Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity

Reply
Thread Tools

Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity

 
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
HEMI - Powered wrote:

> Today, Celcius made these interesting comments ...
>
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of
>>> police activity on his cellphone:
>>> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html Read the story;
>>> several things don't make sense, not least of which is the
>>> claim that no supervisor was on duty. Of course, there are
>>> two sides to every story, and this one is no exception. There
>>> is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it exists (a
>>> competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
>>> evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the
>>> man and the police have different stories (DUH!).
>>>
>>> I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from
>>> taking a picture of police activity in plain sight.

>
>> Big Brother is watching...
>> Orwell might have been right after all.
>> Take care,

>
> "Big Brother" has been watching since FISA was updated twice
> since 9/11, the 1947 NSA was updated at least twice since, all
> Federal intelligence and law enforcement activities were
> consolidated under Homeland Security, along with incorrectly
> bundling FEMA in, and finally, the Bill of Rights was abrogated,
> severely abridged, and the 4th Amendment basically destroyed by
> the Patriot Act, which turns out to be an acronym.
>
> Whether any of us agree with or disagree with the Bush
> Administration's stance on all of this, including the highly
> controversial "wire tapping" of American phone calls and the
> accusation that the NY Times violated the NSA by leaking the
> story about the USA monitoring foreign money transfers, it is
> quite clear that today's post-9/11 world is very different than
> it was prior to about 9:00AM on September 11, 2001.
>
> Over in alt.binaries.pictures.rail there was a very long, very
> contentious thread about whether a private company can or cannot
> confiscate picture you take of their rail yard from a public
> ridge, and the discussion drifted into whether photography on
> private property is or is not a protected "right". Well, not
> being a Constitutional law attorney, I am an engineer, I do not
> know the answer to these knotty questions of our time.


The quick answer to that one is that if their guards can catch and overpower
you then they can confiscate pictures you take, and your camera, and your
clothing, and whatever parts of your body they see fit to remove. That is
an entirely different issue from whether such an action is _lawful_.

> But, I do know this: If you are accosted for doing something with
> a camera of /any/ sort, cell phone, P & S, or sophisticated DSLR
> where a legitimate law enforcment officer takes issue or even if
> a private security guard take issue, your best course of action
> is to immediately park your ego, stand down, get polite and very
> contrite, and try to calm down the person accosting you. Absent
> so really sincere humility, some amount of hassle will definitely
> come your way, all the way to a police arrest for anything as
> small as disturbing the peace, misdemeanor photography of a
> police investigation, to felony obstruction of justice or a
> believed attempt to contribute to the crime being investigated,
> planning of a future crime, or the worst of all, the planning or
> execution of a real or perceived terrorist attack.
>
> The latter is so ill-defined that it is difficult right now to
> even talk about what does or does not constitute an "attack" by a
> common citizen taking a picture with their cell phone camera or
> saying something seemingly innocuos like "gee, here's a good
> example of police brutality in progress!". And, I wouldn't advise
> ya to yell "Big Brother!" if you are in a similar situation.
>
> So, as to whether it is or is not against the law to take
> pictures of anything, including a police action, only a qualified
> attorney can answer that, but likely, it will become a matter for
> state or federal courts to decide and may wind its way through
> the appellate court system all the way to the Supreme Court,
> which really makes me wonder where the Hell the ACLU has been
> during all of this over the last 4-5 years ...
>


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bob Salomon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Bill Funk wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:59:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to happen is
> >>that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now, whether the courts let it
> >>stand is another story.

> >
> > It's far more complicated than that.
> > Just taking the vote by the legislators: each has to consider what his
> > vote will mean to the voters, not just as far as passing the bill is
> > concerned.

>
> How does that make it "more complicated" than a majority vote?
>
> > I do think the cop exceeded his authority; as I pointed out, the
> > excuse that a super wasn't on duty is absurd.


What Legislature?

The laws that a city or town police enforce are Municipal ordinances.
The laws State police enforce are state laws. The FBI and other Federal
police enforce Federal laws. Sheriffs and Marshals have other
regulations. Fire police enforce other regulations as do Park police.
Then you have private police such as those on collage campuses.

What one vote do you think would work? Remember - those powers not
enforced by the Federal government are enforced by the states.

Did you ever hear of a FBI agent or a Secret Service agent arresting
someone for running a red light in your town?

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
(PeteCresswell)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
Per HEMI - Powered:
> misdemeanor photography of a
>police investigation


After all, we don't want any more of that Rodney King nonsense, do we? -)
--
PeteCresswell
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
Bill Funk wrote:
> Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
> activity on his cellphone:
> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
> Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
> the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
> Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
> exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
> exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
> evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
> police have different stories (DUH!).
>
> I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
> picture of police activity in plain sight.



I don't either, at least not one that would stand the constitutional
test in court. All it takes is someone with the stones to push the
issue high enough, or garner enough attention to get the ACLU's
attention. Success would simply have the law stricken from the books.
For the record, I've been known to snap a few when the opportunity
presented itself, the cops knew it, and I've never been hassled about
it. Then again, I wasn't in Philadelphia either.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
 
Reply With Quote
 
cjcampbell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006

Celcius wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote:
> > Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
> > activity on his cellphone:
> > http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
> > Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
> > the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
> > Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
> > exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
> > exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
> > evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
> > police have different stories (DUH!).
> >
> > I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
> > picture of police activity in plain sight.
> > --
> > Bill Funk
> > replace "g" with "a"

>
> Bill,
> Big Brother is watching...
> Orwell might have been right after all.


Yeah. But we're the ones with the cameras. We ARE Big Brother!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
Bill Funk wrote:
> Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
> activity on his cellphone:
> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
> Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
> the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
> Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
> exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
> exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
> evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
> police have different stories (DUH!).
>
> I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
> picture of police activity in plain sight.


I doubt such a law would stand a constitutional test, but it could stand
until a judge tossed it out, which might be long after you were
inconvenienced, or fined, for it. Generally, any citizen activity that
doesn't interfere with the police doing their job would be allowed.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ljb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
> activity on his cellphone:
> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html


Recommended reading for all photographers who might encounter this:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Click on the link for the downloadable flyer.
Author is a lawyer, photographer, and advocate. With the usual disclaimers,
he tries to explain the laws. Subtitled "Your rights and remedies when
stopped or confronted for photography".
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:18:43 -0000, HEMI - Powered wrote:

> Yeas and Nays in two Houses of Congress signify passage or defeat
> of a /bill/, not a law. It doesn't become a law until the
> executive signs it, whether a state governor or the president.
> But, you are entirely correct in that no one really knows what
> the new law does or does not say, exactly how it is applied and
> enforced, and whether it is constitutional or not until at least
> one case comes before a state or federal court.


And that's not even taking into consideration presidential signing
statements, suddenly become numerous, and intentionally (and rather
clandestinely) used to undermine the bill-become-law just after
being signed.

 
Reply With Quote
 
cjcampbell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote:
> > Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
> > activity on his cellphone:
> > http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
> > Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
> > the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
> > Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
> > exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
> > exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
> > evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
> > police have different stories (DUH!).
> >
> > I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
> > picture of police activity in plain sight.

>
> I doubt such a law would stand a constitutional test, but it could stand
> until a judge tossed it out, which might be long after you were
> inconvenienced, or fined, for it. Generally, any citizen activity that
> doesn't interfere with the police doing their job would be allowed.


But it does not keep a photographer from suing or charging police with
conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
cjcampbell wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
>>> activity on his cellphone:
>>> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
>>> Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
>>> the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
>>> Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
>>> exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
>>> exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
>>> evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
>>> police have different stories (DUH!).
>>>
>>> I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
>>> picture of police activity in plain sight.

>> I doubt such a law would stand a constitutional test, but it could stand
>> until a judge tossed it out, which might be long after you were
>> inconvenienced, or fined, for it. Generally, any citizen activity that
>> doesn't interfere with the police doing their job would be allowed.

>
> But it does not keep a photographer from suing or charging police with
> conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights.
>

NO. You can challenge ANY law in court on grounds of constitutionality.
However, to so, you need to have someone brave enough to break that
law, and suffer the consequences.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Man who threw snowball at police faces second court hearing richard Computer Support 1 01-04-2011 09:42 PM
Re: Man who threw snowball at police faces second court hearing WeReo_BoY Computer Support 2 01-04-2011 03:39 PM
New releases: The Man With the Golden Arm, Cinderella Man & Dead & Buried; Updated complete downloadable R1 DVD DB & info lists Doug MacLean DVD Video 0 08-16-2005 05:35 AM
Anyone ever arrested for taking a photo in the U.S.? JohnCM Digital Photography 24 06-28-2004 07:22 PM
conflict between man perlipc and man perlfunc !? Jaap Karssenberg Perl Misc 0 01-09-2004 11:39 PM



Advertisments