U.S.: Photographers Arrested for Photographing Police

P

popstar

Well-known
Local time
12:41 PM
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
388
Saw this article a day or so ago and thought it interesting. Apparently, some U.S. states are using existing eavesdropping statues to prohibit the photography of active-duty police officers. I'll be the first to admit the article is somewhat slanted, but if the facts are accurately stated, it seems troubling the photographers are only arrested when the police are shown in a less-than-favorable light.

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

I know our friends in the U.K. have been experiencing some crackdowns on public photography recently. I hope public photography in the U.S. doesn't regularly become subject to the same scrutiny.

I don't intend for this to be a police vs. photographers debate, but would be interested in feedback, especially from those in the states mentioned.
 
I am really curious what's going to happen here, in Toronto, come end of June.

The G-20 is holding their meetings here and, well, you just know there's going to be protests, problems etc. and there will be photographers (both pro and "amateur") throughout this city.

Should make for an "interesting" situation.

Dave
 
We’re OK now in the UK the new, almost elected, Cleggeron government is committed to limiting police and state powers, reducing surveillance and information collecting of individuals, controlling the use of CCTV and speed cameras and ensuring all pigs have landing lights fitted.

PS Re-reading that its nothing like as sarcastic as I had intended
 
It's appalling. The Supreme Court basically rewrote the Miranda Law and this gross abuse of privacy (wiretapping) laws written to protect the people will most likely get a nod of approval from said court if cases of such abuse are presented before them. The next arugment will be an arrest of this nature would be supported by Homeland Security(read: secret committees)"protections". Sad. Scary. Effed Up.
Bring back the 60's we need a counter-reveolution.

(p.s. for the paranoid storm troopers ... yeah I said it signed, ISP 734.63....you have it..
 
more growing pains from the pervasiveness of recording technology, whether it's video, audio, or photography.
 
It is ok for our 'dear leaders' to take the necessary steps to protect us from the dangerous elements of the society ( taking photos, logging IPs, shpping list, facebook, etc), but not ok for us to take pictures of them (doing it).

As for ConLib mixture, I don't expect too much. Rest assured rich people will continue to get richer.
 
Last edited:
This reminds me that a photographer friend of mine here in NC was arrested this past March for photographing- with his cell phone- the arrest of two guys that had been fighting. I keep forgetting to ask him what came of the court case.

Regardless he did spend the night in jail for it.
 
popstar said:
Saw this article a day or so ago and thought it interesting. Apparently, some U.S. states are using existing eavesdropping statues to prohibit the photography of active-duty police officers. I'll be the first to admit the article is somewhat slanted, but if the facts are accurately stated, it seems troubling the photographers are only arrested when the police are shown in a less-than-favorable light.

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

I know our friends in the U.K. have been experiencing some crackdowns on public photography recently. I hope public photography in the U.S. doesn't regularly become subject to the same scrutiny.

I don't intend for this to be a police vs. photographers debate, but would be interested in feedback, especially from those in the states mentioned.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the recent big case was in maryland, and I believe that 12 states have some sort of law against photographing the police.

Now, my last three employers had video cameras all over the place to keep an eye on things, and since the police are our employees, it goes to logic that if I can be photographed by MY employer, I should have the right to photograph MY employees.

Update: Here is a message from dpreview stating that 12 states currently may have a similar view of the wiretapping/recording laws.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=35484716
 
Last edited:
That is a pretty well researched and written article. I don't see a national trend, though. And I do not think we will. The law clearly is on the side of people shooting photos/video in public areas, and there are thousands of lawyers who will happily take the cases of "shooters" who are charged. This is one issue, I believe, where media on the left and right will agree to fight any such trend. If it is Joe Bike Rider today, it could be Jane Reporter (reporters are doing a lot more of their own shooting now, particularly on-scene video for web site posts) next. Still ...
 
Since I live in one of the most corrupt states, Illinois, and that is a targeted state, I can see why police do not want their activities recorded.

Without proof, when you go to court, it is simply he said/she said and the police are either not charged or go scott free. There have be cases in the last year where there is video proof, yet some excuse is made and the police are excused. We just had a case were a 250# uniformed cop beat and kicked a 125# bartender all recorded. Not suprisingly, the trial went not guilty.

Chicago is paying settlements of millions of dollars to police abuse victims and victims cases have to have a way to be defused. This is one way. Make it a felony to defend yourself.

Liberty is where the government fears the citizens, tyranny is where the citizens fear the government. We are approaching the latter on step at a time. Illinois is on the fast track.

What ever you do to protect yourself will be twisted around and you will be made to look like the guilty party. Honestly, I would not report a fire anymore. Sad but that`s the way it is. The reporter will become an arson suspect. Walk away if you are smart.

Just to give an idea of how bad things are, the person who won the democratic primary race for governor was forced off the ballot because the machine did not like him. How did they do it? They threatened him with jail on made up charges if he did not step down.

Lets continue to turn the victim into the perp. Someday the population will wake up. The question is will it be too late. I submit it probably is already.
 
Local city here just opened a new outdoor theater/mini-arena. Included in the long list of items not allowed in the theater are "professional cameras".
 
I'm reminded of the "Critical Mass" bicycle rallies that are intended to address bicyclist's rights within a motorized society. Perhaps we need a "Critical Density" public photography movement, where thousands show up in mass public meetings in various cities and exercise their freedoms to photograph in public, police or no police in attendance. Watching the watchers; reverse surveillance.

I seem to recall that there was a recent event, somewhat like this, in Britain.

~Joe
 
arresting photographers

arresting photographers

I don't remember the exact words but it said in part "when they came for the Jews, I didn't say anything I wasn't Jewish. When they came for the Baptist, I didn't say anything . . I wasn't a Baptist. When they came for the trade unionish I said nothing. I belong to no unions. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything."
 
MickH said:
Here's another one to push the collective paranoia button:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10712745
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's just me, but a number of these incidents coming out of the UK seem to involve overzealous cops who either missed some of their training, flunked that session, or weren't paying attention.

On the broader question of who can photograph what, I subscribe to the notion that if I'm allowed to look at it, I'm allowed to photograph it, with this exception: If the state does not want some facility photographed, put up a sign that says so. We can argue about how such decisions are made, but at least photographers wouldn't be subject to the whims of the odd cop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom