TheAgitator.com
Another Unlawful Arrest for Photographing Police
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008Brendan Loy has the details, and comments:
It’s not just about the ability for citizens to take pictures of police officers in public places (though that’s important too; see: King, Rodney). It’s about the officer’s behavior — specifically his attempt to bully this man into compliance with an illegal demand, using his power as an officer of the law in the service of his personal pique, at the expense of the citizenry that he is supposed to “serve and protect.” It is absolutely, totally and completely unacceptable for police officers to use the authority conferred by their badges to violate people’s rights in this manner, and society needs to send that message loud and clear.
Moreover, because citizens will usually back down, allowing the police to get away with this sort of thing in most cases, it is essential that these misdeeds not go unpunished when the perp — meaning the police officer, of course — actually gets caught. As InstaPundit says, “Examples need to be made.”
I’m going to go out on a limb, here, and predict that the officer won’t be significantly disciplined.
Let’s get a pool going here. What does everyone think we are looking at here?
Civil judgment: $0—-$3,000,000
Someone make up a sheet, $5 per square. Rad can tell us how many squares we should use.
IF this person decides to sue, I’m sure he’ll get a nice compensation. There has already been precedent set in Washington State (in Seattle, I believe).
I bet he doesn’t get disciplined at all. In fact, bet he gets a promotion.
“I’m going to go out on a limb, here…” I think what you meant to say was “I’m going to take the sure bet, here…”
It’s conceivable that a cop thinks it is illegal to take his picture, and I like to presume that cops are acting in good faith, but it’s hard to reconcile that with demands to delete photos. If the cop honestly thought taking the picture was a crime, then he should have considered deleting the picture to be destroying evidence. They don’t tell drug deals to flush their stash, they don’t tell inside traders to shred their papers, and they don’t tell murderers to hide the murder weapon.
For that matter, they don’t tell people who actually take illegal pictures (spies, copyright violators, sex fiends) to delete their pictures.
Was there video of this encounter? As another poster summed up previously:
If there is video evidence, then “the officer is a bad apple”
If there is not video evidence, then “the officer was following protocol”
There was an incident in Pittsburgh last year where two young protesting anarchists were attacked by a cop, because one took his picture, was assaulted, and then the other kid (whom I know) attempted to take a picture of that assault. Several passing witnesses wondered why a large cop was choking a skinny boy. The boys were then arrested, though for the life of me I don’t know what the charges would have been.
What kind of damages did the defendant incur? Obviously, he was embarrassed and arrested illegally, but what are his damages? Did he miss work? Did he incur financial hardship?
The officer needs a couple weeks off without pay, and certainly a public apology is warranted. But, to give this guy a civil judgment greater than a few thousand dollars seems ridiculous. These types of litigation are settled with taxpayer funds, and the taxpayers don’t deserve to foot the bill for this.
Roy I agree that a cop may be under the impression he is above the laws as stated in our constitution. Thereby believing it is illegal to take photographs of him. However in his official report he states he felt threatened, because he thought it was a laser pointer. http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/man_arrested_for_unlawful_photography/11576/
Now by asking him to delete pictures from what he thought was a laser pointer should remove any good faith you, I, or anyone else has in this officer.
Do not think I am bashing or bickering, I’m just adding to your thoughts. When the cops do not know the law they are wanting you to obey everyone loses.
… come to think of it, if the cop knew that taking the pictures was legal, then his treatment of the photographer was probably a crime, so deleting the photos would be destruction of evidence regardless of whether the cop thought taking the photo was illegal.
But IANAL.
#8 Jim
You are looking at it completely backwards. His actual damages may indeed be small, but there are punitive damages to consider. If the judgment is so small there is no incentive for the officer to stop this behavior. There is also no incentive for the public to change the officers behavior through county/city elections of a mayor or sheriff.
As to taxpayer money, you and I are both ultimately at fault and so ultimately should bare the burden.
Arent there cameras taking pictures pretty much everywhere these days?
Of mere citizens, yes. This is about a more equal Law Enforcement Officer though.
When this happened a while back, some PA State Troopers had to pay thousands out of their own pockets. Hopefully it will happen to this momser as well.
I don’t care if they’re acting in good faith, we can’t have cops running around enforcing imaginary laws. Hell, there’s too many real laws.
Radley, you’re setting your standards too low. I’d bet the officer faces absolutely no disciplinary action. I would love to see him have to pay – out of his own pocket – any damages that the victim wins. This crap stops the day that people are liable for their own stupidity.
Jim,
You law-and-order types make me sick. You are the types who enable these kind authoritarian attitudes we see with the police force. I’d be quite happy if the police department/county gets hit with a $3 million payout (that Conover doesn’t get–donate it to a charity out of state or something). Then fire the officer and make sure that for all future jobs he applies for he is given a negative recommendation.
Public, harsh punishment. Make it hurt.
No punishment. Just take the badge and gun away. What a loathsome individual.
Interesting. I do photography as a serious hobby.
Since 9/11 taking pictures of “infrastructure” almost always gets the evil eye. The more unlikely you are to be a terrorist, the more someone will think you’re suspicious. Whip out a little point and shoot and no one will question you, but stand there holding a medium format studio camera, and someone will think you’re either in the direct employ of bin Laden or worse (trying to profit without cutting the proper authorities in on the action).
Then there are people who fear having their picture taken and put on the internet, as if there are conspirators out there hiding in the shadows in order to capture their unknown faces so they can be transplanted onto some naked body in a bondage picture. Street photography has been transformed from an art into an assault on personal privacy.
Want to help a model friend build her portfolio by taking some pictures of her downtown? Brace yourself for some passer by to complain that you’re creating porn. Well, there may not be any actual complaint, but the cops will tell you there was one when they start asking questions.
Then there’s cases like this, where cops and real and rental, are paranoid that you’re out to ruin their lives by putting pictures of them on youtube, like what happened to those innocent cops where footage of them was obviously manipulated to make it look like they were beating the shit out of Rodney King.
Finally, if you really want some excitement, go take pictures of kids playing in a public park. Perfectly legal, but “get caught” doing that and you’ll probably find that even your best friend won’t want to stand within the blast radius of crap that will come down on your head.
In America, the only real freedoms left are those that are protected by a lobbying group. Everything else is a temporary privilege granted to you by government (after you pay the applicable taxes and license fees).
Jim said:
Taxpayers, otherwise known as ‘Employers’ of these public servants don’t deserve to pay more, true, but we also don’t deserve to have our employees trampling our civil rights systematically getting away with it. In a perfect world this officer would be sentenced to jailtime (as you or I would) for attacking a fellow citizen (cops are citizens) and taking their property (deleting the pictures). They would be additionally sentenced for violating the man under color of law. But we both know that won’t happen, so the best we can ope for is financial penalty that recognizes wrongdoing.
True.
Hell, the Supreme Court just ruled in Heller that a fundamental human right recognized in by the Bill of Rights is in fact subject to regulations and restrictions. The second Amendment is only 27 words long and the last 4 words are “shall not be infringed.”
Apparently, you don’t need to graduate high school to become a police officer in Mountain City, TN.
Just read Officer Lane’s handwritten (scrawled) statement…
and the link….
http://static.mgnetwork.com/tri/media_path/site_elements/images/documents/lanestatement.pdf
i think a reasonabl response would be that a successful suit against the officer would require the officer to personally pay attorney’s fees…. (i’m not sure where the law stands on this though, but it would certainly help deter…)
Dave Kreuger, re your last paragraph
I’ve come to see it less as rights, and more about what privileges the government extends to the people. With the numerous exceptions that enable government intrusion in all facets of life…our society has evolved to accepting whatever privileges the government gives us.
I can’t remember which legislator said it, but they noted that “the ability to fly is not a right, it is a privilege”. if i can find the name and place of quote, i’ll post it.
Dave Kreuger, Great, I’m planning a model shoot on a public street tomorrow, and now I’ve got this to worry about. I do a little street photography—not as much as I’d like—and I’ve been questioned, but it never turned ugly. I guess I’ll see what happens tomorrow.
Maybe we could start an always-photograph-the-police movement, so they just get used to it as one more annoyance of the job.
I’ve always what gives politicians the power to grant us privledges?
The consent of the governed. Government will take whatever power the people let them get away with. And probably a little more.
Windypundit, chances are you won’t have any problems.
But if you do, be sure to have someone take pictures of the bruises and stuff. Also, it’s always a good idea to let several people know where you’re going and check in with them occasionally by cell phone to make it easier to pin-point the exact time of your disappearance (I’m not saying that will happen, of course…).
I’ve not had many aggressive run-ins with people on the street, but when it does happen my biggest problem is keeping my mouth under control. I know that’s hard to believe coming from someone with a warm outgoing sunshiny personality such as myself…
Dave, I’m not really worried. I’m in my own neighborhood. Besides, why would the cops spend time hassling me when they could be chatting up the model…
The officer in question shouldn’t be suspended. He should be fired and saddled with a bad reference. Once thats done he should face the same charges I would face if I walked up to someone with a gun, demanded they do something, threw them in the back of my car, and filed a knowingly false affidavit in order to cover it up. In other words: menacing, assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, perjury, and obstruction of justice. After that the taxpayers should have to fork over enough money to hurt jurisdiction enough that they police their cops in the future. If I was on the jury I’d be thinking of a number around the department’s budget for the previous fiscal year.
Its simple, really. Police who use their authority to infringe upon the rights of others should face the same consequences as anyone else. The only way to ensure that that happens is to actually punish them. Beyond that you need to make mistakes so costly that supervisors actually supervise, even if only to avoid being at the bottom of the hill when the shit rolls down. I promise you that police would think twice about things like this if they knew that everyone from the mayor down would be looking for someone to drag off to the woodshed.
Instapundit wrote about this yesterday.
So am I supposed to be for the cop, or what?
“Its simple, really. Police who use their authority to infringe upon the rights of others should face the same consequences as anyone else.”
Mmmmm id like to see them face harsher consequences than the average “anyone else” simply due to the level of power they have over the general public. I mean, we have laws in some states where committing a crime against a cop carries a harsher penalty than the same crime against the average joe. Why cant that go the other way as well, and for the same reasons?
claude,
Exactly what I have thought for a long time. The harshest punishments should be reserved for corrupt officials and police who abuse their power (and the ones that cover for them).
Steve, Jim isn’t a “law-and-order” type. Honestly, law and order *starts* with the police. When they break the law (as in this case), there is no order.
The sad thing is that we find out here that a couple of cops were involved and number 2 was too stupid to tell number 1 that you can’t arrest someone for taking a picture. Worse yet, he repeats the whole “laser pointer” bs even though he first says that the victim took a picture, meaning he knows that no laser pointer was involved.
As for those of you who think cops should get a harsher treatment, well, legally, yes. “under color of law” is an “aggravating circumstance” which should mean a higher penalty. In this case, for instance, it was a false arrest, essentially a kidnapping. The problem, of course, is getting it prosecuted in the first place.
Well, the settlement in the Mohora case in Seattle was $8,000. However, Seattle runs a pretty vicious defense strategy against civil rights suits so a settlement elsewhere will likely be higher.
There’s another suit pending in Seattle where someone was arrested for using his cell to photograph officers beating someone (who has already won a six figure settlement from the city) and ended up with his cellphone erased.
I’d like to expand on the theme of firing the officer and giving him “a bad reference.” I believe a better response would be for states to have a system of professional disbarrment for peace officers who go astray, just as they do for lawyers and other occupations. If this kind of legislation is enacted, bad references won’t be needed. If you really screw up (ie. you are convicted of a crime, successfully sued for civil rights violations, etc.) you just won’t get hired as a law enforcement officer by another department in your state. If the police want to be viewed as professionals–and, in many ways, law enforcement is closer to meeting the traditional definition of a profession than it was 30 years ago–they should accept this level of scrutiny.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0804/08041601pansonictz50.asp
Panasonic has launched a Wi-Fi compatible digital camera, the TZ50,
that comes with a year’s free use of T-Mobile’s Hotspot service in the
US. The TZ50 is, essentially a TZ5 with Wi-Fi but the new tie-up
allows users to upload to their Picasa Web Albums while out and about.
There is no word yet on a similar tie-up or camera for European
customers.
“If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from surveillance”
Isn’t that the logic these pigs throw in our faces when we tell them we don’t want our phonecalls spied on and cameras shoved up our collective ass?
Seems like if Big Brother is going to watch us, Little Brother ought to be able to watch right back.
@#18 “No punishment. Just take the badge and gun away.”
Reminds me of that Leslie Nielsen quote from “The Naked Gun” when he guts kicked off the force:
“Just think- next time I shoot somebody, I could go to jail…”
@37
Washington state has something along those lines, called “decertification” where officers found guilty are barred from working as law enforcement officers in the state again. So far only Washington and Idaho have systems that are tied to each other so that an officer barred in one state can’t work in the other as well.
Last year 23 officers in Washington and 14 in Idaho were decertified for offences ranging from stealing drugs from detainees to having sex on duty.
@38
I looked into one of those because I write a site about police misconduct and, even though people here think I’m paranoid about it, I’ve had some officers “hint” that they’d like to get me for it.
Anyway, the problem with one of those is that you would need to make sure you’re in range of an unsecured WiFi access point… while useful at home, it might be a bit more difficult to use effectively while out and about.
I do believe there are cell models that will upload directly to a web site though…
Wow, this is ridiculous.
Tennessee’s “Unlawful Photography” law is Section 39-13-605 of the Tennessee Code, which states:
(a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly photograph, or cause to be photographed an individual, when the individual is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without the prior effective consent of the individual, or in the case of a minor, without the prior effective consent of the minor’s parent or guardian, if the photograph:
(1) Would offend or embarrass an ordinary person if such person appeared in the photograph; and
(2) Was taken for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant.
(b) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, “photograph” means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission of any individual so that the individual is readily identifiable.
(c) All photographs taken in violation of this section shall be confiscated and, after their use as evidence, destroyed.
(d) (1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(2) If the defendant disseminates or permits the dissemination of the photograph to any other person, a violation of this section is a Class E felony.
—–
So the cops have evidence that Mr. Conover was taking the picture for his own sexual gratification? Talk about failing on its face.
Plus with the statement in subsection (c) that states the picture will be confiscated and then destroyed after their use as evidence, that seems to me a fairly clear indication that the officer in question is guilty of attempting to destroy evidence.
I disagree completely. Taxpayer also has another designation “Voter” (well okay not every taxpayer is a voter and not every voter is a taxpayer, but the overlap is pretty damned substantial). Since the voters have it within their power to fix this problem I say let them pay and pay through the nose until they realize what their representatives, agents, and so forth are doing “for them and to them”.
After reading the officer’s written notes I’m not surprised. Most people think that you can’t take their picture in a public place and that they have a right to make you remove the picture or surrender the film. I have an aquaintence who said he’d actually become physical with anyone taking his picture in public. I told him he’d go to jail and face criminal and civil prosecution for such acts since in public he has no expectation of privacy since it is public and not private…private…privacy…get it? He still didn’t get it. He isn’t stupid, just ignorant and obstinate about the law. Bottom line is that in public you have no expectation of privacy and hence your picture can be taken by another. In fact, the picture can also be put on the internet so long as it isn’t defaming the person or persons in the picture.
As a free-lance hard news photog for 18-yrs I can tell you that the police do whatever the fuck they want to do to people with cameras. Any people. All people. Private citizen. Professional photog with police issued credentials. It does not matter.
Its always been that way and it always will be that way. Make whatever examples you want, it does not matter.
Most all public officials make allowance for settling police misconduct cases out of court with all parties agreeing to never talk about it again. Police do whatever they want to do and the lawyers settle the case later with everyone going home silenced.
As Philadelphia Police Commissioner Gregore Sambor shouted over a bull horn just prior to ordering a major assault on the non-conformist left wing nature group MOVE,
“MOVE, this is America. Come out with your hands up!”
“…this is America. Come out with your hands up!”
“…this is America. Come out with your hands up!”
“…this is America. Come out with your hands up!”
I know this is besides the point, but could the driver not email the picture and then delete it? Cop wouldn’t have known better anyway and everyone would be happier.
18 USC 242 prosecution, and forfeiture of the deputy’s LEO commission.
would it be poetic justice if these police officers were treated just like sex offenders?
OT, but it looks like Josh Brolin and Jeffrey Wright were victims of police brutality down in Louisiana. Witnesses said Wright was repeatedly tasered, pepper sprayed and called “nigger” after being subdued. Brolin was supposedly sprayed while “playing peacemaker and standing still.” There was cell phone video taken.
It would be sweet to see some high profile people sue the shit out of some cops.
“It would be sweet to see some high profile people sue the shit out of some cops.”
That’s a laugh. In all seriousness, do the cops care if they’re sued? The city/county/state backs them almost every single time, and even should there be some sort of compensation, guess who actually pays the bill? YOU DO! If you try not to pay the bill, guess who comes and points guns at you?
The system is done broke.
#44 wrote: “non-conformist left wing nature group MOVE”
And the Nazi’s were caucasian ethnic pride boosters.
Yeah, all this and, “100,000 more police”, endorsed by both major candidates for president. Three million prisoners…going on four.