| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
oak trib pj's suit vs cops, access dismissed in fed court
Nina Zhito, Photographer
 |
bay area | CA | | Posted: 10:57 AM on 06.03.09 |
->> http://tinyurl.com/o2jmho
judge claims media has no first amendment right to access at accident or crime scenes "if the public was excluded" |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 12:52 PM on 06.03.09 |
| ->> Nice to see the common man's prespective of a news photographer being a member of the "liberal media". If making a image is a political image on a day in, day out basis, then I'll go back to writing. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:56 PM on 06.03.09 |
| ->> Happened to me the same exact way 15 years ago. My results were different. The cop was "released" from the force. |
|
Michael Durisseau, Photographer, Assistant
|
Santa Fe | TX | USA | Posted: 11:08 PM on 06.03.09 |
| ->> I think it's sad...I do believe that First Amendment rights were meant to be absolute. If they continue to be eroded, it's possible that there will be difficulty covering what is important... |
|
Jon Cunningham, Photographer
 |
Lisle | IL | USA | Posted: 1:00 AM on 06.04.09 |
->> Happened to me too, a few months back. The "accident" happened right in front of me. I stopped and started shooting, only to have a cop arrive a few minutes later to kick me out, showing great disdain for the very job I was doing. I too had a credential around my neck.
The hard part was getting back to my truck, which was parked on the opposite side of the accident scene from where the cop approached me. The cop said I could not cross the scene to return to my vehicle to leave the area, as I might disturb evidence. That meant a wide circular route around the scene and crawling through a hedge to get out of there.
Ironically, I was the best witness they had, because I saw it all happen. Instead, they took a statement from the reckless driver involved. He evidently said he was forced off of the road, when in fact he was passing another car while in the wrong lane with oncoming traffic.
Unlike ten years ago, it's getting to the point where a news credential actually diminishes one's credibility with with authorities on the scene. |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
|
McComb | MS | USA | Posted: 5:39 AM on 06.04.09 |
->> Anyone have their CEO or publisher have a (talk) with the police chief before anything like this goes to court?
Maybe the name Hurst doesn't hold the political clout in the bay area that it use to.
Maybe corporate doesn't want to or care about 1st Amendment stuff.
I know if something like that happened here. It would be hard for a sheriff or police chief to refuse to talk to someone named Emmerich. (CEO) |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 10:13 AM on 06.04.09 |
->> Crime scene preservation is a real issue. If it's an accident, murder, etc. everything on the ground nearby can be significant. With accidents, simply kicking a piece of debris with your foot can change the way the accident is viewed. The outcome of subsequent legal action could be impacted by disturbed evidence.
It's the first responding officer's job to preserve the scene. Their butt is on the line if they don't do it correctly. If their supervisor rolls up and finds media and bystanders traipsing around in the scene, the officer is going to have a really bad day. That's one of the reason they get really tight about photographers (or anyone) messing around before the tape is up. I've found in many cases simply asking, "Where is your scene?" or "Where can I be to stay clear of your scene?" makes a big difference in their attitude.
As has been pointed out many times, arguing at the scene with law enforcement will not help...so the key thing is to keep your head in the job and do what you can to make sure you have images regardless of what happens. Photographing injured/deceased victims at a scene is almost always going to elicit a response from law enforcement, right or wrong, first amendment or not. Cops have no sympathy for photographers taking those types of pictures, and doing so will change their mood towards you dramatically. Sometimes you have to do it anyway, but when you do just be aware that you might get a response (asked to leave, "detained", etc.) and plan accordingly. It's a good idea to have most the shots you need before you take shots that might generate a response. Switch cards out of the camera in case images are 'accidentally' deleted if/when they detain you, etc.
Trying to understand and work around their attitude is far more effective than arguing. If you dig in against a police officer you WILL lose at the scene. Later in court you might win. But it will be a hollow victory if you don't have the images you were there to shoot in the first place.
It's hard to know what happened with the encounters mentioned in this thread, so don't take this as justifying actions of either side. It is more about giving some practical (versus idealistic) insight into how it really works...and ways you might be able to avoid conflict while still getting the job done. |
|
Mike Shepherd, Photographer
|
Wichita | KS | USA | Posted: 12:17 PM on 06.04.09 |
->> David, that's all fine and good. But what I have a problem with is the police officer allegedly telling the photographer that he can't or shouldn't be taking "these kinds of photos," which to me is more the issue than where he was standing.
Aaron, I wish everyone could be as confident as you. I was ordered to leave a public sidewalk once by an over-zealous police officer who, ironically, happened to be the department's PIO at the time. Words like "are you listening to me?" and "because I said so!" were used in my direction within seconds of me arriving at the scene. I left because as strongly as I felt I wasn't doing anything wrong nor did he have the authority to order me to leave a public space that wasn't marked as a crime scene, I had very little faith that the newspaper I worked for at the time would stand behind me. (And, truly, there was nothing of significance happening.) This was several years ago and I know the climate in the business has changed considerably since then. It just makes me wonder how many other instances journalists have been intimidated without it ever coming to light. |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 12:19 PM on 06.04.09 |
| ->> Damn that pesky First Amendment. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 12:47 PM on 06.04.09 |
->> "
David, that's all fine and good. But what I have a problem with is the police officer allegedly telling the photographer that he can't or shouldn't be taking "these kinds of photos," which to me is more the issue than where he was standing.
"
Mike - here's the issue I have. So many people willing to decide the merits of the case when they only see one side's opinion. Especially a biased side - and I don't mean left or right wing here - just the natural bias of the paper printing the journalist's side. From the artical posted you'll notice the only aspects of the case are the words of the journalist. You don't see what evidence the judge saw. You don't see the testimony of other people at the scene or the officers. It certainly may be that the journalist's first amendment rights wer violated. I would sumbit there simply isn't enough INFORMATION (information is different then opinion or editorial) in the artical to judge the merits of the case. The judge also made a comment:
"Moreover, common sense dictates that members of the general public are not allowed to exit their cars in the middle of the freeway to view an accident scene."
The story doesn't address where the journalist parked his car? Was there a safety issues? Did the police first site that and the reporter is editing out that aspect of the confrontation in the interview with the paper? You don't know. And neither do I. And no, I'm not just jumping to the defense of the police here. I'm merely stating that we haven't been given the full story. Shockingly enough there's usually multiple version of events when lawsuits are involved. It would be interesting to see transcripts of what other testimony and evidence was presented.
Really though - what I find most interesting is whoever marked David's post as 'funny'. What a shocking notion - that working WITH people produces better results than confronting them. Sure it's not always possible - some people will be jerks no matter what but in any aspect of human interaction - especially when it regards people with authority - direct confrontation is never usually likely to win you much slack. Piss off a bank teller and they'll take more time. Piss off a waitress and take your chances with the food she brings you. It's human nature. Right or wrong, when you piss someone off their natural reaction is to fight back - ESPECIALLY when you're dealing with alpha personalities. Again, some are just on an ego trip and you can never win. But it's a rare alpha that will respond positively to confrontation and a question of their authority. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 3:55 PM on 06.04.09 |
->> Mike,
As I said above - I'm not saying the cops were right or wrong. I wasn't there, neither were you. What I do know is what I've seen myself in situations like this and that's all my comments were about. It's about dealing with the situation at hand in a practical sense, and picking your battles.
Not every situation is a First Amendment issue worth slugging out in court. Some are. But in the general, day-to-day coverage of news, most situations like this are gorilla dust, and they can be dealt with in far more productive ways than arguing constitutional law with a police officer at the side of the road during the chaos of an evolving spot news event. |
|
Jon L Hendricks, Photographer
|
Hobart | IN | USA | Posted: 6:00 PM on 06.04.09 |
| ->> Whoa.....don't get me started. Police have almost zero liability...almost zero when it comes to telling people what to do and arresting them if they don't obey. You really need a video cam rolling at all times during spot news to document everything with sound. It really makes for a frustrated and disheartened journalist when given an unlawful command. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|