Photography Advocate/Journalist Acquitted After Arrest Over Filming Police; Intends To Sue Back

from the good-for-him dept

Fri, Nov 9th 2012 9:32am — Mike Masnick

We've linked to the blog, PhotographyIsNotACrime.com (PINAC), a few times in the past (it recently moved locations). Its author, Carlos Miller, not only covered a number of cases involving photographers being arrested or harassed for photographing buildings, police or something else, but was a defendant in just such a case himself. Miller was arrested back in January while videotaping police at an "Occupy Miami" event. Not only was he arrested, but his camera was confiscated and the police deleted footage from the camera -- including footage of the encounter that led to his arrest. The police claimed that Miller had disobeyed an order by the police to "clear the area." However, the videotaped footage -- which Miller was able to recover despite the deletion -- showed a different story. It showed a clearly-aware-of-his-rights Miller making the case that he was doing nothing wrong. Furthermore, other journalists were allowed to stay in the area, and one of those journalists, Miami Herald reporter Glenn Garvin, testified at the trial about how he was allowed to stay. In fact, he went to the officer who arrested Miller and asked her if he needed to move, and she told him he was "under no threat of getting arrested."

It also turned out that police were specifically on the lookout for Miller:

An e-mail disclosed during the trial showed the police had been monitoring Miller's Facebook page and had sent out a notice warning officers in charge of evicting the Occupy Miami protestors that Miller was planning to cover the process.

Given all that, it's not too surprising that the jury wasted little time in finding him not guilty. But the case isn't over just yet. Miller is vowing to sue, claiming the arrest and (attempted) deletion from his camera violated his constitutional rights. And he's got some precedent on his side. As we've noted, Boston recently had to pay Simon Glik $170,000 after an appeals court ruled, in a similar case, that his arrest for filming police was a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments -- though that was based on wiretap laws, so it was slightly different. Either way, Miller's follow up suit should be worth watching.

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: carlos miller, civil liberties, photography

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Glen, 9 Nov 2012 @ 9:42am

I hope he breaks the bank on that department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 9 Nov 2012 @ 9:51am
  
  Re:
  So the taxpayers can pay for misbehaving police officers?
  
  I hate these kinds of cases. Of course, you want Miller compensated, but the fact that it will come out of the pockets of taxpayers and not directly out of the pockets of those responsible always makes me cringe.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - orbitalinsertion (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    This may prompt taxpayers to give a damn about what their police are doing, rather than staying with that "it hasn't affected me (yet)" attitude.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael, 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Let's hope they don't start sending the police chief email messages with "respect the press pass" in the subject.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kelly (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      One should hope so. Photography should never be a crime.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DannyB (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Photography should never be a crime.
        
        I saw a store that sold cameras and related criminal accessories such as lenses, bags, etc.
        
        It was right next to a store that sold skateboards and related criminal skateboarding accessories.
        
        What is the neighborhood coming to?
        Think of the children!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Michael, 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Photography of ugly people should be strictly regulated.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And people like you should be drowned at birth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael, 9 Nov 2012 @ 11:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They tried.
        
        My massive oblong-shaped head prevented it from fitting in the basin they were using and they gave up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2012 @ 8:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ugly huh?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Arsik Vek (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This may prompt taxpayers to give a damn about what their police are doing, rather than staying with that "it hasn't affected me (yet)" attitude.
      
      I doubt it. People have trouble seeing beyond the proximate step in a chain.
      1)"Oh yeah, stick it to the government!"
      2)???
      3)"Why are my taxes so high?"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I see that you practice what you preach by not having an avatar pic of yourself.....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Damn, hit the wrong reply button. Was supposed to be in reply to Michael above with his comment that said:
        
        Photography of ugly people should be strictly regulated.
        
        I have to start paying attention when I troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    The government is us, and in the final analysis we are collectively the ones responsible for allowing this type of behavior to happen. If we as taxpayers don't want to have to pay these types of fines, then we can and should correct the underlying problem.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > The government is us, and in the final
      > analysis we are collectively the ones
      > responsible for allowing this type of
      > behavior to happen. If we as taxpayers
      > don't want to have to pay these types
      > of fines, then we can and should correct
      > the underlying problem.
      
      The problem with that theory is that elections come in 2-to-4-year cycles and by the time you're able to vote them out, little Timmy and Sally have already had their band program or tennis team at school cut because all the money had to go to pay off a bunch of lawsuits.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 11:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Voting is hardly our only means of control over how the government works, especially at the local level. Arguably, it's not even the most important control we have.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The problem with that theory
        
        Also, it's not really theory (if by theory you mean hypothesis). It's how our system is consciously designed and intended.
        
        The real problem with it is that people neglect their power as citizens and forget that they are in fact the government themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MAC, 9 Nov 2012 @ 12:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The government is not us, it's our representatives.
      Why does everyone get so confused as to what form of government we have? It's a Republic not a Democracy and therein lies the problem...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 1:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We are a mix of a republic and democracy. Saying we're a republic without qualification is just as wrong (or just as right, depending on your viewpoint) as saying we're a democracy without qualification.
        
        We're a mongrel system of government. This is a good thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Bergman (profile), 10 Nov 2012 @ 10:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The problem with an absolute democracy is what ultimately killed the Athenian democracy. The ability to, to use the modern term for it, vote people off the island.
        
        Pure democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. The sheep won't like the results of being outvoted.
        
        The U.S. is a constitutional democratic republic. Like John says, we're a mongrel system. We were set up that way in an attempt to circumvent the weaknesses in pure republics and pure democracies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 28 Jan 2013 @ 8:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The presidency may not be voted for by the masses, but congress sure as hell is :-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2012 @ 2:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This is why police / prosecutors need to have great retirement plans. So that when they violate someones rights, the payment can come out of the officers pay, instead of the taxpayers pocket
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 9 Nov 2012 @ 9:43am

"police had been monitoring Miller's Facebook page"
As social-networking sites are part of the surveillance state, then surely the data-miners are too. -- That means Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 9 Nov 2012 @ 9:52am
  
  Re: "police had been monitoring Miller's Facebook page"
  Slow down Superman. That leap wasn't just over a tall building, but into another zip code altogether.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 9:56am
  
  Re: "police had been monitoring Miller's Facebook page"
  OH NO!!! THAT MEANS FACEBOOK, TOO!!!!
  
  When Google starts arresting people, I'll start worrying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MAC, 9 Nov 2012 @ 12:32pm
    
    Re: Re: "police had been monitoring Miller's Facebook page"
    Google will never arrest you. They will simply provide means by which others can arrest you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:19am
  
  Re: "police had been monitoring Miller's Facebook page"
  When social-networking sites are part of the surveillance state, then we'll figure out who the fuck you are and send the men in white coats to go collect your ass....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:34am
  
  Re: "police had been monitoring Miller's Facebook page"
  Dang! I knew that evil Google must somehow be to blame.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Machin Shin (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 9:45am

What I find disappointing about all this though is that even if he wins it is still a loss. Sure he can win and get paid a nice settlement but we the tax payers are paying it. So in the end we have the government trampling on our rights and when we complain they simply hand us back OUR OWN MONEY.

This will not change until they start taking these fines out of the responsible parties salaries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:36am
  
  Re:
  It might take the taxpayers paying, at first, in order to result in the changes that make the culprits responsible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wulfman (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 11:11am
  
  Re:
  He needs to SUE the officers directly as well as the department. make sure they feel the pain of an empty bank account
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2012 @ 8:23pm
  
  Re:
  all part of the plan
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 3:54am
  
  Re:
  It depends what he does with the money. If he donates it to charity, or finds some other constructive use for the money, then it's not a 'loss' to the taxpayer. On the other hand, given that the only language government and police departments speak involves avoiding bad publicity or large payouts, this is a good way to force them to behave in future.
  
  Besides, how much are your constitutional rights worth? Isn't it worth a bit to stem the incessant erosion of them? Especially when that erosion actually wastes more - after all, aren't the TSA total value for money in their abrogation of your rights?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dennis S. (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 10:15am

While the conduct of the police is deplorable in this situation what I find even worse is the baloney the Prosecution tried to get the jury to swallow.

From Miller's blog, Photography Is Not A Crime (PINAC), at http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/2012/11/08/not-guilty/

"A real journalist, he [the prosecutor] explained, was supposed to follow police orders without a second thought. A real journalist would never back talk to police. A real journalist would never question a direct police order as to why he was not allowed to stand on a public sidewalk."

Thankfully the defense was able to shred that argument to shreds. What the prosecution was describing is what you see in dictatorships and other such countries, not what is supposed to be a free democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2012 @ 8:25pm
  
  Re:
  methinks you mean republic type democracy
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tqk (profile), 10 Nov 2012 @ 1:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    methinks you mean republic type democracy
    
    Methinks you mean a democratic republic. Wiktionary: "The United States is a democratic country, as the citizens are allowed to choose leaders to represent their interests."
    
    Also Wiktionary: "The United States is a republic; The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a constitutional monarchy."
    
    Dictionaries can be great reading.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 12:14pm

Just like the rest...
It's typical for the big city cops to arrest anyone they want to. They do it in Boston too; it's nothing unusual to see the cops arrest someone videotaping them. The city lost a lawsuit about this, but they still do it; the cops believe they are above the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dave blevins (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 12:34pm

hold the offenders personally libel
Govt employees that break the law when policies explicitly prohibit such should be personally libel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2012 @ 12:52pm
  
  Re: hold the offenders personally libel
  Pretty sure they ARE peronally liable. It's a defense if they couldn't have known - if the case has to go to the Supreme Court to determine whether rights were violated, then the officers usually don't get in legal trouble, since there was an open question. I think it's called qualified immunity. But in this case, I highly doubt there is ANY question that deleting footage is illegal. If a crime was committed, the footage is evidence. If no crime was committed, they have no cause to delete it.
  
  But lawyers always want to go after the department because the department is actually going to have money. You're not going to get much out of the officer involved, probably.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2012 @ 8:27pm
    
    Re: Re: hold the offenders personally libel
    not unless he's very dirty
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 28 Jan 2013 @ 8:32pm

In their defense (no not what you think)
I think this a problem of prosecutional over-reach and cannot and shall not represent the various police departments in other municipalities. The idiots responsible for the arrest of Miller and his colleague to be shot and I hope Miller fights this, otherwise this arrest of his is all for not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]