There has been an ongoing discussion in our comments section about my recent postings on the issue of cameras being used by the press and citizens at scenes where there is police, fire or EMS activity. Coincidentally, on Friday, this video surfaced, with the help of the Las Vegas Review-Journal's Mike Blasky. It seems to illustrate many of the points I have been trying to make.
Reading the comments on Law Officer's Facebook page over a similar, but less violent confrontation in Florida and the comments on this site, it is clear there are many first responders who aren't really clear about the freedoms provided by the First Amendment. They believe it is perfectly okay for a police officer, firefighter, EMT or paramedic to order someone to shut down a camera when that citizen or member of the press is standing in a public place and shooting something that is in public view. Some believe it is okay for a first responder to make up laws that don't exist and threaten a photographer with arrest or seizure of their camera equipment. All sorts of reasons are used that aren't backed up by any legal authority. They include victims' rights, right to privacy, and claims that shooting a building threatens security. Sometimes it's simply the belief that a camera shooting a first responder doing their jobs interferes with an investigation or operation.
The case of Mitchell Crooks and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Officer Derek Colling should give pause to those who believe any of those are legitimate reasons to interfere with picture taking when the person has not infiltrated a secure area.
In the raw video (above) from March 20, Officer Colling approached Crooks, who had spent the previous hour shooting video of the arrest of burglary suspects across the street from Crooks' home. Crooks was standing on his own property at the time, even though he initially denied it was his home. Ordered to shut down his camera, Crooks refused. The camera toting citizen was wrestled to the ground, battered and handcuffed by the officer.
As Mike Blasky writes, Crooks initially faced charges of battery on a police officer, had his expensive camera seized and suffered a broken nose and possible broken ribs. But things are now looking very different, thanks to Crooks not shutting off his camera and the right people seeing his video. The charges have been dropped by the Clark County District Attorney, an internal investigation of Officer Colling is underway, Officer Colling has been suspended and Crooks got his camera and video back.
Besides Crooks' claim, at first, that he didn't live where the video was shot, there are a few other side issues in Blasky's article that sure are interesting but in the end may not really be the deciding factor in whether Crooks has the right to use his camera in a public place, unmolested by law enforcement. These include a 2002 video of police that Mitchell Crooks shot that made news in California. In that case the video showed two Inglewood officers beating a 16-year-old boy. Blasky also brings up that Officer Colling has been involved in two fatal shootings that were later ruled justified.
If you really think that you, as a first responder, have the legal right to interfere with such picture taking by the press or the public I urge you to read Blasky's entire article and follow this case closely. My view is that Officer Colling has made his department and police officers in general look pretty bad because of such thinking.
This is why I strongly suggest police, fire and EMS departments teach their people what limited legal authority they have when it comes to cameras in public places and to really understand the rights of the people holding those cameras.
I know the actions of Derek Colling don't represent law enforcement in general. I don't want anyone to get the impression that this site's purpose is now for cop bashing or that I'm anti-police. What I am is pro-First Amendment.
There is a real fear/hatred of the press and cameras in general by some who serve the public. That's their right to feel that way. But this video appears to show when that turns into public officials infringing on the basic rights of others it can quickly get really ugly.
March 26 Las Vegas Review-Journal article
April 22 Las Vegas Review-Journal article
April 23 Las Vegas Review-Journal article update confirming officer's suspension
Article on 2002 video taping of a police incident by Mitchell Crooks
Previous coverage & discussion of cameras at incident scenes can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here & here
Also on STATter911 …
- What gives? No outrage over ghoulish photographers shooting bodies. Has something changed in year since Connecticut trooper blasted cameraman? – December 18, 2011
- CA firefighter gets up close & personal with rodeo bull. Animal is well now that its out of the well. – July 25, 2012
- Is Spiderman needed when you can just open a window? Another FDNY – NYPD ESU rift. – April 14, 2012
- Coming to a fire near you? The drone with the eye in the sky. – September 6, 2012
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
I think I will draw an important lesson from this, and tread very carefully when photographing fire and EMS *bloggers*. Have seen some of them at the Baltimore Expo, in fact. They're kinda scary…
You laugh. But don’t you recall the two guys who assaulted me in front of my son for shooting on the convention floor two-years-ago? They had one of the booths. The story of my life. And tell them Mike, I am such a nice guy.
Statter
I hadn't heard heard that story…
It's come back to an observation of mine in another thread. I believe cameras involve primal responses in people. But here's the thing. Their usage is simply skyrocketing.
Phones have had cameras for years, but it's only in the last year or two that camera phones are rivaling the quality of point-and-shoot cameras. And social media sharing sites are hotter than ever, motivating people more and more to use their cameras.
The saturation is greater than ever. It will be interesting to observe the next decade or two, as the young ones today get older. They don't blink at this stuff.
Maybe in fact it's a tolerance or awareness to be instilled at the time of hiring.
Do law officer acacemies deal with this, do you suppose? Might be too relatively new to have been introduced into curriculums…
Dave,
Thanks for shedding the light of day on this topic. I'm with you, there's a reason that the First Ammendment is first, without a free press we're all in the dark.
Let's pretend for a moment that a police officer has the right to tell someone to turn off a camera (as I know some people who comment will believe). How have the actions of Officer Derek Colling benefitted the Las Vegas Police Department or the citizens they protect?
A thug with a badge is still a thug. "Respect my authoritaaay."
a thug with a video camera is still a thug also.
And people wonder why we think all cops are jerks….I hope this guy loses his job…badge and gun does not give you the right to do whatever you want…
Digital vIdeo and photographic technology is everywhere now!. Public safety officers of all services should be mindful that they essentially always are being photographed even when they don't want to be.
That said, if an officer misbehaves — or appears to do so — that photograph or video will surely surface and there will be distinctly unfavorable public consequences. The recorded lincident will NEVER go away. The officer or agency cannot ever control, destroy, erase or modify the electronic recordings because there never is only 'one'.
Caution, clarity, common sense and calm persuasion need to prevail among both officers and photogrqphers. Basically both should remember that emotion will wipe out that helpful old rubric of "when in doubt, don't."
These are not idle or isolated thoughts to be dismissed easily … they are the product of decades of experience in my careers as a major city newspaper reporter and editor, a police officer, an EMS professional, and as a master police/fire chaplain. I've been on both sides of the camera and microphone. I'd enjoy the opoportunity to do workshops with agencies on living in today's digital spotlight.
I have softened my views on this somewhat, and even have related to Statter that I am more pro-active with the local media at an incident, giving what information I can when I have the oppurtunity from a command staff point of view…and this is from listening to what he has had to say…still, we have to show respect for our customers and their families. I have to say that the members of my local media-in the danville va area, do a good job of covering a story, without getting in the way, and being respectful to the folks involved. Statter, I hope you are doing well. I hope that the brothers in DC are also doing better, you are in my prayers.
I am glad we are reaching someone, even if it only gets them to think about the issue in a different way.
Much appreciated.
Statter
Cha-ching! PAYDAY!
U.S.A. is now a police state.
I'm sure LVPD will do a full and "impartial" investigation like they did with the Erik Scott incident:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunned-down-in-vegas-what-really-happened-to-erik-scott/?singlepage=true
And maybe they will honor officer collings too!
http://www.lvrj.com/news/national-police-group-honors-two-officers-involved-in-erik-scott-shooting-119926284.html
I'm a bit of a history buff, and remember seeing images like this in old news reels from the 1930's. They were a bit difficult to understand however because all the naration was in GERMAN!!!! Keep giving these police agencies more and broader powers America and see where it gets you in another 15-20 years or maybe sooner. Because policing has changed so much in the last 40 years and especially sine 2001, these are the type "thugs" who flock to that kind of work. From what I've seen over the past few years, most cops today seem to be young bucks who grew up in the MTV/HipHop/video games era, watched too much COPS on TV and too many movies like Die Hard, SWAT, and NYPD Blue and think that's what policing is all about. Fortunately for us, technology today allows for this type behavior to be captured at a seconds notice and hopefully more of these "ghestopo" wannabes while get their "d1cks" slapped when they try to pull this bullsh1t. My recomendation to every citizen, arm yourself with some sort of video technology and record ANY(with notification of course)interaction with the cops, because you never know when one of theses "bullied as a kid, gun toting 'roid monsters is going to go off on you or your family because he's angry his girlfriend, or boyfriend, laughed at his small pen1s. You want to avoid a "police state" America? Then you better keep these stormtroopers in check. Thomas Jefferson said, " A man who is willing to give up FREEDOMS for the sense of security, deserves neither. And for the cokey smart a$$ officer in the video, law abiding Americans are in charge here, not you, try and see if you can process that through your thick, TV rotted brain, MORON!!
I feel sorry for this guy if his camera was not on he would have been charged with assault.. Just shows how crooked some cops are ruin someones life for something they didnt do.
After seeing this one, I give props to the LT in the other video on how he handled the photographer.
Wowzers.
Why is it every person that is ever arrested is always "resisting". I've realized for a long, long time that this was just something they say to make it appear the "perp" is resisting, especially when the cameras for COPS is present.
Pretty sad what this country has become. Anybody want to take bets that the next round of trainings\classes won't be sexual harrassment\sensitivity training but a 1st Amendment training?
Why are first responders afraid of being filmed on scenes? They are afraid they will do something stuipd or be exposed to ridcule when it hits the internet. Here is a simple suggestion be ready to defend yourself and realize you WILL make a miscue on day. It will happen and if you are caught on tape just defend it. I know it happend to me years ago. I was working a MVA and was holding C-spine the newpaper picture shows me letting go and there was a medium sized argument. That is until I pointed out the reason I let go was the way the spreader was pushing the door it was getting ready to crush the patients leg and the only way I could get anyone attention was to wave.
The problem with these type of videos is that it is taken from a person fishing for a lawsuit. Crooks is clearlly following police around and videotaping to get this type of response for a payday. Another problem I have is that with these videos out come the super strong keyboard police bashers. "F-in pigs are thugs etc" Grow up kids… We see many of cops doing wrong on these type of videos daily but we never see them doing right, or few and far in between. same with teachers, priests etc. The emergence of video cameras on cell phones are a problem for police. If a police person is in a struggle with a real bad criminal, it seems that the publics first response s to pull out there camera and video tape the event instead of getting involved, helping the officer and taking down a criminal. An Officer can simply avoid these types of events by treating every situation as if he is being videotaped. Just the thoughts of a pro- american, Pro-police veteran
And IF your theory is correct, the police officer let emotion, paranoia, fear of cameras or whatever else caused his reaction to play right into the guy’s hands and gave him exactly what he wanted. Again, that is IF your theory is correct. But either way it makes that police department look bad.
More reason why my suggestion may be a valid one of training first responders on dealing with cameras in the same way they train officers in civil disturbance units to ignore provocation.
And why don’t we ever show officers “doing right”. Just scroll down a little and you will see an unmolested photographer shooting a police officer saving a woman’s life and possibly her home.
Statter
I hear a lot of calls for laws banning the videotaping of cops doing their duty. Well my response is the same one they use on us when putting up anti-crime cameras and red light cams…..if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!
He first said he did not live there. There for, this is called "Trespassing". The officer then was in his right to investigate as to why an individual would be on private property at night. Next time butt wipe, don't lie to the Po Po when they ask a simple question!
frankx794,
Yes and that butt wipe is likely to the one getting money for this and the officer’s great judgment has him fighting for his job. Who wins?
How about taking the emotion and the ego out of it? Most law enforcement who have cast an opinion on this seem to agree that without a tresspassing complaint it really isn’t the officer’s business.
I am all for an officer checking something out he thinks is suspicious. This seems to me something quite different.
What escalated this conversation was a cop not happy about a citizen taking video of him. Can you cite the legal authority the officer has to order the shut down of the camera? But there are quite a few legal decisions that says he doesn’t. If the officer was well trained and comprehended that training he would know that to be the case.
Whatever the story is of Mr. Crooks, whether or not he is a butt wipe as you call him, this much seems pretty clear. The officer esclated a situation into something that could be career ending because he didn’t like someone taking video of him doing his job. Not too smart in my book. And as I have said, a good lesson for all.
Statter
I am a cop, and not being there, I can't 100% know what actually took place. But I did notice a couple of things on this recording, and please understand, most all cops are being recorded all the time, by either the public, or our own agencies with our in car video and recording equipment. the first thing the officer asked, was did he live there. The camera man advised clearly that he did not. Like it or not, depending in what state, he lied, and that is an arrestable offense. I also hear the alledged victim now narrating his alledged attack. Unfortunately, I have heard and observed the same thing many times, in which 100% of the time, other patrol units in the area with cameras pointed in the right direction or even other citizens carrying cameras recording the party saying things that weren't simply happening as narrated. Simply saying, all I can tell by this video, which is more of just an audio recording, is that the alledged victim, was absoulutely guilty of false reporting. Now, about your right to video tape a law enforcment activity. I cannot know for this instance, but many times, in arrest and warrant procedures. Law enforcement will involve confidential informants and plain closed officers. Initial officers on scene will try to secure a scene for not only the officers safety, but also the citizens. It is also plain to see from this video, that this guy was also standing outside. If he would have been in his home, this would not have taken place. Unfortunately, we do not know the whole story here. I have never had an issue with cameras and being video taped. I do have issues with people that lie on a simple question "Do you live here?" From what I hear on the tape, and from having heard and observd many incidences in the past, I am highly suspect of this guys intentions. Lesson to be learned here is that be truthful. Most likely, the officer would have just advised the party to go inside. We can't order you to not record from inside your home, but I would also ask, that if i asked you too shut it off, you would respect my request (not my authoritay). I would hate for you to feel the personal quilt you would feel if you comprimised the safety of a public safety member and that member was injured or possibly killed.
Good points Just a Cop. What I like I best as they are made without emotion and basing them on the facts and what you see and hear and not kneejerk reactions.
Obviously the DA didn’t buy the giving a cop a false statement theory that you have brought forth. It is an interesting part of this story that I did bring up in my initial summary. Personally, while true, I think that is grasping at straws to justify the actions of the police officer.
If you use that theoy then the officer was coming over because the man may have been tresspassing. Just because the man doesn’t live there (which it turns out he did) doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the right to be there. I thought there had to be a complaint from the property owner or tenant for tresspassing (but that is more of a question than statement of fact by me).
The guy who is taking the pictures may have a million reasons for taking the video. Some of them may not be so pure of heart. And I will not argue with your gut and experience about the motivation factor. I really don’t know. But in the end that isn’t really going to matter.
What really matters is the police officer went out of his way to pick a fight and escalate something that really wasn’t necessary and in the process likely violated the rights of Mr. Crooks.
If his motivation was to get the video because it might have something that would mess up the investigation, he failed. If his motivation was to teach Mr. Crooks a lesson about taking video of cops, he failed. Poor judgment that will likely do no good for the officer or his department.
My gut tells me (I also have a great deal of experience in these matters) it was all because he didn’t like someone taking video of him doing his job or didn’t like someone who refused to follow what many would argue is an unlawful order (telling him to shut down the camera).
Sometime in the next week I will share a series of videos of a department confronted with this very same situation, on mulitple occaisions. Just like the Las Vegas officer they investigate the picture taking, even REQUESTING the camera be shut off, but handle it very differently and very professionally.
As for shooting crime scenes from an area where the public is allowed and having things on the video that could hinder an investigation (for example the face of a suspect when witness ID is crucial) or put an officer in danger (undercover officers on the scene). Remember this. Most likely the person with the camera already has that shot. Unless you are going to seize the camera (I think that would fall under prior restraint) the only real legal weapon in your arsenal that you have is getting the cooperation of the person taking the pictures. Coming up to them and ordering cameras shut down and offering lies that it is illegal to shoot a first responder doing their job, or shoot someone’s home or you can’t take a picture of an accident victim isn’t likely to win the day for you.
The best you can do to solve the problem is acknowledge the right to take the pictures and appeal to that person to not publicize the video of the suspect or undercover officer. I am a strong believer in the First Amendment, but every legitimate request that was handled that way during my 25 years in TV I went out of my way to comply with. And even with the ones that weren’t legitimate and the officer acted like a jerk, when I determined what the real issue was and not the BS they confrotned me with, I made sure it was handled. It isn’t a foolproof method, I admit. But it works a lot better than what happened in Las Vegas.
Statter
Lying is an arrestable offense. Interesting. What about when the cops lie to a private citizen? Can the cop be arrested? I ask this because one of my employees had a fender bender during a snowstorm. He exchanged info with the other driver per state law. It was a small dent, under $1,000 which is also OK to not wait for the cops per state law. The dispatcher threatened my employee with hit and run\fleeing the scene of an accident if he didn't show up to the post in 45 minutes. He followed state law, yet they lied to him with what they were going to charge him with.
So you're telling me it's OK for cops to lie to the public, who pays their salaries and they are supposed to serve, but when something like this happens, it's an arrestable offense even though there was absolutely no reason for the cop to do anything but transport his prisoners to jail for processing?
So he was standing outside, big deal. Looks like he was close enough to the edge that he may have been on the sidewalk, which I believe is public property, like the road. How would that be trespassing? And you are totally ignoring the fact that is what the cop used as reasoning behind his attack. A reason for which he had no grounds.
False reporting? What is that? Is that really a law?
I think the issue here–besides that sticky 1st Amendment thing–is who are the cops serving when pulling this crap? Are they protecting the public? Are they really giving us our tax dollars worth when they threaten someone with an illegal order? If so, how exactly are they serving us and using our tax dollars wisely? Enquiring minds want to know.
PS That's what I told the trooper that I discussed my employee's situation with. Funny thing was, she and another trooper that I spoke with about this little section both were ignorant of it.
PPS I have a friend who has been getting harassed by Motor Carrier. 2 stops per month over the last 2 years. Last time his truck was stopped he called the post commander to find out why he was being harassed and to speak with the officer. Post commander told him she wasn't working. He told the commander that he sure had a dedicated employee because she had just stopped his truck 1 1/2 hours before the call. Would that be an arrestable offense? Sorta sounds like false reporting in my book.
Officer Cooling…you are going to get what you deserve…….the stripping of your badge…..and I hope you end up as a wal mart security guard…….protecting the bathrooms!!! LMAO!!!
Unfortunately, people want it both ways. When they are a victim, they want every stop pulled to get the offender, but then they also want their rights protected (and I agree with that as well). They're is a delicate balance in which law enforcement has to work. Before people ask to have "strip a badge", they should do a day in the shoes. A person asked about the credibility of the law "false reporting"? I assure you, you cannot lie to an officer, and if that lie hindrs the investigation (or a legal action), the the charge for obstruction also applies. On the tape, all I heard the officer advise, was that he was charging the camera man with obstruction, in which he was deffinately guilty of. Remember, the camera man started the confrontation with lying about if he lives there. As for officers lying to a person, yes it is permissable. And I know many of you will not like that, but please understand, the overwhelming majority of people in jail, all say that that they didn't do it. As for the motor carrier situation, you need to advise the party that feels he's being picked on to go to the department and file a complaint. Believe me, complaints are not just washed under the rug. We will never know what would have taken place if the camera man would have been honest in the first place. You can try to twist this into a 1st Admendment thing, but what I see, without a shadow of a doubt, was camera man setting the actions forward. As for the district attorney not pushing forward with the charges, that is a decision made only by the DA. Since the camera man had alledged injuries, the DA may have felt that he had enough punishement already. Many times, DAs and CAs drop charges because the seriousness of the crime is minimal to what it would cost the public to presecute. It happens all over the country. What will be telling now, is if a civil right lawsuit happens. That will be most telling. As for cops being afraid of being recorded. That is pure nonsense! Most every law enforcement agency in the US, have equipped their patro units with video and sound recorders. Most every event we respond to, is recorded. And not by just one, but many units. As for your trespassing theory, and I say theory. If an agency is going to conduct a potentially dangerous activity in the area, it is then their responsibility to assure public safety, which means to attempt to get people off the streets (local area just had an incident in which two officers were injured while attempting to speak to a party). Fortunately, they didn't have a lying camera man standing in the front yard, or their would have been most likely another dead person from the gun fire that occurred.
Some people will never support the police for what they do, and what we have to deal with. Then some people take an unrelated situation that had nothing to do with what actually took place, and publicly charge people up with civil rights violation accusations. I have not heard or seen anything in relation to this incident, that says that the officers involved, were angry about him videotaping the incident, afterall, many times, those same videotapes are used to aid the officers.
I also just wanted to drop a quick note. I worked in Fire and rescue for 15 years. been working in law enforcement for about 12 years now. I am currently a drug interdiction officer with my agency.
Just a Cop,
Again, I appreciate the points you are making and the way you are making them. I am also very glad to have this viewpoint on the blog. But I strongly and respectfully disagree.
I am not a cop. Never have been and never really wanted to be. But I also know that some of the decisions we ask a police officer to make are impossible to get right all of the time. After going through Shoot, Don’t Shoot back in the 80s as a reporter and then an updated version later, I know that split second decision is not one you can expect even the best trained person to be 100% right on all of the time. I reserve judgment when it comes to those things.
But I am equally convinced, for whatever reason, this cop made a horrible decision in how he handled this incident. This is not a split second decision. Seen it too many times. And I am sorry. there ARE many in public safety who fear cameras. I know, it’s because the news people are all scum and never give anyone a fair break. That’s a given.
Your argument about where he lived, from what we see on the video, doesn’t really make sense. The confrontation didn’t escalate because of where the man lives. It escalated because the Mr. Crooks refused to shut off his camera. The officer wasn’t worried that someone who lived there was trampling on the grass of someone else’s lawn. That defies credibility. He was concerned because someone had been shooting video of the cops in action and then the officer didn’t like it when he couldn’t control that picture taking.
Unfortunately I have a wealth of experience in this area. I have seen it over and over where people, including law enforcement and other first responders, think they can tell others what they can and can’t shoot while standing in a public place. Actually they can TELL the person all they want (free speech, you know). But there is no legal authority to back it up. That’s what happened here (at least according to the video).
In my 25-year TV career I have heard the same words from countless cops, firefighters, EMTs, paramedics, security guards and private citizens. I have been roughed up by a number of first responders, a wanne be cop, a life guard, the family of an accused heroin dealer and even an art dealer. It never ceases to amaze me the lack of knowledge people have on the freedoms we are provided. This is not a country where cops tell us what is and isn’t news or what we can or can’t shoot with our cameras. No matter how many excuses you make for a fellow officer, it isn’t going to change that fact. And to escalate it further and accuse the man of battery. Please remember this part of the article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
If the police were so in the right I am sure they would have provided that information to the prosecutor. Something tells me that information doesn’t exist and the video doesn’t support the officer’s story.
It’s the same with the Hillsborough, Florida story. The first words from the police officer are you have to move off a public street that isn’t blocked off because the neighbors don’t want their houses shown. Then when that laughable excuse didn’t fly they tried other explanations and also threatened to lock a news photographer up for not shutting off his camera. They just were a little smarter and in control and didn’t escalate it further. If they were so right they would have handcuffed that guy much earlier in the incident. It didn’t happen.
I have no loyalty to either of these men holding cameras. I know nothing about them, other than what I have read. And I wouldn’t be surprised about any new information good or bad about these guys. Not my issue. My blind allegiance is to the freedoms this country offers. I am not a lawyer and have little education, but I believe you will find that the courts have set some pretty high standards about prior restraint, whicn, to my knowledge, could include some of the things you see attempted or threatened in these videos.
My whole point in even posting these stories is to let first responders know that the impression they are under about their powers to prevent picture taking and their understanding of the Constitution and rights of the citizens they protect may be in error. In my book this is a good example of someone who didn’t get it right and it could cost that officer dearly. I hate to see it happen to others.
I saw a video recently of someone shooting Uniformed Secret Service officer in front of the White House. The officers confronted the man with the video camera. They asked him numerous times to shut off his camera. He refused. He even kept it running while they were checking his ID and other information and as he refused to answer some of the officer’s questions.
Did anyone assault that man with the camera because he wouldn’t shut it down or wouldn’t anwer his questions?
Did anyone try to seize his camera?
The answer to both quesitons is no. The reason is because those officers know, as much as they may not like it, it is not against the law to take pictures in this country of police officers doing their job. It may be suspicious and it call for further investigation, but it is not illegal. That’s the way this should have been handled.
Statter
" As for officers lying to a person, yes it is permissable. "
Just A Cop could you please explain why it is legal for a Law Enforcement Officer to lie to people but illegal for people to lie to them. Just curious.
I'm curious as well, but guessing the answer will be along the lines of "the ends justify the means" or some garbage like that.
Guess we've sunk pretty low as a country if it's OK for the law enforcement officers to in effect perjure themselves but not OK for us lowly citizens.
Okay, reading all these responses, and reflecting on the conversation, there seem to be a couple clear categories of responses:
- The law of the land, and what will hold up in court. e.g., please cite the law. Show where it says that you can confiscate a camera, where you can arrest for photography, etc. etc. Bottom line: it's all legal.
- The court of popular opinion. What happens when such footage is aired in a public forum. Bottom line: the harasser and their agency suffer ill effects.
- The recommended best practices for professionals/news media with cameras, with regard to interacting with law officers and people on scene. Bottom line: honey gets you farther than vinegar.
- The etiquette or caution for Joe Six Pack, with a camera, and when confronted by law officers or people on scene. Bottom line: keep the camera rolling for your own good, but any aggression by you might be met by aggression by them. You'll end up in the right, at some point, and probably certainly.
Is that about it?
Dave, it is pretty apparent that you know the 1st amendment better than I do. So, let me ask a question that maybe you or someone else can clarify for me. I am a firefighter & this might be that I don't understand the federal HIPAA law, but lets say somebody with the press or joe somebody was at an accident scene & filmed a accident victim who was receiving medical treatment by EMS/Fire personel then said footage was used by the local media or posted on youtube. Does that violate any victims by not having the face or any identifying marks blurred. Not arguing about it being used, just curious as to how in the future I might can help protect somebody's identity when they are in a situation like this.
Now I have never had a problem with the media here where I am at in NC, however what I have noticed is that if you are good to them they generally are good to you. Hint, hint: give them some information when things are going on, but don't blow them off or else you are going to get bad press. Mainly due to not informing them & other people outside of our business having to tell them information. As for filming suspects in criminal situations can the press be in any type of legal trouble for showing a accused suspects face & then that same person being found not guilty. Just curious due to always seing the tv shows like "Dumbest Criminals" & "COPS" where they blur out faces, & I have always been curious as to why.
Also, am I violating 1st amendment rights by asking people to not film from that area, but having them to move to another location that might be safer for them. What about situations like you bogged about a while back where they are filming a dead body & don't realize it. How should we in emergency services handle this, from a reporter's view? I know that being civil & polite most of the time gets you farther than anything else, but what else so I don't have to hear "You're violating my rights!"
hctruckie8,
Ah yes, HIPAA. Good question. Heard that one many times.
First let me point out again, I AM NOT A LAWYER AND I DO NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE. Best to check all of these things with the legal folks.
I am not a medical provider, so despite what you may hear, HIPAA does not apply to me, the public or the news media. I am in no trouble for shooting that scene. You are not in trouble because you didn’t interfere with me shooting that scene. Now, if you invited me into your ambulance to see the patient I imagine that would be another problem. But you are free to shield the patient any way you would like, short of violating the First Amendment rights of someone else.
You certainly have the right to secure a scene. In many places, I have scene police departments secure crime scenes much greater than they need, not for evidence or safety, but because they want to keep the press out. They will get away with it most of the time. But there are news organizations with deep pockets that have been willing to take on government agencies that abuse power.
I think you will find if it is open to the public the press generally has a right to be there and messing with that can cause problems similar to what the officer in Las Vegas may be facing.
Again, this is just from my experience as a news person who has seen all of this first hand many times and sat through way too many presentations by lawyers who specialize in these issues.
If you see something that is being filmed that concerns you, such as a dead body or a witness to a crime, remember, as I have pointed out before, the person shooting it already has the shots. Since you have no legal right to confiscate the video, your best bet is to use respect and charm. I would go up to the photographer and/or reporter and acknowledge their right to shoot anything there. I would then point out that they may not realize it but that is part of a body or that person is a witness to a murder. Appeal to their better nature. But in the end, that may be the only weapon you have on your side. Also, I am not seeing on TV or YouTube all of these bodies from fires and accident scenes that everyone get up in arms about.
Good questions.
Statter
Thanks for that tid bit. I agree with what you & apparently several other reporters are fighting for in this blog. It appears to me that if people would use some, whats the word, ah yes "common courtesy", sorry its hard to remember something that people in the United States have forgotten. Anyway, if that was applied in many situations it appears that these incidents would not get out of hand.
By the way 1 more question. When you take pictures who legally owns them & if they are taken while you are at work say for a fire department & your organization has no policy on taking photos of scenes do they have a say in how you use them? As long as they are not jepordizing anybodies personal business.
Thanks again
When I took pictures at work, as a reporter, it was considered the intellectual property of my employer. But that was also in our collective bargaining agreement.
As for a firefighter, I don’t think I will touch that. It might be a good question for Curt Varone who does the Fire Law Blog. I know what I think I know about the issue, but I don’t think it is as clean as some of the other issues we have discussed. From what I know there are a lot more variables, that can include some freedom of speech issues.
Statter
Thanks for everything.
As a 23 year police officer, it is sadly obvious that this police officer pushed a bad situation with no legal authority. Just last week I talked to my officers in briefing about using the media in a way which will help you. The media will always be there, might as well use them as a tool for you.
I wonder why so many police officers blantently lie on the police report and are not punished for lying on an official report? Seems too me, if police officers were severly punished for lying on a police report the police officers would be less inclined to lie on an offcial report. If anyone can shed some light on this I would greatly appreciate it.
police misunderstand their role and authority in the US. the public misunderstands this relationship worse than the cops. 911 spawned a mess of zeal, LEO's citing 'national security' in petty incidents. that said, why mess with cops/ff's. if they say a camera is disturbing their work, please stop it.