Photographing cops

[patssle]

So the little town I go to school in just passed a rule or whatnot (don't have the details yet, all I know is that a memo was sent out) that you cannot videotape a city official without the city council's approval. This includes cops, firemen, etc. And this includes public space.

Know of any previous cases that involve this, or taking pictures/taping in public?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

because that doesn’t specifically say anything about taking pictures, hehe.

[David R. Busse]

Is this Cuba or China?

[patssle]

conservative small town

From what I understand, a video of a cop showed up on a website www.TheBravestOnline.com that was questionable.

But really, I need a case to use. I'm calling the police and fire chiefs on Monday. And I need to have something more than just the 1st amendment.

[nozoom4u]

Why? Do you need anything more than your first ammendment rights? As long as your on public property they can't do anything about it. Let them arrest you. Then sue them for everything they are worth, as long as you are rolling. You can prove everything. F@#* small town police that think they are the law.

[patssle]

I just want some more to argue with than it. What if they ask where in the amendment does it say photographs? Or about public space? I just want to be prepared :)

(im a college kid who has never dealt with anything like this before, so its a new experience)

[RichVid]

Why? Do you need anything more than your first ammendment rights? As long as your on public property they can't do anything about it. Let them arrest you. Then sue them for everything they are worth, as long as you are rolling. You can prove everything. F@#* small town police that think they are the law.

He's right... Those First Ammendment rights are mighty powerful... I can't see this thing standing up to a single test in a court of law... While you're getting arrested (and presumably rolling), you should probably have someone else hiding in a bush also rolling; the reason being that any place passing a law this F'd up would probably destroy or erase your original tape...

(from an article by James Goodale, former Counsel to the New York Times):

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press." Although the First Amendment specifically mentions only the federal Congress, this provision now protects the press from all government, whether local, state or federal.

Are you "the press" or are you some school kid with a video cam? Either way, the first ammendment is your friend..

[svp]

They can't keep you from shooting. When they approach you, keep rolling. I agree it might not be a bad idea to have someone else rolling on YOU from a distance as backup. That way if they take your tape you'll have THAT tape to prove it. So if you go to court, you can request the tape you shot and they can't say you didn't have a tape in the camera. The only thing to be careful of is not to show the faces of undercover cops. Other than that, they're fair game. I agree, F@#% small town cops. They're nothing more than rent-a-cops with guns.

[guevera]

Case law may depend on your state ... the reason few can cite the law is that it's so very settled. If you're a college kid, you've got a com law text book or teacher, or at least a campus hookup to Lexis-Nexis.

Bottom line is this: PRAY they arrest you for shooting a public official while you're standing on public property.

If they're that dumb, go out of your way to make it happen. If it happens, don't make bail ... the longer you spend in jail the more the lawsuit's worth. By the time you're finished, you won't have to trip on student loans.

[Newshutr]

Public is public. Whether Joe Six-pack or the Pope. Print out a copy of the 1st Amendment and carry it on you. Same for a lawyer. Call the ACLU and see if they'll reccommend a good laywer. Are you doing freelance, or working for a company?

[photogguy]

And seriously, you don't need any case law other the the Constitution of the United States. It's the document that's the foundation of every law in the country.

This is one of the things where I would proudly get arrested for. This is the good fight. Shoot what you want, when you want, as long as you are on public property. The rule is is that on public property (ie, sidewalk, roadside, etc.) anything you can see you can shoot (well, you can't try to peek into someone's window to catch them getting out of the shower). And if you do get arrested, hmm, what would it be like to own a town?

[(Sin)ical]

This is the most absurd thing I have heard in a while. Where exactly did the memo come from? Does it have official department letterhead? If the memo is legit, take it to the press. Put it in the paper, and bring this new policy to the attention of the television stations in Houston. You don't need anything more than the First Amendment. The 1st Amendment grants the right to anyone to take photos, or record video on public property. There is no expectation of privacy to anyone who is in public, or can be seen from public property. Furthermore, there is certainly no expectation of privacy to a person who has taken oath and pledged their life as a servant of the public. This includes city council, public officials, firefighters, and law enforcement. Have you not taken media law at your school? There is no expectation of privacy to anyone who has placed themselves in the public eye, thus the possibilities of the paparazzi of Hollywood personalities and political officials. This covers such things as the protection against any libel or slander suit from any candidate who endures a little mudslinging during an election campaign. Law and ethics are not the same thing. I'd like to see more, could you paste the memo to the board? I just don't buy it. Until the Republic of Texas seceeds from the USA, this cannot be a law anywhere in that state. I know the law of the south is different, but this memo would be enforcing an unconstitutional law. That is the very reason you will need nothing more than the First Amendment for your defense. I'm sure the citizens of Huntsville relish their 2nd Amendment rights(bear arms), you should feel the same about your camera...and its 1st Amendment rights(free press). Don't let them take your camera unless they pry it from your cold dead hands, and as advised by others...(b-roll)ing. A public servant certainly has no expectation of any 4th Amendment right(privacy), especially while on duty...and in uniform. I wouldn't necessarily advise you try and get rich by forcing the issue yourself on some local cop, but if the situation occurs do be ready. Jail is no kind of fun for any reason, but protecting the 1st Amendment is one of the most noble and noncriminal reasons I can think of. It certainly sounds like a good news story, but I would try that option before jail. Should you end up in jail over this, I think it would be an even bigger news story. Can you provide a link or something authenticating this memo?

[ewink]

Damn Sin... Beautifully said. :)

I'd only add that you can always say 'I wasn't shooting the policemen, but the bastards kept getting in my shot, so I assumed they were granting my permission!' :P

(BTW, the 4th Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to privacy. There is no stated right to privacy, however it would (IMHO) be considered a right that we have regardless - but not in public!)

[ericnordquist]

I settup a old computer with answering machine with the modem, then set the message time to unlimited. I then call that number with my cell phone with the conference feature on. this allows me to to have the recording at a secondary location.

if i didn't take the time to call the message box i also carry a small 100$ one gig mp3 player that records audio. so even if they take my camera i still have it. the other issue is that the cops will often wait till they think the camera is not rolling like when setting up the tripod and i dont want to have to sort through all the junk footage.

"you cannot have a reasonable expectaion of privacy while in public view"

}}}}}}}}}}
Filming police officer not invasion of privacy
The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the state of Washington's Privacy Act does not prohibit filming a police officer, allowing a civil rights lawsuit against the officer to advance.
Nov. 5, 2004 -- A police chief in his patrol car talking to dispatchers did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and may be sued by a man arrested for filming him, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th Cir.) has ruled. The full court declined to rehear the case last week.
On Jan. 28, 2000, Anthony Johnson filmed Byron Nelson, then-police chief of Sequim, Wash., as he talked with dispatchers from his patrol car. Nelson, who has since retired, was looking for a missing juvenile at a public skateboard park where Johnson was filming friends.
After twice telling Johnson that it was illegal to record conversations without consent, Nelson and another officer physically struggled with Johnson, seized the camera and arrested him. Johnson spent three days in jail.
Johnson was charged with violating the Washington Privacy Act, which bars intercepting or recording a private conversation without the consent of all participants. The trial court dismissed the charges after finding that Nelson had no expectation of privacy because he parked his patrol car with the windows rolled down in a public place.
Johnson sued Nelson, the city, and others in U.S. District Court in Tacoma for violating his First Amendment rights and Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. The district court dismissed the suit, but the Court of Appeals reversed after Johnson appealed.
"It is undisputed that Johnson recorded Chief Nelson while he was on duty performing an official function in a public place," Judge Kim M. Wardlaw wrote for the 2-1 majority. "Johnson did not violate the Privacy Act when he recorded this official, public activity."
Wardlaw also held that Nelson had no reasonable expectation of privacy because he knowingly exposed his conversation to the public.
"If Chief Nelson had wished to keep the radio communications from the public, he should have rolled up the driver's window, and refrained from rolling down a second window, where Johnson was standing next to the car with his video camera pointed inside," Wardlaw wrote.
"[T]here is no reasonable expectation of privacy in communications over police dispatch radio in any event because those communications are knowingly exposed to the public by virtue of their transmission," she added, noting that widely available scanners made the transmission available to the general public.
Judge Ronald M. Gould dissented, arguing that the question of whether the state Privacy Act applied should be sent to the Washington State Supreme Court.
The full court of appeals declined to rehear the case Oct. 25, allowing Johnson's civil rights lawsuit to go forward.

(Johnson v. Hawe; Media Counsel: R. Stuart Phillips, Phillips Law Group, Poulsbo, Wash.) -- GP

[Terry E. Toller]

go to findlaw.com and so some research on "privacy". you will find cases where people have sued for invasion and they were in public view. the courts have repeatedly ruled that, "There was no expectation of privacy". In fact, it is a rule of law! The "test" of the law is, "Did the person have EXPECTATION of privacy". when in public view, the answer is NO.

If my town passed such a rule, I would spend every day, all day long taking photos and video of nothing but cops. I would push the issue and hope for an arrest. You fight the unconstitutional rule then make the city/town PAY for your time... :}

The only way you can get them to pay attention to the law is to use it against them. Many small town city council members think they are actually important. They aren't! Habu who sells slushies at the Quickie Mart is actually more important. At least he has a 'real' job...

[Dink]

Do a Google search on "prior restraint." That's the term at issue here. Prior restraint is where government tries to prevent you from shooting or covering something, and it is generally illegal. Prior restraint can be as simple as a cop refusing access to a scene, or it can be as complex as ordinances or laws passed to prevent coverage.

Here's a paper on prior restraint that appears to draw on actual legal decisions you might be able to quote:

http://www.il-press.com/downloadable_ads/art/1stBook6.pdf

That's just one. A Google search on prior restraint will give you a lot more info.

[NewsMan]

conservative small town
And I need to have something more than just the 1st amendment.

No you don't. Those amendments ARE the law. You should have your station's lawyers call instead of you.

[NewsMan]

conservative small town
And I need to have something more than just the 1st amendment.

No you don't. Those amendments ARE the law.


If my town passed such a rule, I would spend every day, all day long taking photos and video of nothing but cops. I would push the issue and hope for an arrest. You fight the unconstitutional rule then make the city/town PAY for your time... :}



AMEN!

[backfocus5]

Sounds to me like something for the attorneys. I mentioned your case to an attorney who is a friend of mine. He says that it could be a BLATANT violation of the First Amendment.

Your station needs to get its Attorneys on this one...BIG TIME!

[Dink]

No you don't. Those amendments ARE the law.

It doesn't matter that the First Amendment is the law when dealing with local idiots. The people who would write such a policy don't understand the First Amendment in the first place, so quoting it to them won't help.

What will help are references to case law. If you go to the city and say, "You're violating my First Amendment rights," they will laugh at you.

But if you can say, "You're in clear violation of my First Amendment rights as defined under Journalist vs. Moronville, 1998, in which a 'privacy law' like yours was struck down as unconstitutional; and you're also clearly exercising illegal prior restraint under Photog vs. Idiot Cop, 2004, in which a cop tried to enforce a law like yours and ended up costing his city $500,000 in punitive damages," then they will hesitate. Having lawyer-speak thrown at them will encourage them to consult with their own attorneys, who are probably unfamiliar with the cases you've cited but will look them up. Attorneys are generally very conservative creatures who, if faced with the possibility of exposure of their clients to liability, will advise their clients to abandon whatever course of action is exposing them. When the attorneys read the cases cited and realize their city can be sued, they'll advise them to reconsider.

Quoting the Constitution won't help. You'll likely have some idiot tell you that the First Amendment only applies to Congress and not to them. But quoting actual court cases that interpret the Constitution to apply to situations such as these will be more likely to get their attention.

[1911A1]

F@#% small town cops. They're nothing more than rent-a-cops with guns.


I wouldn't be painting with such a broad brush there, sport.

Some are.

Most aren't.

[backfocus5]

F@#% small town cops. They're nothing more than rent-a-cops with guns.


I guess you don't share the opinion that all police have a difficult job to do?

[2gigch1]

Many jurisdictions have a solicitor or someone versed in the law available for all the times the town needs something clarified. Perhaps a simple call to this person will resolve the matter; you call them, they call their people, end of problem.

Or so I would hope.

[patssle]

No you don't. Those amendments ARE the law.


I understand and agree 100%, but the officials might not. I just want to be armed with something more than saying "well the first admendment say so".

If my town passed such a rule, I would spend every day, all day long taking photos and video of nothing but cops. I would push the issue and hope for an arrest. You fight the unconstitutional rule then make the city/town PAY for your time... :}

I wouldn't. I'm only 20 years old, some jackass cop could put a beer can or something in my car while searching it then I'm screwed. There are a$$hole cops out there that can ruin your life.

You should have your station's lawyers call instead of you.

college station. no such thing. we are the only local TV station in this town.

[Newshutr]

College Station?? Then does your college have a law school?? Even a library? Do some research.

If they put a beer can in your car, demand a breathalyzer AND a blood draw.

I do think that you're being a little too paranoid about that though. Plus, if you're that afraid of the cops, you shouldn't be in the biz.

[patssle]

Its not that I'm afaid of the cops, I am young and in a town where the natives and cops hate the college kids. I don't have the resources to fight anything if I were to get "in trouble". I don't get paid to do what I do and we arn't a professional station that would defend us. Trust me, I would love to fight this thing nail to tooth. I'll make some phone calls and do what I can.

And yes, I am doing research. But I needed help finding some specifics.

[(Sin)ical]

Oops, 4th is illegal search and seizure. Privacy is actually not mentioned in there. Anyway this is still BS. What small town is this exactly?

[Lensmith]

Questions like the one posed by our original poster remind me of one of my friends who was shooting a story in a small Oklahoma town for one of the "big" US television news networks.

They were looking into some questionable dealings of a local county sheriff who, of course, did not appreciate them in "his" town.

All of this lead to a confrontation near the local court house with the sheriff and a couple of his deputies basically telling the correspondent and crew they were going to be arrested if they didn't leave.

The correspondent went right into "rights" and the first amendment.

The sheriff, with a twinkle in his eye, said "boy, there ain't no law that will stop me from having all of you in my jail for at least one night".

The correspondent and crew, including my buddy, decided to leave. Today I'd bet they would have settled for being arrested with hopes of some kind of financial judgement to enjoy in the future. But at that moment, according to my buddy, the look in that sheriffs eyes indicated the level of suffering they would endure...even if it was only one night in jail. They felt the better plan was to retreat to their hotel room in another near by little town and be a little more discreet in how they shot and produced the story, feeling if they did create a scene and get arrested, apart from their own possible "suffering", the sources for their story would dry up.

[JumpCut]

Before everyone got excited about the Constitution, did anyone stop to consider that the memo that is being spoken about may just mean that any city official cannot be INTERVIEWED without prior consent? We are talking small town officials who arent necessarily up on tv terms. Appearing could very well mean being interviewed and getting sound bites. Thats how I read it.

[Lensmith]

Great avatar JumpCut.

Is that you?

I have to admit I'm a little partial to (sin)icals though.;)

[pinecone]

But if you can say, "You're in clear violation of my First Amendment rights as defined under Journalist vs. Moronville, 1998, in which a 'privacy law' like yours was struck down as unconstitutional; and you're also clearly exercising illegal prior restraint under Photog vs. Idiot Cop, 2004, in which a cop tried to enforce a law like yours and ended up costing his city $500,000 in punitive damages," then they will hesitate.

I don't think any of us can be expected to be a walking copy of Shepards Citations. The case law you throw out may or may not apply. And it doesn't matter, because the people you are dealing with will probably think you are full of B.S. anyway.

[patssle]

Before everyone got excited about the Constitution, did anyone stop to consider that the memo that is being spoken about may just mean that any city official cannot be INTERVIEWED without prior consent? We are talking small town officials who arent necessarily up on tv terms. Appearing could very well mean being interviewed and getting sound bites. Thats how I read it.

I'm assuming that’s what the memo meant, but the cops who don't really deal with the media much probably took it out of context.

Friday night I was shooting a band concert when an attendee was pulled over for DUI in front of the club. I shot it from the sidewalk. Cops told me to stop. I had spoken to cops inside the club who told me about the memo.

I also shot a fire today, but was not approached.

[Run 'n' Get 'em]

patssle... Was the cop working the DUI plain clothes or uniform?? It's understandable to ask you guys to not shoot their u/c or plain clothes cops but altogether is just wrong.

[patssle]

He was in uniform, and there was about 6 or 7 cops surrounding the scene. And the person that asked/told me to stop specifically mentioned how the cops inside the club asked me not to shoot them due to the memo.

[Dink]

He was in uniform, and there was about 6 or 7 cops surrounding the scene. And the person that asked/told me to stop specifically mentioned how the cops inside the club asked me not to shoot them due to the memo.

So you haven't actually seen this memo? I would ask for a copy of it. In fact, I think I would call the police department and ask for a copy of it from someone in charge.

The other question that comes to mind, which I don't believe has been asked, is whether the cops in question are municipal cops or university cops. Colleges and universities are often considered private property. Depending on the state, it may be legal for a university to prohibit you from shooting on school property or to set rules under which you may shoot. Violating the rules would then be a form of trespassing.

But if it's off campus, f*ck 'em. It would be illegal prior restraint.

By the way, who are you shooting this for? A drunk driving stop usually isn't news. So far it sounds as though you have every right to shoot it, whether it's news or not. I just have to wonder why video of traffic cops in action was worth the confrontation.

[patssle]

It was the city cops and off-campus.

I was shooting inside the club for a news story. Heard about the incident outside so went out there to shoot it. I don't know if I'll use it, but I shot it anyways.

[JumpCut]

Lensmith, that is me shooting during a protest rally. And I agree, (Sin)icals avatar is one of the better ones.

[ewink]

By the way, who are you shooting this for? A drunk driving stop usually isn't news. So far it sounds as though you have every right to shoot it, whether it's news or not. I just have to wonder why video of traffic cops in action was worth the confrontation.

When is it worth the confrontation?

I hear this all the time on this board. 'It's not worth it for a traffic accident.' 'It's not worth it for a fire.'

When is defending your rights worth it? You let people walk on you once, they will continue to do so.

To me, the story content is irrelevant. It's all about principal.

[(Sin)ical]

I agree that we all need to see this memo. If this department is going to enforce this policy, then the memo should be released. Please post the city and department where this is occuring, along with their website address if applicable. I'm becoming very interested in this police department. What exactly is the population there?
Thanks for the avtar props guys...it is simply Ween's "Chocolate & Cheese" album cover. I'm a big fan of them, as my sign off indicates.

[micaelb]

This is something the NPPA should be able to help you with. Give the office a call or email and they will, I think, take up the fight. I'm thinking you don't need to be a member to pass this on and get the ball rolling.

nppa.org

[NashBamaPhotog]

It's been a while since I took media law, but from what I remember shooting a public official in public while you're standing on public property is well within your rights. On the other hand, I've had undercover cops ask me not to shoot them and of course I oblige. That's dealing with their safety. Now if you're shooting a 1 bullet Barney writing a ticket on the side of the road, you're well within your rights.

[elvezz]

This whole thing is fishy.
Why is the original poster coming to us?
He has his news director, he has professors in his and other departments, he has the school newspaper, which this 'memo' would apply to also, to ask this question of.
If this is an indication of his research skills and problem solving. not to mention compliance in the face of this dilemma, he might want to rethink TV news as a career.
Also, how goofy is it that the police dept. issues a memo about someone else's behavior without informing the people who's behavior the memo is about?

[patssle]

Why is the original poster coming to us?

because I'm young and never experienced this before and am looking for guidance from those that have? I apologize if thats wrong of me.

He has his news director,

negative

he has professors

not on a weekend. and I did talk to a media law prof this morning.

, he has the school newspaper

negative

If this is an indication of his research skills and problem solving

again, never been though this before, I had no idea where to look. I searched google, I went to the journals for Mass Media and whatnot. I came up with nothing that specifically related to this.

Did you not ever ask for help when you were first starting out? I could of been your typical college student and done nothing, but I wanted to learn from this in case it ever happens again in the future.

[elvezz]

Alright man, I apologize if I'm off base here.

Yes, I have come here many times for help, it is a great site.

It seems odd that your school has a TV station and no school newspaper.

It seemed to me that your level of umbrage was not sufficient for the absolute stupidity and unconstitutionality (is this a word?) of what you encountered.

[patssle]

Thats cool, thanks.

It seems odd that your school has a TV station and no school newspaper.

We do have a paper, but they don't publish during the summer. And when they do publish, they are not the best. They love AP articles to say the least.

It seemed to me that your level of umbrage was not sufficient for the absolute stupidity and unconstitutionality (is this a word?) of what you encountered.

I agree. I told the cop what he was doing was wrong and I would file a complaint, but that was about it, I was not going to push the issue into territory I was not sure of. But now I am sure and next time will be different ;)

[patssle]

Well after all the hooplah and whatnot, seems it was all just a misunderstanding.

Basically the cops who told me all this information about the memo was wrong and misunderstood it. The memo was in regards to being photographed with minors and requiring parent’s permission.

The police chief will be sending out an e-mail today making sure everybody is set straight. She was really nice and apologetic about this incident.

A shame it had to happen on a Friday night; had to wait all weekend to get in contact with the right people.

Thanks to those who contributed! Now I know what to do in the future if it ever happens again :)

[INLANDNEWS]

Just wear a black t-shirt with white writing that says "If you are in front of my camera, you consent to being photographed, videotaped etc" It works for Disney!