Update: See the Summary Judgment of this case below.
By Carlos Miller
Oakland Tribune photographer Ray Chavez was driving on a California freeway when the car in front of him crashed and rolled over.
Donning his press credentials and grabbing his camera, he immediately pulled over and started taking photos. However, a police officer arrived on the scene and ordered him to leave the area.
Chavez told him he had the right to be there as a member of the press. When Oakland police Officer Kevin Reynolds started writing him a citation, Chavez continued taking photos, which lead to his arrest in 2007 and eventually a lawsuit against the city of Oakland.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
The officer made Chavez sit next to the overturned car with his hands behind his back for a half-hour, the suit said. Passing motorists mistakenly believed Chavez had caused the crash and “cursed and made derogatory references to and signs at plaintiff while he sat on the ground handcuffed,” the suit said.
Oakland police Officer Cesar Garcia told Chavez that he would be cited for impeding traffic and failing to obey a lawful order. The officers gave him the citation, removed the handcuffs and let him go, but not before Reynolds warned him, “Don’t ever come here again to take these kinds of photos,” the suit said.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer dismissed Chavez’s suit saying the media has no First Amendment right to be at an accident or crime scene if the general public is excluded.
Breyer said Chavez “does not offer any evidence that suggests that the general public had a right to exit their vehicles on the freeway and stand in the freeway to take photographs.
Moreover, common sense dictates that members of the general public are not allowed to exit their cars in the middle of the freeway to view an accident scene.”
Common sense also dictates that the media will pull over to the side of the road to cover an accident. In fact, the California Highway Patrol even issues out press passes to journalists who cover spot news for mainstream newspapers.
I know because I used to have one when I covered the cop beat for the San Bernardino County Sun at the turn of the century. Chavez, who has worked for the Oakland Tribune for 15 years, should definitely have one. All the photojournalists do.
I covered many crashes, rollovers and brush fires along Southern California’s freeways and I never had an issue with the cops. Without the following press pass, which expired on 4/20 in true California fashion, I would never have been able to photograph the spot fire below.
Update: See the Summary Judgment of this case below.
Popularity: 1% [?]
20 responses so far ↓
1 10-8 // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:49 AM
The judge made the right decision. Unfortunately, Ray Chavez does not seem to have learned his lesson by continuing to pursue his pointless litigation.
2 Kol. Klink // Jun 4, 2009 at 8:12 AM
Man Recites Poetry, Gets Tazed, Mocks Cops, and Gets Away: I’m Lovin’ It!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-MqBxwbeWg
This reminds me of a quote:
“Poets who recite their verse in public may have other nasty habits.”
-Robert Heinlein
LOL! Anyway, I just love how this guy extracted himself from the pigs’ trough.
3 Michaelk42 // Jun 4, 2009 at 10:19 AM
You know, I don’t really agree with cop-issued “credentials.” It gives them the illusion that they somehow have some say as to who’s a journalist or not.
4 Steve // Jun 4, 2009 at 11:33 AM
How does a Federal judge completely ignore the Bill of Rights or the fact that Chavez had Press credentials on him?
Hopefully Chavez appeals this further.
5 Kol. Klink // Jun 4, 2009 at 1:28 PM
I’ve never listened to Hal Turner, but what happened to him is a lesson for us all.
1. Never, ever talk to a cop.
2. Never, ever believe a cop.
(Remember, lying to the lying scum is illegal because they’re the ONLY ONES worthy of the truth enough. Ask Martha Stewart.)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 03, 2009
Hal Turner has been arrested…
http://turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/hal-turner-has-been-arrested.html
North Bergen, NJ (TRN) — At about 4:00 this afternoon, Hal received a call from the North Bergen Police telling him to go to the Police Station because they had received a tip from a credible source about a death threat made against him and they needed to talk. He arrived at the station at about 4:10 and was arrested at 4:15. It seems that the state of Connecticut issued a warrant for his arrest for making “Harassing Communications”. There is no other information available at this time.
6 Robert // Jun 4, 2009 at 1:33 PM
I have to say, I don’t usually side with the cops on stories like this; however, it sounds like the reporter was arrested for walking on the highway.
I don’t know about California; but, in Maryland it’s illegal to walk or discharge pedestrians on any highway with a posted speedlimit of 55mph or higher.
7 Kat // Jun 4, 2009 at 1:56 PM
I agree, there are a few salient details missing, so I can’t make a judgment call one way or the other. What exactly was the sequence of events here? See car accident, pull over, call 911, check on the people in the car, wait for the ambulance, then take photos? Or was it more like, See car accident, pull over, take photos? In the event that he offered no help — even minimal help, like making the 911 call, or making sure that someone did — prior to whipping out the camera, legal or not, being a compassionate human being trumps being a journalist; and I say that as a photographer.
8 Kat // Jun 4, 2009 at 2:12 PM
From what details we have, it seems like couching this in First Amendment terms may be a red herring. He has a right to take photos, but not if it interferes with the safety of anyone at the scene, including his own. And the police have the duty to ensure the safety of everyone to the best of their ability — which may include getting someone out of the way so they don’t get run over or interfere with first aid efforts. Whether or not he was in the right vs. the officers at the scene, depends on how exactly he conducted himself, and those specifics are sadly lacking in this report.
9 Theo Karantsalis // Jun 4, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Carlos,
The plaintiff did not offer any evidence that suggests that the general public had a right to exit their vehicles on the freeway and stand in the freeway to take photographs.
Theo
10 Carlos Miller // Jun 4, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Here is the summary judgment of the case, courtesy of Theo K.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16115683/Ray-Chavez-Sj
11 flickruser // Jun 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM
aldewitt_2000 from the flickr discussion sums the incident up perfectly
I have to side with Chavez on this one. The police officer’s objection is to the content of the photos, not to the taking of the photos in general. He wasn’t trying to clear an accident scene, he was trying to prevent news reporting. His statement to the effect that “you don’t need to take these kinds of photos” is evidence of content-restriction, not some emphasis on public safety.
This should be appealed to the 9th Circuit, and then to the Supremes. If the cops get to decide what the content of the news is, you can bet we won’t be seeing pictures of demonstrators with their heads bloodied. Instead we’ll see only the photos the police want us to see. That is where my objection lies.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/photography_is_not_a_crime/discuss/72157619144831599/
12 Theo Karantsalis // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:13 PM
flickruser,
The press has no First Amendment right to access accident or crime scenes if the general public is excluded.
13 Robert // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Well, reading the links provided, it sounds like the cop on the scene ended up having a big deal about the wrong reason.
I still agree with the general outcome, to the best of my knowledge, the man was still breaking a law by exiting his vehicle and standing in the street on a highway, where such activity is illegal. In the same light, I wouldn’t pull off onto the shoulder of a highway and get out of my car to take a beautiful sunset picture, because again that would be in violation of several law, such as the ‘emergency stopping only’ and the ‘no pedestrians or discharge of passengers on highway laws.’
If he had been capable of getting pictures from some area where pedestrians are legally allowed, without leaving his car unoccupied in the highway, I would wholeheartedly support the photographer; however, given the circumstances, and my own personal understanding of the laws, at this point, I can not. I am open to the fact that I could be basing my opinions on incorrect information, or bad assumptions.
14 flickruser // Jun 4, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Theo Karantsalis
“The press has no First Amendment right to access accident or crime scenes if the general public is excluded.”
This statement is questionable and is simply a judge’s interpretation of Constitutional law.
In some states credentialed journalists are legally allowed to cross police tape, while the general public is never allowed, which contradicts Breyer’s interpretation of the law. So again, for Breyer to claim a journalist’s rights are determined by the general publics’ rights is open to debate.
Also, just read Carlos’ article above. Since he had a press pass he was able to photograph a spot fire. On the other hand, if he did not have a press pass and was just a member of the “general public” then he would not have gained access to that fire. This is another example which contradicts Breyer’s claim.
During wildfire season in CA, journalists move freely throughout the burn areas while the general public is forbidden to enter.
Finally, another example where the general public is rarely allowed is on a police ride along, however journalists are regularly granted permission to ride along with the police. Again, this contradicts Breyer’s interpretation of the law.
15 Kol. Klink // Jun 4, 2009 at 6:51 PM
@ Theo Karantsalis
Your ancestors tried to live on sophistry.
And so are our grey-hairs. I suppose our civilization will end for much similar reasons.
Good riddance.
P.S. The Thirty Theses
http://anthropik.com/thirty/
16 Bob Hogan // Jun 4, 2009 at 8:06 PM
flickr, wtf r u talking about? did u read the order?
plus, i never liked breyer’s ice cream.
17 jones // Jun 4, 2009 at 10:02 PM
flickr – Finally, another example where the general public is rarely allowed is on a police ride along, however journalists are regularly granted permission to ride along with the police.
Flickr, the key is “granted permission”, they have no constitutional right to go on ride alongs. I’ve also seen a lot more non journalists on ride alongs then journalists so I don’t know where you got that information.
18 flickr // Jun 5, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Bob Hogan
this is what i’m talking about…
breyer’s judgement is essentially claiming a journalist’s access to a crime/accident scene is based on the general public’s access to that same exact crime/accident scene. however, breyer’s argument contradicts itself because the general public is never allowed to cross the yellow tape at a crime scene even though some states do allow journalists to cross police tape. so based on breyer’s decision, journalists would never been able to cross police tape because the general public can’t.
what order are you referring to?
jones
“I’ve also seen a lot more non journalists on ride alongs then journalists so I don’t know where you got that information.”
Please provide specific examples.
19 anon // Jun 7, 2009 at 8:23 AM
specific examples?
Hey flickr , ask any police department if they have a program. Here is 1st google entry for police ride-along
2009-06-07- 05:24:20
http://www.ci.mtnview.ca.us/city_hall/police/services_n_education/ride_alongs.asp
“Who can go on a police ride-along?
Anyone 14 years old or older, who lives, works or attends school in Mountain View, or is an applicant for a position with MVPD. You must also have no outstanding warrants and no felony convictions. A criminal history check will be run before the ride-along.”
20 Anton Lee // Jun 11, 2009 at 7:48 AM
you don’t need credentials to photograph anything in public. Police are just people, and people don’t have the right to tell others they’re not allowed in public areas.
Leave a Comment