Pixiq

I see a guy getting arrested for disobeying a lawful order to “back-up”. The cops told him where he could stand and continue filming (creating a reasonable perimeter and allowing him to continue recording and getting him out of the way of traffic).

Also what is up with the edit at 1:34? You can hear what sounds like the camera guy saying something and then then it cuts to a slightly different angle.

The cop telling him to leave was unlawful, but Jon is right, they CAN tell you to back away. If he had gone to the shopping cart he probably wouldn't have been arrested. Unless you WANT to be convicted it's not a good idea to give them any ammunition.

Is "back-up" a lawful command? You could take 100 steps back, and still be arrested, simply by having a different definition of what was adaquate from the arresting officer.

I agree with you Jon. When a cop tells you to move for safety reasons, it's best to comply. I doubt very seriously that he would have been arrested if he simply moved back onto the sidewalk where the officer told him to go. It appears he was simply looking for trouble in this instance. If you're going to flex your rights, at least know what your rights are. Simply saying "This is Amurka", isn't enough to keep you from getting arrested.

It is interesting that the video continues to run and shows other people walking even closer to the police car than where the photographer was standing. Can an officer pick out one individual and make them move when all the other people are allowed to move freely? I would think this is where the officers were in the wrong. It appears that the only reason they wanted him to move was because he was filming.

This videographer obviously has issues with the police. If he had stayed back and not run towards them, and apparently into the path of a car, he would have walked away without being arrested. I found it amusing when he was yelling into his cell phone that they were "throwing me on the car" and "dragging me off."

I was waiting for him to scream "Attica".

@jon

Is telling someone to leave unlawful?
Laws vary by state, in most states you do have the right to film cops in public, so telling someone to leave would be an unlawful order. They would probably still arrest you for disobeying it, but your chances in court would be better than for refusing to back away, which IS a lawful order in most states.

Sure, they can ask you to leave. Just like if some homeless guy got in my face I can ask him to leave. However, I'm no lawyer, but as long as you're not in the way, they shouldn't force you to leave.

private property! they can tell you to do whatever they want...believe me, i know!

Getting in the way of cars moving about in the lot wasn't very bright at all. I suspect the officer wanted him to go where he told him just to keep him out of the way of people trying to use the lot. Getting in the way like that is a hazard whether you're filming or not.

First thing I was taught in high school even was "stay out of the way on the scene, and you'll probably be fine." That applies to traffic (and more memorably, fire hoses.)

The title of this article is wrong/misleading. The video shows a man being arrested for not obeying the commands of an officer on where to stand relative to a police incident. As far as I can tell, the police commands do not conflict with the photographer's right to film. If you want the police to follow the letter of the law, then you have the responsibility to do the same.

Its a thin line on this one.

I would say it would be a waste of time and effort to arrest the guy though, and arrest him for what? standing too close with a camera, get over it.

that cop didnt seem at all threatening, maybe a little pushy, especially when they were just doing a welfare check on that woman. they were out of line to arrest him and were making more of a problem than he was.

I love this blog and support the rights of photojournalists to cover the news, but this guy was over the line. The deputy asked him to step back, pointed to a shopping cart, and gave him multiple warnings. There was nothing wrong with him shooting,but the comments about "being an American" and "concentrating on your job" was just asking for confrontation. Listening to the rest of the tape, you could hear that they weren't actually arresting the woman. She seemed like she was 5150 and they were transporting her to a mental health facility. They didn't cuff her, trying to keep the situation as easy as possible, when Mr. "I don't know what the zoom is for" pops up and records at close range.

If anyone looks up Mark Allen Baker, and what started from there, you might understand. At this time, it is all in the hands of the courts, and the corrupt legal system. When the smoke completely clears the !st Amendment will stand.
Go to youtube newsnowsandiego for more concerning Deputy Tom SEIver

He was not interferring with anybody's work. The cop was just looking for an excuse to exercise his authority.

I'd have to agree with most people here. the guy was looking to be confrontational. I suspect some people may be using this 'war on photography' hot bed to push buttons and make it seem like they are victimized. The lady clearly was not being arrested and the officers were defusing or investigating the situation. Having their subject get agitated because someone is placing focus directly on them does not help the situation. This is similar to the rally video a week or so ago in DC where the camera holder was clearly chasing the agitated woman with the camera while officers were dutifully attempting to diffuse the situation.
If the person knew their 'rights', then I think they should also be expected to know some common social responsibilities and norms, such as not making a nuisance of oneself and instigation of matters. He could have just as readily kept a clear distance away and recorded the scene.

Please consider these kinds if situations before making a public spectacle. These truly, IMHO, dilute the real matters of law enforcement actually overstepping bounds and violating rights. I don't want to insinuate anything, but I'm sure now that you are providing content to a commercially driven site, you want to provide new material as much as possible. Just because there is a lull or slow news cycle doesn't mean one should jump at any story that is remotely related.

How about spending a little time doing some actual follow-up and posting content that investigates what the eventual results may have been. Except for a few major cases that get a lot of publicity (e.g. NYC critical mass bike pushing episode and the Maryland cop issue), I rarely see anything reported on the conclusion of any events. You're quick to post the sensational parts, but almost none of the conclusions. That would actually involve more time in follow-up rather than waiting for people to just send you videos and news stories. I don't want to be detrimental, but the stories are starting to feel like nothing more than sensational journalism, just a few steps behind the tabloids.

Well said, Mike. I'd also like to see more conclusions, and less sensational journalism.

I agree Mike. I would like to see some interviews with judges, lawyers, police officers, and photographers involved in these types of cases. Hearing professional opinions would really enhance the dialogue.

I dont normally agree with the police but i think his arrest was justified on this occasion,not because he's filming them but because the woman concerned clearly wasn't wishing the incident to be recorded hence the reason she kept walking away and looking uncomfortable.

Nick,

The problem with your statement is that he does have the right to video the woman, as well the police, but he has to maintain a distance as ordered by the LEOs. Unlike numerous other cases here, the LEOs were justified and acted reasonably IMAPO.

Having a camera doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want.

DJ Todd wrote "No it does not give you the right to do whatever you want. A policeman gets that liberty."

That statement is prima facia idiocy!!

Come on, guys. Remember the TV show "Cops"? Those cameramen were doing essentially the same thing that this guy was doing. (He was also silent until the police began making statements about his right to do so, so any interference was caused by the officer, not the cameraman.) So it is clear that the cops gave the "backup" order not because the videotaping was a material interference with their duties. Instead, the cops gave the backup order specifically he was concerned about the full accountability for his actions that comes with having them on tape. If the backup order/filming ban is somehow illegal, it shouldn't be and needs to be repealed.

Problem with most of the Police defenders is the move back order. What is reasonable and lawful, 10' 100' 1/4 mile?

A Police Officer has no expectation of privacy. Those of you who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When you exercise that power in public fora, you should not expect your actions to be shielded from public observation.

The arrest was all about restricting the photojournalist from videotaping the incident. He was not interfering with their duty.

Photography is not a crime!

if you go to news nowsandiego on youtube you will see more on this Deputy. This Deputy has been removed from patrol, and has been involved in a lot of questionable situations, and is looking at being BAKERIEZED . There is a $3.5 mil claim filed against him from another scene The reporter here had exposed. It is also important that it be noted that the reporter doesn't not belong to the TEA Party, or the Minutemen either, just, covers their stories
You can also go to Ramona Yopix and find out more about the abusive Deputies in Ramona and POWAY CA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRfCqMrzH3s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijNfMcnqtPY&NR=1

To just leave a scene and drive over to the cameraman, and demand ID when there has been no crime committed, is A CRIME and against State and FEDERAL LAW. This Deputy has no legal right to bother this cameraman at all. The San Diego Sheriff's under the Leadership or Lack of, Bill Plead the Fifth Gore have been ordered to not get caught on a camera and to get rid of them at all do costs, when ever possible. What this Deputy did was violate the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that doesn't exist anymore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K6u8cTY4Mc

There are serious 1st Amendment issues within the San Diego Sheriff's Dept.

@ Joe no they can't.