Guest column: Lawyer/former firefighter tackles the trooper vs. news photographer video.

Previous coverage of the I-95 incident in Fairfield, Connecticut

I've had a busy few days trying to answer every critical comment about my posting of the video below. It's the confrontation between a Connecticut State Police trooper and a news photographer that occurred a week ago along I-95 in Fairfield, Connecticut . So far there are 87 comments from readers plus 53 responses from me. At some point soon, after my head stops swimming, I am going to digest my thoughts and write a follow-up column or two about the conversations I've had with the readers of STATter911.com.

My belief, based on what I know about such things, is that a trooper or any other first responder or agent of our government does not have the legal right to tell a citizen or the press what they can and can't shoot in a public place or decide for us what is newsworthy. Based on the comments, those who believe that are in the minority (or maybe I am just part of a silent majority and don't know it?). 

One person who thinks I'm right is Dave Levy. I have known Dave since he was a young teenager. I was a friend of his father, the late Sheldon Levy. Sheldon was a long time photojournalist who started Action Movie News in New York before coming to Washington and eventually working with me at Channel 9 beginning in the mid-1980s. Sheldon was also a chief officer at the Rockville Volunteer Fire Department in Maryland.

Dave was a volunteer firefighter for 10-years in Prince George's County. He is now a corporate lawyer (and fire buff) in Chicago. He makes some interesting points in this column.

I know. I know. Save your venom. Yes, I'm very aware that for many of you the only other people you hold in as low esteem as journalists (or a former one like me) are lawyers. That's a given. Let's agree on that now. So, when you comment on what he has to say, just dispute or support David's facts, his logic or his reasoning. We know we are scum to some of you and we accept that. 

If you would like for STATter911.com to consider publishing your views on this or other topics please contact me at statter911@gmail.com.

A Few Thoughts on Freedom of the Press, Emergency Services, and a Pissed Off Trooper

by Dave Levy

The debate about the Connecticut state trooper tantrum followed a familiar path: Cameraman sets up his equipment at an accident scene. Trooper goes berserk in front of the camera. The footage is posted to the Internet. Some people are upset with the trooper. Others are upset with the cameraman. Debate ensues.

From what I can tell from the comments, the debate followed a path that we've all seen play out once or twice before. Although the comments bore a sense of familiarity, however, there were three interesting points lurking under the surface. The first was a delicious irony, the second was a lesson for the present, and the third was a lesson for the future.

Let's start with the delicious irony. A few months back, this blog posted a video in which a police officer arrested an on-duty fire captain for refusing to reposition a rig. Another post contained a video which showed a police officer choking a paramedic while a heart patient sat in the back of the rig. In each case, a police officer was the aggressor, a member of the fire service was the victim, and the best piece of evidence was provided by a well-placed video camera. In each case, the camera was critical to the fire service's side of the story simply because the police officer's conduct was so over-the-top that any written account of the incident would lack believability. From what I remember, no one in the fire service voiced loud objection to the idea that someone might record a police officer mistreating a member of the fire service.

Before proceeding to the lesson for the present, let me ask a question: In the two examples above, would you feel better if we lived in a country where a police officer could assault a firefighter in public and then use his police power — the power of the government — to prevent a civilian from photographing the event? If you answered "yes," please stop reading, as there is no hope for you. If you answered "no," then you might be interested in what I think is the lesson for the present:

1. As a firefighter, PM, or police officer, you become an agent of the government from the moment your shift starts until the moment your shift ends.
2. Being an agent of the government provides a tremendous amount of power. People have to get out your way when you're en route to a call. You're allowed to step behind the yellow tape. You're allowed to break windows and knock down doors. And if someone interferes with your work, they can end up in handcuffs.
3. Although the government can only work through its agents, and those agents are human beings, those human beings are not allowed to be emotional and be agents of the government at the same time. In other words, if you're going to be an agent of the government, you have to keep your emotions in check, at least when you're in public.
4. This brings us to the unfortunate incident involving the state trooper. Simply put, however good the trooper's intentions were, an agent of the government (the trooper) does not have the Constitutional power to tell a private citizen (the cameraman) who is standing on a public street what he can and cannot photograph. That is the heart of the First Amendment. It is what separates the United States government from the Chinese, Russian, and Iranian governments. Our government already exercises too much control over our day-to-day affairs. Giving government agents the right to tell a private citizen who is standing on a public street what types of newsworthy events – whether a car accident or a police officer choking a medic or locking up a fire captain — can and cannot be photographed should make peoples' hair stand on end. If you don't believe me, then visit one of the Chinese state-run news outlets – such as http://www.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/index.htm — and take a good long look at what the news looks like when the government gets to decide what its people can and cannot see. I don't read the Chinese news very often, but when I do, I count my lucky stars that I was born an American. 

All of this leads to what I think is the lesson for the future: What do you do if you're on a call and a photographer is doing something that is lawful but offensive? As I see it, you have three options:

• OPTION 1: You can obstruct the photographer's view by parking a rig or constructing a tarp between the camera and the part of the scene that is giving you trouble. The photographer can still get a picture that helps document the scene, the public gets to know what's going on, and you (the agent of the government) are happy. (As an aside, this strategy does not work well when someone is trying to conceal misconduct. If the police had tried this in the incidents that I used in my example, the cover up would have been worse than the underlying misconduct, and the s*** would have really hit the fan. The extent to which a free press can curb government abuse is amazing.) 
• OPTION 2: You can move the yellow tape back and keep ALL civilians (not just the media) behind the tape. This can be difficult at times, but is usually do-able.
• OPTION 3: You can wait until you're off duty and then express your views in whatever way you see fit (consistent with other legal requirements). For example, you can: (i) start your own anti-media blog (I'm sure Statter will post a link); (ii) post an anti-media YouTube rant and hope it goes viral; (iii) complain to the TV station, picket in front of the TV station, etc. You can even make it your business to buff calls in your off-duty time and stand in front of any cameraman who is taking pictures that you might find offensive. This is a free country, and there is absolutely no crime in that, so long as you do it in your personal capacity and not in your capacity as a government agent.

I hesitate to make this statement in front of a crowd like this, but it seems appropriate to note that freedom is so incredibly precious precisely because it is so incredibly costly in every measurable way. That is what led Winston Churchill to quip that democracy is the worst political system on the planet, except for all the others. Whether you like it or not, our system of freedom relies on a number of key institutions, one of which is a free press.