By Carlos Miller
Police in North Carolina ordered a news videographer to stop filming a fatal traffic accident because he was “not showing proper respect to the people in the accident.”
When the videographer asserted his legal right to film the accident, the female officer grabbed the camera out of his hands and knocked it to the ground, causing $1,000 in damages.
She then handcuffed the videographer and placed him in the back of the car.
Travis Washington of WBTV was released an hour later without being charged.
Now Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police have launched an internal investigation into the incident.
According to WBTV New Director Dennis Milligan:
“A couple CMPD officers started shouting orders at him to stop shooting. And they approached and continued to shout orders to take his camera down.
“He felt like he was doing his job. He asked them why. A female officer stepped up and started to grab the camera out of his hands, and it fell to the ground. She told him, ‘Because you’re not showing proper respect to people in the accident.’”
Washington was filming from an overhead embankment so he was not interfering. The cop obviously had no problem with him standing there. She just didn’t want him to film.
Essentially, she committed a crime.
Washington ended up going to the emergency room to be treated for a minor back injury he received during the confrontation.
Milligan wants police to pay for the repairs. He should have them pay for a whole new set of cameras for the entire news crew.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Related posts:
- South Carolina man attacks news videographer
- Newark news videographer sues cop who assaulted him on camera
- Oregon man impersonates cop as he assaults news videographer
- Artist assaults videographer out of fear he would steal her art with his camera
- Assault against New Mexico news videographer caught on video
Support Photography is Not a Crime by buying your electronics through this ad.
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
Good god… Is the whole Cartman “respect my athroateh!” thing a realism with some cops? Do real people act like a cartoon character?
This is a good example of the mindset of police. They do not see themselves as enforcers merely of laws written on the books. They see themselves as the deciders on what people can and can’t do.
Is it possible to sue the police for false imprisonment? If it is, Travis Washington has a slam dunk of a case.
Xdamousex has it right. Police officers are more interested in enforcing what they *think* the laws should be instead of the laws that are. They see themselves as judge, jury and executioner even though they are none of the three.
I understand the reason for the cops actions. I would not want to view any news story and see the bloodied mess one might expect at a fatal traffic accident. And I don’t think the press should go down that road.
Perhaps the cop should have attempted to appeal to the cameraman’s sense of decency instead of coming off as the ‘high and mighty’ authority.
Likewise, I would not want to be the relatives of the deceased and learn of the death by seeing it on a news broadcast. Typically, police don’t release names until a next of kin is notified, for a very good reason. Should the police have assumed the news would not release the photos until after that notification was made? I don’t think so.
Sometimes the press just pushes their ‘Freedom of the Press’ beyond sensibility and good taste.
It’s not always even about what they think is right- it’s an emotional decision they make, so it’s whatever their emotion dictates.
For all the officers that take abuse everyday and yet maintain a professional demeanor (and there are a lot of them), it’s cops like the one in the article above that bring shame to the badge.
@Greg: As a former police reporter myself, I can tell you that newspapers will not publish gruesome photos for obvious reasons. Also, the police are in control of when they release the name. A photograph of a crime scene is not going to tip anybody off as to who had died.
@Greg: I understand the cop’s feelings, which you summed up nicely. What I don’t understand are her actions. I treat high-end cameras as if they were golden statues as fragile as glass, and anyone carrying one as if they were carrying the camera’s weight in nitroglycerin.
I can shout orders just like anyone else, and I can ignore non-lawful orders just like everyone else. The moment she touched the camera, she committed assault.
You don’t commit crimes to prevent images you disapprove of to be published. If she had been truly concerned about the victim’s privacy, she would have gone through official channels to bar publication, and accepted the court’s ruling either way.
But – filming car accidents? Visions of Porche Girl return and I am squicked.
@Greg,
Should the police also go to all the local museums and remove artwork they find offensive? Should reporters submit their articles to the police before they publish?
@ Greg W: It is pretty much never up to an officer on the scene as to what can or can not be recorded or reported from outside the area cordoned off as the “crime scene”. It is also pretty much never up to the reporter what or when an item gets published. If that officer has an issue with what was being recorded she should have taken it up with the reporters editor and publisher.
@Greg W – “Prior restraint” is considered in our legal tradition to be just about the worst form of censorship.
Greg you are 100% correct
Wow… This is in my county, and let me assure most of you, generally cops down here are pretty good about things.
Now I don’t believe in fatal accidents being filmed or anything, but legally he could do it, so yeah, the officer was in the wrong.
I wonder if she had personal knowledge of someone in the wreck.
I’m sure the station could have blurred out plates or used discrete editing. As was pointed out-prior restraint was a big no no.
Did anyone ask/demand all the cameras to be turned off at Ground Zero when people were jumping to their deaths? Why didn’t they turn off all the cameras so not to show 3000 people being killed. Why?
While the accident might be gruesome and disturbing, it *is* news and the photographer has every right to shoot it.
From the deets in this story, the cop decided to censor the photog. Not allowed. Definitely a form of prior restraint. As long as the photog wasn’t in a restricted area, the cop is 100% wrong and, imho, should be charged with assault and wrongful imprisonment.
THIS is why we have laws. A cop can’t decide that a situation isn’t appropriate for a reporter to cover.
The reason that cops do not want things taped is actually obvious. They do a job that has them making potential career ending decisions under extreme pressure. Every thing they do is scrutinized to the nth degree. Under the microscope of a video recording, carreers can be ruined. Remember, before the video came out, Rodney King was a really bad guy, The press made his plight one of nobility. They demonized the cops and it really should have been the other way around. Are we too stupid to realize that a man that led a life of selfish crime does not suddenly become a saint and time tested proven public servants don’t magically grow the horns of a devil. The camera only captures the moment. The interpretation comes from a group whose population leans to the left at a rate of about 5 to 1. The whole mess is showcased to a population in which the mean IQ is 100. Police work forces an individual, usually a very common individual to deal with the smartest people in the world trying to out smart them. The dumbest people in the world doing atrociously stupid things, the nicest people in the world sometimes at risk or in the way, and the most evil people walking the planet. 100,000,000 encounters a year are handled well. A dozen end up on the news. Every cop pays a price for those few idiots that somehow slipped through the selection process and wind up the lead story for a week. Good cops are not afraid of video if it is used used for internal purposes to identify bad police officers. All cops suffer with the way the video media cuts and edits a story to portray the worst possible scenario.
The sad fact is that police exams exclude those with too high an IQ.
And don’t we wish it were true that this population tilted “left” by a ratio of 5 to 1. A spurrious allegation coming from someone on the “right” that sees Constitutional Rights” as just something written on”just a piece of paper.”
This was documented in the story of a Pennsylvania man that took the police exam, only to be turned down because he tested “too high”, and his court case discovered the company that conducted the testing results admitted as such under cross-examination.
Test too high, you are rejected a police material: isn’t that obvious?
Police department favor hiring former military personnel, because they want someone that follows orders, does not question authority, and can be counted upon to treat Americans protected by a Constitution like Haji.
The person documented above ended up as Prison Guard instead. Google it and see.
Nice try, MacDougall, no cigar.
There are some good comments here and there are some comparisons that just plain silly and hold no validity in this discussion.
Jay – is it really news. It doesn’t affect me or you. It only affects those directly involved in the accident. Maybe this was in a under populated area in North Carolina and my experience is that areas like this consider even the smallest incidents news worthy. I personally could care less about seeing car accidents on the news reports and in many cases I find it distasteful how the media handle these.
Comparing this situation to the display of historical items in a museum is totally irrelevant. I am not sure how one can even make this assertion.
JohnnyWeb – How in the world can draw comparison between 911 and a single car accident. 911 was certainly news and I stand by my opinion that a car accident is hardly newsworthy in today’s world.
I think that Greg summed it up very nicely. He is thinking clearly and provided a balanced argument. Most certainly the cop was wrong. We will probably never really know the absolute truth as both parties are probably exaggerating their side of the story somewhat to make their point. This is just human nature.
I think the police force should simply replace the camera and give their officers some sensitivity training in dealing with the media. This works both ways though and the media outlets need to acquire some morals and thoughtfulness on what they report.
Why are we seeing so many of these reports. Certainly 911 is the cause. The access to high end digital camera gear has created a whole new sector of “photographers”. It is an evolving world and changes are sometimes hard to take. We don’t like our rights to be trampled on let alone even looked at.
This case though is a non-case that can be easily resolved if the media outlet and the police force involved put their egos aside and just settle things.
@ShSimpson – there is no newsworthiness exception or requirement in the First Amendment. Newsworthiness is irrelevant, much less up to someone else’s discretion.
The museum reference is relevant in the sense that government representatives are not allowed to scrutinize and pre-approve exhibits; on other words, no prior restraint of expression.
Greg W’s argument is an emotional strawman. There is also no “sensitivity” exception to the First Amendment. It is also not up to the police to enforce “morals and thoughtfulness,” no matter how you may personally feel about the subject or whatever your personal evaluation of the newsworthiness of the event.
I don’t see why anyone’s talking about newsworthiness at all. Like Michaelk42 said, it doesn’t matter. It’s not up to the cop to decide what is or isn’t newsworthy. That’s for the station and the laws to decide, not one individual cop.
If the cop wants to change the “decency” standards for reporting, they can do so through the same channels as any other citizen does. What they cannot do is abuse their position of authority to implement their own standards wherever and whenever they see fit.
ShSimpson and Greg, what you don’t seem to fathom, is that this is clearly settled law. Police CANNOT subject the press to prior restraint in reporting the news. You also need to look at the fact that what the press records often doesn’t get published. They edit themselves to avoid pissing off their viewing public. At any rate, this officer clearly exceeded her authority and she BROKE THE LAW. The important law that protects us from tyranny.
Lonny, it’s very simple why cops hate cameras. Cameras aren’t biased. They are inanimate objects that are not out to make cops look bad. They are just as likely to make a civilian look bad as a cop look bad. The reason many cops hate cameras is that it is no longer the cop’s word against the civilian’s word in court, a battle they always win. Now the playing field has been leveled.
The fact that cops are getting fired due to videos does not suggest we need to not allow videos, it means it’s too bad we haven’t had videos all along.
@Lonny MacDougall,
The continuous reports of police abuses, 2 or 3 across the nation every week lately, leads me to conclude that more oversight of our police forces is needed, not less. While the problems we see reported may be caused by just a few bad apples, the existing methods for dealing with these problem officers aren’t working.
That reporter needs to file the charges. This kind of thing is a direct violation of the first amendment, and of course the local statues against assault, vandalism, and false arrest.
-jcr
@ GregW
“Sometimes the press just pushes their ‘Freedom of the Press’ beyond sensibility and good taste”
I seem to have missed the part of the Bill of Rights that says that the press must have sensibility and good taste when practicing their right to freedom. If there is no requirement for such, then the reporter is free to film/report what he wishes.
That is by design, so that they may report even what the powers that be dislike.
@ GregW
“Sometimes the press just pushes their ‘Freedom of the Press’ beyond sensibility and good taste”
Which law is that again? Or has Law Enforcement been given expanded powers that the citizens were not informed of?
Police misconduct statistics for May 2009:
General Statistics
423 – Reported instances and alleged instances of police misconduct.
13.6 – Reported instances and alleged instances per day on average.
47 – Number of deaths associated with police misconduct reports this month.
447 – Number of police officers and/or deputies involved.
36 – Number of Police Chiefs and/or Sheriffs involved.
$11,456,301 – Dollars paid out through civil settlements and judgments.
The numbers are further broken down at http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?p=119 .
I simply stated that I understand the reasoning behind her actions. And I stated why. My intended purpose for my comments was to show that the officer has a ‘human side’ (that is actually quite refreshing to see) that was incensed that someone had the bad taste to film a fatal traffic accident.
I have never stated that police have the right to prevent news media from filming.
I have never intentionally given the impression that the police should allow their personal feelings to dictate their duties.
I do agree the officer committed assault by grabbing the camera out of his hands.
I do agree the officer committed false imprisonment for handcuffing the videographer.
I do not condone any police officer stepping outside the bounds of our constitutional rights and I do believe they should be punished just as any other citizen when they do so.
I do agree that this should not happen in a free society.
@ShSimpson
Perhaps this incident is not news to you because it does not impact you. But to others, it is no doubt news. What if your child had to walk along that road every day to school? To that mother it would be news. What if your spouse had previously been in an accident at that intersection and there was a pending claim against another driver? Certainly they would consider this news. What if there had been many previous fatalities at this location before? Certainly news and a public health issue as well. The news story might get the highway department to make safety changes. Perhaps the photographs would give the story more impact thus spurring changes.
So, you like the officer, are making personal value judgements on the newsworthiness/appropriateness of the story. You are judging it from your personal perspective subject to your experiences, background, proximity and biases. The founders of this country codified our rights to avoid this problem. No one person or group should control information or speech, and ESPECIALLY NOT THE GOVERNMENT! Just because someone doesn’t like some speech doesn’t mean it should be stopped. I don’t agree with, and am offended by, some types of speech such as racism. But, they are entitled to their opinions even if I am repulsed by them.
This is a textbook case of prior restraint and the supreme court has upheld that this is almost never allowable and the government bears a very high burden to show the reason that it should be allowed.
The officer, while perhaps naively, thinking she was protecting the victim’s family, ended up trampling all over the First Amendment by imposing her values and using her government authority to do so. She also broke the laws that she is sworn to uphold by committing assault and battery, false imprisonment, and destruction of property against the photographer. She had no reasonable suspicion that the photographer had committed a crime or was going to, and thus had no lawful reason to detain him.
Hopefully the police department will use this unfortunate situation to teach the officers that they are to enforce the law, and not to make moral judgements about otherwise legal behavior.
Boi Boy, very well said. I appreciate your insight and have now seen the error in my thinking, that being I should never have voiced my opinion that a police officer should show any kind of emotion.
It appears that almost everyone who commented is very emotionally slanted against cops. I feel very fortunate that I live in a country that offers the freedom of press and the freedom of speech, but clearly it is sometimes best to just keep my opinion to myself.
Thanks again to all of you.
@ Greg W
No, I think that you SHOULD express your opinion here even if you disagree with most everyone else. It is the free open debate that helps us learn other perspectives and hopefully come to some common ground. So, opine away!
I think that the officer had every right to talk to the photographer and express her opinions that he was disrespecting the family by photographing. But, when she used her government authority to stop him she went too far.
Judging from the responses to my position there appears to be an abundance of sensitivity over any threat to our freedoms. This is a good thing. These freedoms are worth fighting for and there should be concern. But, I think our Freedom of the Press will survive an emotional outburst from a police officer.
I am proud to be counted among the many staunch supporters of Americas constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. It does my heart good to see such compassionate outpouring over even the slightest threat, perceived or real. Let’s not ever lose that compassion.
I condemn this police officers actions, however, I do not condemn her show of emotion. She apparently shares my concern over an obvious lack of compassion creeping into the media. I believe this lack of concern is fired by sensationalism.
Is it really necessary to record the aftermath of a fatal automobile accident? A photojournalist is quick to say yes and backs that answer with a lot of valid reasons. I have been shown that it is possible to use that video as a research tool to help society. But I don’t think this was the reporters intent in this case.
Could the tragedy of that scene be conveyed by the use of words without videotape? I say yes.
I am told that editors are compassionate enough to not allow this type of footage to be released to the public. But can we be assured this will not change in these very difficult financial times?
Newspapers are folding from lack of readership. A very jaded general public needs more and more sensationalism to grab their attention. And holding their attention for any longer than the length of a sound bite is becoming even more of a challenge. How long before publishers begin forcing editors to use bloody traffic accident photos to sell their papers? Or to use the video of the bloodied aftermath to sell ads on the internet?
There once was a time when that reporter would have been publicly shamed for having the bad taste to video a bloody traffic scene. Doing so dishonors the dignity of the human victim. I’ve been told that this kind of thinking is ‘subjective’. Apparently, there is no longer any room for the concern of a persons dignity when it comes to ‘news’ gathering.
Likewise, it seems human emotion and compassion from a police officer is a luxury’ we as a ‘freedom’ loving nation will no longer tolerate.
First, the law allows for much more than you would want to do ethically. That’s really the way it needs to be, you can’t legislate ethics or morals, because every situation is different. This is also why we need professional journalists.
Further, the officer had no way of knowing what the photographer was actually shooting. It’s not difficult to shoot this sort of thing in a way that avoids identifying victims and gruesome images. Most editors/producers wouldn’t run those images anyway, so there’s no sense in shooting them.
The problem with police agencies in American society is a lack of education and training. Also they recruit from the military which are typically people unable to find a job in the private sector. So why do they think once they come out of the military with little to no education they are qualified to become police. But this is where police agencies recruit from.
Most police agencies including state police only require a junior college degree to be eligible to join the police force. Where in the private sector can you get a responsible job with a two-year degree, nowhere. Even Wal-Mart Burger King and McDonald’s have higher requirements for their management personnel.
United States now has the lowest educational system in the industrial world. Only 27% of Americans have a college degree. Americans over the age of 65 have a higher percentage of holding a college degree than those under the age of 30. No wonder companies are moving to Mexico in reporting that they find a high level of education.
Police need to stop recruiting from the military.
I read through the responses and realize that liberty is actually slipping faster than than I at first thought. Stupidity is the reason as far as I can tell. Defending the rights of the ghouls at this accident has no more risk of helping people than defending Larry Flynt. Under the broadest stroke they fall under the rights afforded them by the first amendment. After all is said and done, their effort does not make this country a better place. Those who champion their cause holds the rank of majordomo to a cause that is not at risk near the intersection of smut and graphic carnage. Fortunately, their efforts keep the needless and the senseless at the forefront of the public eye. Mixed with just enough Britney and Brangelina the true power of the first amendment is never realized. Men and women that would make good police officers realize that the restraints put them at too much risk. Those that remain realize soon enough that you can never get in trouble if you act vigilant for the cameras but, do nothing. Our Federal Government is a Republic not a democracy. It is time once and for all to reign in video media and put the personal right to privacy and decorum on and even footing with the “shoot everything and splash it to the tabloids for a buck” mentality. A republic is a land of laws for the good of the people. The first ammendment will survive if reporters are people that report civic and government affairs and their right to report goes unchallenged and the hacks behind shock video are labeled something else and their right to shoot EVERYTHING is curtailed to respect the rights of the victims of these intrusions.
Defending the rights of the ghouls at this accident has no more risk of helping people than defending Larry Flynt.
So Freedom of Speech is only acceptable when you approve of the speech?
Carlos?? are you kidding or do you not realize that as long as Flynt is in business, then by extension, the First Ammendment is in no danger. Pretend for a moment there were no constraints. Your significant other was gang raped and left naked and beaten. Wheere do you stand on the presses rights to flash her pics all over the world? You tell me line or no line. And be honest.