Photography and the Law.. from a Police Officer

[mostly sunny]

The problem with police officers and I am not a hater of them.. Is they THINK they know the law. They don't practice law.. But lots of them like to think they are above the law.

 

[Village Idiot]

I'm glad that the UK is more proactive about informing officers of the rights of photographers.

I seriously hope this is a joke.

As a few of you know on here I work in law enforcement in the UK. I've just received an email at work about the way Police officers are expected to deal with photographers in the UK. There is nothing confidential or sensitive in this email so I thought I'd share it.

Guidance for Photographers

I am writing to you in my capacity as lead for the ACPO Communications Advisory Group which sits in the Presidential Business Area.

There have been a number of recent instances highlighted in the press where officers have detained photographers and deleted images from their cameras. I seek your support in reminding your officers and staff that they should not prevent anyone from taking photographs in public. This applies equally to members of the media and public seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places. ACPO guidance is as follows:

· There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so
· We need to cooperate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals
· We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever
· Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service
· Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.

And unfortunately, people in the US deal with this as well, but not to the extent that it seems the Brits have. At least not lately. All the stories I've seen are basically about UK police using the terror law to bully photographers. I can understand that not everyone wants to have their photo taken, but if you're in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy; just because you have a badge doesn't make you immune to this. I mean, I'm sure celebrities get tired of it all the time, but they can't legally detain some one and delete their photos because they're having a bad day and don't want a photographer taking their pictures.

Of course, not all cops are bad, but when is the last time you've heard of the officer standing across the street and letting the photographer shoot vs. the one that stopped the photographer, claimed that they could be a terrorist, and proceded to delete all their photos before arresting them.

I've highlighted two of the most important details from your bulletin. In fact, I think it's the most important thing to have the general population of a civilization respect it's law enforcement branch. With a public that's afraid of doing something legal because of the possibility of harrasment means that they're more apt to hide what they're doing despite the legality and that makes it even harder for the law enforcement to do they're job. When even the innocent distrust you and try and blend in with the guilty, it means even more criminals get away with whatever they're at.

 

[o hey tyler]

I'm glad that the UK is more proactive about informing officers of the rights of photographers.

I seriously hope this is a joke.

nah

 

[Village Idiot]

I'm glad that the UK is more proactive about informing officers of the rights of photographers.

I seriously hope this is a joke.

nah

You could probably Google UK, photography, and harassment together and find a ton of news stories. This is just a reactive gesture.

 

[o hey tyler]

I seriously hope this is a joke.

nah

You could probably Google UK, photography, and harassment together and find a ton of news stories. This is just a reactive gesture.

Well, yeah... But you could also do the same thing and get similar results for America, no?

I guess I was just saying that it seems unlikely that the US Law enforcement has a memorandum going around about photographers rights. But I don't know that for sure, because I try to stay under the law's radar. Haha.

 

[Village Idiot]

nah

You could probably Google UK, photography, and harassment together and find a ton of news stories. This is just a reactive gesture.

Well, yeah... But you could also do the same thing and get similar results for America, no?

I guess I was just saying that it seems unlikely that the US Law enforcement has a memorandum going around about photographers rights. But I don't know that for sure, because I try to stay under the law's radar. Haha.

Not as much. I mean, taking population into consideration. The UK at one point had a campaign like this:

Basically to your average person this says: Watch out for photographers.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...viour_of_people_with_cameras_news_195594.html

 

[Overread]

If that is supposed to be the picture I think it is (pretty sure it is even though we now have hellokitty man there) then that ad run got pulled by the ads agency/EU. In fact the EU has even ruled the section 41 (or whatever it is) section as illegal anyway though our government is still trying to fight that judgement.

One flipside is it appears to mostly (though not only) affect London, major urban areas and big events at the moment - but it is slipping into the populations mentality

 

[crimbfighter]

Of course, not all cops are bad, but when is the last time you've heard of the officer standing across the street and letting the photographer shoot vs. the one that stopped the photographer, claimed that they could be a terrorist, and proceded to delete all their photos before arresting them.

All the time, actually. But it's no surprise people don't hear about it, because people don't sensationalize the things cops are doing right. In a given 10 hour shift, I see hundreds of people taking photos. Everything from cell phone cameras to DSLR's. 99.9% of the time, I smile, wave and drive right by. It's only the ones who are doing something out of the ordinary that draw our attention. But even then, drawing our attention usually only means an extra 10 seconds of staring to figure out what's going on. The ones who actually get contacted are the ones where someone has called in a "suspicious person with a camera" or that are doing something illegal or unsafe to get the photo (i.e. repelling from a bridge, or standing in the middle of traffic, or climbing on buildings). Then we're obligated to contact them and check it out. And this is the practice that every cop I know adheres to. I mean, I know there are cops that don't, but I don't know any, personally.

Don't get me wrong, VI, I agree with most of what you say, and frankly, you're entertaining as hell, but this time I had to disagree, respectfully or course.

 

[DanEitreim]

Pigs? I haven't heard that one in decades! I agree it would be nice to have a sheet that police have to initial saying they've read the memo.

For the guy who has taken a lot of photos of the local military base...be careful - that one could be illegal.

 

[Village Idiot]

Of course, not all cops are bad, but when is the last time you've heard of the officer standing across the street and letting the photographer shoot vs. the one that stopped the photographer, claimed that they could be a terrorist, and proceded to delete all their photos before arresting them.

All the time, actually. But it's no surprise people don't hear about it, because people don't sensationalize the things cops are doing right? In a given 10 hour shift, I see hundreds of people taking photos. Everything from cell phone cameras to DSLR's. 99.9% of the time, I smile, wave and drive right by. It's only the ones who are doing something out of the ordinary that draw our attention. But even then, drawing our attention usually only means an extra 10 seconds of staring to figure out what's going on. The ones who actually get contacted are the ones where someone has called in a "suspicious person with a camera" or that are doing something illegal or unsafe to get the photo (i.e. repelling from a bridge, or standing in the middle of traffic, or climbing on buildings). Then we're obligated to contact them and check it out. And this is the practice that every cop I know adheres to. I mean, I know there are cops that don't, but I don't know any, personally.

Don't get me wrong, VI, I agree with most of what you say, and frankly, you're entertaining as hell, but this time I had to disagree, respectfully or course.

I should have specified in what capacity. I meant, when is the last time you read an article about an officer letting a reporter or by stander do their thing vs. the cop that decides he has the right to tell a photographer to stop taking pictures, confiscate their camera, and start deleting what would then be considered evidence.

Are there photographers that rub cops the wrong way; that'll even do so intentionally to try an provoke a response that they know is not appropriate? Of course there are. There's also cops that abuse their powers because they don't won't to be filmed in a given situation where they're doing something wrong. Like the guy in Maryland that was arrested for the wire tapping law when the cop found out he had been video taping the incident with his helmet cam. That's the same incident where the plain clothes officer rolled up on the guy on the motorcycle, pulled his gun on him, and ordered him off the bike before even identifying himself as a cop.

I know not all cops are bad. I know a large amount of officers from being friends with them and from my job. I know some are dickheads though. One of the good ones was outside with some buddies holding a state cop against the wall. He was kicked out of the bar for being drunk and harrassing people. The guy was screaming at the top of his lungs that he was going to go get his gun out of his car and kill everyone in the bar. But just like a friend of ours that's a local cop that goes out of his way to accomodate people in the small college town I live in. He drove an obviously wasted neighbor girl home for us because her ride had left her instead of citing her for prunken dublicness and taking her to the drunk tank.

Some pople shouldn't be cops. It's the same as some people shouldn't drive and some people shouldn't even work at McDonalds.

 

[crimbfighter]

Of course, not all cops are bad, but when is the last time you've heard of the officer standing across the street and letting the photographer shoot vs. the one that stopped the photographer, claimed that they could be a terrorist, and proceded to delete all their photos before arresting them.

All the time, actually. But it's no surprise people don't hear about it, because people don't sensationalize the things cops are doing right? In a given 10 hour shift, I see hundreds of people taking photos. Everything from cell phone cameras to DSLR's. 99.9% of the time, I smile, wave and drive right by. It's only the ones who are doing something out of the ordinary that draw our attention. But even then, drawing our attention usually only means an extra 10 seconds of staring to figure out what's going on. The ones who actually get contacted are the ones where someone has called in a "suspicious person with a camera" or that are doing something illegal or unsafe to get the photo (i.e. repelling from a bridge, or standing in the middle of traffic, or climbing on buildings). Then we're obligated to contact them and check it out. And this is the practice that every cop I know adheres to. I mean, I know there are cops that don't, but I don't know any, personally.

Don't get me wrong, VI, I agree with most of what you say, and frankly, you're entertaining as hell, but this time I had to disagree, respectfully or course.

I should have specified in what capacity. I meant, when is the last time you read an article about an officer letting a reporter or by stander do their thing vs. the cop that decides he has the right to tell a photographer to stop taking pictures, confiscate their camera, and start deleting what would then be considered evidence.

Are there photographers that rub cops the wrong way; that'll even do so intentionally to try an provoke a response that they know is not appropriate? Of course there are. There's also cops that abuse their powers because they don't won't to be filmed in a given situation where they're doing something wrong. Like the guy in Maryland that was arrested for the wire tapping law when the cop found out he had been video taping the incident with his helmet cam. That's the same incident where the plain clothes officer rolled up on the guy on the motorcycle, pulled his gun on him, and ordered him off the bike before even identifying himself as a cop.

I know not all cops are bad. I know a large amount of officers from being friends with them and from my job. I know some are dickheads though. One of the good ones was outside with some buddies holding a state cop against the wall. He was kicked out of the bar for being drunk and harrassing people. The guy was screaming at the top of his lungs that he was going to go get his gun out of his car and kill everyone in the bar. But just like a friend of ours that's a local cop that goes out of his way to accomodate people in the small college town I live in. He drove an obviously wasted neighbor girl home for us because her ride had left her instead of citing her for prunken dublicness and taking her to the drunk tank.

Some pople shouldn't be cops. It's the same as some people shouldn't drive and some people shouldn't even work at McDonalds.

Ahhh, I understand your context now. Thanks. And I agree, there are cops who shouldn't be cops. And unfortunately those few give many of us a bad name...

 

[DerekSalem]

It should be. I'm sure the way police handle things in the UK are different than the US. But I can tell you from first hand experience, that most police officers or "pigs" as they're affectionately know as, do not do a very good job of "protecting and serving".

You know, it's not actually their responsibility to protect you (that is your responsibility)... Yeah, if they saw something happening - I'm sure they would step in and do something about it though.

Think about this...

If it actually were their responsibility to protect you, you could sue the city if you ever got stabbed in a mugging or something...

They only react - they don't necessarily prevent anything... (Not saying they don't try to prevent crime - but one guy can't be everywhere...)



Anyway... It sounds like the laws in the UK are similar to the US.
I think getting the word out to all the cops to be aware of the law as it relates to photography is a good thing. At least they realize that there is a problem, and have decided to do something to try to correct it.

I don't know if the same can be said over here...

On that note...if you're being attacked by someone (a guy is threatening to stab you or something) and a cop is walking by, he's not legally bound to actually help. He's obligated to call it in, but he could literally just keep walking by with no legal repercussions at all.

 

[crimbfighter]

On that note...if you're being attacked by someone (a guy is threatening to stab you or something) and a cop is walking by, he's not legally bound to actually help. He's obligated to call it in, but he could literally just keep walking by with no legal repercussions at all.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Most states, Wisconsin included, have a "failure to render aid" statute the applies to police, and many times even to bystanders. They usually state something like "any person who witnesses a crime in progress will take appropriate action to render aid..." Cops fit into that "any person" category. And for cops, the "rendering aid" portion is often construed as putting a stop to it, then providing aid to the victim and suspect. To a bystander, the render aid might only be construed as calling it in. But, if we have the tools to stop it, we are expected to do so. Plus, a cop who walks past something like that would also be open to civil liability by the victim, for not stopping it.

Aside from legal obligation, though, you can also bet any cop who walks by something like that and only calls it in, would be seriously reprimanded or fired.

 

[sam_justice]

Admins can we lock this thread? It's just turned into a political debate.

 

[usayit]

There are many people I come in contact with every day, who hate me, absolutely hate me, only because of the uniform I wear. People who haven't met me, haven't said more than one word to me. Imagine if people hated you, only because you carried a camera?

PR problem that I referred to in my post. At some point in time, police ended up becoming the government oversight rather than the public servant. In many states (whispers.. new jersey), the system is corrupt and obviously so... (whispers.. gold family medallions and PBA cards == get out of jail for free). The whole comrade that comes with the uniform has turned into "frat" like behavior. Its all well and good but it erodes the public relationship with the public. Again.. the issue here is NO ONE is even acknowledging this... public trust is not a priority. I'm not just talking about photographers either.

There are cops that have made grave mistakes and horrible judgement calls. But also, understand we often have to make life and death decisions in a split second, decisions that have eternity to be second guessed. Now, I'm sure many are thinking, "how does this relate directly to dealing with photographers?" In many ways, it doesn't. However, when we encounter someone, we have only seconds, maybe a minute or two to determine what is going on. Then, god forbid we make the wrong decision, and somebody gets hurt, killed or something else that we can't even think of happens. No matter what decision we make, somebody would be pointing the finger at us. We contact the photographer and he hates us for harassing him, we don't contact the photographer and it turns out he's the next Ted Bundy and he was picking out his next victim, then the community hates us for not stopping it.

I understand but nothing here is different prior to 9/11. Uniformed have been dealing with this from day one... So my question is why has it gotten so bad. The answer is the next portion of your post:

Or it turned out to be a terrorist photographing the bridge to find the weak points to best place his bombs. These are the thing we have to think about living in a post 9/11 era. Does anyone here honestly think September 11th occurred without any photographic recon of the area?

Suddenly many police officers think they are on the battlefield with terrorists chiming in everywhere. This is a totally unreasonable line of thinking in almost anyplace except government installations and potential targets. Even then the stats are remote. Yet we see this behavior EVERYWHERE... even in small BFE towns that have small populations. Police would have a better chance preventing something terrible if they would pull over and harass each and every person leaving a neighborhood bar via car... is that reasonable??? absolutely NOT... and neither is assumption of people carrying cameras.


Please remind me... has there ever been a local police officer solely and purposefully preventing a terrorist reconnaissance mission?