Daryl J.
Well-known
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/gresham_pays_85k_educates_cops.html
Perhaps this can be a legal precedent useful all over the USA.
Perhaps this can be a legal precedent useful all over the USA.
Gresham, OR pays $85,000 to photographer for rights violation
- Thread starter Daryl J.
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 3
- Views 1K
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Seems to me that the supreme court has already ruled that you can photograph the police. I believe that the law allows you to photograph anything you can see when you are in a public place. Agree or disagree?
Ranchu
Veteran
Are you asking if we agree or disagree that that is the law, or are you asking if we agree or disagree with the law?
willie_901
Veteran
Well, this case just follows well established US legal precedent.
Cases like these are never lost (or are settled in the plaintiff's favor) as long as the photographer/videographer was not interfering with a law enforcement investigation.
For instance crossing into an area marked by crime scene tape is interference. Doing what Ms. Medina did is not. If a law enforcement officer instructed me to move further away from an incident, I would obey. This is different from what Ms. Medina was ordered to do.
In fact, Ms. Medina told the officer she would comply when presented with a subpoena. Legally, this is not obstruction. After her legal expenses are paid, she is donating the remainder of the award to ACLU. So she can't be dismissed as a greedy, law-suit prone individual.
The only way to have an impact "all over the USA" is for more people to do exactly what Ms Medina did.
Cases like these are never lost (or are settled in the plaintiff's favor) as long as the photographer/videographer was not interfering with a law enforcement investigation.
For instance crossing into an area marked by crime scene tape is interference. Doing what Ms. Medina did is not. If a law enforcement officer instructed me to move further away from an incident, I would obey. This is different from what Ms. Medina was ordered to do.
In fact, Ms. Medina told the officer she would comply when presented with a subpoena. Legally, this is not obstruction. After her legal expenses are paid, she is donating the remainder of the award to ACLU. So she can't be dismissed as a greedy, law-suit prone individual.
The only way to have an impact "all over the USA" is for more people to do exactly what Ms Medina did.
Similar threads
