Posted on 05/26/2013 5:14:07 PM PDT by redreno
An Orlando police officer tried his best to intimidate a man from photographing paramedics tending to another man being carted onto an ambulance.
The cop told Brian Green that he was in violation of the federal HIPAA law – which has nothing to do with public photography – before ordering him to delete the images.
Green started video recording the encounter, asking the officer for his name and badge number. The cop responded by providing his badge number, 16758, but covering his name tag with his arm.
Green believes it may be Lt. Anderson but he is not positive.
(Excerpt) Read more at photographyisnotacrime.com ...
This is perfect example of just how petty and ignorant cops can be. What a tool.
HIPAA does indeed apply at the scene. To the PARAMEDICS. They cannot release information, etc. But it does not place a magic veil of secrecy around the victims of an accident scene, and prohibit all passersby from speaking of seeing Betty Lou getting put into the ambulance.
We can all spread the story as much as we want. Medical and rescue professionals may not. But John Q. Public? Absolutely yes.
+1
Plus, I can’t think of a real good reason why anyone would feel the need to do this.
Luckily we do have to wait to act until you feel there is a good reason.
Very insightful, and I agree.
I think it is a natural evolution for the guv that fears your guns would also grow to fear cameras.
Perhaps even more.
What is mightier than the sword? A pen. What is mightier than a pen? A camera.
We’ll be seeing much, much more of this.
I see you failed to acknowledge my larger point about the morality and ethics of it and omitted that comment entirely. Just because ACLU lawyers solidified its legality doesn’t mean it’s morally acceptable. I also don’t think this Green urchin is a “photojournalist”. Lastly, there are many instances where names and pictures are withheld in reporting as a matter of decency...think rape victims. I think the officer used great restraint.
No cop can use that here in this area. All LEOS have cameras in their cars....and...there are cameras all over the city...private and public
Wow,,, amazing idea.
It’s just ridiculous. One of my docs used to have a sign-in sheet but they had to get rid of it because someone complained that it infringed on their privacy. And it was in an orthopod’s office, not an AIDS clinic for Heaven’s sakes.
HIPAA doesn’t cover things done in public which are easily observable. I doubt the photographer had the guys name.
HIPAA also only applies to Covered Entities and Business Associations; healthcare providers and their vendors.
HIPAA laws dont apply to some random guy on the street using his camera.
Oh its getting worse Grams. New interpretation of the regulations have greatly expanded what companies have to comply.
I’ve said it before and again. If the police are acting in a proper and professional manner the videos will just make them look good.
We can argue about the validity later.
HIPAA does cover interactions between first responders and patients. This is generally seen every day by the fact that the names of patients are not transmitted over open ambulance, fire and police radio bands in most major cities.
HIPAA does not cover anything related to public photography, video recording, or audio recording, by unrelated third parties in public spaces.
However, the conversation inside the ambulance between the first responder and the patient should be covered in theory by HIPAA.
“I see you failed to acknowledge my larger point about the morality and ethics of it and omitted that comment entirely.”
Addressed it here far more succinctly, it would seem, than you were capable of understanding:
“Now, you may think what he was shooting was tasteless, but that’s why we have a first amendment.”
There was nothing immoral in the act of photographing the scene itself. Nothing. People shoot stills and video of dramatic scenes like this and worse every day. It’s a fact of life. Deal with it.
” I also don’t think this Green urchin is a “photojournalist”.
So then you share Dick Durbin’s view that only people with press credential’s are protected by the first amendment??? Nice to know you think the constitution doesn’t apply to every citizen with a camera, computer, and a voice.
“Lastly, there are many instances where names and pictures are withheld in reporting as a matter of decency...think rape victims.”
This was not such a scene. Perhaps your inability to understand the difference is what’s really at the heart of the matter here.
I asked the office staff why I’m “Number 12” and not Mr. ******. They said it’s because of HIPPA. ...And at my girlfriend’s Dr.’s office as she was getting a new appointment, the receptionist called out in front of the whole reception room “You’re not having your period, are you?” The GF sheepishly said “No.” Broad said “What?” I jumped in and yelled “Why? You want to check, bitch?”
Lighten up, Frances. News is news.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.