Comments on: Wisconsin police illegally delete college student’s photos

By: Sara

Sara — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:42:01 +0000

Duane~
Great photos. I feel like I’ve just been on a vacation to Mexico.

By: E Fizzle

E Fizzle — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:00:22 +0000

Just get some photo recovery software and quit whining.

By: Duane

Duane — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:53:52 +0000

I didn't think that HIPPA applied. I just wasn't absolutely sure. I've been down the road with trying to help someone and the hospital using HIPPA to prevent that. Of course they didn't offer the suggestion that the person sign something allowing them to give me the information I needed to help the person. I've found many of the privacy things in HIPPA to have set back patient care rather then advance it. Yet we are going down the same path with health care as I'm writing this. There are a bunch of errors in HIPPA that haven't been corrected yet and this time congress is taking another step to insure lots of errors. They aren't even bothering to read the bill before voting on it. So much for open government. My recent post Feb 1, 2006 Batopilias to San Isidro, Chihuahua

By: Duane

Duane — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:53:52 +0000

By: torgeaux

torgeaux — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:01:05 +0000

My take on HIPAA is that a doctor couldn’t take the picture and display it, but it doesn’t cover man on the street photography. Not sure, not my area.

By: Tom Joad

Tom Joad — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:13:23 +0000

HIPAA only applies to “Covered entities” which are medical providers that bill for their services, health plans, or a health care clearing house. So, HIPAA does not apply to citizens on the street. It also does not apply to the police or fire departments unless they bill for providing medical services. Of course they like to use it to limit information, kind of like so many use the Patriot Act as a reason to limit photography. It sounds convincing, but is actually not true.

By: Duane Kerzic

Duane Kerzic — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:11:53 +0000

The reason I asked him to cite the law was because there are some rules in HIPAA that are fairly wide reaching. I don’t believe however that these overstep that if you are seen in public you can be photographed. We also have no idea where Stan is from. He could be from some little town where the cops aren’t up on this stuff and do things that ’seem perfectly legal” while they are not.

By: torgeaux

torgeaux — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:59:39 +0000

Stan: It’s been pointed out, but you’re flat wrong. If you can be seen from a public place, you can be photographed. Even in your home, by the way (there are some limits to this, but not what you may think). The journalists who gave up their cameras did so likely to get along, not from a legal obligation. They knew they could face contempt of cop charges, and it was easier to let it go. There is no law that says what you think it does, and if there were, it would be unconstitutional.

By: Tom Joad

Tom Joad — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:23:04 +0000

I agree with Duane and Jay. There is no expectation of privacy in public. As Jay mentioned, it may be in bad taste, but the government doesn’t get to decide what should be photographed, reported on, etc.

The police removing cameras from reporters, or any citizen for that matter, would be violating their First Amendment rights to free expression. They would also be guilty of theft for deleting any pictures and, violating the Fourth Amendment against seizure of property without due process.

Even if there was some local law that allowed this, it would likely be unconstitutional based on those Bill of Rights violations.

You might also be sued for violating the civil rights of the photographer and could be held personally liable for damages under USC Title 42, Chapter 21, Section 1983:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:42:20 +0000

Stan,

I second Duane’s request. When in public there is no expectation of privacy. PERIOD. It might be in poor taste to take a photo of someone seriously injured and/or naked and release it, but it is 100% legal if taken in public from a public place.

If the police were complying with your requests to seize cameras, you might have /thought/ it was legal since the police were doing as you asked. It was also probably illegal.

I’m very interested to see the actual cited law.

By: Duane Kerzic

Duane Kerzic — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:12:50 +0000

Stan,

Please cite the rule or law that makes it “completely legal” for EMT’s to order the police to remove camera’s from anyone including press when they are taking a photo of something that’s happening in view of the public.

By: Stan

Stan — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:18:10 +0000

I think that this might be related. I was an EMT for a while. Occasionally we would have someone (even press) who would try to take pictures of people while we were pulling them out of cars, transporting them to the ambulance, etc. We had the police remove the cameras from some of these people if it was evident that they were trying to get a good picture of the patient.

This was completely legal. Even the press knew to give up their cameras if they were caught. The film was reviewed, pictures removed IF there was something on it identifying a patient, unless the patient specifically said it was okay, which was unusual, because patients often were not in a place to grant that permission.

Point being that the person being arrested has rights. One of those rights is the right to some degree of privacy. The right to be treated as innocent unless found guilty in a court of law. I would check up on your local and state laws regarding this before I took any action against the officer, who may have been just enforcing the rights of the detained at his or her request.

By: Slrman

Slrman — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:37:05 +0000

Very typical. Police officers routinely violate civil rights of people even when they have not done anything wrong. Add to that the times they commit perjury in court and maybe the wrong people are in prison.

I have had two close relatives that were police chiefs and have trained police officers in three countries. I have never known anyone in the criminal “justice” system that wasn’t a liar. That includes street cops, prosecutors, public “defenders”, judges, and even probation officers.