Curious comment from police officer at accident scene.

Overread · Apr 19, 2012

No problem at all Bill - its actually very refreshing to hear thoughts and opinions from the other side (as it were) since we don't get many law enforcement officers frequenting the forums (I think we have a couple of them dotted around). Hearing things from the other side does help give many of us a more well rounded view and respect of various situations.

Netskimmer · Apr 19, 2012

It's a pretty slippery slope. The media loves to take things out of context and sensationalize them for ratings and I'm sure cops have been wrongful targeted because of a photo or video that only tells part of the story, so I get why police are leery of having themselves documented like that. I just fear such a law could be used as an intimidation tactic.

billross77 · Apr 19, 2012

Thanks for understanding.

Let me just carify my initial comment, since I think my wording may be what led to the confusion. It is NOT illegal to take photos of a Police Officer. It only become an issue (in Texas) when it is intended to be harassing or impedes a needed law enforcement activity...such as the one I mentioned.

billross77 · Apr 19, 2012

These freedoms are guaranteed to us through the US Constitution and I would never take those away from anyone. Well...unless you are a jerk :lol:

jwbryson1 · Apr 19, 2012

billross77 said:
The code, which was recently changed is PC 22.11. I am trying to find the current wording to post on here.

Texas Penal Code - Section 22.11. Harassment By Persons In Certain Correctional Facilities; Harassment Of Public Servant - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws

billross77 · Apr 19, 2012

That's the correct link but the code has been updated since. I'll find the correct one shortly.

Netskimmer · Apr 19, 2012

billross77 said:
These freedoms are guaranteed to us through the US Constitution and I would never take those away from anyone. Well...unless you are a jerk

...:shock:... :biggrin:

jwbryson1 · Apr 19, 2012

billross77 said:
That's the correct link but the code has been updated since. I'll find the correct one shortly.

Here is the current language that I just pulled from Lexis:

Tex. Penal Code § 22.11 (2012)
§ 22.11. Harassment by Persons in Certain Correctional Facilities; Harassment of Public Servant

(a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to assault, harass, or alarm, the person:

(1) while imprisoned or confined in a correctional or detention facility, causes another person to contact the blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid, saliva, urine, or feces of the actor, any other person, or an animal; or

(2) causes another person the actor knows to be a public servant to contact the blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid, saliva, urine, or feces of the actor, any other person, or an animal while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of the public servant's official power or performance of an official duty.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

(c) If conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another section of this code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section.

(d) In this section, "correctional or detention facility" means:

(1) a secure correctional facility; or

(2) a "secure correctional facility" or a "secure detention facility" as defined by Section 51.02, Family Code, operated by or under contract with a juvenile board or the Texas Youth Commission or any other facility operated by or under contract with that commission.

(e) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), the actor is presumed to have known the person was a public servant if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant."

I don't see any changes in the language that you mentioned.

jwbryson1 · Apr 19, 2012

This thread has gotten off topic. I just wanted to know about the photo issues, but I do find this very interesting nonetheless.

:thumbup:

imagemaker46 · Apr 19, 2012

It may have gone off topic but it is good to hear from someone who does deal with this kind of situation. I have great respect for police officers and some do step over the line, but the majority are just doing a tough job in a tough world, and they are hard working and decent people. Thanks Bill for adding your side to this forum.

Back on topic, in the same situation I would take photos of the collision. Photos work a whole lot better if it comes down to laying fault.

HughGuessWho · Apr 19, 2012

billross77 said:
Well...unless you are a jerk

In which case you just "shoot them straight" as you mentioned earlier? :lol:

Don't mess with Texas!
Sorry, couldnt resist.

billross77 · Apr 19, 2012

I could not have said it better myself:thumbup:

KmH · Apr 19, 2012

Looks like there in nothing in TPC 22.11 about taking photographs, even at close range.

It appears the police officer overstepped the bounds of that statute in the situation with the teenager.

chakalakasp · Apr 19, 2012

billross77 said:
Thanks for understanding.<br>

Let me just carify my initial comment, since I think my wording may be what led to the confusion. It is NOT illegal to take photos of a Police Officer. It only become an issue (in Texas) when it is intended to be harassing or impedes a needed law enforcement activity...such as the one I mentioned.

The thing that I worry about with this is that it's pretty easy to turn this into a "I don't want to end up on Youtube, so I'm going to say you're harassing me and arrest you". There are already jurisdictions trying to use felony wiretap laws to prevent citizens from filming public officers. Candidly, as a pro photographer, if a police officer told me to stop filming something that was legal to film on public property, I'd probably continue filming (assuming it was worth filming in the first place). If he asked me to delete what I'd shot, I'd refuse (if my filming is a crime, isn't deletion destruction of evidence? And how does deleting an image remedy harassment or impeding an officer?) If I was arrested, I'd be stuck with the ride but my attorney would make sure that it was enough of a fiscal and paperwork headache for the department that they'd at the very least consider limiting their prior restraint of speech to people who appear less likely to sue them and send out press releases. In the end I'm sure I'd be much less happy with my situation than if I'd just walked away, but as Thoreau pointed out, such is the nature of civil disobedience.

I am very appreciative of what law enforcement does. It's a pretty damned hard job. I don't do much photography of police officers. I've known some cool police officers, and I've known some who seemed like they were two steps away from prison themselves. At any rate, I would never intentionally get in the way of an officer doing his job, and if I did accidentally, I'd get the heck out of the way ASAP. But a camera has nothing to do with this. Even the statute that you cited turns out that have nothing to do with photography.

bogeyguy · Apr 19, 2012

KmH said:
Looks like there in nothing in TPC 22.11 about taking photographs, even at close range.

It appears the police officer overstepped the bounds of that statute in the situation with the teenager.

If your refering to the teenager that was photographing billross77 I would argue that the quoted statute may not apply, but, pulling off the road at a traffic stop to photograph the officer was in itself creating a dangerous situation for the officer and the jerk taking the photographs. I'm betting the teen broke several laws by doing his dumb stunt. He is lucky he wasn't cuffed and hauled in for interfering with the officer doing his duty.