After hurdles and barricades, police say they will now return camera to model
Tasha Ford was having all kinds of trouble getting the Boynton Beach Police Department to return her video camera.
In the days following her arrest for filming cops against their wishes, she called the police department for them to return her camera, which they had confiscated.
A clerk in the property room told her she needed a “record of disposition”. She said she had a “disposition record”.
The clerk didn’t think that was the same thing. She convinced him it was. Then he told her it needed to be certified at the circuit court before he can accept it and return her camera.
She drove down to the courthouse and was told her they would be unable to certify the document because the case was too new and it had not been placed in the system yet.
Two days later, she drove to the courthouse again but was told that they could not certify the document because the charges were still pending.
At the time, she was under the impression that the judge had dropped her felony eavesdropping charge but had retained the misdemeanor resisting an officer without violence charge. But she learned that she was still facing both charges.
However, a week later, she received a document stating that the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office had dropped all charges against her, so she took that document down to the courthouse and was able to get it certified.
Then she called the police department and was told she could come down and pick up her camera.
However, when she walked into the property room on Wednesday, she was told that the arresting officers had placed a “hold” on her camera, which meant that they could not release it to her.
“The officer in the evidence room told me he had never heard of a hold being placed on a camera,” she said. “He said usually a hold in only placed on drug money or impounded vehicles.”
She was told that the arresting officers have 30 days to refile the charges so it might take that long for them to return her camera.
On Thursday, I contacted Boynton Beach Police spokeswoman Stephanie Slater to inquire about the “hold” on Ford’s camera.
After berating me for not having contacted her before to get their side of the original story, she assured me she would get to the bottom of this.
A few hours later she sent me an email stating the following:
The case against Sharron “Tasha” Ford was NO FILED by the PBC SAO on Friday, March 20, 2009. The paperwork came to the Boynton Beach Police Department yesterday (Wednesday, March 25, 2009).
By law, the arresting officer has 30 days from March 20, 2009 to refile the charges with the state. Therefore, there is still a hold on the evidence in this case. I would suggest Ms. Ford check back with our evidence custodians on Monday, April 20.
She also sent me the arrest report, stating that “even though you did not ask for these documents when you first reported on this incident, as a journalist, I am confident you now want to report this as accurately as possible.”
It turns out, the arrest report confirms just how clueless the arresting officers are about laws regarding public photography and videography.
They really do believe that it is illegal to video tape somebody in public with audio. If that were the case, then how come they’re not out rounding up all the TV news videographers?
Here are just a few statements from the report. The entire report is posted below.
This is when Officer Lature ID #797 initially approached Ford and told her to pull the car forward and she could not video and audio record us that it’s against the law and that she needed to turn the camera off and stop recording …
Orders were continually given over and over for Ford to turn the camera off, turn the camera off, this is your last opportunity …
Sgt. Faine explained to Ford that she cold only visually video tape and needed to reconsider her actions and behaviors because it is unlawful to record our conversations …
Anyway, so I asked Slater if the officers intended to refile charges against Ford. After inquiring with the arresting officer, she reported that police do not intend to refile charges against Ford.
So then I asked her then why is there still a hold on the camera?
This time, a Sgt. Suzanne Gitto responded with the following email:
Mr. Miller,
I hope that I can clear up this issue of the “hold on the evidence” because I think the term is being used incorrectly. When Ms. Ford was arrested the camera/video were submitted into evidence as part of the normal arrest process. When Ms. Ford came to the police department to retrieve her property, she had made no previous arrangements with the evidence department.
The records custodian contacted evidence and was informed that the evidence could not be released to her. At that time, the evidence technician he had not received the official notification from the SAO that the charges were dropped and the evidence could be released.
Since that time, we have received the official notification from the SAO, we are not intending to file new charges against Ms. Ford, and we will be giving Ms. Ford her camera/video. She can contact the evidence department and arrange to pick up her belongings.
At no time were we attempting to deny Ms. Ford her personal property. I hope this clears the issue up.
Sgt. Suzanne Gitto
Frankly, had I known the Boynton Beach Police Department to be this communicative with reporters, I would have contacted them earlier but it’s been my experience as a blogger not writing for the mainstream media (anymore) that I never get a response from police departments.
So perhaps this is the beginning of a blossoming professional relationship.
Ford says she will try to retrieve her camera on Friday. Stay tuned.
Now check out the arrest report.
TashaFordArrestReport
-30-
I am a multimedia journalist who has been fighting a lengthy legal battle after having photographed Miami police against their wishes in Feb. 2007. Please help the fight by donating to my Legal Defense Fund in the top left sidebar. To keep updated on the latest articles, join my networks at Facebook, Twitter and Friendfeed.
Get all outdoorsy with Pentax's Optio WG2 and WG2-GPS
Canon's complement of compacts
How to use a grey card
We’re All Bozos On This Bus--The Red Bus to Hell
Nikon PB4 Bellows Reborn
Worlds Fastest Camera
The New Sony NEX 7
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
Photo Accessories that Fail Security Checks
My week with Q
Studio equipment buying guide for beginners
VSCO Film Studio Review
Lessons in Lighting
The russellgraves.com Photo Minute - Truck Blinds
Photographing Children in the wedding party
Cattle Country
Creative Photo Valentine Surprise
How to Use Multiple Lights for Dramatic Portraits
Making your own flash diffuser
LR4 free presets: Faded series
Using Sync for Video in Develop
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
My Night with Ilford Galerie Gold Silk Fibre
FOTOMOTO - Why I Left











Silhouettes & Photo Contests
Cyan, not just another color
Our 26 best photo projects of 2011
Family Ties That Bind
Animal Group Portraits
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Lightroom Interview: Kevin Tieskoetter
Always Dream Big
Gallery: Embedded with the Territorial Army
Getty Villa Malibu — 4 Old Faces, 1 Sunken Garden — GALLERY (6 photos)
Wildlife photography for the masses
The 110 page guide to post-processing
How much should you charge for a photograph?
Santa Pictures + Marketing for your Business




























Comments
Yes, it is good you have the report to now report this “as accurately as possible.”
Without the report, I don’t think I actually would have believed the officers really could be /that/ clueless.
Looking forward to the video Carlos
what a bunch of red tape crap.
wow, the officer really has no idea what the law is in regards to video&audio recordings in public. the officer needs to be retrained as he has no clue, how much is she gonna end up getting in a civil suit?
The officers need to take some English classes.
Good work Carlos.
I think the law needs some work also, http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMe... You can tell it’s not meant to apply to public speech by reading some of the exceptions but in my brief reading I don’t see where it specifically says that and cops are going to continue to do stuff like they did to Tasha until that exception is specifically added in. I’m sure that there is already some case law in FL on this.
so since she berated you for not getting their side of the story, I’m dying to know what she told you their side of the story is. Fess up, Carlos.
Their side of the story is in the arrest report, which is no different than my original story because it confirms they arrested her for filming cops against their wishes.
So they were trying to say that she ‘intercepted’ their speaking to her by recording their ‘oral’ communication ? What a crock. I don’t think that this law has anything to do with recording public speech in an open area where there certainly was no expectation of privacy.
Silver,
As far as I know, this charge is mostly applied to people recording phone conversations without the other person’s knowledge.
When cops around the country have tried to apply it to cases like this, it has gotten thrown out, as I wrote about last year in this article.
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/02/06/if-police-have-nothing-to-hide-then-t...
Hi, just letting you know about this I found on the local Puerto Rico paper:
http://www.elnuevodia.com/arrestan_a_estudiante_de_la_upr/549861.html
They don’t have the full story, but it seems like they damaged one student’s photographic equipment while arresting him. Just thought you might want to look into it, since we’re a US territory under the same Constitution.
You should tell Tasha Ford to check out this website.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/florida.html
“Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02. See also Stevenson v. State, 667 So.2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996); Paredes v. State, 760 So.2d 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).”
Thanks for the heads up, Ramos.
Simon,
Nice one. There it is clear as day. Perhaps the Boynton Beach Police Department should check out that site.
Simon,
that’s the ticket,
(2) “Oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.
Well I guess when you see a video camera with the red light on you can’t expect it to not be recorded. So we can take another tack on this. It’s another situation where the cops are trying to create a crime. Trying to set up the expectation that their oral communications aren’t to be recorded. Ok, you aren’t going to play our game we will arrest you for not doing so, even though that is not what the law is.
I also wouldn’t give to much credit to the cops account that her son actually admitted he was trespassing. Because if that’s actually what happened the kid wouldn’t have used those words. So it sounds like something that was created back in the station house.
once again, the police are lying. they have no evidence of my son committing any crime, because he didn’t. this to will come out. this is a rush to judge without questions asked.
Hey Tasha,
What ever happened to the video? I am sure quite a few of us would really like to see what the most like thug cops were doing when you got there.
Thanks,
Frank
Frank,
Tasha has hired a lawyer to pursue a civil suit against the police department.
The lawyer has advised her not to publish the video for the time being.
Why is it important to tell us she is a “model?” Lots of people call themselves “models” when their career consists of paying for some Glamour Shots at the mall.
Also, if the police were giving her a courtesy call to come get her trespassing son rather than hauling him into juvenile, why was she videotaping it? Unless she knew what a troublemaker her son was and had dealt with him being in trouble before… possibly one of those mothers who thinks her son is being railroaded when he’s really a criminal.
It’s funny to think of why cops think it is against the law to audiotape them in public. An image comes to mind of a bunch of officers sitting around reading the statute that covers it but forgetting to read the part with definitions which makes it clear that you can audiotape someone speaking in public…
@17, Becca:
While it is an interesting psychological question wether one videotapes or photographs something, it’s really of no legal concequence.
Think about it. Would you be asking “you have to ask why the chap was eating a corn dog on the pavement, perhaps he is planning to throw up on someone?” or “why is that man driving down the road? Maybe he wants to go to the shop to buy booz for minors?”?
Post new comment