Slashdot Mirror
Photograph the Police, Get Arrested
Servo writes "Last month a man was arrested in New Hampshire after presenting evidence of a police officer being verbally abusive that he had captured on his home security camera system. Now just recently in Philadelphia a 21 year old student was arrested on his property after he took a photo of the police who were in the process of arresting a drug dealer down the street." From the article: "Cruz said that when he heard a commotion, he walked out of his back door with his cell phone to see what was happening. He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene. 'I opened (the phone) and took a shot,' Cruz said. Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate."
From TFA:
There is a great document put together by a lawyer called Photographers' Rights. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Basically, it is 100% legal to photograph any emergency personal in the line of duty as long as you are not interferring with their work. As well, no one can confiscate your film or digital media. However, both of that is null and void if you do get in the way of emergency personel. If you are on private property, such as a shopping mall, they can ask you not to take photos, but you can't be penalized for it unless you continue against their will.
I was lost while looking for where to pick up my nephew from his babysitter, so I pulled over and walked up to a house and asked for directions. My car was a pretty old car, in a reasonably nice neighborhood. When I came back to my car, a person was walking around it, looking in each of the windows. I asked him why, he said, "I'm a cop, I'm supposed to".
Around two in the morning, I had to go home from campus (Lan Party =)). A police officer pulled me over on the way out. Her stated reason, "It's suspicious for someone to be getting their car out of the parking lot this late at night." The traditional image of police is protectors, but to be honest, they are just paid to arrest people. There is a very big difference. A highly visible police patrolling the ghetto does us more good than a traffic trap. One actually lowers crime, the other gets arrests.
Here is a handy pamphlet called The Photographer's Right that provides some advice for dealing with a situation like this.
I'm in the UK, and I've seen this and worse happen for years. At an anti capitalist demo (I'm not a loony, but I do think some of the issues raised at those demos need to be raised - like subsidising the third world out of the world markets etc... but lets not go off topic)I've been charged at by police on horses FOR NO REASON AT ALL!.
And yes I've seen cameras blocked, and their owners arrested. I've seen the unlawful detainment of hundreds of demonstrators (I would have been one of them, if I hadn't been light on my feet, and had a friend to help me over a piked fence. Ironically the fence of the Royal Courts of Justice I believe).
So its not news, that there's a problem. But whats the solution?
I propose that a form of open source decentralised government evolve that slowly but surely makes the centralized government more and more obsolete. Leaching the power from centralised government will force them to be more democratic, and less hyopocrytical. I hope.
Of course "what about the money"?!?!
Well - taxes can be legaly sidestepped. Previously it was only the rich who could afford off shaw accounts etc... With this shiny new interweb of ours, we can build open source solutions to tax, for the masses!
So - imagine a karma system generating elected, regional education 'node leaders', for home and comunity eductator to amasses comparible resources as those in state schools. Now health, security, transport, energy,....
Yes this might sound wacky, but there's nothing stopping us trying. And I'm sick of the winging in here. YES your government is crap! Do something!
Because you can - or because you should?
Excerpt from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
10.Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a)to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b)to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c)to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
At the very least they have to tell you that you may retain a lawyer and, if I am not mistaken, the Supreme Court has ruled they must also tell you that you have the right to remain silent. I don't know where you get this idea that the police in Canada don't have to tell you your rights, you see them do it all the time on the Canadian version of Cops.
http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html
No idea how it works in other countries; I've heard unconfirmed reports that the situation in France is particularly bad. Apparently you can't take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night without violating somebody's copyright there. (I think it's the lighting.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
No no no no no.
Under constitutional law, you have ALL rights. Law dictates limitations or prohibitions, it does not grant them. A law doesn't have to explicitly state you have a right.
Laws are subtractive, not additive.
This is a common misperception by the public at large.
I believe you can be charged for resisting police. Police could be in error arresting you and sometimes circumstances play a role in the arrest - "wrong time, wrong place". They usually free person soon and apologize if it was their fault - about that happened with Cruz. No apology though... Kicking a cop is worse then run away. That allow them forcefully restrain you, perhaps kicking you and beating with batons - do you want it?
There is a difference between arrest and detainment, but it depends on local rules.
Reading the article, he got in trouble for recording conversations, not for taking video pictures. In his state, it against the law to record conversations without warning all participants. The legal question will be whether the warning stickers on the outside of his house are sufficient.
You can publish and sell them. You created the photo, not the architect; the photo's copyright belongs to the photographer regardless of what it's of. See The Photographer's Right: "Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations." The architectural plans are copyright, not the building itself, and certainly not an image of the building taken by someone else. I'm unsure of how one could copyright a statue or building, though anything is possible these days. A few iconic buildings have their images trademarked, but that's an entirely different matter, and not common.
Think about it for a moment. During any time in U.S. history can you think of any other president about which such comments have been raised?
Yes, on multiple occassions, during wars, the Great Depression, during the civil rights movements, etc. I'm not saying Bush hasn't made mistakes, but remember that we as people (I'm included) are pretty narrow-scoped in our knowledge of history, and we forget the details of history all too quickly, or we are never taught the details. By details, I mean the day-to-day outlook, not the two line summary in the history book 100 years later.
Switching topics but not the principle, take Iraq as an example: many think 3 years is too long to stabilize a country. Go search the NY Times archives from 1945 until about 1947 with the key words "Japan" and "violence" or "unrest". You can only see the headlines and a small bit of text unless you pay for them, but it should be enought text to get the meaning. Article after artcle questions the stabilization of post-war Japan, when will it ever end, what about Korea now, etc, etc. Iraq is taking much longer, but fifty years from now none of the difficulties will be remembered, assuming the effort is successful. It's scary to think about how much history is forgotten.
it does not inspire confidence that a public organisation who allegedly operate inside the law, to uphold the law, should feel it necessary to use their power to conceal the detailed workings of their activities.
Well said, and may I expand:
If the judicial system works so poorly that photographs of the executive branch during the public execution of their duty are dangerous, what does that say of the same judicial system when faced with a suspect who cannot provide sufficient proof of his innocence? If the judicial system is making so many mistakes that the police do not trust it, how can we?
Anyone able to point a finger at the legislation that enables them to do this? Or is there none, and they are just overstepping the mark?
I believe it is a part of the NEAC-SEFA Act - Nine Eleven And Children's-Safety Executive Free Action Act. It states that the executive can do anything, without oversight, if they are protecting children or fighting terrorists. It was written by the NSA, approved by two senators and Dick Cheney, and signed into law by GWB. Of course, the law must remain secret, because making it public would lend aid and comfort to the terrorists, who hate our freedom, and help child molestors escape justice.
So the question is not whether NEAC-SEFA is a good law - it is a necessary and vital law enforcement tool. The question is, do you support child molestors and terrorists, or do you support NEAC-SEFA?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Actually, presidential approval ratings have varied from 90% (Bush II after 9/11) to 24% (Truman after removing MacArthur from command in Korea).
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Ahh, the old "guilty until proven innocent" mantra.
Except in special circumstances (e.g., certain government facilities), there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs on public or private property. If you can be there, you can take pictures there: streets, malls, parking lots, office buildings. You do not need permission to do so, even on private property.
Trespassing laws naturally apply. If a property owner demands you leave, you must. But if a place is open to the public -- a mall, office-building lobby, etc. -- permission to enter is assumed (although it can be revoked).
In terms of the law, trespass and photography are separate events; the former is illegal, but the latter is not. Only if the use of photographic equipment itself violates a person's privacy (e.g., by using a long lens to look into someone's private room) might it violate privacy law. Further, while people have a right of privacy, businesses do not except as it relates to trade secrets.
Subject to specific limits, photographers can publish any photos they take, provided those photos do not violate the privacy of the subject. This includes photos taken while trespassing or otherwise being someplace they shouldn't be. Taking photos and publishing photos are two separate issues.
Please read the full PDF here with much more detail. I print copies of this on 4x5 index cards and keep them with me at all times when I'm taking photos in any public place.
Also, if someone demands your "film" or your camera, let them know that it is not legal for them to take it, unless you have been arrested of a crime involving that camera and that film. The crime for someone to demand and take your camera or film, is called theft, and threatening to do so (or to "break your camera"), is called coercion. Don't tolerate either of them, and if your equipment IS taken or broken, call the police and file charges.
Know your rights, and don't tolerate this supression.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Actually it is a big deal because you can't be arrested in your own home without an arrest warrant. Cops can attempt to use deceit to get you to leave your home, but they can't physically drag you off your property. So the arrest, on it's face, was a violation of his rights.