Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Man threatened with arrest after taking photos (of E. St. Louis police)
Belleville (IL) News-Democrat ^ | March 2, 2004 | George Pawlaczyk

Posted on 03/02/2004 10:01:03 AM PST by E Rocc

EAST ST. LOUIS - Fletcher Parker said all he wanted was a few snapshots of the East St. Louis Police Department in action, a force he said he strongly supports.

Instead, he said cops seized his digital camera's disc, which records the images, and threatened him with arrest.

On Monday about 11:30 a.m., seven or eight city officers had captured a suspect behind a house at 17th Street and St. Clair Avenue and were leading him back to a squad car. Police declined to state the nature of the arrest.

Parker said he was driving by when he spotted a crowd of neighbors watching the action.

"So I stopped and I was just taking pictures. Standing next to my truck on the opposite side of the street," said Parker, 38, an electrician and city resident who used an older-model digital camera.

After taking several snapshots and without talking to the police, Parker said he left. After driving three blocks, he realized he was being followed by six squad cars.

"I thought they were all just trying to pass me, so I pulled over. They come running out of their cars at me," he said.

Parker said the officers asked him if he was a reporter and when he said no, asked why he was taking photos. They then seized the disc from the digital camera, he said.

After accusing him of obstructing an investigation and warning him he was lucky not to be given a traffic ticket for failing to keep his auto insurance card in the vehicle, they let him go.

An angry Parker said he went an hour later to the police department and spoke with Police Chief Ron Matthews, and asked for the return of his camera disc. He said Matthews refused.

"The chief told me if they (the officers) had been doing their job they would have arrested me at the scene and then we wouldn't be having this problem," Parker said.

But when he was contacted by telephone about five minutes after Parker left his office, Matthews said, "We are looking into his complaint now. We're going to find out what officers were out there."

Laimutis Nargelenas, a former superintendent of the Illinois State Police and a spokesman for the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, said ordinary citizens generally have a legal right to photograph police in action, as do news cameramen.

But if a police officer orders someone to stop taking pictures, they must cease even if the officer has no legal basis for such an order, Nargelenas said.

"Generally, we tell our police to keep in mind that the citizens have cameras, like in the Rodney King situation, and to always do the right thing because they are a lot of cameras and video cameras out there," he said.

Parker said he contacted the Illinois State Police Public Integrity Unit to lodge a complaint, but was told by Master Sgt. Tyrone Jordan that it was illegal to take photographs.

Contacted by a reporter, Jordan said Parker did have a right to take photographs as long as he did not interfere with police, "although I would advise against it."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: bigbrother; donutwatch; firstamendment; harassment; jbts; leo; police; policeharassment; theyworkforpublic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last
My personal experience is that good cops don't mind public observation, but JBTs and JBT-wannabes react to it like vampires react to sunshine and garlic.

-Eric

1 posted on 03/02/2004 10:01:04 AM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2 posted on 03/02/2004 10:07:09 AM PST by moyden2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
But if a police officer orders someone to stop taking pictures, they must cease even if the officer has no legal basis for such an order, Nargelenas said.

The people of E. St. Louis need to fire this person and any others who think as he does.
3 posted on 03/02/2004 10:07:12 AM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc; *Donut watch
"Parker said he contacted the Illinois State Police Public Integrity Unit to lodge a complaint, but was told by Master Sgt. Tyrone Jordan that it was illegal to take photographs.

Contacted by a reporter, Jordan said Parker did have a right to take photographs as long as he did not interfere with police, "although I would advise against it."

Hey, if they aren't doing anything wrong, what do they have to hide?

Aren't they always the ones telling us that we have NO expectation of privacy outside of our homes, and that we are fair game to be followed by the police as we go on about our daily business?

So why are these PUBLIC SERVANTS complaining when they are photographed in PUBLIC (where they have no expectation of privacy), by the PUBLIC, doing the job for which the PUBLIC pays them?

This is an outrage.
4 posted on 03/02/2004 10:09:44 AM PST by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Contacted by a reporter, Jordan said Parker did have a right to take photographs as long as he did not interfere with police, "although I would advise against it."

My, what a great position-"taking pictures is legal, unless we say otherwise."

Boy, and cops wonder why people don't appreciate them?

5 posted on 03/02/2004 10:10:23 AM PST by Modernman ("The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Jordan said Parker did have a right to take photographs as long as he did not interfere with police, "although I would advise against it."

In other words, you won't be prosecuted, you'll just get your skull split.

6 posted on 03/02/2004 10:11:10 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
Exactly. Unlawful orders do not have the force of law, and no one can be compelled to obey them, nor lawfully arrested for refusal to do so.
7 posted on 03/02/2004 10:11:24 AM PST by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
"Generally, we tell our police to keep in mind that the citizens have cameras, like in the Rodney King situation, and to always do the right thing because they are a lot of cameras and video cameras out there," he said.

Interesting.

8 posted on 03/02/2004 10:16:47 AM PST by Vigilantcitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilantcitizen
Parker will have to sue the pants off them. If the department does not respect the law perhaps they will respect the bad publicity and loss of funds.
9 posted on 03/02/2004 10:20:56 AM PST by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vigilantcitizen
Hmmmmm... you know I always wondered why fire departments were always more open to buff photography than PD.
10 posted on 03/02/2004 10:21:44 AM PST by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
"But if a police officer orders someone to stop taking pictures, they must cease even if the officer has no legal basis for such an order, Nargelenas said."

Can Nargelenas cite chapter and verse of such a law?

11 posted on 03/02/2004 10:25:07 AM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
"Generally, we tell our police to keep in mind that the citizens have cameras, like in the Rodney King situation, and to always do the right thing because they are a lot of cameras and video cameras out there," he said.

Gee, I thought that the police always tried to "do the right thing" because it was the right thing to do!!! Now I learn its only because somebody might have a camera. That's reassuring!!

East St. Louis police have a long history of being.... bad!

12 posted on 03/02/2004 10:25:21 AM PST by Dr._Joseph_Warren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Hmmmmm... you know I always wondered why fire departments were always more open to buff photography than PD.

Cops have a lot more to hide. When they screw up, innocent people die. When firemen screw up, firemen die. So, firemen actually have an incentive to encourage (or at least, not to discourage) people to take pictures of them at work- if things go wrong, they might be able to learn something from the pictures.

Cops have no desire to be under public scrutiny, since they claim that the public does not understand their jobs.

13 posted on 03/02/2004 10:25:56 AM PST by Modernman ("The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
"Generally, we tell our police to keep in mind that the citizens have cameras, like in the Rodney King situation, and to always do the right thing because they are a lot of cameras and video cameras out there,"

Big brother isn't watching, lots of little brothers are.
14 posted on 03/02/2004 10:30:05 AM PST by HEY4QDEMS (American by birth, Proud by choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Well they can't have it both ways. No public scrutiny and then say the public doesn't know what they go through. Their salary is paid by the public so the public has every right to scrutinize their job.
15 posted on 03/02/2004 10:35:09 AM PST by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
This story is disturbing on so many points:

After driving three blocks, he realized he was being followed by six squad cars.

It takes 6 squad cars to illegally sieze one person's camera?

Parker said the officers asked him if he was a reporter and when he said no, asked why he was taking photos.

So you have to be a reporter to take pictures ??

An angry Parker said he went an hour later to the police department and spoke with Police Chief Ron Matthews, and asked for the return of his camera disc. He said Matthews refused.

Theft of citizens property.

"The chief told me if they (the officers) had been doing their job they would have arrested me at the scene and then we wouldn't be having this problem"... But when he was contacted by telephone about five minutes after Parker left his office, Matthews said, "We are looking into his complaint now. We're going to find out what officers were out there."

So if it was the officers job to arrest him, and they used their discretion to let him go, why investigate it then?

Laimutis Nargelenas, a former superintendent of the Illinois State Police and a spokesman for the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, said ordinary citizens generally have a legal right to photograph police... But if a police officer orders someone to stop taking pictures, they must cease even if the officer has no legal basis for such an order, Nargelenas said.

So department policy trumps legal rights ?????

"Generally, we tell our police to keep in mind that the citizens have cameras, like in the Rodney King situation, and to always do the right thing because they are a lot of cameras and video cameras out there," he said.

Not because it's wrong to to things like that, just because you could end up on the tv news from someone's video camera.

Parker said he contacted the Illinois State Police Public Integrity Unit to lodge a complaint, but was told by Master Sgt. Tyrone Jordan that it was illegal to take photographs.

No offense Sgt but you are a liar, as demonstrated by the very next paragraph..

Contacted by a reporter, Jordan said Parker did have a right to take photographs as long as he did not interfere with police, "although I would advise against it."

So tell me, Sgt Tyrone Jordan, why would you advise someone against doing something it's their legal right to do ?

16 posted on 03/02/2004 10:37:00 AM PST by BSunday (and I mean that with all "due" respect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

mark
17 posted on 03/02/2004 10:41:10 AM PST by Jack of all Trades
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Their salary is paid by the public so the public has every right to scrutinize their job.

No argument from me. A professional, competent, law-abiding cop has nothing to fear from having his picture taken.

If it was up to me, all cops would be filmed at all times while on duty. That would protect the public from criminal cops and protect honest cops from unfounded charges of misconduct.

18 posted on 03/02/2004 10:44:09 AM PST by Modernman ("The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
How can a person who is in open view expect some sort of "privacy?" I mean, I can't order somebody to not take a picture of me, and neither can celebrities who are under papparazi siege.

That said, public servants will not willingly submit to observation.

19 posted on 03/02/2004 10:45:06 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Illinois nazis.
20 posted on 03/02/2004 10:46:40 AM PST by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson