Pixiq

It’s pathetic that officers act on their own need to exert their power rather than relying on state statutes.

The only way for these guys to understand the law is for them to be fired themselves.

I hope this guy takes this police department to court and wins a big settlement.

But instead of having the taxpayer pay the settlement fee, make it come out of the officer’s pockets.

This is a blatant abuse of power with ignorance of the law as a main problem. And in the end it is the tax payer who loses his or her rights and has to pay for it.

Well, if he is inside a taped off crime scene he deserves some grief at least a maybe a criminal charge if he has been warned before. Just because he is a former ENT and knows where to be in an ax sence does not give him the right to be there.
He screws it up for the poor staff guys who are just trying to get a few pics before they have to hit the next scene.

However the taking of his camera is a buncha crap.

You think you are within your rights? That’s a pretty poor argument when dealing with the cops. I think a few words like Nazi and Jackboot Gestapo would have been appropriate about this time. It might get you a bigger settlement with the city when you are suing them for beating you into submission.

What does “working with Penacook Rescue” mean? Had he been invited with them to document their work for his journalistic work? If so, then I am even more confused about the police actions.

Carlos, your “Update” says he has been charged, but the linked article says the police are considering charging him. Which is it?

Scott,

Sorry about that. My bad. Just corrected it.

“Dean said.State police said they are keeping it because pictures taken so close to the scene might display evidence related to the wreck.”

This is a convenient, but irrelevant, excuse they’re using in order to inconvenience Mr. Blackden as much as they can get away with, and it’s easy to prove:

Anybody knows that the viewscreen on a camera has much lower resolution than the image itself.

If you think there’s even a slight possibility that something on a camera might be important, the first thing you do – Step One! – is to download the picture off of the camera and onto a computer.

That way, (1) you can view the picture full-size in a proper graphics viewer, and (2) you have a second copy of the data in case something happens to the camera (and hey, if those pictures were important, you’d make damn sure to keep a backup!).

Once that’s done, the camera becomes useless to their investigation (except perhaps to note identifying information about the camera – focal length, shutter speed, setting, etc used when the photos were taken), and there’s nothing preventing them from returning it to its owner.

Secondly, and this is a completely separate issue…

Suppose something in that images later became useful (for example, to be used as evidence of intoxication at a DUI trial). The suspect’s attorney can have those photographs suppressed because they were inappropriately obtained (by illegal seizure from an uninvolved witness).

Ok, so he’s a former cop, EMT, and fireman? Is that possible?

What is Penacock Rescue and in what capacity was he working for them as?

Blackden was arrested and arraigned Tuesday in Concord District Court on charges of impersonation of emergency medical & rescue personnel and obstruction of government administration.

Read more: http://blog.patyuen.com/2010/11/23/new-hampshire-photographer-brian-k-bl...

I would like to know where he was within the accident scene and if he was getting in the way of the first responders. I can see him being charged with interference but I am not sure why they would feel the need to seize the camera.

Question… can the former cop also file a grievance with the police union? Or anything non-criminal but still a union rule?

The training and experience this man must have.

I read the update article and some of the people commenting need to actually READ the article. Comments filled with assumptions directly contradicted by the article..

After reading update article and seeing him in his “firefighter” outfit, it looks like he was impersonating a fireman. The guy was obviously trying to weasel his way in to accident scenes. What a goober.

“After reading update article and seeing him in his “firefighter” outfit, it looks like he was impersonating a fireman. The guy was obviously trying to weasel his way in to accident scenes. What a goober.”

You should tell this to every photographer covering fire season in CA. Many of them wear full firefighter gear (helmet, jacket, boots, walkies, etc) for protection…not to impersonate a firefighter.

“But state police Lt. Scott Sweet said Blackden’s dress blurs the line between journalist and emergency responder.”

“”You apparently have a member of the general public dressing as a firefighter to gain entry into areas they normally wouldn’t have access to, for their financial benefit,” Sweet said.”

Or a professional photographer wearing appropriate safety equipment for the environment he’s shooting in.

Not only as discarted points out above, but I know many major papers even had pool body armor for staffers for possibly dangerous shoots. If you used it, were you impersonating SWAT members?

Are embedded journalists in war zones wearing armor impersonating soldiers?
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

This is a tough one. I read the article on linked above (the one from The Concord Monitor) as well as the write up on WMUR and it kind of sounds like this guy may have crossed the line. From the article:
“Blackden, 45, was wearing a fire coat and helmet yesterday as he snapped photos of the wreckage along Interstate 93 in Canterbury. Though the car was not on fire, he said wearing the gear is a routine procedure for him in case of an explosion.
But state police Lt. Scott Sweet said Blackden’s dress blurs the line between journalist and emergency responder.
“You apparently have a member of the general public dressing as a firefighter to gain entry into areas they normally wouldn’t have access to, for their financial benefit,” Sweet said.”

From the write up on WMUR :

“This person was taking pictures right inside the scene, and while the victim was getting medical aid and being worked on, this guy was taking pictures. That’s above and beyond where we’d normally be with somebody,” Maj. Russell Conte with the New Hampshire State Police said.
I suspect that he showed up and the accident scene and while not claiming to be a 1st responder, he was granted access because of his dress and because he drives a repurposed ambulance.
If that is the case then the argument may become one of who is really at fault – the photographer for dressing in such a manner that it be assumed he is supposed to have access to an accident scene OR the person who gave him access for making that assumption.

I also suspect that the police confiscated his camera because they felt like this guys was intentionally deceptive in his dress and they didn’t like that they were ‘fooled’. If that is the case, and it were proven that this guy is/was posing as a first responder, then keeping his camera would be warranted because it was in use during the commission of a crime.

Seriously though, I think this guy is just a poser and likes being close to the scene – of course that is where the best pictures are…

“You should tell this to every photographer covering fire season in CA. Many of them wear full firefighter gear (helmet, jacket, boots, walkies, etc) for protection…not to impersonate a firefighter.”

Do they also all drive red and white trucks with logos that imply they are emergency personnel? Take another look at his picture. Heck at first glance I thought he was a firefighter as well.

Now we have several stories about cops confiscating cameras. I really wish some (there are a scarce few) patriot cops would spill the beans and upload some FBI/DHS bulletins to Wikileaks. I’m thinking that the feds are behind this since it’s happening at once in different states. I can’t imagine the cops are all going about the same thing all over the country without some “guidance” from their grant money source. We need more brave leakers out there to out this sort of behavior. If I had access to classified/confidential memos telling them to confiscate cameras it would be on Wikileaks right now in all it’s glory.

In reality, all they need is the memory card (or film for some of us old school types). Ceasing a camera, lens, etc. is a punitive action not needed to securing evidence.

Well,

Next time I will wear kimono or bikini to take those kinds of pictures.

What the ……………..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What does any of this have to do with police taking his camera? Could the police have also taken his phone or searched his car on the spot?

Fire-Rescue Photographer

1st RESPONDER NEWS

NH CORRESPONDENT – NE EDITION

http://www.1rbn.com

…

Hrm. Maybe the “authorities” would be happier if he shoehorned “civilian” in there somewhere, as so many think they’re not?
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

Bob,

I think taking his camera was a bit of a reach. I am curious to hear their reasons for that.

However I am talking about him impersonating an emergency responder. Heck he even had “1st Responder” on his red and white truck. That implies that he is, oh I don’t know, maybe a first responder? Hmmm in the stress of a critical incident some guy pulls up in his white truck with “1st Responder” and “Fire – Rescue” on it in red letters and jumps out in a fireman’s hat and blue utility pants.

No way someone would think he was an emergency worker there.

I suppose if someone had a weird mental block where the words “photographer,” “news” and “correspondent” were invisible or something…
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

Once again “Johnny Law” takes things to the extreme.

If you look at the photo, the magnetic sign on the side door says: “1st Responder NEWS”! It also has the word “PHOTOGRAPHER” and “CORRESPONDENT” too.

After looking at the magnetic door sign, if anybody (“Johnny Law”) really thinks the sign would lead them to believe Brian Blackden was firefighter/EMT (considering also the fact he was carrying photo equipment with him) ought to have their vision checked.

I mean really. If that’s the case, then one would have to come to the conclusion that people exiting a vehicle with magnetic door signs saying “Battlestar Galactica” must be visitors from outer space.

Try again “JL”. You’re letting your imagination run wild.

Rail Car Fan

The Cylons are here??? THE POLICE CAN DO NO WRONG!! Help me Tom Cruise!!!

“I think taking his camera was a bit of a reach. I am curious to hear their reasons for that.”

It is also illegal. Unless seized as incident to a lawful search or arrest, police cannot seize private property absent a warrant signed by a magistrate.

Furthermore, because the seizure of the camera was illegal, if they charge him based on any evidence found in the camera that evidence will not be allowed to be heard at a trial and must be surpressed. So the cops are actually hurting their case by illegally seizing the camera.

I agree with JL, it is obvious to me that RCF has never been in a high pressure life threatening situation.

“What were you doing while that guy was bleeding to death?”
“Well I had to read every single word on every single sign on every vehicle in the vicinity to determine if the people getting out of them were meant to be there or not”

I guess RCF has never ever made a mistake, let alone one where first glances lead you to believe that you weren’t.

The guy is clearly pushing himself to look as close to the real thing as possible without actually stepping over the line. He knows how much pressure these guys face and what sort of details get overlooked in the heat of the moment but a jury can deliberate over for 3 days.

Honestly?

You think http://bit.ly/a5a087

in any way passes for, say, http://bit.ly/dllgWL ?

That doesn’t even pass the Moron in a Hurry test.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

Well there is this:

http://tinyurl.com/27ye257

or this:

http://tinyurl.com/2valvng

or even this:

http://tinyurl.com/2fcaofo

Hmm….White emergency service trucks with logos on them. Looks a little similar to his truck. You know, the one that says “1st Responder” and “Fire – Rescue” on it in red letters?

Yeah Mike. Not similar at all. Especially at the scene of a accident where people are trying to handle an emergency.

Third link went wonky.

http://image56.webshots.com/156/1/88/32/2165188320084725930RPpVZt_ph.jpg

Some of the commentors are saying that Mr Blackden is making money off the tragedies of others but can’t the same be said of all the cops, EMT’s and doctors involved in this process?

In our local area we have a plumber that has a work truck that looks like a fire truck but it looks more like a cartoonish firetruck than a real one. There is no way you could mistake it for the real thing.

I know where he keeps it, I will have to take a photo of it.

@JL

And none of those examples you provide have temporary magnetic signs on the side, they have permanent painted-on graphics and they have rollers on them.

You’re only proving my point. Still doesn’t pass the Moron in a Hurry test.

This guy’s van is more likely to be mistaken for a roofer’s van than a real emergency vehicle.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

(And once again, there’s those pesky huge words “photographer,” “news” and “correspondent” on there, along with a .com web address.)
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

This sounds like someone’s asserting hierarchy at the state level. By all the news reports he seems to have a decent to good working relationship with the local EMTs, cops and firefighters but as soon as the Highway patrol got involved…

Instead of investigating their suspicions (valid ones) and then dropping the whole thing as a non issue, once they figured out who he is; they’ve decided to throw all they have at the guy including keeping his illegally confiscated property.

Nobody is saying it is an exact copy. However you add the guy wearing firefighter gear and it is close enough to the real thing that many people wouldn’t question it, especially at an accident scene where a lot of stuff is going on. So what if it says “news”? He could be doing it in some official capacity for all that people on scene know.

I’ve dealt with many “morons in a hurry” and I am sure that a large number of the public would think he was an emergency worker. I think you are looking at this with the benefit of already knowing who he is. Just because you read about him in an article doesn’t mean you would make the right assumption if he pulled up.

This guy is awesome!

We have yet to find anyone who actually states they believed he was a publicly-employed emergency services worker. Thus the “could be confused” point remains entirely hypothetical and for the most part laughable.

And apparently the important people on the scene knew who he was, what he was doing, and had no problem with it.

What I see in this story:

Emergency services people taking care of the most important people on the scene (the victims)

The photographer doing his job, apparently without bothering anyone actually doing anything important (and apparently with their OK)

The state police officer justifying his existence somehow by hassling said photographer about being there.

What I don’t see is any EMTs or firefighters having an issue with the guy. They’re the ones doing the most important work at the accident scene. The cop’s just there to control the scene as necessary, not to hassle the photographer just because he can.

When I see something about the EMTs or fire fighters having a problem with the photographer, I’ll change my mind.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

“When I see something about the EMTs or fire fighters having a problem with the photographer, I’ll change my mind.”

Yeah well you see the EMTs or firefighters are not tasked with enforcing the law. The police officers are. That’s why you see the police considering charging the guy and not the FD.

“Yeah well you see the EMTs or firefighters are not tasked with enforcing the law.”

No one claimed they were.

“The police officers are.”

And they have yet to find one that was actually broken…

“That’s why you see the police considering charging the guy and not the FD.”

And you’ll notice they have yet to actually charge him with anything. Since the point isn’t the EMT/FD charging him (and no one claimed it was) but the fact that the EMT/FD hadn’t complained and the officer had no reason to enforce any law, since none was apparently being broken.

Of course, in order to not have illegally confiscated the camera, the police have to now search for something to charge the photographer with. Which is of course why the police are actually considering charges.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

So since the FD and EMS folks have not complained, that automatically means laws weren’t broken? The law doesn’t require that you annoy the fire department for a violation to occur. You seem to think that the police shouldn’tt take action if EMS and FD don’t approve. I don’t know where you get this.

Look, the guy tried to make himself look as close to an emergency worker as possible. Any idiot can see that. Did he come up and say “Hi. I am an emergency worker”? I don’t know. That is why the police are INVESTIGATING the incident. I know you automatically think the police are doing this just to bother some poor widdle photographer but the truth is they are checking to make sure this clown wasn’t using his FD/EMS wannabe truck and outfit to go where he isn’t supposed to be.

How hard is that for you to understand?

Wait…no need to answer that.

“Look, the guy tried to make himself look as close to an emergency worker as possible.”

Oh, you read his mind and know his intent now. He claims he’s wearing standard safety equipment, as others in this thread stated many other photographers do (including myself).

I mean, any idiot can sit behind a keyboard and assign intent with no actual evidence…

No complaint from the people working the scene (that the police are there to help, not the other way around) and no reason to hassle the guy beyond asking who he is.

Once the police officer found out the photographer was authorized to be there and was known to not be impersonating anyone, he had no reason to confiscate his camera or hold charges over his head.

The officer could have done his actual job instead of trying to throw his weight around… which is apparently impossible for you to understand, JL.

Like I said, once we hear of any complaints from EMT/FD (so far we have the opposite) of the photographer being there, we might have something.

Until then we have the police confiscating a camera without a subpoena and still not having pressed charges…
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

Oh, and watch them ever-slowly back down…

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/state-police-return-photogs-camera
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

And really Johnny, you have yet to show where the officer had any reasonable probable cause to even detain the guy much less take his camera or later hold charges over his head.

Beyond asking who he was, and confirming with the EMT/FD that he had permission to be there, the cop had no good reason to trouble the photographer.

Other than to justify his existence, I suppose.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

if this had been a plane crash, the photos could have been very useful to the NTSB. so the photos may have helped the car crash too

Notice how JL ignores the basic problem here: that the police had no right to seize the camera since the person was not arrested at the time and there was no warrant to seize the camera.

Whether they charge the guy NOW is irrelevant. The seizure was illegal because he wasn’t arrested at the time. This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment protection against unlawful seizure.

And since it violated the 4th amendment, any evidence that exists on the camera, or that they find based on evidence from the camera, will be thrown out of court! The police have gained nothing by seizing the camera.

Cops are the same everywhere, THUGS with the mentality of a fencepost, matter of fact they’re dumber than a fencepost and I’m giving intelligence to a fencepost. Cops are as useless as an anthill full of ants.

@Sydney Carton

ding ding ding!

And now the problem is, they have to come up with a reason for seizing the camera, that at least lets them save face even if it can’t be legal.

And they’re not even doing that very well.

You’ll note in the update I linked above that they finally returned the camera… but kept the memory card. Ostensibly to maintain the “collecting evidence” pretense, but still really just effectively punishing the photographer for not sucking up to “authoritah.”
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

Guys you should really take a deep breath. I’ve not defended the taking of the camera (even though I completely disagree with Sydney about the police not being able to seize a camera as evidence).

I’m talking about this goober trying to blend in as an emergency worker. While they may not charge him, it’s obvious that is what he was trying to do.

“You’ll note in the update I linked above that they finally returned the camera… but kept the memory card. Ostensibly to maintain the “collecting evidence” pretense, but still really just effectively punishing the photographer for not sucking up to “authoritah.”

I guess you can read their mind just like I can read the mind of that photographer?

Kinda hypocritical of you isn’t it?