Arrested for Videotaping

[sauerkraut]

The simpler route:
Your first and fourth amendment rights dont vary from state to state or city to city.

Yes but recording someone without their permission does change from state to state, as does wire-tapping and recording phone calls. It's not all that simple. our laws are made by lawyers.

[Hoss]

Yes but recording someone without their permission does change from state to state, as does wire-tapping and recording phone calls. It's not all that simple. our laws are made by lawyers.

 

[Townsend]

 

No no...don't stop to think on it.

I'm pretty sure, with similarity in postings, he and Guido are the same people.

[dbacks fan]

Hoss, walk a way and don't think about it.

[Hoss]

No no...don't stop to think on it.

I'm pretty sure, with similarity in postings, he and Guido are the same people.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked, laws were made by legislators.  Whether or not they were lawyers by profession is immaterial.

I guess Missouri River water makes you go mad.

[patric]

Another incident down the road...

http://www.pixiq.com/article/nypd-handcuff-videographer-in-times-square-for-recording-arrest

New York City police officers handcuffed a videographer after he refused to show them identification early Saturday morning.
Felix Maurent, who was wearing a National Press Photographers Association badge around his neck, was videotaping an arrest.

His video shows an NYPD officer ordering him to leave the area, accusing him of obstructing foot traffic, even though it was obvious he wasn't obstructing anything.
The officer then demanded his identification, but Maurent stated he was under no legal obligation to do so. And he was right.

The cop walks away and the video ends.
A minute later – after Maurent had turned off his camera – the officers stormed up and handcuffed him because he had not shown them identification.

Another man with a video camera captured a clip of Maurent with handcuffs. Maurent can be heard complaining of an unlawful arrest with a camera and NPPA press badge around his neck.

[patric]

It happens all over, but New York seems to be on a tear...


News photographer arrested on Long Island for videotaping police

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/141291/news-photographer-arrested-on-long-island-for-videotaping-police/

A freelance news photographer was arrested Friday and charged with obstruction after he was ordered to stop videotaping police. An officer told the photographer, Phil Datz, to "go away," after which he moved down the street and resumed taping. Despite being a credentialed member of the press and standing in a public area around other people, he was arrested and charged with obstruction of governmental administration.

The National Press Photographers Association, sent a letter to the Suffolk County Police Department protesting Datz' arrest and asking them to drop the charge:

   According to news reports Mr. Datz complied with your officer's unreasonable request to move away from the scene while the general public was allowed access. In the video – uploaded to YouTube — your officer acts in an angry and unprofessional manner and appears to have no concept of the first amendment rights granted to the press under the United States and New York Constitutions. Although Mr. Datz contacted your PIO officer your department was unable to do anything to rectify the situation.

   ...While in some situations the press may have no greater rights than those of the general public, they certainly have no less right of access on a public street, especially where a crime scene perimeter has not been clearly established.


Good Cops Have Nothing To Fear From Cameras
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-pitts-cameras-0807-20110805,0,1649802.story

'Police officers who enforce the law, while respecting the rights of the press and the public, have nothing to be concerned about. Videos of people doing their jobs well aren't in big demand on YouTube.'
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/aug/02/the-right-to-photograph-why-police-cant-call-the/

[patric]

Can anyone point me toward Oklahoma's laws regarding privacy, photography, and taping?  I looked through the OSCN search function last night, but didn't find much.

Here's Federal law on the subject; since it's guaranteeing rights it would trump more restrictive state or local laws that infringe upon those protected rights:

Privacy Protection Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000aa, whereby "it is unlawful for a sworn officer or employee, in connection with an investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize the work product of a media photographer/videographer, unless: there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure of such materials is necessary to prevent the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human being; or there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate." The policy also puts in place the right to sue department employees who violates the policy, noting that "sworn officers and employees may be held personally liable in an action for civil damages for violation of federal statute, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000aa-6." and "a search or seizure of the work product is prohibited when the offense is merely the withholding of such material."

Under the federal statute, "notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a).

Accordingly, the law authorizes civil actions by aggrieved persons for violations of the Act and provides for the recovery of "actual damages but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000, and such reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred as the court, in its discretion, may award."

[dbacks fan]

Two things in this law. 1 - It was written in 1980 and what people have now technology wise wasn't even thought of when the law was written, and 2 - It is designed to protect media photographers (at the time this would have been still, film and video) but the underlying point is it was to protect credentialed media employees.

Today, I can see, to an extent why the police would not want, or would confiscate any video recordings and detain those shooting the video as, they may be involved in some form with what ever may be happening. This law does not protect the average citizen (non media employee) from shooting video at any police scene.

It does sound like there should be a revision of the law, but it does not give free license to anyone to film anything.

When I was in high school back in the late 70's, I was a yearbook and newspaper photographer, and I was thinking of exploring a photo journalism degree and from time to time came across accident scenes and fires and would take pictures to help hone my skills as a photographer. Usually as long as I stayed out of the way, no one would say anything, but there were a few times I was asked if I was employed by the World or Tribune, and if I said yes I was asked for some ID, and if I said no I was asked to leave the area and that was all. Now, everyone wants to take what ever device and walk into things they shouldn't just for a chance to be some type of on the spot person for who ever will take the footage and put it on the air, and credit them with shooting the video.

[Hoss]

Two things in this law. 1 - It was written in 1980 and what people have now technology wise wasn't even thought of when the law was written, and 2 - It is designed to protect media photographers (at the time this would have been still, film and video) but the underlying point is it was to protect credentialed media employees.

Today, I can see, to an extent why the police would not want, or would confiscate any video recordings and detain those shooting the video as, they may be involved in some form with what ever may be happening. This law does not protect the average citizen (non media employee) from shooting video at any police scene.

It does sound like there should be a revision of the law, but it does not give free license to anyone to film anything.

When I was in high school back in the late 70's, I was a yearbook and newspaper photographer, and I was thinking of exploring a photo journalism degree and from time to time came across accident scenes and fires and would take pictures to help hone my skills as a photographer. Usually as long as I stayed out of the way, no one would say anything, but there were a few times I was asked if I was employed by the World or Tribune, and if I said yes I was asked for some ID, and if I said no I was asked to leave the area and that was all. Now, everyone wants to take what ever device and walk into things they shouldn't just for a chance to be some type of on the spot person for who ever will take the footage and put it on the air, and credit them with shooting the video.

I keep a copy of this in my camera bag.  The two times I've been harassed, I produced this and was immediately left alone.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

BTW, the person who drafted it?  An attorney.

[dbacks fan]

I keep a copy of this in my camera bag.  The two times I've been harassed, I produced this and was immediately left alone.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

BTW, the person who drafted it?  An attorney.

I think you and someone else has posted this before, and the thing is, if you read it, it's pretty much common sense (imagine that) and if it's marked, "NO PHOTOGRAPHY PERMITTED" you know that you can't take pictures. The most stringent that I have been exposed to(partial pun) was at Kartchner Caverns in Arizona, and you had to leave any video or recording device outside of the cavern. Period.
But as I said it's common sense, and all of us know that somewhere some LEO will take it to the extreme, and on the flip side some one with a camera will take it where they shouldn't and you have things like this.
Will someone help me get started in teaching a class in common sense?

[nathanm]

Just because someone puts up a sign that says "no photography permitted" doesn't mean you can't take a picture of it, unless it's a military installation. As long as you're not trespassing, you can do pretty much whatever you want, so long as it can't be construed as stalking or some other "perv" crime.

[Hoss]

Just because someone puts up a sign that says "no photography permitted" doesn't mean you can't take a picture of it, unless it's a military installation. As long as you're not trespassing, you can do pretty much whatever you want, so long as it can't be construed as stalking or some other "perv" crime.

And most 'commonsensical' people will know the difference.

The reason I say this is that one of the incidents that happened to me happened at the south observation pad at TIA.  I was using my new long tele lens to photograph planes landing and taking off.  TIA Airport Police came by and told me I couldn't.  I asked them to cite me the specific code or ordinance stating I couldn't.  They spouted off 'things are different since 9-11'.  I called them on it.  When I produced that, they asked me for my ID, which I complied with.  They left.

[nathanm]

And most 'commonsensical' people will know the difference.

I didn't say you wouldn't be harassed by some person who thought that you were taking a picture of their special little snowflake (whether that special little snowflake is their kid or their federal building or their cop shop or their factory), just that they can't legally stop you.

[Hoss]

I didn't say you wouldn't be harassed by some person who thought that you were taking a picture of their special little snowflake (whether that special little snowflake is their kid or their federal building or their cop shop or their factory), just that they can't legally stop you.

If you are on their property then anyone is within their rights to ask you to stop photographing.  If they put up a sign that plainly states 'no photography', then common sense dictates you should be courteous and comply with that.  Not everyone does.

Now, trying to photograph somewhere at Groom Lake in Nevada where this...



...is posted, is a different story altogether.