Your rights photographing a crime scene?

[angela6571]

I came home tonight to find about 5 police cars and one broke car right in front of my house.

I immediately went and grabbed my camera to start taking pictures. It didnt take long for an officer to come over and ask me "what am I doing" (I hate that. What do you think Im doing? Ive got a camera, Im pointing it, Its clicking...What do you seriously think doing!? /rant).

I tell them Im taking pictures and they ask me what Im doing here (and remember...I just pulled up to my house in my car. These are some really observant cops...). I told them I live on the street. They said, "you live at this house?", to which I said no and I pointed across the street and said I live over there. The officer said, "well you better go over there" to which I told her that was fine and that I would be over there taking pictures.

After I go to my own yard and start taking pictures, another officer comes over and asks me again "what are you doing". I tell him that Im taking pictures and he tells me, "no youre not. youre this close to me taking your film". So I go on to ask him why and he says because there is an ongoing investigation and I say that Im on my own private property taking pictures of events occuring on public property. He again tells me hes gonna have to take my "film" and then tells me I cant take pictures because there is a juvenile involved.

I suppose the short part of the question is....

Is it illegal to photograph an active crime scene on public property?
Is it illegal to photograph an active crime scene on public property if a juvenile is involved?

Thanks for the help.

[qtfsniper]

There have been plenty of videos online where cops tried to stop videotapes of arrests taking place and the police officers were in the wrong.

[gjl711]

Print this page and keep it with you. They were trying to intimidate you. You have the legal right to photograph anything on public property minors included.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

[angela6571]

Print this page and keep it with you. They were trying to intimidate you. You have the legal right to photograph anything on public property minors included.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

I saw that but I didnt know if it was different if there was an investigation going on or there was a minor involved.

Why do cops have to be like that :(

[SlowBlink]

Overcompensating is my theory.

[gjl711]

Why do cops have to be like that :( Probably because they have a real tough jobs and on occasion a picture shows up of one of them taking it a bit too far. Or maybe it was a cop or politicians kid who did something wrong, or maybe they were just dicks. Who knows.

[breal101]

I have a lawyer friend who does a lot of police abuse cases, he once told me that you should never argue the fine points of the law with a cop on the side of the road. He said he would have a lot less work if his clients had followed that advice. That said, you were within your rights to shoot pictures, just know that it can turn ugly and they have the power.

[FlyingPhotog]

I'll play devil's advocate on this one...

1) What were you hoping to gain by shooting this incident? Were you hoping to sell the images to a newspaper or other publication?

2) Was there Crime Scene tape in place? If so, obviously you wouldn't attempt to cross the tape line, right? If not, how do you know where the boundaries are? And therefore, how do you know you aren't contaminating same?

3) You do realize you're just some person with a camera who has no additonal (and no less) rights than any other bystander? Your camera doesn't automatically grant you status as media or press. The police don't know you or recognize you as someone who works the police beat so of course they're gonna be curious. Why are you so suprised by this?

4) This isn't your Grandparents world anymore. Cops are much more edgy, alert and aware of their surroundings. They are now responsible (either by choice or by caveat) for so much more than their ancestoral "flat foot" progenitors. Terrorism, Illegal Immigration, gangs (who are much, much more militant and heavily armed) plus the usual nonsense that goes on in society give them a pretty full plate.

Turn the situation around. If you spent your time with your ass on the line day in and day out, how much patience would you have for some goof with a camera trying to play Jimmy Olson, Cub Reporter?

Don't get me wrong, I would support you 100% on the idea of shooting public activities from private property. But, really, what function were you serving by drawing attention to yourself?

[zelseman]

I'll play devil's advocate on this one...

1) What were you hoping to gain by shooting this incident? Were you hoping to sell the images to a newspaper or other publication?

2) Was there Crime Scene tape in place? If so, obviously you wouldn't attempt to cross the tape line, right? If not, how do you know where the boundaries are? And therefore, how do you know you aren't contaminating same?

3) You do realize you're just some person with a camera who has no additonal (and no less) rights than any other bystander? Your camera doesn't automatically grant you status as media or press. The police don't know you or recognize you as someone who works the police beat so of course they're gonna be curious. Why are you so suprised by this?

4) This isn't your Grandparents world anymore. Cops are much more edgy, alert and aware of their surroundings. They are now responsible (either by choice or by caveat) for so much more than their ancestoral "flat foot" progenitors. Terrorism, Illegal Immigration, gangs (who are much, much more militant and heavily armed) plus the usual nonsense that goes on in society give them a pretty full plate.

Turn the situation around. If you spent your time with your ass on the line day in and day out, how much patience would you have for some goof with a camera trying to play Jimmy Olson, Cub Reporter?

Don't get me wrong, I would support you 100% on the idea of shooting public activities from private property. But, really, what function were you serving by drawing attention to yourself?

Thats what I was thinking. If you were a free-lancer for a local newspaper and had media access to crime scenes prior to this, then it is a different story. It does not seem like a big deal to argue with a police officer. However, I think in your situation, I would do the same thing.

[shannyD]

i would go with flyingphotog on this. they are just trying to do their job.. and why would you want pictures of someone elses misfortune? its not like it was britney spears getting out of her car without underoos on again.

[Persephone]

i would go with flyingphotog on this. they are just trying to do their job.. and why would you want pictures of someone elses misfortune? its not like it was britney spears getting out of her car without underoos on again.

I'll never understand people who attack motives. I hate when people always ask "Why?" Because...I like to document things? News is news. If that's news, I'll take a picture. It's my right to do so provided I'm on public property and not interfering. Why does it have to be a celebrity? Maybe it'll become the iconic picture. I hate how the press gets a free pass, but me as a personal photographer will always have motives questioned, suspicious eyes go up, and the tap tap of, "Well, why would you be interested in this?"

[shannyD]

all it is, is a simple question.. i wasnt attacking anyone.

but when there are minors involed what good are those pics to you?

and there is always motive when you get shots of a poptard. CASH.

when taking pictures of a crime scene without motive, but just to have some pictures of someones screwed up day?? not cool.

but whatever. there will always be people on different sides of the fence.

[<AkulA>]

3) You do realize you're just some person with a camera who has no additonal (and no less) rights than any other bystander? Your camera doesn't automatically grant you status as media or press. The police don't know you or recognize you as someone who works the police beat so of course they're gonna be curious. Why are you so suprised by this?

Just to clarify... even if you were a member of the media or press, you are not entitled to anything more or less than any other bystander. In fact, sometimes just being a bystander can get you better access to things than if you're a pro running around with a big white lens.

The only thing a press photog can hope to have on his or her side is a good relationship with the local police. That and a halfway decent attitude and a bit of common sense can get you pretty far!

[angela6571]

I'll play devil's advocate on this one...

1) What were you hoping to gain by shooting this incident? Were you hoping to sell the images to a newspaper or other publication?

2) Was there Crime Scene tape in place? If so, obviously you wouldn't attempt to cross the tape line, right? If not, how do you know where the boundaries are? And therefore, how do you know you aren't contaminating same?

3) You do realize you're just some person with a camera who has no additonal (and no less) rights than any other bystander? Your camera doesn't automatically grant you status as media or press. The police don't know you or recognize you as someone who works the police beat so of course they're gonna be curious. Why are you so suprised by this?

4) This isn't your Grandparents world anymore. Cops are much more edgy, alert and aware of their surroundings. They are now responsible (either by choice or by caveat) for so much more than their ancestoral "flat foot" progenitors. Terrorism, Illegal Immigration, gangs (who are much, much more militant and heavily armed) plus the usual nonsense that goes on in society give them a pretty full plate.

Turn the situation around. If you spent your time with your ass on the line day in and day out, how much patience would you have for some goof with a camera trying to play Jimmy Olson, Cub Reporter?

Don't get me wrong, I would support you 100% on the idea of shooting public activities from private property. But, really, what function were you serving by drawing attention to yourself?

I kinda take offense to this post and dont understand why it was even made.

1) I was photographing the world around me. Is that a crime? Why do I need a grand over-arching motive?
2) No there was no crime scene tape and of course I wouldnt cross it if there was.
3) Media or Press? What does that have to do with anything. Since when do you need to be a member of the media or the press to use a camera? Thats all I was trying to do.
4) I realize that they may have more on their plate, but does that give them the right to go out of their way (literally walk at least 40 feet) to come and harass me?

If I turn it around, and Im doing my job as a police officer, why would I bother someone who isnt breaking the law? If Im not doing anything wrong and theyre not doing anything wrong, what right do I have to go over there and harass "some goof with a camera trying to play Jimmy Olson, Cub Reporter"?

Again, I take offense to the stance you take with this. You say that I was "drawing attention to myself" when all I was trying to do was take some pictures...

[angela6571]

i would go with flyingphotog on this. they are just trying to do their job.. and why would you want pictures of someone elses misfortune? its not like it was britney spears getting out of her car without underoos on again.

I wasnt doing anything to impede their job. I was standing at least 40 feet away taking pictures.

And Im sorry but someone committing a crime and getting caught is not "misfortune" :rolleyes:

[angela6571]

all it is, is a simple question.. i wasnt attacking anyone.

but when there are minors involed what good are those pics to you?

and there is always motive when you get shots of a poptard. CASH.

when taking pictures of a crime scene without motive, but just to have some pictures of someones screwed up day?? not cool.

but whatever. there will always be people on different sides of the fence.

I take pictures of a lot of stuff and it never get published anywhere and I never get paid for it. Does that mean I just shouldnt bother? My motive with everything is that I try to take pictures of interesting things. This was an interesting scene to me (and obviously 30-something other people in the neighborhood who were standing around watching).

[sadatk]

Ha, always love the classic "minors involved". If you're on your own property, you can take pictures all you want of things happening in your neighborhood. Hell, the roadside and sidewalk are public so there really shouldn't have been a problem.

[shannyD]

i think if your going to get offended by the devils advocate, or other peoples comments. perhaps you shouldn't post if you don't like what other people are inclined to say?

he was only giving you a second set of shoes to stand in.

[Kimberwhip]

My friend took this in front of his house right after it happened and nothing was said, he even offered his floor jack to get the cars "unhooked".

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j14/voncronin/IMG_1142_lightened.jpg

[shannyD]

My friend took this in front of his house right after it happened and nothing was said, he even offered his floor jack to get the cars "unhooked".

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j14/voncronin/IMG_1142_lightened.jpg

but that is funny.. you could pass that around the net as one of those priceless things???

[TheHoff]

^^^ that is also how my dog greets other dogs, nice photo



and to the OP, every US street photographer should have a printed copy of that bill of rights tucked in their bag.

[angela6571]

i think if your going to get offended by the devils advocate, or other peoples comments. perhaps you shouldn't post if you don't like what other people are inclined to say?

he was only giving you a second set of shoes to stand in.

Thanks for the very constructive and thoughtful advice.

[shannyD]

anytime.

[Hedley]

all it is, is a simple question.. i wasnt attacking anyone.

but when there are minors involed what good are those pics to you?



This says volumes - why should a picture of minors be any less 'use' than a picture of adults? To assume that anyone taking pictures of minors does so with nefarious intentions is truly depressing.

[TheHoff]

In the States, minors involved in a crime as the victim are kept as anonymous... so they wouldn't want you taking photos of a child being removed from an abusive home, let's say.

[SlowBlink]

You can stand on your front lawn and charge for popcorn without fear of harassment as long as you're not physically interfering with their progress. I've gotten shots of a dead body in the park across the street because I was walking through as the police and ambulance arrived. The police didn't ask me what I was doing or why because it's a public space accessible to anyone. Does it matter why I take shots of the police doing their job? No, I can do it all day long if I chose and if it makes them nervous that reflects on them, not me.

The idea that it's a different world and much more dangerous is a fabrication that's repeated constantly in the media. Many crimes are declining in the US and Canada but when you see the press conferences by politicians and police you'd think Revelations is upon us. It's the new style of getting a bigger budget.

Fear for sale and Sell by Fear.

I grew up listening to two lawyers argue civil rights every thanksgiving/Christmas/Easter/Birthdays. Best advice. Never ask a cop about the law, they know nothing. They know enforcement and at best they're cloudy on that. Never get into a debate with a cop, even if you're right you'll lose....I never listened to them but I know how to pick battles.

[bbulldog]

In the States, minors involved in a crime as the victim are kept as anonymous... so they wouldn't want you taking photos of a child being removed from an abusive home, let's say.
So are they moved out of the house with a blanket over their head? and no one knows who lived in that house. pictures can and will turn up from other sources, schools, clubs etc. Dont get me wrong i think the idea is good to keep identities of children in these circumstances out of the press etc.

If a minor was involved and the police had asked the OP not to take pictures politely, because a minor was invloved then i am sure he would have stopped.

[zso]

One thing that you always have to remember when taking photos around a crime scene is that you do not know all of the details that the officers know. As a bystander or pro-photog, sometimes all you see is a few officers standing around, walking around, or just a traffic stop being conducted. What you may not know is that the incident that the officers could be potentially deadly to the officers and/or innocent bystanders. The innocent "crime scene" that you are photographing could be a homicide, hostage situation, officer involved shooting, stolen car, etc. The bad guys could have ran from the officers and could be lurking in your neighborhood. The ultimate goal for police officers is to ensure their and others safety.

Officers go through a great deal of stress throughout their tour of duty and have to remain vigilant to remain alive. I do not recall what the OP stated that the incident was or if the individual was arrested, but anyone who walks up on a scene, no matter how minor, it adds an addition element that the officer(s) have to have concern with. In some parts of the country there are individuals who collect "counter-intelligence" on police officers to observe how they operate. If the police officers actions are "documented", their tactics can be used against them in future incidents. I'm sure that you can respect the fact that an officer has some legitimate concern about this fact. There are also other groups throughout the united states and possibly abroad who collect very personal information (home address, etc) about police officers, to include photographs, and post them on the internet for any criminal to find.

Don't get me wrong, I am on both sides of the fence with this topic. I totally believe in photographer's rights and the freedom to shoot whatever they want from public places. However, there is a time and place for everything. Sometimes it is not either ethically or morally (dead body) right to grab your camera. And I'm not saying not to grab your camera, just recommending that some tact and common sense is used. If an officer were to ask me to move to another location, my response would not be "Why?". Sometimes an officer may not have time to deal with the why, but only the now. It doesn't make the officer an a-hole for ruining your ideal shot, because ultimately they are just doing their job and they do not always have to explain to you what their job is or why they are conducting business they way they are. I really doubt that any officer sets out at the beginning of his/her shift with the goal of shutting down photographers. There is almost always a reason they do what they do.

If you have a legimiate complaint with what an officer has done and believe that they had violated your rights as a photographer, I would contact that police agencies PIO (Public Information Officer) and ask if they are familiar with photographer's rights. Maybe the easiest solution would be for the department to offer shift-change training to their officers. Three minutes of their time could go a long way and allow you to have better results in the future. If the PIO route does not work, then I would send a letter to the head of that agency (Chief, etc.) and request that the officers have full knowledge of photographer's specific rights. And I would word it in a way that you are attempting to better the police/public relationship, not that you are complaining and attempting to attack a specific officer for his/her actions.

Best of luck to all of you in the future in your dealings with officers.

[fxk]

The first one kind of had you as you were on someone else's private property - providing that neighbor objected - and without explicit permission, you did the right thing moving to your yard.

You had all rights to shoot from your yard, or even from the public street/sidewalk outside of their police line. In any case, the law says they cannot take your "film" without some type of court order - in this case digital media. Whether you should make a point of it at the time is another question entirely, even though you are well within the law to continue.

Sometimes, discretion is the better part of valor... In a case like this, you do not want to risk arrest - even an unjust arrest - one you can easily beat in court. That can take years to litigate and have expunged from your record. In the meantime, it could affect your job, top secret clearances - any number of things.

Either way, get the person's name and badge number - let them see you record it on paper, and file a complaint afterwords - either as a citizen or through a lawyer, and request that this individual (or individuals) take a class on what constitutes legal photography, and where their intimidation tactics are inappropriate.

As for why you were taking the pictures of "someone's misfortunes" - the question is irrelevant. Why take pictures of a sunset? God knows we have tons of sunset pictures.

We give up more rights through passivism and legislation than we give up during war. Rights are slowly being chipped away. To answer why we should take pictures of someone else's' misfortune is because it is our right to do so. Without explanation to anyone. I will not give that right up freely.

[TheHoff]

Of course you could stand there, acting confused and scratching your head at the officer, while you try and open the "film back" on your camera. Then open the battery port and offer that to him.

[FlyingPhotog]

I kinda take offense to this post and dont understand why it was even made.

1) I was photographing the world around me. Is that a crime? Why do I need a grand over-arching motive?
2) No there was no crime scene tape and of course I wouldnt cross it if there was.
3) Media or Press? What does that have to do with anything. Since when do you need to be a member of the media or the press to use a camera? Thats all I was trying to do.
4) I realize that they may have more on their plate, but does that give them the right to go out of their way (literally walk at least 40 feet) to come and harass me?

If I turn it around, and Im doing my job as a police officer, why would I bother someone who isnt breaking the law? If Im not doing anything wrong and theyre not doing anything wrong, what right do I have to go over there and harass "some goof with a camera trying to play Jimmy Olson, Cub Reporter"?

Again, I take offense to the stance you take with this. You say that I was "drawing attention to myself" when all I was trying to do was take some pictures...

No offense was intended however you rasied the issue for discussion. As far as I know, one person's opinion followed by a bunch of "Hell Yeahs" isn't a discussion.

You have every right to your opinions and I have every right to dissent. I apologize for the "Goof with a camera" comment but it wasn't directed specifically at you. I think it's fair to say that the majority of people who are smart enough to find POTN and put it to good use are smart enough to not impede a police investigation.

Continuted good luck with your photography efforts.

[rhodesx6]

Maybe this is why so much of the world looks down on the U.S. or similar countries, because it's my "right"to take pictures of others misfortune. Legally may be different but it is not your right to photograph someone elses misfortune. To photo a child that had just been molested or someone who had just been beaten down. Personally i don't think you are going to get your "life changing" photo from a crime scene. I never have read how Ansel Adams or any other photog waited to snap a pic of the local police helping mema up after getting her purse snatched.

I work in an metro area on an ambulance and have not thought many times ......you know I think I would like to get a pic of this. Seriously, you have to be kidding. You obviously haven't had anything happen to you or someone you love that you did not want some knucklehead taking a picture of.

I think they are running a special on park passes right now, go get one and go get some real pictures. Oh and I know it is your "right" to not like this and I am okay with that. I fought for your rights!OOHRAH!!

[Mark1]

I kinda take offense to this post and dont understand why it was even made.




I agree, I took offense as well. But that subsided rather quickley.

I know cops get a bit over protective when it is a serious injury or death. But again the incident does not make them Overlords.

It just comes down to them not knowing the law either. They prefer to err on the conservative side, While we side with taking the shots.

Research the law as it applies in your jurisdiction. This way you can quote the law to them as they harass you. It usually sends them away.


Maybe this is why so much of the world looks down on the U.S. or similar countries, because it's my "right"to take pictures of others misfortune.



I seriously doubt the rest of the world even cares or knows if we have this right or not. Then again, maybe this is why the Talaban was so worked up..... Mmmmm

[DocFrankenstein]

1) What were you hoping to gain by shooting this incident? Were you hoping to sell the images to a newspaper or other publication?
He doesn't need to have a reason.

Just like any other freedom, no justification is required. Take freedom of religion - what are you trying to gain by establishing it? Is it a cult? Religions can be cults... or extremist. In this day and age, we can't allow extremism... so let's take away freedom of religion as well.

Do you see a similarity?

4) This isn't your Grandparents world anymore. Cops are much more edgy, alert and aware of their surroundings. They are now responsible (either by choice or by caveat) for so much more than their ancestoral "flat foot" progenitors. Terrorism, Illegal Immigration, gangs (who are much, much more militant and heavily armed) plus the usual nonsense that goes on in society give them a pretty full plate.
And there was no illegal immigration in the past? America was a closed country for the last 400 years? It all begun just 10 years ago?

In terms of gangs... are you saying that what we have now is worse than cowboy times? Wild west? The gangs of al capone? Prohibition?

Even the hysteric media can't paint a picture that grim.

Turn the situation around. If you spent your time with your ass on the line day in and day out, how much patience would you have for some goof with a camera trying to play Jimmy Olson, Cub Reporter?

Don't get me wrong, I would support you 100% on the idea of shooting public activities from private property. But, really, what function were you serving by drawing attention to yourself?
Yeah, forget the law. I have no patience. Club this reporter playing goof, arrest him and lynch him... with all the media after him. :rolleyes: I just want me doing my job, that's arresting people any way I please.

[Glenn NK]

This thread is a repeat of "Yelled At By A Cop", started by ACDCROCKS.

So we're still there eh?

I hoped that we would have moved on a bit.;)

[polarbare]

It just comes down to them not knowing the law either. They prefer to err on the conservative side,

There are too many laws on the books for every LEO to know them all. Unfortunately your choices are to:
A) comply and give up your rights without a fuss.
B) not comply and possibly face being taken into custody and having your equipment taken until things are sorted out properly, or if you're lucky, finding a supervisor (Sgt., Lt) who understands that this issue has been hashed out repeatedly and that the police officer is wrong.

I'll take B. If you won't fight for your rights, don't expect anyone else to.

[FlyingPhotog]

He doesn't need to have a reason.

I never said she needed a reason. I mearly asked about motivation...

And there was no illegal immigration in the past? America was a closed country for the last 400 years? It all begun just 10 years ago?

You love hyperbole dontcha? Of course it didn't just start in the last ten years but enforcing immigration law has traditionally not been the responsiblity of local law enforcement. Maybe Arizona is an abberation but it most definately has become an issue at the local level now.

In terms of gangs... are you saying that what we have now is worse than cowboy times? Wild west? The gangs of al capone? Prohibition?

Don't know..wasn't there. However, cops today face gangs that have armor piercing rounds, body armor, NVGs and are fighting over litterally billions of dollars of drug money meaning they'll kill you or me without so much as a second thought. I'd call that a significant development at the local level.

Even the hysteric media can't paint a picture that grim.

They can and regularly do...

Yeah, forget the law. I have no patience. Club this reporter playing goof, arrest him and lynch him... with all the media after him. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Indeed...

[Glenn NK]

Reading this could save some bandwidth:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=335629&highlight=yelled

[lauderdalems]

The best advise I can offer is for you to contact the police department and inquire why you were no allowed to take the pictures form your yard. Reason with them and find their point of view on this situation. Then you will know EXACTLY WHY and not get 35 opinions from around the world .

[SlowBlink]

The public and some police have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the job is when it comes to law enforcement. The police gets a call on his radio to attend and investigate. He/She then submits the report of that investigation to the attorney general/crown council for further review. They don't decide whether you're breaking the law, the state does.

Arguing law with a police officer is like bitching at a waiter because your steak is over cooked. He didn't make it.

Thanks Glenn, I'll browse that thread. We should discuss this topic since it's becoming more and more important in the US and Canada these days. If we're not going to defend our rights, we'll lose them.

[fxk]

Maybe this is why so much of the world looks down on the U.S. or similar countries, because it's my "right"to take pictures of others misfortune. Legally may be different but it is not your right to photograph someone elses misfortune. To photo a child that had just been molested or someone who had just been beaten down. Personally i don't think you are going to get your "life changing" photo from a crime scene. I never have read how Ansel Adams or any other photog waited to snap a pic of the local police helping mema up after getting her purse snatched.

I work in an metro area on an ambulance and have not thought many times ......you know I think I would like to get a pic of this. Seriously, you have to be kidding. You obviously haven't had anything happen to you or someone you love that you did not want some knucklehead taking a picture of.

I think they are running a special on park passes right now, go get one and go get some real pictures. Oh and I know it is your "right" to not like this and I am okay with that. I fought for your rights!OOHRAH!!

Rights and good taste are not correlating factors. The photos of a crime scene may be life changing - take the footage shot in Watts after Rodney King - dragging the truck driver out of his truck and beating him within an inch of his life. Cops weren't there, but a crime scene, nonetheless. And life changing for many - the videographer, the public, the people who got off, and the driver who thought he had evidence. Life changing.

The fact that you run on a rescue squad and have no desire to take pictures does not mean that pictures may or may not be useful. Ah, but then, they don't have to be. Our fire department has started photographing fires and submitting them to a paper. That's someone's misfortune, too.

How about the show "Cops". Someone is making big money off of crime scenes - and it isn't news - it is commercial exploitation of a crime - tape-delayed on TV.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Illegal search and seizure. Things you fought for. OOHRAH! And we thank you. The rights are near absolute. There are legislative limits to the law - not to be decided haphazardly by the "cop on the beat", you or me. Law enforcement folks are sworn to uphold the law, not to make it up as they go along - not to stretch it for their benefit, not because of stress, terrorism, fear of personal injury. I've got three cops in the family. I worry about them - it is a difficult job. I also lost a cousin to being gunned down.

No, I would not like a photo of me or loved ones in a bad place taken. Just because I don't like it does not change The Constitution. If it goes to the paper - sorry (for me), it's fair game. For educational use? Fair game again. Shows up as stock photography or any other non-news, non-educational release? I'll sue them to death. As a subject, those basically are my rights. And I may lose the last one.

Ansel Adams was not an ambulance chaser, or paparazzi (as far as I know). But he also wasn't one of the tens of photographers taking boring photographs of the President at a press conference. Alright, already, don't we have enough photos of the prez on file - do we really need additional photogs to capture that magic moment? No, but they make a living at that. They do it because their boss says to. The boss says to do it because HE/SHE CAN. Certainly, a useless exercise, unless the President barfs on another head of state...

Should paparazzi be shoved, beaten, camera smashed for doing their job with a celeb? No. Do they go about their job with taste, dignity and show respect. No. But they can. There is a thriving market. Sometimes I feel bad for the poor celebs. - NOT!

Photographers are not terrorists. Some take great pictures of rocks, skies, and trees. Others, wildlife. Some, the human condition - good, bad, happy sad, posed or live. People are obsessed with other people. Do we like everything that is done? No. Maybe, as Americans, we just need to grow a thicker skin.

[polarbare]

Arguing law with a police officer is like bitching at a waiter because your steak is over cooked. He didn't make it.

It's more like arguing with the Maitre D . He says the steak is perfect, you say it's overcooked and know you ordered it rare. He says it's perfect, you say it's overcooked. He goes to ask the chef (D.A.) for the order slip and sees it says rare, they recook it, and he sulks off without apologizing.

:)

[shannyD]

It's more like arguing with the Maitre D . He says the steak is perfect, you say it's overcooked and know you ordered it rare. He says it's perfect, you say it's overcooked. He goes to ask the chef (D.A.) for the order slip and sees it says rare, tells them to recook it, and sulks off without apologizing.

:)

you send your food back?!? havent you seen the movie waiting????? you are brave.

but you are right.

[polarbare]

OT- but yes, I worked as a cook for a while.. i send it back politely but firmly - the same way i talk to LEOs. :)

[angela6571]

Maybe this is why so much of the world looks down on the U.S. or similar countries, because it's my "right"to take pictures of others misfortune. Legally may be different but it is not your right to photograph someone elses misfortune. To photo a child that had just been molested or someone who had just been beaten down. Personally i don't think you are going to get your "life changing" photo from a crime scene. I never have read how Ansel Adams or any other photog waited to snap a pic of the local police helping mema up after getting her purse snatched.

I work in an metro area on an ambulance and have not thought many times ......you know I think I would like to get a pic of this. Seriously, you have to be kidding. You obviously haven't had anything happen to you or someone you love that you did not want some knucklehead taking a picture of.

I think they are running a special on park passes right now, go get one and go get some real pictures. Oh and I know it is your "right" to not like this and I am okay with that. I fought for your rights!OOHRAH!!

Again, I feel as though I have to reply to this just to clarify.

I was trying to take pictures of people who were being arrested for just robbing a truck at gunpoint. I see no "misfortune" in that situation (at least not with regards to those who were being arrested) and really wish the bleeding hearts would stop trying to derail this thread into some moral discussion.

[WaltA]

I was about to comment "of course its a moral discussion but I re-read your OP and the 2 questions you ask begin with "Is it illegal ..."

I think it may become a moral issue in some peoples minds if, in order to answer your "Is it illegal.." questions, that your reasons for taking the picture play a part.

[fxk]

Again, I feel as though I have to reply to this just to clarify.

I was trying to take pictures of people who were being arrested for just robbing a truck at gunpoint. I see no "misfortune" in that situation (at least not with regards to those who were being arrested) and really wish the bleeding hearts would stop trying to derail this thread into some moral discussion.


Amen!

[gjl711]

I agree, this is not a moral discussion but only a legal one. One person’s morality will differ from another’s. Heck.. I might think that taking pictures of trees and mountains is immoral and ask to ban those that believe differently. Or maybe we should ban the G/N guys. They got nekid ladies over there.

Legally you were within your rights to do what you were doing. The cops were clearly in the wrong but unfortunately they got the guns and can bop you on the head and get away with it, unless some other photographer is on the scene to keep them honest. Actually maybe it would be better if it was mandatory that every citizen photograph every police intervention thus keeping those guys in line.

[SlowBlink]

If you're acting in the capacity of a photo journalist your obligation is to recognize it as an emotional event and record it. You're not obliged in any moral way to go on a crusade against the crime. This rule is followed even more closely by the police. There's a reason for it.

[shannyD]

its funny that you throw your bleeding heart comment out as freely as you did..

where i come from, that is excaly what you are.

now, if you clarified yourself in the first place. you wouldnt have had " bleeding hearts" jumping down your throaght over a taste issue. when you mention minors.. some people just have it in them to want to protect children.

when its just a couple of goons robbing a truck.. throw those punks under the bus.. who cares about their privacy. it should be your right to post their pictures all over the city so people can put a face to the crime that happensn their neighborhood.

but as a mother. i wouldnt stand for someone taking pictures of my kid so they could post it on their website or whatever.

just because you can doesnt always mean you should.

[breal101]

I agree, this is not a moral discussion but only a legal one. One person’s morality will differ from another’s. Heck.. I might think that taking pictures of trees and mountains is immoral and ask to ban those that believe differently. Or maybe we should ban the G/N guys. They got nekid ladies over there.

Legally you were within your rights to do what you were doing. The cops were clearly in the wrong but unfortunately they got the guns and can bop you on the head and get away with it, unless some other photographer is on the scene to keep them honest. Actually maybe it would be better if it was mandatory that every citizen photograph every police intervention thus keeping those guys in line.

That's exactly what I was saying in my previous post. The police have the power, if you can remain calm and read the situation you will probably be OK. They can and do arrest people in similar situations for interfering with an investigation, failure to move on, etc. My attorney friend has some hair raising stories where things got out of hand. IMO it is not worth getting "the treatment" from a pissed off cop for a picture. Don't for a second believe just because you may be right that you are safe.

[short5]

I kinda take offense to this post and dont understand why it was even made.

1) I was photographing the world around me. Is that a crime? Why do I need a grand over-arching motive?
2) No there was no crime scene tape and of course I wouldnt cross it if there was.
3) Media or Press? What does that have to do with anything. Since when do you need to be a member of the media or the press to use a camera? Thats all I was trying to do.
4) I realize that they may have more on their plate, but does that give them the right to go out of their way (literally walk at least 40 feet) to come and harass me?

If I turn it around, and Im doing my job as a police officer, why would I bother someone who isnt breaking the law? If Im not doing anything wrong and theyre not doing anything wrong, what right do I have to go over there and harass "some goof with a camera trying to play Jimmy Olson, Cub Reporter"?

Again, I take offense to the stance you take with this. You say that I was "drawing attention to myself" when all I was trying to do was take some pictures...

You have the right to shoot what you want under the conditions. Police have the right to set up a crime scene and limit your access. They also have the power to say you were making their job difficult or you were hampering their investigation so they asked you to move. Arguing with an officer, especially one who wants to get his way, is a waste of time and gives them more reason to hassle you. Your best bet is to politely say I am a photographer within my rights to shoot I am not trying to interfere. If they tell you that you can't ask them if they are giving you direct order to leave and must you comply by law. If they say yes comply. Later file an official complaint and be sure to write a letter to their supervisors. Under those conditions the ball is in your court and the next time they encounter a photographer they may remember and not want the hassle again. If you argue, pull out bills of rights, or make a scene they can simply arrest you for disorderly conduct. They say it was a active scene, they had a concern(they can make up anything like they were afraid you were distracted and might get hit by a car), asked you to move and you refused so they arrested you. They win every time in that case and a judge will likely side with them. If you talk to their supervisors like a calm reasonable person, explain you were doing nothing and the cop was on a power trip and out of line, the cop will be likely told they were in the wrong even if their boss is on their side.

Always report it, always be professional and reasonable.

As far as the bleeding heart arguments of what is "okay" and what is not okay to shoot that is a personal issue. I say life is real, shoot everything and don't self sensor yourself based on emotion. That doesn't mean post a picture that causes harm or sadness to someone but you have a right to shoot what you want.

[FlyingPhotog]

That's exactly what I was saying in my previous post. The police have the power, if you can remain calm and read the situation you will probably be OK. They can and do arrest people in similar situations for interfering with an investigation, failure to move on, etc. My attorney friend has some hair raising stories where things got out of hand. IMO it is not worth getting "the treatment" from a pissed off cop for a picture. Don't for a second believe just because you may be right that you are safe.

Especially if you aren't being paid for your efforts, aren't on deadline and aren't being expected to deliver images in order to feed your family.

[SlowBlink]

Standing across the street on your own property isn't interference. The police can arrest you but they still have to submit to the court for a recommendation of charges to be laid.

Letting anyone get away with intimidation is a bad idea, no matter what position they hold.

[WaltA]

Letting anyone get away with intimidation is a bad idea, no matter what position they hold.

Try telling that to US border guards. I have to cross more than once a week here and have leaned to just put my head down and say "Yes Sir".

Maybe I'm just a subservient Canadian but .... sometimes you have to pick your battles.

[fxk]

its funny that you throw your bleeding heart comment out as freely as you did..

where i come from, that is excaly what you are.

now, if you clarified yourself in the first place. you wouldnt have had " bleeding hearts" jumping down your throaght over a taste issue. when you mention minors.. some people just have it in them to want to protect children.

when its just a couple of goons robbing a truck.. throw those punks under the bus.. who cares about their privacy. it should be your right to post their pictures all over the city so people can put a face to the crime that happensn their neighborhood.

but as a mother. i wouldnt stand for someone taking pictures of my kid so they could post it on their website or whatever.

just because you can doesnt always mean you should.

Ah... Wandering down that road of Situational Ethics...:rolleyes:

[shannyD]

Ah... Wandering down that road of Situational Ethics...:rolleyes:
indeed.

[Stickman]

I suppose the short part of the question is....

Is it illegal to photograph an active crime scene on public property?
Is it illegal to photograph an active crime scene on public property if a juvenile is involved?

Thanks for the help.


The short question is actually whether or not you can be arrested for a charge similar to obstruction of justice, and there isn't enough information available to you for you to know that.

You may have caught an officer in a bad mood, or you could have caught an officer at a dangerous time. You've got no way of knowing, and neither does anyone else here unless they were involved as one of the cops.

[Glenn NK]

just because you can doesnt always mean you should.

And this is the crux of the situation which many don't recognize or care about.

[gjl711]

And this is the crux of the situation which many don't recognize or care about.No, not really, this might be the crux in your eyes, but not everyone is you. Others might see things differently.

[rhodesx6]

I agree, I took offense as well. But that subsided rather quickley.

I know cops get a bit over protective when it is a serious injury or death. But again the incident does not make them Overlords.

It just comes down to them not knowing the law either. They prefer to err on the conservative side, While we side with taking the shots.

Research the law as it applies in your jurisdiction. This way you can quote the law to them as they harass you. It usually sends them away.




I seriously doubt the rest of the world even cares or knows if we have this right or not. Then again, maybe this is why the Talaban was so worked up..... Mmmmm

Are you serious??? My point is not that the rest of the world knows what rights we have, it's that we thinnk we have every right." I can do whatever I want I'm an American" and the #2 answer is.....you guessed it, I'll sue.

[nicksan]

No it's not illegal to photograph an active crime scene on public property as long as you aren't interfering with police activity.

If it's a question of legality, then you were right, the officer was wrong.

And if you believe that much about your rights, then by all means, next time around, confront the officer, pull out a printout of your rights. I am sure you'll get

"Oh, I am sorry sir. You are right. I was violating your rights. Here...come over here and you can get a closeup shot of this man who just robbed your neighbor's house".

Just make sure you have another photographer there to shoot that scene and post them here.

Personally, I usually listen the cops, right or wrong...rather than be some pain in the rear trying to get some quick shots of the perp...

Hey, I am all for photographer's rights, but sometime I feel like photographers are the whiniest bunch out there...rights this, rights that..waaaaaaaaaa.

But again, stand up for your rights next time. Maybe they will confiscate your camera, erase your CF card...them maybe you'll sue the cops/city...and live off someone else's dime.

There's a time and place for everything...and the problems is a lot of photogs out there feel like it's their god given right to be there and capture it.

Hey, go for it...

[Grinch232]

Being on both side of this topic I can say that I as a police officer have never told a photographer who is in a public place to get lost or stop taking pictures. If for some reason the issue at hand was that sensitive that I or a supervisor did not want pictures of the scene I would simply make my crime scene bigger to push people back farther. I can remember one scene were a 16 yr old gang banger kid got shot and killed on someones front lawn (they found him there in the AM leaving for work). To avoid pics of the kids dead on a lawn we simply taped off the street to the corner with crime scene tape. Now no one had a view of the actual scene. I guess the the residents could see it but if they came out front we could technically tell them to go back in as we have made the street and nearby yards a crime scene.

I as a photographer feel you should be able to shoot whatever you want from public places. There are systems in place, like I described, that address these needs. I am also fortunate to have met very few pushy media photogs. Most of them understand that working with us and being patience normally works out best for them and they do get something the send for print.

As for the power hungry cops that people seem to come accross from time to time... they do give the rest of us decent people just working a job a bad name. Just my thoughts..

[chauncey]

You may not have met many pushy photogs, but how many with testerone induced wisdom/attitude of youngsters with a camera?

[Southswede]

I came home tonight to find about 5 police cars and one broke car right in front of my house.

I immediately went and grabbed my camera to start taking pictures. It didnt take long for an officer to come over and ask me "what am I doing" (I hate that. What do you think Im doing? Ive got a camera, Im pointing it, Its clicking...What do you seriously think doing!? /rant).

I tell them Im taking pictures and they ask me what Im doing here (and remember...I just pulled up to my house in my car. These are some really observant cops...). I told them I live on the street. They said, "you live at this house?", to which I said no and I pointed across the street and said I live over there. The officer said, "well you better go over there" to which I told her that was fine and that I would be over there taking pictures.

After I go to my own yard and start taking pictures, another officer comes over and asks me again "what are you doing". I tell him that Im taking pictures and he tells me, "no youre not. youre this close to me taking your film". So I go on to ask him why and he says because there is an ongoing investigation and I say that Im on my own private property taking pictures of events occuring on public property. He again tells me hes gonna have to take my "film" and then tells me I cant take pictures because there is a juvenile involved.

I suppose the short part of the question is....

Is it illegal to photograph an active crime scene on public property?
Is it illegal to photograph an active crime scene on public property if a juvenile is involved?

Thanks for the help.

Being a cop, I just have one question for you: Exactly where do other peoples rights end and your rights begin?

[FlyingPhotog]

Being on both side of this topic I can say that I as a police officer have never told a photographer who is in a public place to get lost or stop taking pictures. If for some reason the issue at hand was that sensitive that I or a supervisor did not want pictures of the scene I would simply make my crime scene bigger to push people back farther. I can remember one scene were a 16 yr old gang banger kid got shot and killed on someones front lawn (they found him there in the AM leaving for work). To avoid pics of the kids dead on a lawn we simply taped off the street to the corner with crime scene tape. Now no one had a view of the actual scene. I guess the the residents could see it but if they came out front we could technically tell them to go back in as we have made the street and nearby yards a crime scene.

I as a photographer feel you should be able to shoot whatever you want from public places. There are systems in place, like I described, that address these needs. I am also fortunate to have met very few pushy media photogs. Most of them understand that working with us and being patience normally works out best for them and they do get something the send for print.

As for the power hungry cops that people seem to come accross from time to time... they do give the rest of us decent people just working a job a bad name. Just my thoughts..

Very well said all around...

Thanks for hanging it out there...

[Southswede]

The short question is actually whether or not you can be arrested for a charge similar to obstruction of justice, and there isn't enough information available to you for you to know that.

You may have caught an officer in a bad mood, or you could have caught an officer at a dangerous time. You've got no way of knowing, and neither does anyone else here unless they were involved as one of the cops.

Now Stick, stop making sense!

By the way, how are things up on the Pacific?

[angela6571]

Wow.

Between so many people going off topic with moral discussions and other people saying that if I stand up for my rights Ill get arrested, Ive almost forgot what I posted to begin with!

Does anyone bother to actually read the topic? I didnt want to know where everyone morally stands on this issue NOR did I want to know if I should have fought back against the officer(s). I simply asked about the legality of the situation and all but a select few have actually bothered to answer the question in any real capacity.

Thank you for those that did help.

[shannyD]

yes its legal.. everyone has said that... or did you not bother to read it?

[gjl711]

The legality is easy to answer and it was within the very few posts. Now the morality or the cops overstepping their bounds is a fun topic to debate. ;)

This topic could have really gone off topic and we could start discussing favorite pizza toppings. ;):)

[DocFrankenstein]

its funny that you throw your bleeding heart comment out as freely as you did..

where i come from, that is excaly what you are.

now, if you clarified yourself in the first place. you wouldnt have had " bleeding hearts" jumping down your throaght over a taste issue. when you mention minors.. some people just have it in them to want to protect children.

when its just a couple of goons robbing a truck.. throw those punks under the bus.. who cares about their privacy. it should be your right to post their pictures all over the city so people can put a face to the crime that happensn their neighborhood.

but as a mother. i wouldnt stand for someone taking pictures of my kid so they could post it on their website or whatever.

just because you can doesnt always mean you should.
The cops are not the ones to decide. If there's a minor, you can't divulge his identity, but it doesn't stop you from taking his pictures. If anything, the parents of the kid can sue you later. Or the crown can sue you for interference with investigation...

Bottom line - as long as you're not behind the tape or in between the LEO and the criminal, they shouldn't stop you from taking pictures.

[PhotoJourno]

Ok, I have been through this quite a few times. (No it does not make me an expert, but I have had to do my homework before risking ending up on the wrong side of the bars).

Enough has been said about this particular situation, but here are the Things I have learned:

- Fact Number One: Police Officers are not trained in Press Rights or Information. (What they do have is an ongoing situation, and it is their job/duty to keep it clear and clean, I'd rather kick out a hundred photogs than to have my Lt. ask me "what the hell are those newsies doing here?"). Fact Number Two: This is the toughest one to swallow. Despite the Police Officers not understanding this particular bit of laws, they still hold the authority. So we do as they request. Never say NO to a cop. Say yes, and ask follow up questions.

Now onto the bits of legal consequence:

- Yes it is legal to photograph from Public Property. Except with the following:
* You have been prohibited from taking photos (I will explain how to avoid this later).
* When the individual is: Inside a Police Car, or in an ambulance's stretcher. Why? Because the subjects are subject to public laws until they enter those premises. After that, they are entitled their own privacy (Source: Photojournalism, by Kenneth Kobre, Instructional Manual) because they are no longer considered to be in public property, but in care of /in private property.

Checklist for this sort of Photography:

- Announce Yourself "Hello, I am here to take a few photographs and I will be out of here". Say your name out loud, and shake hands. You need to know how a cop thinks in order to give him control of the situation, so that he can help you.

- If anyone asks what you are doing, you simply reply with a nice greeting, shake hands, and ask to continue your job.

- If denied to continue your job, you excuse yourself, and explain that you have a hard time seeing the non existant yellow tape line. These lines cordon off the public access areas, whether you are press or not. If there is a dead body on a car on fire, this is the only way to keep you out, short of grabbing you by the arm and wanting to arrest you.

- If there is no yellow tape, and the officer is adamant about you leaving the area, simply put your camera down (hang it on your shoulder), and tell the Police Officer "When will your PIO be arriving?" (Public Information Officer, the Press cop, spokesman, etc). It obviously helps to know the PIO, even if just stop by the local PD and sheriff's office and chatting for a bit. Then you can say "I will stand right here until Sgt Ross gets here... Has anyone radioed him yet?". [EDIT] In the case of no PIO in the horizon, there is always a SGT or Shift Supervisor who is usually present, or inbound. Wait for them, and simply ask politely why you are being denied access to photograph. If they have no time, or -say- it is a vehicle accident, mess of cars, simply call him by name and say "Sgt. XXXXX, I will get out of here, let you do your job, and I WILL contact you tomorrow at the PD". Go home. Next day you call and ask to come in to talk. He is very likely to be polite, and explain why they did not want you there. Perhaps the meth lab they were busting was fuming, which would have been dangerous for anyone in the area. Perhaps they were attempting to aprehend a 579 hubby with a mini 14 in some backyard. You never know.

- If the Police Officer becomes aggravated, and pointing at you with an index finger (which is not a gun because it is illegal, but he is thinking about it ;) ), then you put your camera in your shoulder, you remember his name, and retire from the event.

Want to burn bridges?... File a Complaint Form. BY LAW EVERY PD and SO must make available a Complaint Form at their main office.

Want to gain access and trust?... Go by the PD the next day, and ask for the Public Info Officer, or their Community Resources Officer. Ask them for a moment of their time, and explain the problem you had come across with, with names, locations, and the exact verbage used by the officers. Explain clearly and with as few words as possible that you were in fact in public property, that there was no contact for press or public, and that an Officer xxxxx doing a great job, prohibited you to photograph or be arrested.

Simply state you would like to take some general photos for your craft as a photographer, but that however you need THEIR HELP, in order to know IF there is a restricted area, and WHY it is not appropriate to take photos.

With exception of a city like NY, or CHI, even San Francisco will give you a bit of a Break, and start making things easier for you.

I have been wanting a section of these forums for Press, so that these topics could be discussed, but so far I am not sure many people are game. I can live with that. :)

And if nothing else sticks, please remember this: QUESTIONING AN OFFICER IS AN ANNOYANCE, BUT DISOBEYING HIM MAKES YOU BREAK THE LAW, AND YOU LOSE ANY AND ALL SHELTER FROM IT.

[FlyingPhotog]

^^^^^^ Excellent Read...

[nicksan]

Yes, I agree...that would be pure fantasy in NY as he put it!:lol:
I say, let's leave cops alone so they can deal with crimes etc...and not have to deal with P.I.A. photographers.

[Bob_A]

The legality is easy to answer and it was within the very few posts. Now the morality or the cops overstepping their bounds is a fun topic to debate. ;)

This topic could have really gone off topic and we could start discussing favorite pizza toppings. ;):)


I hear cops like pizza, and donuts too :) What do you think their favorites are?

Oh, and in case no one read the original post, the OP wasn't doing anything illegal. lol

[Glenn NK]

Ok, I have been through this quite a few times. (No it does not make me an expert, but I have had to do my homework before risking ending up on the wrong side of the bars).

Enough has been said about this particular situation, but here are the Things I have learned:

I won't copy the entire post by PhotoJourno, but a careful read of it seems that he makes a lot of sense. Perhaps this reply should be trotted out every time this topic comes up (it DOES come up regularly).

True most of us didn't give a straight answer to the OP, and we should have, rather than ramble on about morality (I'm also guilty) and spout our learned opinions. However this is the type of topic that WILL bring out the moralistic views; that's the nature of it.

Legality of the OP's position? - apparently no law was broken, but might I suggest that the posting by PhotoJourno illustrates that there is more to it that "being in the right".

Anyone that read all the posts of the the lengthy thread started by ACDCROCKS last July, would have gotten the sense that common sense isn't a bad thing to use on occasion.;)

"Full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes" mightn't be a good lifestyle motto.

[PhotoJourno]

He he.. Nelson Mandella was right !!!!
(Meaning nowadays being right does not earn you truth and freedom).

[rhodesx6]

Wow.

Between so many people going off topic with moral discussions and other people saying that if I stand up for my rights Ill get arrested, Ive almost forgot what I posted to begin with!

Does anyone bother to actually read the topic? I didnt want to know where everyone morally stands on this issue NOR did I want to know if I should have fought back against the officer(s). I simply asked about the legality of the situation and all but a select few have actually bothered to answer the question in any real capacity.

Thank you for those that did help.

Lucky for you it did go offtopic. It would take you all of 5 min to find out the answer to your own question on the net.

[SlowBlink]

Lucky for you it did go offtopic. It would take you all of 5 min to find out the answer to your own question on the net.
The same could be said for every question on this forum.

It's important to remember the police force is the same as any other municipal/state corporation. Walk into any company with 800 or 1000 employees and you'll find lazy/attitude/arrogant/sadistic/helpful/friendly/altruistic/empathetic/hard workers ..etc
Police are human and expecting them to all be helpful and brimming with integrity is naive.

I've never been asked to stop shooting but if I thought I was being harassed I'd just call 911. I'd make sure the officers name was mentioned for the tape and wait for a supervisor to take a statement.

[gkuenning]

In the States, minors involved in a crime as the victim are kept as anonymous... so they wouldn't want you taking photos of a child being removed from an abusive home, let's say.

That's only semi-correct. In the States, as in several other English-speaking countries that don't have privacy laws, it's customary for news media to shield certain people. That currently includes minors, both victims and accused criminals, and used to include (and in some places still includes) rape victims. However, this is only a custom, not a law, and the custom is often breached.

Some other countries have very different laws, and it would be illegal to photograph a person in this situation. But the incident took place under U.S. law. Debates about whether the U.S. law takes the correct position belong in an entirely different forum (i.e., probably not POTN). The same goes for debates about whether the police officer's job situation justifies violating the law.

The U.S. law itself is clear: if the incident is taking place on public property, and you're not obstructing or interfering with the cops' job, you can shoot to your heart's content. Even standing on your neighbor's lawn is OK, as long as the neighbor himself doesn't complain. The very fact that the officer took the time to have a conversation with you is pretty strong evidence that you weren't causing a problem.

But as others have said, unless you have a good reason or good legal backup, it's risky to argue with a person who has a badge and a gun. If you have to do so, staying calm and having backup such as a "Legal Rights" printout are probably good ideas.

[PhotoJourno]

The reason why a suspect will shield his face with a jacket while exiting a home accompanied by Law Enforcement on his way to be booked. Same reason why anyone can photograph anyone during their trial, provided they are not A-Arrested and under care of Law Enforcement, or B-Inside Private Property (Court Grounds, even then sometimes photographs are allowed in big public cases), is a semi-expectation of privacy, that does not hold under any law.

This is why the issue is so tricky. On one hand you have to be sensible about what you photograph, and in the other hand, other institutions want to do their job, ensuring other people's privacy and trying to give you space as well.

[gjl711]

...
* When the individual is: Inside a Police Car, or in an ambulance's stretcher. Why? Because the subjects are subject to public laws until they enter those premises. After that, they are entitled their own privacy (Source: Photojournalism, by Kenneth Kobre, Instructional Manual) because they are no longer considered to be in public property, but in care of /in private property....
I don't buy this one. The TV is filled with press reporters taking pictures of those arrested sitting in cop cars. Seems like every night someone is arrested and we see them sitting in the cop car.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.necn.com/files/2008/07/02/vlcsnap-113417.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.necn.com/Boston/Nation/Hedge-fund-swindler-Samuel-Israel-arrested-/1215031184.html&h=360&w=480&sz=13&hl=en&start=19&um=1&tbnid=myXREHF78vjIpM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Darrested%2Bphoto%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%2 6sa%3DN
http://aishamusic.wordpress.com/tag/locked-up/
http://www.jupiterimages.com/popup2.aspx?navigationSubType=itemdetails&itemID=23099322

[WaltA]

A lot of people have said that the answer to the OP is "No, it was not illegal".
But, if what PhotoJourno said is true we don't have enough info from the OP to answer the question. It does not say what was the subject of the photos?

If they were just a bunch of shots of police cars lining the street that is one thing. But, according to PhotoJourno if the subject of the photo was the individual inside the police car the answer might not be as clear.

[DocFrankenstein]

I don't buy this one. The TV is filled with press reporters taking pictures of those arrested sitting in cop cars. Seems like every night someone is arrested and we see them sitting in the cop car.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.necn.com/files/2008/07/02/vlcsnap-113417.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.necn.com/Boston/Nation/Hedge-fund-swindler-Samuel-Israel-arrested-/1215031184.html&h=360&w=480&sz=13&hl=en&start=19&um=1&tbnid=myXREHF78vjIpM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Darrested%2Bphoto%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%2 6sa%3DN
http://aishamusic.wordpress.com/tag/locked-up/
http://www.jupiterimages.com/popup2.aspx?navigationSubType=itemdetails&itemID=23099322
Celebs are considered national property and all of the pictures that go with them are editorial. A lot of stuff that you can do with celebs you can't do with "normal people's" pictures.

[nemopaice]

Their is no law that says you can't take pictures of a crime scene, as long as you are not interfering, and you are in a public area and the scene can be clearly seen from public space, period. The fact is, if their is some reason they want or need to keep photographers, or press, away, they will block off a large area to keep people out.

The worst case scenario, which I have seen and read about, is that they could arrest you on obstructing justice. Each case I have ever seen, however, the person arrested got off scott-free and in very few cases the photographer counter sued the police officer and station and won. Also keeping a copy of that photographersright pdf is a good idea.

[WaltA]

Their is no law that says you can't take pictures of a crime scene, as long as you are not interfering, period. The fact is, if their is some reason they want or need to keep photographers, or press, away, they will block off a large area to keep people out.



Wow, in an international forum like this, thats quite a statement - period.

I'm sure the laws are not the same everywhere - Zimbabwe, for example.

[nemopaice]

Wow, in an international forum like this, thats quite a statement - period.

I'm sure the laws are not the same everywhere - Zimbabwe, for example.

lol Well, I guess I assumed this person was referring to the USA, or another free country. I know that in USA, Cananda, most cases in Germany, Australia, and a fw other countries that I have been to, this is the case. I can't say for any third world country.

As far as Zimbabwe, not sure? But I do go to Africa every year for Clean water for the World (http://www.cleanwaterfortheworld.org/) events. and laws in Africa are a joke form what I've experienced. People getting gang raped by military and by militias. Whether or not I can take a picture over there is my least concern. I never been to Zimbabwe, but in Darfur and Uganda, that is the case.

[SlowBlink]

Zimbabwe Forum: A policeman just cut off my arm for taking a picture, can he do that?
Not really funny, but a little bit funny

[nemopaice]

Zimbabwe Forum: A policeman just cut off my arm for taking a picture, can he do that?
Not really funny, but a little bit funny
True not funny, but yea kind of.

[PhotoJourno]

I have a journalist story about something like this.

I was living in South America, and after not seeing some friends for a while, I went on a walk with Serge Pineau, a good friend of mine, and quite a France Presse Agencie rat (in the best of senses).

As we turned a corner by the pier areas of Buenos Aires, a Police Officer approached us, and demanded our Identifications. We rendered them, inquiring as to why we were being detained (by definition one is not truly free while someone else holds one's identification). He did not explain, but bluntly requested we 'accompany him to a nearby structure, across the boulevard.

We did -quite calm and thinking we were having a bit of adventure, as we had done nothing wrong- and met two other officers inside. They were also uniformed, and working on something. They had us waiting for a good 15 minutes, when I finally asked one of the other officers "Why is it that we were detained?"... He explained: "We have just confiscated a very large amount of drugs here in the area, and we need two witnesses for the counting and sealing of the evidence".

Gulp.

Now time was no longer flying by. Every second seemed longer, and longer, and we spent about 90 minutes there. I was hoping my friend Serge would not try any of his activist stuff -you know the french and rights- and get us in deeper trouble.

In the end, with 2 hrs detained inside this very small room in Puerto Madero, we were told that the commanding officer would not be arriving for another couple hours. An officer told another "We will get another two then", and motioned for us to go.

I did look back every other step of the way until I knew I could get some cover (just bad movies where they let you go and shoot you in the back he he). We walked away and moved on to our destination, and took some photos as well (man I do not miss Film days).

As an anecdote, I told this story to my father once I met up with him, explaining why we had been 3hs overall late that day. His eyes kept opening wider and wider. Turns out, that in some police districts, it was not uncommon to 'plant' witnesses as accomplices if the original crooks had gotten away, or shot in the process. He then explained why we were never taken to a police office, or given any specific explanation till the situation was over. He then hugged me -you'd know what this meant if you knew my harsh italian father- and told me I had possibly survived one of the most dangerous situations of my life.

So yes, laws are different in many places.

Photos? I have of that day earlier, and afterwords. I did not even become aware cameras existed during the incident. I was not even 20.

Two things you can count on: The isolation of any incident is more common sense than international law (whether by placing an armed guard, an officer, or some yellow caution tape), and those who have the power are in control (no ifs or buts about it, here in in Zimbawe, defying this inherent authority -whether it be right or wrong, abusive or not- is simply an extreme lack of self-preservation instinct and overall common sense).

Sorry to bore you all with the story.:oops:

[BillMarks]

I came home tonight to find about 5 police cars and one broke car right in front of my house.

I immediately went and grabbed my camera to start taking pictures. It didnt take long for an officer to come over and ask me "what am I doing" (I hate that. What do you think Im doing? Ive got a camera, Im pointing it, Its clicking...What do you seriously think doing!? /rant).

I tell them Im taking pictures and they ask me what Im doing here (and remember...I just pulled up to my house in my car. These are some really observant cops...). I told them I live on the street. They said, "you live at this house?", to which I said no and I pointed across the street and said I live over there. The officer said, "well you better go over there" to which I told her that was fine and that I would be over there taking pictures.

After I go to my own yard and start taking pictures, another officer comes over and asks me again "what are you doing". I tell him that Im taking pictures and he tells me, "no youre not. youre this close to me taking your film". So I go on to ask him why and he says because there is an ongoing investigation and I say that Im on my own private property taking pictures of events occuring on public property. He again tells me hes gonna have to take my "film" and then tells me I cant take pictures because there is a juvenile involved.

I suppose the short part of the question is....

Is it illegal to photograph an active crime scene on public property?
Is it illegal to photograph an active crime scene on public property if a juvenile is involved?

Thanks for the help.

The short part of the answer (at least in most of the US) is--It is illegal to disobey a police officer. Even in the case where the police officer is infringing on your rights, failure to obey him/her is a crime.

Of course, one can come up with rediculous examples such as a police officer ordering you to kill someone. Sure, disobey him/her on that one. It's still a crime, but I'm sure a judge would let you off.

But around crime/accident scenes, POLICE MAKE THE RULES. If one orders you to direct traffic around a crime or accident scene and you refuse, you can be arrested. You were within your right to photograph the scene until the cops told you not to.

[nemopaice]

. . . here in in Zimbawe, defying this inherent authority -whether it be right or wrong, abusive or not- is simply an extreme lack of self-preservation instinct and overall common sense).

Sorry to bore you all with the story.:oops:
This is absolutely true from my experience in other parts of Africa. And that wa my previous point.

BTW, great story. Sounds like you really got lucky.
Great story

[nemopaice]

The short part of the answer (at least in most of the US) is--It is illegal to disobey a police officer. Even in the case where the police officer is infringing on your rights, failure to obey him/her is a crime.

Of course, one can come up with rediculous examples such as a police officer ordering you to kill someone. Sure, disobey him/her on that one. It's still a crime, but I'm sure a judge would let you off.

But around crime/accident scenes, POLICE MAKE THE RULES. If one orders you to direct traffic around a crime or accident scene and you refuse, you can be arrested. You were within your right to photograph the scene until the cops told you not to.

While I agree to the majority of this, at one point this person was on their own property. In no way hindering the police investigation. Like I said before, If the cop wanted to be a jerk, he could try and arrest this person, but in the long run the cop would be paying for it. Even a cop in the US (as you stated..US) cannot infringe on your constitutional rights. The police here are not above the law. Police do not make the rules around crime scenes, they have to follow procedures that are set up for them. Procedures are given to their supperiors to be passed down to them. The beginning of the chain of command does not start at the Police level either, It starts at the state level, then the county, then the local.

I know of one incident in a small town in NC where the police were abusing their authority, so the town voted the local police out all together, raised taxes (it was voted in) and hired the county police to take over patrols of that area.

But also I agree with part of your statement. and it depends on the situation. On another note though I will say that, You should always do as told by the police. If you have a compliant, you can always take it up with their superiors later.

[PhotoJourno]

While I agree to the majority of this, at one point this person was on their own property. In no way hindering the police investigation. Like I said before, If the cop wanted to be a jerk, he could try and arrest this person, but in the long run the cop would be paying for it. Even a cop in the US (as you stated..US) cannot infringe on your constitutional rights. The police here are not above the law.

But also I agree with part of your statement. and it depends on the situation.


Actually failing to comply with an instruction from a LEO (Law Enf Off) constitutes a disturbance, and the officer does not need to do much to prove that by your presence alone, he was kept from doing his duty -interfering is the legal word-, as he had to 'go out of his way' to talk to you. You find someone with enough time in their hands, you'll end up with some sort of problem.

Favorite line is from Fletch 2, when Chase gets arrested:

"But... What are the charges?"
Sheriff replies ".. Pissing me off!"

[nemopaice]

Actually failing to comply with an instruction from a LEO (Law Enf Off) constitutes a disturbance, and the officer does not need to do much to prove that by your presence alone, he was kept from doing his duty -interfering is the legal word-, as he had to 'go out of his way' to talk to you. You find someone with enough time in their hands, you'll end up with some sort of problem.

Favorite line is from Fletch 2, when Chase gets arrested:

"But... What are the charges?"
Sheriff replies ".. Pissing me off!"

Just the fact that he had to go out of his way to come over shows there was no interference. But like I said, this is when you either do as told, and file a complaint. or let him arrest you, most of the time they most likely won't, but if they do you take it to court.

But yes, you are supposed to comply with law enforcement. But it's still your legal right to photograph. That's why you should just comply and file a complaint. Also, It might be a good idea to call around to the police department, and mayors office (or what ever department is in charge of your are if not in the US), and simply ask what your rights are pertaining to photography in your area.

Don't just rely on the police though, because they don't know everything. Here in Ohio, the BMV sells license plate holders that block the county name. This has been on the news around here. The police are ticketing people for them. They say you can not have them blocking the county name. Yet the state says the only thing that has to show is the plate number and expiration date stickers. Now the State BMV are the ones that set the laws pertaining to what has to show. Not the police. The police are wrong. The news broadcast also interviewed chief of police. The chief said that the cops issuing those tickets are in the wrong, they know about it and have been told before, etc etc. So like I said, they don't know everything.

[DocFrankenstein]

The short part of the answer (at least in most of the US) is--It is illegal to disobey a police officer. Even in the case where the police officer is infringing on your rights, failure to obey him/her is a crime.

Of course, one can come up with rediculous examples such as a police officer ordering you to kill someone. Sure, disobey him/her on that one. It's still a crime, but I'm sure a judge would let you off.

But around crime/accident scenes, POLICE MAKE THE RULES. If one orders you to direct traffic around a crime or accident scene and you refuse, you can be arrested. You were within your right to photograph the scene until the cops told you not to.
I am not sure how true it is in the US, but in canada it definitely doesn't work that way. I suspect in US it doesn't either.

A LEO can't compel you to break a law. I've seen with my own eyes. We were going to the range and my friend was carrying some restricted firearms. The LEO told him to open the case for inspection and my friend refused. They can't be opened on the street - only at his house or the shooting range, and the LEO can't make him break the law. He did say that if the officer insists on seeing the firearms, he's welcome to follow us to the range (a 1.5 hour drive) and inspect them there.

The LEO wasn't happy, but couldn't do anything.

[old cholo]

it tickles me- why is it that nobody EVER gets a mugging or a drive-by on film? jmho

[PhotoJourno]

Here is a great example to the response of "Well, I see photos of people inside Police Cruisers all the time".

The person who filmed this footage was in no seemingly position to break the law. Nor was the TV station who aired the footage. We see this sort of thing thousands of times -as someone said above- mostly with Celebrities or unknowns.

Turns out this person is herself a member of the media, so she pushed the laws to her own protection (expectation of privacy) and will likely make a good retirement fund out of a photographer (Videographers, we're cousins really) who just thought "Bah, everyone does it".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377907,00.html

[gjl711]

...Turns out this person is herself a member of the media, so she pushed the laws to her own protection (expectation of privacy) and will likely make a good retirement fund out of a photographer (Videographers, we're cousins really) who just thought "Bah, everyone does it".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377907,00.html
It will be interesting to see where this one goes. It’s happening right in my own back yard and the case is way more complex than the article is making out. Seems she was um… hot tubing with the suspected killer and got caught. I can see hot tubing being a place where privacy is expected, but a cop car?

[fxk]

The short part of the answer (at least in most of the US) is--It is illegal to disobey a police officer. Even in the case where the police officer is infringing on your rights, failure to obey him/her is a crime.



Ummm... I think the charge would be failure to follow a lawful order. However, if the order conflicts with a Constitutional God-given right (not legislature given right...) then the order given was not lawful in the first place.

Now that the photographer has "set the cop straight", and is sitting in the back of the patrol car (illegal arrest), the fun can start.

Just hope your job is not dependent on you not being arrested - funny, employers think arrest, not litigation of false arrest. So if you are dismissed (improperly) due to a false arrest (providing you win your lengthly, protracted court case), and you still have a place to hang your hat, then you can go after the employer for being discharged without cause. That should chew up about 10 years or so of your life, but...

The moral: in a situation like this, even if the cop is dead wrong, they cannot back down. A photographer can argue all they want, but eventually they will lose.

Instead, get the badge number and name, and file a complaint. Ask to sit in with the cop when he (she) is forced to go through training, that is after a reprimand on their record, and an apology (from the chief...)

Bill, the police rights are not absolute in any situation. They may win the battle, but ultimately will lose the war. Threatening the populace with inflated versions of police powers just causes additional distrust of the police in general. A force not trusted by the people they are sworn to protect cannot be effective.

I do not believe anyone would really like to take a scientific poll as to the attitude of the citizenry towards police. I don't think it would be pretty.

[RowdyReptile]

Maybe this is why so much of the world looks down on the U.S. or similar countries, because it's my "right"to take pictures of others misfortune. Legally may be different but it is not your right to photograph someone elses misfortune. To photo a child that had just been molested or someone who had just been beaten down. Personally i don't think you are going to get your "life changing" photo from a crime scene. I never have read how Ansel Adams or any other photog waited to snap a pic of the local police helping mema up after getting her purse snatched.

I work in an metro area on an ambulance and have not thought many times ......you know I think I would like to get a pic of this. Seriously, you have to be kidding. You obviously haven't had anything happen to you or someone you love that you did not want some knucklehead taking a picture of.

I think they are running a special on park passes right now, go get one and go get some real pictures. Oh and I know it is your "right" to not like this and I am okay with that. I fought for your rights!OOHRAH!!

As a counterpoint, I present the world-famous photo by Nick Ut of a young girl running from a napalm attack. It's a tragic scene involving the ultimate taboo: a naked child. By all accounts in this thread, it's a photo that shouldn't have been taken. However, it won a Pulitzer prize and became an important piece of photographic history.

http://212.126.144.55/1024/html/napalm1972.htm

[DocFrankenstein]

it tickles me- why is it that nobody EVER gets a mugging or a drive-by on film? jmho
I saw one here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HGfAQuO42w).

Some F words are used, and mildly graphic content.

[PhotoJourno]

I saw one here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HGfAQuO42w).

Some F words are used, and mildly graphic content.

And for the record, the guy that looks like me, who may sound a bit like me, and is driving the same model of car I have, is just a coincidence.

I just wanted to throw this out there, just in case.

:p

PS: In all seriousness, this seems to have been real (http://www.vivecoolcity.com/index.php?ID=100)

[SlowBlink]

I guess if you're a PJ you never know when that pivotal shot is going to be that marks a time in history. Myself I'd rather not have the Pulitzer than have those images in my mind for the rest of my life. Looking at the images is hard enough. Being there and getting the surrounding dynamics must be why a few of them drink a little to much.

[PhotoJourno]

I guess if you're a PJ you never know when that pivotal shot is going to be that marks a time in history. Myself I'd rather not have the Pulitzer than have those images in my mind for the rest of my life. Looking at the images is hard enough. Being there and getting the surrounding dynamics must be why a few of them drink a little to much.


Yep. Everyone wants the glory without the price. There is a price, and it is not all fun.

The photo used in that book's cover below, is from a PJ who had first dibs at a building on fire, where thousands were being evacuated. He was atop the tower when a plane hit the second tower, in 2001.

Wanna get the best photos? Get in line, be ready to pay the price.

Personally, I like to explore all safety guidelines, and operate within those. Though I cannot stop human tragedy and it is my job to document it, if I am going to kick the bucket it will be helping someone else, not trying to make cover photos. (And I am somehow sure the man from the photo above was that sort of person, snapping a pic here, helping someone there).

http://talks.blogs.com/phototalk/images/KenKobrePhotoJournalism.jpg

[<AkulA>]

Wow, I've had that book on my desk for a long time, and I guess I missed the story behind the cover.

From the inside cover:
"This photograph is a moving tribute to the courage of Bill Biggart, a photojournalist who was killed while photographing the World Trade Center as it collapsed following terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Tom McKitterick, who took the still life of what was left of Biggart's equipment, was not only the slain photographer's colleague but his close friend. The photograph symbolizes the courage of the man and is a reminder of the dangers many photojournalists around the world face on a daily basis."

[PhotoJourno]

Wow, I've had that book on my desk for a long time, and I guess I missed the story behind the cover.

From the inside cover:
"This photograph is a moving tribute to the courage of Bill Biggart, a photojournalist who was killed while photographing the World Trade Center as it collapsed following terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Tom McKitterick, who took the still life of what was left of Biggart's equipment, was not only the slain photographer's colleague but his close friend. The photograph symbolizes the courage of the man and is a reminder of the dangers many photojournalists around the world face on a daily basis."

Holy crap, huh.. that photo teaches me a lot about respect. Thanks for posting the description.

[<AkulA>]

It sure does... I've noticed that too - that when I'm behind the camera, I almost feel invincible. This photo might reign that feeling in next time I'm running toward gunshots, or sprinting across streets to accidents and such, lol.

[BillMarks]

While I agree to the majority of this, at one point this person was on their own property. In no way hindering the police investigation. Like I said before, If the cop wanted to be a jerk, he could try and arrest this person, but in the long run the cop would be paying for it. Even a cop in the US (as you stated..US) cannot infringe on your constitutional rights. The police here are not above the law. Police do not make the rules around crime scenes, they have to follow procedures that are set up for them. Procedures are given to their supperiors to be passed down to them. The beginning of the chain of command does not start at the Police level either, It starts at the state level, then the county, then the local.

I know of one incident in a small town in NC where the police were abusing their authority, so the town voted the local police out all together, raised taxes (it was voted in) and hired the county police to take over patrols of that area.

But also I agree with part of your statement. and it depends on the situation. On another note though I will say that, You should always do as told by the police. If you have a compliant, you can always take it up with their superiors later.

You have to understand that a crime or accident scene is a special case in terms of civil and constitutional rights. You might well be what you consider to be out of the way and not interfering. But it is the officer on the scene who gets to determine that--not you. One could sue the officer if one felt their rights were unjustifiably denied. But judges have a tendency to accept an officer's word that what they did (to you) was necessary given the circumstances--circumstances you are not likely to fully know.

Does this authority get abused--yes. But unless some officer grossly denies someone their rights the courts are not going to want to waste the time to slap the wrist of a cop who kept some dude from taking pictures...

[DocFrankenstein]

http://talks.blogs.com/phototalk/images/KenKobrePhotoJournalism.jpg
Is that a real picture?

What camera and what lens is that... is my first question then.

[<AkulA>]

Oh yes, it's absolutely a real picture... Looking closer at the cover - it's a Canon D30. The lens is unrecognizable as the glass and front plastic cover is completely destroyed.

[tnrsxs]

saw this today - and made me think of this thread

http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/man_arrested_for_unlawful_photography/11576/

[gjl711]

saw this today - and made me think of this thread

http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/man_arrested_for_unlawful_photography/11576/ It will be interesting to see this one play out, but I'm guessing that the charges will be dropped way before it heads to court.

[Ridebmx]

Is that a real picture?

What camera and what lens is that... is my first question then.

this picture almost made me cry, no homo :)

pretty awesome story about it, and its awesome to see he used a canon, that still looks like all it needs is a wash and new lens :confused: