Police in England can seize your camera as evidence

Worth keeping in mind if you're out taking photos of the riots that are going on at the minute.

By Haje Jan Kamps

Stock image (c) iStockphoto

Earlier today, I sent out a quick tweet warning potential photographers at the ongoing London Riots that police could potentially seize their cameras as evidence. Unsurprisingly, that tweet was challenged, referencing the I'm a Photographer, not a Terrorist 'bust card'.

Everything on the 'bust card' is 100% correct, but there is a legal power police have to seize evidence - any evidence - of a crime, whether the 'evidence' is a bloodied knife, a brick that has been used by a rioter, or video footage recorded on a mobile phone. And yes, that does include any stills or video footage you have.

Enter the Police and Criminal Evidence Act

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) of 1984, under section 19 subclause 3, "The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing that it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is investigating, and that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed." It is worth pointing out that "premises" in this context refers to "any place", as per PACE s23.

In theory, that means that police can seize any recording device if they believe it has been used to record a crime. Say, if you are out photographing a riot, and you take a photo at the exact moment somebody is throwing a petrol bomb, and a police officer spots you, believing that you are the only person who has a record of the crime taking place, for example.

In practice, this means that UK police can seize your whole recording device, whether that is a mobile phone, a camera, or anything else that can be used to record data.

Why your camera would get seized

The reason why your whole camera would get seized, is that police aren't familiar with every camera, and it isn't always possible to ascertain whether an image is stored on internal memory, on a memory card, etc. In addition, in order to be forensically significant, it is preferred that the photos are removed from the camera by forensic examiners: They can then match the clock on your camera to the photos embedded in the EXIF data, for example, to verify exactly when the photo was taken.

It is worth noting that police do not have the right to delete any of your photos (not without a court order, anyway), and that you will get your recording device back in due course.

Can you just refuse to hand it over?

I would certainly demand a receipt for it, but refusing outright isn't necessarily the best approach, nor is the 'scorched earth' approach of trying to delete the photos in an effort to stop them from taking your camera. Deleting images would be seen as perverting the course of justice, and besides the images could easily be recovered anyway.

In addition, constables have the power to use 'reasonable  and necessary force', under section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act: "Where any provision of this Act confers a power on a constable (...) the officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power". In practice, that means that a police officer can use force to take the camera from you. If they would have to do that, they would probably also arrest you for Assaulting or Obstructing a Constable in the Execution of His Duty (section 51 of the Police Act 1964), or perverting the course of justice.

Are professional photographers exempt from this?

This post discusses that police can legally seize your camera, but it would be a question of whether they would.

Obviously, if the BBC was filming something that was a crime in progress, police probably wouldn't seize their camera. Why? Because it would be unlawful: There is generally no reason to believe that the BBC would "conceal, lose, alter, or destroy" the evidence, which is one of the provisions in s19. Instead, police would be able to request a raw, unedited copy of the footage, and can reasonably expect the BBC to comply with the request to hand over the footage.

If you are an accredited press photographer, the same might apply to you: It's possible that you might be able to copy your photos off your memory card, before submitting the memory card as evidence.

However, if the police officer in question does not trust you to submit the evidence needed to secure a prosecution without interfering with the evidence, they may very well seize your camera - or at the very least your memory card.

What should you do if they want to take your equipment?

At the very least, note down the following:

  • Their shoulder number. (If they don't have one displayed, it's probably because they are ranked inspector or higher - they will have a shoulder number, even if it is not displayed. Get it, and write it down.)
  • Their rank and name (should be displayed on their stab-vest, usually as "PC Bloggs" or "PS Thompson" or similar. Again, if it's not displayed, ask to see a warrant card, and write down the information).
  • The police station where you can get your equipment back
  • An estimate of when you can get your equipment back
  • A receipt. Get the officer to write down what they have seized (be specific, with serial numbers), along with the information listed above. Note how many photos are on the memory card; that's how many there should be when you get it back. If there aren't, file a complaint for criminal damage and/or offences under the Computer Misuse Act of 1990 (probably section 3:1a)

Personally, I would also immediately go to the nearest police station and file a complaint. Even if the seizure is lawful, a complaint will ensure that it is escalated, and the forensic examination will probably be expedited, which means you get your camera back faster.

When you file a complaint, you will get a reference number. Take good care of it; the reference number and the receipt are what will ultimately get you your camera back.

DISCLAIMER - I have had some law training, but I am not a solicitor. Whilst I believe the contents of this post are accurate, none of this should be construed as legal advice. Please consult with your own solicitor before acting on any of the above.


Do you enjoy a smattering of random photography links? Well, squire, I welcome thee to join me on Twitter -

© Kamps Consulting Ltd. This article is licenced for use on Pixiq only. Please do not reproduce wholly or in part without a license. More info.

Comments

Bob

'Even if the seizure is lawful, a complaint will ensure that it is escalated, and the forensic examination will probably be expedited, which means you get your camera back faster.'

The only time the seizure of a camera is lawful would be when it had been used to cause harm, injury or loss to a man, woman or child. In other words, as a weapon.

There's a big difference between legal and lawful. Legal requires your consent and your consent is usually given unwittingly. Giving 3 pieces of information gives your consent.

Name
Address
DOB

Give those and your screwed. If there is no injured party, there's no crime.

Just ask..... Is this a civil or a criminal matter?

If they say criminal, ask where's the injured party.
If they say civil, ask to see the contract which contains your wet signature.

It's also worth keeping in mind that when a police officer asks you 'do you understand?' they aren't asking if you comprehend. They are again trying to gain your consent. They are asking if you 'stand under' what they just said.

B

Bob, unless you are prepared to cite some credible source for your rather outre claims about the law, please do not post information which may mislead others into breaking the law.

I don't know if you are in the UK (as the author is, and is referring to) or the US or elsewhere, but in most English-speaking jurisdictions "legal" and "lawful" have largely interchangeable in meanings. The author of this item explained why the police seizure of a camera may be both legal and lawful in the UK under the circumstances which he described (even when not used as a weapon).

Further, in the US at least (and I VERY strongly suspect in the UK as well) giving information which allow police merely to identify your person does not give any sort of general consent. Consent may be given unwisely, but never unwittingly.

The "understand means stand under" bit is just conspiracy theory bunk.

Haje Jan Kamps
Pixiq Expert

"The only time the seizure of a camera is lawful would be when it had been used to cause harm, injury or loss to a man, woman or child. In other words, as a weapon"

Incorrect. A lawful seizure would be any seizure that is legal, as described by law. If someone uses a camera as a weapon, it could in theory be seized as an Offensive Weapon (specifically, as an 'intended offensive weapon'), but it would be more usual to seize it as evidence for an investigation.

I have no idea what you are talking about re: the part about your name, address, or DOB. You don't /have/ to give police any of that information. you can choose to not say anything (as is explained in the Police Caution - You do not have to say anything.... etc). However, if you have broken the law, and you refuse to give your name or address, you can be arrested, and taken to a police station, where your identity will be ascertained one way or another.

Telling police your name, address, and DOB is not consent to anything, I have no idea where you got that form.

And the "stand under" thing... I don't wish to be rude, asking someone if they understand a statement is pretty common procedure: You don't want any confusion about why somebody is being detained or arrested, so asking if they understand what is going on is common sense.

Bob

You may be interested in these........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjd3qQYAS2o watch from 2 mins 10 secs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf6MGQUj6vE from 2 mins 50 secs.

I've seen many, many more over the last couple of years, but they are hard to find.

And some very educational shorts on this channel..........

http://www.youtube.com/user/SoandSoQc

Best wishes.
Bob

Hi Bob,

I saw what you wrote here, gr8 stuff. Would like to get in contact if poss. as I have begun to research the STRAWMAN, Birth Certificate/Bond, etc etc. myself.

I will check back on this site now and then.

If only people bothered to do research instead of beleiving what they are told, and obeying the PTB. Baaaaaaaaa Sheeple

Bob

Hi Peter.

If you don't mind posting an email address I'll drop you a line.
Unfortunately, there's no facility to send PMs through this site.

Regards
Bob

Bob

Thanks David.

I usually refer to Black's Law Dictionary which I believe is a credible source. I'm sure people are smart enough to take any information I offer and do their own due diligence.
I am in a place often referred to as the UK, although I don't recognise such a place. As far as I'm concerned we are all just inhabitants of earth. The lines and divisions are all man made fictions. I also believe we are all created equal and no one has the right to initiate force against another. That includes groups with fictional titles like the state and governments.

Legal and lawful are absolutely not interchangeable, although lawful is very often used incorrectly when meaning legal.

A police constable and a police officer are two different roles in the same 'person'. A constable deals with lawful and an officer with legal. Legal is Statutes & Acts - 'legislated rules of society, given the force of law (in other words - not real law) by consent of the governed.' In other words, it needs your consent, which is gained by creating joinder between you (the living man or woman) and your legal 'person' (a corporation which has the same name as you, but in all capital letters). Your person/strawman/corporation is created when your birth is registered.

Look at your credit card, tax bill etc. Your name is always in capital letters as only legal entities can do business in the world of commerce. The problem comes when we think we are that 'person'.

Sorry to disagree, but your last two paragraphs are incorrect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hlko

Regards
Bob

"I am in a place often referred to as the UK, although I don't recognise such a place."

That's a pretty good sign that others would be well-advised not to take your advice regarding what it legal (and lawful) in the UK then.

Bob

Hi David.

Did I type that? My tinfoil hat must have slipped over my eyes ;^)
'Recognise' is a very important word in Law.

Of course I recall not offering any 'advice' as you put it.

The United Kingdom is a corporation. Yes, a legal 'person'. And it can do business with your 'person' in the world of commerce. Fines, taxes etc etc.

Any how. There's a lot of information for people to look into if they so wish, but I understand that, when we are presented with information that completely destroys our view of who we are and our standing in the world, it's frightening. The normal response of people I have discussed this with who are fearful is to try and horizontally police the provider of the information, usually by using violent language and derogatory terms. The more open minded and curious will start to research and see if there is any validity to what has been said. I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me. I'm just some guy on the internet.

For anyone interested there are some interesting links here.......
I'm not connected to any group or organization btw.

http://www.tpuc.org/node/558

600 people gather to arrest a Judge acting unlawfully in Birkenhead - Yep, you didn't see that one on the news eh? The government had the original video removed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_QAoDNf0_s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzSoAGRO2K0

Here's a montage of pictures from that day..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPTdcVXk0LY

Best wishes.
Bob

This reminds me of the cameras hidden on police uniforms
http://bit.ly/qL4nTR

Haje Jan Kamps
Pixiq Expert

Bob,

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about in this instance. The law is broken into rights and obligations related to "any person" (i.e. powers granted to any person), and laws, rights and obligation applying only to "a constable", which in the case of the Metropolitan Police is someone who has sworn an oath to the queen, and has been 'warranted' by the queen. The physical embodiment of this would be their "warrant card". What you may have seen on TV when an English police force when they 'flash their badge' is this warrant card.

Also, I am worried that you are referring to the UK here. As Black's Law Dictionary will tell you, there's no unified law for all of the UK. There's England and Wales, and there's Scottish law. All of the information contained in the original post refers to English law.

I think your interpretation of the differentiation between "legal" and "lawful" is a little fuzzy, in practical terms, "lawful" only means that something is done according to the letter of the law.

As for your original post: the "under stand" thing is hogwash.

In fairness to Bob, I'm the one who brought up the UK, rather than distinguishing the laws of England and Wales vs. Scotland vs. Northern Ireland. I'm from and in the US, and forgot about that distinction.

That said, I will try to follow the principle of "if you can't say anything nice or helpful, don't say anything at all", and so say nothing further about what Bob posted except "caveat lector".

Bob

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, not that I think you are horses Haje & Dave ;^)

We are born men and women with inalienable rights, but we unwittingly give them away, usually, by submitting (bend to another's will) application (apply = to beg) for registration. Whenever you register anything you give up rights and sign over title ownership. That's why, when you register your car, you become the 'registered keeper' and, should you not play by the rules you agreed too (fuel it with duty applied fuel, tax it etc) the real owner, the DVLA, can take it away and crush it. There are plenty of people traveling around in what we know as cars that aren't registered. It's your right to do so if you know how.

If you think you are a 'person', a 'citizen', a 'name', a member of society (what's the name of your society? - that's right - The Law Society - You are obeying rules of a society you aren't even a member of because you think you are obliged too) that's your choice, but that is what allows another 'person' like the government, the law courts etc to act upon your person. If you 'understand' them and hand over your 'details' you've contracted.

If you stand in court as a flesh and blood man, statutes and acts can't be applied.

All this info is out there if you want to find it.

At the end of the day, we all have inalienable rights as men and women and no one and no group of other men and women have the right to initiate force against you. You are born free, live free and die free. Any rights you submit are done voluntarily, although usually unwittingly.

I prefer to keep all my rights intact.

I wish you both a really great day.
All the very best.
Bob

While section 19 does give the police to seize your camera
section 22 means they cannot retain it longer that necessary to take a copy of the photos or video, see subsection 4 below

22 Retention.

(1)Subject to subsection (4) below, anything which has been seized by a constable or taken away by a constable following a requirement made by virtue of section 19 or 20 above may be retained so long as is necessary in all the circumstances.

(2)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above—

(a)anything seized for the purposes of a criminal investigation may be retained, except as provided by subsection (4) below—

(i)for use as evidence at a trial for an offence; or

(ii)for forensic examination or for investigation in connection with an offence; and

(b)anything may be retained in order to establish its lawful owner, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence.

(3)Nothing seized on the ground that it may be used—

(a)to cause physical injury to any person;

(b)to damage property;

(c)to interfere with evidence; or

(d)to assist in escape from police detention or lawful custody,

may be retained when the person from whom it was seized is no longer in police detention or the custody of a court or is in the custody of a court but has been released on bail.
(4)Nothing may be retained for either of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above if a photograph or copy would be sufficient for that purpose.

Post new comment

Pixiq on Facebook

Join the 10192 Pixiq fans on Facebook

Share

  • Share

Subscribe

Get weekly updates from Pixiq. Short, sweet, and always interesting.