jimmy2beans

There are video cameras now that are built into eyeglasses, pens and other normally looking objects. They can't take it away if they don't even realize it's a camera.

Cameras are everywhere today and it's hard not to be photographed with government cameras on highways, streets, toll booths, and traffic signals.

Department stores, convenience stores, jewelry stores, banks and other places of business use them routinely.

Any police officer who demands you stop photographing and/or destroys your camera is just plain out of touch with the reality of everyday life, and most likely has something to hide.

small_cents Loc: Ashland Ma. 01721

NO ,,,they should not be able to delete anything from your camera

Kennethbratt Loc: New Hampshire/Arizona

As a former law enforcement officer, here is my two-cents worth. I do not have a problem with anyone videoing my actions while on duty; however, video the whole thing. When the bad guy has just punched me or kicked me or whatever, and I have to use physical force to effect the arrest - be sure you get the guy assaulting me first, not just my lawful reaction. Often times when citizens happen upon a law enforcement situation some of it has already occurred. The filming then never really shows the true account of what happened. This is a big reason why law enforcement is not happy with videoing their actions. Yes, there are a few idiots out there who are just plain "bad cops" and don't want you publishing their illegal acts - as for them, video away, we don;t need them in the ranks of law enforcement.

roberts41 Loc: Atlanta, GA

I'm sorry but there is a difference between "shouldn't" and "can't". Our first amendment allows us the freedom to photograph anything in a public place that isn't outlawed by a specific law. In most cases, that means everything. If you study the subject, you'll find that there are very few things that are protected from being photographed in public. The pepper spray incident at UC Davis is a prime example of how we should hold the police accountable for their actions. Furthermore, it's my understanding that a police officer is the only individual that can confiscate a camera as evidence, but even they cannot erase the contents. That is up to a court of law to decide. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

Finally someone hit on my point. As a "Journalist" you are bound by a code of ethics and monitored by an Editorial Board who's names and background are on record. All working Journalists have credentials issued by the very agencies you are talking about and to receive them you must prove that you are a Journalist and not something else. These lines have become blurred and today too many camera toting fools looking to make a quick TMZ buck are running around. They have no problem distorting the facts in order to create a "story". I have seen it done many times INCLUDING THE RODNEY KING CASE. I am not saying what the cops did was right but there was WAY more to that story than the public "saw" and it very much would have changed the debate if the details of the entire incident were known. Bottom line is if your going to stick your camera into an incident you better get all the facts and check them twice like journalists are obligated to do. I have never been treated poorly by the Police at a scene because I act like a professional and stay out of their way. In fact I have been helped by the police many times because they know that I am a "Real Media" as they call me. If you happen to catch that very rare incident of Police acting badly you better keep quiet, imagine if you were in a store when it was robbed and you "got it all" think the bad guys would not get your camera?

dfalk Loc: Chugiak, Alaska

Spot on. I'm a 20 year retired cop. I wouldn't stop your photography, but if necessary I would tell you to leave -- and force you if needed. This would be done for either your safety, my safety or both. It may also be done to preserve a crime scene. Trust me, I have a lot better things to do than hassle somebody taking pictures. Hell, there were some times I would have liked to have had photos of me in action.

:D

The laws making it an offense to photograph cops need to be tightly controlled. In some situations they are just/needed -- those times where photography may place someone in danger.

I think a blanket prohibition on photography would be a violation of the rights granted under the Constitution.

Libbypics

As a former law enforcement officer, I had two run-ins with the pros (media). In one case, a TV reporter and her camerman walked under the yellow crime scene tape to set up a shot inside my accident (crime) scene. I immediately directed them to get out of the scene. She told me that she had a job to do. I said, so do I, and part of mine is to maintain the integrity of this scene. Told them again to get out or prepare to be arrested. They moved.

In the second case, a high-profile helicopter pilot/reporter landed at a scene where a law enforcement officer had been killed in a vehicle collision. Not only did he enter the crime scene, he was moving debris around "to make a better shot". Needless to say he was immediately escorted out of the scene under threat of arrest and impounding of his helicopter.

Inside the yellow crime scene tape is a secured area. Standing outside the tape and shooting photos should not be a problem. Don't be surprised, however, if the officer asks for your name and contact information. They may come back later and ask for copies of your photos (not always do police take photos at traffic collision scenes, and yours may be the only ones).

And they should NEVER delete anything from your camera, but how would you prove that they did?

Victor S Loc: SouthCoast MA

Should a photographer take pics of the dead or dying at a an accident scene? How would you feel if your daughter's/son's last breaths showed up on the internet? Who decides what should & shlould not be photographed? Just asking here.

prestonphoto Loc: Bath, NY

well.........all in all - if a cop is doing his job right, who needs to care about a camera???? It's those that AREN'T doing right that are worried about that 3rd eye.

imntrt1 Loc: St. Louis

Oh boy, my Blood Pressure shot up before my first cup of coffee over this one. The main thing no one has addressed is the fact that as a person present at a crime scene/Incident, your personal safety also becomes the responsibility of the Officers at the scene - which diverts attention and impacts their safety, as well as anyone else at that location. Another factor is that a photo or video can be skewed to favor the bad guys and could in fact cause a violent criminal to be released and become a danger to society. I'll give you an example. My last fight as a law enforcement officer was with a woman. It became a struggle for survival for me - not just an arrest. She had assaulted another person and tried to assault me. As she drew back her fists to strike me I reacted and grabbed her by the neck and pinned her against a wall. (now imagine a photo of me grabbing her by the neck - it would not have shown her trying to hit me - it would have shown this mean old policeman grabbing a woman) As the fight progressed she actually made attempts to pull my gun from my holster and use it on me in a crowded eating establishment. This woman out weighed me by about 100 pounds, I had had extensive cancer surgery a few months before and still had weakness. The woman was a mental case, and had extremely high strength levels. As much as the public wants to be in on the action - they have no business there. Their safety and the safety of the officers and others present, as well as the suspects, is in danger. Most "photo Journalists" do not have training and experience in law enforcement and may not understand why and what we are doing. We don't get paid to lose fights or get hurt. There is an old axiom in law enforcement - If you are fighting fair, then you aren't fighting to survive. In 38 years I was shot at and missed, shot at and hit, stabbed, beat up, sent to the hospital after being rammed by a stolen auto - looked down the gun barrels of bad guys guns - but I survived.

prestonphoto Loc: Bath, NY

forgot to say.............there has to be respect on both sides. If a photographer messes with a crime scene - heck with the warning - throw him/her in jail. By the same token, if a photographer is staying beyond the yellow tape, leave them alone.

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

Well said and all true except that a true journalist would wait until the incident was totally under control and then approach the officers for details. That is the time for the Police to take a second and ""fill in the blanks" so the journalist can accurately chronicle the story. If the Police blow them off they must go with what they can put together. Thinking that the Police don't have time to speak to the media is foolish. At some point the drama is over and time becomes available to give a quick statement of fact. And make no mistake we need to have a free media out there as a form of checks and balances. Without it there would be only one side to every story and we know what that leads to. And by the way, I graduated from the Police and Sheriffs academy almost twenty five years ago so I do know what I am doing and what is necessary to control a situation.

PS: I hope your cancer treatment was 100% successful

Kennethbratt Loc: New Hampshire/Arizona

I also am a retired law enforcement officer and while I fully understand your comments, most agencies have standing orders that their officers cannot give any type of statement - all contact with the media is through the media office/public affairs/chief's designee. And, as we all know, giving a statement immediately after an incident doesn't necessarily present all of the facts accurately (and the adrenaline rush may cause us to speak without thinking). That is why most agencies want a little time before making the report, to be able to sort things out in your own mind and present it accurately and logically.

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

Exactly, when the drama is over, and media pros should know to allow sufficient time for that to happen. There is always a Commanding Officer or a PIO that can give a comment. Bottom line is if the Police do not speak than an incident that could be misconstrued by a photo or an incomplete video is likely to make them look bad. The Police (and our government) need to learn that they do answer to the public and they need to get details out there ASAP to avoid being cut off at the heels. They need to learn to "play nice" with the media and they will get a more accurate portrayal.

dfalk Loc: Chugiak, Alaska

My job entailed being a Crash/Rescue fireman as well as a police officer.

We had just had an incident and I was directed to take my firetruck back to the station and get the camera gear to start working the scene. As I wheeled in front of the station I see a car parked directly in front of the big red/white checkered firehouse doors, a photographer getting out and reaching for his gear. His car would have blocked about 1/2 of our trucks getting in/out of the stalls. Idiot.

Working a security detail, Gerald Ford was in town (been a while ago). I was setup as a roadblock along a road to stop traffic from getting to where he was boarding -- I happened to be adjacent to the co-located Air National Guard aircraft parking. The local TV station chopper lands in amongst the C-130s. I didn't remember anything about a news chopper in the brief and very quickly an AF Security Cop pulls up in front of the still idling chopper. I see him making some hand motions, the news anchor steps out, they exchange words, Air Cop unholsters and ends up with both the anchorman and the pilot proned out in the slush and water on the ramp. When the President is in town the game is played very, very strictly.

Photograph me all you want, but remember that your camera is not a ticket to the inner sanctum.