login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Criminalizing Photography Search   Reply
first12
Photographer
2020 Photography
Posts: 440
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US


OP, this is very good.  Thank you for posting it.  One thing I saw a lot of in the article was the repeated comment by Mr. Osterreicher that the police need better training.  This is wrong.  The police have more than enough training they only chose to follow the training that serves their purposes at any given time.  Reading a letter ten time a day in watch briefings is more than enough to get a point across it's just that the police don't want to get the point.

I have several close friends who are in law enforcement but the sad truth is most cops are bullies plain and simply.  As Mr. Osterriecher rightly pointed out there prevailing attitude and mentality is one of "because I said so" or "I've got the badge and gun so I have to be right".  It is good to see that in many of the instances that he cited charges were reduced but my experience has been that once a person is charged with something they will never walk away scott free.  In charging a person with something the police and prosecutors back themselves into a corner and to save face pretty much have to charge somebody with something even if it is a reduced charge.  They are saying "yeah we screwed up and used piss-poor judgement but we can't let them walk away, we have to charge them with something".

It was somewhat satisfying to learn that Mr. Stolarik's camera was returned to him but I have to wonder if it was returned intact or if somehow the memory card got "lost".

There was another post here in the Forums a few days ago and one person suggested carrying a digital tape recorder which to me is a good idea.  I went out and bought one that afternoon and whenever I go out with my camera it will be in my pocket if ever needed.  We are photographers have to take steps to protect ourselves because the ones who are suppose to certainly will not.  Sad but true.
Aug 15 12 03:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Smedley Whiplash
Posts: 17,299
Billings, Montana, US


This is pretty interesting, and goes into what the police are concerned with:

http://www.pixiq.com/article/connecticu … roves-bill


Text of State of Connecticut Bill 245

File No. 271

    February Session, 2012

   

Senate Bill No. 245

    Senate, April 5, 2012

    The Committee on Judiciary reported through SEN. COLEMAN of the 2nd Dist., Chairperson of the Committee on the part of the Senate, that the bill ought to pass.

    AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECORDING OF POLICE ACTIVITY BY THE PUBLIC.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

    Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2012) (a) For the purposes of this section, "peace officer" has the meaning provided in section 53a-3 of the general statutes.

    (b) A peace officer who interferes with any person taking a photographic or digital still or video image of such peace officer or another peace officer acting in the performance of such peace officer's duties shall, subject to sections 5-141d, 7-465 and 29-8a of the general statutes, be liable to such person in an action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceeding for redress.

    ***(c) A peace officer shall not be liable under subsection (b) of this section if the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the peace officer was interfering with the taking of such image in order to (1) lawfully enforce a criminal law of this state or a municipal ordinance, (2) protect the public safety, (3) preserve the integrity of a crime scene or criminal investigation, (4) safeguard the privacy interests of any person, including a victim of a crime, or (5) lawfully enforce court rules and policies of the Judicial Branch with respect to taking a photograph, videotaping or otherwise recording an image in facilities of the Judicial Branch.

SUMMARY:

This bill makes peace officers potentially liable for damages for interfering with a person taking a photograph, digital still, or video image of either the officer or a colleague performing his or her job duties. Under the bill, officers cannot be found liable if they reasonably believed that the interference was necessary to (1) lawfully enforce a criminal law or municipal ordinance; (2) protect public safety; (3) preserve the integrity of a crime scene or criminal investigation; (4) safeguard the privacy of a crime victim or other person; or (5) enforce Judicial Branch rules and policies that limit taking photographs, videotaping, or otherwise recording images in branch facilities.

Officers found liable of this offense are entitled, under existing law, to indemnification (repayment) from their state or municipal employer if they were acting within their scope of authority and the conduct was not willful, wanton, or reckless.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/FC/2012SB-00 … 271-FC.htm
Aug 15 12 03:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Smedley Whiplash
Posts: 17,299
Billings, Montana, US


DP
Aug 15 12 03:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Smedley Whiplash
Posts: 17,299
Billings, Montana, US


TP  damn it  lol
Aug 15 12 03:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rdallasPhotography
Posts: 965
Norristown, Pennsylvania, US


SoCo n Lime wrote:
maybe they're being arrested because they start to argue with the guys in the uniform rather than being diplomatic about the situation.

It's also a matter of regularly being approached just because you are shooting. That is a new turn in this country since 9/11. Some police do it with more attitude than necessary.

Aug 15 12 03:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rdallasPhotography
Posts: 965
Norristown, Pennsylvania, US


Shot By Adam wrote:
...as America becomes more conservative liberal, our nation is becoming the police state...
There, fixed that for you.

That's a total non sequitur.

Aug 15 12 03:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rdallasPhotography
Posts: 965
Norristown, Pennsylvania, US


Signature Studios LLC wrote:
We had a similar situation in St. Paul during the 2008 Republican convention. There were protests (mostly peaceful) and rather than arresting a few troublemakers, police cordoned off an entire area and arrested everybody, including journalists. Even the reporter & cameraman for the local NBC affiliate were arrested, despite huge NBC logos on their shirts and press credentials. Sure, they were later released without charges (as were most of those arrested), but they were prevented from doing their jobs.

If you saw the footage of the NBC reporter, he was simply filing a report and the cameraman was simply recording the reporter and the events taking place. They were standing off to the side, not in the middle of the protest. What the police did was a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Tell that to Adam...

Aug 15 12 03:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rdallasPhotography
Posts: 965
Norristown, Pennsylvania, US


rp_photo wrote:

Except for two important exceptions: Nudity and Marijuana.

And if the Right gets its way, Planned Parenthood. The battle is being fought. I don't know if other free societies have the same changes we are experiencing; (to keep on topic, including the new treatment of photographers)

Aug 15 12 03:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1,067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US


rdallasPhotography wrote:

And if the Right gets its way, Planned Parenthood. The battle is being fought. I don't know if other free societies have the same changes we are experiencing; (to keep on topic, including the new treatment of photographers)

Well, we can all up and move to New Zealand!  big_smile

(I have been seriously considering it!)

Aug 15 12 04:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fred Gerhart
Posts: 736
San Antonio, Texas, US


SoCo n Lime wrote:
maybe they're being arrested because they start to argue with the guys in the uniform rather than being diplomatic about the situation.

The arrest charge is usually called interfering with the duties of a public servant and can be a class A misdemeanor.

What's also interesting is the definition of public. For instance a ticketed event may not be "public" even though the general public is permitted to attend by purchasing a ticket. The security at such event may be or may not be police officers. But they can easily arrange the arguing photographer a trip to lockup.

And a photographer can be charged with criminal trespass if the owner, manager, or employee in charge asks them to leave the premises.

So many ways to get in trouble by taking a stand.

Aug 15 12 04:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jay Farrell
Posts: 13,046
Nashville, Tennessee, US


SoCo n Lime wrote:
maybe they're being arrested because they start to argue with the guys in the uniform rather than being diplomatic about the situation.

Not necessarily......it happened to me, and I was very cooperative....it ended up biting me in the ass. They know less about photography law than most of us do. Some cops try to make street photographers look like peeping toms.

Aug 15 12 04:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Eric Mazzone Fotograf
Posts: 16
Kalamazoo, Michigan, US


Uncommon Allure wrote:

I should point out that Nazi was short for National Socialist party, technically a left wing group advocating strong governmental control of the economy including health care.

Absolutely false.  Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschland was a fascist organization.  The first thing they did was ban all socialists.  Part of my job in the army is as a German Linguist, I *must* understand german culture AND that includes the history.  I'm utterly fed up with the tea party out here projecting their NAZI tendencies on liberals.

Aug 15 12 05:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
bruce blosser
Posts: 294
Mendocino, California, US


SoCo n Lime wrote:
maybe they're being arrested because they start to argue with the guys in the uniform rather than being diplomatic about the situation.

i have seen video of police tear gasing women with babies - who were simply standing on the sidewalk... the  last thing the police want  is  videos  of that  kind of  crap  getting on  the internet!  So  yes  they  do  harass  and  bludgeon  photographers  and videographers  who are simply trying to do their  job!

Aug 15 12 05:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
bruce blosser
Posts: 294
Mendocino, California, US


Shot By Adam wrote:
There, fixed that for you.

Typical  TeaBagger  attitude!

the  right  is  constantly  pushing  the  line of moderation  to the right,  and  then  complaining  how  liberal  the  other side  is!!! 

There is  a  very slight  possibility  that  the general populace  might be  slightly more inclined  to liberalism today,  but  that is  constantly  erased by  the  corporate-conservative  press!

And despite  what  the  Faux  Nudes  types might  keep chanting  -  the  press  is  so  un-liberal  it  has  become  a  kind of  reverse  joke!

Aug 15 12 05:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
bruce blosser
Posts: 294
Mendocino, California, US


I should point out that Nazi was short for National Socialist party, technically a left wing group advocating strong governmental control of the economy including health care.

this is like something  right out of the tea-baggers  playbook! The  Nazi's  were  not  a  left  wing organization,  and  anyone who believes  that nonsense  is  just  a  dup of  the Koch Bros!  smile

Aug 15 12 05:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WisconsinArt
Posts: 156
Nashotah, Wisconsin, US


Frank Lewis Photography wrote:
Great topic.

Unfortunately, as America becomes more conservative, our nation is becoming the police state my father fought so bravely to defeat during WWII.

LOL

Aug 15 12 07:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gulag
Posts: 1,233
Duluth, Georgia, US


Keep reciting the mantra, Winston.

"WAR IS PEACE.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."
Aug 15 12 08:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 16,792
El Segundo, California, US


Moderator Warning!

Daeda1us wrote:
I said the US is more Liberal than it was in the 1940s.  I dont believe that point can be rationally contested.  Do you?

Feel free to contest or defend it, rationally or otherwise...in the Soapbox.

Not here.

Aug 15 12 10:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 5,617
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Post hidden on Aug 16, 2012 08:02 am
Reason: violates rules
Comments:
Take it to Soapbox.
Aug 15 12 11:42 pm  Link 
Photographer
VisiFoto
Posts: 501
Knoxville, Tennessee, US


Post hidden on Aug 16, 2012 08:02 am
Reason: inflammatory
Comments:
Take it to Soapbox.
Aug 16 12 12:12 am  Link 
Photographer
VisiFoto
Posts: 501
Knoxville, Tennessee, US


MnPhoto wrote:
Police: Sir, please put the camera away. You are not allowed to take photos of me doing my job out in public.
Photographer: Sorry, but you're wrong.
Police: Sir, I am not going to ask you again.
Photographer: [ignores officer and gets arrested]

I guess the photographer deserved that for not "obeying the law" (aka not doing what he was told).

I agree with the police state fears. It only takes enough people to ignore  such situations, for them to be eventually accepted. Papers please!

Instead of saying "you're wrong," I say, "that's an illegal order" using a military demeanor.

Many cops are military, or ex military, and all soldiers are trained to ignore illegal orders (but most get instant amnesia of that fact of law).

Don't stop recording video/audio, just point the camera down and pretend to stop. HDSLRs now shoot video, very handy is such situations. Hidden video/audio is now available for under $100.

Aug 16 12 12:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 4,851
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom


I thought someone had dragged up an article from a decade ago. If it is only just starting to be a problem Stateside, be grateful that it has taken so long to get to your shores.
Aug 16 12 02:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photosbydmp
Posts: 3,808
Shepparton-Mooroopna, Victoria, Australia


Art of the nude wrote:

In general, if you do exactly what the police say, even when they are wrong, that might help in the short run, yes.

Reminds one of nazy germany?

Aug 16 12 02:40 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Shot By Adam
Posts: 5,627
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Post hidden on Aug 16, 2012 08:03 am
Reason: inflammatory
Comments:
Take it to Soapbox.
Aug 16 12 06:04 am  Link 
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 16,792
El Segundo, California, US


Moderator Warning!
Last warning. Do not continue political rants here.
Aug 16 12 08:04 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Raw and the cooked
Posts: 956
London, England, United Kingdom


This is sadly increasingly so in the u.k.! hope this is not construed as political comment
Aug 17 12 02:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,532
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Kevin Connery wrote:
Last warning. Do not continue political rants here.

with respect, how does one discuss this issue without it being political? it concerns the law and interaction with enforcement.  Legal and social in the same basket: how could that not be political?

Aug 17 12 07:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Moderator
Model Mayhem Edu
Posts: 54
Los Angeles, California, US


Photographers Can be Detained as Potential Terrorists Under Official LAPD Policy

"The LAPD this week moved ahead with an official policy that considers taking photos and videotaping some buildings suspicious activity."

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012 … r_lapd.php
Aug 29 12 02:17 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 32,828
Los Angeles, California, US


AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
with respect, how does one discuss this issue without it being political? it concerns the law and interaction with enforcement.  Legal and social in the same basket: how could that not be political?

Which is why every major industry forum should have a version of itself as a SOAPBOX subforum.

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … st17461549

Aug 29 12 02:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WR Photographics
Posts: 1,354
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada


Shot By Adam wrote:

There, fixed that for you.

Over the past 10 years (since 9/11), the USA has taken a decided hard turn to the right in several metrics.
I suspect that overall your country is still more liberal than it was in the post war years, but there is a growing trend towards conservatism.
Heck, Obama, who a lot of people claim is a socialist is more right wing than any Republican President was prior to the Bushes.

Aug 29 12 08:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 16,792
El Segundo, California, US


AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
with respect, how does one discuss this issue without it being political? it concerns the law and interaction with enforcement.  Legal and social in the same basket: how could that not be political?

Since it was bumped...

It can be discussed with deliberately inflammatory language about political parties; and/or discussed without using rabid brushstrokes so wide that it paints everyone other than a handful of people as insane and/or entirely clueless; and/or discussed without the use of gasoline-soaked strawmen; etc.

If the only way this issue can be discussed is with standing on a soapbox, there's a problem.

Aug 30 12 08:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AtomicPenguin
Posts: 449
New York, New York, US


FWIW as a state employee I was asked to help enforce the "no bridge pictures" policy, which really made no sense as pictures are readily available online...

I have to record video when I carry, when I photograph, when I drive...this is getting ridiculous.
Aug 30 12 08:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SAND DIAL
Posts: 5,965
Santa Monica, California, US


Frank Lewis Photography wrote:
Great topic.

Unfortunately, as America becomes more conservative, our nation is becoming the police state my father fought so bravely to defeat during WWII.

Unless the Police State is from the left.

Aug 30 12 10:22 pm  Link  Quote 
first12   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers