Slashdot Mirror


Citizen Photographers v. The Police?

Several hundred readers commented on yesterday's Slashdot post about citizens arrested for photographing police either in public or in the photographer's own property. Read on for some of the comments which defined the conversation in today's Backslash summary. Anthony Boyd is one of the readers whose inclination to believe the police is mitigated by the facts as reported in the case of Philadelphia's Neftaly Cruz:

"Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him."

OK. I'm more inclined to believe the cops... wait a second...

"A neighbor said she witnessed the incident and could not believe what she saw."

"He opened up the gate and Neffy was coming down and he went up to Neffy, pulled him down...

Oh, you dumb, dumb cops. Of course Neftaly Cruz was "not on his property" during the arrest if you went onto his property and dragged him off! Why would you do that in front of witnesses?

To tomstdenis's argument that, even if the police really did violate people's rights, they should be treated leniently because "[P]olice are people and do bad things," reader alienmole points out a crucial difference:

The difference is that police have powers which ordinary citizens don't have, so when police do bad things, it can have severe consequences. Quite often, they're not held accountable for that, which again results from an abuse of power. That's what this is all about: accountability for the actions of public servants, particularly those with extraordinary powers. Cops in general are not the enemy, but bad cops are certainly an enemy which needs to be guarded against and eradicated whenever possible.

Reader BINC wants to know whether Pennsylvania actually has a law which would illegalize Neftaly Cruz's cellphone photo of police in the act of arresting a suspect. He writes

This seems to be part of a national push. In Montana it extends beyond photography. I have recently been threatened with being charged with "Obstructing" for not yielding to a warrantless search of my property, so I looked it up. See data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/7/45-7-302.htm especially paragraph (2). !!

General defense in Montana is insisting on trial by jury — provided one represents himself; otherwise it invites rapid bankruptcy — but trial by jury is not guaranteed by all states' consitutions for all crimes.

Many readers linked to online information and commentary on the recognized rights of photographers (at least in the U.S.). Reader pen was one of several to point to Bert Krages' site:

Here is a handy pamphlet called The Photographer's Right that provides some advice for dealing with a situation like this.

Reader hacker linked to an informative PDF and offers a useful summary:

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.

PsychosisC contributed a link to a short video called " BUSTED - The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters," writing "I've only had two encounters with police officers... but both of them sort of leave me thinking less of them."

Rights on paper aside, many readers posted horror stories of arrest-happy police; leereyno pointed to one that made the news in the Mid-Atlantic region, writing

[T]here does seem to be an increase in cases of police officers getting confused and thinking they work for the Gestapo. There was a case a month back or so where the daughter of a police officer was arrested for "trespassing." She and a friend were lost and had stopped to ask a police officer for directions. The officer refused to help them, stating that they would have to find their own way out. A few moments later they spotted another officer and drove over to where he was to ask for help, at which point the first officer rushed over and berated them for daring to ask her partner for help when she had already told them to get lost. ... A few minutes later these same officers arrested them for "trespassing" ..... on a public street. The girl and her friend spent the night in jail. They weren't charged of course because they hadn't committed any crime.

I don't know how this case turned out for the officers involved, but it shows a serious lack of oversight when two cops are able to run wild and abuse the public in that manner.

[...]

In most parts of the world, being a police officer is met with about the same level of respect as a personal injury lawyer would be here, if not less. The police are held in contempt because in most parts of the world, particularly the 3rd world, corruption and abuse are almost part of the job. Police officers in the U.S. are, at least among healthy segments of society, viewed with respect if not admiration. But this esteem is fragile because at the end of the day the police are armed agents of the state and that makes them difficult to love. So when officers abuse and betray the trust of the public and make false arrests, all it does is make life that much more difficult for them and and their fellow officers. Things like these are noticed, and remembered.

According to reader rs79, this sort of thing on wouldn't happen north of the border; rs79 writes "I've photographed cops here in Canada arresting people a couple of times. They don't care." To this, RajivSLK says

It's not so rosy up here in Canada. This past Canada Day the Victoria police instituted a policy of mandatory searches on all buses heading downtown. They can get away with this because, on Canada Day, the bus is used mostly by young people going to clubs. I objected to being searched thinking that I would simply not be allowed back on the bus. Instead, to my complete surprise, the officer began to become very verbally abusive and I was arrested for "Drunk and Disorderly Conduct."

No breathalizer, no sobriety test, nothing. 100% solely based upon the officers "observation." I was processed and thrown into a dirty cement holding cell that lacked even toilet paper let alone a bed. As it stands, the Victoria police can arrest anyone at anytime under the charge of "Drunk and Disorderly" with no evidence and no sobriety test.

I can't wait for the day when *I* can video tape everything. That should provide a little balance to things.

ZorbaTHut suggests the sort of technological answer that RajivSLK's looking for, which might remind Neal Stephenson fans of the "gargoyles" in Snowcrash.

I've been waiting for a mini-stealth-camera-and-recorder to appear. I want a little device, the size of a cellphone camera, that fits in a button or a necklace or a belt buckle or something equally inconspicuous. It should be connected to a waist controller, which would include battery pack, storage (hard drive or flash), and wifi. Wifi so that, whenever it can find an available internet connection, it can upload its contents to a secure server located elsewhere.

Just imagine that. "Sorry sir, you took a picture of something you weren't supposed to. I'm going to have to confiscate your camera." "The pictures are already in Texas, and in ten minutes they'll be posted online. Same as the recording of what you're saying right now. You really want to illegally take my possessions, Officer Frank, Number 3894?"

Many thanks to the readers (especially those quoted above) whose comments informed this discussion.

12 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. The bottom line is this by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This was a local police department, they were in the wrong, they guy was released, and hopefully the citizen and/or others who are concerned will press this so that the officer(s) involved are subject to some sort of corrective action.

    This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.

    It's an action of a local municipal police department, period. These inappropriate actions have been executed by people in positions of authority since the beginning of time. The point is we heard about it, it got covered, and hopefully it will be corrected. And hopefully the police department will issue a directive to think twice before they harass and/or arrest other citizens who aren't doing anything wrong from exercising their own rights.

    1. Re:The bottom line is this by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.

      Holy shit! I think we just found the world's only omniscient individual.

      First of all, the future depicted in 1984 is fast approaching, or did you miss the fact that there's a lawsuit proceeding (besides the one just thrown out) against AT&T for allowing the feds to tap their communications? Sure, it's twenty years late, but he was remarkably aware of the date.

      is because of the environment fostered by the PATRIOT act. In particular, law enforcement all over the country is utilizing the U SAP AT RIOT act to bypass process and protection. Did you really think that attitude wouldn't become essentially endemic of the freedom-less atmosphere engendered by that piece of trash legislation?

      It's an action of a local municipal police department, period.

      The corellary to "actions have consequences" is that they also have causes. This didn't just come out of nowhere. Everything that you can see is the result of pressure in other forces. Period. This works at all levels, in all systems; they're not all genetic, but ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. When you see light, that's the result of photons; those photons were in turn released when an electron's energy state was reduced; that in turn occurred because it was first increased. "Pressure" - or more to the point energy - makes things happen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:The bottom line is this by arbarbonif · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that, like '1984', we are involved in a war with a nebulous enemy with no real end or finish visible (or perhaps even possible). So when we give up rights for the war on 'terrorism' how can we EVER get them back? Will 'terrorism' give up and sign a surrender? Will the government say "Ok, we didn't need these extra powers after all, so we'll give them up."? I don't see either case happening.

      Just because is is a cliche doesn't mean that it is an inaccurate or useless comparison.

    3. Re:The bottom line is this by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But don't even try to play it off as if poor and/or minority people never deserve to be arrested, or that crime rates really are higher in poorer sections of towns, and that current black "culture" is towards self-destructive, violent behavior, completely eschewing education in light of acquiring "hos" and "ice".

      Even if all of that is true, I STILL don't deserve the kind of treatment that I've recieved from coward cops over the years.

      Unless you have evidence or reason to believe that I am involved in some kind of illegal activity, don't bother me. That's not unreasonable, but it doesn't happen that way. I have been pulled over for DWB, several times. I have been stopped while walking down the sidewalk for no reason other than the police just wanted to know who I was. I have been threatened by the police, Sgt. CJ Hartman, formerly of the North Versailles PA Police Dept once said to me "I don't care if you've done anything or not, there's a book 'this thick' and I'll find something in it to nail you on."

      So, don't demean my intelligence or belittle my experiences by blaming me for the misconduct of others.

      But racism doesn't count when it's against white people, right?

      Being that white people are the majority of the electorate, official conduct on the part of elected officials (police chiefs, city councilmen, etc) and their subordinates isn't racism when it's directed against white people.

      It's abusive, it's corrupt, it's dishonerable but it's not racism.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:The bottom line is this by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All I see is a government availing itself of everything possible technologically to do what it believes is the right thing, with technology enabling the kind of massive, omnibus monitoring.

      This is a fairly accurate description of 1984, though perhaps the justification is different.

  2. Arrested != Convicted by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can get arrested for pretty near anything. Even on "trumped up" charges. Getting convicted is another matter. If the guy in Philly has a civil case, I expect he'll press it. If he wins, it's payday.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  3. Re:[P]lease read my post by finkployd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the [P]olice do something wrong, they should be [P]unished just like the rest of us!

    Yes they should, and they should also IMMEDIATELY lose their job. They are given powers and abilities above that of normal citizens and with that comes responsibility. We place our trust in them and once one of them violates that trust there is absolutely no reason at all to keep them. A crooked or corrupt cop is a much greater risk to society than your average joe.

    If a cop is caught abusing his power, violating the law, or anything of that nature, he needs to be fired ASAP. No cushy desk job, no paid leave, gone. We as a society have become far too accepting of crooked cops and the police community is far to protective of its own, even when they are giving all a bad name.

    Finkployd

  4. Wrong, Sir, wrong! by megaditto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In America, the Government is the People. All of us. You and me. We get to voice our opintion on things. If we do not like something, we change it by voting.

    I fully empathize with people from Kraplickistan living under a dictatorship. If you live in America however, you have no excuses if you chose not to participate.

    Say you don't like the good folks at the White House; who's stopping you from writing to your Senator, going door-to-door to get the vote out, starting up a collection for your favorite party. Starting up your own damn party, if you don't like any existing one.

    Yes, I understand it is hard work, and it is much easier to sit at home instead of trying to change the system, but at least folks like you should have the courtesy not to stop being a whiney little bitch!

    Apathetic jerks like yourself make me sick to my stomach!

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    1. Re:Wrong, Sir, wrong! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hogwash. If you think that the power truly rests with the people, you are either very much the optimist, or you're deluding yourself (or both). I'm a cynic, but it appears that you've drunk the kool-aid we've all been fed since our first days of civics lessons in school.

      Two simple reasons why our government is no longer (if it ever was) for and by the people:

      (1) Secrecy. When you can;t find out what your government is doing, how are you supposed to act against it in a legal manner?
      (2) Money. Big money interests (both corporations and individuals) have an undue amount of influence in our political system.

      I personally participate in the democratic in many ways, from voting to writing letters to calling my state legislators, to attending functions they'll be at in order to press my point(s). Nevertheless, the actions of the individual (even the actions of hundreds) are far from a panacea to our civic problems.

      Government may have used to be the people. Not so any longer, and it's important to recognize that the bureaucratic government holds power that the electorate (us) can't counter. Career politicians, career bureacrats, government agencies whose very existence is secret, monies spent on secret budgets that no one is accountable for...

      My tinfoil hat is on... because it's not paranoia if they ARE really monitoring your actions (I've been pulled out of line to be searched waiting to board a plane because my FBI file lists me as an agitator. Had to fly into SEA-TAC during the WTO meeting pre-9/11 for business.)

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  5. Good News: It's so bad it's a big deal by EaglesNest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree with the parent post, and yes, I agree with the criticism of this incendent. I don't think it's representative of police nationwide. After all, the media made it public knowledge based on the word of the victim; the ACLU may be getting involved (the family should sue -- they have a case); and there is already an investigation. So the good news here is that it's a big deal. When is it time to start worrying, and not just making a fuss about it, but taking real action against a police state? That time will come when incidents do not provoke the kind of outrage we have seen here. I understand how police -- especially unseasoned patrolmen -- can become jaded quickly without having the experience or training to know how to deal with a situtation they don't like. Police so often get a very warped view of the world since they most often are responding to terrible situations and people who would have very bad karma on Slashdot.

  6. Arrested is a penalty by nuggz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Being arrested IS a penalty in itself.

    When a foreigner enters the US they don't ask if you've been convicted of a crime, they ask if you've "ever been arrested".

    Also an arrest in many areas means you get fingerprinted and put in the databases. Plus in more and more places you have to give a DNA sample.

    1. Re:Arrested is a penalty by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's very true, not only for the bad marks on your paperwork and such, but because of the immediate threats that an arrested person faces.

      Everything in your personal life shuts down for however long it takes to process you. Apart from the "one phone call," there's no way to let everyone who needs to know that you're alive and well instead of just missing. Dependents are a whole other issue in themselves. There could be everything from a pet that doesn't get fed to a grandmother who doesn't get reminded to take her pills to children who don't get picked up from school. The emotional stress your family goes through seeing you dragged off in handcuffs or simply not coming home when you should is really not measurable. And woe be to the single parent in this situation..

      Aside from family obligations, there are the business ones. How important are you at your job? Are you the type of employee who can be covered for for a day or two? Will your employers react well to your excuse the next day? Never mind that if you're a sole proprietor of a struggling business, the whole thing could be pretty much destroyed by nobody opening the door for a day.

      Basically, no matter how innocent you are, being arrested can screw with your life and any others involved in it on a major scale.