Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Jury Clears Photographer Who Refused to Stop Photographing
thomashawk.com — Nick Evans, a former intern at The Galveston County Daily News, was cleared of his misdemeanor from refusing to stop photographing an arrest during Mardi Gras 2007. His acquittal extends further than Galveston, Texas, however, as it makes strides for photographers' First Amendment rights everywhere.
wizzard2k- 2147 diggs
- digg it
- rubin421, on 05/15/2008, -1/+133This is definitely very good news.
- cawpin, on 05/15/2008, -12/+6Woah, these comments are weird looking.
- Dylson, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1Go die. Or get off the internet and stay off. Your choice.
- synthoid, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1I guess you could say this photographers desire to snap pictures has an infinite role of film!
- cawpin, on 05/15/2008, -12/+6Woah, these comments are weird looking.
- urothane, on 05/15/2008, -1/+221Doesn't the deleting of images from his memory card count as destroying evidence? Shouldn't there be a prosecution of the officers involved if that is the case and nut just a civil trial?
Or is it only destroying evidence if a crime has been committed?- thecatcantalk, on 05/15/2008, -0/+51I'm pretty sure it would be called Tampering with Evidence (and Conspiracy to File a False Report...which would make the arrest and transportation of the prisoner False Arrest and Kidnapping compounded by False Imprisonment). You'd have to prove that they knew they were falsely arresting the photographer for a crime that hadn't been committed. Good luck finding a prosecutor who'd go after the cops, though. Never in Texas.
Considering that the treeless, incredibly hot and muggy "city" of Galveston is a tourist town with no real businesses aside from selling beer and entertainment to college kids, the bad publicity generated by this story is what will hit the town where it lives: in its wallet. Who wants to go to a Mardi Gras debauch in a town with rageaholic cops who attack tourists? No, thanks...I'll drive a bit further and go to New Orleans instead!- Elliuotatar, on 05/15/2008, -0/+16What an amazing legal system we have where police can break the law willy nilly and all they have to do is have an "understanding" with one fellow, and they can avoid being charged.
- JohnnyRad, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1dude, new orleans is like a full day's drive from galveston...
ill take my chances with the douche cops- phqu88, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1So come to Lafayette! We have a pretty kickass mardi gras every year! I know from experiance houston is about a 4-5 hour drive from lafayette and lafayette to n'oleans is about 3...so 6-7 hours extra.
- bpoteat, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6new orleans a full day's drive from galveston? Do you stop every hour for an hour and half rest?
- carpespasm, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3I did new mexico to north florida in a day once. there's no way it takes a day for galveston to new orleans
- musicbear, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1And you were going how fast? Hell ya... :-)
- scrubadub, on 05/15/2008, -0/+21Unless they took pictures to overwrite the deleted ones, you should be able to recover any pictures they "deleted" with just about any file recovery program... assuming you got the same card back.
- Sajentine, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5While true, that isn't the point.
They tried to destroy evidence that proved they made a false arrest since the pictures proved he was outside the cordoned off area.
They should at the very least lose their jobs if not go to jail for trying to illegally destroy another persons reputation and life.
- Sajentine, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5While true, that isn't the point.
- mmeiser, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6If I could digg this comment up twice I would. I can't believe they boldly deleted what is evidence and noone seems to consider this unacceptable in the article.
- yourmightyruler, on 05/15/2008, -0/+11Police cannot delete, view, confiscate digital pictures or film without a warrant.
As said by The Photographer's Right.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
A handy tool for any photographer.- heystoopid, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1hmmm , nice violation of civil rights there for starters , time to have that wowser dismissed from the force , pension canceled and take the department down as well for additional punishment !
- arcangelgabriel, on 05/16/2008, -0/+14As a police officer for 18+ years now let me state that you are correct. The camera was seized as evidence therefore all the photographs therein are potential evidence in support of probable cause [PC]. Photos that do not support your basis for PC cannot be deleted simply because they do not support your case. In fact such an act is a criminal offense in itself, depending on the state, a misdemeanor in a few a felony.
Entering a secured area can be cause for arrest given the situations circumstances however this looks as if one of my brothers had their head up their ass.
FTA: "Police brutality is a fact of life. While I believe the overwhelming majority of cops are good cops and have many friends and family who are cops, history has shown that there are still plenty of bad apples out there."
True. There are also idiot lawyers, doctors, firemen and presidents. Doesn't make the all bad. I'm proud of my profession and the men and women with whom I continue to serve. Trust me good cops are plentiful and don't want morons wearing a badge any more than you do.
While I'm obviously the last to bash cops in 98% of the circumstances here on Digg, I AM and will forever be a defender of the constitution. When I put people away it's because of police work, not some 'whose got the biggest dick' contest.- evo8ftw, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1Still see you are lying about your career on the internet.
- thecatcantalk, on 05/15/2008, -0/+51I'm pretty sure it would be called Tampering with Evidence (and Conspiracy to File a False Report...which would make the arrest and transportation of the prisoner False Arrest and Kidnapping compounded by False Imprisonment). You'd have to prove that they knew they were falsely arresting the photographer for a crime that hadn't been committed. Good luck finding a prosecutor who'd go after the cops, though. Never in Texas.
- kahakauai, on 05/15/2008, -7/+53Epic win - Who knew taking pictures could become a crime these days.
- Dumbledorito, on 05/15/2008, -0/+18This is hardly an isolated incident:
http://srtctransportation.blogspot.com/2008/05/our ...
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/14/bb-reader-two ...
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/14/taking-pictur ...
Camera nazis are apparently everywhere, and won't back down even when they can't justify their actions. - Surefly, on 05/15/2008, -6/+1Just don't take photos of military bases.
- JensenSteve, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Just more proof we are being conditioned for a fear driven police state. Our rights have all been taken from us through subliminal fear tactics, and the sheep eat it right up and submit blindly to having their rights taken away for a little bit of "security". Wake up and realize your country isn't free anymore when it is I crime to take photos in public.
- KiraDnote, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Prosecutors and police have been getting more and more aggressive with their interpretations of the law. It's not a matter of being sheep. When the man takes you into custody all you can do is get a good attorney if you can afford it.
- PdxPhoenix, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Taking pictures in & of itself isn't a crime.
http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photo ...
- Dumbledorito, on 05/15/2008, -0/+18This is hardly an isolated incident:
- PATSCRU, on 05/15/2008, -0/+102KEEP FILMING.
- Metalmoon, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Why? Big Brother already does the filming for us!
- quomen, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3AM I BEING DETAINED?
- Nicksname1, on 05/15/2008, -1/+116FTA: "Last month two brothers who sued Harris County were awarded almost $2 million after they were wrongfully arrested for videotaping a drug raid on a neighbors home. Their case also resulted in the resignation of former Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal when their suit brought forward racist and pornographic emails on his computer."
You couldn't have made up a better ending than that good for them!- kahakauai, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2haha - whats with these high ranking officials these days? Governors getting prostitutes, Judges with all kinds of porn, some other important guy blowing other dudes in bathroom... wtf is up??
- kashk5, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1They're human?
- Rizzob23, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2*****' riiiight!
- kahakauai, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2haha - whats with these high ranking officials these days? Governors getting prostitutes, Judges with all kinds of porn, some other important guy blowing other dudes in bathroom... wtf is up??
- papastout, on 05/15/2008, -2/+30Excellent! Now to start taping cops actions with reckless abandon!
- dartmanx, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Yup. That's pretty reckless, alright.
- williamsba, on 05/15/2008, -32/+5Good, now the paparazzi can get more upskirt shots!
- jezsik, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Cops don't wear skirts.
- studdenfadden, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Meter Maids do.
- Paradoxymoron, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Scotland?
- jezsik, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Cops don't wear skirts.
- jiqiren, on 05/15/2008, -16/+2WOOO! I look forward to more TMZ like pics on Digg!!!! YEAH!!
:P - Dumbledorito, on 05/15/2008, -4/+14Whoever makes a high-quality digital camera/camcorder that can be hidden in a pair of glasses or a ballcap will probably reap quite a tidy profit so long as goons like these wear badges.
- quomen, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1It can't happen.
- Rizzob23, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Do a web search. Very small cameras and wearable digital recording devices are already available. The video quality isn't great for most of these units, but they are rapidly improving. The barrier is that few people are buying and wearing them, not lack of availability.
- cmuwriter, on 05/15/2008, -3/+79Don't f-Stop a photographer.
- endlessoul, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Oh, that's very punny.
EDIT: WTF? It adds a forward slash to my apostrophe! - gutistg, on 05/15/2008, -9/+1It's better without the "f-" but then only photographers would get it.
- ziggyonice, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1I see what you did there.
- endlessoul, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Oh, that's very punny.
- STPZ, on 05/15/2008, -8/+25Don't delete my pictures bro!
tampering with evidence....illegal no?- J3EBS, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Put a beat to that, make a video with Ferraris and semi-nude, wholly-obese women and you're the next Lil' ________ (insert regular name here)
- DavisFreeberg, on 05/15/2008, -0/+46My understanding of the law is that destroying evidence of any kind is considered a felony. Whether that evidence proves innocence or guilt is irrelevant. Even beyond any civil liability, these cops should have to answer to the same criminal charges that regular citizens are charged with.
- Elliuotatar, on 05/15/2008, -0/+12Where's the federal government in all this? If the state won't prosecute the police for the clearly and highly illegal act of destroying evidence then isn't it the federal government's job to set things right? Where's the checks and balances?
- gutistg, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1He could sue for the possible worth of the images. I don't remember the case, but a precedent has been set that he could probably get (the worth of his rig)X(the number of photos deleted).
- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Amen,
- bdkvxd, on 05/15/2008, -5/+76Here in Columbia, MO, I was taken down by a "strong-arm bar method" by officer Jason Carr of the Columbia Police Department. This was because I was seen as a potential threat (in my own residence) FILMING as the said officer entered my home without mine and my two tenants' permission, knocking one roommate down and chasing after women at my party that were 'refusing to disperse.' Apparently refusing to disperse, is enough for an ILLEGAL SEARCH on private property. The story goes on, but no one will listen.
Man I wish I had money. Thats the only way you can get a fair chance against a Police State and Unconstitutional Laws/Judges.- 35263526, on 05/15/2008, -0/+26Try your local ACLU branch; quite often they'll take on cases like that pro bono.
- TonyLocNE, on 05/15/2008, -0/+10I had a similar incident on a city sidewalk earlier this year.. Officer Ripley of the Lincoln Police Department arrested me for failure to disperse while I was taking photos (at a distance of 30 ft away) of a person being detained by eight officers after the bars closed. It was later brought to my attention in the police report, that I was being charged with resisting arrest because the officer claimed that I raised my camera up and tried hitting him in the face with it when he came bumrushing towards me. I had my camera already in front of my face taking pictures, so I don't know how I raised it to hit him.. Anyways, I ended up pleading guilty to the failure to disperse when they decided to drop the resisting.
I too wish I had the money to make a civil suit of this.. I didn't even think of the ACLU until after everything had already been taken care of.- cawpin, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2"Anyways, I ended up pleading guilty to the failure to disperse when they decided to drop the resisting."
So you plead guilty, even though you were completely innocent? Right, sure you did.- TonyLocNE, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3yeah.. yeah I did. Small fine vs. lengthy trial with plenty of attorney fees. Wasn't my favorite decision to make, but in no way does that mean I'm lying about what happened.
- cawpin, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2"Anyways, I ended up pleading guilty to the failure to disperse when they decided to drop the resisting."
- cawpin, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4@bdkvxd - You must just be forgetting the part where they were called to your house for a noise ordinance violation and that, in fact, them telling your guests to leave is perfectly legal.
- TonyLocNE, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Yeah, while asking them to leave is perfectly legal, it is illegal for officers to enter your home without warrant or probable cause. Probable cause is not valid because an officer sees people inside the house and can hear noise from outside.
The people residing in the residence can receive a "maintain disorderly house" ticket or something similar, but they do not have to let the cops in.- ilves7, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1If your door was open, they can enter because they can assume it is a public space. If its closed its a little different, but still a little vague.
- bdkvxd, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3@Cawpin, the officer drove by and heard noise from more than 100 feet and saw more than 10 people outside my house. Here in Columbia, MO thats enough for a $500-$2000 fine. He entered my house by shoving his foot in the door and prying it open from my brother's hands while telling him he was not allowed in our house. He said he was pursuing a girl who wouldn't disperse from the party (A CITY ord. violation takes precendence to my 4th AMENDment RIGHTS AHHH it pisses me off)
- TonyLocNE, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Yeah, while asking them to leave is perfectly legal, it is illegal for officers to enter your home without warrant or probable cause. Probable cause is not valid because an officer sees people inside the house and can hear noise from outside.
- dafunkmonster, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1How much underage drinking was going on, Mr. Mizzou student?
- Pittance, on 05/15/2008, -18/+4Dont take the money away from the police departments unless they have a long standing habit of making and upholding these kinds of charges. You are only punishing the rest of the good cops and the community when you take a PD's money away in civil suit. I would like some sort of precedent to be set for these type of things instead of civil suits and settlements. Keep it from happening again, not just demand money.
- dondara, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4I agree. Screw the civil suit, get those pigs tossed in prison. They broke the law, punish them
- tushyd, on 05/15/2008, -1/+32Nice! Sucks that we have to fight for our RIGHTS
- Kenzan, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2It sucks more when you don't fight for them.
We must be ever diligent. - amercer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9To PARTY
- Kenzan, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2It sucks more when you don't fight for them.
- usgovterrorists, on 05/15/2008, -9/+19Stand up to the terrorists, it's our only chance!
The terrorist United States Government are the world's greatest terrorists!- shutaro, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5The terrorist terrorist terrorists are the United States terrorist terrorist terrorists!!
Terrorists!!!
- shutaro, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5The terrorist terrorist terrorists are the United States terrorist terrorist terrorists!!
- frmatc, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Photo thumbnail is flipped? Never seen a left handed camera... I'd buy one if there was...
- wizzard2k, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Self-portrait in a mirror.
- paulvq, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2He's obviously taking a myspace pic...
- mbonnin, on 05/15/2008, -0/+14The actual article, instead of a blog talking about the actual article:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5781004. ... - xenodata, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Just so you know, deleting photos from the camera doesn't destroy the file. With the right software you can recover the photos.
- inajeep, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1As long as you don't format the card via the menu. But who knows maybe you can still retrieve it spending x amount of dollars.
- Verdanic, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3The camera's format function doesn't overwrite, as far as I know. It's more or less the sae thing as deleting them individually. The data is still there, just marked overwritable. Just needs a program to dig through and uncover the files marked overwritable.
Correct me if I'm wrong.- Digitalfilm43, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Formatting the card via menu doesn't overwrite the data on the card either. If they only deleted the pictures, or even formatted the card they would be easily recovered. The file is not completely gone unless they used software to format, then overwrite every sector. Or after formatting via camera, they filled the card with new pictures to manually overwrite the sectors. I would hope the officers would be smart enough to know that it takes more than just deleting to completely erase an image.
- Verdanic, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3The camera's format function doesn't overwrite, as far as I know. It's more or less the sae thing as deleting them individually. The data is still there, just marked overwritable. Just needs a program to dig through and uncover the files marked overwritable.
- inajeep, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1As long as you don't format the card via the menu. But who knows maybe you can still retrieve it spending x amount of dollars.
- avPaul, on 05/15/2008, -7/+2Good news for photographers everywhere. He could have skipped the police brutality and Rodney King remarks, though. Getting arrested and having some pictures deleted isn't brutality and are nowhere near what happened to King. The issues of photographers' rights can stand on their own. I don't expect msm to ever quit needlessly sensationalizing things but bloggers don't need to imitate them.
- DickMasterson2, on 05/15/2008, -10/+4All paparazzi need to die!!!
- zantos420, on 05/15/2008, -17/+12this new layout sucks
- localzuk, on 05/15/2008, -1/+12I rather like it. Much faster!
- TonyLocNE, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9its faster, but its very awkward, but maybe that is just because I'm not used to it..
- Lazydriver, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Is it me, or is it less buggy then the old one too?
- localzuk, on 05/15/2008, -1/+12I rather like it. Much faster!
- topgunmotors, on 05/15/2008, -9/+0" as it makes strides for photographers' First Amendment rights everywhere." F-them, what about my rights.
- wizzard2k, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Just wanted to let everyone know, it appears his name is wrong here, as was wrong where I saw it earlier. His actual name is Nick Adams, not Evans. It has been corrected elsewhere as well.
- uberfu, on 05/15/2008, -0/+10For the police - they could easily be charged with "Tampering with Evidence"
And the deleted Files can be recovered assuming that no one has used the Digital Card for anything since the files were erased_
I know they can be recovered as I just did this very thing 2 weeks ago_ Accidently deleted the wrong batch of files and grabbed some fixit software and pulled the files I needed back to life from beyond the grave_
So if the Digital Card hasn't been messed with - they could recover the deleted files and then have proof of evidence that he was where he said he was before the arrest - assuming that is true_ Then not only bring up a civil suit but file a crimal grevience with the next court up the chain of command_ then the State or Feds would have no choice but to investigate and possibly prosecute the police officers - for at least that_ - krack, on 05/15/2008, -1/+28Awareness: 8/8/08 is Take Pictures day.
From http://www.flickr.com/groups/takepicturesday/
We're sick of people getting hassled for taking pictures.
Photography is not a crime.
Its time for some protest action.
On August 8, 2008 take your camer out and take pictures of everything you see.
If that happens to be a cop, or a train, or a nuclear power station then so be it.
"I'm just documenting my day officer. What could be the harm in that?"
Lets see 10,000 people taking pictures of the el, the T and the Bart and even the Underground. Wherever you are take some pictures of things.
Then upload pictures to flickr and lets show the world what we saw!
And until then, just for fun everybody should go take pictures of trains and things and post them here.
Because we still can.- pablo0713, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Wow, seriously, this is awesome. I don't like shooting in urban areas anymore. I am so paranoid of getting busted for not committing a crime but only being suspected of one. I pull out my camera in downtown Los Angeles and think everyone who stares at me is wondering if I'm a criminal or not....just cuz I want to take pictures.
- TortillaChip, on 05/16/2008, -0/+114 members? Hahaha
- FinalSight, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/politics/Secret_Buildings_You_May_ ...
Wonder if anything would happen if a bunch of photographs hit these up on that day... everyone else go find out and I'll stand guard.
- designerutah, on 05/15/2008, -1/+19Personally, I think a populace that can photograph their law enforcement officers is a good thing. This is the check to their power. Helps to keep the tyranny in check.
- pyg13, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I am sorry - but the fact that you use the term 'tyranny' with something in the US only reveals how little you know of the rest of the world....
- designerutah, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Didn't specify the U.S. Have lived outside the U.S. more than inside. And I do think the populace should be able to photograph their government, law enforcement, etc. about their business. Keep things open and let the citizens be the watchdogs for those in power.
- pyg13, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I am sorry - but the fact that you use the term 'tyranny' with something in the US only reveals how little you know of the rest of the world....
- pinguwin, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8While I'm pleased at the outcome, why is it in this day and age this should even occur? Yes, the photographer "won" but it's a pyrrhic victory in some ways. One more such victory and he'll be bankrupt. Until the police pay a price for such behavior, they've still "won" in the sense of someone will say, "I can refuse the cops illegal orders, but do I have $10k to prove myself right?" Only when this behavior costs the cops $50k will this be a true victory. Which isn't to say I didn't smile when reading the article.
- theBigYeti, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1But cops' money comes from taxes...
- pinguwin, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Yes, it's taxpayer's money but let's say the police department in a mid-size city starts losing a million a year on a series of lawsuits, things will change. I do know some cops who have said they are very aware that were their actions to cause a million dollar lawsuit to be payed out, it wouldn't be a high point of their career. Such lawsuits aren't about who got how much but as a deterrent to police misbehavior.
- rugabug, on 05/15/2008, -7/+2Fail: It states Rodney King was beaten to death. He wasn't.
- Jowsley, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Um... read it with your good eye. He says "where Rodney King can be half beaten to death"
- mentalfoto, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9It's not just cops that do this sort of thing to people with cameras, it's security guards and basically anyone that thinks they have the authority or the brawn to mess with someone else. If you are on public property, a city sidewalk, your property and so on you are well within your right to take pictures of anything you please.
You are also sensible not to push the point with a scary goon of a cop or especially group of cops who probably feel free to throw you down on the ground and stomp your guts out and smash your camera to bits. The worst place I ever saw for that were cops in New Orleans French Quarter when I lived there. Those NOPD cops in the 1980s were animals with badges.
Stealth is the better part of valor in most situations.
To me it's ALWAYS telling when you run up against people that want you to stop taking pictures because they are basically telling you they have a LOT to hide. - mvarelas, on 05/15/2008, -11/+1I feel split about this. If I don't want to be photographed, then I should have the right not to be photographed. As far as I'm concerned if someone has the right to take as many pictures of me as they like, then I have just as much right to yank their camera from their hands and see how high I can make it bounce, lol maybe then they would think twice about taking my picture.
- Jowsley, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3You may think you should have the right to not be photographed, but you don't (at least not in the US). If you're standing in a public place, it's legal for anyone to take your picture.
Read this if you want to educate yourself-
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
On a side note, do you go around smashing the surveillance camera when ever you run across one?- mvarelas, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1No, I've never smashed a surveillance camera.
Oh I know the law, but when I tell someone to ***** off and they decide to be cute and keep photographing me I have no qualms about doing something about it. And whether or not the law says they have the right, I have no problem whatsoever taking matters into my own hands.
LOL I pray for the photographers sake I never get accosted by one.
- mvarelas, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1No, I've never smashed a surveillance camera.
- flashmat, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5But why should you have an expectation of privacy when walking down a public street/through a public park? And why does your perceived right to privacy give you a right to assault/cause criminal damage?
- jgzman, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Additionally, police officers are public officials, and as such, have slightly different 'rights' to privacy.
- Jowsley, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3You may think you should have the right to not be photographed, but you don't (at least not in the US). If you're standing in a public place, it's legal for anyone to take your picture.
- proliance, on 05/15/2008, -3/+10The author says he was charged after crossing into an area the police had secured, not for refusing to stop taking pictures as the title implies. Owning a camera is not an excuse for crossing a police line. That's why police sometimes use a bright yellow tape to keep people away.
If this photographer had accidentally kicked a cigarette butt that had a killers' DNA on it into the gutter, what would his excuse be? That his picture is more important than conserving the crime scene?
I know I'll be dugg down, but there are two sides to every story, except on Digg.- Jowsley, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5From the linked story:
"Conveniently, and not surprising to me, police deleted some of Adam's photos while they had him in custody which would have proved he was outside the perimeter established by the police" - heystoopid, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Yeah the police version is the one peppered with all the lies for the frame up up job they can think of at the time they were doing it the wrong way most of the time !
- Jowsley, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5From the linked story:
- hierophantus, on 05/15/2008, -1/+15Trouble, by Charles Bukowski.
I had my camera and took the shot through the shop window and a rather tall ugly lady, neck bent forward, ran out of the shop.
"What are you doing?" she asked. "What did you photograph?"
"I photographed the naked mannequin," I told her.
"I'd rather you didn't take any more photos," she said.
"All right..." I said and I walked down the street with my camera with her staring after me.
I felt guilty and upset. Upset, even though I had done nothing really improper.
It usually happened to me at least once a day.
I turned, dropped to one knee, focused, and photographed her.
She waved her arms and screamed and I shot her again.
The trouble with these people is that their cities have never been bombed and their mothers have never been told to shut up. - heystoopid, on 05/15/2008, -4/+5Police scum who want to be "Народный Комиссариат Внутренних Дел Narodnyy Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del"
- cloud4197, on 05/15/2008, -0/+7Dugg because I agree with the overall statement. But it still pisses me off when I see this... "In a world where Rodney King can be half beaten to death by police officers". You mean "In a COUNTRY where Rodney King can be half beaten to death by police officers".... America is not the world!!! In most other countries police officers get into as much trouble as regular citizens for that kind of behaviour.
Ok rant over. Good article!- pinguwin, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2There are lots of countries where the police can pretty much do what they want. If you complain, the person you're complaining to is probably corrupt too. Travel in Asia or Africa and see what people think of the police. On the other hand, if you pay them off, they'll leave you alone. If you told a police officer in Papua New Guinea that you were going to continue to photograph them, things would quickly turn south.
- GoatRoper, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6As a photographer I followed this one closely. No one, in a public setting, can make you delete your photos. He was shooting from the sidewalk, making them fair game.
- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Exactly. That's what really got me interested in this one...
- gsadamb, on 05/16/2008, -2/+12I definitely feel this guy's pain. I'm a photographer as well, and get hassled pretty frequently. I've found something interesting, though. I'm normally pretty quiet, but I always stand up to security and make sure to get a clear answer.
Just recently, I was shooting some fountains in an outdoor plaza. A security guard comes over me and tells me I can't shoot.
Him: You can't shoot here, it's private property.
Me: But there are other people shooting over there and you haven't stopped them.
Him: Oh, they're using small cameras to take snapshots, it's okay.
(I'm shooting with a Canon EOS 40D on a tripod.)
Me: Oh, so you're saying there's a regulation based on the size of the camera?
Him: Um.. no. Just, as long as I don't see it, it's okay.
(I point to the sidewalk, three feet away.)
Me: Well I can shoot from there, that's public property.
Him: You can't shoot this property.
Me: That's not what the law says.
Him: Listen, why don't you just come back on the weekend?
Me: Oh, so there's a regulation that says it's okay to take pictures on the weekends, but not on weekdays?
Him: Just... talk to management, tell them you're doing a project, everything will be okay.
Me: No, I think I'm just going to shoot from the sidewalk, which is public property and paid for by my tax dollars.
Him: Just talk to management first. They're not cool with people sneaking around taking pictures.
Me: Sneaking around? I've got a tripod here!
Him: Please get off the property.
Me: Fine.
(I pick up my gear, move approximately four feet over onto the sidewalk, and resume shooting.)
Me: If you want to call the cops or try to physically stop me, go right ahead. I just hope you've got a very strong understanding of the law if you want to try that.
(He mumbles something and leaves.)- frikk, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Hey - at least the guy was being respectful (in a I'm just doing my job don't take it out on me kind of way). Way to stick to your guns, for sure.
- J3EBS, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Tase, tase, tase! Put the taser on him! We've got an unruly suspect! Failing to comply with a police officer, resisting arrest, aiding and abetting! Tase, tase, tase!
- nic871, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7The first thing my photojournalism teacher taught us was "whoever has the gun is in charge. It doesn't matter if its a police officer here at home, or a rebel soldier overseas. Be like water and find a different way."
- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5...but make sure you don't run out of film.
- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Props to Nick. The man is a trailblazer and a hero in my book.
- puskunk, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3This is great, maybe it will give cops pause before they harass photographers. I've been stopped and questioned before while I was shooting long exposure shots late at night. Gee, officer, do you think the huge camera and enormous tripod were for cat burglary, especially late at night in the middle of a bridge nowhere near any dwelling or business?
- TroHax, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1wow, gotta love the new digg comment system.
- TonyLocNE, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1if you were being sarcastic, I would digg you up.
- methos75, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0Here is my thing on this, I personally believe that if he was told to stop photographing the Cops he should of right there stopped. not so much because it was police buisness, but also because the police themselves did not wish to be photographed. Who should have more rights here, a lousy photographer trying to take pictures of everyone, or a person who wants there privacy protected? I think there needs to be a law that states that once some ask that you do not photograph them, then you must stop.
- willfe, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1"Who should have more rights here" -- the private citizen exercising his/her rights :) Sorry, sport, that's the rule. You have no legitimate expectation of privacy in a *public* place (that's why it's called a "public place"). A civil servant, such as a police officer, most certainly has no expectation of privacy in almost *any* circumstances (i.e. immunity from being photographed or filmed) in the course of his/her duty.
"I think there needs to be a law that states that once some ask that you do not photograph them, then you must stop." -- fortunately, you're not a lawmaker.
The current situation is favorable to the alternative you suggest: "I request that you stop taking pictures of me/filming my behavior, now would you mind terribly handing over all your money in a paper bag? What?!?! You can't use that picture to convict me of robbery, since I told you to stop filming and you didn't ... that's not legal!"
The worst we get in the current situation are embarrassed cops, good coverage of events of interest to the public, more convicted criminals, and paparazzi chasing self-important celebrities.
I think what we've got now is better :) Keep on filming, everybody! When a loon like this one asks you to stop, politely smile and thank them for their input, then keep on shooting. Be sure you film the punches they throw. It'll help convict those dumb enough to turn violent when they see a camera lens. Eventually they'll learn.
- willfe, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1"Who should have more rights here" -- the private citizen exercising his/her rights :) Sorry, sport, that's the rule. You have no legitimate expectation of privacy in a *public* place (that's why it's called a "public place"). A civil servant, such as a police officer, most certainly has no expectation of privacy in almost *any* circumstances (i.e. immunity from being photographed or filmed) in the course of his/her duty.
- Rizzob23, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1The police should be taped at all times. One of the things I do like about Obama is his Illinois legislation to tape interrogations and confessions to protect suspects against beatings. The police resisted strongly, presumably because the beatings allowed them to force confessions. Its no secret that cops are annoyed by fact that the accused has rights. Just go to a cop website or forum and you'll see tons of anecdotal evidence that this is the prevailing attitude. I think that everytime the police are taped, it brings us a little bit closer to actually holding the police accountable for their actions.
The way things are now is terrible. Interrogations lead to beatings. Suspects are often beaten or mishandled upon arrest. Search warrants invariably lead to destruction of property with no compensation, even when contraband isn't found. No-knock raids result in the death of innocents, scrambling to protect themselves against what they percieve to be an unauthorised intruder. Legal threats are made in a attempt to force testimony. Individuals are frequently searched without anything resembling probable cause, then the cops lie in court to cover up that fact. Every single day, the police wipe their ass with the Constitution in the name of expediency. Nothing is sacred.
In an age where camera tech is ubiquitous and very cheap, law enforcement remains opposed to its use many situations. This ruling is a landmark because it sets a precedent that the police can be legally taped by a private citizen. It is a small step toward accountability. If the police violate your Constitutional rights, the best you can usually hope for is certain evidence being labeled as "inadmissable." I hope that increased surveillance of the police will one day result in a policy change in that regard. Constitutional violations and property destruction by law enforcement should become criminal acts, punishable by the same standard that applies to private citizens.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by