If Photography Is Not a Crime, When Will Police Get the Message?In February, just as the City of Baltimore was hammering out a legal settlement to end police interference with photographers, Baltimore police forcibly removed a Baltimore Sun photo editor from the scene of a shooting on a public street. That action underscored a seemingly intractable problem: getting the message to rank-and-file police officers that people have a constitutional right to photograph police carrying out their duties in public.
Judges have repeatedly thrown out criminal charges against photographers arrested while photographing police activities in public. Cities have had to pay to settle claims of civil rights violations stemming from some of the arrests. The City of Boston, for instance, agreed in 2012 to pay $170,000 to settle a videographer’s civil rights claims over his arrest for videotaping police arresting another person on the Boston Common. Baltimore ended up paying $250,000 as part of its recent settlement with Christopher Sharp, who alleged that police erased the videos on his iPhone after detaining him for using the iPhone to record the arrest and beating of another person.
And yet the incidents of police interference with photographers continue apace. No sooner is one case settled, when another incident or claim pops up.
“It certainly is like playing a game of whack-a-mole,” says attorney Mickey Osterreicher of the National Press Photographers Association. Attorney Mary Borja, who represented Sharp in his claim against Baltimore police, says: “In a post-9/11 world, there’s a lot of, ‘Well, it’s the Patriot Act,’ which is the crutch [police] use to justify improper activities that interfere with journalists doing their jobs.”
There are, to be sure, narrow limits on the right to photograph police. Photographers are not allowed to get in the way or otherwise interfere with the work of police. But photographers are seldom prosecuted successfully for actual interference. The arrests are more often made to prevent photographers from witnessing police activity. Charges end up being dropped, and civil claims ensue.
Several new claims by photographers (or citizens with cameras) have cropped up in recent months.
In Ohio, the Toledo Blade filed a lawsuit April 4 against the US Secretary of Defense and several military police, alleging unlawful detention and violations of First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights of two of its journalists. Photographer Jetta Fraser and reporter Tyrel Linkhorn were detained and questioned March 28 in Lima, Ohio outside the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, a manufacturer of tanks and other armored military vehicles, after they photographed the facility from a public way.
Military police allegedly threatened the journalists, and confiscated Fraser’s cameras and deleted the photos. They told the journalists they had violated unspecified federal laws “and army regulations” by photographing the facility. (The Columbia Journalism Review speculates convincingly about which law the army is likely to cite in its defense against the Blade’s First Amendment claims.)
Earlier this year, photographer Steve Eberhard of Willits, California filed suit in state court against the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans, the state transportation agency, over his arrest last summer while photographing a protest against a controversial highway bypass project. Eberhard, who was eventually released without any charges filed against him, is alleging violation of his civil rights, among other claims.
In New Haven, Connecticut, Luis Luna, a medical interpreter, filed a $500,000 civil rights claim over his arrest in 2010 while recording police activity with his iPhone. He was charged with interfering with a police officer. Police confiscated his iPhone, which was returned with the videos erased. Luna contested the interference charge, but lacking legal representation, finally agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of “creating a public disturbance.” A police investigation later concluded that he hadn’t committed any crimes, and his civil rights had been violated.
In Maryland, veteran photojournalist Mannie Garcia is suing Montgomery County and several of its police officers for unlawful arrest and violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The claim stems from Garcia’s rough arrest in June, 2011 on disorderly conduct charges after he photographed police arresting two men with what Garcia considered to be excessive force. Garcia didn’t interfere with the police, and the charges against him were eventually dropped. But police never returned his camera card, which they had confiscated at the scene.
Other cases have settled in favor of photographers. Besides those mentioned from Boston and Baltimore, the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department issued a general order as part of legal settlement in 2012 stating that “a bystander has the right under the First Amendment to observe and record [DC police officers] in the public discharge of their duties.”
The Department of Justice has weighed in on several cases–including the Washington, DC case, the Sharp case, and the Mannie Garcia case–urging the courts to protect the free speech and due process rights of photographers, as well as their rights to protection against unlawful search and seizure.
In fact, the Department of Justice submitted a a blueprint for police policy that became the basis of settlements in the Washington, DC and Baltimore cases: police policy and procedure were re-written in both places to comply with DOJ guidelines.
So why do photographers continue to get arrested for doing their jobs, or simply exercising their constitutional rights?
There aren’t easy answers. Perhaps police are getting the message, and arrests and intimidation would be much worse if photographers (and citizens) weren’t using the courts to push back by asserting their constitutional rights.
Mary Borja, the attorney who represented Sharp in his successful claim against Baltimore police, says she’s heard of incidents since the settlement where citizens have stood up to police who tried to prevent photographs of police activity. She believes publicity about the settlement is helping to get the message to Baltimore police, and reduce interference.
But there’s more work to do, she says. Regarding the police interference with the Baltimore Sun photo editor while settlement talks in the Sharp case were under way, Borja says, “That highlights the need or police training on what you can and can’t do.”
Borja also says that police interference with photographers will never be completely eliminated. “Police make mistakes, regardless of whether training has been given or not.”
Osterreicher, the NPPA attorney, says changing police attitudes and responses toward photographers “is going to take continuing education.” And he surmises that as more police start using wearable cameras to document their activities and interactions with the public, “their attitude toward [citizens and journalists] doing the same may change.”
For now, though, the courts remain an important line of defense for the right of photographers to photograph police carrying out their duties in public.
Photography In Public Is Not A Crimefrom the protecting-the-first-amendment deptSadly, we talk way too often about police arresting people for doing nothing other than taking a picture or filming them. The police officers being filmed and photographed make these arrests using various excuses, but frequently the charges get dropped for lack of merit. The reason charges rarely stick when an officer is filmed is because filming police, or anyone in a public space, is not illegal. Some people may not like it, but it is a fact.
The New York Times is waking up to this fact that photography is not a crime. In an interview with Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counselor for the National Press Photographers Association, they get down to the nitty gritty of the legalities surrounding this age old tradition. They also talk a bit about just why such arrests are happening more frequently. Since 9/11, there’s been an incredible number of incidents where photographers are being interfered with and arrested for doing nothing other than taking pictures or recording video in public places.
It’s not just news photographers who should be concerned with this. I think every citizen should be concerned. Tourists taking pictures are being told by police, security guards and sometimes other citizens, “Sorry, you can’t take a picture here.” When asked why, they say, “Well, don’t you remember 9/11?”I haven't really thought of criminalizing photography as something to do with 9/11 before. I know that a lot of our rights have been eroded since that day, but the photography aspect never really clicked until now. Just as Mickey can't make heads nor tails of this argument, I am struggling to find a connection here. I don't recall cameras being a part of the plots to destroy the Twin Towers, Pentagon or White House.
Of course there could be more reasons for this increase in arresting photographers. Mickey suspects that part of the reason is the proliferation of the camera. Pretty much everyone with a smart phone has a camera capable of taking some very high quality pictures. Prior to this boom, the police had some modicum of control over the press. They knew the press wasn't going to be everywhere and were used to not being under constant recordable surveillance by the public. Now that anyone could be filming them or taking their picture, they are more on edge and more prone to lashing out.
When this happens, it is important for those accused to know their rights. However, it is also important for the police to know the public's rights as well. While you, as a photographer, may know that you have the right to take pictures or film in a public space, some officers may not know or may have forgotten that fact. That is why the Mickey and others have been working with police to keep officers reminded of that right. Q. After photographers were stopped from photographing the police clearing Occupy Wall Street protestors from Zuccotti Park, you and representatives of a media coalition including The Times, met with the police commissioner Ray Kelly. What happened at that meeting?
A. It was on Nov. 23. I asked the commissioner if he would reissue the “finest message” from 1999 that dealt with the police cooperating with the press. He did that. It was read at 10 consecutive roll calls in every single station house and precinct.The finest message is a policy statement on police interactions with the press. It states that officers are not to interfere with videotaping and photographing in public places. It also reminds officers that they have an obligation to assist the press whenever possible. This is very similar to the recent news when the DC police chief laid down the law on filming of officers.
Hopefully, continually repeating this message will help slow down this barrage of arrests for photographing the police. As more officers are reminded of the rights of the cameras-wielding public, we will hopefully start to see fewer future incidents. It would be great if other police departments across the nation follow the lead of NY and DC police in proactively spreading the word about the rights of the public to record and photograph the police.
Citizens Court Watch + & Thank You For Taking The Time To Read This WebSites !
I Hope That This WebSites Can Help You & Others With Your Court Cases & Laws?
You Can E-Mail US AT firstname.lastname@example.orgYou Can Also Write TO US AT Rommel P. Westlaw @ P.O. Box 18010 Spokane, Washington. 99228-0010 U.S.A. P.O. Box 960 Newman Lake, Wa. 99025 or P.O. Box 1144 Bonners Ferry, ID 83805
Phone Messages Call US AT (Washington D.C. Offices) At # 202-670-LAWS (5297) Florida # 561-90-PRO-SE (7-7673) + Spokane, Wa. # 509-701-5683 or 509-465-4528 + Wisconsin # 920-39-JUDGE (5-8343) + Texas # 512-887-8779 All Calls Are Welcome
You May Help Others By Making $$$ A Small Donation Or Help With Your Time Etc. PLEASE REMEMBER DO NOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS + Call 911
Disclaimer and Fair Use Pages For Westlaw Books + See Full Disclaimer Page + Its Five 5 Button Down From The Top Of This Website + You Can Click # Button + To Read The Whole Disclaimer For This Website and My Other Website's Info. !
Disclaimer of Warranties and Liabilities: This site does not warrant the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, safety or merchantability of fitness for a particular purpose of the information contained in This site nor in any way endorse the individuals or institutions listed in This site.
In No Event Shall Westlawbooks.com, or Any Other Web Address Etc. or Domain from Westlaw Books or its staff, its sponsors, its contributors or its ISP be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, direct, special, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages, or damages for lost profits, loss of money or revenue, or loss of use, arising out of or related to the westlawbooks.com or Any Other Web Address or Domain from Westlaw Books or my other internet Web Site or the information contained in it, whether such damages arise in contract, negligence, tort, under statute, in equity, at law or otherwise.
If you have a Complaint About Westlaw Books Dot Com or My Other Domain's ? Content of this Website, how about telling the webmaster first? You can Contact the Webmaster In Writing At P. O. Box 18010 Spokane, WA. 99228-0010 U.S.A.
Disclaimer: + This is A Disclaimer from the Owner of this Website + Please Read ! + Nothing Here Is To Be Construed As "Legal Advice". We Are Not Lawyers, And We Are Not Pretending To Be Lawyers. This manual and website and information is intended purely as a communication of information in accordance with the right of free speech. It does not constitute either general or specific legal advice. Anyone who is seeking any legal advice should consult a competent professional.
The following is provided for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. Westlaw Books is not engaged in rendering legal or other Info. & professional advice, and this form is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.
Permission to quote statements we make and use our graphics is hereby granted without obtaining permission. We do Not copyright our quotes or graphics we create, which we Want to be widely dissembled to further the cause of Liberty and Justice for your Families and For All Families. If you use our materials, we certainly would appreciate being informed. Thank you ! Disclaimer and Fair Use Pages For Westlaw Books + See Full Disclaimer Page + Its Five 5 Button Down From The Top Of This Website + You Can Click # Button + To Read The Whole Disclaimer For This Website and My Other Website's Info. !