Pixiq

"From what I could see and hear on the video, that was not a lawful order and did not need to be obeyed."

That could be. As I said, I had a very hard time hearing what was said early on in the video.

tom joad:

you know this makes me start to think, why isnt the main stream media fighting this bullshit attack that seems to be, [at least in part], on them,[and reporting it more then they seem to be doing] it really makes me think they all in on it, and they dont want to rock the boat as it were!

unless they be part of the problem, what other reason could there be? for right now i cant think of one, can you or anyone else here?

i dont think they could say they dont know, well maybe they could say it, but i for one, would not believe it if they did tell me, "well we didnt know"! how could they not know? they all stupid, morons or what?

So if the officer gives you an unlawful order you think you should comply? An unlawful order that violates your constitutional rights? What if he told you to hand over your camera because he needed to ensure you didn't film something you are well within your legal rights to film? What if he destroyed your camera? You should always question "why" an officer gives you an unlawful order. If he's knowingly doing so as an officer of the law he's violating his sworn oath to uphold the law, in fact he's actively violating the law under color of authority, and you are acting as un-American as can be. If you don't stand up for your basic rights you don't deserve them and you might as well volunteer to be imprisoned right now, it'll save you the trouble of the police illegally imprisoning you later.

If he does leave, and then complains later on, will the police restage the event he was trying to photograph, so he can get the photos later?

The officer cannot articulate any law that makes his order lawful, or the photographer's statements and actions unlawful. The basis of US law is that anything not explicitly forbidden is allowed. If the police cannot articulate a lawful reason for an order, the order cannot be legally enforced.

On the other hand, we have Title 18, Sections 241 and 242 of the US Code. As the Lieutenant quoted in the article stated, the reason the photographer was singled out, was he was exercising a constitutional right, and the other bystanders were not. Under 18USC242, just the order to leave the scene is a federal crime. Since the officer is armed, it may be a felony rather than a misdemeanor, depending on whether the officer being armed is considered a threat of violence (considering the reasons officers arrest people for open carry where it's legal, simply being armed might be a threat, by precedent). If more than one officer work together to verbally deny rights, or if any lone officer draws a weapon (not just a sidearm, any weapon) while denying rights, it becomes a felony. If more than one officer draws, or a lone officer fires, it's a capital crime.

Police lack any kind of civil or criminal immunity to violating 18USC241 and 242, since people who are not public officials (which includes police) cannot violate it.

@ Adam,

If we always acquiesce to the immediate demands & orders of LEO's without question, there seems to be a huge potential for them to abuse our civil/Constitutional rights. While it would be great if they could cite specific statute numbers to justify their demands, that is probably not realistic. However, they should be able to cite what general statute we are violating, i.e. "The wiretap act, the patriot act, etc. If they can not articulate it at the scene, they are likely bluffing, and likely in violation of the law which requires an articulable reason for detention, or probable cause for arrest. If you don't know which law you are using to enforce the law, then all seems lost. Also, if I am detained, arrested, or forced from the scene without question, and I complain later, the LEO then has the option to peruse the statutes to see which one might stick. But, if he/she states that I am being detained/arrested/ordered to do something because of the wiretap law, they do not have the option of changing their minds later. So, I think as a citizen we have the right, if not the duty, to question them if we think they are wrong. Do I think it should be a 20 minute debate on law? No. But it does help to hold them more accountable when I do file a report later.

Additionally, if the reporter relented and left the scene, an opportunity to gather and report on the events which are certainly of a public concern is forever lost. IMHO the attitude of blindly obeying LEO orders because we can sort it out later is wrong. Again, if the LEO is going to compel me to do something, then they better have a reason beyond "I said so", or "Because I have a badge/gun". I want to know why, and what legal authority they are using. After I know the legal authority they are relying on, THEN we can sort it out later. Perhaps with a 18 USC § 242 civil rights violation lawsuit.

As I have opined in earlier posts, it so often seems that the LEO has a goal, such as getting someone to stop photographing, they don't really consider the legal basis for achieving that goal. It seems that often there is a progression of reasons, claims, demands, and threats to achieve that goal, and the law, and our rights be damned.

It also seems that the culture of their respective law enforcement agencies is a big factor in officer behavior, when these incidents happen, and what will and will not be tolerated by their command staff. Unfortunately, so often the departmental/union attitude is to support the LEO under any and all circumstances, i.e. circle the wagons. But I content that we should be learning from these incidents, and how they might have been handled better next time. In adopting the circle the wagons paradigm, they miss an opportunity to learn and improve. Sad, but true.

I work in healthcare, and my industry has somewhat different attitudes with malpractice & medical errors. Keep it quiet, don't tell the family/patient, don't speak of it, and in some cases deny/deny/deny. Often when a med-mal case is known to the patient or family there is a large quick settlement with an ironclad non-disclosure agreement. So, in the short term the case is settled quickly and quietly. No problem, everyone is happy, right? Wrong. Because we missed an opportunity to look at the system, find weaknesses, and opportunities to improve, so that the same type of mistake does not happen again. As a result, we keep making the same mistakes time and time again to the detriment of our customers.

So our knee jerk response to protect our own, limit liability, and to preserve the reputation of our agencies, is in the long run, detrimental to our respective professions, and to the citizens that we purportedly serve. IMHO, law enforcement, healthcare and other many other industries need to take a lesson from aviation. Every aviation accident, mishap, or near miss is investigated and reported on.These investigations are published and pilots study and learn from them. Almost always it is not a single incident, but a chain of events that leads to an accident/mistake/violation/near miss etc. So, instead of playing the name, blame and shame game, we need to look at all of the factors involved. Take for instance the recent news stories on air traffic controllers falling asleep at work. So, the knee jerk reaction is to "Fire their asses!". But having an interest in occupational health, sleep medicine and circadian biology, the answers are much more complicated. It seems that the schedule that many ATC workers are required to work are in direct contradiction to circadian biology, i.e. not enough time off between shifts, constantly rotating shifts, backward rather than forward rotating shifts etc. It will be interesting to see if the FAA ultimately tries to blame the bad PR on a few bad apples, or if they make some systemic changes to help their workers do a good job within the limits of human biology.

I have noticed some interesting differences between healthcare and law enforcement. Probably the biggest is that in healthcare, administration wants to find a scapegoat and then pin blame on an individual, what the Institute of Medicine calls the "Name, blame and shame game". Heaven forbid that some problem with the hospital/facility be found. But law enforcement often plays a different game, circle the wagons, use internal investigations to "Clear" an officer despite what would seem to be an egregious violation, and then to use the system to pressure the complaining party with arrest if possible, or by other coercive means, i.e. search warrants, harassment, etc. Despite the two very different doctrines, the attitude of protecting the systems from criticism/liability is the same. In the long term it costs lives. Whether it is deaths from medication errors, or innocent people being shot by SWAT teams, we all lose.

@CECIL:

since you left it out, ill start with what was left out of you question.

In a public place, on PUBLIC street or avenue or court, or TERR. or lane or drive, in a location where the general public is allowed, on the public transportation, on the Metro Snail down here in MIAMI, it is not "against the law to video tape", photograph using any type of camera you choose to use it is in fact not "against the law to" shoot "somebody without their permission", as I have went into detail above!

The short answer is "no." If you are on public property (or your own property) you are free to photograph anything you can see with your own two eyes. That includes people who are out in public (which would also include people who are standing outside on their own property...they may think they have an expectation of privacy in that situation, but they don't.)

And don't forget that most of us are videotaped and/or photographed dozens of times a day, without our permission, by security and surveillance cameras on streets, in stores, offices, etc., or even by cops who use dashboard cameras to record traffic stops (and who get ticked off when we photograph them in return).

The short answer is "no." If you are on public property (or your own property) you are free to photograph anything you can see with your own two eyes. That includes people who are out in public (which would also include people who are standing outside on their own property...they may think they have an expectation of privacy in that situation, but they don't.

And don't forget that most of us are videotaped and/or photographed dozens of times a day, without our permission, by security and surveillance cameras on streets, in stores, offices, etc., or even by cops who use dashboard cameras to record traffic stops (and who get ticked off when we photograph them in return).

@ZIM:

at this point, i am only going to ask you what the source of your information was that, if someone says they dont want you to take an image or use a camcorder to shoot them, your required to stop or your doing something that is illegal! And also, hand over the film, or delete the image/video if they also request that!

fact is, you may very well be wrong.

I don't think you are correct. Otherwise, couldn't I demand that the operators of all security and surveillance cameras photographing me on the street stop doing so? Doubtful. And no way in the world do you have to delete any image or hand over film to someone just because they demand that you do so. Those images and film are your property, not theirs, no matter what's on them.

You are completely wrong. When in public a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. That means whatever they do can be documented by anyone for any reason. They have the right to request you stop taking their picture but you are under no requirement under law to comply whatsoever. There is no charge to press, there is no crime taking place.The police can not "take" the film unless they file for a warrant and the film was used to document the commission of a crime. You are 100% incorrect in every statement you made.

Zim, you really need to name the law which says that someone has to stop taking your picture in public if you ask them to. I don't believe such a law exists in the U.S.A..

If you can provide evidence that this law exists, I'll quickly admit that I'm wrong. I hope you'll do the same if you fail to find evidence for such a law.

Zim -- Let's say my house is across the street from yours. If I wanted to, I could set up a video camera on my property that would record your home and you and your family members, visitors, etc. every time they stepped out your front door, 24/7. You can ask me to stop, but I'm under no legal obligation to do so because I'm not breaking any laws. Nor do I have to erase or delete the recordings. Once you step outside and are in public view, you are fair game for anyone who wants to aim a camera your way as long as the person with the camera is not trespassing on your property. It's as simple as that.

I'm getting a very strong troll vibe coming from you Zim.

Very possible. I think Cecil and Zim are both troll accounts.