Legalities of photographers

VI and Skeiur... one in Canada, one in the USA.

How can both of you argue law and not cede the point that possibly one or both are wrong as easily aas it is possible that you are both right... lol

You are not even in the same countries, and the chances that the laws in both are identical is slim.

Shake hands, and agree to disagree.
(I was going to say kiss and make up, but that kinda freaked me out...LOL!)
 
VI and Skeiur... one in Canada, one in the USA.

How can both of you argue law and not cede the point that possibly one or both are wrong as easily aas it is possible that you are both right... lol

You are not even in the same countries, and the chances that the laws in both are identical is slim.

Shake hands, and agree to disagree.
(I was going to say kiss and make up, but that kinda freaked me out...LOL!)

But I'm essentially agreeing with what he has to say and he's arguing that I'm wrong for agreeing with him. I think some one's arguing just for the sake of it.

Hey Skeiur, the sky's blue.
 
When, things get silly, it is time to drop it.

skieur
 
I just thought I'd pop in by asking too (like another poster) what the cops side of the story was. But... that's something else.

I take shots of police all the time and frankly I have never ever had a problem. Some of them have asked not to be photographer and I simply say "Okay." and move on. Although, I will honor the police more than I probably would a rent-a-cop but that's simply based on the situation and franlky the attitude of the "security guard".

But (the real reason for the words I type here), could anyone recommend a book or web address where the legal issues are addressed and explained with something other than hearsay? This thread is pumping out a lot of contradictory facts. I think it would be helpful to "the class" if someone has a book or link.

David
 
I was going to stay out of this one, but it seems to have taken a left turn at Albuquerque. Let me try and make a little sense of this from a law enforcement perspective. At least from the way your description makes it sound.

foned;1255259]I read around a bit, and didn't find anything that fit quite what happened to me. So, not only is this photographers rights, but citizens rights in general.


So, last week, me and some friends headed from california, to denver, CO, we went to the red rocks amphitheater to see a show. While outside, we were drinking, the cops were sorta cool, they werent worried about the drinking so much as they were about the glass bottles (they ended up pouring out a 60 dollar bottle of cognac, off topic though) anyway, during the process of them padding us down for weapons, then taking our ID's to check for legal age, i had my camera around my neck.
Consumption of alcohol in public. Detained for that violation. A misdemeanor, the officer has the discretion to charge or not. The important thing here is the fact that you were detained. You were not free to leave, you were in custody. You didn't have the right to step away for ice cream, make a phone call, shoot pool or anything else that the officers did not permit. You were the subjects of a criminal investigation at that point in time.

I figured, this is a perfect opportunity to document some of our trip, get some pictures to go with our lame story of being ticketed by some local cops. (some were undercover cops, this might be important later) so, i figured, why not take some pictures right? I don't grab my camera, i just push the button, take two shots. just before i do that though, I over hear the supervisor telling one of the undercovers "that guy is taking pictures" in a pretty angry tone, i take the pictures anyway, and then stop touching my camera at all. then he walks over, and, pretty pissed i might add, says 'YOU NEED TO STOP TAKING PICTURES, BECAUSE OF YOU EVERYONES GETTING TICKETED NOW.' I try to reason with him, tell him i meant no disrespect, i was just attempting to document a road trip. It seemed to work. Anyway, he successfully made me feel like a peice of **** for getting my friends ticketed.
When ever you are detained by law enforcement there are some basic things that you need to understand and do.

1. Answer their questions about your identity and provide ID if you have it. This can be a very important one. If you can not positively identify yourself to the officers in a detention situation you can be booked into jail if they decide to charge you. John Doe warrants are a thing of the 1800's not now. This included a simple traffic violation. If we the officers are not satisfied knowing your true identity, they have that right.

2. If they are detaining you, and you are a suspect of some form of illegal activity they must read you Miranda to question you about the suspected illegal activities. You may choose to answer or not answer these questions. It is your right. The officers DO NOT have to read you Miranda if they arrest you. Only if they are questioning you as a suspect and you are not free to leave. The fine line in this is when did you become a suspect in the officers mind? Lots of suppression hearings revolve around this very issue.

3. Stand there or sit there, or on those occasions where you have already acted the fool, lay there quietly and talk to the officers as you see fit (refer to #1 & 2 above) until they have finished their investigation. You would be wise to not make comments about their race, gender, job, intelligence, mother, father or other despariging remarks. Especially when alcohol is involved. It usually just goes to prove their point in court. (On a side note, If by chance you are laying there the issue of going to jail has probably already been decided.)

4. If the officers tell you that you are free to leave, do the smart thing and leave. Now is your chance. The words "free to leave" mean that you are no longer detained, ie. in custody.

Far too often I have dealt with someone that took that as their opportunity to again act the fool and they find themselves no longer free to leave. Especially if you are standing there waiving your arms and telling me loudly how I should be fighting real crime and the bag of crack cocaine in your pants pocket falls to the ground. OOP's Game On Again. Yes it really happened and I loved that guy, it was one of the best trials I have had in a long time. The jury wanted to convict him not just for possession of cocaine but for one count of Aggravated Stupidity.:lol:

So i was pretty nice, i told him i would delete the pictures, and i was sorry for taking them. He didn't really respond. My friend however, was by one of the deputies, and over heard the supervisor tell him 'if he doesn't delete those pictures, we'll confiscate the camera' at some point he also told me that i was 'interfering with a police investigation' (mind you, i wasn't even being talked to, i was just standing there bored taking pictures, not obvious about it either, just a push of a button) I asked one of the cops if i had a constitutional right to take pictures of them, and of course, cops don't know the constitution so he was no help.
This one gets sticky because neither you nor I can say what exactly was going on. Not just in regards to the situation that you and your friends were in, but the total situation. You may well have been interfering with a police investigation. Not one you and your friends, but something else that you unknowingly stumbled into. My belief is that you do not know if there was more to this or not and without being there neither do I. If there was another investigation going on would that give them the right to confiscate your camera. YES if the circumstances were right. It might contain evidence. Would it give them the right to delete your photos. NO. Would they have to eventually return your camera and photos to you. YES. Could they look at the photos on your camera, YES With a Search Warrant. Besides, it's not our job to explain your constitutional rights to you, unless the courts have said we must, such as Miranda.

Anyway, one of the nicer cops asked me to delete the pictures, and i obliged, to avoid further trouble for my friends (had it been just me, we wouldve found out how far i could take it.)
As they always say, it never hurts to ask.

so... i mean, theres not much else, they were undercover, there was no flash, no real sound, im suprised the guy even noticed. aside from the big camera around my neck being a dead give away.
You would be surprised how much most cops do notice. That's what we are trained to do. That is why most people don't even remember in court what day it was they got stopped and given that speeding ticket and the cop can tell you not only the day of the week, the weather conditions at the time, the light level, road conditions, year, make, model of your vehicle, etc.

my question is basically, am i allowed to take the pictures? are they allowed to confiscate my camera? is it interfering? can you take pictures of undercover cops? do i have to delete them? you get the point. thanks!
All of these questions are situational. Maybe this gives you a better idea of the situation at the time from the other side of the fence.
 
So if a police officer confiscated a camera because he had reason to believe it had evidence on it, would he need a warrant to take it? If not, what's the difference between taking the camera and looking at the photos on it? Probable cause always confuses me.

Lastly if a police officer can only take your camera if it is considered evidence, would it be an obstruction of justice if he were to delete a photo off of it?

BTW, I think it should be part of your duty as a police officer to protect us and serve us by letting us know our rights, whether you have to or not. Not to be rude, but there is a very negative attitude towards police officers, and a lot of it stems for the feeling they AREN'T on our side, even when we are abiding by the law. I know lawyers are the only ones allowed to give advice, but if a police officer were to let us know certain things when we get pulled over or whatever, maybe we wouldn't look at them so negatively.
 
So if a police officer confiscated a camera because he had reason to believe it had evidence on it, would he need a warrant to take it? If not, what's the difference between taking the camera and looking at the photos on it? Probable cause always confuses me.

Yes, he would need a warrant to take it from you if he didn't arrest you for some crime...

Lastly if a police officer can only take your camera if it is considered evidence, would it be an obstruction of justice if he were to delete a photo off of it?

Yes, the pictures are yours and if the pictures are evidence, then they could be helpful evidence to you or against you, but either way, he can't erase them.

BTW, I think it should be part of your duty as a police officer to protect us and serve us by letting us know our rights, whether you have to or not. Not to be rude, but there is a very negative attitude towards police officers, and a lot of it stems for the feeling they AREN'T on our side, even when we are abiding by the law. I know lawyers are the only ones allowed to give advice, but if a police officer were to let us know certain things when we get pulled over or whatever, maybe we wouldn't look at them so negatively.

Problem is, they aren't lawyers either, they are regular people... they don't always know the laws, since law is sometimes subjective, hence, arguing a case in court.
 
I was going to stay out of this one, but it seems to ...

... from the other side of the fence.

:headbang:

Very cool post. Thanks!

I retract my earlier response with the exception of don't **** with the cops in the first place.
 
Problem is, they aren't lawyers either, they are regular people... they don't always know the laws, since law is sometimes subjective, hence, arguing a case in court.

But it's their job to know the laws. They can't just go making them up. If a cop thinks that if you're talking on the phone in your car, he can arrest you, even when it's not illegal, it's the same as him confiscating your camera without a warrant. They could start arresting people for having their shoes on the wrong feet. It'll get sorted out in court.

And I don't know if it's a state by state thing or a national thing, but you're not required to show ID. If an officer asks you for your information, you have to give it to him, but you're not required to hand him ID. A guy got arrested in Ohio for refusing to give a cop his License (he wasn't driving), even though he told him his name and the rest of his info. The judge ruled that he was unlawfully arrested by the cop and that you're not required to show ID.
 
But it's their job to know the laws. They can't just go making them up.

I can't begin to count how many times I've been stopped and ticketed by cops on my bike for riding it in the street as opposed to the sidewalk.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senor Hound
So if a police officer confiscated a camera because he had reason to believe it had evidence on it, would he need a warrant to take it? If not, what's the difference between taking the camera and looking at the photos on it? Probable cause always confuses me.

Yes, he would need a warrant to take it from you if he didn't arrest you for some crime...

Actually in this situation, no a warrant is not needed. This falls under one of the exceptions to the 4th ammendment, that being the Plain View Doctrine. The camera and it's use was in plain view of the officers. That use could provide the probable cause to believe that it is evidence. It is subject to seizure Without a warrant as this was a location open to the public.

Lastly if a police officer can only take your camera if it is considered evidence, would it be an obstruction of justice if he were to delete a photo off of it?

Yes, the pictures are yours and if the pictures are evidence, then they could be helpful evidence to you or against you, but either way, he can't erase them.

Well he or she can. And they could be criminally prosecuted if they do so. The right to seize evidence does not give the seizing agency the right to do anything to it other than store it in it's original condition. Generaly to go beyond that scope you need 1 of 2 things to be present. A warrant, say to develop that film, (the old days) or 2 the item must be obvious contraband. I have no obligation, after a case is done, to return you, your contraband, ie. illegal drugs, explosives etc. Legal property however is a different story. And in this country the ownership and use of cameras is legal.

The only way to deny the owner their photographs would be to show that they are either illegal by nature, child porn etc. or that they are a threat to national security. I have dealt with the first, the second I hope I never do. That makes for to many Fed's hanging around.


BTW, I think it should be part of your duty as a police officer to protect us and serve us by letting us know our rights, whether you have to or not. Not to be rude, but there is a very negative attitude towards police officers, and a lot of it stems for the feeling they AREN'T on our side, even when we are abiding by the law. I know lawyers are the only ones allowed to give advice, but if a police officer were to let us know certain things when we get pulled over or whatever, maybe we wouldn't look at them so negatively.

Ok I will concede this point to you in part as my explination was a bit lacking on that point. At the time that you are a suspect, being detained, in the midst of an investigation, No it is not my job to advise you of your constitutional right, unless there is a statutory obligation to do so. That's just common investigative technique.

I do however teach for my department on several issues, one of them being the issue of Seach and Seizure to highschools, civic groups, neighborhood associations etc.

Yes, there is a place for us to educatate on the law and consitutional rights. Most of the highschool students I have talked to were shocked to have a police officer tell them that if we ask to search their car, house etc. that they had the right to say no. They weren't surprised that they had the right, but that the COP was telling them this.

I do always go on to explain to them that when I instruct the recruit class I advise the officers that permission is never a bad thing to seek. Even if you have one of the exceptions to the 4th amendment to rely on, ask first. If they decline to give permission, then, IF one of the exceptions applies you may fall back on that and conduct your search.

The reason that I teach that and practice that is to save me court time. If you are under arrest and I ask you for permission to search your pockets and you give it, if I find some kind of contraband such as drugs, you are going to save me a one court hearing.

If you are under arrest, I have the right to search you and the immediate area that you are in incidenet to arrest with out your permission.

By asking and getting permission, when your lawyer wants a supression hearing on the evidence found in that search, and it becomes clear that it was with permission the hearing is over. You allowed it, nothing else to argue.

Otherwise we will have a hearing. In this case the outcome is not in doubt, but it is the way the legal system goes.

That is not meant to mean that all supression hearings are a waste of time. They are not. It is just that Search Incident to Arrest has been a long and well versed issue in the courts and the rulings are pretty clear. Other exceptions to the 4th amendment are not so clear cut.

Problem is, they aren't lawyers either, they are regular people... they don't always know the laws, since law is sometimes subjective, hence, arguing a case in court.
__________________
You are correct. And now I am going to tick off some of the lawyers in the group. The lawyers often don't know the law either. Often they know less about the law than the cops. The thing is, it is not all about the law, it is also about the courts and court procedure. This includes the judges and their likes, dislikes and biases. Yes biases. We all have them. It is those beliefs and biases that cause cases to be heard in court. It is where case law comes from.

One thing lawyers are very good at is knowing the court and court procedure. Cops are less versed in this area as we do not have direct access to the process. We are a player brought in by one side or the other. Usually the prosecution.

The thing here is to keep in mind that we have a much better understanding of CRIMINAL LAW than most people. But the law is always subject to interpertation. The only one, in this country at least, that is always right on the interpertation of the law is the Supreeme Court. Everybody else is only right if they say so.

Sorry that this is so long.
 
So pretty much in any situation that involves the attention of a police officer, the laws allow for almost complete control of the situation by

- detaining an individual. (probable cause)
- searching (anything in plain view or with a warrant)
- take possession of an item (stored in original condition)
- not advise on constitutional right.

The whole process is geared towards giving the officer the (upper hand) leverage to safely investigate. yes... this is probably necessary but also double edged sword. The same latitude given to the officer is often seen by the public as an aggressive trampling of personal rights as well as tools for an overzealous police officer. As you said... there are lawyers that don't know the laws. It is not surprising that there are officers that are equally lacking. Here in New Jersey (as well as New York) the police are in a constant PR nightmare. The incidents that involve over zealous police officers or just blatant corruption seems to be a common occurrence. Personally, I have always had the upmost respect and trust for police officers throughout my entire life until I moved from Texas to New Jersey. It is only the past 10 years living in New Jersey did feelings of distrust for the uniform developed. i will repeat what I said.... I said DISTRUST as you would with approaching strangers. I will always give the benefit of doubt as well as RESPECT the men and women in uniform. Call me paranoid but "respectfully distrust" has always kept me out of trouble. I must admit... I'm a product of my environment.

Case in point (regarding Law enforcement PR), the recent Bell shooting. Regardless if the shooting was justified or not, the public sees only one thing: 50 rounds of police shots into a vehicle of unarmed suspects. This is just one of several Police PR nightmares that occur here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/nyregion/26BELL.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

As I mentioned to Skieur, what happens on the street is completely different from what happens in a courtroom. Cooperate with the police (within reason) and take your grievances through the proper channels afterwards. Arguing your rights with the police gets you no where very quickly. Anyone who holds that against someone is just ignorant and has never been in that situation. Laws have NEVER been changed while standing on the street... only in court.

Gryphonslair, I appreciate your honest and informative response. You have validated much of what I kinda already knew. The way I see it :

- detaining an individual. (probable cause)
* Ask the details if and why being detained. Walk away if not.
- searching (anything in plain view or with a warrant)
* I'd give permission assuming not inappropriate or nothing to hide.
- take possession of an item (stored in original condition)
* Ask why. Allow them to take possession but explicitly state that it should be returned in original condition.
- not advise on constitutional right.
* i've got a lawyer on speed dial
 

Most reactions

Back
Top