LAPD Detains A Photographer For 'Interfering' With A Police Investigation... From 90 Feet Away
from the also-possession-of-camera-with-intent-to-distribute-recordings dept
Words like "interference" or "obstruction" seem to be thrown around quite frequently when law enforcement officers decide they'd rather not be filmed while on duty. How the passive act of filming can interfere with investigations or obstruct officials is left to the imagination. Fortunately (I guess...), law enforcement officials have very vivid imaginations. This allows them to arrest, detain, hassle or confiscate devices as needed, in order preserve the peace by chilling speech.
The latest definition of "interference" stretches the limits of credulity -- to nearly 100 feet.
Shawn Nee is an award winning street and documentary photographer living in Hollywood, California. He says that on June 2, 2013, his right to take photos under the First Amendment was violated when the Los Angeles Police Department officers detained him while working in Hollywood.The whole incident, caught on "tape" thanks to the three body cameras Nee wears, shows officers covering a lot of ground to reach the "interfering" photographer. As is almost always the case, the officers' first move is intimidation, with one demanding Nee identify himself and his employer.
Nee was standing on a residential sidewalk taking pictures of a man he had been photographing for years when LAPD officers showed up about 90 feet away to investigate a domestic dispute.
When this fails, the officers demand he stop filming and put his camera down. Nee asks why he's being detained.
OFFICER: For interviewing ... interfering with a police investigation.Hmm. Passively operating a camera from 90 feet away seems like the least efficient way to "interfere" with a police investigation. Maybe the sound of the shutter was distracting.
Nee was then taken to the station and detained while officers attempted to question him. Unfortunately for the interfered, Nee asserted his right to remain silent and refused to speak until his lawyer was present. After 90 minutes he was released -- without being charged.
After being released, Nee spoke to a police supervisor who offered this "insight" on the interference claims.
NEE: My understanding is that I was detained for taking photos in a public space.Possibly. Possibly not. Vidal makes it seem cut-and-dried, but it really isn't. This all depends on the laws governing the police department. California's penal code gives law enforcement officers a lot of leeway when deciding what does or doesn't "interfere" with an officer performing his duties, but it's still hard to see how this fits a person standing 90 feet away taking pictures.
VIDAL: When it interferes with the job of police then it becomes a problem. At that point, you no longer have that freedom to go ahead and take your pictures.
148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.In fact, it would seem that any "delay" was caused by the officers' decision to hassle a photographer, rather than continue in their "discharge of duty." Another way to look at this is that the officers felt that questioning and detaining Nee was actually the "duty" they were "discharging," and his refusal to state his name "obstructed" or "delayed" them. Of course, that assumes the photography itself was a criminal activity, which it certainly wasn't.
Either way, the line of reasoning being pushed by Vidal is suspect, if for no other reason than Vidal himself isn't the most trustworthy of cops.
Sergent Vidal was named as a "problem officer" by the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (Christopher Commission) in the early 1990s, as reported by the Los Angeles Times in 1995. The Commission named 44 officers with "six or more complaints of excessive force or improper tactics between 1986 and 1990."More disappointing, this specious line of reasoning was upheld yet again by another member of the LAPD.
Reason TV showed the video to Andy Neiman, the officer-in-charge at the Media Relations Section at the LAPD. He said he could not comment on the video specifically but said of individuals taking pictures, "If their physical proximity to the investigating officers becomes interfering where an officer has to stop what they're doing to admonish that individual that they're too close or could you stand back because they are distracting from the officer's business, then that's where it becomes an issue."90 feet away can't be remotely considered "physical proximity" unless we're talking building locations. It's pretty tough to sell the better part of 100 feet as being close enough to interfere with police business. Neiman probably knows better than to comment on a video showing officers confusing 90 feet of separation for "standing between the officer and the door," as the LAPD is currently being sued by Nee and two other photographers for past abuses.
At some point, the perceived benefits of shutting down citizens with cameras are going to be outweighed by the millions of dollars in lawsuit settlements. Until then, it appears the LAPD is going to continue allowing officers to use the term "interference" to violate the public's First Amendment rights.
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: filming, first amendment, lapd, photographer, police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Gosh Masnick, you reported on how cameras can be turned into lethal weapons yourself! And it is true, they can siphon one' soul virtually killing them. Dead cops can't perform their duties effectively!
With technological advances we'll see the day when a smartphone with a camera will be turned into mass destruction weapons! We must ban those hell devices! Because Terrorism! And.. The CHILDREN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When pigs are filmed they have to behave differently, you know, with much less force and ego.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130413/16102322700/san-diego-cop-thinks-you-might-have-turn ed-your-cell-phone-into-gun-that-officer-safety-trumps-constitutional-rights.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alternatively...
A) Give all officers media/PR training, so that they know how to react properly and maintain their composure when being filmed.
B) Stop hiring public servants who object so strongly to being filmed by the very public who's taxes pay their wages. Given they are always trying to defend their desire for more surveillance with 'If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide', their desire to never be filmed doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their innocence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alternatively...
Unions were needed once (might still be), but many of them seem to exist only to keep their membership on the job no matter what.
This incident is made worse because those charged with upholding the law again have no problem violating others rights. Nothing will come of this, because the unwritten rules about brotherhood trump the actual law.
Police have become gangs with military grade equipment, supported by people who want them to violate others rights but not their own. They fail to grasp the idea that if you let them ignore the rights of some, your rights will be next.
I might hate you for being a crack dealer, but your entitled to the same rights as everyone else.
I might hate you for molesting a child, and as much as it pains me, you have the same rights as everyone else until the law rules otherwise.
We seriously need to consider laws holding police, officials, etc to the letter of the law and handing out real punishments for breaking them. If they can't follow the law, why should anyone else. Giving them yet another pass is what is making things worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Alternatively...
Keep the Faith, Brother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Alternatively...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternatively...
Faith that as time passes things can get better as long as people can see the problems in the system that need real corrections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternatively...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Alternatively...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Alternatively...
And you run the 'risk' that you'll have no government left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternatively...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Alternatively...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Alternatively...
You don't bring a gun, start a fight and then claim self defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternatively...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternatively...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternatively...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Alternatively...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Alternatively...
As for the snippet, Nee is being uncooperative ("I don't need to answer that, sir."), very suggestive ("are you arresting me, sir?")and keeping 3 hidden cameras rolling? I would say he might be looking to stir trouble.
Now, An officer should be able to ignore this kind of nosy behaviour, but they are only human and their training likely didn't involve this kind of provocative behaviour.
Therefore I would suggest better training in handling these situations and far clearer directions from the police about handling these kinds of cases. It is more likely a "code of conduct"-issue than a legal issue.
That the officer is not as good a guy as they come and the police media relations guy seems pretty clueless is a bigger problem than the episode itself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Alternatively...
Wait a second... asserting your rights and determining your legal status count as looking to stir trouble now?
Regardless, even if he was trying to irritate the cop -- so what? It excuses nothing the cop did. Cops shouldn't be so thin-skinned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Alternatively...
> a bad thing.
I'm struggling to think of a moment when strong unions are a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Alternatively...
They should not exist to keep men caught smoking dope and drinking on lunch break on the line making cars.
They should not exist to keep cops who have violated someones rights or the law on the job.
There is a clear line, but so often they make sure they protect the membership no matter what... even at the expense of justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternatively...
> sure they protect the membership no matter what...
> even at the expense of justice.
Well, that and the fact that the public employee unions in my state are pretty much bankrupting it with their constant demands for more and more of the public's money, even when it's clear there's nothing left to give. Their response? "Just raise taxes so we can have more!"
Leeches on society, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nazi canada
i started talking nice n loud how my grand fatehr fought in 2 world wars and north korea and his stories....about him fighting for freedom, then i said for everyone to start take pictures and the cops left.
i went into a store and one female one followed me in
i asked what would you like a cofffee, she said no i need food, i replied with a questionable spirit..."donut?"
the whole store burst out laughing, didnt get beat up or arrested but i quickly left, hopped on a electric bike and went on tour....
i just have urge when i see a cop getting paid 90 grand a year standing around to pelt them with a donut , a strip a bacon, and a coffee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For those of us living in countries with saner measurement systems
I cannot visualize how far 90 feet is (I only know that a feet is approximately the length of a common 30 cm ruler). But 30 meters (actually 27 meters, rounded to have the same amount of significant digits)... that is quite far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For those of us living in countries with saner measurement systems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For those of us living in countries with saner measurement systems
Problem is that is not the length of a Soccer field (UK and world football).
US football is just not played in the rest of the world especially where (UK football) Soccer is played so some one who has no idea what a foot (measurement) is would have no idea what the length of a US football field is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: For those of us living in countries with saner measurement systems
But, outside the US, UK and some other ex-colonies, everyone uses the metric system. Even the UK is changing to certain degree but it's slow going (weights in supermarkets are now usually listed in metric first, though roads still use imperial measurements). There will be holdouts - I can't imagine the wailing from the right wing press if/when UK roads switch to kms - but most appear to be heading that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For those of us living in countries with saner measurement systems
Now, to put into perspective for the original poster(whose measurment equivalences are pretty good, 90ft would be 30yrds, which would be just over 1/4 the length of a standard Pitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: For those of us living in countries with saner measurement systems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For those of us living in countries with saner measurement systems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For those of us living in countries with saner measurement systems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe then the bad apples can be let go because they can't pay them anymore rather than for being a crappy cop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If..err when, they go over budget, then what? Free for all Decembers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wonded if that Christopher Dorner guy was adverse to being filmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A cop who has one initial suit filed where the City/PD pays a settlement, would be suspended without pay for 2 weeks(does not equate in dollars but loss of pay is a loss). For future settlements tied to the officer up to the third one, the suspension would increase in 2 week increments. If office received a 4th complaint and finding with settlement, he would be terminated and all pension moneys "earned" would be forfeit to assist in covering the cost of the insurance and settlements.
This way the officer would face real punishments, the city would see some return from the offenses, and ultimately, repeat offenders would be removed from the city payroll.
For the officers I have dealt with in the last few years, i have utmost respect. They treated my politely and with respect. However, there are just enough jerks on the various forces, that this method would likely yield net benefits in that those with Napoleon Complexes would be removed from public service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> the City/PD pays a settlement, would be suspended
> without pay for 2 weeks
Well, considering that the city will routinely settle even the most frivolous lawsuits for their nuisance value, if your system was implemented, it wouldn't be long before the shitbags would clue in that all they'd have to do to get back at the cops that arrested them would be to file a lawsuit over some made up grievance and you'd have every cop on the force on suspension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not anti-union, just anti unions enabling stupidity.
e.g.
Unions protecting bad cops.
Unions in Detroit forcing the city to employ a farrier (guy who shoes horses) even though the city doesn't have any horses any more.
Unions do and have done a lot of good, but a few examples like these make me wonder if there might be another solution that isn't worse than the problem they are trying to solve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's obvious
But cops routinely think of reasons to detain people, just to harass them. It shows their authority and creates fear in the population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's obvious
Hard, but not impossible. Nee (the photographer) notes that he withholds a certain amount of footage because the cops will concoct a story to fit what's caught on tape, one that justifies their actions. When the additional footage makes it out, this punches holes in their narratives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how do you "passively" film someone?, you are either filming them or not.
I would expect he was in fact ACTIVELY filming him, not that it makes any difference.
And lastly, education is not a prime requirement to become a cop, nor a particular knowledge of the law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nee goes to film a police action from 90 feet away. While he's doing that, another photographer stands 90 feet away from Nee, ready to film Nee when he gets harassed. 90 feet away from photographer #2, you put a photographer #3, etc...
Eventually, all LAPD will be able to do with their time is harass citizen journalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isn't that 90% of what they do now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been suspended without pay for stopping it and the others do not like me because of it. We're here to keep the peace and I have no problem arresting an officer for breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conspiracy
All of you are missing the point....
Isn't it obvious: The cop is teamed with photographer they'll split settlement money....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conspiracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conspiracy
As a Liver then Neck & Throat Cancer survivor who fought an extremely harsh 4 1/2 year battle to continue waking up each day, I learned that "Life is full of choices, CHOOSE HOPE!" I learned this statement from a T shirt I purchased at choosehope.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then...
THEN what will they do? Arrest everyone?
Seriously... this is a NO BRAINER. They work for US. They SERVE the public. They don't like being in the public eye... go find another job.
The fact is, the public has EVERY right to record and photograph a PUBLIC SERVANT doing their job - again, as long as they aren't ACTUALLY interfering with the investigation, arrest or other action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obviously...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For What it's Worth:
While I absolutely abhor what the police departments in this country have become, this entire thing could have been avoided had he simply been a little more forthcoming to the first officer. "I am a freelance photographer who takes living / sidewalk photography" Sounds a lot more realistic and believable then constantly asking an officer "Am I being detained?" and "I don't have to answer that."
Not that I disagree with WHAT the photographer said, but it seems that it was deliberately phrased in a way to get him pestered and allow him to catch it on film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For What it's Worth:
Huh? He obviously has a camera and was taking pictures. What would it matter if he also was taking video?
Not only was the guy some distance away, he was behind a fence. Clearly not a threat. Why is the officer even talking to him?
And yes, it DOES seem like the guy wanted to get this sort of thing on film. There's nothing that says the officer has to take the bait though.
The one question I do have is if there is a law in California requiring you to give your name to an officer when he asks. I think some places do have such a law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For What it's Worth:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: For What it's Worth:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For What it's Worth:
When did "suspicion of possessing a recording device and using it to publicly record police in the execution of their public duties" become an issue?
Just like the rest of us, the officer has no expectation of privacy in a public setting. Sounds like that's what the officer wants. If he was deliberately provoked, then shame on him for taking such obvious bait!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For What it's Worth:
Was Nee being an ass? A little bit, but who cares. Far to many cops seem to think that any manner of disrespect is somehow a threat to their "authoritah" and they need to do something about it. What they should do is simply roll their eyes and walk away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For What it's Worth:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: For What it's Worth:
The officer had every right to approach him. Just like anyone else has a right to approach Nee on a public street. The cop may not have had a right to detain him, or demand that he stop photographing, but to simply walk up to him and engage him in dialog? Of course the cop has that right. *Anyone* has that right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: For What it's Worth:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For What it's Worth:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For What it's Worth:
Bob Blahblah
Freelance Photographer/Documentarian
In my experience, if you have a business card, people respond more favorably and less suspiciously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For What it's Worth:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"LAPD Detains A Photographer For 'Interfering' With A Police Investigation..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do the police insist that Google magically figure out a way to determine who is, and isn't a police officer, and shut the camera off, even if they are plain clothed officers?
That reminds me of something ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interference
If you photograph or take videos of an LAPD officer performing his duties, said officer will soon be suspended or fired for their actions. Obviously, a suspended or unemployed police officer cannot possibly perform their duties, so this heavily interferes in their ability to do their work.
How hard is that to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd argue that the recording is being done for the officer's safety - and 90 feet is plenty far enough to not be interfering.
Trying to drum up sympathy for a cop who MUST have something to hide if he's so afraid of a camera just ain't going to cut it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rialto, CA Police Made to Wear Cameras, Use of Force Drops by Over Two-Thirds
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=44427
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because CITIZENS know we're wearing cameras, they're submitting 2/3rds less bogus police brutality claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can't do that
http://www.pdnonline.com/news/Department-of-Justic-5735.shtml
Be mindful of your rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They can't do that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LAPD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're going to set up a bunch of cameras, and they're going to lure a bunch of bad cops to the place, and set them off. I envision having a bunch of puppies, just a few months old, all loose in the house, and the cops come in shooting them all for the hidden cameras.
The videos will be uploaded before the raid is even over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Camera
"By itself and without more, it is not interference to photograph or otherwise record a police officer in a public place, even when the officer is engaged in the performance of his official duties.
A police officer who interferes with lawful photographing or recording shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The U.S. Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The U.S. Constitution
> US Constitution daily should be deported
> from this country immediately following any
> pending civil litigation, reguardless of that
> outcome.
Well, you just trashed the US Constitution by suggesting that the government should violate the 1st and 5th Amendment rights of its citizens, so will you be self-deporting, or do we need to send agents to do it for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Established
These cops might have just bought themselves a healthy pile of debt. Personal debt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]