Legalities of photographing a car accident?

[prodigy2k7]

The US sucks and we all know it

 

[table1349]

People do care.... The problem is the system doesn't work in their favor. Unless you have the time, resources, and money it is not easy (like news and media agencies). We can discuss all we want just as long as those that were confronted by law enforcement under such circumstances are not blamed for "not standing up for their rights" (like in another thread).

btw.... what we are discussing here has nothing to do with Fascism. It is a term that is tough enough to define much less throw around. Perhaps you meant something along the lines of a "military state" or "police state".



Interesting tactic Gryph...
The frequency of these types of threads must be a bit disconcerting... unfortunately...


respectfully distrust...

It wasn't a tactic, it was a fact. When you do a job like this any good officer comes to an early realization that every case gets the same amount of attention when it comes to an investigation, be it a homicide or a fender bender. Obviously the homicide has more things to give your attention too and that may mean that it takes longer than the fender bender, they by nature the homicide will be more time consuming and detailed, but you give your full attention to all of the things that need investigating either way. One of the things that you also learn is that the first interview is almost always the best interview. You want untainted witnesses, victims, etc. Again, it doesn't matter if it is a homicide or a fender bender.

The lawyer here was out there trying to get their story as to what happened to assess the potential for a law suite. He was in the middle of the street, in the middle of the scene disturbing the debris pattern just to make a buck. In photographic terms he was a paparazzi. He was getting, or at least trying to get from the victims a story of what occurred. That makes him a witness at that point. He should have known that. I say he should have, as he has since been disbarred. He still owns the law firm but he can not practice law. And they are still ambulance chasers.

One of the things I probably should have explained was the elderly victims here had been traveling down a busy 4 lane street when the local electric utility company's truck turned into their property. It was towing a 4 wheel trailer designed to carry long wooden power poles. It was. The trailer came loose during the turn and the trailer with an extended power pole continued down the street, crossed the center line and went through the windshield of the victims vehicle. It by the grace of some higher power it missed both the husband and wife and the end of the pole exited the back of the vehicle. Neither of them had much more than a scratch from some flying glass. But imagine a 50 foot long wooden pole traveling about 25-30 mph on a trailer coming straight at you when you are traveling at 40 mph towards the pole and you having a head on collision with it. Needless to say they were a bit shaken and were extremely lucky that one or both of them were not killed. They as victims deserved the full attention to detail to this investigation that any one else would as the victim of any incident. The driver was sited for several things including the hauling of an unsecured load.

 

[usayit]

Gryphon,

"Interesting Tactic"... as in an interesting way to get the lawyer/ambulance chaser out of your scene with little resistance or commotion... in a way a bit creative. The term "tactic" wasn't used to show false pretense on your part. Just a bit of information I never heard prior. I meant no offense nor did I fish for more details....

 

[table1349]

Gryphon,

"Interesting Tactic"... as in an interesting way to get the lawyer/ambulance chaser out of your scene with little resistance or commotion... in a way a bit creative. The term "tactic" wasn't used to show false pretense on your part. Just a bit of information I never heard prior. I meant no offense nor did I fish for more details....

None taken. I have found that a lot of people just don't understand the real facts about law enforcement, court etc. With the rise of all the popular cop/court shows the average person gets a slanted view of what is and is not real.

There are actual names for some of the things that have crept into the average persons beliefs. One of the newest one is the CSI Effect. The lab folks don't work in dark all glass areas with billions of dollars of equipment like they show and make up. They can't pull fingerprints from the air or do a lot of the thing that shows like that depict. Frankly real cop work is 5% exciting and 95% boring to the average person. COP'S may ride with our officers for a week to get 10 minutes of useable material that is exciting.

But you go to a burglary scene these days and the victims believe that you can do anything and that their burglar will be caught in a matter of hours or days because if we sweep the floor and examine the dirt it will show us exactly where the person lives. Oh if it were only that easy, then we would only need half the cops and 5 times the lab people.

 

[Bifurcator]

Hehehe too true! Shows like 24 and CSI are a real disservice to the people on both ends. It (and some would add "is intended to") drive a wedge of fear, disrespect, and as you pointed out, unrealistic expectation between the public and the public servants. But those labs can do allot with the little they have - I'm occasionally amazed.

 

[sparrow]

One of the things I never hear discussed regarding a photographers rights to take a picture is the victim's right notto have their picture taken. Anybody consider this? I hate having my pic taken, and would be furious if somebody took it without considering my feelings while I was in an accident and couldnt respond to them. While a certain amount of journalistic license must prevail, the other side of the coin has to be considered as well.
Just want to throw in another point of view, would love to hear opinions.

Cheers, Chris.

 

[medic001918]

One of the things I never hear discussed regarding a photographers rights to take a picture is the victim's right notto have their picture taken. Anybody consider this? I hate having my pic taken, and would be furious if somebody took it without considering my feelings while I was in an accident and couldnt respond to them. While a certain amount of journalistic license must prevail, the other side of the coin has to be considered as well.
Just want to throw in another point of view, would love to hear opinions.

Cheers, Chris.

You're right about the patient's rights. And we can go a step further and bring in the HIPPA laws that govern a patient's privacy. Can you take pictures of the accident? Yes. Can you take pictures of the accident where someone can identify the patient's involved? Absolutely not. As a paramedic I can only take photos of the scene, nothing involving the patient and only for use to show the hospital what the accident looked like. The same applies with the news...they're not supposed to show a patient's face when filming. There's a whole set of laws that apply to these cases. So the cop was not entirely wrong. And if I see bystanders taking photos while I'm on the scene of a call, I have no issue asking them to leave or having them removed from the scene by the police department. I have an obligation to advocate for my patient and their privacy.

And to demonstrate the extent that the HIPPA laws apply, once I write a paper on the call for the hospital and submit it I have to get the patient's permission to ever see that document again even though I'm the one who wrote it. HIPPA is a very extensive law with strict penalties, criminal and civil.

Shane

 

[STICKMAN]

IF in NJ contact the NJPA http://www.njpa.org/njpa/ they can explain to you you rights as either media source or as a regular person.... You do have the right to take photographes of the accident.

Faces etc do not matter, HOWEVER USE YOUR BEST JUDGEMENT WITH WHAT YOU DO WITH SUCH OR YOU COULD LAND YOURSELF WITH PROBLEMS. If you are behind the crime/fire line you are free to do as you please. And if someone so much as touches you it can be considered simple assault.

As for Hippa laws they would not apply so long as the person is not providing pd/fd/ems service or is a provider/employee that provides services for the person involved, ins co's docs and such. They apply to the above post due to him/her being a medic and having the pts information.

A person may take any picture they want as long as they are not in a posted secure area or trespassing. Thats whats so great about the good old USA

IF UNSURE CHECK WITH YOUR STATE REP. OR STATE POLICE FOR YOUR AREA OR CONTACT A LEGAL LAWYER FOR YOUR STATE.

 

[reg]

I hate having my pic taken,

I love this. You're in a car accident, all mangled up and half-dead but too busy using your last breaths to ask someone not to take a picture instead of calling 911.

And if I see bystanders taking photos while I'm on the scene of a call, I have no issue asking them to leave or having them removed from the scene by the police department.

Would I be removed from "the scene" outside the blocked area (i.e. police tape) and am not in anybody's way AT ALL? Could you show me where that's a law? Of course, it's a moot point because I have no issue snapping photos right up until police show up and would be just dandy to leave by then, but only because I've got my keepers.

 

[prodigy2k7]

You're right about the patient's rights. And we can go a step further and bring in the HIPPA laws that govern a patient's privacy. Can you take pictures of the accident? Yes. Can you take pictures of the accident where someone can identify the patient's involved? Absolutely not. As a paramedic I can only take photos of the scene, nothing involving the patient and only for use to show the hospital what the accident looked like. The same applies with the news...they're not supposed to show a patient's face when filming. There's a whole set of laws that apply to these cases. So the cop was not entirely wrong. And if I see bystanders taking photos while I'm on the scene of a call, I have no issue asking them to leave or having them removed from the scene by the police department. I have an obligation to advocate for my patient and their privacy.

And to demonstrate the extent that the HIPPA laws apply, once I write a paper on the call for the hospital and submit it I have to get the patient's permission to ever see that document again even though I'm the one who wrote it. HIPPA is a very extensive law with strict penalties, criminal and civil.

Shane

Is there a law against taking photographs of peoples faces in an accident, or just publisizing the photos?

 

[prodigy2k7]

I love this. You're in a car accident, all mangled up and half-dead but too busy using your last breaths to ask someone not to take a picture instead of calling 911.



Would I be removed from "the scene" outside the blocked area (i.e. police tape) and am not in anybody's way AT ALL? Could you show me where that's a law?

I agree, if I can visibly see the persons face, why not take a picture? as long as its not on the news or the news paper. I wonder what the law is with that....

 

[medic001918]

Would I be removed from "the scene" outside the blocked area (i.e. police tape) and am not in anybody's way AT ALL? Could you show me where that's a law? Of course, it's a moot point because I have no issue snapping photos right up until police show up and would be just dandy to leave by then, but only because I've got my keepers.

It's not about being in the way. It's about patient privacy. There's a distinct difference between the two. And if you want all the information on the HIPPA laws, feel free to google it. There's tons of information on the Health Insurance Portability and Privacy Act of 1997 out there. Probably more information than anyone would care to digest.

Is there a law against taking photographs of peoples faces in an accident, or just publisizing the photos?

I've always been informed that it applies to both. Taking and publication. The patient has not consented to having their photograph taken. Like I said before, it's not so much about the photographs as much as it is about privacy for those involved. They're conflicting issues.

Shane

 

[reg]

And if you want all the information on the HIPPA laws, feel free to google it. There's tons of information on the Health Insurance Portability and Privacy Act of 1997 out there.

It's called the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1997, for one, and it still has nothing to do with what happens in public, in front of people in open air. There may be some gray area with ambulance photos, photos of treatment etc. but not of the actual crash or people in it.

Although I'm not a doctor, I know more about it than most regular people, starting with the name.

 

[Azuth]

There are very few laws that prevent you from photographing anything, particularly on public property. You can be asked to leave private property for just about any reason.

If the accident was deemed newsworthy then you probably would not have any issue publishing the pictures for news purposes. You could also more than likely use them for documentary purposes, for example a documentary on car crashes.

This of course could be contested civilly (as can pretty much anything), and a person could claim "right to privacy", but I don't think this has been successfully argued in the case of being in a car.

 

[Mike A.]

just read your forum and i am fighting a fine for disorderly conduct for taking a picture on public property. this happened a week and half ago. so i'm going to fight this. found that this is legal as long as you are on public property and not taking pictures of anything like of government stuff or into someone's windows etc....... so far haven't found anything more on this case. this happened in sheboygan, wi.

mike a.