local newspaper to grab some shots.

Another situation was a bad traffic accident that like the OP mentioned in his scenario shut down both lanes of traffic on roadway. A 20 year old man was driving under the influence and drove nose first into a barrier fence. A barrier fence is basically two long metal poles that prevent access to a lot business or state parks when their closed and such. Anyway, one of these was open on a driveway that is angled from the road and this guy caught that pole at just the right angle and impaled his car more or less taking a nice chunk of his face with it.

When I got to the scene probably ten minutes later since it was right down the road from us, obviously the cops were everywhere and did not want to be bothered with reporters at that moment. They asked us kindly the first time to stay back and not snap any shots till after they got everything under control and found out if the guy was even still alive. Long story short, one douche of a reporter thought it would be a good idea to walk across the tape and try to snap some shots before we were cleared to do so and he found himself at the merc of a very ticked off police chief. No they didnt confiscate his equipment but he took down who this guy worked for and I can guarantee when it came time to write that guys story or any subsequent stories the police would not be cooperative in returning their phonecalls.

Basically, they cant really do much but ask you not to do something. Just listen to them and let them do their job. Remember someone could be potentially seriously injured or worst, dead, and the police are on the scene to help that victim, not help you get 'the shot'

[Bumgardnern]

I was told when I started out that pj and the general public had all the same rules to follow. That if it is closed off to the general public that it is closed off to us. Unless we present our press credentials and show that we need to be their. At that point it is up to whoever is in charge by their grace to allow us to do our job.

[argyle]

I think this is where you went afoul of the officers on the scene.

Exactly. If you had been outside the boundary, you most likely would not have had any problems. The boundary was set up for a specific purpose...just use some common sense in these types of situations (and don't rely on the "Photographer's Bill of Rights" that always gets mention in on-line forums). The last place that I'd believe ANY legal advice is an on-line photo forum.

[The_Camera_Poser]

Exactly. If you had been outside the boundary, you most likely would not have had any problems. The boundary was set up for a specific purpose...just use some common sense in these types of situations (and don't rely on the "Photographer's Bill of Rights" that always gets mention in on-line forums). The last place that I'd believe ANY legal advice is an on-line photo forum.

There is a "photography" lawyer on another site- she's in practice in Atlanta, and apparently specializes in media law/photography law, not to mention having a kick-butt collection of glass. But as a lawyer myself, the only person's advice I'd follow is a peron who is liscensed in the state in question, as there are way too many local variations in laws, or someone who was familiar with this area of law, AND had gone off and done a bit of research. Hell, I don't listen to my own advice :-)

The other thing is, while the actions of a person may not be against the law as in criminal, they can certainly be againt a person's civil rights, and therefore subject to civil action. A scummy lawyer like myself would LOVE to sure osmeone with a 1DsMkIII- for that means to me.....DEEP POCKETS! :D

[argyle]

There is a "photography" lawyer on another site- she's in practice in Atlanta, and apparently specializes in media law/photography law, not to mention having a kick-butt collection of glass. But as a lawyer myself, the only person's advice I'd follow is a peron who is liscensed in the state in question, as there are way too many local variations in laws, or someone who was familiar with this area of law, AND had gone off and done a bit of research. Hell, I don't listen to my own advice :-)

The other thing is, while the actions of a person may not be against the law as in criminal, they can certainly be againt a person's civil rights, and therefore subject to civil action. A scummy lawyer like myself would LOVE to sure osmeone with a 1DsMkIII- for that means to me.....DEEP POCKETS! :D

I know one thing...if that was my *ss sitting in a crunched up car waiting for first aid, I'd sure as hell sue the idiot photographer that decided to step into the area and hinder the police/rescue personnel. What's your number for future reference? :lol:

[The_Camera_Poser]

I know one thing...if that was my *ss sitting in a crunched up car waiting for first aid, I'd sure as hell sue the idiot photographer that decided to step into the area and hinder the police/rescue personnel. What's your number for future reference? :lol:

LOL- I'm not in practice anymore, but there's plenty who are.

In all honesty, while it's been around 10 years since I was in practice, I think you could POSSIBLE get an action like that into court as "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress". And while you probably wont make much, that's usually not the point.

What people fail to realize is that anyone can sue you for anything, but if they win or not is another matter. Regardless of the veracity of the claim, you need to get a lawyer to defend you, and that in itself is going to cost big bucks, which you can't get back. 10 years ago the going rate for a baby lawyer in the Deep South was $100-$150/hour, and $200-$300 for the ones you want sitting at your side in court.

Moral of the story- respect peoples rights- whether they are legal OR moral!

[Karl C]

There is a "photography" lawyer on another site- she's in practice in Atlanta, and apparently specializes in media law/photography law, not to mention having a kick-butt collection of glass.

That would be PhotoAttorney (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/member.php?u=90489).

[The_Camera_Poser]

that's the one

[photoguy6405]

I was told when I started out that pj and the general public had all the same rules to follow. That if it is closed off to the general public that it is closed off to us. Unless we present our press credentials and show that we need to be their. At that point it is up to whoever is in charge by their grace to allow us to do our job.

Which only makes sense. Allowing photographers in is a courtesy, not a right.

[Jeff]

Just listen to them [police] and let them do their job. Remember someone could be potentially seriously injured or worst, dead, and the police are on the scene to help that victim, not help you get 'the shot'

Well put.

[MajesticMomentsPhoto]

In the US if you are not behind closed lines, interfering physically by being there, and you have the right to be standing where you are, i.e. not private property where the owner has asked you to leave you can not be legally arrested or have your equipment confiscated. This includes your CF card.

Many times while out photographing I have been asked to stop or turn over my gear, I politely ask for a supervisor and then plead my case, I have always prevailed.

The problem is that in the post 911 era everyone out with a camera is thought of as a possible terrorist in many areas of the country and the Police themselves are unaware of the laws.

Can they stop and ask you questions sure, but barring you breaking any laws or city ordinances thats as far as they can legally go.

Fern

[mike_wahl]

In the US if you are not behind closed lines, interfering physically by being there, and you have the right to be standing where you are, i.e. not private property where the owner has asked you to leave you can not be legally arrested or have your equipment confiscated. This includes your CF card.


Your partially correct, by law you are not allowed to cross a 'taped off' area unless you have been given explicit permission by a supervisor on the scene. If the road that the OP was one had been taped off as a crime scene, then he was in the wrong.

[Steve Parr]

Can they stop and ask you questions sure, but barring you breaking any laws or city ordinances thats as far as they can legally go.

The problem is that there are a lot of photographers who take incredible offense at even being asked questions, as if asking some questions constitutes a violation of some "civil rights". I've lost count of the number of threads here who whine and complain simply because someone in a position of authority has stopped them and asked them a few questions.

I'm of the opinion that photographers need to lighten up a bit, and come to the realization that they, and their photography, are not the center of the universe...

[argyle]

I'm of the opinion that photographers need to lighten up a bit, and come to the realization that they, and their photography, are not the center of the universe...

I agree, Steve. I always get a chuckle out of the "Photographer's Bill of Rights" threads and those that believe carrying around this worthless piece of paper in their bag grants them instant access to any and all public areas. Some of the discussions, as well as the advice, is a bit ludicrous at times. And the police, if viewing the offending photog as an obstacle to what they or rescue folks are trying to accomplish, can arrest the photog for obstruction or hindering an investigation (it has been done)...its just a matter of the degree to which the policeman has been ticked off. Push the right button, maybe even by waving around a bill of rights, and one just may get a free ride downtown.

[SlowBlink]

I like reading about the legal rights of photographers but no way would I print something out and carry it around with me. First thing I do when reading them is find out where the author resides and go from there. There's no way I'd print them out and carry them with me. I'm betting they're about as useless as the Mercury Optics circular polarizer I bought off EBay.

[photoguy6405]

Knowing one's rights is a good thing, but some people seem to forget that waving around a piece of paper is not like showing some golden tablet of a holy grail that will cause bystanders to step back and kneel in reverence.

If you want to assert your rights, that's fine, just know that it may involve the inconvenience of an arrest and getting "satisfaction" after-the-fact in a court.

[The_Camera_Poser]

Knowing one's rights is a good thing, but some people seem to forget that waving around a piece of paper is not like showing some golden tablet of a holy grail that will cause bystanders to step back and kneel in reverence.

If you want to assert your rights, that's fine, just know that it may involve the inconvenience of an arrest and getting "satisfaction" after-the-fact in a court.

Amen brother. Just becasue you're right, doesn't mean you wont get arrested. Just means you MAY win after 10 hours of court itme and 10,000 in legal fees.

[ShotByTom]

Its funny how many people don't realize how much they DON'T know! I'm a Police Officer and have confiscated camera gear twice, but I've helped photographers hundreds of times. It's painfully obvious when you're dealing with someone who bought a nice camera and says they are a photographer, vs a trained and experienced photographer. I've never had a single problem with a legitimate photographer.

When I work events downtown I carry brochures that our city had printed during the FAA convention that shows where scenic veiws are, and it shows places to get the best shots of buildings and other things around town, and I give them out all the time when people ask if they are allowed to take pictures of something.

Most officers will leave you alone, there are some that love the authority they have, and LOVE to use it...but they are few. Just keep in mind that when you run in to a police officer that is giving you a hard time, You are probably the 15th person that he has dealt with doing the exact same thing that you are now doing..

On Officer can take your gear, regardless of what you think or how emphatic your are about sueing him, he just has to justify it in his report, and that's not hard to do!

[The_Camera_Poser]

a521- as a former criminal law practioner- both defense and prosecution, I can honestly say, 99.99999% of those people who have a problems with the police where the officer goes well beyond his authority have brought it on themselves in some way. People just don't understand the pressures of that job- and if they did they'd treat cops with a lot more respect. People think lawyers have a lot of stress, but I know beyond any shoadow of a doubt cops are far more stressed than lawyers- after all, no one shoots at us )that often), and if we really have problems with a client, we can usualy get rid of them, whereas cops are forced to deal with people who are....uh..less than desireable on a constant, daily basis. I used ot be a lawyer (still am actually, but not in practice), and now I'm a high school teacher, and while both of those jobs require a tremendous amount of restraint, they are nothing compared to what cops have to deal with.

So for godsake people, dont put a damn camera in their face. Would you go into a surgical theatre and photograph someone in the middle of open-heart surgery?

Just because you have a camera doesn't mean you should loose respect!

[SlowBlink]

If I was ever in the situation where I wanted to capture a crime/accident scene, I'd make sure I was well out of the way of the leo's or rescue workers. There's no good reason IMO to be close enough to be seen as interfering.

[xa-coupe]

Amen brother. Just becasue you're right, doesn't mean you wont get arrested. Just means you MAY win after 10 hours of court itme and 10,000 in legal fees.

not to mention Quality Time with Bubba !

[The_Camera_Poser]

not to mention Quality Time with Bubba !

Bubba thinks you're cute, too.....lol

[bildeb0rg]

Bubba thinks you're cute, too.....lol

"Yo mah li'l puppy now...":lol:

[xa-coupe]

alright, you guys are creeping me out :)

[Stickman]

1. I read someone say 'shoot first and ask questions later'....


2. .....so I walked in to the middle of the closed-off road....

3. .....One of the police was straight over in a flash, and to be fair he let me finish my shot and told me to get out the road....


4. .....But then, I thought I could pretty much take photos anywhere in a public place, so I stood on the pavement and thought I had nothing to lose....



1. You read a comment from an imbecile, or missed the context.

2. You knowingly entered an area which was closed off by police.

3. He told you to leave, and it appears had the legal authority to do so.

4. You knowingly returned into an area/ crime scene which was closed after you had been told to exit.

From the information you have given, you could have been arrested, booked into jail, and everything of evidentiary value booked into evidence (all photography gear on your person). Yes, I am a cop, and a photographer.

There is a lot of information posted online from people who post part of the story, or simply want to think that the cop is bluffing (not saying thats the case here). I deal with people shooting pictures on a regular basis, and get along well with them, even when its not pictures that I want taken of myself. I understand peoples rights, however, if you knowingly enter into a marked crime scene, you will be very lucky to get a warning. I can guarantee that you won't get a second warning.

I'm willing to bend over backwards to help people, and I have never had a problem or needed to speak to a professional twice. The quick conversations with pros are enough to get them what they need and keep them legal. The amateurs seem to be the ones who are willing to break and enter, cross crime scene lines, or worst of all, try to go into national security areas that are closed off.

In the case of the OPs incident, the area was obviously closed to him (by his own admission), he was instructed to leave a clearly marked zone, and he reentered of his own will. No judge I've ever been in front of would have a hard time determining this to meet probable cause, and juries don't tend to have much compassion after multiple warnings have been given to someone.


I understand that there are a few people out there who have had a run in with a bad cop, but for the most part, its amateurs out there giving photographers a bad name.



If you think a cop is bluffing you, there is a strong probability that you may not have all the information you think you do.

[Steve Parr]

If you think a cop is bluffing you, there is a strong probability that you may not have all the information you think you do.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Well stated!

[FUBAR247]

Reminds me of a story I heard a couple of years ago.

A group of friends were sitting in a café chatting and one of them mentioned he was going to the top field to go shoot some ducks while no-one was about.

On their way there they got stopped by 2 police cars and actually handcuffed and arrested on suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon, after the police searched their bags they asked where the gun was, they said what gun? the police said someone was overheard in the café saying they were going to shoot some ducks and it was reported to the police, they bust out laughing saying they were going to take some pictures of ducks, the police de-arrested them then told them they need to choose what they say with more care as this had wasted police time, no apology or anything.

Seems like it was too much trouble for the police to ask what they guys were doing before arresting them, a case of handling things heavy handed and guilty until proven innocent?

[ShotByTom]

Reminds me of a story I heard a couple of years ago.

A group of friends were sitting in a café chatting and one of them mentioned he was going to the top field to go shoot some ducks while no-one was about.

On their way there they got stopped by 2 police cars and actually handcuffed and arrested on suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon, after the police searched their bags they asked where the gun was, they said what gun? the police said someone was overheard in the café saying they were going to shoot some ducks and it was reported to the police, they bust out laughing saying they were going to take some pictures of ducks, the police de-arrested them then told them they need to choose what they say with more care as this had wasted police time, no apology or anything.

Seems like it was too much trouble for the police to ask what they guys were doing before arresting them, a case of handling things heavy handed and guilty until proven innocent?


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[xa-coupe]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'll second that but perhaps I might point out something... picture this:
You are a police officer
You get a call telling you that someone with a gun is off to 'shoot some ducks' and you get a description.
You find people matching the description
Last year there were around 69 police officers killed in the US alone by people shooting them.

Do the math.

I do think some police could use a little PR training but really, I think people need to get over this complex they have about police. Even here in Australia there are some people that have a perception that the police are there to serve them personally, not to ever infringe on their activities.

[argyle]

Reminds me of a story I heard a couple of years ago.



Seems like it was too much trouble for the police to ask what they guys were doing before arresting them, a case of handling things heavy handed and guilty until proven innocent?


Umm, no. The police didn't know if they were armed or not, just that they were overheard saying that they're going to shoot some ducks. The cops assumed that they were armed and cuffed them as a precaution while they performed the search. What part of that don't you get?

[Steve Parr]

Reminds me of a story I heard a couple of years ago.

Seems like it was too much trouble for the police to ask what they guys were doing before arresting them, a case of handling things heavy handed and guilty until proven innocent?

Go to the airport and let someone overhear a comment you make about shooting pilots...

[Karl C]

Go to the airport and let someone overhear a comment you make about shooting pilots...

Some of those pilots may "shoot" back...

Unless it's a certain US Airways pilot who only "shoots" airplanes.

:lol:

[DMax82]

Some of those pilots may "shoot" back...

Unless it's a certain US Airways pilot who only "shoots" airplanes.

:lol:

Yeah, but most of the Southwest pilots will be too drunk to find the trigger. :p

[FUBAR247]

@ XA & Argyle

Baaa baaa baa baaa baaa baaa baaaa Maybe you don't mind being sheep and led everywhere, being told what you can cant do or having your rights eroded away by your governments, I for one wont be.

There is a big difference here in the UK and most other civilised country's when it comes to guns, believe it or not guns are a lot harder to get hold of in the UK than the media would like everyone to believe.

Its about thinking before acting if they had asked what the guys were doing and they responded with "going to take some pictures of ducks" anyone in their right mind would realise that there was a misunderstanding over what was heard without the hard hand approach.

Some would say that things have changed now with the threat of terrorists well answer me this what has changed from when the IRA were active and the extremists now? both were trying to kill people, the governments play on peoples fears to take away their rights under the guise of protecting them.

I have / had friends in the police force who are considering leaving or have left not because of the job but because of the Muppet's they have to work with who cant think outside the box.

They have said the most abused law is this one.

Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 gives police the power to search vehicles and people for items that could be used to commit a terrorist act. Police can search anybody anywhere under this law, and they do not need reasonable suspicion to do so.

Closely followed by this one.

Section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, gives police the right to search people in a defined area at a specific time when they believe, with good reason, that there is the possibility of serious violence or that a person is carrying a dangerous object or offensive weapon.

This law is supposed to be authorised by a senior officer before they can act on it yet a few officers actually give that as a reason for the stop and search even though a senior officer has not authorised it for that area, and they know that most Joe Bloggs wouldn't know the front from the back end of any law or of their rights.

I actually got pulled over in my van one night and was quoted section 60 as reason, when I asked if I would receive a copy of the stop & search report they then changed it to "I stopped you because you were driving to fast to-wards me", I argued that I wasn't he said he has been a highways officer for long enough to know when someone is speeding I invited him to look at the recorder in my van that logs the speed every 2 sec's and stores the last 5 min of travel he refused (I was actually doing 26 in a 30 area)

There are some great coppers, there are some good coppers, and there are some real Muppets and those that are on a power trip.

There was a time that everyone respected the police because they knew they were there to serve and protect them now its more they are their to serve themselves.

[argyle]

@ XA & Argyle

Baaa baaa baa baaa baaa baaa baaaa Maybe you don't mind being sheep and led everywhere, being told what you can cant do or having your rights eroded away by your governments, I for one wont be.

There is a big difference here in the UK and most other civilised country's when it comes to guns, believe it or not guns are a lot harder to get hold of in the UK than the media would like everyone to believe.

Its about thinking before acting if they had asked what the guys were doing and they responded with "going to take some pictures of ducks" anyone in their right mind would realise that there was a misunderstanding over what was heard without the hard hand approach.

Some would say that things have changed now with the threat of terrorists well answer me this what has changed from when the IRA were active and the extremists now? both were trying to kill people, the governments play on peoples fears to take away their rights under the guise of protecting them.

I have / had friends in the police force who are considering leaving or have left not because of the job but because of the Muppet's they have to work with who cant think outside the box.

They have said the most abused law is this one.



Closely followed by this one.



This law is supposed to be authorised by a senior officer before they can act on it yet a few officers actually give that as a reason for the stop and search even though a senior officer has not authorised it for that area, and they know that most Joe Bloggs wouldn't know the front from the back end of any law or of their rights.

I actually got pulled over in my van one night and was quoted section 60 as reason, when I asked if I would receive a copy of the stop & search report they then changed it to "I stopped you because you were driving to fast to-wards me", I argued that I wasn't he said he has been a highways officer for long enough to know when someone is speeding I invited him to look at the recorder in my van that logs the speed every 2 sec's and stores the last 5 min of travel he refused (I was actually doing 26 in a 30 area)

There are some great coppers, there are some good coppers, and there are some real Muppets and those that are on a power trip.

There was a time that everyone respected the police because they knew they were there to serve and protect them now its more they are their to serve themselves.

Aaaah, stop your whining.

[xa-coupe]

Aaaah, stop your whining.

I'll second that ...

[20droger]

I'll third it.

Kvetch, kvetch, kvetch! Oy, Gevalt!

I have been stopped in various areas by law enforcement people of varying authorities. (What can I say! I look suspicious, almost all the time!) Never once have any of them been rude or unreasonable, and never once have I been subjected to unreasonable actions.

Maybe thats because, even though I may look suspicious, I treat the officers with respect, and recogize the job they are doing. I don't give them lip, reach unexpectedly into my jacket pocket (to pull out a list of my "rights," or anything else), or otherwise act like an ass.

As for "rights"... That has to be the single most overused and inappropriately used word in the English language. All stemming from a bit of beautiful (but semantically and grammatically incorrect) prose:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — " First sentence, second paragraph, of the Declaration of Independence of the Untided States.

If they were self-evident truths, there would be no need to mention them. It is the fact that they were neither self-evident nor truths that was the problem.

Endowed by their Creator? Flat out not true. "Rights" are legal premises, not theological ones.

"Unalienable"was not then and is not now an English word. The word was and is "inalienable."

The right to life: Doesn't exist. If the creator gave you an "unalienable" right to life, you could go swimming without worrying about sharks.

The right to liberty: Doesn't exist. Hasn't existed historically, and doesn't exist now. Ask any dictator.

The right to the pursuit of happiness: Okay, that one exists. But only because happiness is a state of mind, and, as any psychologist can tell you, you can be as happy as you let yourself be. If some real-world problem prevents you from being happy, you can still pursue happiness to your hearts content.

People claiming their "rights" lose sight of the fact that we all have all the "rights" we can make other people give us. Not one more, and not one less. If you want to get things in this world, you need to develop salesmanship, not carry around little lists.

Asserting a right always reminds me of characters in a Heinlien story: "Dad, I want to go to the moon." "Go ahead, Son." "But I can't afford it." "Not my problem, Son. I gave my permission. The rest is up to you."

[fishfoto]

they could probably take your CF card,


The police taking you CF card is illegal. The police can detail you for being in an active crime or incident scene, but they cannot under any circumstances take your CF card.

I spent many years working the over-nights in NYC as a wire service photographer, shot thousands of crime scenes and the only thing the police never did was threaten to take the film/image cards.

I also spent 3.5 years documenting homeland security in both the U.S. and Abroad for a variety of large international news services and have been detained, arrested, "held" denied entry, held at gun point more than once, even been threatened with the charge of treason while shooting for very large and well known newspaper. I have been ordered to delete images (easy, delete the file, replace the CF card, go to my laptop and recover all the deleted images) but taking a photographers gear is still illegal seizure by a law enforcement officer. They need a warrant to seize your gear.

[Nanscombe]

Hi All,

Since this thread is based on a story from the Uk any advice, from elsewhere in the World, about "The Cops can't confiscate your card without a warrant" is irrelevant.

IF you are arrested then your possessions may be siezed as evidence of a crime. It's not about depriving you of your property, it's about making sure you don't destroy any evidence.

Regards
Nigel

[The_Camera_Poser]

Is tihs based in the UK? Whoops- I thought it was the US! DOH!

Fish- if they think you've used your camera in the commission of a felony, they can take it without a warrant. Think about a handgun or a pry bar used by a burglar. Do you think they need a warrant for that? Furthermore, they can seize it as proceeds of crime. Let's face it, they can do whatever the heck they want, and all you can do is whine to the judge in 48 hours, or file a section 1984 action against them for violating your civil rights, which is always soooooo successful. I won $3,000 off one once, for wrongful arrest, but the idiot cop admitted she had no probable cause during a taped interview with the defendant, which is pretty durn dumb. But it STILL wasn't easy.....LOL. Cops really quake in their boots when confronted with a threatened 1984 action (this in heavy sarcasm)

[fishfoto]

Poser

We are not discussing using our cameras in the commission of a crime. Also the removal or film or a CF card that damages the content of that film/card if the item was believed to be used in a crime would be destruction of evidence.

I have used my Nikon F3hp w/MD-4 to defend myself in a riot once.......I miss the F3hp & MD-4 combo.

[The_Camera_Poser]

Poser

We are not discussing using our cameras in the commission of a crime. Also the removal or film or a CF card that damages the content of that film/card if the item was believed to be used in a crime would be destruction of evidence.

I have used my Nikon F3hp w/MD-4 to defend myself in a riot once.......I miss the F3hp & MD-4 combo.

I know- but osmeone in this thread made comments along the lines of "they cant take your stuff without a warrant," which is blatantly false in the US, and I wouild suspect in the UK too. The proper statement would be "They cant take your stuff without a warrant, unless they see the situation as fitting into a number of special circumstances."

Also, I said earlier, I would be surprised if they took the card. I'd expect them to take the whole rig.

[Karlos]

Aaaah, stop your whining.

I'll second that ...

Intelligent retort... Believe it or not, the rest of the world doesn't operate in exactly the same way as the US. :rolleyes:

http://current.com/items/88856223_you_can_t_picture_this

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/03/you-cant-pictur.html

[xa-coupe]

Intelligent retort... Believe it or not, the rest of the world doesn't operate in exactly the same way as the US. :rolleyes:

http://current.com/items/88856223_you_can_t_picture_this

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/03/you-cant-pictur.html


ya think ??
Perhaps to help you along I will make mention that my location is under my avatar .

[Karlos]

Whatever... you still failed to miss the fact that the OP is in the UK.

[LBaldwin]

You folks are sure hot under the collar. I have been on both sides of the issue more than once and only had one run in with a rude cop. 99.999 % of the time if you approach in a thoughtful manner, do not interfere with the working law enforecement you can get your images regardless of your status as a working pro or not.

In the US this is covered by both the freedom of the press Which everyone has access to be a member of should they choose to do so and freedom of speech.

But if you interfere with emergency personell during a fire or other action then you can tossed in jail. The best thing to do is ask to speak to the Incident commander if possible or the officer in charge and ask where you can a cannot go to take shots.

Acting like a professional photographer, treating others with respect, asking the correct questions and assisting if need be are the hallmarks of a good incident shooter. In more than one accident I had to put down the camera and help to render aid and yes I am well trained. The rights as Americans are enjoyed only so long as we don't abuse them.

Apparently the UK, Australia and Canada things are much different, so rights and police powers are different too. But I would think that respect for law enforcement, and compliance with scene instructions would help out quite a bit. Waving a sheet of paper and insistance on stating your "rights" during an emergency is just plain stupid regardless of where you live or are from. Like I said I have only run into one roadblock to shooting in my lifetime. That is not too bad. The situation was not really very important and he had not had media training yet from his command.

Here is an excerpt from the LAPD's media handbook for police officers

Crime Scene Guidelines
1. Do not establish artificial barriers. For example, do not hold the press at
bay a block from the crime scene, while simultaneously allowing the
general public to wander freely just beyond the crime scene tape.

2. Do not prevent the taking of pictures or interviews of person(s) in public
places. News reporters may photograph or report anything or interview
anyone they observe when legally present at an emergency scene. This
includes officers, victims and witnesses.

3. Do not isolate the media outside the crime/incident scene unless the area
has been secured to preserve evidence or their presence jeopardizes
police operations.
4. Do not limit access based on safety concerns. The decision to assume
the risk of danger remains with the individual news reporter. A safety
hazard to the press does not justify restriction, however it is the LAPD’s
policy to warn the media of potential dangers before allowing access.

So you see there are a wide variety of laws even here in the US.

[argyle]

You folks are sure hot under the collar. I have been on both sides of the issue more than once and only had one run in with a rude cop. 99.999 % of the time if you approach in a thoughtful manner, do not interfere with the working law enforecement you can get your images regardless of your status as a working pro or not.

In the US this is covered by both the freedom of the press Which everyone has access to be a member of should they choose to do so and freedom of speech.

But if you interfere with emergency personell during a fire or other action then you can tossed in jail. The best thing to do is ask to speak to the Incident commander if possible or the officer in charge and ask where you can a cannot go to take shots.

Acting like a professional photographer, treating others with respect, asking the correct questions and assisting if need be are the hallmarks of a good incident shooter. In more than one accident I had to put down the camera and help to render aid and yes I am well trained. The rights as Americans are enjoyed only so long as we don't abuse them.

Apparently the UK, Australia and Canada things are much different, so rights and police powers are different too. But I would think that respect for law enforcement, and compliance with scene instructions would help out quite a bit. Waving a sheet of paper and insistance on stating your "rights" during an emergency is just plain stupid regardless of where you live or are from. Like I said I have only run into one roadblock to shooting in my lifetime. That is not too bad. The situation was not really very important and he had not had media training yet from his command.

Here is an excerpt from the LAPD's media handbook for police officers

Crime Scene Guidelines
1. Do not establish artificial barriers. For example, do not hold the press at
bay a block from the crime scene, while simultaneously allowing the
general public to wander freely just beyond the crime scene tape.

2. Do not prevent the taking of pictures or interviews of person(s) in public
places. News reporters may photograph or report anything or interview
anyone they observe when legally present at an emergency scene. This
includes officers, victims and witnesses.

3. Do not isolate the media outside the crime/incident scene unless the area
has been secured to preserve evidence or their presence jeopardizes
police operations.
4. Do not limit access based on safety concerns. The decision to assume
the risk of danger remains with the individual news reporter. A safety
hazard to the press does not justify restriction, however it is the LAPD’s
policy to warn the media of potential dangers before allowing access.

So you see there are a wide variety of laws even here in the US.

Looking at those four guidelines, three of them (1,2,4) are very clear and specific, with #3 being pretty much subjective...all the more reason to be polite, professional, and courteous.

[argyle]

Intelligent retort... Believe it or not, the rest of the world doesn't operate in exactly the same way as the US. :rolleyes:

Maybe they should...we're not having every aspect of our lives monitored by CC cameras and microphones. ;)

[The_Camera_Poser]

Maybe they should...we're not having every aspect of our lives monitored by CC cameras and microphones. ;)

You are kidding me, right?

[argyle]

You are kidding me, right?

Nope...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5942513

[xa-coupe]

Maybe they should...we're not having every aspect of our lives monitored by CC cameras and microphones. ;)

I wouldn't bother arguing with him, he's clearly got some issue with police and I am going to let him wander around in his little world.

As for the amount of CCTVs.. I am surprised, I know that in CBDs and such nearly everything you do is on CCTV but what the Brits have is above and beyond. I personally don't mind if people want to watch me pick my nose or whatever, as long as there is a quantifiable result. Then again, if security works nothing happens so it becomes tempting to spend less.. that's when you find out the hard way that it was indeed working.

[LBaldwin]

I think the thread has run adrift tho....
Realistically, here in the US (my only other experience is in MX and Germany) most PD will assist you in getting images. I have had more than one point out safety issues and or elements of the scene they think that I may have missed. Now for the record I do not not shoot gore. But that is my personal choice. You can show a lot of an image without showing body parts and still get the point across to the viewer.

But the officers need to know that you are that way to start with. In any small town if you shoot an accident the persons involved may be related to or friends with the police or fire at the scene. It would be natural to get a negative reaction when that happens. Cops are human too. I try to act as if the persons involved are my family and shoot and act accordingly.

I still want to record the scene and I still want to do my chosen job.... but it is a fine line we walk.

[photoguy6405]

You can show a lot of an image without showing body parts and still get the point across to the viewer.

Off-topic, but I wish movie makers would re-learn that concept.