By Carlos Miller
After a night of partying in the clubs of Scottsdale, Arizona, Jeffery N. and friends walked back to their cars where one of his friend’s girlfriends decided she needed to urinate.
The twenty-something female squatted down between two cars and let nature take its course.
Within moments, two Scottsdale police officers rode up on their bicycles and began questioning her.
That was when Jeffrey says he pulled out his video camera and began filming the officers.
According to the arrest report, the officer did not notice that Jeffrey had a camera until after he approached the urinating female. And even then, he acknowledges that he wasn’t sure if it was turned on.
It wasn’t until after the woman pulled her pants up that he said, “I noticed for the first time that the aperture of the camera was open. “
And even if Jeffrey was filming the women urinating, he would not be breaking the law, considering she really had no expectation of privacy in a public parking lot, even if she did squat between two cars and tried to block herself with open doors.
But the officer still tried to make this allegation a central part of his arrest report against Jeffrey, who was charged with assault, disorderly conduct and hindering a prosecution.
The officer also used his Taser on Jeffrey, causing him to drop the camera.
Jefrrey says he was Tased because he refused to stop filming. The officer says he was Tased because Jeffrey swung at him, hitting him in the chest with a closed fist (but also holding a bottle of water) that left the officer “momentarily disoriented.”
But the officer also acknowledges that the reason he approached Jeffrey in the first place was because he refused to hand over his camera.
The officer also says that Jeffrey put up one hell of a fight, requiring them to call more officers for backup.
And finally the officers says that once he was incarcerated, Jeffrey admitted to filming the women peeing in the parking lot, which again, is not against the law because she did not have an expectation of privacy.
The incident occurred last April. Police have yet to return his video camera. They have also retained possession of his iPhone as evidence.
“It didn’t’ happen as they said it happened,” Jeffrey said during a phone interview with Photography is Not a Crime on Thursday.
Jeffrey, 28, attended his arraignment earlier this month where he pleaded not guilty and not has a pre-trial conference scheduled for Sept. 17th.
He does not have a lawyer because he has not found one he can trust.
But he needs a lawyer because the Scottsdale Police Department have no right to retain possession of his video camera and much less his iPhone. So if you have any suggestions, please let us know.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
32 responses so far ↓
1 Jeff // Aug 27, 2009 at 4:46 PM
There are numerous false/incorrect statements made by the officers in the report. Here are a few -
* I did not film Laura urinating and did not even have my camera out at that time. Nor would it have even been possible to do so.
* My car is a *black* Infiniti, not silver as the report states. They also searched and towed my vehicle for no reason without asking for my consent and had no probable cause to perform such a search.
* I did not fight or resist the officers in any way. They stated that if I did not delete the footage they would take my camera as evidence. I indicated that was ok. When they approached me they did not even ask for my camera, they reached for it and I pulled away. At that time another officer said “I’m going to tase him!” and I said “Here – take the camera! Don’t tase me.” They then tased me and next thing I know I was on the ground.
* When in the jail cell I told another officer that I was videotaping how the officers were treating Laura. I ABSOLUTELY never stated that I videotaped Laura while she was urnating – they completely made that up – and it never happened.
2 Black Bellamy // Aug 27, 2009 at 4:55 PM
You would be smarter not to make any more statements regarding this case on the internet. Nothing you say here will make it easier for you to defend yourself in court, and if you make just one ambiguous or conflicting statement you will doom yourself.
3 Michaelk42 // Aug 27, 2009 at 8:09 PM
A police report that’s inaccurate? SHOCKING.
Not that anyone will bat an eye at it, much less hold the writers of said report accountable.
4 J Beck // Aug 27, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Another example of the police using a taser as punishment instead of as a substitute for deadly force.
5 Checkpoint USA // Aug 28, 2009 at 12:04 AM
I recommend the legal services of Marc Victor. Mr. Victor’s website is located at:
http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com
I know Mr. Victor and have used his services with good results in the past and would do so again.
6 Dr. Bombay // Aug 28, 2009 at 12:46 AM
Take Terry’s advice and call Marc in the morning.
7 Thomas Paine // Aug 28, 2009 at 2:44 AM
Is it just me, or do officers not get any training that they need a court order to take possession of a camera (or memory card) that may contain evidence of a crime?
Can anyone seriously imagine two cops walking into a casino and forcibly taking security tapes because they might have evidence of a crime? Why should a single spectator with a handheld camera be any different?
8 Jon Quimbly // Aug 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Mr. Nappi,
Get your self a lawyer, just do it. Try the lawyer one of the other commenters listed. I can’t speak for him, but many lawyers will discuss your situation in brief before talking money.
There are several journalist and photographer associations that might be interested in assisting you, even by providing the name of a reputable local civil rights attorney-
http://www.nppa.org
http://www.cpj.org
There are a few others, maybe other folks here will add to the list.
My main point is, do not let yourself remain a victim of the police and this incident. You have constitutional rights, but you have to assert them to make them work for you. That requires lawyering.
No need to reply, just get your thing going again, and we’ll know how it turned out when we see the recovered footage!
9 300baud // Aug 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Good luck, Jeff. The situation sucks, but its also a chance to improve things for your neighbours.
10 Randy C // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:21 PM
These people, harmless though stupid, put themselves in a position where they face criminal charges. The camera, i-phone, whatever, contain potential evidence in the criminal case. They have no right to withhold evidence. It’s as simple as that. The have the right to have the devices returned after disposition of the criminal case as long as the devices were not used in the commission of a crime. Pretty basic, and pretty simple. Get it. If you’re going to be foolish, don’t capture video on a device you can’t part with. You’ve created evidence against yourself. Deal with it
11 Carlos Miller // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Randy,
Unless you are using the camera in a commission of a crime such as child pornography or shooting up woman’s skirts, police have no right to keep it as evidence.
12 EarnestT // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:30 PM
I think all cops are commies!
13 Randy C // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Carlos,
You need to bone up on your law Carlos.
14 Carlos Miller // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Actually, I am just reciting what the lawyer who wrote the book on photographers’ rights has stated.
http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Handbook-Photographers-Rights-Liabilities/dp/1584281944?&camp=212361&linkCode=wey&tag=phoisnotacri-20&creative=380733
15 Randy C // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Photography in itself is not a crime. I agree 100%. I support free speech, open government, etc. You’re arguing a legal point and you’re off-base. When a person allegedly engages in criminal activity, yes urinating in public is a crime where this occurred, and he/she captures photographic or video evidence of that crime, statements by parties involved in the incident, etc, the video footage is evidence in the case. As such, there is no protection for that device against seizure as evidence. Go back to your attorney and he’ll agree. Or re-read whatever it is you’re referring to and there will likely be a relevant disclaimer. There is a distinction between purely recreational, informational or artistic photography and footage captured in the middle of an event that is being investigated as criminal activity. State and federal law supports this. We may feel for these folks but the police have every right to seize the evidence from what you’ve presented here.
16 Randy C // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:33 PM
For that matter when any photographer captures evidence of a crime, the footage, negatives, hard drives, whatever contains the evidence, is subject to seizure under US law. The best example is the Zapruder film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film. The photographer owns the footage, device, camera, etc. but the police have every right to seize the evidence, analyze it and use it for prosecution in a criminal case. The footage, device, hardware should be returned after the case is adjudicated. The law does not distinguish between types of crimes. Basic rules of evidence
17 Michaelk42 // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:38 PM
@Randy C
He wasn’t recording a crime. He didn’t start recording until after the officers were interacting with the subject.
The photographer’s activity wasn’t a crime, but the officers tasering the camera out of his hands was.
18 Randy C // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:39 PM
My advice to photographers is…go forth, have fun, create innovate. If you plan on being crime journalists, study journalism. Common sense and good legal advise should be your guide. My advice to Carlos is…don’t give legal advice. No wonder you need a legal defense fund
19 Randy C // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:40 PM
The alleged crime did not start when the officers arrived. They are completely irrelevant to the elements of the alleged crime
20 Randy C // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:42 PM
The police response may have been inappropriate. I don’t know but that’s a completely separate matter from seizing the recording devices
21 Michaelk42 // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:48 PM
@Randy C
What are you, some sort of random blog comment lawyer?
Because what you’re spouting here goes against everything I learned in journalism law class and experience in the street.
The point being that as I said, the photographer didn’t film the alleged crime. This situation isn’t anything close to filming a crime in progress, much less someone actually being assassinated.
22 Terry // Aug 28, 2009 at 11:10 PM
If Mr. Nappi’s account is accurate then Randy C is little more than a police state apologist. What it sounds like is Mr. Nappi recorded the police illegally assaulting him and the police seized the evidence of their crime to keep it from being used against them in either the court of public opinion or a court of law.
Further, there’s no reason why the camera couldn’t have been returned after a copy of the video footage was made.
Additionally, it doesn’t sound like the police had a warrant which makes the seizure of Mr. Nappi’s property most likely illegal.
23 Thomas Paine // Aug 29, 2009 at 4:12 AM
Randy,
Absent exigent circumstances, the police have no right to seize Mr. Nappi’s camera for evidentiary purposes. They had no reasonable suspicion that he was going to delete the recording. On the contrary, according to the police report, it was the officer who suggested deleting the video. If the officers truly had the intent of using the recording as evidence, they could have announced their intention to secure a warrant for the camera and obtained information from Mr. Nappi as to where he could be contacted when the warrant was obtained. The facts however suggest that the officers did not want to be filmed in public performing their duties, so they gave Mr. Nappi the option to delete the recording or they were going to take the camera (and likely delete it for him).
24 Jon Quimbly // Aug 29, 2009 at 7:54 AM
@Randy C
You said, “These people, harmless though stupid, put themselves in a position where they face criminal charges.”
The woman faces, what, a citation for urinating in public? Urinating in public is not criminal in most states – and it shouldn’t be here, not unless they decide to bump it up a couple notches to public lewdness. A charge that, without the video/photo evidence the police claim they have (which Nappi claims doesn’t exist – “I did not film Laura urinating and did not even have my camera out at that time. Nor would it have even been possible to do so.”), will be hard to prove.
Notice there’s no charge against Nappi for photographing/videotaping the woman, nude in public, which was one of the main targets of the police report? (e.g. the detention officer reported that Nappi confessed to photographing the woman. I bet the cops still got the DAs looking up that law…)
The cops, on the other hand, turned aggressive on Nappi the instant he pointed a camera in their direction. It’s there in the police report – the cop reacted to the camera as though it were a weapon.
“They have no right to withhold evidence. ”
Cops are supposed to first obtain a court order to *confiscate* camera gear and recording media, isn’t that what you agreed in another thread on this site?
Nappi has some very serious charges laid against him by the police. Charges that, based on Nappi’s word, would quickly be dismissed BY VIEWING THE VIDEO. Which he can’t.
What if the video shows the cops overreacting to Nappi’s videotaping them? Grabbing for the camera, then tasering him? What if it turns out that the arresting officers seized the video gear in order to suppress video evidence that contradicts their report and statements, guess how it’s gonna turn out?
“Videos Lost in Mysterious Evidence Room Fire.” “More training” for the cops.
And Randy C? He’ll reappear here as “Johnny Law” or “Officer Joe Blow” or whoever, back to stir the pot and yet again tell us how we’ve got it all wrong. “Yeah we’ll allow you to take your nice artsy-fartsy photos, but hey relax because we can just take your friggin’ photo gear and all your work willy-nilly!”
25 Thomas Paine // Aug 29, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Jon,
The last page of the PDF does include an Arrest Report, which indicates Nappi is being charged with 13-3019A2 Unlawfully View/Tape/Record Person. The full text of the statute is here:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03019.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
If the woman is on the recording, I’m guessing it will come down to the interpretation of “not otherwise visible to the public.”
26 Jon Quimbly // Aug 29, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Thomas Paine,
Ah missed the last page, thanks for correcting my mistake. Nappi says he hadn’t captured her on media. Can’t wait to learn how this one turns out.
27 Jeff // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:34 PM
The police report lists several charges which have not actually been made. I am just being charged with “AZ28-622A – Obedience to a police officer” http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00622.htm
The night of the incident I was not actually charged with anything, I was told they would mail the charges to me if any were made. About 6 weeks later I received the failure to obey charge in the mail. When I called the property department at SPD, they said that I would have to wait until the case is adjudicated to recover my property.
I will be contacting Marc Victor first thing tomorrow morning.
Thanks for the support!
28 Terry // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Arizona Title 28 ARS 622(A) has to do with regulating traffic and vehicles, not disagreements in private parking lots. As such, the charge has no bearing on the situation at hand.
If you had indeed physically struck the officer as he claimed in his police report, there’s no way they wouldn’t be pursuing assault charges against you.
This is looking more and more like a save face charge all the time.
You should be able to have the 622(A) cite dropped fairly quickly. I hope you consider following through with a civil rights lawsuit and seek perjury charges against the cop if his report is indeed a fabrication and he doesn’t amend it prior to your scheduled court date.
29 Jon Quimbly // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:14 AM
Jeff, if you believe that there’s evidence on your seized camera which would clear you of the charge, then you should not “have to wait until the case is adjudicated to recover my property” (that’s just the cops giving you the run-around.)
It was seized as evidence, so if it’s helpful to your case, you can call it into evidence in the courtroom. And if it shows the cops behaving badly, it could be helpful in a civil rights lawsuit.
Discuss it with a lawyer – as others here have said, best to not discuss the details online with anyone but your lawyer, until the case is over.
30 Fascist Nation // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:45 AM
Marc is a great lawyer, and he has experience in the Scottsdale City court successfully defending arrested cameramen.
But as you probably found out he charges $175 for the initial consult. Because he is highly sought after.
If you balked yesterday at the price — and I am guessing you are probably looking at $3,000 – $4,000 if it goes to trial, you can save a bit with a newer lawyer. I would consider Michael Kielsky. He is not as experienced as Marc but he has a similar dislike of government.
http://krelegal.com/michael_kielsky
Terry is right—assuming they don’t add charges (like assaulting a police officer) — that law does not apply to you. You can file a motion to dismiss with prejudice.
And Jon is right that you can put in a Rule 15.2 (?) demand for copies of all evidence to be used against you including the video you took.
Was the girl cited?
Lastly, if the video indeed shows you were assaulted by the police for refusing to stop filming, turn over the tape I would file a civil rights lawsuit in federal court under 42USC1983. And file criminal charges against the police officer(s) for assault with a weapon and kidnapping.
Class 2 Misdemeanor = Up to $750 fine and up to 4 months in jail. If you have no convictions there will be no jail. The fine would normally be substantially less but then they heap numerous fees on top of it. My guess is with a little effort you could have some fun for less than $500, and might even get the charges dismissed.
31 Fascist Nation // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:57 AM
I should note however a conviction will be a permanent record. For some this is a badge of honor, but for some jobs it will bar you for life.
I suspect they will offer you a diversion program.
32 Michael Kielsky // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:46 AM
I’ll take Mr. Nappi’s case … free consultation, call us and make an appointment. 480.626.5415 / http://KRElegal.com
Leave a Comment