Slashdot Mirror
Police Allegedly Threaten A UK Photographer With Seizure Of All His Computers (wordpress.com)
Andy Smith is a Scotland-based news photographer (and a long-time reader of Slashdot). He writes
Recently the police wanted to seize some of my work photos to use as evidence in a prosecution... Rather than trying (and likely failing) to get a warrant to seize the photos, the prosecutor used a tactic that nobody had heard of before: He got a warrant to seize all of my cameras, computers, memory cards, etc, even though the photos were in a secure location, not at my home or in my possession. I was then given 24 hours to retrieve and hand over the photos, or the police would raid my home and take everything, effectively ending my career.
His blog post describes erasing every computer and memory card, though he believes the police only wanted the leverage that came from threatening to seize them. But the journalists' union advised him to surrender the photos, since otherwise his equipment could be held for over a year -- so he complied. "I regret my decision. Everyone on this side of the case has reassured me that it was the right thing to do, but it wasn't."
"As for the warrant, it remains active, with no time limit. I now conduct my work knowing that the police could raid my home at any time, without warning, and take everything."
His blog post describes erasing every computer and memory card, though he believes the police only wanted the leverage that came from threatening to seize them. But the journalists' union advised him to surrender the photos, since otherwise his equipment could be held for over a year -- so he complied. "I regret my decision. Everyone on this side of the case has reassured me that it was the right thing to do, but it wasn't."
"As for the warrant, it remains active, with no time limit. I now conduct my work knowing that the police could raid my home at any time, without warning, and take everything."
Preferably in a secure location, in a country where it's unlikely that some bully government can get their way.
I suggest Iran.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The US constitution (4th am.) would prevent this. So the cops would have taken them using civil forfeiture instead, sold them, and spent the dosh on hookers and blackjack.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Any time you deal with the cops, you've already lost. Hell, in some places in the US, they send kids to jail and then bill their parents for the jail stay when the kid is found innocent. And inner-city cops have a saying: "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride".
Of course, if this were in the US, the police might just seize everything anyway, hold a trial against the property (instead of against the photographer) and then auction it off for profit.
And the saddest part is, this is still well above average for a justice system.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Was there ever a better incentive for a comprehensive off-site backup program?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
You can't beat yourself up for what dick heads do man. Just remember enforcement of law always comes down to someone holding a gun to your head. Its basically like you complied with a robber which is the smart thing to do so don't beat yourself up over your decision.
Photographer refuses request to assist police but gives them cause to worry that he'll hide or destroy evidence in the process. Cops get warrant. Photographers' union tells him to stop being an idiot. Photographer posts his version of the story on Slashdot because that'll really teach the cops a lesson and show them whose boss...
In most countries and states police use overbroad warrants to as a sort of pre-emptive retaliation for the likelyhood that they will fail to get court approval for the illegal or unconstitutional nature of their goal. How come citizens cant do the same thing to the police?
Sure, you can do this. Get a whole raft of lawyers (solicitors), a whole bundle of money and a lot of patience.
That was Mr. Smith's dilemma. Despite having some access to representation (the Journalist's guild), he was heavily outgunned by the Crown. You need to have assets like Kim Dotcom to pull this off.
Lawyers, guns and money.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You stopped reading at the end of that paragraph?
"Doing so would have set a dangerous precedent and would compromise the impartiality of myself and the other press photographers who work at the court. It’s quite foreseeable that one photographer handing over photos would endanger all other photographers at the court as we may be perceived as informers or allies of the police."
That doesn't hold up. Reporters are supposed to report on what happened truthfully, regardless of which side it favors. By refusing to publish and release these photos, he has biased himself and chosen a side. If it would have embarrassed the police and/or the court, would he have felt compelled to withhold it in order to be "impartial"? No, because that is what a reporter does. But that works both ways. He must report on what is favorable for them as well as what hurts them.
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
If the prosecution, i.e. Queens Counsel, in a criminal trial wants his photographs to use as evidence against someone else, I would expect them to subpoena them.
What they don't do, AIUI, is have the police get a (search) warrant to search the home of an innocent third party. for "evidence".
Maybe standards have slipped in the UK, but I really can't imagine a judge in Scotland approving such a warrant. Some other places in the world I can see it happening, but I wouldn't have thought in Scotland.
But IANAL, not in Scotland, not anywhere. (Even though I play one on TV)