Jury Clears Photographer Who Refused to Stop Photographing Arrest

[DanC922]

Encouraging news story that sets a good precedent.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou080414_tj_dailynewsphotog.ffde1587.html



GALVESTON, Texas -- A jury cleared a former Galveston County Daily News photographer Wednesday of a charge that he interfered with police during 2007’s Mardi Gras.

The case raised questions about whether police destroyed evidence, and prompted debate about the rights of journalists and ordinary citizens to monitor the actions of law enforcement.
Also online

More Galveston County news

Nick Adams, who now works for The Appeal-Democrat in Northern California, was an intern with The Daily News in February 2007, when he was taking pictures at Mardi Gras.

Adams was photographing an arrest in Galveston when League City officer Cliff Woitena saw him and told him to stop taking pictures.

When Adams did not, he said, the officer took him to the ground and arrested him.

The officer claimed Adams got too close to officers during the arrest and after ordering him to back off, persisted and crossed the perimeter officer who was backing up the arresting officers.

The Galveston County jury didn’t see it that way and instead affirmed that Adams was within he rights to take the photos and had not interfered with the officers' arrest attempts.

KHOU - TV

Nick Adams

Famed civil rights attorney Anthony Griffin, whom The Daily News retained to defend Adams, said a digital index from Adams’ camera showed police deleted photos while Adams was in custody. The images would have shown Adams was outside a police-secured perimeter, Griffin said.

“So you have destruction of evidence, and second, you have the whole issue of censorship of the press ... If every law enforcement agency had a right to go through a reporter’s notebook or camera or computer, then that’s a dangerous precedent to establish,” Griffin said.

He also said the case went beyond the newspaper’s rights to the First Amendment rights of every American.

“All those folks who see something and report something -- or even if they’re just standing around looking -- as long as they don’t do anything to disturb law enforcement from doing their job, we have a right to stand and watch and even protest and say, 'That’s not right,’” Griffin said.

However, prosecutor Apriél Powell told jurors Adams had stepped within the perimeter officers had established for safety while they arrested another man near 22nd Street and The Strand.

“This is not a case about freedom of the press,” Powell said. “(Adams) was effectively saying, ‘I have a camera in my hand, and I’m taking pictures, so I don¹t have to follow the law.”

After the verdict, Adams said he was happy to be found not guilty of the misdemeanor charge.

“It feels great,” he said. “I’m glad the jury saw the truth. I’m glad the jury upheld the First Amendment and that the jurors saw the inconsistencies in the police officer’s testimony.

“This case is not just of importance to me and to The Daily News – it’s important to everyone. It upholds the First Amendment.”

The jury’s ruling comes not long after a Harris County jury found that Harris County Sheriff’s Deputies violated the civil rights of two men who were video taping the arrest of one of their neighbors. In that case, the sheriff’s office also tried to claim that the two men’s actions interfered with police duties.

The county settled the lawsuit with brothers Erik and Sean Ibarra, paying them $1.7 million.

[JeffreyG]

Well, good news then.

This really changes the score.

Forces of tyranny and secrecy - 1,987,234

Forces of openness and free information - 1

I'm smelling a rally!

[Angry Dad]

Great read....thanks for posting!

[and.duncan]

Did they decide he hadn't stepped inside the perimeter?

I think if he was being an intrusive 'paparazzi' style photographer he should have been stopped.

[DanC922]

Did they decide he hadn't stepped inside the perimeter?

I think if he was being an intrusive 'paparazzi' style photographer he should have been stopped.

Yes. The police deleted photos from his camera that proved he was outside of the perimeter.

[Double Negative]

Good for him! Hopefully the cops get theirs, too. ;)

[Wilt]

I wonder if that qualifies as the highest amount paid for a photograph NOT taken! (vs. $2.5 million for the highest amount paid for a single photo)

[nicksan]

I guess this is a case of an overzealous cop vs. overzelous photographer.
Either way, it doesn't surprise me.

Usually when a cop tells me to stop doing something, I stop doing whatever I was doing that was annoying them, right or wrong. That's just what I need, to be involved in B.S. like that.

This guy obviously tested the cop's patience by continuing to shoot. Whether he had the right to do so or not or that he was outside of the lines or not, obviously it would have been adviseable for him to stop taking photos. Instead he insisted to exercise his "rights" to photograph an arrest (probably not such a pleasing thing from the cop's point of view...I wouldn't like it either)

So you have this pesky pain in the ass photographer photographing your every move. That's gotta be annoying...

Is this guy going to get a multi million dollar settlement? If so, what a big joke.

[Mark001]

Instead he insisted to exercise his "rights" to photograph an arrest (probably not such a pleasing thing from the cop's point of view...I wouldn't like it either)

If you don't stand up for your "rights", what's the point of having them?


So you have this pesky pain in the ass photographer photographing your every move. That's gotta be annoying...

Probably, but what if it was you shooting someone on the street for some candid shots, and the person walked over and deleted the photos from your camera. I have a feeling you wouldn't be too happy about that.

[nicksan]

Yes, he had the right to shoot an arrest scene and he still had the right after the cop told him to stop it.

Yes, why have rights if you don't stand up for them. However, why have police officers if you aren't going to listen to them?

You know what? If someone asked me to stop, I would stop. I wouldn't be like "Sorry, this is a public place. I have the right to take your pic".

And if I did say that and the guy proceeded to beat the living daylights out of me, then I had what was coming to me.

It is exactly this type of insistance of photographer's rights that makes us look bad in my opnion.

Sometimes the line isn't clear. Sometime it may be your right to shoot, but may be INAPPROPRIATE to shoot.

So yes, standing up for your rights is important, but repsecting other's privacy is equally, if not more important in my mind.

If you don't stand up for your "rights", what's the point of having them?



Probably, but what if it was you shooting someone on the street for some candid shots, and the person walked over and deleted the photos from your camera. I have a feeling you wouldn't be too happy about that.

[FlyingPhotog]

Since he was a credentialed press photographer, the case should have gone as it did. He's covering a newsworthy event and as long as he did not move inside the backup officer (which the jury agreed he did not) then he's well within his first ammendment rights to shoot and document events as he sees fit.

However, IMO, this does not apply to any "John Q Public" with a camera who are not journalists and should not view themselves as such.

[DanC922]

Yes, he had the right to shoot an arrest scene and he still had the right after the cop told him to stop it.

Yes, why have rights if you don't stand up for them. However, why have police officers if you aren't going to listen to them?

You know what? If someone asked me to stop, I would stop. I wouldn't be like "Sorry, this is a public place. I have the right to take your pic".

And if I did say that and the guy proceeded to beat the living daylights out of me, then I had what was coming to me.

It is exactly this type of insistance of photographer's rights that makes us look bad in my opnion.

Sometimes the line isn't clear. Sometime it may be your right to shoot, but may be INAPPROPRIATE to shoot.

So yes, standing up for your rights is important, but repsecting other's privacy is equally, if not more important in my mind.

Why have police officers if they don't uphold the law, and instead break it? The law protects privacy, and if the law doesn't state that photographing something is illegal, then it is ok to shoot. And police should not be protected from documentation of their activity. It's undeniable that corruption can be found in most city police departments in some form, more in some cities than others. If those in power aren't held accountable, then no one is being 'protected and served.'

[nicksan]

So the Police Officer doesn't have ANY right to tell you to stop photographing a crime scene/arrest if he/she in her OPINION (regardless of the law) feels that you are in someway interfering with something?

Chances are, no matter what the case is, you probably won't agree with the officer, especially if you are outside the boundry.

Sure, maybe the Officer is doing something fishy (you know just like every guy at the beach with a DSLR is a perv), or maybe he doesn't want some nosy press photographer taking pics of every damn move he/she makes.

So who's right?

I don't think it's as clear cut as "hey, it was the photographers right, he was behind the police boundary, so screw the cop".


Why have police officers if they don't uphold the law, and instead break it? The law protects privacy, and if the law doesn't state that photographing something is illegal, then it is ok to shoot. And police should not be protected from documentation of their activity. It's undeniable that corruption can be found in most city police departments in some form, more in some cities than others. If those in power aren't held accountable, then no one is being 'protected and served.'

[mnealtx]

or maybe he doesn't want some nosy press photographer taking pics of every damn move he/she makes

His/her "wants" are immaterial - there is no expectation of privacy in a public venue, and, being public servants, the actions of the police are SUPPOSED to be held to a higher level of scrutiny.

Now, if the photographer had actually continued to move further into the crime scene, as the police tried to prove, then I would expect the jury to find against the photographer, and would have supported that decision.

[DanC922]

So the Police Officer doesn't have ANY right to tell you to stop photographing a crime scene/arrest if he/she in her OPINION (regardless of the law) feels that you are in someway interfering with something?

Chances are, no matter what the case is, you probably won't agree with the officer, especially if you are outside the boundry.

Sure, maybe the Officer is doing something fishy (you know just like every guy at the beach with a DSLR is a perv), or maybe he doesn't want some nosy press photographer taking pics of every damn move he/she makes.

So who's right?

I don't think it's as clear cut as "hey, it was the photographers right, he was behind the police boundary, so screw the cop".

Nope, he doesn't. The photographer was well within his rights and he didn't cross the tape. And furthermore, the officer is the one who DID break the law by illegal search and seizure. A police officer's opinion does not supersede the law.

[nicksan]

I am not disagreeing at all, and I think the cops took it too far with erasing the images etc. It is unfortunate that it went this far.

But it must be tough on them. They are putting their lives on the line on a daily basis, and still they need to worry about petty crap like this...sorry...this is petty. I know the photog was just doing his job but, sh*t man...come on.

There they were doing their jobs, making an arrest (I assume a standard arrest...no info about that) and here comes some press photog clicking away, yes legally, but clicking away.

Look at what happened next. I am not saying it was right on their part. I just feel that the whole thing is plain silly...both the cops and the photographer.

It much aboslutely suck to be a hard working honest cop these days...

His/her "wants" are immaterial - there is no expectation of privacy in a public venue, and, being public servants, the actions of the police are SUPPOSED to be held to a higher level of scrutiny.

Now, if the photographer had actually continued to move further into the crime scene, as the police tried to prove, then I would expect the jury to find against the photographer, and would have supported that decision.

[nicksan]

I keep on forgettting where I am posting.:lol:
I must be feeling sadistic today by disagreeing with fellow photographers on this subject here!

I agree, I agree, I agree. The police officer's opinion should not supersede the law. Yes, that would be plain dangerous to allow that.

I have opinions about police myself, but I tell you, when I got robbed a few months ago, my appreciation for them went up. I guess it's a selfish thing. I always complain about them, yet when I am vicitmized, they become my best friend.

Anyways, sure, the verdict was made already. I just hope that this doesn't result in a multi million dollar settlement...that would be silly.
Nope, he doesn't. The photographer was well within his rights and he didn't cross the tape. And furthermore, the officer is the one who DID break the law by illegal search and seizure. A police officer's opinion does not supersede the law.

[DanC922]

I am not disagreeing at all, and I think the cops took it too far with erasing the images etc. It is unfortunate that it went this far.

But it must be tough on them. They are putting their lives on the line on a daily basis, and still they need to worry about petty crap like this...sorry...this is petty. I know the photog was just doing his job but, sh*t man...come on.

There they were doing their jobs, making an arrest (I assume a standard arrest...no info about that) and here comes some press photog clicking away, yes legally, but clicking away.

Look at what happened next. I am not saying it was right on their part. I just feel that the whole thing is plain silly...both the cops and the photographer.

It much aboslutely suck to be a hard working honest cop these days...

Hard working honest cops have absolutely nothing to worry or be concerned about if a photographer is photographing them. ;)

[Andrushka]

if the cops are that honest, and feel that amount of danger everyday, then a press photog should be hardly of any notice to them... i would imagine it wasn't these officers first time being photographed while in action... the guys/gals on "COPS" don't seem to mind a bit :-)

[nicksan]

Surely, they are allowed to make innocent mistakes once in a while...just like I am allowed to not pay attention to my shutter speeds messing everything up.:D
Hard working honest cops have absolutely nothing to worry or be concerned about if a photographer is photographing them. ;)

[nicksan]

True. You have a point there.
Perhaps they were feeling a bit "power-trippy" that night.;)

if the cops are that honest, and feel that amount of danger everyday, then a press photog should be hardly of any notice to them... i would imagine it wasn't these officers first time being photographed while in action... the guys/gals on "COPS" don't seem to mind a bit :-)

[Zansho]

This was a public venue, and the police officer had nothing to use to detain the photographer in question - he was well within his rights to photograph the scene of "crime," as it were.

I know my rights. If a police officer told me to stop shooting, I'd simply move further back, grab a telephoto lens, and keep shooting. If he continues to tell me to stop shooting, then I'm going to ask what law am I breaking that prevents me from shooting? This is a public area, and I'm free to shoot in that particular place.

I'm glad this was shown to be the law enforcement people in the wrong. Sometimes the powers that be get it into their head that their word is the last word. If we don't stand up for our rights, who will? That officer also did an illegal search and seizure, by taking the photographer's camera and deleting evidence. That's an even more severe crime - destruction of evidence. We have a lot of good cops, but there are (and have been) a few cops that think being a member of a law enforcement agency entitles them a power over the general public that's completely false.

[nicksan]

This whole thing reminds me of a thread where a guy was shooting a man who was obviously in distress b/c something had happened to his family.

There was a whole debate.

I felt it was legally right but morally wrong...

Then again, not everyone does the morally correct thing. We are humans afterall.;)

[Andrushka]

theres always the old adage: a man is drowning - what lens do you grab?

[DanC922]

This whole thing reminds me of a thread where a guy was shooting a man who was obviously in distress b/c something had happened to his family.

There was a whole debate.

I felt it was legally right but morally wrong...

Then again, not everyone does the morally correct thing. We are humans afterall.;)

How do morals even play a part in this situation? Police are humans, afterall, not demigods who are above everyone else. ???

[nicksan]

Perhaps not in this specific situation. I was talking about the lack of morals commonly found in some of the more rabid photographers out there.

I am not saying this one was like that...

How do morals even play a part in this situation? Police are humans, afterall, not demigods who are above everyone else. ???

[nicksan]

Ah...spoken like a true photographer!;)

theres always the old adage: a man is drowning - what lens do you grab?

[Wilt]

Interestingly a story was just published on AOL about 4 Philly cops who were filmed beating someone, and they will be losing their jobs.

[nicksan]

Yikes...double whammy.
Interestingly a story was just published on AOL about 4 Philly cops who were filmed beating someone, and they will be losing their jobs.

[breal101]

Interestingly a story was just published on AOL about 4 Philly cops who were filmed beating someone, and they will be losing their jobs.


The video in that case was taken from a helicopter, had the photographer been on the ground I hate to think what might have happened to him.:(:(

[nicksan]

You mean they didn't try shooting the helicopter down?
What were they thinking.:D
The video in that case was taken from a helicopter, had the photographer been on the ground I hate to think what might have happened to him.:(:(

[FlyingPhotog]

You mean they didn't try shooting the helicopter down?
What were they thinking.:D

Philly Cops + Helicopters = Not So Good Results...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Move_bombing

[breal101]

You mean they didn't try shooting the helicopter down?
What were they thinking.:D


Naw, they were to busy kicking the crap out of some apparent gangbangers.