Arrested for Videotaping

[patric]

Police Commissioner reads Riot Act to Officers

NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly ordered that a "Finest" message be disseminated reminding officers of their obligations to cooperate with the media. The message will be read at 10 consecutive roll calls citywide.

The Finest message highlights various guidelines that instruct police on how to deal with the media, including that "Members of the service will not interfere with the videotaping or the photographing of incidents in public places. Intentional interference such as blocking or obstructing cameras or harassing the photographer constitutes censorship. Working Press Cards clearly state the bearer 'is entitled to cross police and fire lines.' This right will be honored and access will not be denied."

The message also states: that "Members of the service who unreasonably interfere with media access to incidents or who intentionally prevent or obstruct the photographing or videotaping of news in public places will be subject to disciplinary action."

The meeting on Wednesday came after a letter was sent by media organizations on Monday complaining about the way police mishandled the media during last week's "eviction" of Zuccotti Park, the home of months of Occupy Wall Street protests. Police officers arrested several journalists and also used force against several journalists during the raid.

http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/files/2011/11/NYPD-Finest-message.pdf

[patric]

You might recognize this AP photographer as the one who shot the famous photo that was made into Obama's 2008 "HOPE" poster:

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2012/01/garcia.html

[patric]

This is (if you will excuse the pun) a riot...

The Department of Justice website on how to file a complaint:
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/polmis.php

[patric]

On First Amendment grounds, a federal appeals court on Tuesday blocked enforcement of an Illinois law that makes it a felony to take video - with sound -- of police officers on the job.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the American Civil Liberties Union in challenging the Illinois eavesdropping law.

Judge Diane Sykes wrote for the 2-1 majority:

The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts a medium of expression commonly used for the preservation and communication of information and ideas, thus triggering First Amendment scrutiny. Illinois has criminalized the nonconsensual recording of most any oral communication, including recordings of public officials doing the public's business in public and regardless of whether the recording is open or surreptitious.

Defending the broad sweep of this statute, the State's Attorney relies on the government's interest in protecting conversational privacy, but that interest is not implicated when police officers are performing their duties in public places and engaging in public communications audible to persons who witness the events.

Even under the more lenient intermediate standard of scrutiny applicable to content neutral burdens on speech, this application of the statute very likely flunks. The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests; as applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment's free speech and free-press guarantees.


Chicago police claim "First Amendment rights can be terminated"
http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/01/11998060-first-amendment-rights-can-be-terminated-when-cops-cameras-dont-mix?lite

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/fbi_gets_go_ahead_to_inspect_grabbed_video/id_47919

[patric]

The national epidemic of brutality on news photographers continues with this ugly version of "Reno 911":

http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201206191234/NEWS/306190039&nclick_check=1



A 60-year-old Reno Gazette-Journal photojournalist was pushed to the ground, handcuffed and suffered minor injuries Monday after sheriff's deputies alleged he obstructed and resisted them while trying to take photographs of a destructive fire in Sun Valley.
About 5:42 p.m. Monday, Washoe County Sheriff's Office deputies cited Tim Dunn for obstruction and resisting.

Dunn, the newspaper's photo director and a 21-year employee there, was taking photos of a fire that broke out near Flora Way and East Fourth Avenue. The fire ultimately destroyed two homes and multiple structures.

Dunn said he was told to leave the area and was directed to another location farther from the scene. He said he was then taken to the ground by two deputies – one who shoved his foot on Dunn's back and the other who pushed his face in the gravel. Dunn's cheek has a large scrape on it.

Dunn said the deputies accused him of trying to impersonate a firefighter because he was wearing yellow protective fire gear, a helmet and goggles. However, annual wildfire training for media conducted by fire officials recommends such fire gear.

"I kept thinking this was not really happening," Dunn said.

Barry Smith, executive director of the Nevada Press Association, called it "absolutely preposterous" that Dunn could have been mistaken for a firefighter, and said Dunn's gear is called for in the 20-page Sierra Front Media Fire Guide published by an interagency coalition that includes the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada Division of Forestry and others.

"Please keep in mind appropriate attire when you are covering fire operations. ... We cannot guarantee that the supply unit will have sizes of fire clothing that will fit you. It is always best to come to a wildfire fully equipped," according to the guide. It also states, "Remember that the decision to assume risk remains with the journalist."

"The whole idea of 'move or you're going to be arrested' is way outside that policy," Smith said.

Sheriff's office spokesman Deputy Armando Avina said the deputies used their discretion and did not arrest Dunn. Avina said because reports in the case have not been completed, he could not comment on the incident.

Beryl Love, Gazette-Journal executive editor, said there have been several instances during the past year in which reporters and photographers were not given access to scenes where they had a right to be. But Love said Monday's incident goes above and beyond press access.

"The brutal nature in which Tim, a veteran photographer with more than 20 years experience, was treated by sheriff's deputies is beyond comprehension," Love said in a statement. "Their use of excessive force on a fellow professional who also has an important job to do is shocking. His rights were clearly violated."

Love said the newspaper is preparing a formal administrative complaint and is advising Dunn on possible civil actions related to his injuries.
Smith said he doesn't remember any such incident in the past 20 years.

"There are occasionally disagreements over where people should be and how much access there is, but I've never heard of a deputy actually beating up a photographer," he told the Associated Press. "I'm outraged."

Dunn said he was asked by a man wearing a T-shirt, later identified as Capt. John Spencer, who he was with. After Dunn said he responded that he was with the Gazette-Journal, he said Spencer told him to go down the hill where other media had been directed.

Dunn said that after he complained the area was too far away for him to take photos, Spencer escorted him down the hill and said Dunn did not have any identification.  After Dunn said he told Spencer he wasn't asked to show identification, their conversation became heated. Soon, Dunn said, the two deputies arrived and handcuffed him after taking him to the ground.

"I was proceeding out of the area and was irritated they wouldn't let me do my job, but I was doing what they told me," Dunn said. "... I don't know why they felt they had to take me down. I'm a 60-year-old guy carrying camera equipment."

Dunn said he always has respected law enforcement and the job they do. He said Monday's incident disappointed him.
"My rights were violated, and the force they used was not necessary," he said.

Smith said he spent much of Tuesday researching relevant state statutes, rules and regulations. He said fire officials and law officers "clearly do not have the authority to order the media around at any kind of an emergency site." He said obvious exceptions include "if somebody is obstructing the firefighters from getting to the scene or doing their job, or there is some imminent danger the reporter or photographer is not aware of — and in that case, they should be advising them."

"Nevada journalists are trained how to respond to wildfires," said Smith, who intends to support the newspaper in its action. "It sounds to me like the fire officials and deputies need to be trained on how to respond to the media."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.





HARLEM — The NYPD has created a "wanted" poster for a Harlem couple who film cops conducting stop-and-frisks and post the videos on YouTube.
"Be aware that above subjects are known professional agitators," read the flyer, which bears the NYPD shield and a seal of the NYPD's Intelligence Division. It also gave the home address of the couple.
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120702/west-harlem/harlem-couple-branded-professional-agitators-nypd-wanted-poster

[patric]

Washington DC Police Adopt Sane Photography Guidelines
A new directive from DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier cements the rights of people to record the police
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/07/washington-dc-police-adopt-sane-photography-guidelines


It seems like every day or two we hear a story about a photographer getting hassled for taking photos in a totally legal way. Now, a new directive has been issued to the police force of Washington DC, and it clearly outlines that people have the right to record the police.

The directive is available online here
https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/GO_304_19.pdf
and Chief of Police Cathy Lanier has explained that yes, it's totally legal to record them, and that they can't tell you to erase the footage.

    The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) recognizes that members of the general public have a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and/or audio record MPD members while MPD members are conducting official business or while acting in an official capacity in any public space, unless such recordings interfere with police activity. 

It also clarifies that photography of buildings and events is completely legal; bystanders have the same right to records as media; the police can't order you to stop, detain you, demand an explanation, or threaten you; and "members shall not, under any circumstances, erase or delete, or instruct or require any other person to erase or delete, any recorded images or sounds from any camera or other recording device."

All things told, it's great to see a sane guideline come out of a major police force, though it's a bit sad that something that seems so obvious and common sense need to be enshrined like this.

If an officer thinks a citizen has captured images that could be used as evidence, police can ask the person to e-mail such images to the department. If the person refuses, the officer can call a supervisor and seek a warrant to seize the camera or images.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/dc-officers-are-directed-to-leave-citizen-photographers-alone/2012/07/23/gJQAYKcI5W_story.html

[Ed W]

Washington DC Police Adopt Sane Photography Guidelines
A new directive from DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier cements the rights of people to record the police
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/07/washington-dc-police-adopt-sane-photography-guidelines


It seems like every day or two we hear a story about a photographer getting hassled for taking photos in a totally legal way. Now, a new directive has been issued to the police force of Washington DC, and it clearly outlines that people have the right to record the police.

...and the very next day...

Well, that didn't take long. Just one day after Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier issued a directive ordering officers to leave photographers alone (PDF here), a police officer reportedly snatched a man's camera at a crime scene and later returned it without the memory card. My Fox DC writes,

    Earl Staley says he considers what happened to him Friday, July 20, a robbery.

    "I know that I could take these pictures of these guys," Staley tells Fox 5 News. "I know it. Especially when they're doing something wrong."

    Staley says his smartphone was snatched by a D.C. Police officer last Friday evening along Raleigh Place in Southeast D.C. Staley says he saw police punching a man they were arresting and another plain-clothes officer harassing the people watching.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/26/dc-police-snatch-camera-one-day-after-being-commanded-to-stop/

[Vashta Nerada]

...and the very next day...

Well, that didn't take long. Just one day after Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier issued a directive ordering officers to leave photographers alone (PDF here), a police officer reportedly snatched a man's camera at a crime scene and later returned it without the memory card. My Fox DC writes,

    Earl Staley says he considers what happened to him Friday, July 20, a robbery.

    "I know that I could take these pictures of these guys," Staley tells Fox 5 News. "I know it. Especially when they're doing something wrong."

    Staley says his smartphone was snatched by a D.C. Police officer last Friday evening along Raleigh Place in Southeast D.C. Staley says he saw police punching a man they were arresting and another plain-clothes officer harassing the people watching.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/26/dc-police-snatch-camera-one-day-after-being-commanded-to-stop/

7 Rules for Recording Police
http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/05/7-rules-for-recording-police/singlepage

[Vashta Nerada]

A Miami-Dade County jury has found Photography is Not a Crime founder and publisher Carlos Miller, not guilty of resisting arrest stemming from his January 31, 2012 arrest, which was ordered by Miami-Dade Police Major Nancy Perez, as MDPD officers were evicting Occupy protesters in downtown Miami.

Perez is the Public Information Officer (PIO) for the Miami-Dade Police department, which makes the fact that she ordered Miller's arrest even more disturbing, as one would think that as the department's PIO, she would not only have have recognized, but respected Miller's First Amendment right to be there.

Despite several requests made by Miami-Dade County Court Judge Ed Newman ordering that Perez provide Miller's attorney with the MDP Standard Operating Procedures, dictating how the department should interact with the media, Perez refused to comply with those orders, forcing Judge to continue the case.

After Miller's arrest, in referring to blogs, Perez stated  "They don't put out information that is relevant to the community."
Major Perez then went on to say "I don't know enough about the– I mean, I know nowadays all the kids blog," when explaining her understanding of blogging.

Perhaps key to Miller's defense was Miami Herald columnist Glenn Garvin, who testified that he never heard Perez direct or guide any journalists covering the scene to clear the area, Miller claims.

Garvin, just as Miller, was also covering the MDPD's eviction of Occupy Miami protesters, but was not arrested.
Garvin testified before the jury that when he saw Miller get arrested, he was worried that he too would be arrested.
However, Garvin testified, after he approached Perez, she told him he was fine.

Miller added, "It also sends out a message to cops around the country that they can no longer make up their own versions of the truth because they just never know when they are being recorded.

After Carlos Miller was arrested and booked, Miami Dade Police deleted some of his camera's footage leading up to the arrest.
Miller was later able to recover the deleted footage.

At about the 3:50  mark of the video, Miami Dade police Major Nancy Perez, who happens to be the Public Information officer (PIO) is seen extending her arm out towards Miller as to block him, before calling out to her fellow officers, "Prisoner", at which point other Miami Dade cops can be heard yelling "Arrestee! Arrestee!"

Perez can also be heard telling a relaxed Carlos Miller, "We don't wanna have to hurt you."

This latest victory marks the third time that Miller has beaten charges after being arrested by Miami-Dade Police as well as Miami Beach Police.
All bogus charges, including a resisting arrest conviction which he had reversed on appeal pro se (meaning Miller represented himself).

[Hoss]

You would think after three times they'd learn.

[nathanm]

You would think after three times they'd learn.

After three times, I'd be thinking about a civil suit as some compensation for the hassle and expense of repeatedly defending myself against bogus charges.

[patric]

You would think after three times they'd learn.

They did learn...that they wont be held accountable.

[Weatherdemon]

On First Amendment grounds, a federal appeals court on Tuesday blocked enforcement of an Illinois law that makes it a felony to take video - with sound -- of police officers on the job.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the American Civil Liberties Union in challenging the Illinois eavesdropping law.

Judge Diane Sykes wrote for the 2-1 majority:

The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts a medium of expression commonly used for the preservation and communication of information and ideas, thus triggering First Amendment scrutiny. Illinois has criminalized the nonconsensual recording of most any oral communication, including recordings of public officials doing the public's business in public and regardless of whether the recording is open or surreptitious.

Defending the broad sweep of this statute, the State's Attorney relies on the government's interest in protecting conversational privacy, but that interest is not implicated when police officers are performing their duties in public places and engaging in public communications audible to persons who witness the events.

Even under the more lenient intermediate standard of scrutiny applicable to content neutral burdens on speech, this application of the statute very likely flunks. The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests; as applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment's free speech and free-press guarantees.


Chicago police claim "First Amendment rights can be terminated"
http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/01/11998060-first-amendment-rights-can-be-terminated-when-cops-cameras-dont-mix?lite

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/fbi_gets_go_ahead_to_inspect_grabbed_video/id_47919

So you go and antagonize a cop for 5 minutes, disobey his orders to move (which he has the right to tell you do) and you're pissed that you get arrested?
pancakes?

[Ed W]

Interestingly enough, when you actually read the account of that video you discover that it was an embarrassment for the Chicago Police Department.  The journalists were released within a few minutes after a supervisor intervened.  He's talking with them at the finish of the video. 

If you're interfering with an officer carrying out his duties, you can be arrested.  But if you're standing in a public place you can photograph whatever you like.  The officer in this video wanted the journalists to simply go away.  When they didn't, he simply became a bully with a badge and a gun.  That's a staple of the movies, but it doesn't work so well in real life.

[Weatherdemon]

Interestingly enough, when you actually read the account of that video you discover that it was an embarrassment for the Chicago Police Department.  The journalists were released within a few minutes after a supervisor intervened.  He's talking with them at the finish of the video. 

If you're interfering with an officer carrying out his duties, you can be arrested.  But if you're standing in a public place you can photograph whatever you like.  The officer in this video wanted the journalists to simply go away.  When they didn't, he simply became a bully with a badge and a gun.  That's a staple of the movies, but it doesn't work so well in real life.

I wonder how these people would enjoy the same thing happening to them while at work or walking down the street?
I would like to follow them with a camera and ask stupid questions and ignore their plea's for me to stop and see how long it takes them to get physical so I can sue them for medical after having them arrested.