Pixiq

please note you misquoted the article, which says “Officer Derek Evans approached Saltz and told him he could not stand there and that he needed to move”

he did not order him to “leave the area” as you claim – two different things

he said move, he didn’t say leave – two difference things

generally, if you’re standing outside the yellow tape you’re ok BUT there are areas outside the tape over which officers may exert lawful control, for example an area where a leo vehicle or ambulance may enter or exit the scene, that’s outside the tape but many jurisdictions include within the police department’s lawful control & purview

also, if the officer on the scene felt that activity outside the yellow tape, like jostling reporters, could compromise the protected area, he is within the law to order folks to take a step or two back or to order a particular journalist who he feels may be compromising the barrier to step back, which may wall be what happened here

the officer in question released the suspect after issuing the citation – this sounds like standard procedure

while I won’t dispute the fact that some officers step over the bounds at time with the press, this does not sound like one of them – I don’t think this dog will hunt

my $0.02 ymmv

“which may wall be what happened here”

I meant “which may well be what happened here”

(wish this site had an opportunity to preview comments)

Officer Brad,

He was ordered to leave the area where he was standing, which is where he was positioned to take his photo.

The photographer was just trying to do his job as the officer was.

I really doubt he was standing directly into the path of where an emergency vehicle was going to pull in because police would have said that.

Plus, most photojournalists have enough sense not to do that.

In all my years of photographing crime scenes for newspapers, we could stand where ever we wanted as long as we were behind the yellow tape.

Sure there were times when police felt we were too close but those are the times when a supervisor ordered the tape to be expanded.

And what exactly do you mean by “compromising the protected area”?

The protected area is within the yellow tape. If the cop felt that the compromising area fell outside the tape, then why not just expand the tape?

It seems as if he had a particular problem with this photographer.

And whether he released him after giving him the citation instead of taking him to jail, he still prevented him from doing his job.

He still hassled him for doing something he is legally entitled to do.

If I find a plugin that allows previews on comments, I will install it.

Carlos,

the important thing here is that once the officer told the photog he could not stand where he was, AS A MATTER OF LAW the restricted area extended outside the yellow tape to where the photog was standing – your own experience is not relevant to the issue at hand – the photographer AS A MATTER OF LAW had to follow the officer’s order, if he thought that order was wrong or stupid, he should have moved THEN taken steps to protest the order AFTER MOVING, either on the spot or in a later complaint

the photog REFUSING to follow the police officer’s order because he doesn’t like it just won’t cut it – it’s not a debate, it’s called an ORDER – if the photog tries this line in court, he’ll likely be convicted

the remedy is not ignoring the police officer & arguing with him about why he’s refusing

>The photographer was just trying
>to do his job as the officer was.

a photographer has a job to do but the police department cannot subordinate law enforcement to that photographer’s job or allow him to interfere with a police investigation – a photographer can usually stand in more than one place to get a good shot – the photographer MUST follow the police officer’s order

>I really doubt

>It seems as if he had

maybe, maybe not – but you’re speculating here, not reporting known facts

>And what exactly do you mean by
>“compromising the protected area”?

he could fall or knock another person down, who then falls into the protected/restricted area or knocks something into the protected area – neither of us know how large the restricted area was

>He still hassled him for doing
>something he is legally entitled to do.

maybe, maybe not – you’re assuming he was “hassling” him – the leo may have genuinely thought the photog was doing something that would compromise the restricted area & it is incumbent on the officer to protect the scene – that’s not hassling, it’s doing his job, even if it was a judgment the photog does not like

photos/video from the scene would help to explain how this went down because both of us are speculating based on a sketchy written report by the photographer’s own employer

at a minimum, the photographer should have followed the officer’s order, the article you link suggests he did not

B

oops a bit was cut

>He still hassled him for doing
>something he is legally entitled to do.

the photog has NO legal right to ignore the police officer, if the cop said move, he HAD to move – that’s not an appealable judgment or a point open to debate – the officer MUST be obeyed

(BTW we call the taped-off area the “protected” area not the “restricted” area in my dept.)

Officer Brad,

Your argument sounds similar to the arguments used against me in my arrest because I did refuse to leave the area when the officers ordered me to.

I admitted that from day one.

And it is the reason why I was initially charged with five counts of refusing a lawful order.

But as it turns out, not every order out of an officer’s mouth is a lawful order.

I know that is hard for some officers to comprehend but it is the truth. It is the law.

That is why in my case, I was acquitted of refusing a lawful order even though I never denied refusing their order to leave the area.

In this case, the photographer was told to leave the area from where he was standing but he was standing on the other side of the “protected” area, which as you know, it purposely put up there so nobody will interfere with the investigation.

And that detail will be the deciding factor when the photographer gets acquitted for interfering with an investigation.

This is a test for a comment preview plugin I just installed. Looks like it works.

There you go, Officer Brad.

“when the photographer gets acquitted for interfering with an investigation”

ah, my friend, you’re assuming the Louisiana case is exactly the same as yours, which it is not – it’s not even the same state, so precedent etc. will be different

& you’re assuming the photog is always right & the cop is always wrong, which is not the case either

your case was a construction scene based on what it says in your bio, the Louisiana case was a homicide scene – in the latter situation, I would not be surprised if the judge gives more latitude to the police officer’s judgment given the severity of the investigation & the critical need for crime site integrity

my advice for any journalist/reporter/photog in these type of situations is to follow the police officer’s orders THEN deal with the matter through the proper channels, then you can avoid the arrest/trial/expense – file a complaint against the officer &/or follow the officer’s order THEN call the PD from the scene with your cell (as the Louisiana photog should have done)

of course not every order a police officer gives will be found AFTER THE FACT to be a lawful order, but police officers are not gods, they have to make snap, on the spot decisions – that’s their job

while some defendants are found not guilty of violating orders because the orders are found not lawful, those cases are by far the exception, not the rule

new comment preview thing is kewl – will have to comment more often now

Officer Brad,

I’m not basing this incident on my own arrest. I’m basing it on the many times I’ve covered crime scenes including murders as a journalist in New Mexico, California and Arizona.

Police put up the protective tape and as long as you don’t cross it, you’re fine.

I’ve had incidents where the cops try to yell at the reporters on the other side of the tape, only to have the reporters stand their ground.

The cop ends up going to his supervisor who orders the tape to be expanded.

That’s how it works and you know it.

“The cop ends up going to his supervisor who orders the tape to be expanded.”

the news report you linked said the arresting officer was also the supe in the field, so he was effectively expanding the protected area by ordering the photog away from where he was standing – he expanded exactly like you mentioned

notice this bit from the article you linked:

“Armstrong remarked that restricted areas at crime scenes are either [sic] blocked by crime scene tape, natural barricades or officers’ instructions.”

notice that bit about “officers’ instructions” – he did exactly what you’re talking about – he expanded the crime scene

in many jurisdictions, including my state, a verbal order from a police order carries the same weight as tape/barricades – don’t know about FL but based on the quote this seems to be the case in Louisiana

we never have a problem with news photogs around here, you need to come teach them how to be aggressive – they usually just sit in their cars & shoot out the window

just shot you a link to an article by email you’ll find of interest

I think it’s obvious that the cop simply did not want him to take photos of the dead guy.

For some reason, many cops feel they have to protect the dead man’s honor from photographers.

However, this is not lawful. If the body is laying out in the street, the photographer can photograph it as long as he doesn’t cross the yellow line.

That quote from Armstrong is just a typical quote from a PIO trying to justify the cop’s behavior.

This same officer makes no attempt to explain exactly how the photographer was interfering with the investigation.

Thanks for the link. Will be posting it soon.

Officer Brad, you maybe an LEO, but you are wrong.
I’ll post this up front, I am not a reporter nor am I a journalist.
Dec 27, there was an house fire two blocks from my home at around 9:3opm. I got my son off to bed and told the wife were I was going and packed up all my gear and a heavy tripod and walked to the fire. By the time I arrived the fire was out and the tamping down had started.

I setup across the street from the police and fire units and started taking pictures using a 300mm and 10mm lens (yes 10). After getting a few shots I switched lens to a 50mm 1.8 and moved in closer.
While talking to the owner of the house, the fire captain came up and said “Hello mr independent journalist”. I corrected him and said I was a portrait photographer and not a journalist.

Ill stop here for the moment. So here I am with a tripod and a camera taking pictures and I am already being questioned by the Fire Department.

Our conversation continues for a few moments and I tell him, I’m not even taking pictures of the fire or devastation, but taking pictures of his men and equipment because they are the hero’s.
After a few more moments where he pointing out that its rude to take pictures during someones time of grief, I very calmly explained to him, “I understand, but I have every right to do so even if it is considered rude.” He leaves at this point.

Keep in mind, I am now standing with the owner of the home and all the neighbors that have come to watch.

After about 10 minutes of snapping pics of the firetrucks I have a Harris County Officer come up to me and tell me I have to stop taking pictures. It went something like this. “Sir, Sir, SIR, you can not take pictures here!” I asked “why, I am on a public sidewalk with other people standing here.”
This is the best part yet, he said “Because I said so! Now stop!”. Now this officer is about 6 to 10 feet from me. Oh and no I am not using a flash, that is why I switched to 50mm 1.8 lens.
The fire captain at this point (I think) noticed what was going on and yelled at the officer to leave him alone. It sounded something like “JASON, leave it (him??) alone.”
I got a real good glare from the officer but he did walk off. (Thank goodness)…

As a side note of the events, I sent the captain and the fire chief high res shots of the pics I took that night for their own use and got a very nice thank you from it.

Now, I believe this officer gave me a unlawful order and I did not obey. Could he have arrested me, yes. Would it have stuck? No. Thankfully the Fire Captain knew this officer and called him down or it probably would have gone bad for me that evening.

Just because it comes from a LEO’s mouth does not make it a lawful order. It does not matter how much stress you are under. Keep that in mind.

Officer Brad, you maybe an LEO, but you are wrong.

BJ, you’re comparing apples and oranges here

the Louisiana photographer was not arrested because he was taking photographs; he was arrested because he refused to move & that refusal to move therefore interfered with a homicide investigation

had the officer at your fire ordered you to move because he felt your tripod blocked a public sidewalk & therefore created a public hazard at night during an emergency, that would be a more apt comparison

Just because it comes from a LEO’s mouth does not make it a lawful order

that is correct – however, the determination that a police officer’s order was not lawful can only be made by a court of law after the fact – if a citizen wants to presume that a police officer’s order is unlawful & therefore ignore the officer, the citizen runs the risk of being arrested & the court rejecting a challenge to the order’s lawful validity – thereafter, only if the court holds that the police officer lacked what is known legally as “probable cause” to issue the order will the concomitant charge or charges be dismissed

if you think the order is unlawful, but the court holds it is a lawful order (which happens more than 99.99% of the time), your opinion will thus be your undoing – “I thought the cop was wrong” is not an affirmative defense from that point forward

successful challenges of a lawful order on probable cause grounds are extremely infrequent particularly when such orders are made at a homicide crime scene since courts traditionally give police officers considerable leeway on judgment calls of that sort because the protection of evidence & scene integrity is so important – the courts traditionally recognize that police officers, not private citizens, have the expert knowledge to determine homicide scene parameters

It does not matter how much stress you are under

I said nothing about stress – I raised the point about snap judgments because this all relates to the issue of probable cause – courts bend over backwards to give cops leeway on crime scene judgments & all the more so when it’s a homicide scene – courts recognize that a police officer has to make fast judgments about how to protect the scene & courts will not allow citizens to second-guess that process by ignoring him

ergo, the probable cause threshold in a homicide scene case like this is extraordinarily high

so save yourself some grief, move when the cop asks you to, take your pictures from another location – if you ask the cop where you can stand, all the better

A word of advice, if a LEO asks you to move or leave, do it. Then take actions if you think it was an unlawful order. In a court of law, a case with a he said/he said type, generally speaking and pending investigation, the LEO usually always wins.