Curious comment from police officer at accident scene.

well head on down to your library or courthouse and ask for every law a state has and let me know if your able to remember every single law and how every single law should be applied. There is just too many specific laws to know exactly how laws are worded and meant to be carried out. people are going to make mistakes wether you hold them up on a pedestal or not. and as with anyting in this world today. two people can look at the same thing and come up with a diffrent outcome.

That's not an excuse. I'm a citizen, and I can't use ignorance of the laws as an excuse in front of a judge. Not knowing the speed limit won't get me out of a ticket. Not knowing how to legally transport firearms through many states won't keep me out of jail. If you are going to enforce the laws, you better know them and know them well. Making mistakes is one thing, making your own laws on the fly is another.
 
well head on down to your library or courthouse and ask for every law a state has and let me know if your able to remember every single law and how every single law should be applied. There is just too many specific laws to know exactly how laws are worded and meant to be carried out. people are going to make mistakes wether you hold them up on a pedestal or not. and as with anyting in this world today. two people can look at the same thing and come up with a diffrent outcome.

I was not stating that I expect them not to make mistakes...

My problem is that some portion of the police force is against being photographed because they don't want to be responsible for their mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes obviously, but people need to take responsibility for their mistakes, especially with regard to public service. The impulse by some to crack down on photographers is to avoid being caught making a mistake.
 
OP Here: Back to the orignal post and comment.

I followed up with my friend and the accident occurred on George Washington Parkway which is considered "federal land" so they had Park Police (not state police as previously posted) arrive. The Park Police told her that since it's federal land it's considered a federal "crime scene" and the only photos permitted to be taken at a federal "crime scene" must be taken by forensics.

Valid? I have no clue, but there you go.
 
OP Here: Back to the orignal post and comment.

I followed up with my friend and the accident occurred on George Washington Parkway which is considered "federal land" so they had Park Police (not state police as previously posted) arrive. The Park Police told her that since it's federal land it's considered a federal "crime scene" and the only photos permitted to be taken at a federal "crime scene" must be taken by forensics.

Valid? I have no clue, but there you go.

It could be valid. Perhaps its to maintain the integrity of the visual evidence.
 
OP Here: Back to the orignal post and comment.

I followed up with my friend and the accident occurred on George Washington Parkway which is considered "federal land" so they had Park Police (not state police as previously posted) arrive. The Park Police told her that since it's federal land it's considered a federal "crime scene" and the only photos permitted to be taken at a federal "crime scene" must be taken by forensics.

Valid? I have no clue, but there you go.

It could be valid. Perhaps its to maintain the integrity of the visual evidence.

That's got to be the biggest load of mumbo-jumbo I've heard in a while. As if taking a picture is going to ruin 'the integrity' of the visual evidence.

"Your honor...the evidence presented here today is slightly altered. Defendant "A" took a picture moments before our forensics team arrived on the scene. The very act of the shutter actuating caused irreparable harm the the visual evidence. The ruined car that had been rear-ended moments before was not actually damaged in the collision. It's an optical illusion created by the reckless 'spray and pray' technique employed by the photographer".

Pretty sure that's how that would look on CSI:Car Accident Files

I do not believe the officer on scene is correct as the inability to take pictures of the scene of the accident.
 
OP Here: Back to the orignal post and comment.

I followed up with my friend and the accident occurred on George Washington Parkway which is considered "federal land" so they had Park Police (not state police as previously posted) arrive. The Park Police told her that since it's federal land it's considered a federal "crime scene" and the only photos permitted to be taken at a federal "crime scene" must be taken by forensics.

Valid? I have no clue, but there you go.

It could be valid. Perhaps its to maintain the integrity of the visual evidence.

That's got to be the biggest load of mumbo-jumbo I've heard in a while. As if taking a picture is going to ruin 'the integrity' of the visual evidence.

"Your honor...the evidence presented here today is slightly altered. Defendant "A" took a picture moments before our forensics team arrived on the scene. The very act of the shutter actuating caused irreparable harm the the visual evidence. The ruined car that had been rear-ended moments before was not actually damaged in the collision. It's an optical illusion created by the reckless 'spray and pray' technique employed by the photographer".

Pretty sure that's how that would look on CSI:Car Accident Files

I do not believe the officer on scene is correct as the inability to take pictures of the scene of the accident.

Data files need to be integrity checked by the forensics team. I didn't realize cell phone cameras had the capability built in.

Why do you think canon includes a data integrity kit with their cameras?

In the digital age photos can be copied a billion times and file attributes can be altered...thus integrity checking. There is a method to the madness.
 
Data files need to be integrity checked by the forensics team. I didn't realize cell phone cameras had the capability built in.

Why do you think canon includes a data integrity kit with their cameras?

In the digital age photos can be copied a billion times and file attributes can be altered...thus integrity checking. There is a method to the madness.

Pretty sure the analytics of a picture taken to document the rear-ending of an automobile isn't going to be run through CSI. Methinks someone watches too much TV. In no way would restricting a civilian from taking a picture of her trashed bumper with her camera affect the investigation. The officer on scene was off his rocker.

This isn't a triple homocide involving a high level government official. It's a lady documenting her accident for an insurance claim. There is a "minor" difference in the way police investigate the scene.:lol:
 
Don't accident kits have a disposable camera so you can take pictures when you are involved in an accident? Why would taking pictures of a crime scene not be allowed? Seems pretty dumb to me. Insurance companies want you to take photos of the area and scene...
 
Data files need to be integrity checked by the forensics team. I didn't realize cell phone cameras had the capability built in.

Why do you think canon includes a data integrity kit with their cameras?

In the digital age photos can be copied a billion times and file attributes can be altered...thus integrity checking. There is a method to the madness.

Pretty sure the analytics of a picture taken to document the rear-ending of an automobile isn't going to be run through CSI. Methinks someone watches too much TV. In no way would restricting a civilian from taking a picture of her trashed bumper with her camera affect the investigation. The officer on scene was off his rocker.

This isn't a triple homocide involving a high level government official. It's a lady documenting her accident for an insurance claim. There is a "minor" difference in the way police investigate the scene.:lol:

In this case its a fender bender. People keep broadening the scope of the question in this thread. I think maybe its time to close this thread, its going no where fast lol.
 
That's got to be the biggest load of mumbo-jumbo I've heard in a while. As if taking a picture is going to ruin 'the integrity' of the visual evidence.

Erwin Schrödinger would disagree, perhaps?

I highly doubt the police officer was considering quantum entanglement when he made his statement.
 
A friend was just involved in a rear-end collision outside of Washington, DC. The wreck occurred on a "federal" highway and therefore state police were somehow involved. :scratch: While she was waiting for the ambulance to arrive, she called me (an attorney) for quick advice. I told her to take photos of the accident scene.

She did. The cop on the scene told her because it was a federal highway it was a "federal crime scene" and therefore no photos were allowed. He told her to delete them from her iPhone. I told her hell no, do NOT delete them. It was her 1 chance to get images of the accident for insurance and other purposes.

WTF is up with that? Has anybody ever heard such nonsense? I haven't. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard of such a thing.

For the record, she did not delete them! Winning! :smileys:

If the State Police/Highway Patrol worked the accident, it is a simple Interstate Highway. Local State Police handle the duties on these interstates. As for the officer on the scene, he is I suspect a bit mistaken in his estimation. First, it is not a "federal crime scene" unless there is a federal agency running the investigation. Secondly they can not control such actions on a an Interstate in a situation such as this. She was perfectly within her rights considering her situation. That is not to say that it is ok for any Joe Blow to just stop on an Interstate and take photographs, as they become a traffic hazard even if they are pulled over on the shoulder. Stopping on an Interstate is for emergency reasons only, which of course you client was already involved in.

Keep in mind, this is based on 30 years LEO here in My State. If this happened in D.C. proper there may be some goofy obscure law of that nature, as D.C. proper is it's own little "Kingdom" but I have my doubts.

Edit: Sorry OP, I was answering your original question. What you learned makes sense since Park Police are Federal and if it was D.C. Proper then it was in a Federal Jurisdiction. The rest sounds like some obscure Federal Statute that really wasn't intended for situations like this. I work with the Feds all the time and guess who take most of the photos at those scenes. US not the Feds.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top