It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

LAPD Unlawfully Detains Photographer

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Although old, but sure enough its far from entertaining. I guess he should have his lawyer's number on speed dial. Take note of the dialogue between the cam shooter and the officer.





posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Well if the cop says no as a citizen then I agree with him.
If I was in his shoes I would have asked for no pics of me either so I agree with the cop.
The kid was being a jerk in my opinion and the cop was as well at certain moments.

I did find it interesting that as a citizen you might have the right not to have your picture taken(not sure of the laws) yet they have cameras watching the citizens on a daily basis.

If its true that as citizens we have that right then why is there cameras watching people against thier will??

I side with the cop on this one because I had an incident a while back where I asked for no pics to be taken of me and when I turned my back I saw the camera flash....I was absolutely livid.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
who pay for cop's? you , me and any other taxpayer. i think that gives us right to film them first and foremost. and then theres the argument that if you can film me with your cctv why cant i film you. if you work for the people and do it properly you shouldnt mind being filmed. weve all seen what cop's can do when they think they can get away with it (not all cops by the way just most the ones i seem to meet) sometimes a camra can be security.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I don't know the specifics of the law on this........but it would seem to me that as a "Public Servant" the officer has no right to say the public cannot photograph him.....while on duty.

As a citizen, OFF duty, probably so. He should be able to stop the photographing of the suspect being stopped in the car, but not himself while ON duty.

If you notice, the other officer stayed out of it, maybe because he was lower in rank, but most likely because he knew the cop causing the confrontation was wrong.

There's also the language used toward the photographer. Not proffessional or legal.

As I said, I don't know the specifics of the law on this, but I do know that they differ depending on whether or not you're a citizen or a public servant. For example, an on duty police officer is not allowed to carry his weapon concealed, whereas a citizen with a CC permit can. At least that's accurate in the state of N.C.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Tunatarian
 


Correct about the concealed weapon, but then again, many officers do carry for various reasons. As for the verbal abuse, that too can be submitted and used against the officer. All i seen, is that an officer had a bad day and sadly he took it out on this particular person.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
The officer (or any other citizen) has no expectation of privacy when in a public space. Although the LEO may have cause for detainment due to the photog's failure to follow directions.

See here for the "Photographer's Bill of Rights". I carry a copy of the PDF from that site with me when out shooting.

---------------------------
... [t]here are not very many legal restrictions on what can be photographed when in public view. Most attempts at restricting photography are done by lower-level security and law enforcement officials acting way beyond their authority. Note that neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act have any provisions that restrict photography. Similarly, some businesses have a history of abusing the rights of photographers under the guise of protecting their trade secrets. These claims are almost always meritless because entities are required to keep trade secrets from public view if they want to protect them.
----------------------------

----------------------------
Basically,anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, rest-rooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.
----------------------------



[Edit on 3-6-2010 by Tripnman] - to add quotes


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Tripnman]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by danielhanson420
 


star for u valid point.

May I add that Leos have u on there dashcams and a certain Leo in ATS posted a tread a few months ago about a button cam that Leos will be wearing in the future. Turnabout is fair play. These days the Leos use videos in court room and secret symbols on the back of the tickets they issue that only the judge can view that we citizens need all the help we can get. I recommend that u film the Leos and this kids lawyer better do his job otherwise who will protect our freedom? Cases like this needs to be worked out in the court otherwise we will loose more of them by default. A pity only when someone is arrested is there a chance to challenge these issue in a court of law.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Well sometimes it is legal to film them sometimes it is not. If the cops were called on a photographer for whatever reason the police officer can ask him to put the camera away. If you are harassing the police they can then at that point adress you and ask you to put the camera away because it could be used as a weapon. Much like you have the right to play baseball and carry a bat if you are being adressed by the police they can ask you to put it away.
I do not really like the videos of the police because they always seem somewhat aimed at provoking the cops. Personally i think people have the right to video tape what they want but if someone was following me taking pictures of me i would not really care for it.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tripnman
The officer (or any other citizen) has no expectation of privacy when in a public space. Although the LEO may have cause for detainment due to the photog's failure to follow directions.

See here for the "Photographer's Bill of Rights". I carry a copy of the PDF from that site with me when out shooting.

---------------------------
... [t]here are not very many legal restrictions on what can be photographed when in public view. Most attempts at restricting photography are done by lower-level security and law enforcement officials acting way beyond their authority. Note that neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act have any provisions that restrict photography. Similarly, some businesses have a history of abusing the rights of photographers under the guise of protecting their trade secrets. These claims are almost always meritless because entities are required to keep trade secrets from public view if they want to protect them.
----------------------------

----------------------------
Basically,anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, rest-rooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.
----------------------------



[Edit on 3-6-2010 by Tripnman] - to add quotes


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Tripnman]



The ONLY legal ' directions ' a cop can give us must pertain to one of only two things: SAFETY.....or CUSTODY.

Any other ' directions ' are invalid . A cop cannot include your photographing him as a reason to claim any interference whatsoever. He COOSES to stop doing his duty and instead spend his time bothering you for filming him. It is his choice, and that means that you cannot be said to be interfering. He could have chosen instead to IGNORE the photographer and attend to the matters at hand.

Any time a cop chooses to ignore his duties and divert his attention from it to harrass a legal citizen filming, it is HE who interfered !! The cop has a choice, and should be held responsible for it. Demanding an end to filming is because cop want to be able to lie, intimidate, harrass, cajole, and worse..and they do not want us to witness it!!

There is NO good reason why ALL cops should not be required to carry full time audio-video on their persons so there word is not required....God knows it is worthless. Cops want to record US all the time, yet want us to not be able to record them!! They want to be a privelegd group...awful.

These ridiculous state laws that forbid filming cop should be taken to the Supreme court and thrown out. In PUBLIC the cops have NO expectations of privacy...and are fair game for anyo9ne with a camera. That is the oNLY way we will be able to document the sickening cases after case after case of brutality and criminal conduct by cops against the people.

Of course cops hate being recorded,....it is like light to a cockroach..they flee and hate it because it exposes their ugly, nasty, creepy reality for all to see.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 




There is NO good reason why ALL cops should not be required to carry full time audio-video on their persons so there word is not required....God knows it is worthless.


They just might start.
abclocal.go.com.../local/south_bay&id=7177894

But i can already see in the future the threads about how people getting video tapped by cops is somehow a violation of their rights.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
The ONLY legal ' directions ' a cop can give us must pertain to one of only two things: SAFETY.....or CUSTODY.


Don't get me wrong - I agree with your sentiment. In my opinion, the LEO was not acting appropriately or within his authority to detain the photog for his failure to respond to the unlawful command. As I once read - "I've never seen a situation so bad that the arrival of the police can't make it worse."


That said, keep this article in mind. In several states they are using existing wiretapping and "two party consent" laws to disallow surreptitiously recording an on-duty LEO.

From Gizmodo:


The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Tripnman]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Someone in one of those ignorant and lawbreaking states should take it FEDERAL...to a Fed court and sue em!!

I guarantee you that as soon as a Federal judge gets ahold of this, it will be decided fast: Cops have NO privacy expectations while doing their job in PUBLIC. Illinois's law will be overturned on appeal. If cops can record and film US, then we can do the same to THEM.

Illinois politicians must be real cop cultists....to pass a law that places Cops of all people in a special class with special rights is sickening. As soon as the first person charged under this ' law' appeals it to a Fed court it will be GONE where it belongs...in the dustbin of legal history.

Making it illegal to film cop leads to the kinds of abuses, MURDER, beatings, etc. that Chicago cops are legendary for....cops WANT to be anaymous so they can abuse the people at will. To cover up cop crime is a sign of a sick society, and Illinois is a sick place indeed.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tripnman
The officer (or any other citizen) has no expectation of privacy when in a public space. Although the LEO may have cause for detainment due to the photog's failure to follow directions.

See here for the "Photographer's Bill of Rights". I carry a copy of the PDF from that site with me when out shooting.

---------------------------
... [t]here are not very many legal restrictions on what can be photographed when in public view. Most attempts at restricting photography are done by lower-level security and law enforcement officials acting way beyond their authority. Note that neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act have any provisions that restrict photography. Similarly, some businesses have a history of abusing the rights of photographers under the guise of protecting their trade secrets. These claims are almost always meritless because entities are required to keep trade secrets from public view if they want to protect them.
----------------------------

----------------------------
Basically,anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, rest-rooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.
----------------------------



[Edit on 3-6-2010 by Tripnman] - to add quotes


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Tripnman]


Failure to follow directions is a bogus charge that would never stick. Cops can only give two (2) kinds of orders legally:

1. Safety. A cop can tell you to stop or go or go around something for traffic reasons or route the public in ways that insure safety.

2. Custody. A cop can order you to stop, spread, submit to cuffs and detention. While in custody you are bound to follow his orders as to movement, etc.

NOTHING ELSE is a legal order. A cop could tell you to shine his shoes, but it is not a legal order. A cop can tell you to empty your pockets prior to arrest but it is not a legal order, and you could ignore it. A cop can say LOTS of things, and do so with an authoritative manner so that you THINK you really have no choice...thats what the cop wants you to think, as it gives him what he wants: You stripped of all your Constitutional protections and vulnerable to anything the cop has in mind.

A cop cannot legally tell a photogrpaher to stop filming just because he doesn't like it, and then charge the photographer with ' failure to follow a lawful order' if he doesn't stop. the order is NOT legal in the first place!!

Cops cannot get away with charging you with not following an illegal order...it would be thrown out. Unless the order pertained to safety or custody then it is not an order, but a BLUFF.

Cops are vermin and will undermine and twist the meaning and intent of any law to suit their purposes no matter how much it hurts the whole system...next time a cop gives you an ' order' that is not about safety or custody tell him to forget about it....we are not their minions, no matter how much they would like it to be that way.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
This happened to me in Atlanta a few years back. Sitting on the lawn of the High Museum with a friend from England, and a high-speed chase with LE from two districts ended in front of us. We took a few pics and got yelled at and threatened with arrest. We didn't engage the cops though...we just stopped, but boy were they touchy about it.

What bothered me more in this video was that at least two or three times, this cop mentioned his military service in the desert as if that excuses everything. This goes to my new theory on jumpy cops, which I've been formulating for some time now as a possible explanation for the rising incidents between the police and people or animals. I posted in another thread (this one) this morning.



I'm probably going to be crucified for saying this, but a lot of the newer police officers are fresh out of the military with 2-3 tours in Iraq. Maybe they got used to treating people like this over there and have a few issues left over. And maybe the departments need to think about that long and hard before they hire them and give them some additional training. Seems to me I read where they might be getting less training because they come ready and able to use guns and other weapons. Well, this is a whole different job and mission, the sooner the shrinks and people doing the hiring realize this, the sooner we can fix it. The poor Iraqis may not have had much of a say, but we do. We're not going to stand for this kind of behaviour here.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Well here is some sound advice to keep you out of trouble with the law.
1. Obey the law
2. Do not go around and antagonize cops just because you are "within" your rights.
Just because you have the right to do something does not mean you should. For example your neighbor has the right to start a compost heap in his backyard where the smell just might happen to drift over to your house. Your neightbor would also have the right to park his cars all in front of your house if it is a public street. He also has the right to set up a gopher breeding ground in his yard so they in turn destroy yours. Your neighbor also has the right to purchase cute little puppies and kittens and feed them to his snake in the front yard in front of your children.
Just keep in mind what your rights are and what being a big jerk is. I have had numerous run-ins with cops and even had my rear saved by them, they are people just like you and I. Keep in mind that if the cops are called on you the way you deal with them will heavily influence what you are charged with. You just being a general jerk will only get you little extra charges tacked on, your yelling will become disturbing the peace and you can just expect a resisting arrest charge.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Cops can give you orders such as "move along" and if you dont obey they can arrest you. Also they have such things as "resisting without violence" and "contempt of cop" which are "bust all" charges that they can pin on anyone at any time. Photographers get this all the time.

[Edit to add] Zaiger, it's not only a right of citizens, it's their duty to keep an eye on the cops. There's nothing being a jerk about it.
[Edit to add again] Zaiger and the idea that a camera can be used as a weapon is the most idiotic one ever. Sure it can but so can pretty much everything in the world when you think like that.


[edit on 21/6/2010 by PsykoOps]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


contempt of cop is not a real charge...



Zaiger, it's not only a right of citizens, it's their duty to keep an eye on the cops. There's nothing being a jerk about it.


All i know if someone was following me around with a camera and would not leave me alone it would only be a matter of time before they were begging for the cops. Filming people without their permission may be legal it is rude and will not help you at all. Just keep in mind that if you do things like this you are really just antagonizing the cops to play a game you will lose.



Zaiger and the idea that a camera can be used as a weapon is the most idiotic one ever. Sure it can but so can pretty much everything in the world when you think like that.


Which is why when you are addressing the cops they will normally ask you to put down or away anything you have in your hand. Not only that but if they have to detain you for whatever reason they do not want to deal with the paper work they will have to fill out when you say that the cops broke your camera despite being asked to put it away.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
How is it that they throw in the contempt of cop charge around all the time? If you're a cop and have a problem with cameras following you then you're doing the wrong job or you're about to commit a crime. Filming people on public is not only legal, it's a right. Just as there is a right for free speech and right to bear arms. Also those who excersise this right dont lose that easily. They know their rights and stick with them. They will get those fake charges dismissed and then a nice settlement courtesy of the tax payers. Also if cops ask you put down your camera for the only reason that you are filming them then it's an unlawfull order.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 




How is it that they throw in the contempt of cop charge around all the time?


They don't... I take it you are getting your information for a very biased source. There are contempt of cop charges but those are other charges sometimes refered to (as slang) as contempt of cop. Contempt of cop charges are obstruction, resisting arrest and misdemeanor assault. Nobody is charged with "contempt of cop". It is a play on words that comes from a real charge of Contempt of court.



If you're a cop and have a problem with cameras following you then you're doing the wrong job or you're about to commit a crime.


That is a fallacious argument. Just because a cop does not like being filmed does not mean he is doing the wrong job or is about to commit a crime.



Filming people on public is not only legal, it's a right. Just as there is a right for free speech and right to bear arms.


Not really. The constitution does say we have the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms there are limits on those rights. Taking a couple photographs in a public place is fine but taking closeups of people despite their objections are grounds for a disorderly conduct charge.



They will get those fake charges dismissed and then a nice settlement courtesy of the tax payers.


So now you are going to boast about how taxpayers have to pay for people who intentionally try to get arrested and get settlements? Maybe they should just go on welfare, they would not have to bother the cops distracting them from their day to day duties and my tax dollars would not go towards their settelments (which they would not get) or paying for their legpublic defender.



Also if cops ask you put down your camera for the only reason that you are filming them then it's an unlawfull order.


Not everything that a cop says is an order, they are people and like everyone else they can make requests.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I tend to agree with Zaiger for the most part on this situation. While I am not in agreement that there are limits to any right, as rights are rights, and if they are rights then they are inalienable. Further, a right need not be enumerated in the Bill of Rights or any state constitution in order for it to be a right, and this is the express purpose of the 9th Amendment. That said, the California Constitution does most certainly enumerate a right to privacy:


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


California Constitution Declaration of Rights Article I, Section 1

That police officer asserted his right to privacy, and it was blatantly ignored by the photographer. Further, when the photographer asked if he had the right to photograph in public, the police officer affirmed this right and made clear that the issue was not him photographing in public, the issue was he was photographing the police officer against his express wishes not to be photographed. Even further, while the officer did rant a bit about non relevant issues such as his service in the military, he was fairly respectful to the photographer, and did not himself violate any laws.

I am no fan of rogue police officers and will take them to task both here in this site, and on the streets of L.A. if I am confronted with a rogue police officer, but this officer was not a rogue officer, and in no way violated that photographers rights. To make an issue out of this video only undermines the real problem there are with rogue police officers who do violate rights.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join