Can I be arrested for this?????

Sumodog and EcoRick, good job getting back on track.

I have deleted posts that were wandering off topic and/or into politics.

Do you have any ideas on what to do about the traffic problem in the area? There is only so much the local officials can do. If the drivers are going faster than the conditions allow, the problem is with the drivers. Maybe more enforcement of speed limits? Traffic calming is a tricky thing, putting unwarranted traffic control devices is not a good thing, the people ignore warranted signs, signals, etc. Speed humps are an option, but most people hate those things in their neighborhood. Good luck on finding a solution to the traffic problem.

Mike R wrote in post #6049089
Keep all your records, including a list of dates and times of meetings and who you spoke with. Then when a car slams into your house, you go after the town for damages because they knew there was a problem and failed to take corrective action, even something simple as more frequent patrols/radar on the street.

I think Mike makes a very good point here. A city was held liable for a dog bite becuse they had several complaints about the dogs and never reacted.

Hmmm maybe get the news papers involved

An interesting follow up to my story. The accident occured on the same day as a Village Board meeting. The incident was reported by the chief and a trustee questioned him as to how many accidents have occured in that area. The chief said only 2 (including the one that started the post) in the past 18 months. I have pictures of 5 and I'm not home that often. I'm forwarding the pictures I have to all the board members and the Chief will have to learn to keep better records.

The chief is, in legal phraseology, a prevaricator. Records have nothing to do with it.

You should be able to stay far enough away with the 70-200.

I think the answer to this thread is "yes, you can be arrested"

Might not be legal, but you can.

Not exactly related but still relevant. There a few videos on youtube that were eyeopeners for me about dealing with cops. I do respect them and I understand they are just doing their jobs. But please have a look.

"Don't talk to cops"
http://www.youtube.com …z7NC5sgik&featu​re=related
http://www.youtube.com …fZQWjDVKE&featu​re=related

"Busted"
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

BillMarks wrote in post #6052567
This is absolutely not true given the situation described by the OP. When police arrive at the scene of a crime or accident they make the law for that scene. If they tell you to leave and you don't they can arrest you. If they tell you to stay and you try to leave they can arrest you. If they tell you to stop taking pictures and you don't, they can arrest you.

You can try to sue, later, for what you think are infringements on your rights. But judges understand the special circumstances of crime and accident scenes.

I'm sorry Bill, but the first part of your statement, "they make the law for that scene" is completely wrong. No officer of the law (here in the US at least) has any authority what so ever to "make the law" for any given situation or crime scene. Only local and federal governments can "make the laws". The only thing that a cop can do legally is to enforce existing laws.

I wanted to address that statement because unfortunately that's the problem in many cases such as this...the cops think they CAN make the law and has already been stated, right or wrong, it's very difficult to fight. In most cities, most cops actually do their job pretty well, BUT the sad truth of the matter is that there are individual's who think that because they are cops, think they are above the law. Cops are people too and sometimes they do just have bad days and they do certainly make mistakes (of course getting them to own up to that is a different issue), but there are some who genuinely do NOT deserve the right to wear the uniform.

I would also add that "ideally" judges understand the events of a crime or accident scene, but realistically, judges can very often be quite bias when it comes to cases against cops and I think that history has proven MANY times over that a great many judges will rule in favor of a cop simply because that person IS a cop...often regardless of evidence. I know this is a bit subjective, but my honest experience is that quite often "judges" are just an extension of what I said before in that "cops protect other cops".

Since I wasn't there and didn't see exactly what had happened, I can't say "for sure" but based on what I've heard (err...read), I do think that the OP was within his legal rights as protected by the US Constitution. -IF- the OP was not interfering with the situation, then he did have the legal right to take pictures regardless of the cops "opinion". If this were not the case, you wouldn't have photojournalism in the first place...newpapers, television stations, etc., wouldn't be able to record the events that they do in this country. It's as simple as that.

Regardless of all of this, very simply no cop has the right, legal or otherwise to "make the law".

I don't know if this was just a poor choice of words on your part but in consideration of the OP's original question, I really felt that needed to be clarified.

Peace,
Jim