Showing posts with label photographer's rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label photographer's rights. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Photographer's Rights: NYPD's Backwards Policy on Photography at Occupy Wall Street


Via ACLU

By Naomi Gilens, Legal Administrative Assistant, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 12:32pm
The day after police evicted Occupy Wall Street protestors from Zuccotti Park last fall, I had some trouble deciphering exactly what had happened. Police had corralled journalists into a "press pen" removed from the park itself, and arrested at least ten people for attempting to take photos or video. When I visited Zuccotti during the following days and weeks to see for myself what was happening, I could only enter through a single access point, guarded by police officers who often filmed me as I walked in. Why could police arrest people for taking video footage of them, and then turn the cameras on those same people for engaging in lawful activity in a public space?

The answer, of course, is that they couldn't—not legally, at least. Under the First Amendment, Americans have the right to observe and record members of the police force in the public discharge of their duties. Conversely, the NYPD’s right to conduct photo and video surveillance on citizens engaging in lawful protest is limited, with very few exceptions, to circumstances in which “it reasonably appears that unlawful conduct is about to occur, is occurring, or has occurred.”

As a report released today by the New York Civil Liberties Union starkly illustrates, though, these rules bear little relation to what is actually happening. Police continue to subject photographers to harassment, injury, and arrest. In July, an activist (and friend of mine) found that videotaping police stop and frisks had landed him on a “Wanted”-style police poster featuring his full name, photograph, and home address. The following week, a photographer attempting to document an arrest was flung violently over a stone bench several times, pinned down by a knee on the back of his neck, and arrested.

Even as they mistreat photographers, police are continuing to subject these same citizens to illegal surveillance. When recordings are made for a purpose other than to record unlawful activity, police are supposed to avoid “close-ups of participants.” Yet peaceful marches are regularly lined with NYPD officers, cameras in hand, zooming in on individual faces. Even more egregiously, there has been at least one case this summer of police filming a protestor receiving medical treatment by EMTs.
From the earliest days of the occupation at Zuccotti Park, a police watchtower carried out round-the-clock surveillance of the protesters below. Almost a full year after the Occupy movement began, the watchtower remains, clearly communicating that “even if you’re not doing anything wrong, we’re watching.”

Under our laws and the Constitution, you have the right to film police without making yourself a target, and to engage in political speech and assembly without police surveillance (see the ACLU’s related resources here). Follow NYCLU’s Facebook and Twitter feeds to learn when they post a new Free Speech Threat Assessment report, and keep an eye out for upcoming reports by the Protest and Assembly Rights Project on the police response to Occupy movements in Boston, Charlotte, Oakland, and San Francisco.

Learn more about photographers' rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Department of Justice Warns Police Against Violating Photographers' Rights



Via PDN
Photo District News


The Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice doesn't mince words in a May 14 letter to the Baltimore Police Department. Citizens have a constitutional right to record police carrying out their public duties, and it is illegal for police to seize and delete the recordings, the letter says. The DOJ goes on to give the BPD a blueprint for re-writing its policies regarding journalists or citizens recording police activities.

The letter, posted on the DOJ web site, could be a powerful tool for photographers (or citizens) who are harassed or arrested anywhere in the country for photographing police activities. It says exactly what National Press Photographers Associations, the ACLU, and others have long argued--one painstaking case at a time-- about citizens' right to record police activities.

"Private individuals have a First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties," the DOJ writes to the Baltimore police. The letter continues, "[O]fficers violate individuals’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they seize and destroy such recordings without a warrant or due process."

The letter re-iterated the arguments that the DOJ made to a federal court in Maryland earlier this year in a civil rights case involving the Baltimore Police Department. Christopher Sharp sued the BPD in 2011, alleging that police officers had seized, searched, and deleted the contents of his cell phone after he used it to record the officers arresting his friend. The incident took place at the 2010 Preakness Stakes horse race.

BPD said the claim was groundless and asked the court to throw it out. But the DOJ urged the court to rule that private citizens have a First Amendment right to record police carrying out their duties, as well as Fourth and Fourteenth amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure and deprivation of property without due process.

The court agreed, and has allowed the case to proceed. Among Sharp's allegations is that the BPD has a policy of advising its officers to to detain citizens who record police activities and to seize, search, and delete individuals’ recordings. He is seeking an injunction to force the BPD to change its policies.

In an effort to pre-empt that part of Sharp's claim, the BPD made public in February a general order titled "Video Recording of Police Activity" directing its police officers how to handle the recording of their activities. The order says citizens have the "absolute right to photograph and/or video record the enforcement actions of any Police Officer" as long as they don't "interfere."

The DOJ has reviewed that BPD order, and concluded that it doesn't adequately protect citizen's First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In support of Sharp, the DOJ is now urging the court to order the BPD to amend the general order as part of the resolution of Sharp's lawsuit.

For instance, the DOJ says, the policy does not explicitly state that citizens have a First Amendment right to record police activity. "Given the numerous publicized reports over the past several years alleging that BPD officers violated individuals’ First Amendment rights, BPD should include a specific recitation of the First Amendment rights at issue," the DOJ says.

The letter goes on to provide what amounts to a prescription for a new policy that protects citizens rights. Among the recommendations:
  • BPD should clarify that the right to record public officials is not limited to streets and sidewalks – it includes areas where individuals have a legal right to be present, including an individual’s home or business, and common areas of public and private facilities and buildings.
  • [P]olicies should instruct officers that, except under limited circumstances, officers must not search or seize a camera or recording device without a warrant.
  • Officers should be advised not to threaten, intimidate, or otherwise discourage an individual from recording police officer enforcement activities or intentionally block or obstruct cameras or recording devices.
  • Policies should prohibit officers from destroying recording devices or cameras and deleting recordings or photographs under any circumstances.
  • If a general order permits individuals to record the police unless their actions interfere with police activity, the order should define what it means for an individual to interfere with police activity and, when possible, provide specific examples.
(With regard to the issue of interference, The DOJ also notes, "an individual’s recording of police activity from a safe distance without any attendant action intended to obstruct the activity or threaten the safety of others does not amount to interference. Nor does an individual’s conduct amount to interference if he or she expresses criticism of the police or the police activity being observed.")
  • [The order] must set forth with specificity the narrow circumstances in which a recording individual’s interference with police activity could subject the individual to arrest.
  • [The order] should encourage officers to provide ways in which individuals can continue to exercise their First Amendment rights as officers perform their duties, rather than encourage officers to look for potential violations of the law in order to restrict the individual’s recording.
  • A supervisor’s presence at the scene should be required before an officer takes any significant action involving cameras or recording devices, including a warrantless search or seizure.
  • A general order should provide officers with guidance on how to lawfully seek an individual’s consent to review photographs or recordings...[and] [p]olicies should include language to ensure that consent is not coerced, implicitly or explicitly.
The case of Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Department is currently in the discovery phase. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for May 30.


Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Another Day, Another Photograper Arrested, and Photographer Rights Lens Cloths

constitution.jpg


Via pixiq

"As I prepare my legal battle against the Miami-Dade Police Department for falsely arresting me and for deleting my footage, I am seeking new ways to raise money for my legal defense fund.

I recently entered into a business venture with Keith Robertson, a Vancouver man who runs Zap Rag, a company that sells lens cloths and laminated cards with photo laws printed on them.

The items are designed to be used by photographers when they get harassed by cops or security guards for shooting in public."

Elsewhere: "Today, the NPPA sent another letter of protest to U.S. Parks Police Chief Teresa Chambers asking her to investigate allegations that a photographer was arrested and detained for 48 hours without being formally charged." Full post here.

Related: Your street photography rights on a lens cloth
              Freedom of the Press?

Monday, February 13, 2012

Your rights as a photographer






Know Your Rights: Photographers
Via ACLU

When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is important in a free society.

When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the taking of photographs. If you disobey the property owner’s rules, they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply).

Police officers may not generally confiscate or demand to view your photographs or video without a warrant. If you are arrested, the contents of your phone may be scrutinized by the police, although their constitutional power to do so remains unsettled. In addition, it is possible that courts may approve the seizure of a camera in some circumstances if police have a reasonable, good-faith belief that it contains evidence of a crime by someone other than the police themselves (it is unsettled whether they still need a warrant to view them).

Police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances.

Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations. Professional officers, however, realize that such operations are subject to public scrutiny, including by citizens photographing them.

Note that the right to photograph does not give you a right to break any other laws. For example, if you are trespassing to take photographs.

Full post here.


So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy.


-- ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin


Related: Freedom of the Press?