LAPD Unlawfully Detains Photographer

I'm working on my son-in- law's pc. He's 20 year veteran with LAPD CRASH & SWAT. I'll try and get the straight skinny from him. He's a good and honest oficer, but I would not want to meet him on his own terms!!! I know the gangs he had dealings with wanted absolutely nothing to do with him.

Here with LAPD, the objections to their officer's being photographs may go back to the out of context video of "Can't we all just get along" Rodney King. Doesn't mean they're right, but they have the power if they want to use it.

I'll let you know what he has to say.

So why are the cops allowed to cover their badge number? I don't get this. They have a badge # so that we can protect ourselves and report them. If this cop didn't think he was being video taped, he would have never given the kid his badge #. "HERE"S MY BADGE NUMBER RIGHT HERE" as he points at a blacked out area on his badge. What a sack of vomit.

Police are public servants while on duty and are not entitled to privacy.

I'd move down the street, connect a telephoto zoom lens, and continue taking pictures.

This video is disgusting.

reply to post by The Theorist


Public servants do not forgo their inalienable rights in order to be a public servant. Inalienable means non transferable, and all people have them. The right to privacy as an individual is a right regardless of their position. While the actions of this police officer are subject to public record, this does not mean he must acquiesce to any photographer who comes along. There is a protocol as to what is public record, and unless you can show that this photographer was acting under such protocol, to dismiss this police officers inalienable right to privacy simply because he is a public servant, is nothing more than your opinion.

Old joke some of us old time photographers know is to carry a lens cover for our camera.
what people don't know is we have drilled a tiny hole in the lens cover so that we can still film.

Then if a cop or anyone else tells us we can not film we pop the lens cover on and tell them OK while still filming.

Now I would gladly post the video of someone telling me i cannot film on you tube just to get even.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by ANNED]

Originally posted by Oldnslo
I'm working on my son-in- law's pc. He's 20 year veteran with LAPD CRASH & SWAT.

I do not mean to speak ill of anyone's character but you do know that LAPD's CRASH unit was shut down for being (arguably) the most corrupt bunch of cops in the history of california. To this day they are still investigating unsolved rape,murder and robbery crimes linked to them.

Originally posted by zaiger
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.

Yeah seems that you're right about this. I've seen it on several cases but can't find any official source for it. Also there are such charges as "disorderly conduct" etc. which fall into the same "bust all" category.

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.

They have every right not to like it but they don't have any right or authority to deny it.

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.

Just as does filming. It has it's limits and filming cops on public is well within those limits. It's not grounds for any charge of such kind.

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.

You cannot intentionally get arrested for filming cops. It's not a crime. You're trying to make it the photographers fault when it's infact the cops fault all the way. I'd like nothing more than to see these settlements be taken from the cops instead.

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.

Yet if you don't obey that 'request' you'll get charged with disobeying a lawfull order...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Public servants do not forgo their inalienable rights in order to be a public servant. Inalienable means non transferable, and all people have them. The right to privacy as an individual is a right regardless of their position. While the actions of this police officer are subject to public record, this does not mean he must acquiesce to any photographer who comes along. There is a protocol as to what is public record, and unless you can show that this photographer was acting under such protocol, to dismiss this police officers inalienable right to privacy simply because he is a public servant, is nothing more than your opinion.

Except that he doesn't have any right to privacy on public. Nor do you or anyone else.

[edit on 22/6/2010 by PsykoOps]

reply to post by PsykoOps

They have every right not to like it but they don't have any right or authority to deny it.

They have just as much right to deny it as the next man, the police just have the power to arrest you should you antagonize them.

Just as does filming. It has it's limits and filming cops on public is well within those limits. It's not grounds for any charge of such kind.
You cannot intentionally get arrested for filming cops. It's not a crime. You're trying to make it the photographers fault when it's infact the cops fault all the way. I'd like nothing more than to see these settlements be taken from the cops instead.

We have been over this. Filming cops is perfectly legal, however if you do it against their wishes you are being a jerk and the cops will arrest you for whatever they want. The fact is just tailing cops with a camera is an attempt to antagonize them nothing more. Being loud annoying and rude while taking photographs of people against their wishes is disorderly conduct and not a false "bust all" charge. The cops are people and have rights too, photographers have the right to take pictures but when you start to photograph people against their wishes that is harassment and you do not have the right to do that.

Yet if you don't obey that 'request' you'll get charged with disobeying a lawfull order...

I think this is the real problem, i think you are affraid of police enforcing laws on you that do not exist and a bad understanding of what real laws are. Contempt of cop and disobeying a lawful order...
I highly suggest you read up on the law from a real source and not whatever you are currently getting your info from. It is really hard to see your point of view when you keep throwing things in that are made up by you or someone else, it just adds confusion. So take the time to read up on actual law or i will charge you with spreading retardation in the third degree. Since the law is so heavily influenced by our rights i have no idea how you can have a good conceptual undeerstanding of your rights when you clearly show a child's level of understanding the law and rights.

Except that he doesn't have any right to privacy on public. Nor do you or anyone else.

No we do not have the right to privacy in public but we do have the right to walk the streets while not being harassed by people with cameras that wish to film us against our wishes.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by zaiger]

reply to post by PsykoOps

Except that he doesn't have any right to privacy on public. Nor do you or anyone else.

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, rights are inalienable, and not something that are granted by another person, and certainly not you! You have not granted me my right to privacy anymore than I have I granted you your right to freedom of expression, or the press, and herein lies the conflict. You may think you have a right to take a picture of me without my permission, but if I have asserted my right to privacy, then this is my right to do so. Where I have offered up the law to support my argument, you merely assert your opinion. In a court of law, if you are to win such an argument, you will have to do much better than that.

The matter is generally a privacy tort, and while there may seem to be "gray areas" regarding privacy laws, for those who have intruded on the right to privacy of another, and those who have been intruded upon, when it comes to the right of freedom of press versus right to privacy, the matter is far from settled. If a "journalist" intrudes upon the right to privacy of another, and causes monetary or emotional pain, that "journalist" could very well be facing the liability of damages in a court of law.

Each state has its own privacy laws, and while privacy laws continue to evolve due to emerging technologies, and even the evolution of what constitutes a "journalist", many legal questions remain unsettled, which is to say that any clown with a camera cannot just rely on "public places" as some catch all immunity from damages.

If the right of the public's need to know is not carefully balanced with a persons right to privacy, the photographer could very well find themselves facing liability for a civil tort case. Further, in the instance of the police officer who asserted his right to privacy, this is unquestionable, but the right of the public's need to know is questionable as the O.P.'s video of that police officer reveals nothing more than a police officer going about the process of his job and stopped long enough to assert his right to privacy, and further explained why; "You are making me nervous".

Since this claim of being made nervous was caught on tape, the police officer has evidence to support any claims of obstruction of justice, as the public also has a right to expect that a police officer can fulfill his duties without being made unduly nervous by an intruder. Since each state varies in its privacy laws it is incumbent upon the photographer to know the laws in the jurisdiction they are photographing. As I stated, I have shown where the police officer can assert a right to privacy that is expressly protected by state constitution. While the freedom of the press is also protected, it is not without immunity, as the police officers right to privacy is not with out immunity either.

The courts have recognized four major aspects of privacy law, which are here listed in no particular hierarchical order; 1) misappropriation of a persons name or likeness, 2) unreasonably placing a person in a false light before the public, 3) unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion, and finally, 4) unreasonable revelation of private facts.

My argument, which was that the police officer in no way violated that photographer's rights by asserting his own right to privacy stands. Further, if you personally photograph me in a public setting against my wishes, and given that I have not in any way waived any right to privacy, I think I will rely upon the law in this matter, rather than your smug dismissal of a persons right to privacy, and would have no problems pursuing a civil tort and highly doubt you could prove to a jury that your smug dismissal of my right to privacy was trumped by your right to the freedom of press, or expression. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once put it, and aptly so:

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But the laws are quite clear: ANYONE in public, on public land, sidewalk or streets, may be photographed without their consent. What you can not do is use those images commercially without a release. It's not a right of privacy issue, because you have no privacy when you're in public... It's a right of publicity issue.

"We think that, in addition to and independent of that right of privacy ... a man has a right in the publicity value of his photograph, i.e., the right to grant the exclusive privilege of publishing his picture ... For it is common knowledge that many prominent persons ... far from having their feelings bruised through public exposure of their likenesses, would feel sorely deprived if they no longer received money for authorizing advertisements."
— Judge Jerome Frank, Haelen v Topps, 1953

[The unauthorized publication of a photo of a non-celebrity is] "the price every person must be prepared to pay for a society in which information and opinion flow freely."
— Arrington v New York Times, 1982

"A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
— New York Civil Rights Law Section 50.
[New York law] "consists of only two elements: the commercial use of a person's name or photograph and the failure to procure the person's written consent for such use."
— Shamsky v. Garan, 1995.
Section 51 provides for injunction and exemplary damages "if the defendant ... knowingly used" the identity. However, there is no statute in New York that covers publicity after death.

"Use of Another's Name, Voice, Signature, Photograph, or Likeness in Advertising or Soliciting Without Prior Consent."
"Any person who knowingly uses another's ... photograph [such that the person is readily identifiable] ... in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof."
— California Civil Code 3344 (a).

etc..

from www.photosecrets.com...

Even someone as thick headed as Alex Jones knows that you can be a jerk and within your rights.

“I want to say, on the record, it takes two to tango. I could have handled it better.”-Alex Jones After being unjustly arrested
www.canada.com...

reply to post by JoshNorton


This is why it is a gray area. Well yes it is legal to take pictures of a city street or mall, following someone and taking pictures of them against their wishes is Harassment which nobody has the right to do. Thus there is a big difference between taking pictures in a public place and harassing one individual.

646.9. (a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly
follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who
makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in
reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her
immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a
fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that
fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

g) For the purposes of this section, "credible threat" means a
verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of
an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern
of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically
communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent to place
the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for
his or her safety or the safety of his or her family, and made with
the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the
person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or
her safety or the safety of his or her family. It is not necessary to
prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the
threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall
not be a bar to prosecution under this section. Constitutionally
protected activity is not included within the meaning of "credible
threat."
(h) For purposes of this section, the term "electronic
communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones,
cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers.
"Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined
in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States
Code.

edit to change it to california law

[edit on 22-6-2010 by zaiger]

Originally posted by zaiger

Originally posted by Oldnslo
I'm working on my son-in- law's pc. He's 20 year veteran with LAPD CRASH & SWAT.

I do not mean to speak ill of anyone's character but you do know that LAPD's CRASH unit was shut down for being (arguably) the most corrupt bunch of cops in the history of california. To this day they are still investigating unsolved rape,murder and robbery crimes linked to them.

Yes. and he was proven innocent of all charges.

Nuff said?

reply to post by JoshNorton


The law is not as you have presented it, and while you have offered up California Civil Code 3344 (a), you have failed to provide California Civil Code 1708.8:

(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used.

Further, the case law you provided and even a section of another civil code all pertain to New York law. I have all ready made clear the law varies from state to state, and this police officer was in Los Angeles. The last time I checked, Los Angeles is still in California and not subject to New York law. As far as California case law goes, there may seem to be some confusion on the matter given Deteresa v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc, 121 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 1997), and Shulman v. Group W Productions, 955 P.2d 469 (Cal. 1998), but where Deteresa rules that the press had a right due to clear public view, Shulman ruled that accident victims had a right to privacy and expectation of that regardless of its public nature. I would suggest that this police officers right falls more in the Shulman area than the Deteresa area.

Hardly clear cut as many are attempting to frame it, and again, for the third time, my argument stands; the police officer did not in anyway violate that photographer's rights.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by The Theorist

 

Public servants do not forgo their inalienable rights in order to be a public servant. Inalienable means non transferable, and all people have them. The right to privacy as an individual is a right regardless of their position. While the actions of this police officer are subject to public record, this does not mean he must acquiesce to any photographer who comes along. There is a protocol as to what is public record, and unless you can show that this photographer was acting under such protocol, to dismiss this police officers inalienable right to privacy simply because he is a public servant, is nothing more than your opinion.

Actually this is not exactly true. When a person becomes a civil servant, at least in Canada, they do give up certain rights voluntarily as part of their job.
The policeman is not on the same level as the citizen. By accepting the responsibilities of that post, the policeman is held to a different standard.

So they cannot in effect invoke the same citizen rights while invoking police rights as well. I have had this conversation with MANY police here in Canada and they have in every case agreed that we have the right to film the police.

By the logic posted above, the physician examining your wife also have the same right to ask her out on a date as any other person, which simply isn't the case.

..Ex

reply to post by v3_exceed


Well in canada the laws are different because Her Majesty's Government is still a constitutional monarchy. Here in the US it can be legal for a doctor to ask a patient out on a date, however there is a medical board that can pull the doctor's licence for a breach of ethics. Just like our lawyers can make an unethical decision and not go to jail they could still pull his licence to practice.
But i also believe that the the human rights code in quebec guarantees an individual the right to control of his own image.


[edit on 22-6-2010 by zaiger]

reply to post by v3_exceed


Again, and I will keep stressing this until it is understood, inalienable rights, by definition, mean rights that have not been conferred by another. Any person is capable of waiving their rights at any time, but this does not mean they have surrendered them, and can assert them when necessary.

I know very little about Canadian law, and know not whether Canada acknowledges inalienable rights, but even if they don't this does not diminish the very real existence of them. Whatever the Canadian law say's about the matter, it is arguable that inalienable rights remain a valid legal claim. Whether that validity is acknowledged by Canadian statutes or courts, I cannot speak intelligently to, but I can certainly speak intelligently to California law, and I believe I have. Your pretzel logic you offered regarding physicians is moot.

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

Well in canada the laws are different because Her Majesty's Government is still a constitutional monarchy. Here in the US it can be legal for a doctor to ask a patient out on a date, however there is a medical board that can pull the doctor's licence for a breech of ethics. Just like our lawyers can make an unethical decision and not go to jail they could still pull his licence to practice.

What i was trying to get at was "Public record". Everything a police man does during the course of his day, is a matter of public record when he files his reports and his daily's. Because everything he does is a matter of public record recording him does not fall out side of his expected daily duties.

Every time that police man passes an ATM machine he is being recorded without his consent. Rest assured that the supreme court will eventually rule on this, and I suspect it will not be in favor of police privacy. Police privacy only serves to undermine confidence in the police services. Real police, Good police should welcome their actions being recorded as it would help present a more favorable public opinion of the police services.

..Ex

After viewing the Video Tape, and seeing that this did happen in the State of California, then the fact is that the Photographer is wrong for taking a picture of the cop. Many police, for reasons of safety for themselves and their families, do not like having their picture taken in the course of doing their jobs. And in there is the state statute in the state that has to be considered for such. Many places are under surviellence, but there has to be notice of such posted for it to be legal, or it could result in a business being sued on the grounds of violating privacy. I think the officer is wrong for his use of language and abusive nature.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

Again, and I will keep stressing this until it is understood, inalienable rights, by definition, mean rights that have not been conferred by another. Any person is capable of waiving their rights at any time, but this does not mean they have surrendered them, and can assert them when necessary.

Well perhaps you should use that logic to look up what voluntarily means. As in when the Human voluntarily gives up certain rights to become a policeman and make his every daily action a matter of public record.

The physician analogy is valid, however you would refuse to acknowledge due to a personal bias I suspect. Well formed paragraphs do NOT supersede the failed point of a voluntary submission of rights like when you say...join the army, or other public offices. Try to just say "I quit" after joining the army... You would very quickly find out what voluntary submission of rights are.

..Ex

reply to post by v3_exceed


Well this is bit of a red herring as we are talking about something that happened in LA and not canada. Im sorry if i sound like a jerk but that is the way it is. If you want to talk about photo law in canada im sure you can start a thread about it.
As far as the ATM machine thing it is a bit different. A camera on an ATM is set up on private property and is not invading anyone's privacy. The fact that there are cameras on ATMs is common knowledge. And if one wishes to not be filmed he can avoid the ATM and stay off of private properties that use security cameras.
However as discussed ad nauseam there is a difference between taking photographs in a public area and following someone photographing them against their verbally stated wishes.