| 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
Cops on "videotaping cops"
Mark Peters, Photographer
 |
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 7:25 AM on 08.30.11 |
| ->> The comments which follow the article should give pause to most. |
|
Scott Morgan, Photographer
|
David Scott, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | US | Posted: 2:49 PM on 08.30.11 |
->> @Scott Yes... But there will always those cops who are unprofessional.
First and last sentences from a comment posted by a cop with the Hulk as his avatar:
"As long as they submit to a terry pat let them tape but people have enough rights as it is, I mean hell!"
"To all you camera fags out there interfere with my duty and see what happens, lawsuit or no lawsuit somebody's ass is going to jail and I am going home."
-- Dave |
|
Michael Durisseau, Photographer, Assistant
|
Santa Fe/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 4:35 PM on 08.30.11 |
| ->> Have to agree about the comments. I think, for the general public, there should be some kind of 'buffer' that allows those guys to do their work, but keeps the opportunity for the public to observe as they see fit. For the journalists, there should be something different, as long as the safety issues are addressed. One of the keys is your relationship with the police. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 6:03 PM on 08.30.11 |
->> I have a pretty simple policy on this kind of stuff: I stay on top of the laws as they pertain to my career and I do my job... period, never allowing a law enforcement officer, government official, security person etc. to stop me, even temporarily, from lawful and protected news-gathering activity.
I arrive at a news scene or event and carry myself in a professional manner and go about doing my job. I've found that 95% of the time just dressing like, speaking like and acting like a professional is enough to prevent being harassed by over-bearing law enforcement officers.
Naturally though, there is still that 5% that made up their mind to hassle you the minute they laid eyes on you. There's not much you can do about these people out in the street - beyond continuing to act like a professional yourself (even if they're not acting like one), asking for a supervisor to respond to the location or even calling one yourself.
If you work in a particular geographic location it's not a bad idea to program the names and cell numbers of a few law enforcement supervisors from each department into your cell (someone with AT LEAST the rank of Lt.) or at the very least, program in the PIO's cell and the number to the department's non-emergency dispatch.
I've had a couple of minor encounters with badge-heavy police officers/sheriff's deputies that were defused fairly quickly by simply taking a step back and calling (within earshot of the officer) a supervisor's cell and asking them or another supervisor to respond to the scene. Trying to give a street cop an impromptu lesson on the 1st Amendment or the Shield Law is a waste of time.
After calling for a supervisor, I immediately go back to doing my job, complying with any reasonable and lawful requests and ignoring any chest thumping or nonsense orders (like saying media can't be where citizens are or telling me I can't shoot an "active crime scene").
At that point I've been instructed by my lawyer that the appropriate thing (and only thing) to say to the officer is, "I've requested a supervisor respond to the scene to hopefully clear things up and now I have to get back to doing my job. Please let me know if you have any 'lawful' orders (the word "lawful is important) you need me to comply with. Please understand that I have no intention of resisting you, interfering with your work or preventing you from doing whatever you feel your duty compels you to do at this point." (NOTE: It helps if you have a camera that shoots video hanging from one shoulder to activate the video so you can have at least audio of the encounter.)
Also, I've found that if a police officer is yelling, then the easiest way to get them to calm down is to simply lower THIER voice and their attitude will usually follow. How do you lower someone else's voice? You, yourself, speak at just slightly over a whisper. It's hard to maintain a screaming fit at someone who is calm and whispering. They have to slow down, lean in and actually listen to what you are saying. Try it if you don't believe me.
Bottom line, be professional, know your rights and just do your job... even if you have to get arrested, but don't go looking for a fight. |
|
Andrew Knapik, Photographer, Assistant
|
Lincoln Park | MI | USA | Posted: 7:29 PM on 08.30.11 |
| ->> Brian - well said! |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:02 AM on 08.31.11 |
->> "(NOTE: It helps if you have a camera that shoots video hanging from one shoulder to activate the video so you can have at least audio of the encounter.)"
A word of caution on doing this. In some states, such as Illinois, this violates state eavesdropping statutes. You can videotape the encounter without audio and be in compliance with state law, but as soon as you turn the audio on you have another legal headache to deal with. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 11:57 AM on 08.31.11 |
->> Clark,
I can only speak for myself (based on FL law) and I have ZERO hesitation recording audio and video here in Florida and frankly anywhere else in the US... but that's just me.
In those states where they have these absurdly-abused "eavesdropping" statutes, I'd still do it without hesitation. Courts in various states have consistently upheld that police officers, engaged in the official performance of their duties, in public places, have no expectation of privacy. They darn sure are going to record YOU with audio and video on their dashcams.
Without a recording of, at the very least, the discussion that took place, it's your word against a police officer's word... guess who loses 9 times out of 10 in that situation. Trust me, as a former police officer myself, I've known a lot of officers (most are honest though) who have zero hesitation in fabricating facts, massaging a report or affidavit and downright lying on the stand. They even have a cute name for it, "testilying" and some get a real kick out of it.
The officers who we're talking about here are the "arrest first and justify it later" crowd and when dealing with those guys I'll take my chances making an honest recording of the encounter any day... but again that's just me. If you want to take your chances allowing a bully officer's word and report to be the only 'official' record and version of the encounter, then I can respect that, but having been on both sides of this issue I can tell you I'll record every day all day... and I don't mind that being here in 'print' on the web. |
|
Jason Jump, Photographer
|
Humble | TX | USA | Posted: 12:07 PM on 08.31.11 |
->> Brian I think you had some GREAT advice there!
Didn't read all the comments, but did notice this one:
"People hate authority and government (not just the feds) right now."
At the expense of sounding hypocritical here it seems this is a growing sentiment with those that view themselves as "authority" figures.
It's a broad brush this poster is using and one that I do not feel is accurate at all. I don't think "people' hate authority and/or government at all. (Of course there are SOME that do hate authority and government, but those folks have always existed in some form or fashion)
What I think people hate is unconstitutional authority and government. There is a HUGE difference.
I see this issue kind of like the issue of referees and strobes. There is a "law" on the books (or in the case of strobes a lack of a law in some instances) that protect photographers. Yet there is very little if any training for those that are on the front lines.
So what you end up with is mass non-continuity. Those that see themselves as "authority" figures instead of public servants will take an opportunity to flex their supposed muscle just because they can even though there is no justification.
And in the end EVERYONE loses except the lawyers. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 1:34 PM on 09.01.11 |
->> Brian,
Your approach would likely work in 49 of the States. In Illinois the penalty is 15 years (it's a felony) and yes they are prosecuting.
Illinois specifically removed the "no expectation of privacy" provision Most plea bargain out but there are several awaiting trial who refuse to do so. One guy in southeastern IL is facing 75 years. When I wrote my state legislators only one responded with a vaugue "looking into it.". This is a travesty. Massachusetts has a similar law on the books. That's it. 2 of 50 and Mass judges aren't seemingly inclined to enforce it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/chicago-district-attorney-recordin... |
|
Doug McSchooler, Photographer
|
Avon | Indiana | United States | Posted: 2:10 PM on 09.01.11 |
->> I think that it is important to point out that a majority of the comments seem to support the rights that allow recording of police activities by the public.
Like any group of professionals (including photographers) there are those select few that speak louder, and sound less-educated, than the rest of the crowd. These are the individuals that give their respective professions a bad name. Just as we have those photographers that seem to enjoy breaking the rules because they don't think they apply to them; police officers have a select few that fall into the spotlight for their stupidity.
I applaud the officers that are interested in only doing their jobs without concern of who is watching.
We should concern ourselves with educating our industry about the ethical requirements we have to maintain context in the reporting that we do. Too often, the focus of what we cover misses the overall story itself. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 7:09 PM on 09.01.11 |
->> Actually in Commonwealth v Michael J. Hyde the Massachusetts Supreme Judaical Court upheld the conviction. The basis being that Hyde willfully HID the recording device in the car (headliner if I remember correctly) The court held that had the recorder been in out in the open Hyde would have been in the clear. Here is the snippet from the ruling:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1330122.html
" The problem here could have been avoided if, at the outset of the traffic stop, the defendant had simply informed the police of his intention to tape record the encounter, or even held the tape recorder in plain sight.12 Had he done so, his recording would not have been secret, and so would not have violated G.L. c. 272, ยง 99. "
Maybe we just need to wear tee shirts that say "Speak up I'm recording you" |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 7:44 PM on 09.01.11 |
| ->> In the Illinois case, he walked into court, told them he was going to record it and got arrested because the judge said it violated her privacy. This was after he was denied a court reporter. Apparently around Robinson justice is a blind, deaf mute. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|