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.
The bottom line is this (Score:5, Insightful)
This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.
It's an action of a local municipal police department, period. These inappropriate actions have been executed by people in positions of authority since the beginning of time. The point is we heard about it, it got covered, and hopefully it will be corrected. And hopefully the police department will issue a directive to think twice before they harass and/or arrest other citizens who aren't doing anything wrong from exercising their own rights.
Re:Public place... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does anybody else... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, I do.
Helpless to stop the endless barrage of stories and claims that we're living in an Orwellian 1984 totalitarian police state, when in fact nothing substantial has really changed in 50 years (save the technology, which goes both ways: it gives authorities more systems to abuse, and it gives citizens more vehicles to document and comment, e.g., ubiquitous cell phone cameras and blogs where nearly everyone believes that we already like in a police state).
What *really* scares me is that people genuinely, legitimately believe this, and believe that police and government are out to get them, and that they're all corrupt and only looking for ways to extend their power or line their pockets.
Arrested != Convicted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy shit! I think we just found the world's only omniscient individual.
First of all, the future depicted in 1984 is fast approaching, or did you miss the fact that there's a lawsuit proceeding (besides the one just thrown out) against AT&T for allowing the feds to tap their communications? Sure, it's twenty years late, but he was remarkably aware of the date.
is because of the environment fostered by the PATRIOT act. In particular, law enforcement all over the country is utilizing the U SAP AT RIOT act to bypass process and protection. Did you really think that attitude wouldn't become essentially endemic of the freedom-less atmosphere engendered by that piece of trash legislation?
The corellary to "actions have consequences" is that they also have causes. This didn't just come out of nowhere. Everything that you can see is the result of pressure in other forces. Period. This works at all levels, in all systems; they're not all genetic, but ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. When you see light, that's the result of photons; those photons were in turn released when an electron's energy state was reduced; that in turn occurred because it was first increased. "Pressure" - or more to the point energy - makes things happen.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Insightful)
But, to answer your questions honestly:
No, I don't "see" 1984 coming. All I see is a government availing itself of everything possible technologically to do what it believes is the right thing, with technology enabling the kind of massive, omnibus monitoring. Can this be abused? Of that I have no doubt. Do I simultaneously believe that, *at present*, it was done with the sole goal of attempting to protect the US and its interests, economic and otherwise, from a terrorist attack (versus thinking that, for example, the US attacked itself on 9/11, in part as an excuse to have wars and monitor its citizenry)? Absolutely. Should it be watched? Again, absolutely: there was not appropriate oversight, in my view. But I do believe some things should remain classified, period; else, a system of classification has no meaning or purpose.
I do NOT believe anything related to PATRIOT, Bush, or the War on Terror has ANYTHING to do with any type of environment, conditions, or policies in a local police agency in the context of arresting someone for taking pictures with a camera phone. If YOU think that, I guess that is your right. However, I see zero connection, but have no problem believing that people who think we're either headed for a police state, or indeed are already there, see an intense connection between the highest levels of federal government and a local, individual police officer's actions.
Re:Does anybody else... (Score:2, Insightful)
As technological advances ramp up faster and faster, and this endless amount of information begins to become available to most any people (especially government), why is it alarmism to be worried? I was not stating we live in Orwell's world, or anywhere close to it...
If anything has become apparent in the last twenty years, its that change happens VERY fast now. People become more complacent every day, the government and its actions become more shrouded and from what it appears, less responsible. With most peoples understanding of the government and the world around them dictated but what is seen in the media, opinions stop becoming personal and appear to becoming part of the mass (ie: media).
I completely understand your distaste at many peoples "alarmist" attitude, but it is a much better attitude to have then that of complaceny. As this article really shows, you must not stand down when things of this nature happen to you, be it from a police officer or a corrupt politician. And to get back to my original point, as information and access to it becomes nearly infinite and instantaneous, so will the ability to alter it and present viewpoints favorable to a specific outcome. Everything happens so fast now adays, people cannot afford the time to stop and just take a look around...
It is not Orwell yet, and may not be ever, but it is beginning to lean in that direction rather then away from it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong, Sir, wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
I fully empathize with people from Kraplickistan living under a dictatorship. If you live in America however, you have no excuses if you chose not to participate.
Say you don't like the good folks at the White House; who's stopping you from writing to your Senator, going door-to-door to get the vote out, starting up a collection for your favorite party. Starting up your own damn party, if you don't like any existing one.
Yes, I understand it is hard work, and it is much easier to sit at home instead of trying to change the system, but at least folks like you should have the courtesy not to stop being a whiney little bitch!
Apathetic jerks like yourself make me sick to my stomach!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Good News: It's so bad it's a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Arrested is a penalty (Score:5, Insightful)
When a foreigner enters the US they don't ask if you've been convicted of a crime, they ask if you've "ever been arrested".
Also an arrest in many areas means you get fingerprinted and put in the databases. Plus in more and more places you have to give a DNA sample.
Re:That Montana law *is* scary! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you simply do not consent this isn't obstruction. If they acted improperly the evidence should be disallowed if it is actually found to be an illegal search. And they may be reprimanded for their behaviour.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:1, Insightful)
If this weren't so scary, I'd be laughing my ass off right now. Do you really see the government doing things to benefit the people?
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You guys dont get it (Score:1, Insightful)
I am better than the cop.
I pay the cop's salary.
I am MORE important than him.
He is my SERVANT (they write it one the car man fuck!!!)
He should HELP ME when I need him and stay out of my business the rest of the time.
I am a TAXPAYER DAMMIT. I can take all the pictures I want even if he's busting the kingpin of kings ESPECIALLY if he's doing on my street. And if he dies because i posted them on the web and some goons get his ass: GOOD, cause if there's one thing i hate it's a cop who thinks that I AM NOT HIS BOSS AND LORD AND MASTER.
Re:Arrested is a penalty (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything in your personal life shuts down for however long it takes to process you. Apart from the "one phone call," there's no way to let everyone who needs to know that you're alive and well instead of just missing. Dependents are a whole other issue in themselves. There could be everything from a pet that doesn't get fed to a grandmother who doesn't get reminded to take her pills to children who don't get picked up from school. The emotional stress your family goes through seeing you dragged off in handcuffs or simply not coming home when you should is really not measurable. And woe be to the single parent in this situation..
Aside from family obligations, there are the business ones. How important are you at your job? Are you the type of employee who can be covered for for a day or two? Will your employers react well to your excuse the next day? Never mind that if you're a sole proprietor of a struggling business, the whole thing could be pretty much destroyed by nobody opening the door for a day.
Basically, no matter how innocent you are, being arrested can screw with your life and any others involved in it on a major scale.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course this isn't new. We are at war. We have always been at war. Oil production is up 13% this year...
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because is is a cliche doesn't mean that it is an inaccurate or useless comparison.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's with the backslash lately? (Score:3, Insightful)
And just so you know, I'm here because comments to backslashes tend to be more interesting than the knee-jerk reactions from the previous day.
Re:Wrong, Sir, wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I don't mean that I'm convicted of a felony, or an illegal immigrant. I'm a natural-born US citizen with a clean record over the age of 18.
But I still don't have a vote.
Why?
The electoral college. I can vote if I want, but my vote doesn't count. The votes from the Electoral College do count. And you know what? They're under zero obligation to vote the way I voted, or the way I want them to vote -- even if my vote is in the majority. They can vote however they want. The entire electoral college was created specifically because the founders of this country assumed (rightly, in my opinion) that the average American is too stupid to have a say in politics.
It's people like you who say, "Go get the vote out!" that are incorrect. My vote is literally worthless, and yours too.
Re:Wrong, Sir, wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Two simple reasons why our government is no longer (if it ever was) for and by the people:
(1) Secrecy. When you can;t find out what your government is doing, how are you supposed to act against it in a legal manner?
(2) Money. Big money interests (both corporations and individuals) have an undue amount of influence in our political system.
I personally participate in the democratic in many ways, from voting to writing letters to calling my state legislators, to attending functions they'll be at in order to press my point(s). Nevertheless, the actions of the individual (even the actions of hundreds) are far from a panacea to our civic problems.
Government may have used to be the people. Not so any longer, and it's important to recognize that the bureaucratic government holds power that the electorate (us) can't counter. Career politicians, career bureacrats, government agencies whose very existence is secret, monies spent on secret budgets that no one is accountable for...
My tinfoil hat is on... because it's not paranoia if they ARE really monitoring your actions (I've been pulled out of line to be searched waiting to board a plane because my FBI file lists me as an agitator. Had to fly into SEA-TAC during the WTO meeting pre-9/11 for business.)
Re:Hang out on photo.net some time. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is really a problem in houston. The police union is fighting for the chiefs removal [click2houston.com]. While the officers may have some valid concerns, others feel that that the chiefs problems stem from him trying to clean up the force. Things that the police officers in the area do is use excessive force, hang in strip clubs during duty time, shoot suspects in the back, shoot neighbors, etc.
These are events in which officers have been tried, and either received a minimal sentence or cleared due to justifiable force. Certainly these are isolated incidents, and one has to have sympathy for the men and women who go through the stress of having thugs taunt them day in and day out. This does not mean that the common rules of civilization can be ignored. After all, if mere taunting and stress can justify excessive force, then the devout men who are daily taunted by the scantily clad women, could be argued as having some justification to take action.
I kind of feel like our problems stem from a lack of civility, and more importantly a feeling of invulnerability. For instance the US has apprehended, often without significant cause, countless individuals and then tortured a number of them. A rational person would expect some consequence for this behavior. None of use go out and kidnap a kid and think that there will be no consequences. Yet when an american is tortured, beheaded, or mutilated, we are surprised, and think that such actions are without motive. Police safety, much like the safety of troops, depends on them holding the high ground. If surrender guarantees a reasonable level of safety, if the police are merely enforcing the rule of law, then most will submit. If not, if a jail cell means having a broom stick shoved up your ass, then the rational person will choose to fight instead of submit. I mean if you are going to die anyway.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if all of that is true, I STILL don't deserve the kind of treatment that I've recieved from coward cops over the years.
Unless you have evidence or reason to believe that I am involved in some kind of illegal activity, don't bother me. That's not unreasonable, but it doesn't happen that way. I have been pulled over for DWB, several times. I have been stopped while walking down the sidewalk for no reason other than the police just wanted to know who I was. I have been threatened by the police, Sgt. CJ Hartman, formerly of the North Versailles PA Police Dept once said to me "I don't care if you've done anything or not, there's a book 'this thick' and I'll find something in it to nail you on."
So, don't demean my intelligence or belittle my experiences by blaming me for the misconduct of others.
But racism doesn't count when it's against white people, right?
Being that white people are the majority of the electorate, official conduct on the part of elected officials (police chiefs, city councilmen, etc) and their subordinates isn't racism when it's directed against white people.
It's abusive, it's corrupt, it's dishonerable but it's not racism.
LK
Max Headroom (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That Montana law *is* scary! (Score:3, Insightful)
Different example: what if a uniformed officer uses their uniform and position to rob your house under the guise of a search? Or what if the officer kicks your kid across the room because he claims that he's resisting the search? There is such a thing as blatent official misconduct and excessive use of force, and it's the citizens' responsibility to defend against it, in the worst cases by lethal force.
-b.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a fairly accurate description of 1984, though perhaps the justification is different.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes it is. As the post you replied to mentioned, you can't go to war against an idea, much less expect to win.
No they aren't. Criminals are real and soldiers are real, but there's no such thing as "terrorists." Everyone you call a "terrorist" is, in reality, either a civilian criminal or a soldier, as defined by the Geneva Convention.
This mentality and the belief in "terrorists" and a "war on terror" go hand-in-hand. They're all the result of cowardice and intolerance.
An strong argument for Brin's Transparent Society (Score:3, Insightful)
Several years ago in an excellent book "The Transparent Society:How Technology Will Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom [amazon.com], David Brin [davidbrin.com] argued convincingly, that "privacy is gone, get over it!", and that in trying to hang onto it, we put our freedom at risk. For we would put ourselves in the position that those in authority/power would be able to hide their actions and those of us who aren't would be on the short end of the stick.
In the society envisioned by Brin, this street would have been covered by cameras, the homeowners would be able to dump their feeds into the grid for observation by others, and all of the officers and their vehicles would have cameras. And all of us would be free to examine the feed in real-time or pull materials out of the archive. In fact, the "surveillance" Brin envisions would provide the kind of check that articles such as this do.
I will be honest, I would be more than willing to live in Brin's world - with the checks it would give us on those in authority - and the privacy zones it would grant us (need to read the book to get the full details).
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:1, Insightful)
Why give police the benefit of the doubt? If they aren't good enough then get rid of them and find someone who is. Don't make excuses for bad cops, because they don't deserve it.
Wrong, Sir, Wrong! (No better than the other...) (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason the country's in the situation that is in this day and age is from talk like yours and people BELIEVING it, hook line and sinker.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Insightful)
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts." -- J. Michael Straczynski
Re:You guys dont get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it is just the *reporting* of these false arrests that are making more news. If that's the case, then it's a good thing. Maybe it's just because there are more people with cameraphones, security systems, and cameras.
But I'm not convinced. Things like arresting somebody for taking a picture of a power plant [google.com], etc., [photopermit.org] etc. [freedomtophotograph.com] were almost unheard of 5 years ago. Of course, we still have to contend with things like Air Marshals putting random photographers on "suspicious persons" lists [thedenverchannel.com] and the like. That sort of behavior is not at the local level, and it can be attributed to post-9/11 mindset/laws. This is where I think the connection lies. Local law enforcers see their federal counterparts engaging this activity, and they think they can do it, too. It may be a tenuous connection, but it certainly warrants further evaluation.
So long as the press keeps doing its job and reports incidents like this, I don't see us approaching any type of police state. But we photographers must stand up for our rights [krages.com]!
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Insightful)
Just one problem: that policeman isn't accountable to the public.
He's accountable to his boss, who is in turn accountable to his boss, so on and so forth. Eventually, one of those bosses is an elected public official.
That official is one of the only people who matters. If (s)he feels no pressure to fire or discipline the policeman, then... maybe someone lower down the food chain will feel the need to maintain good community relations?
The police men and women on the street every day are not accountable to you, unless you sue them in civil court.
Re:Wrong, Sir, wrong! (Score:1, Insightful)
In the last 2 elections, exit polls indicated that the Democratic candidate won. Exit polls are extremely reliable, and in third world countries are used as a guide to how fair the election was. They work in the industrialized world as well - in every country except the USA. Huh, I guess the laws of statistics are just different around here?
Or perhaps not. If a full recount had happened in either Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004, the Democratic candidate would have won. If the Republicans had not broken the law and eliminated tens of thousands of blacks from the vote before it happened, the Democratic candidate would have won. If machines were not set up to break down preferentially in certain areas, the Democratic candidate would have won. (Nationwide something like a million votes were spoiled, from demographics about half the spoiled ballots were cast by blacks, and about 90% of blacks vote Democrat. Coincidence?)
We're not in an openly fascist state. Yet. But wake up and smell the coffee. It is a lot farther from a democracy than you think.
For more on this, I'd strongly suggest reading Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse. It is a collection of stories as they were reported by the BBC that either were not, or (occasionally) were not until much later, reported in the USA. Warning: if you think Fox News is "fair and balanced", you may be in for a shock.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you're running to catch a tube train in London, of course.
Re:Public place... (Score:3, Insightful)
we do need to cut people some slack when it comes to things like this.
What kind of slack did the officer give the kid?
FalconRe:Wrong, Sir, wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
Governments are more often the cause of economic disaster than the salvation of it. The Fed caused the Great Depression by deflating the currency.
The role of government in the marketplace is to prevent violence. Whenever you go beyond that, politicians have something to sell, and sell it they will.