Photography In Public Is Not A Crime
from the protecting-the-first-amendment dept
Sadly, we talk way too often about police arresting people for doing nothing other than taking a picture or filming them. The police officers being filmed and photographed make these arrests using various excuses, but frequently the charges get dropped for lack of merit. The reason charges rarely stick when an officer is filmed is because filming police, or anyone in a public space, is not illegal. Some people may not like it, but it is a fact.The New York Times is waking up to this fact that photography is not a crime. In an interview with Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counselor for the National Press Photographers Association, they get down to the nitty gritty of the legalities surrounding this age old tradition. They also talk a bit about just why such arrests are happening more frequently.
Since 9/11, there’s been an incredible number of incidents where photographers are being interfered with and arrested for doing nothing other than taking pictures or recording video in public places.I haven't really thought of criminalizing photography as something to do with 9/11 before. I know that a lot of our rights have been eroded since that day, but the photography aspect never really clicked until now. Just as Mickey can't make heads nor tails of this argument, I am struggling to find a connection here. I don't recall cameras being a part of the plots to destroy the Twin Towers, Pentagon or White House.
It’s not just news photographers who should be concerned with this. I think every citizen should be concerned. Tourists taking pictures are being told by police, security guards and sometimes other citizens, “Sorry, you can’t take a picture here.” When asked why, they say, “Well, don’t you remember 9/11?”
Of course there could be more reasons for this increase in arresting photographers. Mickey suspects that part of the reason is the proliferation of the camera. Pretty much everyone with a smart phone has a camera capable of taking some very high quality pictures. Prior to this boom, the police had some modicum of control over the press. They knew the press wasn't going to be everywhere and were used to not being under constant recordable surveillance by the public. Now that anyone could be filming them or taking their picture, they are more on edge and more prone to lashing out.
When this happens, it is important for those accused to know their rights. However, it is also important for the police to know the public's rights as well. While you, as a photographer, may know that you have the right to take pictures or film in a public space, some officers may not know or may have forgotten that fact. That is why the Mickey and others have been working with police to keep officers reminded of that right.
Q. After photographers were stopped from photographing the police clearing Occupy Wall Street protestors from Zuccotti Park, you and representatives of a media coalition including The Times, met with the police commissioner Ray Kelly. What happened at that meeting?The finest message is a policy statement on police interactions with the press. It states that officers are not to interfere with videotaping and photographing in public places. It also reminds officers that they have an obligation to assist the press whenever possible. This is very similar to the recent news when the DC police chief laid down the law on filming of officers.
A. It was on Nov. 23. I asked the commissioner if he would reissue the “finest message” from 1999 that dealt with the police cooperating with the press. He did that. It was read at 10 consecutive roll calls in every single station house and precinct.
Hopefully, continually repeating this message will help slow down this barrage of arrests for photographing the police. As more officers are reminded of the rights of the cameras-wielding public, we will hopefully start to see fewer future incidents. It would be great if other police departments across the nation follow the lead of NY and DC police in proactively spreading the word about the rights of the public to record and photograph the police.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: crime, education, photography, police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Govt. Current Legal Logic
Has anyone else noticed that we are living in a Homeland?
What other countries have considered themselves the Homeland in recent history?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Govt. Current Legal Logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Govt. Current Legal Logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
9-11
> I don't recall cameras being a part of the
> plots to destroy the Twin Towers, Pentagon
> or White House.
Actually, there is a pre-attack surveillance video that was recovered overseas of the 9-11 hijackers touring the WTC and specifically focusing on security and building vulnerabilities. It ultimately wasn't used, because of the nature of the attack they eventually chose, but individuals photographing things which normal tourists don't care about-- metal detectors, security guard patrols and shift changes, vehicle barricades, etc,-- can be a good indicator of pre-attack surveillance.
The answer isn't to crminalize such photogrpahy, however, it's to train your security personnel how to recognize this kind of abnormal behavior and address it, either by engaging in counter-surveillance of the individuals, engaging them in consensual police interviews, or making covert attempts to elicit information from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 9-11
Tourists aren't the only ones with cameras. Everyone has a camera. There are plenty of artists who use photographs as reference material for art. Look at sites like DeviantArt where people upload thousands of stock photos everyday of random things in hopes that someone will find it useful.
I find metal detectors, security guard patrols, and vehicles barricades interesting. If I wanted to make a blog post about security theater, maybe I want a nice picture of a security checkpoint to go with it. If I wanted to draw a comic book about an (entirely implausible...right?) future in which the government perpetuates security theater and cracks down on civil liberties under the guise of "protecting" America, I'd need some reference photos to draw from.
Besides, the people who take pictures of security protocols and checkpoints that are actually planning terrorist attacks are probably FBI moles who are trying to get angry but hapless would-be terrorists to agree to a cooked up plot so that they can pat themselves on the back and justify their budgets and incursions into the rights and privacy of American citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 9-11
> and vehicles barricades interesting.
Well, if you do, you must have a very low threshold for 'interesting'. Nevertheless, you'll note I did not advocate for criminalizing the photography of such things, just that security personnel be trained to be alert to such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 9-11
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9-11
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 9-11
A friend of my sister is a photographer, I met him when he was photographing her wedding. A few weeks latter I saw him at a brewery festival taking pictures of port-a-johns. I asked why, reasonably thinking that it was kinda silly, and he replied by explaining the repetition and symmetry. He saw something I didn't because he was an artist.
So don't be saying someone shouldn't be taking pictures of something just because you don't see the artistic nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 9-11
> something just because you don't see the artistic nature.
Wow, you folks are really trying desperately to put words in my mouth and pretend I said something I didn't.
I never claimed people shouldn't be taking pictures of security apparatus, just that it *can* be indicators of pre-op surveillance and that any well-trained security force will be alert to that and take steps to gather further information, either overtly or covertly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 9-11
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Press
> obligation to assist the press whenever possible.
I take issue with that. A cop's job is not to help a reporter do his job. As far as I'm concerned, a reporter is just another member of the general public. He can be anywhere the public is allowed to be and he can photograph anything he wants as long as he's legally allowed to be where he is. But I certainly am not required to go out of my way to *assist* him doing his job. I have my own job to do. I don't have time to be some kind of press aide on top of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Press
Of course, you knew that when you ignored the phrase "whenever possible," since assisting the press is not possible when an officer is actively performing their duties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Press
...
"Patrol Guide Section 212-77
It is the policy of this Department to keep the community informed on matters of public interest. Most media inquiries are directed to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Public Information. However, at the scene of a breaking news story, the media may request information from members of the service present at the scene. Information, assistance or access should be rendered to whatever extent possible, in accordance with the following procedure..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Press
I'm under no obligation to answer a reporter's questions. In fact, the opposite is true. It's my agency policy to not speak to reporters. Any time a reporter tries to ask me questions, I refer him to the agency's public affairs department.
> you ignored the phrase "whenever possible," since assisting the
> press is not possible when an officer is actively performing their duties.
Irrelevant, really. When I'm on duty, I *always* have something better to do than help reporters do their jobs. Even if I'm just standing a post, maintaining general observation of a secure area, I'm not interested in, nor am I required to help reporters out. It's not my job to be a press aide regardless of what else I do or do not have going on at any given moment.
I don't help cabbies do their jobs; I don't help teachers do their jobs; I don't help garbage men do their jobs; I don't help store clerks do their jobs. Why would I need or want to help a reporter do his job? if I wanted to be a journalist, I wouldn't have gone into law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Press
> someone taking some pictures?
That only becomes a legitimate question when you can show some instance when I've harassed someone taking pictures.
Otherwise, it's just another dishonest variation on the old cliche "Do you still beat your wife?" question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chiefs can say what they want...
I'll only say that as soon as the Police Chief leaves the room, the union reps say 'F*ck that, you see someone filming you, take 'em down"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chiefs can say what they want...
The higher ups can go on and on about how the public has rights that their people need to respect, but as long as there isn't any real punishment for abusing those rights, the abuses will just keep continuing, and both the public, and the public's trust of the police, will suffer for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal photography
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal photography
> prohibited from taking photos of bridges
They didn't have the legal authority to prohibit her from taking a picture of a bridge. They may have told her that, but her 1st Amendment right trumps whatever law they made up in their heads on the spot. Those signs mean less than nothing legally. They're just there to fool people into complying who don't know what their rights actually are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal photography
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It does have to do with 9/11
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they won
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A simple verbal discouragement or order to desist is worth a year in federal prison. Each right violated is a separate charge.
If use of a dangerous weapon is threatened, or one is actually used, or an injury occurs in the process of the violation of rights, the penalty under the law jumps to ten years in prison. Each right violated is a separate charge.
If anyone is killed, or sexual assault takes place in the course of the violation, the penalty jumps to life in prison or execution.
Section 241 is essentially conspiracy to break Section 242. All penalties follow the pattern in 242, but start off one step more severe.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the matter of false arrests (John Bad Elk vs The United States) and essentially stated that while resisting a lawful arrest is a crime, resisting a false one is not. If the falsely-arresting officer dies in the attempt to commit a crime, the worst applicable charge is manslaughter, not murder. And if the killing was legitimate self-defense (for example, an officer draws his sidearm to enforce the false arrest, thus threatening the victim's life) then no crime would be committed in killing the officer. The fourth amendment was the basis of that ruling, and the fourth amendment has not been altered in the years since the ruling. The ruling has never been overturned, repealed or modified.
Most states permit a citizen to use force in self-defense against a felony being committed against that citizen. Some states forbid resisting police even if the police are committing felonies, others make no distinction between a uniformed felon and a non-uniformed one. But the Bad Elk decision would override those laws, under the supremacy clause (a state statute that violates the state constitution is null and void, and even a state constitution cannot override the federal constitution).
Some states shield uniformed police from citizen's arrest, some do not. Some states permit citizen's arrest for only state crimes, some do not. Some states permit citizen's arrest for felonies only, others are more relaxed. But the fact remains that it might well be legal to arrest the officer who is abusing your rights, and a crime carrying a 10+ year prison sentence is a felony by anyone's standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As things stand currently... might as well not even be in the books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hasseling photographers and journalists is just a symptom of the bigger problem. I think police officers feel like they are in the military during a war and all citizens are potentionally insurgents. This is what fear does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> from police car emblems. I don't know if that's true everywhere.
It never was everywhere. It's the motto of the LAPD. Some departments copied it and used it for their motto, too, but it was hardly everywhere.
Nor is 'to serve and protect' part of the police oath of office, contrary to what many people falsely believe. Most (probably all) police, local, state, and federal, don't swear an oath to protect the citizens at all. They take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Police are there to protect the law from being breached, the courts are there to Uphold any breaches, the Govt is there to make the law.. the citizens? They are there to OBEY the law
any questions? What? you do? right then.. off to re-education pod #376 with you laddy!
[Actually the above other than the pod is very correct]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, that's cute. Meaningless, but cute.
> Police are there to protect the law from being
> breached
Actually, they're not. Police are reactionary. In the vast majority of cases, they show up after a crime has been committed, collect evidence, and find the perpetrator so he/she can be prosecuted. The police are not a protective operation and if you expect the cops to stop someone ahead of time from committing a crime against you, you'll likely be sorely disappointed. The few times the police are able to stop crimes before they happen, is mostly the result of luck more than anything else.
> the citizens? They are there to OBEY the law
Really? You think your only purpose on this planet is to obey laws? How sad for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hasseling photographers and journalists is just a symptom of the bigger problem. I think police officers feel like they are in the military during a war and all citizens are potentionally insurgents. This is what fear does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
when you're a hammer....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contagious
http://www.epuk.org/Resources/958/police-photographers-and-the-law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Post 9/11 Erosion of Freedoms
Unwarranted surveillance is in DIRECT contravention to the Fourth Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boston
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]