Posted on 04/21/2015 9:43:40 AM PDT by Drew68
Here’s a video that’s causing an uproar among those who care about photographers’ rights. It’s a 53-second clip recorded on on April 19th that shows an encounter one woman had with police officers on a residential sidewalk in South Gate, California. While shooting photos or footage of the assault rifle-equipped officers with her smartphone, one of the men charges her, snatches the camera from her hands, smashes it on the ground, kicks it back at her, and then walks away.
Details are sparse at the moment, and we’ll update you when more info on this emerges.
Good point. When someone is shot or assaulted by LEOs, why does the media repeatedly blast the name of the victim, while skittering away with an “authorities did not release the name of the officer in question.” Hello news media... your job is to dig for facts, not just reprint press releases.
Trap for what? To take some video? Get a grip.
Also the video has the quality of a real video camera, not a phone.
lol...
Laws vary on a state by state basis.
My thoughts too. Who knows if her vid is being picked up by the people they are going to raid. She could be a lookout.
If they were trying to keep their operation covert, they failed well before that woman started videotaping them.
You're not paying attention.
The one officer to her right appeared to wave her to step back just prior to the female stepping back, then suddenly other the officer ran towards here smashing her property.
Look at the video. Frame 0:30 to be specific.
Yeah, they sure weren't calling attention to themselves, now, were they?
That’s a bit of a f-—ing gray area...
Nope. They're in public, doing public duty. No law protects them from being observed/recorded.
Information on Photographer’s Rights taken from a web site listed at the end of this post.
Photography and The Law: Know Your Rights
Say you’re out for a photographic stroll, taking pictures of that cool old power plant on the edge of town. Suddenly seventy security guards swarm you and demand you hand over your camera.
“What is this,” you ask yourself, “a Michael Moore movie?”
You’re sure you haven’t done anything wrong, but you don’t know whose side the law is on. Fret no more. We’ve got a list of things you can and can’t do, and it’s a lot more permissive than you might think.
Now grab your camera back from that Rent-A-Cop, and let’s hit the books.
The Ten Legal Commandments of Photography*
THE LEGAL STUFF
Before we get started here, we have to point out that even though we’re smart and awesome and devastatingly attractive, we’re not lawyers. None of this should be construed as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, get in touch with a lawyer. Much of this information was gleaned from attorney Bert P. Krages‘ website, so we’ll go ahead and recommend him.
THE TEN LEGAL COMMANDMENTS OF PHOTOGRAPHY
I. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it’s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space.
II. If you are on public property, you can take pictures of private property. If a building, for example, is visible from the sidewalk, it’s fair game.
III. If you are on private property and are asked not to take pictures, you are obligated to honor that request. This includes posted signs.
IV. Sensitive government buildings (military bases, nuclear facilities) can prohibit photography if it is deemed a threat to national security.
V. People can be photographed if they are in public (without their consent) unless they have secluded themselves and can expect a reasonable degree of privacy. Kids swimming in a fountain? Okay. Somebody entering their PIN at the ATM? Not okay.
VI. The following can almost always be photographed from public places, despite popular opinion:
• accident & fire scenes, criminal activities
• bridges & other infrastructure, transportation facilities (i.e. airports)
• industrial facilities, Superfund sites
• public utilities, residential & commercial buildings
• children, celebrities, law enforcement officers
• UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, Chuck Norris
VII. Although “security” is often given as the reason somebody doesn’t want you to take photos, it’s rarely valid. Taking a photo of a publicly visible subject does not constitute terrorism, nor does it infringe on a company’s trade secrets.
VIII. If you are challenged, you do not have to explain why you are taking pictures, nor to you have to disclose your identity (except in some cases when questioned by a law enforcement officer.)
IX. Private parties have very limited rights to detain you against your will, and can be subject to legal action if they harass you.
X. If someone tries to confiscate your camera and/or film, you don’t have to give it to them. If they take it by force or threaten you, they can be liable for things like theft and coercion. Even law enforcement officers need a court order.
WHAT TO DO IF YOU’RE CONFRONTED
• Be respectful and polite. Use good judgement and don’t escalate the situation.
• If the person becomes combative or difficult, think about calling the police.
• Threats, detention, and taking your camera are all grounds for legal or civil actions on your part. Be sure to get the person’s name, employer, and what legal grounds they claim for their actions.
• If you don’t want to involve the authorities, go above the person’s head to their supervisor or their company’s public relations department.
• Call your local TV and radio stations and see if they want to do a story about your civil liberties.
• Put the story on the web yourself if need be.
http://content.photojojo.com/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/
It’s a criminal assault, and the officer should be so charged.
This was a setup and provocation from the get go as witnessed by the third party camera and her incessant yakking. BUT it still does not excuse the officer actions.
I agree completely. I suspect she was being intentionally provocative/irritating as the police were doing something at least a little tense (inference based on the body armor and her constant talking/yelling, plus the video centering on her rather than on the main police action). I also agree that the police were stupid to have obliged her by behaving badly on cue.
This is not police, this is an embeded army. There were no police forces in cities till around 1870.
You know I can't recall, it's been a reflexive response while driving in California for so long, I don't have a clue.
???? WTF are you kidding??
Show me the law that says he can attack her and destroy her camera. Don't bother , there is none.
Police on duty legally have zero expectation of privacy in situations like this. This cop needs to be at least fired.
+1
Apparently this isn’t your grandfather’s “Protect and Serve” LAPD.
Not police. Any citizen may record any policeman in any situation dealing with the public.
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.