| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2005 02:55:14 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Nope...you can confiscate the camera immediately in fear the evidence could be destroyed by the time the warrant was obtained. It would however be inadmissible if the warrant was not obtained.
A judge would sign that search warrant no questions asked. |
Evidence of what exactly ? |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:56:44 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Evidence of what exactly ? |
I think that's the point. Basically, that the officer is in a position to *claim* supposed evidence with the real intent of simply messing with and causing problems for the photographer. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:57:28 PM · #78 |
Don't you see the problem, badboy? By your own statement, in this situation (the hypothetical one below) you acknowledge you can't force him to stop taking pictures; he's legally in the clear. So you say (by your earlier statement) that you will enforce a "higher law" and, based on your own perception of what's right and wrong you will seize the guy's property as evidence and tie him up in court for a long time.
Can't you see that this attitude, a cop acting in this manner, is absolutely WRONG? In this case you might be "right" (the guy might be a sleaze and a pervert and so forth) but the PRINCIPLE is wrong. Police officers can't do this, or shouldn't anyway. It's gross misuse of their authority.
"I'm an officer. I don't like what you're doing. I can't order you not to do it, but I can make it impossible for you to do it, because I'm a cop and you're not and I don't like what you're doing."
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 02:58:41 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
(3) attempts by a PHYSICAL MENACE to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury
So clara at what time did the officer by any of these definitions assualt the photographer?
|
Hmmm, large police officer, gun, looming over the shoulder of the photographer while he deleted the images...(as per article)
I think a case could be made that there was fear of physical safety involved here. :) Mind you, I'm 5'3".
I'm rather perplexed at the hostility you seem to be throwing my way here. I'm not saying all cops are bad. I'm not even saying that this photographer was right. I'm just making an observation that an officer in this specific case, as described in this specific article might be subject to assault charges.
Clara
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:00:51 PM · #80 |
The photo's could be used to help investigate the crash.
The cause of the crash was not known at the time this incident took place.
This could have been a DUI, malfunction of the vehicle, attempted homicide. If another vehicle caused the crash, that person would be prosecuted.
If any of these are true, then the photo's could be construed as evidence for trial or determining the cause of the crash.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:02:50 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by blemt:
I'm rather perplexed at the hostility you seem to be throwing my way here. Clara |
Clara, I'm not commenting about any specific person in this thread but... I'd just remind you that some people don't like the idea that, having signed up for the law enforcement profession, they can't behave like power-hungry vigilantes who make the law up to suit them. Don't waste your breath. Most cops aren't that way. I hope.
Whilst it's true to say that a cop probably COULD get a warrant to take the camera in such a situation unless he actually DID feel the images would help as evidence (which was NOT the case described above) he'd be doing so just to be an ARSE.
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 15:05:12.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:05:27 PM · #82 |
C'mon Clara be serious here...there is no way a judge or jury of reasonable people would believe that you feared you would be shot or assualted by the officer, in public..., if you did not delete the photo's.
The only thing you could get them to believe is that you had fear of being prosecuted.
Furthermore, I'd like you to find a DA that would actually prosecute the officer based on what you are saying.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:07:34 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by blemt:
I'm rather perplexed at the hostility you seem to be throwing my way here. Clara |
Clara, I'm not commenting about any specific person in this thread but... I'd just remind you that some people don't like the idea that, having signed up for the law enforcement profession, they can't behave like power-hungry vigilantes who make the law up to suit them. Don't waste your breath. Most cops aren't that way. I hope.
Whilst it's true to say that a cop probably COULD get a warrant to take the camera in such a situation unless he actually DID feel the images would help as evidence (which was NOT the case described above) he'd be doing so just to be an ARSE. |
How can you determine from the article whether or not he thought the photos could be used for evidence? You are speculating.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:08:40 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
How can you determine from the article whether or not he thought the photos could be used for evidence? You are speculating. |
Because the single car accident had already happened ?
It isn't like the police couldn't take their own photos... |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:08:40 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
How can you determine from the article whether or not he thought the photos could be used for evidence? You are speculating. |
DUH!
Because he insisted they were DELETED!
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 15:09:11.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:11:15 PM · #86 |
Okay, so it's perfectly okay, on public land, to take pictures of a person that has been seriously injured so you can keep them in your private sicko collection or sell them to other sickos.
Is it okay, on public land, to take photos up a woman's skirt?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:12:12 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Okay, so it's perfectly okay, on public land, to take pictures of a person that has been seriously injured so you can keep them in your private sicko collection or sell them to other sickos.
Is it okay, on public land, to take photos up a woman's skirt? |
What does this have to do with a journalist at an accident scene ? You might want to look up the definition of a 'strawman' argument at some point, maybe.
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 15:14:37. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:12:24 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
How can you determine from the article whether or not he thought the photos could be used for evidence? You are speculating. |
DUH!
Because he insisted they were DELETED! |
I have to go along with this one, ordering the photos deleted is probably not what one does to evidence, or is there something I don't know about the rules of evidence? |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:12:51 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by animes2k:
bledford: a "no loitering" sign does not infringe on any Constitutional right, nor is drinking alcohol a Constitutionally guaranteed right. It's important to specify, in this type of situation, the difference between a Constitutionally guaranteed right and most every other law, as they are not guaranteed, but legislated. |
A no loitering sign can certainly infringe on my right to assembly, correct? How about if I'm on a public sidewalk with a camera, taking snapshots of people, but I'm standing under a no loitering sign? I don't understand your comment about guaranteed rights under the constitution. Are you arguing that the "no loitering" sign is unconstitutional in the cases I've mentioned? I would have to agree.
Originally posted by animes2k:
You say that a lot of people claim to know the law, with little proof backing it up. What do you mean, specifically? |
I mean that several folks have chimed in saying "you have the right to do this or that" without considering that perhaps you do not always have the right based on the laws applicable to a given person's geography or other circumstances. It's a blanket statement to say that every photographer is within his rights under the law to be in a public place taking pictures. Prior court rulings and precedents would suggest otherwise. There are also laws regarding "voyeurism" coming into effect throughout the country that seek to limit the number of "up-skirt" type photos taken in plain daylight in public places. My point is that a blanket statement about your constitutional rights as a photographer is not particularly helpful in the real world where a photog can find himself in trouble when he thought he was within his rights.
Originally posted by animes2k:
It is a generally accepted... |
My point exactly. Generally, but not always.
Originally posted by animes2k:
Please, BADDBOYY21 and bledford, if we are all under some grand misconception here, please oh please educate us as to where we've been misguided. |
I don't claim to know all of the laws that are in effect in a given situation. But I know that there are certain restrictions above and beyond what is outlined in the constitution with regard to your right to take pictures in public places.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:15:00 PM · #90 |
Bottom line...I would have handled things differently.
The camera could have seized.
Just because you show up and there is only 1 car at the scene, does not mean that there wasn't another vehicle involved or underlying fators.
Temporary evidence can be lost at the crash seen very rapidly with emt's and firemen all over the scene. The photographer could have captured something that may not have been there by the time the investigator arrived.
The first officer on the scene is not always the investigator. Sometimes I don't arrive immediatley if I am not on duty. It's the job of the first responding officer to preserve the evidence and crash scene.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:15:28 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Okay, so it's perfectly okay, on public land, to take pictures of a person that has been seriously injured so you can keep them in your private sicko collection or sell them to other sickos.
Is it okay, on public land, to take photos up a woman's skirt? |
There's a big difference between what we judge not to be OK morally and what we have, as a society, legislated to be illegal.
The injured person, if in public situation, is, unfortunately, legally permissable. The body parts hidden beneath the skirt are NOT already on public display so would NOT be the same at all.
I doubt many would argue that someone who would want to take this kind of image for his own viewing pleasure is a somewhat unpalatable person but... unless we change laws to make it illegal it's still wrong for police to take it into their own hands.
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 15:16:36.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:19:49 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Okay, so it's perfectly okay, on public land, to take pictures of a person that has been seriously injured so you can keep them in your private sicko collection or sell them to other sickos.
Is it okay, on public land, to take photos up a woman's skirt? |
Up a woman̢۪s skirt is not legal, this is because she has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to people looking up her skirt In general if you are out in public people can photograph you, this is not considered an invasion of privacy any more then people looking at you when you are in public. Since you do have a expectation of not having people looking up your skirt you also have the right not to be photographed as such. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:20:11 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
Temporary evidence can be lost at the crash seen very rapidly with emt's and firemen all over the scene. The photographer could have captured something that may not have been there by the time the investigator arrived.
The first officer on the scene is not always the investigator. Sometimes I don't arrive immediatley if I am not on duty. It's the job of the first responding officer to preserve the evidence and crash scene. |
Ok, now I think we agree. I can fully understand, and support, the seizure of the photos as evidence, provided a signed warrant is executed.
However, in this article, the officer told the photographer to delete the photos. That's not exactly consistant with "preserving evidence", and that's where this particular officer overstepped his bounds. I think that's what we were discussing before the issue of "upskirt" shots was brought up. :-)
(edited for typo)
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 15:21:12. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:23:19 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
The camera could have seized.
... It's the job of the first responding officer to preserve the evidence and crash scene. |
Please re-read the part of the article which quotes the press' legal counsel (who, one would presume, is rather familiar with the law in his locale).
<Bolt was within his rights to photograph the accident and said "the deputy was out of line" to demand the photos be deleted.
"Since he was shooting from a public area, there was no basis for him ordering the pictures be destroyed," Key said.
The ability to photograph anything going on in a public place is not unique to journalists, whether employed by a media outlet or not.
"If there is a crime scene taped off, you can't cross the tape," Key said. "There might be some civil question about going into the field and onto the private property."
But what can be seen in a public place can be photographed.
Key said an officer can seize a camera or film only if it contains evidence such as "if you photographed a person robbing a bank, for instance." >> |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:24:16 PM · #95 |
The officer in the article, did order the photo's to be deleted. It was not stated whether or not he was QUALIFIED to determine that the photos were of no use.
That being said, he should have consulted his supervisor or the investigator before asking that the photos be deleted. If that officer is a supervisor, the he needs some retraining.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:27:49 PM · #96 |
First of all you do not have to run the yellow tape, to make a scene a "crime scene".
Pictures of a crash scene ARE evidence, and are very useful to the investigator. People do get prosecuted from offenses involved in a crash.
Crimes are not just commited while robbing a bank...etc.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:27:55 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by animes2k:
bledford: a "no loitering" sign does not infringe on any Constitutional right, nor is drinking alcohol a Constitutionally guaranteed right. It's important to specify, in this type of situation, the difference between a Constitutionally guaranteed right and most every other law, as they are not guaranteed, but legislated. |
A no loitering sign can certainly infringe on my right to assembly, correct? How about if I'm on a public sidewalk with a camera, taking snapshots of people, but I'm standing under a no loitering sign? I don't understand your comment about guaranteed rights under the constitution. Are you arguing that the "no loitering" sign is unconstitutional in the cases I've mentioned? I would have to agree.
[/quote]
Only, you would be hard pressed to find a "no loitering" sign on public land. Such a sign is only present (as far as I have ever seen or known of) on private property, in which case the property owner is free to make his own rules.
Now, don't worry - I just think this wasn't a great example... We both agree that the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution are not blank checks to do whatever we feel like doing, but seldom are our rights actually infringed upon, if you know the limits and responsibilities of those rights.
Originally posted by bledford:
...My point is that a blanket statement about your constitutional rights as a photographer is not particularly helpful in the real world where a photog can find himself in trouble when he thought he was within his rights.
...
My point exactly. Generally, but not always.
|
I agree with you. I hadn't really noticed a great deal of blanket statements being thrown around, but I admit I didn't read every post in the greatest of detail :) |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:27:59 PM · #98 |
Funny, just last week I started a thread where I was worried about this exact situation! Had the photographer been employed for a newspaper, the officer wouldn't have pursued it a step further.
That's why I was worried at the last accident scene I was at, because I can barely even call myself a freelance photographer, let alone employed at a journal!
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:28:26 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:
The officer in the article, did order the photo's to be deleted. It was not stated whether or not he was QUALIFIED to determine that the photos were of no use.
That being said, he should have consulted his supervisor or the investigator before asking that the photos be deleted. If that officer is a supervisor, the he needs some retraining. |
But there's still a problem. IF he was qualified to determine that the photos were of no use, that should have been "end of story". What we are saying is that the officer had NO reason and NO authority to ask the photographer to delete them. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 03:31:35 PM · #100 |
Wow...I already agreed that things should have been handled differently.
The bottom line is that there are ways for an officer to get your camera and photo's if it was taken at a crime scene/crash scene.
If you don't believe that, try it out for yourself.
|
|
