TV news photog/US citizen harrassed in Miami

[Lensmith]

I had to share this.

http://cbs4.com/local/local_story_123135510.html

The photog was shooting an immigration check and the Feds decided to hassle him.

It seems the Feds don't like the media to see what they are doing all the time...but that's no surprise to a lot of us in today's world. ;)

This reporter is one of my favorites to work with.

No, I didn't shoot this story.

[Tallinvegas]

Good story. I love how the reporter did not back down. I feel sorry for the photog and how they singled him out over every other photog at the business.

[wtv]

"America", land of the free.........

[Lenslinger]

I loved that reporter's delivery.

[A Step Above Productions]

Great pack - that just sucks - that could end up happening to any one of us at any time.

[Dan Haggerty]

This just goes to show that the most important tool you have in protecting yourself and your rights is that thing on your shoulder.

As a young photog, which I still kinda am, I was concerned about how it seemed that keeping the camera up on my shoulder and pointing it at the, cop/immigration officer/crazy-lady/innercity hoodlum/obnoxious teenager escalated situations. It made me afraid to get aggresive and I would often just point the camera away so everybody would calm down.

Now I've learned that the best thing to do is to point it right at the situation and keep rolling. As one of our senior photogs at my station said, "Turn on the light, get out the microphone, and ask them to say and spell their name."

It provides documentation of exactly what happened and the house- cats at the station will have a field-day with your "Exclusive, In Depth Coverage that you'll only see On Channel-Whatever." They'll play it, play the remix, and then play the tribute version.

Obviously there are exceptions to this and I am totally aware that some situations will call for a less aggresive approach. I just wanted to share my appreciation for the story and the hard-learned lesson that it reminded me of.

[cameradog]

At the risk of a mighty flaming, I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

First, the story itself may not be as great as some of you want to believe. Consider a big chunk of the audience, sitting at home thinking that raids on businesses that employ illegals is exactly what this country needs. I realize they didn't actually catch any illegals, but this is beside the point. There are plenty of people at home who think this is exactly what the government should be doing. Even in Miami, where there would be a large sympathetic audience, there's an element that wants the illegals out.

To those conservative anti-illegal viewers, there's nothing unreasonable about checking the photog's identification and citizenship. The cops don't know that he's a 20 year citizen--until they check his ID. Thus, this story makes news people seem as though they think they are above the law. To those conservative viewers, it comes across as a lot of whining about inside baseball.

Personally, I think the story was bad for this reason. The photog wasn't the story. The raid was the story. But the reporter managed to make the story all about the poor mistreated media instead. A mention of the photog would have been appropriate, but dogging the cop the way the guy did doesn't look nearly as good on camera as people think. A lot of folks were sitting at home saying, "That's not fair, that cop was just doing his job."

My own questions: Does anyone know what exactly induced the cop to go ask for the guy's ID? It's hard to simply conclude it was media intimidation when one guy was singled out and nobody else was approached. Was it just his skin color or accent, or did something specific he did in the course of his job draw their attention?

[NashBamaPhotog]

I'm not a big fan of cops, I've been harassed by a few myself who went out of their way to be jerks. However, I don't see how this is a story. A cop asked for ID, the photog showed him ID, the cop goes away. That's a story? It seems to me like the reporter has a grudge against cops and is trying to go out of his way to paint the police in a bad light when the story is the raid itself. Not very objective in my opinion, but that's just me.

[Land Rover]

I'm not a big fan of cops, I've been harassed by a few myself who went out of their way to be jerks. However, I don't see how this is a story. A cop asked for ID, the photog showed him ID, the cop goes away. That's a story? It seems to me like the reporter has a grudge against cops and is trying to go out of his way to paint the police in a bad light when the story is the raid itself. Not very objective in my opinion, but that's just me.

I'd have to agree. It's unfortunate that it happened but I don't really think that anyone is really to blame here except the reporter for blowing it out of proportion nor do I see it as intentional harassment or intimidation.

Another item in the story bothered me. The reporter mentioned the Bill of Rights got trampled during the immigrant rally. Technically, for the Bill of Rights applies only to American citizens although there is no excuse for the actions of police that day according to what I've read and seen.

(Preparing for the flaming)

[thru-the-lens]

IT IS A STORY. That ICE officer singled out one person from the media to run a check on him. Was it becasue the photog singled out was a minority who fit a profile? Was he the only minority media there? If so that is a reason why you point this out, and do the story.

And when the final tally is done...ICE only hauls off 4 people not because they weren't citizens but for warrants. I for one can't wait to find out how "the rest of the story" pans out with an explaination from ICE on checking that one media person out.

thru-the-lens.

[tvguide]

This is typical of the Feds. Pure intimidation. They answer to no one. Don't hold your breath waiting for an explanation.

[ntxshooter]

It wasn't a story untill the officer crossed the street, checked only ONE media personnel. Now correct me if I am wrong but don't you have to prove that you are legaly able to work in the U.S.? And don't you think that the media outlets checked all personnel working for them already? I am pretty sure that the officer knows that. And that the medial outlet would get into alot of trouble for hiring a nondocumented worker. I am not an advacate of media making the news. But I think in this case, I would agree that it is.

[NashBamaPhotog]

Everyone is supposed to get in trouble for hiring illegals, but it's rare that anyone does. That's why there are so many here. I'm sure the cop was a jerk and maybe trying to scare the photog a little, but all he did was check ID and leave him alone. Sorry, that's not a story. If the cop smacked him around or took him in custody for no reason other than the way he looks, now you've got a story. This incident should have just been briefly mentioned in the story about the raid, not the main subject.

[Mr MoOz]

Anyone there that day online? Share what was said, etc.

I know in the past I have cracked jokes with fellow photogs, et al that could have gotten me in to trouble. A few years back we had someone make a crack about a bomb while boarding a plane, caused a big ruckus. It was just a joke, but the Pre-TSA folks took it seriously.

[elvezz]

from FlexyourRights.org

7. When do I have to show ID?

This is a tricky issue. As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.

Nonetheless, carrying an ID is required when you’re driving or flying. Driving without a license is a crime, and no one is allowed to board an airplane without first presenting an ID. These requirements have been upheld on the premise that individuals who prefer not to carry ID can choose not to drive or fly.

From here, ID laws only get more complicated. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as 'stop and identify' statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

Currently the following states have stop and identify laws: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI

Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity. Rather than asking the officer if he/she has reasonable suspicion, test it yourself by asking if you're free to go.

If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and refrain from answering any additional questions.

If the officer detains you, you'll have to decide whether withholding your identity is worth the possibility of arrest or a prolonged detention. In cases of mistaken identity, revealing who you are might help to resolve the situation quickly. On the other hand, if you're on parole in California, for example, revealing your identity could lead to a legal search. Knowing your state's laws can help you make the best choice.

Keep in mind that the officer's decision to detain you will not always hold up in court. ‘Reasonable suspicion' is a vague evidentiary standard, which lends itself to mistakes on the officer's part. If you're searched or arrested following an officer's ID request, always contact an attorney to discuss the incident and explore your legal options.

[cameragod]

To me it became a story when the officer refused to give the reporter his name and badge number. So maybe they can check our ID but we have the right to know who’s asking, “ask our PR guy” is not a legal response.

[shade]

camdog,

it's called profiling....I know for a fact there were other media at the location.....both photogs and reporters....why did'nt all get checked....he was clearly carrying a marked camera from a major hispanic network. obviously you have to be legal to work for that company. on a "raid" like that when the media is called to shoot there is always a pio available, where were they. if i was an illegal working here I would not be anywhere near that operation, common sense. I think the ICE officer screwed up.

[Lensmith]

Just to add some insight...the photog was detained for a while at the scene while the Feds "investigated" his credentials. It wasn't just a matter of asking for i.d. and producing it. They stopped the guy from working. Blocked his camera and frisked him, then had him sit and do nothing while they "verified" who he was. Total BS!

The photog was standing across the street from the raid shooting video with an obviously professional television camera and carrying all kinds of i.d. Why did the agent leave the raid and come across the street to ask for i.d.? Why did he only ask for i.d. from the photog, who was first on the scene, and not all the other folks who were around?

Here's the follow up story done the next day.

http://cbs4.com/local/local_story_124173934.html

The raid was normal. Not a reason for the story. It became a story when a US citizen, doing his job and promptly showing i.d. when asked, was then detained at the scene and not allowed to continue his work.

How many of you have been asked for i.d. by cops while working, then forcibly kept from doing your job while they "checked" your i.d.?

That is the reason for the story as well as using the recent video of other cops abusing news crews at events across the nation.

So some of you think it's ok for cops to now demand i.d. from anyone and everyone on the street at any time, then detain them until they've been checked out to the satisfaction of the officer? Let's start setting up the document check roadblocks on the streets and at your local mall! Then again, maybe some of you think that's ok to do to those folks who only "look" like they might be illegals. Anyone who is hispanic, Chinese or...gee, that list doesn't seem to have an end does it? ;)

This was pure harassment of the news media by an agent of the Federal Government who felt he didn't want their actions being recorded by the news media.

Univision company policy does not allow the photographer to do interviews when involved in an ongoing legal dispute.

[Frank McBride]

Two phrases stick out in that story: "It seems it hasn't been a good week for the immigrants or the Bill of Rights" and "pesky free press". Objectivity can sometimes mean having an appropriate reaction when we feel our own profession is being targetted.

Is the story really that a photog was asked to show I.D., or that an entire business was shut down and scrutinized? Which does a typical viewer care more about? Same with the rally in L.A.: Why was it so much more outrageous when the press got roughed up? Was it less of a story when it was just unarmed protestors? IMO we need to get over ourselves and stick to telling the peoples' stories.

FMc

[Mr MoOz]

Welcome back to Amerika.


I am wondering if this officer was practicing some form of silent insolence.

We all know that for the most part cops leave us alone, its not worth the stink to mess with us. It goes on TV, brings public heat on them. The story bears this out, the raid was "routine," and at a flower shop. Who cares, most people don't. Out of sight, out of mind, its "those people." This is what "we" in Amerika have accepted, for good or bad.

ICE Raids can target any industry, any Business; but they seem to only target those that we expect to find illegals at. They won't target Raymond James, where they would find two UD Irishmen that I know. Or here in the SF Bay Area, where they would find many Indians, Pakistani, and Asians working illegally. I wonder, did they check the papers of the Anglo on staff? As an Immigrant, I know that mine are in order; but, they will never check me... I look like them.

I digress, but this is a charged subject that can be argued admirably in both directions.


Back to my opening thought. It could very well be that this guy thinks that these raids are bogus b.s. So he thought he would do the raid to the "letter of the law," not the spirit, i.e. target one of our colleagues. Knowing full well that he would create a larger stink than the raid was. Prior to this, it was just another raid that found no one, at another one of those companies that hires low end workers.

Now its an issue. A respected Business is targeted, a Citizen is held, abused, harassed.

Since no one was arrested there {Flower shop} for Immigration status, were they {they are all legal citizens now} not abused also?

Now its one of us, maybe We the media/Press will start practicing real journalism on the issue? Don't get me wrong here, we are all in support of our brother; the discussion is on the larger picture.

If you think the idea of insolence is far fetched, it comes from friends within law enforcement. As one said "its our form of protesting with the ball-less brass,... pick on the media."

Then again, he was just a jerk and an a-h...

[cameradog]

How many of you have been asked for i.d. by cops while working, then forcibly kept from doing your job while they "checked" your i.d.?

I have, on more than one occasion. Guess what: It wasn't a story then, either. We didn't do a story on me having to wait while I was checked out, and I doubt we would do it today. We covered whatever story we were there to cover instead.

The story those news people were there to cover was the raid on the company. The photog getting his ID checked was a small part of the story, but it was not THE story. It was certainly worth mentioning. But in the story that ran, the photog getting checked completely overshadowed everything else.

Why is that bad? Because of the viewers. They don't care about you. You are not the object of their interest. Dwelling on the media's problems instead of the actual subject at hand is a real turnoff for the viewer. A good chunk of your audience at home was not just indifferent to the reporter's interest in what happened to the photog, but probably thought, "Oh, boo hoo! Get over yourselves."

[Larry R. Erickson]

People think press too free; government only too happy to make it less so

Ombudsman

By Paul McMasters
First Amendment Ombudsman
First Amendment Center
pmcmasters@freedomforum.org

08.09.99

Printer-friendly page

To the amazement of people living elsewhere, the majority of Americans think that our press is too free. More ominously, a goodly number of police, judges and political leaders who should know better pander to that attitude by harassing journalists and restricting their efforts to keep the public apprised of what the officials are up to.

It is a phenomenon for which there is all too much evidence. Consider this, for example:

In Santa Cruz County, Calif., Juvenile Court Judge Kathleen Akao charged reporter Robin Musitelli with contempt for telling the dramatic story of parents who had their infant taken from them by the court. For good measure, the father who talked to the newspaper reporter was charged with contempt, too.

It gets worse: Superior Court Judge Samuel Stevens, appointed to preside over the contempt charges, closed all legal proceedings in the case to the public and the press. In other words, the newspaper whose reporter was at risk of jail and fine couldn't cover the case.

At last report, the case was bogged down while county supervisors debated whether the county attorney's office could prosecute the case since the charges were leveled, not by a prosecutor, but by a judge.

But this is about more than jurisdiction and authority. It's also about judicial secrecy and hubris that translate into harassment and delay of legitimate newsgathering activities that keep the public informed.

There are more examples like this one.


The California Supreme Court ruled late last month that the transcript of a grand jury's inquiry into Merrill Lynch's connection with Orange County's bankruptcy would not be made public. That decision obstructs public and press efforts to determine whether the county acted responsibly in halting an investigation after the investment firm paid officials $30 million.

Riverside County, Calif., deputies seized a journalist's videotape as "evidence" after he recorded the killing of the fleeing driver after a 120-mile road chase by officers. Eden Dankowski charges in a lawsuit against the sheriff's office that the news value of the tape was ruined by delay, that deputies twisted his arm in forcing him to release the tape, that they kept him from leaving the scene, and that they illegally made a copy of the tape before returning it.

In New York last week, state police refused to take down from their Web site news photos of possible illicit activities at Woodstock 99. Several news organizations pointed out to Gov. George Pataki that the action not only violates copyright law but also compromises journalists' ability to do their job by making it appear that they are an arm of the law.

New York City officials finally agreed to abandon tactics that have prevented reporters and photographers from effectively covering major events in the city for some time. Those practices included keeping reporters and photographers in a "press pen" frequently farther from a news event than the public and blocking videotaping and photography of news events in public places.

In Chicago, city officials had reverted to the "Red Squad" practices of several decades ago, when city employees were used to eavesdrop on conversations between journalists and city officials. Last week, the ACLU asked a judge to order Mayor Richard Daley to stop the spying by enforcing a 1981 consent decree against the city.

In Salamanca, N.Y., City Court Judge William Mountain refused to release the transcript of a preliminary hearing in a murder case, instead opening up from the bench with a stream of invective against the press, accusing it of causing the Jonesboro and Littleton school shootings.

There you have it, or more correctly, there you have some of it. Officers of the law deliberately and unnecessarily interfere with the right of the press to report on events of significance to the community. Judges charge reporters for getting the story right, close official proceedings, seal records of those proceedings, and blame the news media for being complicit in the heinous acts of disturbed individuals. City officials try to control the flow of information and to intimidate reporters and their sources by spying on their conversations.

Rather than being outraged, many citizens applaud such constitutional recklessness because it appears to be targeting the press — as if the press could be punished without the public's being deprived of vital information.

Back to that Santa Cruz case. "I think it's absolutely crazy that a father can't complain about his baby being taken away," said reporter Robin Musitelli. "If parents can't question a system that has taken their child, who can?"

If those parents can't go to the press when they think the judicial system has failed them, where can they go?

If journalists can't confront the charges against them in open court, then what happens to the whole idea of public justice?

And about the majority who believe the press has too much freedom: Obviously those people are focusing on a seemingly endless supply of failures and missteps by the press. They fail to take into consideration the equally endless supply of great journalism that gets committed every day in news operations large and small across this land.

There are countless examples of the press drawing attention to public and private corruption and incompetence, of helping to right wrongs, of providing perspective and context, of providing us the information we must have to live our daily lives and to serve as good citizens. To do so, many of them routinely risk harassment from police, jail and fines from the courts, and ridicule and worse from the public they serve.

In fact, what people are saying when they say the press has too much freedom is, "Stop us before we know too much."

They are far too eager to give away freedoms that they think belong to someone else, namely journalists and their bosses. They are wrong, of course. Freedom of the press is the people's freedom, not the journalists' and certainly not the government's.

The public must do a better job of attending to that freedom. Right now, the press and the government are failing miserably, the one by too-infrequent attempts to defend its First Amendment franchise, and the other by all-too-frequent attempts to shut it out, shut it up and shut it down.

[Lensmith]

I have, on more than one occasion. Guess what: It wasn't a story then, either. We didn't do a story on me having to wait while I was checked out, and I doubt we would do it today. We covered whatever story we were there to cover instead.

The story those news people were there to cover was the raid on the company. The photog getting his ID checked was a small part of the story, but it was not THE story. It was certainly worth mentioning. But in the story that ran, the photog getting checked completely overshadowed everything else.

Why is that bad? Because of the viewers. They don't care about you. You are not the object of their interest. Dwelling on the media's problems instead of the actual subject at hand is a real turnoff for the viewer. A good chunk of your audience at home was not just indifferent to the reporter's interest in what happened to the photog, but probably thought, "Oh, boo hoo! Get over yourselves."

Your words make me believe you think this agent came up, asked for i.d., then after a quik check of his i.d., the agent left. If that had been the case, you're right, this shouldn't be a story. But, it wasn't.

They singled him out from across the street, blocked his camera, complete with hands on his lens, keeping him from shooting, from doing his job. Then the photog was made to sit and wait, and wait, and wait, until they were "satisfied". Actually, what changed their minds was when other news crews showed up. Then they let the guy get back to work.

I'm sure your more simplistic example fits with your narrow view of why this should or shouldn't be a story. Sadly, the reality of the situation doesn't mesh with what you'd like to believe happened. ;)

[cameradog]

Your words make me believe you think this agent came up, asked for i.d., then after a quik check of his i.d., the agent left. If that had been the case, you're right, this shouldn't be a story. But, it wasn't.

They singled him out from across the street, blocked his camera, complete with hands on his lens, keeping him from shooting, from doing his job. Then the photog was made to sit and wait, and wait, and wait, until they were "satisfied". Actually, what changed their minds was when other news crews showed up. Then they let the guy get back to work.

No, I pretty much suspected from the outset that the cops had overstepped their bounds. It really does sound like intimidation, although there are always two sides to a story. I'm glad Univision is pushing the issue legally.

But that really doesn't change the fact that the story you linked was not very good television. It really came across as self-serving and seemed to miss the point of why they were there. The reporter also seemed to lose all objectivity. The people in the audience who support these raids will be left to feel that the station has taken sides against them. The people on the other side of the issue are left disappointed that the focus was taken off the workers and put on the media.

If it isn't clear, I'll repeat it: I'm not trying to diminish the stupidity of the cops in doing what they did. I'm saying that journalists should resist the overwhelming temptation to make the news all about themselves when they're mistreated. The audience is not as sympathetic to your trials and tribulations as you'd like to believe.

[Lensmith]

If it isn't clear, I'll repeat it: I'm not trying to diminish the stupidity of the cops in doing what they did. I'm saying that journalists should resist the overwhelming temptation to make the news all about themselves when they're mistreated. The audience is not as sympathetic to your trials and tribulations as you'd like to believe.

Understood...though I find it odd you don't see how Federal Agents breaking/abusing the law isn't a story no matter who the "victim" is.

Boy, good thing that photog wasn't a blogger activist!

Then you really wouldn't care! :D

[Canonman]

I'm saying that journalists should resist the overwhelming temptation to make the news all about themselves when they're mistreated. The audience is not as sympathetic to your trials and tribulations as you'd like to believe.

The audience may not be sympathetic to one story. But when several stories begin to stack up in a short amount of time, even the dumbest of audience members should notice a trend. Today's public has such apathy for their constitutional rights, that someone needs to drive the point home. It takes a lot to shake the collective public out of their stupor and effect change. It takes reporting the story above in such as way that it does get the public's attention.

Before this can become a downward trend, it needs to be nipped in the bud.

That's my .02 from a non-media perspective.

cm

[Stoney]

I read all the responses on the board and then watched the story. It seemed clear that the cop was out of bounds by searching the media. Come on, we know he was doing the "be a pain in the ass to the media" dance.

However, the reporter was clearly pissed at the situation and wasn't objective while chasing the cop for sound. In that sense, the story became about the reporter harassing the cop. So, to me, the story wasn't objective once the reporter started questioning the cop. I agree, the story was a little self-serving.

There was a story there. The photog should not have been detained. It was heavy-handed and obnoxious... maybe illegal. I don't know. However, the story was reported with bias. The reporter should have been a little less steamed about everything.

That said, I am glad the cop got a dose of what he shoveled out. He was a jerk, no doubt. Good journalism, I don't think so. Good payback, absolutely. Should it be on TV, probably not.