Citizen Photographers v. The Police? 407
"Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him."
OK. I'm more inclined to believe the cops... wait a second...
"A neighbor said she witnessed the incident and could not believe what she saw."
"He opened up the gate and Neffy was coming down and he went up to Neffy, pulled him down...
Oh, you dumb, dumb cops. Of course Neftaly Cruz was "not on his property" during the arrest if you went onto his property and dragged him off! Why would you do that in front of witnesses?
To tomstdenis's argument that, even if the police really did violate people's rights, they should be treated leniently because "[P]olice are people and do bad things," reader alienmole points out a crucial difference:
The difference is that police have powers which ordinary citizens don't have, so when police do bad things, it can have severe consequences. Quite often, they're not held accountable for that, which again results from an abuse of power. That's what this is all about: accountability for the actions of public servants, particularly those with extraordinary powers. Cops in general are not the enemy, but bad cops are certainly an enemy which needs to be guarded against and eradicated whenever possible.
Reader BINC wants to know whether Pennsylvania actually has a law which would illegalize Neftaly Cruz's cellphone photo of police in the act of arresting a suspect. He writes
Many readers linked to online information and commentary on the recognized rights of photographers (at least in the U.S.). Reader pen was one of several to point to Bert Krages' site:This seems to be part of a national push. In Montana it extends beyond photography. I have recently been threatened with being charged with "Obstructing" for not yielding to a warrantless search of my property, so I looked it up. See data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/7/45-7-302.htm especially paragraph (2). !!
General defense in Montana is insisting on trial by jury — provided one represents himself; otherwise it invites rapid bankruptcy — but trial by jury is not guaranteed by all states' consitutions for all crimes.
Reader hacker linked to an informative PDF and offers a useful summary:Here is a handy pamphlet called The Photographer's Right that provides some advice for dealing with a situation like this.
Except in special circumstances (e.g., certain government facilities), there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs on public or private property. If you can be there, you can take pictures there: streets, malls, parking lots, office buildings. You do not need permission to do so, even on private property.
Trespassing laws naturally apply. If a property owner demands you leave, you must. But if a place is open to the public — a mall, office-building lobby, etc. — permission to enter is assumed (although it can be revoked).
In terms of the law, trespass and photography are separate events; the former is illegal, but the latter is not. Only if the use of photographic equipment itself violates a person's privacy (e.g., by using a long lens to look into someone's private room) might it violate privacy law. Further, while people have a right of privacy, businesses do not except as it relates to trade secrets.
Subject to specific limits, photographers can publish any photos they take, provided those photos do not violate the privacy of the subject. This includes photos taken while trespassing or otherwise being someplace they shouldn't be. Taking photos and publishing photos are two separate issues.
Please read the full PDF here with much more detail. I print copies of this on 4x5 index cards and keep them with me at all times when I'm taking photos in any public place.
Also, if someone demands your "film" or your camera, let them know that it is not legal for them to take it, unless you have been arrested of a crime involving that camera and that film. The crime for someone to demand and take your camera or film, is called theft, and threatening to do so (or to "break your camera"), is called coercion. Don't tolerate either of them, and if your equipment IS taken or broken, call the police and file charges.
PsychosisC contributed a link to a short video called " BUSTED - The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters," writing "I've only had two encounters with police officers... but both of them sort of leave me thinking less of them."
Rights on paper aside, many readers posted horror stories of arrest-happy police; leereyno pointed to one that made the news in the Mid-Atlantic region, writing
According to reader rs79, this sort of thing on wouldn't happen north of the border; rs79 writes "I've photographed cops here in Canada arresting people a couple of times. They don't care." To this, RajivSLK says[T]here does seem to be an increase in cases of police officers getting confused and thinking they work for the Gestapo. There was a case a month back or so where the daughter of a police officer was arrested for "trespassing." She and a friend were lost and had stopped to ask a police officer for directions. The officer refused to help them, stating that they would have to find their own way out. A few moments later they spotted another officer and drove over to where he was to ask for help, at which point the first officer rushed over and berated them for daring to ask her partner for help when she had already told them to get lost. ... A few minutes later these same officers arrested them for "trespassing" ..... on a public street. The girl and her friend spent the night in jail. They weren't charged of course because they hadn't committed any crime.
I don't know how this case turned out for the officers involved, but it shows a serious lack of oversight when two cops are able to run wild and abuse the public in that manner.
[...]
In most parts of the world, being a police officer is met with about the same level of respect as a personal injury lawyer would be here, if not less. The police are held in contempt because in most parts of the world, particularly the 3rd world, corruption and abuse are almost part of the job. Police officers in the U.S. are, at least among healthy segments of society, viewed with respect if not admiration. But this esteem is fragile because at the end of the day the police are armed agents of the state and that makes them difficult to love. So when officers abuse and betray the trust of the public and make false arrests, all it does is make life that much more difficult for them and and their fellow officers. Things like these are noticed, and remembered.
It's not so rosy up here in Canada. This past Canada Day the Victoria police instituted a policy of mandatory searches on all buses heading downtown. They can get away with this because, on Canada Day, the bus is used mostly by young people going to clubs. I objected to being searched thinking that I would simply not be allowed back on the bus. Instead, to my complete surprise, the officer began to become very verbally abusive and I was arrested for "Drunk and Disorderly Conduct."
No breathalizer, no sobriety test, nothing. 100% solely based upon the officers "observation." I was processed and thrown into a dirty cement holding cell that lacked even toilet paper let alone a bed. As it stands, the Victoria police can arrest anyone at anytime under the charge of "Drunk and Disorderly" with no evidence and no sobriety test.
I can't wait for the day when *I* can video tape everything. That should provide a little balance to things.
ZorbaTHut suggests the sort of technological answer that RajivSLK's looking for, which might remind Neal Stephenson fans of the "gargoyles" in Snowcrash.
I've been waiting for a mini-stealth-camera-and-recorder to appear. I want a little device, the size of a cellphone camera, that fits in a button or a necklace or a belt buckle or something equally inconspicuous. It should be connected to a waist controller, which would include battery pack, storage (hard drive or flash), and wifi. Wifi so that, whenever it can find an available internet connection, it can upload its contents to a secure server located elsewhere.
Just imagine that. "Sorry sir, you took a picture of something you weren't supposed to. I'm going to have to confiscate your camera." "The pictures are already in Texas, and in ten minutes they'll be posted online. Same as the recording of what you're saying right now. You really want to illegally take my possessions, Officer Frank, Number 3894?"
Many thanks to the readers (especially those quoted above) whose comments informed this discussion.
Public place... (Score:2, Informative)
The biggest problem is... (Score:3, Informative)
This is nothing new. They are trained to do this. (Score:5, Informative)
A month later, at another house, police arrived, again for a noise violation. One of the officers promptly recognized me and called me "the marijuana man", and proceeded to pat me down. He stayed over my clothes, keeping the search legal this time, however he kept yelling at me to spread my legs farther apart until you would have sworn I was an olympic gymnast. Furthermore, I was lucky. I can't even fit on one hand the number of friends I have had arrested for saying something to the police when someone else was being arrested. Things were so bad here at one point that the student government had to launch a campaign against the police, informing students of their rights and accepting police complaint reports that they would then file for you. Thankfully we also have free legal advice available to all students and are currently forming an official position called Office of the Student Advocate.
Anyways, here is the point:
Police officers operate this way on purpose. This is how they are trained! It is not really good cop bad cop thing as much as you would believe. The police's job is not really to uphold the law. That is the court's job. The police are there to investigate crime and catch "bad guys". If the 4th ammendment gets in their way, oh well, let the courts decide that. They are trained to lie, decieve, and push the boundaries, usually in search of a verbal confession. Most cops don't even know the law, they are just there to do what they were trained to due. Read Breaking Rank, by Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief, to learn about how the police system fosters violence, racism, and homophobia as a matter of practice. Finally, if you don't know how to deal with police and refuse a warrantless search, please please please watch Busted. There is a YouTube link already in the slashback. Finally, if you are afraid to talk to police officers in such a situation, keep something like the NORML Freedom Card [norml.org] in your wallet. Simply invoke your right to remain silent, and hand the card to the officer. Its simple yet very effective.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Informative)
Most likely nothing. And that's as it should be. Why? Because he most likely thought that he was in the right
That doesn't matter -- he was out of line, no matter how justified he believed his actions to be and he needs to be accountable for them. By your logic, very few crimes of passion would be punishable... unless you believe there's a different standard for members of law enforcement. In point of fact, I believe there is a different standard, but it is and must be a more strict standard than that applied to the general public. If we cannot expect those who enforce the law to avoid even the mere appearance of impropriety, how dare we expect the general public to abide by, much less the law those individuals enforce?
Re:Public place... (Score:3, Informative)
I would say that a public apology from the Police Department and an official statment saying that what the person did was not illegal would be nice as well. This would help dispel the image that photographing the police is a crime.
I do not like abuse of power by the police we do need to at least admit that they are human beings doing a nessecary and stressful job. They will make mistakes and should be required to admit and pay for those mistakes as appropriate.
Re:Media conspiracy (Score:4, Informative)
I honestly think some cops are bad, but most (like most people) just want to do a good job, make the world better or at least not any worse and go home to their happy and safe little home. If you really were a sadistic bastard who just wanted to mess with the world, there are easier and more lucrative ways to do it than going into law enforcement.
Do you know any cops? I do. My brother used to be a cop and I got to know quite a few of them both through him and by just talking to them. Almost every cop and even security guard I've ever talked to has had issues with anger and control. When within ten minutes of meeting someone they express to you how they wish they had a good excuse to shoot someone or how they became a cop because they could not get into the military and really just wanted to learn to be a better killer you start to have a very different view of cops. Most of them are people who grew up too slowly and did not realize that all the action shows on TV were just revenge fantasies and not life goals. A whole lot of them have sadistic tendencies and/or a strong desire to assert dominance over everyone they can. Every cop I've ever asked has a "funny" story about how they broke the law and did things normal people can't because they can get away with it. Most cops abuse their power.
You say that most cops just want to do a good job, but in the opinions of many of the cops I've talked to "doing a good job" might mean driving those "niggers" out of town or making sure those weird guys are properly frightened so they know it is not alright to be different from the NASCAR watching majority.
I get along just fine with cops for the most part. I never get tickets and know enough about martial arts and guns and have enough good stories about the military and crimes so that they generally consider me one of the "good guys." I'm also something of a social chameleon and am almost universally accepted in any clique. I don't, however, have an illusions about the fact that for the most part cops are bigger criminals than the average person, they abuse their authority, and they are violent and prone to use violence unnecessarily. They also always want to be in control and are more likely to respond with violence or by arresting someone with no legal justification than they are willing to cede that control. For example, from stories I've heard from cops, most are likely to arrest anyone who points out that they are wrong and that the act they are claiming is illegal (like photographing them) is legal. It is a challenge to them and the fact that what they are doing is illegal is only a technicality to them. Most cops feel anyone doing anything that is not what they direct is in the wrong, because most don't ever admit that they could be wrong.
I find your view of the police to be very naive.
Two or more forces at work (Score:5, Informative)
Then there's the whole widespread phone tapping craze. This is something that could not have been done fifty years ago. Sure, US government resources were spent monitoring regular citizens, but it happened on a case-by-case basis, not wholesale.
We most likely do not live in an Orwellian society. But, y'know, I'd like to keep the government from obtaining the tools required for 1984 to come true. They are currently creating them in front of our very eyes. You may be a pollyanna, but there are some of us that are worried.
Honestly, we have the right to be worried. It's called "oversight of our government." As responsible citizens, it is our right and our duty to question everything the government does in our name.
Re:Wrong, Sir, wrong! (Score:1, Informative)
Even if he loses in the primary, he'll still win in the general election as an Independent.
What the hell? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Informative)
Just a snippet of advice: Stand up for yourself if some officer of the "Law" is harassing you. Do it in a respectful manner and respectfully tell them that they cannot legally arrest you for whatever it is they are trying to arrest you for illegally.
This is lousy advice. Telling a cop you know the law better than they do (whether you do or not) will not earn their respect. It will challenge their ego and most of them have some serious issues with control which is one of the reasons they become cops. Second, many are very juvenile in their view of right and wrong (based on action movies). They are good guy so in their mind they are always right. Standing up to them means you're one of the bad guys and as TV has shown us, it is ethically okay for the cops to do whatever it takes including breaking the law to take down the bad guys.
If you need to, resist arrest. They pretty much can't shoot you, they mostly won't taser you, and, if there are witnesses around, certainly won't beat your ass for refusing to allow them to clap you in irons and drag you off to some dungeon.
This is much, much worse advice than the previous. They certainly will beat your ass and taser you if you resist arrest and they are legally allowed to do so. They are also likely to "find" a bag of weed or crack on you as well.
What's a night in jail for standing up for your Rights? Martin Luther King, Jr. and Henry David Thoreau seemed to think that was a fine trade.
It is unlikely to be a night in jail. Most people who stand up to the cops end up with a bullet in their head, just like Dr. King. If you want to resist the police and stop this sort of behavior you damned well better be a lot smarter about it that this. The police have the authority and power. If you want to change things, use your brain, which is what most of them are lacking to some degree.
Re:I hope he has a good lawyer... (Score:4, Informative)
Driving while Black.
I worked as a database admin in a fairly well-to-do district. I and just about everybody else on our team never had any problems with cops there, but the operations manager would get pulled over on average about once every three months. As an amazing coincidence, he was also the only black guy on our team.
At least he never got arrested.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Informative)
That doesn't matter -- he was out of line, no matter how justified he believed his actions to be and he needs to be accountable for them. By your logic, very few crimes of passion would be punishable... unless you believe there's a different standard for members of law enforcement.
Ok. I load our criminal code onto our police department's cars, and they all have easy access to it. Now, I'm sure it's in the general orders manual that they should know/read and be famailiar with everything in the criminal code book. That's an ideal. Usually, they train to a given standard and for all types of crimes write up the report in a form manner. Patrol's charge's usually have to be revised by CID. CID usually determines if a crime actually fits what the state criminal charge is or revises the charges to the closest one that they can charge the suspect with. When I stated he most likely thought he was in the right, I'm saying that the cop most likely actually thought that what the guy was doing happened to be illegal and for CID to find the charge/a charge to make it stick. What most likely happened is CID looked through their Lexis Nexis criminal code and couldn't find any mention of public citizen's taking police officer's photos being against the law.
If the person was using the images to threaten undercover policemen, then it might have been, but just the act of taking photos shouldn't be. The person incharge of CID should have sent a memo/called the person in charge of Patrol and had him make and annoucement at all the shift's roll call that it wasn't illegal and not to do it again. Police aren't perfect. They revise their standards, and what their written policies are all the time.
The problem is that the public usually just sees the lowest level patrol person on the street. That person isn't responsible for changing policy or running things. Usually a Captain writes/changes policy so that's the level that you'd need to complain to. The individual patrol person should be just carrying out their general orders manual with some slack every now and then for the unexpected. Do you really want to know the number one thing that the general public complains to their local pd about? I'll let you in on it. Animal services is the number one section that recieves the most compliants, and citizens will not be happy with whatever the policies are. Take animal's to the animal shelter and the citizen isn't happy if their critter dies when it isn't picked up after 2 weeks. I've heard of an entire shift chasing down a stray animal that there was a complaint over when nothing else more important was going on.
You want to change your police department? Communicate with it. Find out who you need to talk to and phone them up about once a month or so. Make sure all your neighbors also know the individual to contact. You will be listened to, and the police in your neighborhood will change their policies when it is possible and within reason for them to do so.
I don't know if your police department offers this, but mine has these "close watches" and any citizen can request for the police to keep and extra eye on their property if they are going out of town for week or have seen strange people in the neighborhood. Both individuals and business owners request this from the police department. They send out a group e-mail for the close watches.
Right to Photographer vs Right to Publish (Score:2, Informative)
Here's an example from my days on my college newspaper as a photo editor. The student EMS had been informed that people treated by them were under patient confidentiality. They were also informed that, for the patient's privacy, they shouldn't enable someone to take pictures of said patient receiving treatment. That doesn't mean they can force someone to not take pictures, and if they state is illegal to take pictures they are just plain wrong. The injured is not the patient of the photographer, and therefore the photographer is not bound by patient confidentiality. If the event is in a public place, there's nothing the EMS can do except not let the photographer get close enough to interfere. Does this mean a reputable paper would run a shot of the patient's face without permission? Chances are it wouldn't.
Similarly, pictures of arrests are not illegal. Now running a picture of soemone getting arrested might open yourself up to legal repurcussions when the arrestee claims their reputation was damaged by said picture. That doesn't mean they photographer can be arrested on site. Chances are it's just another case of the police being poorly informed of where the boundaries lie.
How about innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3, Informative)
Or did you mean immediately after they've been given a fair trial, had the right to legal counsel, had the right to appeals, etc. and so forth?
I'm not saying this case is one in which there is a lot of doubt, but there are two sides to a lot of stories. Dismissing your police without appropriate compensation (just turfing them out) would (one would think) demand a high level of proof in a court of law to back it up. Just an accusation would hardly be sufficient. At least not if you happen to believe in due process. Administrative suspension, taking the officer off the street for a time while the issue is investigated... that I can believe. But firing them outright before they are brought before either a professional review board or a judge in court? Can't see that being viable.
On another point:
Last time I talked to a friend from Baltimore, he pointed out they rarely if ever reached their nominal police staffing levels because of the pay being not so good. This led to bleed off to other cities of all of the best cops. So, here we have the remainder of the cops being overworked, underpaid, and knowing that they're just not the top notch cops... they're what is left when those folks have went elsewhere. So, maybe if you want top notch cops, you want to make sure they have top notch training and very good salaries. Otherwise, you'll pretty much get what you (don't) pay for.
I've worked extensively with a national police agency and a number of smaller PDs as a civilian contractor doing computer related work. I've met a lot of officers. I have a lot of respect for the tough job they do, the crappy treatment they often get (dealing with obnoxious drunks is fun for most of us, I'm sure...) and I've seen what happens when things go badly (Mayerthorpe as one example).
But at the same time, I've had senior members of these forces point out that the basic personality type of criminals and of most police has many points of commonality. The points of difference are pretty critical, but it is important to consider the degree of similarity. Projection of authority, taking charge of a situation, meeting violence with violence, attitude with attitude, and being willing to push hard to get the job done... these can make a cop good at his job. But at the same time, they can mean that if you're John Q Public running across him, if you give him grief, you may find his response isn't very tolerant. But to a certain extent, the nature of the job (of beat cops especially) requires a certain mindset and emotional makeup. Most of us could not or would not do the job (most of us don't...).
So, I'm not suggesting bad cops get a bye or are let off. Yet at the same time, they too have to be given due process. That's called not compounding a wrong with another wrong or making a bad situation worse.
Oddly enough, no one wants to see truly bad cops busted and dismissed than the good ones who get a bad name as a result.
The reality is though that they are people doing a tough job, often with insufficient training or remuneration or numbers, and this tends to manifest itself in their attitude. You can attack that situation by blaming those involved but you could also look at the funding for training, for pay scales, and for manpower levels. Policing by the lowest bidder isn't uncommon (contract policing I believe they call it) and often times manpower levels are far below where they should be. Maybe if we dealt with some of these issues, we'd find cops a bit easier to deal with because they'd be a bit less tired, stressed, and pissed off.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Informative)
The rub is, that at this point in the development of our society, the minority has no realistic, effective way to counteract the power of the majority, so the majority will increasingly accumulate power, unfettered. This represents the first tipping point, which we have certainly passed.
However, as the majority accumulates power, the majority also decreases, as segments of the controlling majority fall into the minority, as groups of majority individuals feel the majority is "crossing the line". This represents the second tipping point, which if has not been passed, is certainly close to passing, and the number of people who feel the "majority government" is crossing the line is certainly increasing.
Unfortunately, at this point, if the new controlling minority (the previous majority) has accumulated significant resources to ensure their dominance over the new majority (which they most certainly have), then an increasingly controlling, dwindling minority of individuals will assert increasing amounts of control over an increasing majority. The fourth tipping point occurs when the sheer numbers of the majority can counteract the consolidated resources of the minority. This tipping point is almost certainly distant in the future if it happens, and the result is popular rebellion.
Although, with increases in technology, the number of individuals required to support a dwindling majority has become lower. The need for a large infantry (which requires some amount of popular support), and killing of dissenters - which drastically increases opposition to the minority (through the use of "nonlethal weapons" - imagine if every street riot in the past couple decades had involved mass slaughter of protesters rather than tear gas and rubber bullets), has been markedly reduced.
This, I think, is the major difference between now, and any other point in history. Uprisings can be quelled with nonlethal weapons. The most important aspect of nonlethal weapons is that they effectively control dissent with a minimal effect on the perception of suppression.
Re:Perhaps your own fault (Score:2, Informative)
Had they been answering about pot they would have came right in. Ever heard of probable cause? They had none nor did they have a mitigating reason to enter.
Further telling me it's my own fault is a total ass hat move and without coming across as an a-hole myself, I want think about what you said and when a loved one has something like this happens to them go tell them..... It's your own fault...
I wouldn't wish a beating like what I got on anyone, but buddy you are one fsked person if you think anyone deserves being beat down like that in handcuffs, while already in restrained.
I hope you re-post a rescind your statement, if not well you have just showed your own stupidity & true colors and are nothing but a troll, not worth my or anyone elses time.
Re:Perhaps your own fault (Score:2, Informative)
But hey, other people can learn from your mistake, so it's good that you told your story; thanks.
Re:my experience with the Police -Please Read (Score:1, Informative)