Photography is Not a Crime

55 responses so far ↓

• 1 Jeremy Brooks // Jul 4, 2008 at 1:47 AM

  I’m speechless. What is going on lately with cops and media/photographers?

• 2 Carlos Miller // Jul 4, 2008 at 1:51 AM

  Jeremy,

  This issue really needs to start being addressed on a national level.

• 3 William Beem // Jul 4, 2008 at 11:22 AM

  I was wondering when I’d find this happening in my own back yard. I just posted this video on my Orlando Local blog, too.

  I agree with you, Carlos. It’s time this became a national discussion among more than just photographers and media.

• 4 jorge // Jul 4, 2008 at 9:10 PM

  Enough aready, you didn’t give the whole story as usual. Apparently the scene involved a yound child. The media, as shown in the past, can not be trusted with that kind of stuff. So an order was given to the camera man during the course of a poice investigation. As usual, the camera man was not content and had to open his mouth.

  What’s not to understand? THERE IS AN ONGOING POLICE INVESTIGATION IN WHICH THE MEDIA COULD POSSIBLY LEAK OUT THE IDENTITY OF A YOUNG GIRL. I must be from fucking mars!

  Get over it already, your place is behind the yellow line, that’s why Police Departments have Public Information Officers and Press Conferences.

  COJONES!

• 5 mad hatter // Jul 4, 2008 at 11:54 PM

  Carlos,

  The video is a lot less sensational than the story that you wrote.

  This wasn’t a persecution of the media by the PO, he was simply: a) following orders; and b) doing his best to prevent information from being leaked regarding an obviously sensitive matter, which in the case was an accident in which a young girl was involved.

  The PO was professional throughout and several times gave the cameraman his name and badge number, for the record. The comment regarding the PO’s boss and the gun was a bit over the top, but in context it was inoccuous. It was like the PO saying “f- you”, it shouldn’t have been said, but it wasn’t that big of a deal. That was the only slip on the PO’s part.

  The bigger issue is the lack of trust between the police department and the media. As you can hear in the video, the PO says that the camera can’t be taken past the perimeter because the department doesn’t want information leaking out prematurely. The cameraman says that he won’t air the information before it’s ok to do so, but the PO, rightly, isn’t swayed.

  Apparently there have been instances in the past when the media have breached embargoes on information in order to get a scoop. Let’s suppose that the camerman goes down there with his camera and gets juicy, “if it bleeds, it leads” type of video. He transmits that to his boss at the station and they make the decision to break into programming and air the footage.

  The police department may still be trying to locate the victim’s parents or relatives and these folks, instead of finding out from police, find out that their little girl was hurt in an accident through the media. And you know that the media doesn’t just report the facts, they add their own special ketchup, mustard, relish and sauerkraut, which would make a 5 MPH fender bender in the parking lot of the local Publix seem like a major wreck on I-95.

  This distrust isn’t new and I’ve witnessed it firsthand. A reporter may have the best intentions when he promises to heed a request to hold off on airing the information, but when that person’s boss decides the story will air, the reporter is powerless, so the good intentions are meaningless.

  Here there was no conspiracy to keep the media at bay. The PO clearly told the cameraman that he could walk closer to the scene without his camera or he could go to the staging area. There was nothing illegal there because there was no discrimination between civilians and the media. Civilians weren’t going to the scene with cameras in hand, they were walking or biking around their neighborhood. The media was free to walk to the scene, sans cameras, due to exigent circumstances.

  You’re reaching, Carlos. And I’m very disappointed in how you’ve slanted the story, even encouraging readers to rate the PO, although you don’t come out and say it overtly it is implied that you’re encouraging your readers to lay into the PO for simply doing his job and following the orders handed down by his superiors.

  There’s no injustice here, Carlos, keep fishing for more conspiracies.

  BTW, nice to see Jorge is back. There’s no way Jorge is a LEO, unless his real nickname is Johnny Lexus, because who on a LEO’s budget has the resources to take a day trip to NYC to catch the Yankees? Se vive bien, asere!

• 6 Carlos Miller // Jul 5, 2008 at 1:08 AM

  mh,

  Yes, it’s good to have Jorge back because he keeps things interesting.

  But mh, you are probably aware that it is not that uncommon for a LEO to make more than $100,000 a year with overtime and off-duty work.

  But that’s besides the point. They do put in their hours.

  As far as this story goes, I do see that the officer was just following orders. He wasn’t abusive or arrogant, but he was clueless when it came to the law.

  And obviously so were his superiors.

  So the problem I have is that there is obviously some lack of training when it comes to fundamental basics, like what can and can’t a reporter do. Like what is and what is not protected by the First Amendment.

  If the cops really wanted to keep information from being leaked, then they shouldn’t have been letting all the civilians stroll past the checkpoint.

  With that logic, anybody could snap a photo or capture a video with their cell phone and put it up on youtube and the world can see what took place in that location.

  You said, ” The PO clearly told the cameraman that he could walk closer to the scene without his camera or he could go to the staging area.

  That is the whole point of this blog, mh, that photography and videography are not crimes. Numerous federal court cases have determined that photography and videography is protected under the First Amendment.

  Why the fuck can’t the people who are sworn to protect and uphold our laws understand this?

  When you have the government (police in this case) determining what can and can’t be released in the media, you don’t have democracy.

  Isn’t that what Fidel does?

  Our forefathers insisted we have an open government, so why is it you disagree with that?

• 7 Henry Gomez // Jul 5, 2008 at 1:12 AM

  What the cops did there is total horseshit. You can not selectively enforce a perimeter of an investigation. The media member has every right to walk down that sidewalk as the ordinary citizens that were being allowed access. I wish videos like this would have been admissible in your case (obviously they aren’t because each case is different) because the jury would have found you not guilty on all charges in 3 minutes.

• 8 Carlos Miller // Jul 5, 2008 at 1:13 AM

  jorge,

  You must be from Mars because you don’t get it.

  If police put up the yellow line, then that means that civilians and journalists are not allowed past it.

  But in this case, the civilians were allowed past the yellow ribbon when the reporter was threatened with arrest if he walked past it.

  The cop said that there are different rules for the media.

  The law says different.

• 9 Carlos Miller // Jul 5, 2008 at 1:56 AM

  Henry nails it with this sentence, emphasis on the word “selectively” mine.

  “You can not selectively enforce a perimeter of an investigation.”

  Henry,

  One of the reasons I got into video within the last year is because of my arrest. I realized that a video will capture what a still camera can’t – actual words and actions as they happen.

  Take for example the Jeff Weinsier video, which was enough evidence to force the State Attorney’s Office to drop the case within three weeks.

  If my case had been videotaped, it would have been dropped within three weeks as well.

• 10 Carlos Miller // Jul 5, 2008 at 2:04 AM

  “William Beem // Jul 4, 2008 at 11:22 am

  I was wondering when I’d find this happening in my own back yard. I just posted this video on my Orlando Local blog, too.

  I agree with you, Carlos. It’s time this became a national discussion among more than just photographers and media.”

  William Beem,

  Maybe this is a start.

  http://carlosmiller.com/2008/06/03/congresswoman-steps-up-for-photographers-rights/

• 11 jorge // Jul 5, 2008 at 7:44 AM

  Carlos,

  The laws are not different. Get yourself a Florida Statute book. An officer can give someone an order if violation of that order will result in a breach of a bonafide police investigation. Here, the photographer may compromise a young childs identity.

  You are comparing apples to oranges. The issue is not that a civilian is allowed where a reporter is not, the issue is whether the officer had the authority to give that order and he had every right to. The only thing for me that was a bit out of line was the “boss with a gun” comment, but every now and then a police officer is allowed a brain fart or two.

  OUT

• 12 Jorge // Jul 5, 2008 at 12:15 PM

  Carlos,

  Why do you always censor poor Larry. Isn’t it a bit hypocrittical? I saw the post and there was nothing racial besides a little ebonics. Last time I checked, ebonics was recognized in California. What;s the deal papa? Were do you stand on speech freedoms?

• 13 Carlos Miller // Jul 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM

  jorge,

  When you post in your larry persona, you’re doing nothing but mocking black people with stereotypes.

  When you do that, you offend my black readers.

• 14 Jorge // Jul 5, 2008 at 12:29 PM

  Papa, what black readers? How is that offensive? They call each other the N word and use profanities in front of their children. How would my persona offend them? I know, I know, there are some Clarence Thomas’ and Colon Powell’s out there, but please give me a break.

• 15 Carlos Miller // Jul 5, 2008 at 12:31 PM

  jorge,

  I’m just going by the emails I’ve received that told me they were offended. I have a lot of readers that don’t comment, but read my blog on a daily basis.

• 16 William Beem // Jul 5, 2008 at 3:14 PM

  Jorge:

  It really isn’t up to the cops to make selective decisions based upon someone’s occupation. If they don’t want anyone to know that a child was injured, then they shouldn’t allow ANYONE in the prohibited area. Is it OK for those pedestrians and cyclists to know, but not the photographer?

  Besides, this wasn’t a live remote. Nobody was going to find out anything over the air.

• 17 Jorge // Jul 6, 2008 at 1:37 AM

  William,

  There was clearly a police line blocking access. The only reason we know that civilians entered was because the camera man said so. How do we know that those persons who went in didn’t actually live there? In that case the officer would allow those persons to go inside the perimeter.

  It may not have been live, but who can trust the media to replay that at a later time as the police confrontation was played? I have understood a couple of the reasons for prior incidents, but for this one…some of you are just unfamiliar with police work and don’t really understand
  OUT

• 18 mad hatter // Jul 6, 2008 at 5:37 PM

  Carlos,

  You take your argument too far. This is not a case of censorship. This is not “what Fidel does” and this is not an affront to democracy.

  In this instance, the police department is simply restricting the release of information for a period of time. This practice is fairly routine and it is referred to as an embargo. The media is allowed to gather its footage, but it cannot release the information until a predetermined time. The practice of embargoeing footage requires trust on both sides because once someone has the footage, the police no longer have control over it. Even if this was not “a live remote,” it takes very little time for the video to be transmitted to the station from the news van, so the information could be broadcast in a matter of minutes.

  The claim by Henry, Beem and you about selective enforcement is horseshit. There is no selective enforcement here. Let’s get one thing straight, the point at which this incident takes place is at the perimeter that has been set up, the “yellow line,” or crime scene tape, is further down the road and no one is getting past that, as you can see at the beginning of the video. The PO clearly tells the cameraman that he can go further, just like the civilians can, without his camera. The civilians are getting through because they have legitimate business in the area (i.e.: they’re going to school or to their homes). If the cameraman wishes, he can go closer, survey the scene, take notes, etc., then come back and file a report. The police department doesn’t want certain sensitive images of the scene being circulated at that point. A civilian who goes up to take a picture would be told the same thing.

  This is not a violation of anyone’s constitutional rights because our constitutional rights, as you may have read in the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, are not absolute. There are certain interests that supercede our constitutional rights, namely the state’s police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. These powers have over the years been interpreted pretty broadly to cover a variety of state actions, but the state, nonetheless, must come up with a convincing argument to justify their use.

  We do not know enough about the scene and the reasoning behing the restriction on the release of images from the scene to determine if the police department’s actions were justified. By the same token, we also lack enough information to say that this was a violation of the camerman’s constitutional rights. Given the circumstances, though, this is nothing to get your panties all wadded up in a bunch.

  Furthermore, you ommitted pertinent facts from your report that would have toned down the sensational aspect of the story and given the appropriate context to the PO’s actions.

  If you think that we, as citizens, have an absolute right to all public information, documents, etc. why don’t you file a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Defense and let us know what operations the Armed Forces are planning to conduct in Afghanistan two weeks from today.

• 19 Jorge // Jul 6, 2008 at 5:57 PM

  Madhatter,

  Just some advice, keep it simple with these guys. Not everyone has a Harvard education like yourself. Y papo don’t write so much it turns people off.

  Thanks

• 20 Carlos Miller // Jul 6, 2008 at 6:12 PM

  The PO clearly tells the cameraman that he can go further, just like the civilians can, without his camera. The civilians are getting through because they have legitimate business in the area (i.e.: they’re going to school or to their homes)

  It can easily be argued that the reporter also has “legitimate business” in the area. He is doing his job, after all.

  And no matter what you argue, it is not lawful for the PO to restrict him access only because he has a camera.

  The federal courts have ruled that if I can see you in public, I can photograph or film you in public.

  Accident scenes and crime scenes are no different.

  I understand that once cops put up the yellow ribbon, then nobody besides cops and firefighters are allowed beyond that.

  But photographers, civilians, reporters can film, photograph or view all they want as long as they don’t cross the line.

  Usually when police create an “embargo”, is when they choose not to release the name of a victim or suspect.

  But if the reporter acquires it any other manner, then that reporter is under no restrictions to release the name.

  Despite his intentions (and I do appreciate his honesty in providing his name and badge number because many cops would refuse to do that), this PO was wrong.

  I don’t think he did it out of bulliness, like the Coral Gables officer did in deleting the images, I think he did it because he had no clue.

  I hear your arguments but I would bet you that if this particular case went to court, the judge would side with the media, only on a Constitutional basis.

• 21 mad hatter // Jul 6, 2008 at 8:46 PM

  Carlos,

  It’s all speculation. What we know is that there was a child involved in a car chase that ended at this scene. The reason for the embargo could have been that the child was laying in the middle of the street and they were trying to locate the next of kin before these folks found out about their child’s mishap on TV. It could also have been related to another portion of the investigation. Police departments don’t restrict information just for the hell of it. In my experience there’s always a compelling reason to do so.

  Your interpretation regarding “if I can see you in public, I can photograph or film you in public,” is correct absent a compelling interest that requires a curtailment of that right.

  Let’s look at it this way: in some investigations, police cordon off the scene and then place screens around particular areas to shield those from public view. That’s perfectly and unambiguously legal. Here we don’t know if they were doing that, or if they were going to do that, or what the circumstances were.

  To label this a violation of a journalist’s rights, or an abuse of power by the PO, without more information, is premature.

  Where I take issue with you, Carlos, is that now you’re softening your stance re the PO, but initially you wrote the post to make it seem like this guy was running roughshod over the constitution, guns ablaze, and taking everyone in his path down. The video clearly shows that wasn’t the case.

• 22 jorge // Jul 6, 2008 at 8:55 PM

  Just got back from Daytona Beach. It was really great to watch the Coke Zero 400 with fellow americans. It was especially emotional when the F-16s flew over the extra large American Flag on the racetrack. I had tons of photos of that. I also asked permission from a volusia county police officer if I could take a picture of him for my friend Carlos Miller. He said no and proceeded to take my camera. I took my loss and enjoyed the race.

  Oh well sometimes you bite the bear and sometimes the bear bites you. I can get another Nikon D80 but my life is irreplaceable. Those Volusia County Policemen sure dont mess around. I wonder if he kept my photos of the Home Depot Camry in which I was in the driver’s seat?

• 23 Carlos Miller // Jul 6, 2008 at 8:59 PM

  mh,

  If I am seen as softening my stance on the PO, is because in comparison to the others I’ve written about, he didn’t seem like such a dick.

  Just clueless.

  In my initial post, I came across as harsh because despite his intentions, I still see it as a First Amendment violation.

  And it can’t be forgiven or excused because that has been happening all too often.

  What is the purpose of having certain freedoms if we are unable to fight for them when someone violates them?

  Instances like what happened in this video are all too common that they don’t even get reported about, unlike say, the New Mexico arrest which was all caught on video because that cop was way out of line.

  But in the end, it’s still results in a member of law enforcement quashing the First Amendment rights of a journalist.

  In this case, if there was a child laying in the road, it will never make it on the air anyway because they would never show such a thing.

  Perhaps we don’t know the full circumstances of this incident, but what we do know is that the cop clearly states that there are different rules for journalists than there are for civilians.

  And I have more problems with that than his stupid comment about his boss having a gun.

• 24 mad hatter // Jul 6, 2008 at 11:08 PM

  Carlos,

  You’re getting wrapped up in semantics. Just because the PO said that there were different rules for civilians and the media doesn’t make that the case.

  Both civilians and the media could walk right up to the crime scene and gawk at will. What the police department didn’t want, at that time, was for images to be captured of the scene.

  If a civilian went up there and tried to snap photos of whatever sensitive information the police were trying to keep a lid on at the time, that civilian would have been told that it wasn’t allowed, just like the media wasn’t allowed to either. The PO simply assumed that the only one’s interested in taking images of the scene and transmitting them would be the media and he spoke in that manner.

  The cameraman had the same ability as any civilian to walk up to the scene, and just like the cameraman, no civilian would have been allowed to take pictures or video of the scene.

  There were no different sets of rules there.

  P.S.: Jorge was in Daytona as well??? Where’s he going to be next, reporting from the Pyrenees with an update on the Tour de France, sans his beloved D80? No, he’ll be in Beijing for the Olympics! This guy’s a character.

• 25 mad hatter // Jul 6, 2008 at 11:12 PM

  Carlos,

  You should have a post entitled “Where’s Jorge?” Readers could submit photos from sporting events around the world and we could all try our luck at spotting Jorge. :-O

• 26 Carlos Miller // Jul 6, 2008 at 11:41 PM

  What the police department didn’t want, at that time, was for images to be captured of the scene.

  mh,

  That’s the whole point. Police do not have the right to forbid anyone from photographing or filming in a public area regardless if there is “sensitive information”.

  Police have the right to restrict access to an area during an investigation, but if a news copter happened to fly over and start filming, they really have no say in the matter.

  Or if a photographer climbed on somebody’s roof – with that person’s permission – he would still have the right to photograph the scene with a telephoto lens.

  I think Jorge should start using Twitter to inform us of his whereabouts each day.

• 27 mad hatter // Jul 7, 2008 at 12:14 AM

  hehe, Twitter. You know, maybe Jorge is Alesh from the former Critical Miami trying to create a new identity in the blogosphere.

  I see your point, Carlos, regarding the telephoto lens and the chopper. You’re point is that police can cover a particular area of the scene to shield it from prying eyes (be that the general public or the media) but that whatever’s out in the open is fair game.

  My point is the similar, except that I wasn’t looking at it from your perspective. It would have been better if the PO had said, “Yeah, the civilians can go through because they live there or they’re going to school, but anybody else cannot pass from this point forward.”

  Perhaps the police weren’t considering the possiblity of a news chopper or a photographer camping out on someone’s roof either and they either couldn’t, or didn’t want to shield the scene at the time.

• 28 jorge // Jul 7, 2008 at 7:22 AM

  Listen, there are many reasons why a police department may want to keep the media out of a scene. We don’t have to get into details, but i’ll give you an example. In a marijuana grow house, the media is not allowed inside. Many times an officer is given a camera by the media and that officer will film the area.

  I know, I know…your gripe is that a civilian was let inside. So what? the civilian had a bonafide reason and that does not need to be explained to the media.

  I will not use twitter because all my travel money is gone for about two years.

  Thanks

• 29 torgeaux // Jul 7, 2008 at 10:16 AM

  Mad Hatter has an intelligent, insightful point, but one which ultimately is incorrect, I think. The police aren’t making a determination about the limited release of information, but rather restricting the collection of the information in the first place. And doing a poor job. By allowing in the general public, they are allowing the information into that public. By restricting the professional, all they are doing is guaranteeing that the inevitable cameraphone or small digital camera photo is the only record. they are NOT keeping the kid’s image safe by keeping the pros out.

  If they had restricted access to the public to keep the child’s identity protected, then the photographer would have no argument, but that isn’t what they did. But, it doesn’t matter to the ultimate issue, which is that there is no legal basis for denying access to the photographer with his camera if the public was allowed to view the scene. What is available to public view is available to photography.

• 30 bagelman // Jul 7, 2008 at 11:51 AM

  I agree with Carlos, while this cop wasn’t that much of a tool about enforcing his co’s orders, the order itself is the issue.

  I’m a PJ in NYC and deal with this all the time…. “hey man, I’m really a nice guy but I can’t let you down there because my boss say so.” conveniently the boss is never around. The original order is the problem.

  The police have no right to be editors of the press. If an area is open to pedestrians, which this case obviously was, then it should be open to the press. If they don’t want info leaked out, close the whole scene down. Do you know how many times my paper has bought pics from civilians in the area at crime scenes who happened to have a camera.

  When the police start to become editors it’s a scary world my friends. Maybe the intentions were good this time (to spare a family some grief), but what about when you have a case like the Sean Bell shooting in NYC when cops fired 41 shots into a car full of unarmed men? Do you really want the police controlling press access at that scene?

  Also, sometimes I will admit, “if it bleeds, it leads” wins out, but most of the times, editors do consider things like a families feelings. after covering news in this city for 9 years you wouldn’t believe some of the graphic stuff i’ve shot that never saw the light of day.

  my two cents.
  cheers!

• 31 Jorge // Jul 7, 2008 at 2:04 PM

  Bagelman, What the f….is a PJ? Remember when you use your photog jargon that not everyone who writes here is a photographer. Some of us have to get real jobs to earn a living.

  Also, if you have a police shooting, the press should be far…far…far away.

  I will give you an example. About 10 years ago, here in Miami there was a DEA shooting. The media showed up and started taking pictures of the Agent going to his care to “change” weapons. The media reported it as suspicious behavior. Well what you photogjerks don’t understand is that the Agent must reinquish his weapon to his supervisor, who in turn, will submitt it to the interna affairs investigator. The Agent was only retrievig his second firearm.

  This is my point, you have too many photographers writing on the site who have no knowledge to speak about the topic at hand. They simply say, “If a civilian is allowed, then a photgrapher should”, bullshit, name me one media reporter with intergrity and I will name you one Democrat that’s worth a shit.

  OUT

• 32 Carlos Miller // Jul 7, 2008 at 2:12 PM

  Jorge,

  A PJ is a photojournalist. I wonder how many people reading this thread were wondering what a PO was. It’s a police officer.

  Yes, it’s obvious, but I thought PJ was obvious as well.

  The above scenario could easily have been avoided if a reporter asked a PIO about the changing of the weapons.

  Excuse the jargon, a PIO is a public information officer.

• 33 Jorge // Jul 7, 2008 at 2:35 PM

  Go back to my posts, I’ve never used PO, and I have spelled out Public Information Officer before using PIO in a sentence.

  “The above scenario could easily have been avoided if a reporter asked a PIO about the changing of the weapons”. Exactly, which is why they should meet with the PIO and not worry about what police line they are going to cross.

  BTW (By the Way) How can I italize quotations on this site. I tried copying and pasting from word but that didn’t work.

• 34 Carlos Miller // Jul 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM

  Mad hatter used PO in this thread.

  To italicize, put the phrase between () and () but remove the parenthesis. I had to put the code in parenthesis or else it would come out italicize and you wouldn’t see the code.

• 35 Carlos Miller // Jul 7, 2008 at 3:00 PM

  Shit, it’s not working.

• 36 bagelman // Jul 7, 2008 at 3:00 PM

  jorge,

  don’t attack my integrity, i’m not attacking yours. i’ve met a lot of cops who have been far less thank professional over the years as i’m sure you have met a lot of media types who have been less than professional. i’ve also dealt with some great cops over the years, some I consider friends, and have respect for what they do as a whole. but to say that no one in my industry has any integrity…. please. talk to the men and women who have put their lives on the line and gone to the places that john q. public can’t to bring them the news they need to know about.

  As for your police shooting example… the reporter screwed up, plain and simple. It happens. just like these cops screwed up, it happens.I’m sure the reporter got reemed out by his boss when it was discovered. But this one example cannot be applied to all media access situations. In big cities across America, the police forces are the size of a small army and public insight into their workings is a very necessary part of our democracy.

  Back to the original thread… if the police are going to allow civilians… the press have the same constitutional rights. either close the scene to everyone, or have it open to all. It is not the police departments job to decide what is appropriate imagery for me to gather, that’s MY bosses job.

• 37 Carlos Miller // Jul 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM

  < e m > word or phrase < / e m >

  For italics, use the above code, but remove the spaces. I had to put the spaces to allow you to see the code because otherwise, the words would be italicized.

• 38 Jorge // Jul 7, 2008 at 3:20 PM

  bagelman

  please. talk to the men and women who have put their lives on the line and gone to the places that john q. public can’t to bring them the news they need to know about.

  Stop it….you don’t know who you are writing too. Put their lives on the line? You better take that back, the only ones putting their lives on the line are the ones you are covering. Go give me 30 push ups for that filfth you just wrote.

  Learn your place as a PJ, behind the yellow line!

• 39 Jorge // Jul 7, 2008 at 3:20 PM

  sorry I meant to instead of too

• 40 bagelman // Jul 7, 2008 at 3:40 PM

  You don;t know who you’re writing to my friend.

  i realized after i wrote that it would probably get a rise out of jorge…. kinda like saying no photog has integrity.

  granted a cop puts his life on the line when he goes to work every day… some journalists do from time to time too.

  like my friend who slept under a US tank at night for a few weeks while documenting the invasion of iraq with US forces.

  like my friendwho went inside south american prisons to document the horrible conditions and the fact that the gangs control them, not the police.

  like my other friends who were trying to find a way to a town in lebanon being bombed by israelis as everyone else was leaving.

  like the columbian journalists who document the corruption of government and drug cartels who disapear every year.

  like me…. who slept in a car for a week in the french quarter while the us governement couldn’t do a damn thing about the horror of hurricane katrina.

  and like me… who when everybody was running from the twin towers…. i ran to them. to take some of the images that guys like you rally around as inspiration to promote the new idea of patriotism.

  i’m not saying that it is more dangerous to be a journalist than a cop…. that would be ludicrous. but people like you who think all we do is get drive thru and wait to pick a fight with a cop are sorely mistaken.

  i’ll stil do the thirty push ups though… it has been a lot of drive thru lately.

• 41 Carlos Miller // Jul 7, 2008 at 3:45 PM

  Very well said, bagelman

• 42 Jorge // Jul 7, 2008 at 3:58 PM

  Bagelman, you are a tenacious person, I will give you that. However, none of those examples do it for me. I am aware of those situations you described above. Most of the time, the person you are covering has to protect everyone, incuding you. As for the catastrophic situations, put the camera down and help…forget the nice photos. I live it Bagelman, I know what it’s like to deal with reporters, they want what sells and not the truth, even the nice ones. If that were not the case, they would not be reporters. The “shocking” is what sells. I will knock out some push ups as well just for the fuck of it. I know you were not indicating that a reporter goes throught the same dangers as cops, just get the drive-thru, it’s the honest story.

• 43 bagelman // Jul 7, 2008 at 4:14 PM

  jorge,

  sometimes you are in the protection of the subject (i.e. the invasionf of iraq) but sometimes not… no cop could protect me when a building practically fell on my head… there we no cops to protect me in Nola.

  when i worked in tijuana documenting sex trafficing i shot prostitutes in the red light district for a week. you know what i was warned of right off the bat? The police are paid by the pimps for protection… if you want to get sex from a little kid, you go to the place right next to the police department, because it’s the riskiest, they pay for the most protection from the police. When i worked on that story, I had to be just as careful to not be seen photographing by the police as the pimps….not much protection there.

  As for my friends who have been imbedded in Iraq. yes you are under protection and those soldiers are taking on risk just having you there and having to work with you. but they can’t protect you from an IED, or an ambush which is what happens there. As always, props to the soldiers and what they do. no journalist risks as much as them, god bless em. but just getting on a plane and going to a war zone is taking a risk for your belief that something is so important for people to know that it is worth risking your life.

  And I have helped… we are not souless monsters. during Katrina, i had a vehicle and shuttled some people to evac points when i could. i picked up 7 people and their pets and got them out to Baton Rouge. after the towers fell, i helped some injured people get to medical attention. sometimes me on one arm and a cop on another. but the biggest way we help is by letting people SEE what we see.

  How outraged was this nation when it SAW what was going on in Nola. How inspired were you when you saw Thomas Franklin’s pic of the firefighters raising the flag at ground zero… I don’t know about you, but when I saw that pic I kinda felt everything was going to be okay in one of the most unsure times of my life.

  arms are sore from pushups…can’t type no more.

• 44 torgeaux // Jul 7, 2008 at 4:14 PM

  the problem is that Jorge sees no inherent value to news photography. Given that premise, his argument is more correct, as we are all fully aware of the potential downside to having non-law enforcement at or near crime scenes.

  So, arguing the specifics of any case with Jorge is without purpose, as he doesn’t acknowledge any value from the activity we’re defending. Of course, those of us on the other side see not only value to the activity, but value to the right of the general public to be free to take photographs, to record that which is occurring in public view, especially actions by the state.

• 45 Jorge // Jul 7, 2008 at 5:03 PM

  Guys, I see the need to inform the public on newsworthy events. I just think that the info is given by the PIO and pictures can be taken at liberal while obeying a police officer, any police officer’s orders. Whether it’s zero who can’t wait to harrass some 7-11 clerk for a day old weiner, or a squarred away officer, I think photographers need to show more respect for law enforcement.

• 46 bagelman // Jul 7, 2008 at 9:44 PM

  jorge,

  and vice versa.Police Officers need to show more respect for members of the press.

  it’s a case of bad pr on both sides of the badge, my friend. just like you know “zero who can’t wait to harass some 7-11 clerk” I know some real piece of s— photogs. unfortunately, they stick in your head a lot more than the cop who tips his cap while you duck under the line, or the photog who emails a cop some pictures of the job afterward.

  i think you and i will always disagree on whether i should just get the info from the PIO afterward or if I should gather it myself… professional cultural differences i guess.

  let me leave you with a story that sums up my side of the story a bit.

  2007, DCPI (NYPD’s Public information department) calls my photo desk with a great story. The NYPD shut down a WHOLE city block in Chinatown for every store being part of a massive counterfeit goods ring. THEY called US, remeber that. looking for PR on a good bust, and it was a good bust, I’m not questioning that. As I’m standing on the city street snapping pictures during rush hour, on the civilian side of the police line, with hundreds of commuters walking by, this sweet little cupcake PO straight out of the academy walks up to me and says “stop taking pictures, you can’t photograph the crime scene.” I very plainly said to her, ‘look, I’m not trying to be a problem, but you have no right to tell me not to take pictures from a public street, i’m sorry.’ i kept taking pictures. She continued to tell me not to, said i could gett arrested, and basically used my mother’s old “because I said so” argument. i continued to take pictures and told her to talk to her CO about it. she did, the co told her i was right, i could take as many pictures as i want. So here’s my problem. This fresh out of the academy PO doesn’t know the laws she should, and just wants to give orders to someone because she can. remember, the NYPD called us to the job because they wanted the big public slap on the back.

  So jorge, sometimes your scenario can work, where a good PIO will put you in a spot to take all the pictures you want…. but when you’re at a fast breaking scene, a 10 story crane has just collapsed, and you’re there 5 minutes after the cops, who do you think I’m more likely to deal with? an informed, educated PIO who is probably in his air conditioned office at headquarters when news breaks, or the girl from my story above? that’s the problem.

• 47 Carlos Miller // Jul 7, 2008 at 9:57 PM

  The PIO’s job is to filter the news. And if they actually show up to a scene, it’s usually after everything is done.

  They are great for soundbites, but nothing beats an action shot.

  I agree with you bagelman about the young cops who don’t have a clue. I guess they just don’t train them because it is usually always the younger cops who bully photographers.

  Just take a look at that cop in New Mexico. He was nine months on the job when he arrested that reporter.

• 48 bagelman // Jul 7, 2008 at 10:41 PM

  yeah,

  that video from new mexico was scary man…what was that cop thinking?

• 49 torgeaux // Jul 8, 2008 at 8:01 AM

  Jorge,

  so what if the actions of the police ARE the story? Shouldn’t they be unafraid of public scrutiny? I guess that’s the bottom line, why are the police in general (and you also) so scared of having their actions recorded? That which is done under scrutiny, or knowing that it could be subject to public view is much more predictable and best for society. That’s why we have rules that guarantee that governance isn’t done in secret.

• 50 mad hatter // Jul 8, 2008 at 11:41 AM

  I’ve been up to my ears in work and unable to monitor the blog.

  It’s approaches like Bagelman’s with the rookie PO that are more effective. When you encounter a PO who you feel is exceeding his or her authority, then simply ask to speak to a supervisor on the scene and explain the situation calmly and coolly. Remember, we’re all human beings in this and nobody appreciates being called an idiot, so a little diplomacy can go a long way.

  Police can control a scene and restrict access, as bagelman said, by closing the entire scene. Where it gets difficult is in an instance such as this one. The police likely had good intentions in limiting access to scene and the inadvertent dissemination of sensitive information. However, the problem arises when others are able to access the scene, like Carlos wrote, via helicopter or by climbing on someone’s roof and using a telephoto lens. There you’re setting up a discriminatory situation because ultimately the police will be unable to control those other folks while the ones who show up at the perimeter and follow the PO’s instructions are being harmed because they are getting scooped by someone else.

  That’s why there are windscreens, tarps, tents and other devices to effectively cover elements of a scene and that’s what needs to be used if the police don’t want something to be accessible to the media and still pass constitutional muster.

• 51 mad hatter // Jul 8, 2008 at 2:07 PM

  torgeaux,

  Your last post gets right to the heart of the matter. It’s the scrutiny, and the possibility that actions will be misconstrued in the heat of the moment.

  Sure, you have those moments such as one about a year ago where a car chase ended with the suspect attempting to flee and he was emphatically greeted by two Clowns in Brown (Miami-Dade PD in case Jorge is unfamiliar — and it’s written with the utmost respect for MDPD) who unfortunately had their personnel files stained forever because a WFOR chopper happened to catch the incident. I say unfortunate because, really, the lesson that those PO’s administered is exactly what that suspect deserved.

  Then you have the other side of the spectrum with the very true and very sensationalized incident that Jorge described where a DEA Special Agent was unfairly tarred and feathered when he was defamed by the media (and there, if it wasn’t everybody, the members of the media who knew better suddenly decided to hide under a rock because this poor guy really was reamed for no reason) as “reloading” after he had already been involved in a shooting. Jorge’s post explains the incident accurately.

  Neither of the aforementioned examples are isolated incidents, but they should help you understand why POs are weary of being recorded.

  In the first incident, it was a human reaction in the middle of an emotionally charged incident. In the second example it was negligent reporting by the media. And in other instances it’s utter misconduct (you grammarians are going to love the fact that I started a sentence with “and”, but WTF. — No explanation needed for that acronym, right?)

  Regardless, it’s never putting LEOs in a positive light.

  What’s the solution? Discretion, common sense and, just like with kids: step away from the situation, count to ten, and reapproach when the anger subsides (ON BOTH SIDES OF THE LINE).

  I can’t wait to hear the reactions to this one, also from both sides of the line.

• 52 torgeaux // Jul 8, 2008 at 2:23 PM

  madhatter:

  Sure, abuses happen on all sides. But (i started a sentence with but since you started one with and), the photographs weren’t the problem, were they? It was interpretation of those pictures that caused problems, because the pictures themselves were completely and totally honest. What was abused there would have been abused absent the pictures, but would have been much worse for the speculation: “I saw him go get another gun,” is no worse than a photo accurately showing him getting the gun.

  Your suggestion is a good one, but one I think the LEOs are unlikely to follow. If a photographer is turned away, and he waits a few minutes and returns, he’s likely to be treated as someone “who has already been told!”

  Cops are like anyone else, and no one really likes to have their picture taken while doing their job…but the bad cops think they can stop it, while good ones know better.

• 53 Carlos Miller // Jul 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM

  I remember that incident last year where the cops ended up beating a suspect as they were being filmed.

  Yes, the guy deserved it and it may have been an emotionally charged incident, but it should not be allowed or encouraged.

  We have checks and balances in this country for a reason, to prevent any one entity from becoming too powerful.

  If we allow police to become the judges and dole out punishment, then we’ll be headed for a police state.

  That’s one incident that got caught on tape and Rodney King also got caught on tape, but how many don’t get caught on tape?

  Even in my own arrest, police went over the line by bashing my head against the sidewalk when there was no need to because I wasn’t fighting.

  I had two very expensive cameras on me, so the last thing I wanted to do was throw it down with five officers because not only would I get my ass kicked, I would destroy my cameras.

  But they were so mad because I would not leave the area when they told me to, that they made sure I paid the price.

  So they kicked my ass and destroyed my camera gear anyway.

  Let’s face it, some cops are just too aggressive. I know they have to deal with the scum of society but they also have to deal with regular citizens who are no physical threat to them.

  I always find it’s the younger cops who have this aggressive attitude that they can’t even talk to you, they have to yell at you, even if you’re just asking them a simple question.

  When I worked in the Southwest, I did numerous ride-alongs and I’ve always discovered that there are many more similarities than differences between myself and the officers.

  We’re both working class people who are trying to make a difference.

  Sometimes, we clash in our attempts to do this, so there obviously needs to be better communication and understanding between police and the media because neither one is going away.

• 54 Carlos Miller // Jul 8, 2008 at 2:31 PM

  Oh yeah, and I start sentences with “and” and “but” all the time. I also tend to use sentence fragments.

  As long as the sentence flows and makes sense, it doesn’t matter.

  The one thing they taught us in J-school was to forget everything you learned in English class.

  J-school is journalism school.

• 55 Colin Johnson // Jan 7, 2009 at 2:52 PM

  Something worth noting is the language used to describe what was going on. This article talks about three kinds of people: cops, journalists and civilians. Strictly speaking, and this is worth repeating, everyone involved was a civilian. Cops are civilians, they are not military. The police are civilian law enforcement.

Leave a Comment

Name

Mail

Website