TheAgitator.com
Glenn Reynolds on Photography in Public Spaces
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010Great piece by the Instapundit in Popular Mechanics.
Here’s how bad it has gotten: Not long ago, an Amtrak representative did an interview with local TV station Fox 5 in Washington, D.C.’s Union Station to explain that you don’t need a permit to take pictures there–only to be approached by a security guard who ordered them to stop filming without a permit.
Legally, it’s pretty much always okay to take photos in a public place as long as you’re not physically interfering with traffic or police operations. As Bert Krages, an attorney who specializes in photography-related legal problems and wrote Legal Handbook for Photographers, says, “The general rule is that if something is in a public place, you’re entitled to photograph it.” What’s more, though national-security laws are often invoked when quashing photographers, Krages explains that “the Patriot Act does not restrict photography; neither does the Homeland Security Act.” But this doesn’t stop people from interfering with photographers, even in settings that don’t seem much like national-security zones.
Tennessee law student Morgan Manning has compiled a list of incidents in which individuals were wrongly stopped. Cases like that of Seattle photographer Bogdan Mohora, who was arrested for taking pictures of police arresting a man and had his camera confiscated. Or NASA employee Walter Miller, who was stopped for photographing an art exhibit near the Indianapolis City-County Building and told that “homeland security” forbade photos of the facility. More recently, a CBS news crew was turned back from shooting the oil-fouled gulf coastline by two U.S. Coast Guard officers who said they were enforcing “BP’s rules.”
Unfortunately, Manning notes, although such hassling is generally illegal, it’s hard for the average citizen to get redress in court–how do you calculate the value of deleted snapshots or photos never taken in the first place?
You calculate the value the same way the state calculates the value of confiscated drugs.
Since I once sold a picture for $1000, I value each picture at $1000. I was detained and prevented from taking the 400 pictures I had planned to take. The value of those 400 pictures is therefore $400,000.
From reading Carlos Miller’s blog (Photography is not a Crime), I was under the impression that 5 digits settlements occur at least occassionally.
To put it another way, if you’re the cop, you’re far better off breaking the law by destroying the evidence, so why wouldn’t you break the law?
The reason cops will continue to interfere with photographers is simple. Because they can.
I don’t mean to minimize the destruction caused on 9/11, but the overwhelming majority of the damage happened after the attacks and a good part of that is due to the elevated authority given to law enforcement in the name of national security.
Instapundit may or may not have some valid points. But he lives in such a fantasy land that I don’t think it’s worth the time to look into his assertions.
Remember, this is the guy who was crowing two days ago about how Brietbart brought down the “racist” black woman.
He’s just a nut.
From the article:
The officers who crack down on photographers no doubt believe they are protecting public safety.
Bullshit. At what point do we stop giving cops the benefit of the doubt. If there is anything cops have clearly demonstrated, it’s that public safety is probably the last thing on their minds when they harass someone for taking pictures.
“The officers who crack down on photographers no doubt are getting their rocks off by intimidating people.”
Fixed it for them.
The problem is that there are almost no statutorily defined punishments for violating constitutional rights. Thus, a violation of the 4th only means that the state cannot use evidence against you: which is only relevant if there IS such evidence. It does nothing for police harrassment.
There is a general “civil rights” violation statute, but it is extremely difficult to obtain a judgement, unless….you have a recording. And THAT, boys and girls, is the kicker.
@ SJE #8
Even if you do have a recording a section 1983 is still almost impossible to get. The courts have interpreted the qualified immunity requirement that state actor’s action be clearly unconstitutional / illegal in such a way that you pretty much have to win a 1983 lawsuit to establish the act was illegal and establish notice.
Then, if another state actor does the same exact thing, you can sue and maybe get damages.
If you are a regular photographer of the police, why not just use two cameras….
The one the police confiscate, and the hidden one that you have cleverly disguised the lens as a campaign button, jewelry, pocket pen, tie clip, or…….??
How about making the violation by falsely ordering someone to stop filming by any person in apparent authority – cop, emergency worker, security guard, manager, subject to criminal prosecution? This is a very rough thought, and one posed by the costliness to the victim of civil remedies.
Any refining ideas out there? Can’t there be separate remedies besides 1983? Granted, getting them passed would be problematic. Maybe a harassment code subsection could be added to include it. Any state laws that possibly include it now, by strong implication?
@#9: Yep, S 1983 requirements are difficult, almost like you need to show that the cops are riding through town in white robes with pointy hats, every Wed, and string up people on Thursdays.
@#10: I agree that a spare would be good. However, most incriminating shots are not made by professionals, but by the random citizen with a cell phone or a security camera.
In related news, NYPD cops driving wrong way on a street collided with a man and broke his nose. They could have reported it, gotten the wagging finger, and moved on: it was just a mistake and really no evil intent. The cops didnt report it. When the man did, the cops came up with all sorts of lies. Of course, evidence from a distant security camera supported the man’s story. Good news: cops are being arraigned.
//The problem is that there are almost no statutorily defined punishments for violating constitutional rights.//
Actually, such punishments do exist. The government just doesn’t care to enforce them.
The fundamental “punishment” for violating constitutional rights is that actions which do so are *ILLEGITIMATE*. Under Article VI of the Constitution, no statute or other rule can be superior to the Constitution, and no government agent is authorized to act in a manner contrary to the Constitution. Thus, any government agent performing such actions does so without legitimate authority.
Someone who without legal justification forcibly takes property from people, or who accosts people with the intention of taking their property, is a robber. Someone who without legal justification accosts people with the intention of holding them is a kidnapper. If a person dies while someone is engaging in such activities, the person engaging in the activities is a murderer.
If courts would do their duty and regard unconstitutional actions as fundamentally illegitimate, existing statutes for robbery, kidnapping, etc. would do much to keep such actions in check.
Proof again the laws don’t mean anything. In America today all the rights you have are what the guy with the gun allows you to have.
Tangentially related:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/21/police-fatalities-surge-percent-year/
*******
Police Fatalities Surge 43 Percent in 2010
Eugene O’Donnell, professor of police studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said the number of officer fatalities fluctuates from year to year. However, he said he has noticed an “alarming frequency” of people targeting police.
“There has been a spate of particularly brutal and senseless attacks on the police,” said O’Donnell, a former police officer and prosecutor in New York. “It seems to me, an unprecedented level of disrespect and willingness to challenge police officers all over the place.”
He said a rise in mental health problems and scathing criticism of police, such as the comments found on some blogs, could be fueling the brazenness and disregard for authority.
*********
You see?! IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT, BALKO!!!!!!111111ONEONEONE!!!! :-P
> He said a rise in mental health problems and scathing criticism of police, such as the comments found on some blogs, could be fueling the brazenness and disregard for authority.
Or the cops’ routine disregard of the law and their SS Attitude might have something to do with it.
Luke “Police Fatalities Surge 43 Percent in 2010″
What about non-cop fatalities, anybody keeping tabs on that? Because I would imagine that they still kill a lot more of us than we do of them.
@15 @16
I’m hearing that someone is taking potshots at Oakland CA police. Cops are crapping themselves sideways as the bullet flies past their ear.
I can’t tell if the shooter is a bad shot, or deliberately missing as part of a PsyOp.
seattle passed a law explicitly stating that citizens have the right to film/take pics of after the camara confiscating incident
Unholy bastard.
“Brazeness and disregard for authority”
Authority is something earned and kept as in “Radley Balko, an authority on SWAT over-reach.” LEOs have overspent their authority and are bankrupt.
If the newspapers and local TV news would have done their job and held the police accountable then they would never have grown so arrogant and out of control in the first place. The blogs are the true press in this country, reporting news the “news’ is too cowardly to report.
JS: lets look at the politicians. THEY should be holding the cops accountable. Of course, look at their own efforts to investigate themselves…..
Amen SJE! They are too scared of being called soft on crime though.
Except their own crimes……..
#23 SJE. Politicians are too busy on their knees fellating LEOs to hold them accountable. The one thing politicians have in common with the cops is that they are cowards. Every last one of them is afraid to be tagged “anti law enforcement.”
It seems to me that the increasing capability and willingness of people to film/record the police is a very real and explicit answer to the age old questions: “who will watch the watchers?” and “who will police the police?”.
It seems to me that the de facto and obvious answer is turning out to be, anyone and everyone else.
Also, I am considering getting a t-shirt printed that says something to the effect of “Assume that all interactions with me are being recorded”. Just to explicitly let the bureaucrats know that they are being watched…. I wonder how this t-shirt idea would go down in a courtroom as a response to silly wiretapping statute nonsense….