# Curious comment from police officer at accident scene.



## jwbryson1 (Apr 19, 2012)

A friend was just involved in a rear-end collision outside of Washington, DC.  The wreck occurred on a "federal" highway and therefore state police were somehow involved. :scratch:   While she was waiting for the ambulance to arrive, she called me (an attorney) for quick advice.  I told her to take photos of the accident scene.

She did.  The cop on the scene told her because it was a federal highway it was a "federal crime scene" and therefore no photos were allowed.  He told her to delete them from her iPhone.  I told her hell no, do NOT delete them.  It was her 1 chance to get images of the accident for insurance and other purposes.

WTF is up with that?  Has anybody ever heard such nonsense?  I haven't.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard of such a thing.

For the record, she did not delete them!  Winning!  :smileys:


----------



## tirediron (Apr 19, 2012)

I have no idea about the technical aspects of US law as they would apply to this, but (1) I wouldn't think a traffic accident would normally be termed a "crime scene" and (2) it sounds to me very much like the constable knew less about the relevant laws than I do!


----------



## STM (Apr 19, 2012)

Well, I am not a lawyer, and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but something sounds mighty fishy about that. And I think it somewhat presumptious to call it a "crime scene". Just wondering, was this his _first day on the job_?


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 19, 2012)

I'm not familiar with the laws either, but *I think* that *even if* he (the office) was correct that she was not allowed to take photos (I doubt he was), I don't think he can force anyone to delete the photos that had already been taken.


----------



## CCericola (Apr 19, 2012)

Well since she still has the photos and she did not delete them and I assume she is not sitting in a jail cell, the officer was wrong. Police are still human, They can make mistakes and even get wrong information. And yes, interstates are state police's jurishdiction.


----------



## billross77 (Apr 19, 2012)

I am a Police Officer (yes, I've been reading these forums for a while, but just signed up to post this).  Although here in the Dallas/Ft Worth area we have no federal jurisdictions, I can tell you that in most cases an accident would be a crime scene until we can figure out if any criminal event has taken place.  I have only had one incident to tell someone to delete a photo from their phone, and it was a teenager who was standing next to a traffic stop taking pictures of me.  In Texas this is considered harassment of a public servant, and is a crime.  I told him to delete it and we would forget it happened(I'd rather teach someone something than take them to jail for something stupid).  I am assuming this was the logic the DC officer was using as well.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 19, 2012)

I agree that taking photos of an officer could be considered harassment, but do you (they) have the right to tell someone to delete the photo?  Wouldn't you need a warrant for that?

Of course, neither you or they want to go through the hassle of being arrested and having to request a warrant (doubtful to be granted IMO)....so it's easier all around if the person just stops what they are doing.


----------



## billross77 (Apr 19, 2012)

Yes a warrant is needed. I just shoot people straight and give them the choice to delete it voluntarily to save us both the hassle. I don't like bullying people. It gives the entire police world a bad name, and that's not what we are here for.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 19, 2012)

billross77 said:


> I am a Police Officer (yes, I've been reading these forums for a while, but just signed up to post this).  Although here in the Dallas/Ft Worth area we have no federal jurisdictions, I can tell you that in most cases an accident would be a crime scene until we can figure out if any criminal event has taken place.  I have only had one incident to tell someone to delete a photo from their phone, and it was a teenager who was standing next to a traffic stop taking pictures of me.  In Texas this is considered harassment of a public servant, and is a crime.  I told him to delete it and we would forget it happened(I'd rather teach someone something than take them to jail for something stupid).  I am assuming this was the logic the DC officer was using as well.



Bill, thanks for the post.  Can you cite me the law in Texas (Statute citation) that says this is a crime?  I'm an attorney from Texas but I now live in the DC Metro area.  I have never heard this before.  

In my friend's case, she was stopped and was hit from behind so she was not at fault.


----------



## Netskimmer (Apr 19, 2012)

Unless the person taking the pic is in your face or something, how is taking a picture of a cop harassment? It's not harassment to take a picture of a civilian.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Apr 19, 2012)

billross77 said:


> ... I just shoot people straight ...



I hope that wasn't a Freudian Slip. :x


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 19, 2012)

Netskimmer said:


> Unless the person taking the pic is in your face or something, how is taking a picture of a cop harassment? It's not harassment to take a picture of a civilian.



I have to agree.  I'm not sure I buy this...but I'd like to see the language of the statute.  If the photographer was somehow interfering with the officer's work or otherwise blocking him or getting in his way, perhaps that could be harassment.  But what if the photographer is across the street with a zoom lens?  How is that harassment?  I don't understand that at all.


----------



## Jeff92 (Apr 19, 2012)

billross77 said:


> I am a Police Officer (yes, I've been reading these forums for a while, but just signed up to post this).  Although here in the Dallas/Ft Worth area we have no federal jurisdictions, I can tell you that in most cases an accident would be a crime scene until we can figure out if any criminal event has taken place.  I have only had one incident to tell someone to delete a photo from their phone, and it was a teenager who was standing next to a traffic stop taking pictures of me.  In Texas this is considered harassment of a public servant, and is a crime.  I told him to delete it and we would forget it happened(I'd rather teach someone something than take them to jail for something stupid).  I am assuming this was the logic the DC officer was using as well.


 
Your telling me you can't take a picture of a police officer in Texas in the public? Sounds like a load of crap to me and also a constitutional violation. Either way I would lock my phone and tell the officer that we could handle it later. Good luck solving android pattern lock, plus every time they fail I will have a nice candid shot of the person trying to unlock it


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 19, 2012)

This can be a very contentious issue.  Lets all try to keep this on-topic and civil please.  This is a great opportunity here, we have both a Lawyer and a police officer to offer advice and ask questions etc.  In other words, don't make me have to lock this thread.

(to me), I would think that any law saying that people are harassing officers by taking photos of them....is more about possible liability issues vs the job that we ask them to do.  Nobody wants to have every little thing they do, photographed or videoed.  Nobody is perfect and we can't expect them to be without fault all the time.  If police officers have to be _even more_ aware of this, at all times, it will make their job much harder to do.  Of course, in a perfect world, if they don't do anything wrong, then being constantly photographed wouldn't be an issue...

But on the other side of it (to me) is that telling people they can't take photos, in public, would go against their constitutional rights & freedoms.


----------



## billross77 (Apr 19, 2012)

The code, which was recently changed is PC 22.11.  I am trying to find the current wording to post on here.  If you look it up right now it only contains causing bodily fluid to come in contact with a public servant.  They recent update builds off the elements of with intent to cause alarm, or harass.  Ill post it up, once I get the revised version.

Yes, you are correct, you would have to be up in my face with the intent of harassing me.  Simply taking a picture is not a crime at all.  As I said, I've only dealt with this once and it was a teenager who stopped his car while I was on the side of the road and walked up to me taking pictures on his phone.  

You have to understand (some of you will) some people dislike our presence until they need us.  

Sorry guys...didn't mean to turn my first post in a photo forum about my job.


----------



## Overread (Apr 19, 2012)

No problem at all Bill - its actually very refreshing to hear thoughts and opinions from the other side (as it were) since we don't get many law enforcement officers frequenting the forums (I think we have a couple of them dotted around). Hearing things from the other side does help give many of us a more well rounded view and respect of various situations.


----------



## Netskimmer (Apr 19, 2012)

It's a pretty slippery slope. The media loves to take things out of  context and sensationalize them for ratings and I'm sure cops have been  wrongful targeted because of a photo or video that only tells part of  the story, so I get why police are leery of having themselves documented  like that. I just fear such a law could be used as an intimidation tactic.


----------



## billross77 (Apr 19, 2012)

Thanks for understanding.

Let me just carify my initial comment, since I think my wording may be what led to the confusion.  It is NOT illegal to take photos of a Police Officer.  It only become an issue (in Texas) when it is intended to be harassing or impedes a needed law enforcement activity...such as the one I mentioned.


----------



## billross77 (Apr 19, 2012)

These freedoms are guaranteed to us through the US Constitution and I would never take those away from anyone.  Well...unless you are a jerk


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 19, 2012)

billross77 said:


> The code, which was recently changed is PC 22.11.  I am trying to find the current wording to post on here.



Texas Penal Code - Section 22.11. Harassment By Persons In Certain Correctional Facilities; Harassment Of Public Servant - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws


----------



## billross77 (Apr 19, 2012)

That's the correct link but the code has been updated since. I'll find the correct one shortly.


----------



## Netskimmer (Apr 19, 2012)

billross77 said:


> These freedoms are guaranteed to us through  the US Constitution and I would never take those away from anyone.   Well...unless you are a jerk



...:shock:...


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 19, 2012)

billross77 said:


> That's the correct link but the code has been updated since. I'll find the correct one shortly.



Here is the current language that I just pulled from Lexis:

Tex. Penal Code § 22.11  (_*2012*_)
§ 22.11.  Harassment by Persons in Certain Correctional Facilities; Harassment of Public Servant 

   (a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to assault, harass, or alarm, the person:

   (1) *while  imprisoned or confined in a correctional or detention facility*, causes  another person to contact the blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid,  saliva, urine, or feces of the actor, any other person, or an animal; or

   (2) _*causes  another person the actor knows to be a public servant to contact the  blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid, saliva, urine, or feces of the  actor, any other person, or an animal while the public servant is  lawfully discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of  an exercise of the public servant's official power or performance of an  official duty.*_

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

(c) If  conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an  offense under another section of this code, the actor may be prosecuted  under either section.

(d) In this section, "correctional or detention facility" means:

   (1) a secure correctional facility; or

   (2) a "secure correctional facility" or a "secure detention facility" as defined by Section 51.02, Family Code,  operated by or under contract with a juvenile board or the Texas Youth  Commission or any other facility operated by or under contract with that  commission.

(e) For purposes of Subsection  (a)(2), the actor is presumed to have known the person was a public  servant if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge  indicating the person's employment as a public servant."


_*I don't see any changes in the language that you mentioned.*_


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 19, 2012)

This thread has gotten off topic.  I just wanted to know about the photo issues, but I do find this very interesting nonetheless.

:thumbup:


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 19, 2012)

It may have gone off topic but it is good to hear from someone who does deal with this kind of situation.  I have great respect for police officers and some do step over the line, but the majority are just doing a tough job in a tough world, and they are hard working and decent people.  Thanks Bill for adding your side to this forum.

Back on topic, in the same situation I would take photos of the collision. Photos work a whole lot better if it comes down to laying fault.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Apr 19, 2012)

billross77 said:


> Well...unless you are a jerk



In which case you just "shoot them straight" as you mentioned earlier? 
Don't mess with Texas!
Sorry, couldnt resist.


----------



## billross77 (Apr 19, 2012)

I could not have said it better myself:thumbup:


----------



## KmH (Apr 19, 2012)

Looks like there in nothing in TPC 22.11 about taking photographs, even at close range.

It appears the police officer overstepped the bounds of that statute in the situation with the teenager.


----------



## chakalakasp (Apr 19, 2012)

billross77 said:


> Thanks for understanding.<br>
> 
> Let me just carify my initial comment, since I think my wording may be what led to the confusion.  It is NOT illegal to take photos of a Police Officer.  It only become an issue (in Texas) when it is intended to be harassing or impedes a needed law enforcement activity...such as the one I mentioned.



The thing that I worry about with this is that it's pretty easy to turn this into a "I don't want to end up on Youtube, so I'm going to say you're harassing me and arrest you".  There are already jurisdictions trying to use felony wiretap laws to prevent citizens from filming public officers.  Candidly, as a pro photographer, if a police officer told me to stop filming something that was legal to film on public property, I'd probably continue filming (assuming it was worth filming in the first place).  If he asked me to delete what I'd shot, I'd refuse (if my filming is a crime, isn't deletion destruction of evidence?  And how does deleting an image remedy harassment or impeding an officer?)  If I was arrested, I'd be stuck with the ride but my attorney would make sure that it was enough of a fiscal and paperwork headache for the department that they'd at the very least consider limiting their prior restraint of speech to people who appear less likely to sue them and send out press releases.  In the end I'm sure I'd be much less happy with my situation than if I'd just walked away, but as Thoreau pointed out, such is the nature of civil disobedience.

I am very appreciative of what law enforcement does.  It's a pretty damned hard job.  I don't do much photography of police officers.  I've known some cool police officers, and I've known some who seemed like they were two steps away from prison themselves.  At any rate, I would never intentionally get in the way of an officer doing his job, and if I did accidentally, I'd get the heck out of the way ASAP.  But a camera has nothing to do with this.  Even the statute that you cited turns out that have nothing to do with photography.


----------



## bogeyguy (Apr 19, 2012)

KmH said:


> Looks like there in nothing in TPC 22.11 about taking photographs, even at close range.
> 
> It appears the police officer overstepped the bounds of that statute in the situation with the teenager.



If your refering to the teenager that was photographing billross77 I would argue that the quoted statute may not apply, but, pulling off the road at a traffic stop to photograph the officer was in itself creating a dangerous situation for the officer and the jerk taking the photographs. I'm betting the teen broke several laws by doing his dumb stunt. He is lucky he wasn't cuffed and hauled in for interfering with the officer doing his duty.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 19, 2012)

bogeyguy said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like there in nothing in TPC 22.11 about taking photographs, even at close range.
> ...


  How's that?  I'm sorry, but while I understand that the police sometimes have a difficult job to do, when you voluntarily accept a job as a public servant, you are, quite literally that.  A public servant in a uniform must accept the fact that they are going to be a target for the public and that most, if not everything they do is going to be observed.  They MUST hold themselves to a higher standard and the fact that John or Jane Q. Public wants to take pictures or record them is a fact of life.  Using one's own interpretation of the law to bully someone who is doing something which you may not like, but is not actually illegal is the worst form of behaviour.  Having spend 26 years of my life in a uniform, in government service, I think I speak with some knowledge of the subject.


----------



## orljustin (Apr 20, 2012)

billross77 said:


> I am a Police Officer (yes, I've been reading these forums for a while, but just signed up to post this).  Although here in the Dallas/Ft Worth area we have no federal jurisdictions, I can tell you that in most cases an accident would be a crime scene until we can figure out if any criminal event has taken place.  I have only had one incident to tell someone to delete a photo from their phone, and it was a teenager who was standing next to a traffic stop taking pictures of me.  In Texas this is considered harassment of a public servant, and is a crime.  I told him to delete it and we would forget it happened(I'd rather teach someone something than take them to jail for something stupid).  I am assuming this was the logic the DC officer was using as well.


 Taking what you said at face value, I'd say you were in the wrong.  Someone 'standing next' to a traffic stop taking pictures isn't harassing you more than any other person standing there NOT taking pictures.  The act of pressing a shutter is not harassment.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 20, 2012)

It's nice to have another LEO (please forgive the abbreviation?) on the forum.  I think gryphonslair is one as well?

To our new LEO... if we get snarky with you, just remind us that we have very few of you here and how much it would suck if you weren't around.

I'm not saying this to kiss ass... I don't kiss ass... I mean it.  As photographers we grapple with issues of law periodically, and we see and hear way too many reports of LEOs muscling this or that photographer into deleting their photos, oftentimes claiming that it's this or that law (which usually proves out to be pretty much bull, or we all ASSUME it to be bull.)  But very few of us are attorneys, so we're not sure if we're right.  The more people we have around here who actually know how this stuff works, the better.  Amazing to have people from the actual STATE IN QUESTION to be able to weigh in on it, too.

As someone else said, it's nice to have an informed perspective.  Thanks for posting.


----------



## sm4him (Apr 20, 2012)

Interesting discussion, back back to the OP's specific situation:

Regardless of the cited statutes about harrassing public officials, etc--I cannot imagine ANY circumstance under which it would NOT be okay for ME to take photos of MY car, and the car that rammed into me, in order to document the scene and the damage for any future insurance and court needs. 
My son was hit, in a similar fashion, by a woman who turned out to be a three-time DUI. He was sitting still and she hit him so hard that the station wagon he was driving no longer had anything except a front seat and about half the space in the back seat.  She later claimed all sorts of bizarre things; had we not had photos, it would have taken much longer to sort things out. Instead, I just sent my photos to the prosecutor and everything was quite clear.

Kudos to your friend for standing her ground.


----------



## kharp (Apr 20, 2012)

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers


----------



## shootermcgavin (Apr 20, 2012)

I get why taking a picture of anyone could be considered harassment, if you just followed someone around taking pictures of them all day that would be pretty harassing to me.  An officer can just react quicker to it.  Now I know that's not what happened and it was just one photo, but he's using the law to his advantage.  If I were him I'd do the same since I don't like being photographed.  Imagine if your entire day was video taped at work, personally I have all the respect in the world for police I'd be stressed as hell if I had a camera watching my every move, asking someone to erase photos doesn't seem nearly as bad if you consider the source.


----------



## kharp (Apr 20, 2012)

People are recorded all the time. When you go shopping or go to the bank, there are cameras everywhere. People have been caught in weird situations on google map photos. Nobody seems to consider that harrassment...


----------



## kharp (Apr 20, 2012)

shootermcgavin said:


> Imagine if your entire day was video taped at work,


Depending on where you work, it's very likely that you are.


----------



## IByte (Apr 20, 2012)

kharp said:
			
		

> Depending on where you work, it's very likely that you are.



Traffic cams, public cams, security cams at work, trust me even the civilians are being tracked.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 20, 2012)

IByte said:


> kharp said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Remember:  Just because you're NOT paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!


----------



## orljustin (Apr 20, 2012)

shootermcgavin said:


> I get why taking a picture of anyone could be considered harassment, if you just followed someone around taking pictures of them all day that would be pretty harassing to me.  An officer can just react quicker to it.  Now I know that's not what happened and it was just one photo, but he's using the law to his advantage..



One photo, or ten photos, while "standing by a traffic stop" is not harassment.


----------



## billross77 (Apr 20, 2012)

OK...one last post on here for me to clear some things up.

First off, I do have a stressful job, but I do it because I love it.  Not everyone loves their job, so I am happy to be one of the few.  Second, like most people with stressful jobs, we find hobbies to step away from work when we have free time.  This is my hobby.  I do it to forget about work.  As you might be able to imagine, I see things on a regular basis that the general public never sees.  Because of this we do things to get away.  This post is my fault for combining my hobby with my work.  I should not have done it.  I will combat a few comments though.  Standing by a traffic stop is not harassment.  It is a safety issue from the officer perspective just becuase my attention is focused away, and they have no real business being there.  This may be different in an inner city environment where people just happen to be around, but that is not where I work.  If you are standing near me on a traffic stop, you are there for a reason.  My initial point on this one that the teenager stopped in the middle of the street, blocking traffic, to take pictures.  This is an issue in more ways than one.  I had him delete the picture to save him more trouble than he intended, since he obviously want thinking straight.  Pictures are part of life, thats why I take them.  Im pretty sure thats why we all take them.  

Next...If anyone would like to walk in my shoes send me a message.  I am in the DFW area and would be glad to take you on a ride along.  I'll provide your vest for the night.  Some people might see the job differently if they experiance it first hand.  If you are not in my area, contact a local PD and go for a ride.  My job is not about harassing photographers or any other law abiding citizen.  Its about preventing and combating criminal activity.  If you lock your doors at night, then you freely admit that Police are needed members of the community and that there are not enough of them around.

I am not going to post on this thread anymore....however, I am about to post some pictures that I shot and could really use some help on them.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 20, 2012)

shootermcgavin said:


> I get why taking a picture of anyone could be considered harassment, if you just followed someone around taking pictures of them all day that would be pretty harassing to me.  An officer can just react quicker to it.  Now I know that's not what happened and it was just one photo, but he's using the law to his advantage.  If I were him I'd do the same since I don't like being photographed.  Imagine if your entire day was video taped at work, personally I have all the respect in the world for police I'd be stressed as hell if I had a camera watching my every move, asking someone to erase photos doesn't seem nearly as bad if you consider the source.



So if you were in their place you would stomp on someones civil rights for your own well being?

Using the law to _their advantage_ is also very, very wrong.


Police don't have it nearly as bad as the celebrities out there either.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 20, 2012)

billross77 said:


> OK...one last post on here for me to clear some things up.
> 
> First off, I do have a stressful job, but I do it because I love it.  Not everyone loves their job, so I am happy to be one of the few.  Second, like most people with stressful jobs, we find hobbies to step away from work when we have free time.  This is my hobby.  I do it to forget about work.  As you might be able to imagine, I see things on a regular basis that the general public never sees.  Because of this we do things to get away.  This post is my fault for combining my hobby with my work.  I should not have done it.  I will combat a few comments though.  Standing by a traffic stop is not harassment.  It is a safety issue from the officer perspective just becuase my attention is focused away, and *they have no real business being there*(They do have the right to be there if it is public property, unless they are doing something completely wreck-less as in bold below ).This may be different in an inner city environment where people just happen to be around, but that is not where I work.  If you are standing near me on a traffic stop, you are there for a reason.  *My initial point on this one that the teenager stopped in the middle of the street, blocking traffic*, to take pictures.  This is an issue in more ways than one.  I had him delete the picture to save him more trouble than he intended, since he obviously want thinking straight.  Pictures are part of life, thats why I take them.  Im pretty sure thats why we all take them.
> 
> ...




See red print above...


----------



## raider (Apr 20, 2012)

i'm a cop - government affiliated.  to me, there's not enough info on the crime scene.  was this near a sensitive area/building?  was there an NDA in the vicinity, an extra-dimensional craft report in the area, elvis, etc - the public doesn't get to know everything that's going on.  it's best to let them live their lives in ignorant bliss.

i've said too much.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Apr 20, 2012)

I was in law enforcement myself, until I had to give it up for medical reasons. I loved my job, but I can also say that there were a few things I despised about it, and that was working with other officers that routinely stepped across the line and had the &#8220;I am a law enforcement officer and you&#8217;re not&#8221; mentality.  I witnessed, many times, other officers creating their own &#8220;laws&#8221;, violating citizens&#8217; rights and breaking the law themselves, often times when their actions were more serious than their suspects, while other officers watch and condone the actions.  I am in no way suggesting that this officer is even remotely close to that type, but that type DOES exist.

However, to the finally comment above, it was stated that &#8220;the teenager stopped in the middle of the street, blocking traffic, to take pictures&#8221;. Where I come from, blocking traffic is an offense warranting arrest. If I were in that situation, I would have charged the offender with Blocking Traffic, rather than making an ordeal out of him taking my picture. But, of course, I have had my picture taken hundreds of times at accident scenes and the like, but never once did I feel harassed or threatened.

Lastly, I am in no way slamming this or any officer; it is a rough and stressful job, but one cannot say that because a person wears a badge, it doesn&#8217;t mean they are a saint, because it just isn&#8217;t case.

The moral of my long post is; just because a law enforcement office does something, it doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s right.


----------



## DScience (Apr 20, 2012)

manaheim said:
			
		

> It's nice to have another LEO (please forgive the abbreviation?) on the forum.  I think gryphonslair is one as well?
> 
> To our new LEO... if we get snarky with you, just remind us that we have very few of you here and how much it would suck if you weren't around.
> 
> ...



Lol LEOs are not attorneys either, and don't know all the photography laws!


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 20, 2012)

bogeyguy said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like there in nothing in TPC 22.11 about taking photographs, even at close range.
> ...



If he's on public property taking the photographs of the crime scene, there's not much they can do. 

Furthermore, BillRoss stated that it was a traffic stop which doesn't to me sound like anything that they should have an issue with being photographed. Traffic stops are considered "routine," as you hear of "routine traffic stop" quite regularly. Unless the officer was improperly citing other statutes towards the pulled over citizen, he should have no issue. He didn't state that the person taking photos was interfering. He said he was taking photos of the traffic stop.

Regardless, he had no right to have them delete the photos.


----------



## orljustin (Apr 20, 2012)

Exactly.  He had no right trying to make him delete the images 'to save him trouble'.  What trouble are you expecting?  If there is an issue blocking traffic, then that is the issue.   Otherwise, using your 'power' to stop someone because it bugs you they're taking a picture that otherwise isn't illegal, is wrong.


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 25, 2012)

I'm a public safety officer at a hospital. We fall under the umbrella of H.I.P.A.A which allows us to stop people from taking pictures on our grounds due patient privacy per the Federal privacy act(HIPAA). We are a community medical center, since we aren't on public property we do not have to put up with problem people.
If someone can't follow a simple directive they can leave, either by choice or by force. You'd be surprised how often we need to have people arrested. Police out in the field don't have the luxory of making people leave at will.

As a personal note I hate it when people blather on and on about their "rights". You can enjoy your rights all you want, but when exercising them encroaches on someone else's rights; we have a problem. 

If someone does not want to be photographed you should respect that!

In other countries photographers are often murdered for taking photos of people that don't want to be photographed. We are fortunate here in the U.S. that we have as many protections as we do.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Apr 25, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> A friend was just involved in a rear-end collision outside of Washington, DC.  The wreck occurred on a "federal" highway and therefore state police were somehow involved. :scratch:   While she was waiting for the ambulance to arrive, she called me (an attorney) for quick advice.  I told her to take photos of the accident scene.
> 
> She did.  The cop on the scene told her because it was a federal highway it was a "federal crime scene" and therefore no photos were allowed.  He told her to delete them from her iPhone.  I told her hell no, do NOT delete them.  It was her 1 chance to get images of the accident for insurance and other purposes.
> 
> ...



Your the lawyer. You tell us. I would actually like to know if what the police stated to her was actually correct. And if it was my next question would be, " so when is the police photographer coming to take pictures of the _crime scene?"_


----------



## HughGuessWho (Apr 25, 2012)

ecphoto said:


> I'm a public safety officer at a hospital. We fall under the umbrella of H.I.P.A.A which allows us to stop people from taking pictures on our grounds due patient privacy per the Federal privacy act(HIPAA). We are a community medical center, since we aren't on public property we do not have to put up with problem people.
> If someone can't follow a simple directive they can leave, either by choice or by force. You'd be surprised how often we need to have people arrested. Police out in the field don't have the luxory of making people leave at will.
> 
> As a personal note I hate it when people blather on and on about their "rights". You can enjoy your rights all you want, but when exercising them encroaches on someone else's rights; we have a problem.
> ...


Some countries will cut your hand off for stealing and stone you to death for adultery and put you in prison for disagreeing with the government, but this conversation is about the United States. We are better than that. When the day comes that the public cannot see or photography law enforcement in the &#8220;act of duty&#8221;, then we are in a world of hurt. Police officers are recorded violating citizens civil rights on a near daily basis. I could imagine what it would be like if no one could record or document that. I wouldnt want to live in that world.


----------



## analog.universe (Apr 25, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> bogeyguy said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



This post just needed to appear again, so there it is.

Billross was overstepping.  Serve and protect the citizens, not your reputation or your ego.

I grew up in New York, and with the recent political climate, NYPD officers have been preventing photography, smashing equipment, and arresting journalists because they don't want evidence of their actions.  The videos on Youtube of police officers violently abusing law abiding citizens are the reason we need to keep filming, and the reason they keep trying to prevent us.

If you're going to be a cop, you have a responsibility to not be a fascist, and the citizens have a responsibility to call you out on it if you are.


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 26, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> ecphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a public safety officer at a hospital. We fall under the umbrella of H.I.P.A.A which allows us to stop people from taking pictures on our grounds due patient privacy per the Federal privacy act(HIPAA). We are a community medical center, since we aren't on public property we do not have to put up with problem people.
> ...


 
I'll agree with your view point when people start recording things in context. A 20 second clip of a 20 minute altercation does absolutely no one justice. People want to record everything, but only show what works for them. How is that any better?


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 26, 2012)

Reality is everyone makes mistakes wether your a cop or a baker.


----------



## analog.universe (Apr 26, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> Reality is everyone makes mistakes wether your a cop or a baker.



When bakers make mistakes though, they don't sacrifice the human rights, freedom, livelihood, personal privacy, and ultimate security of the people who hired them.  A burnt Danish is a different story than bodily harm, confiscated property, and time spent in jail.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 26, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> Your the lawyer. You tell us. I would actually like to know if what the police stated to her was actually correct. And if it was my next question would be, " so when is the police photographer coming to take pictures of the _crime scene?"_



I'm a TAX attorney :thumbsup: , so I don't know the answer to this off the top of my head, but maybe I can do some digging if I get some free time.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 26, 2012)

analog.universe said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > Reality is everyone makes mistakes wether your a cop or a baker.
> ...



mistakenly spill something in the batter that kills someone, deny someone service because you are uncomfortable with the person. mistakes are mistakes wether they are small or large.  people make mistakes. if you want police officers who never make mistakes your going to be waiting forever.


----------



## analog.universe (Apr 26, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> analog.universe said:
> 
> 
> > 12sndsgood said:
> ...



My point is simply, that if you agree to become law enforcement, you're taking on a big responsibility.  You take the oath to protect the people etc...  The nature of the job is that you're held to a higher standard.  It's absolutely unacceptable for officers to illegally prevent photography and delete photographs in order to get away with making mistakes.

I'd bet that in large scale operations, the bakers are being filmed by management...


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 26, 2012)

well head on down to your library or courthouse and ask for every law a state has and let me know if your able to remember every single law and how every single law should be applied. There is just too many specific laws to know exactly how laws are worded and meant to be carried out. people are going to make mistakes wether you hold them up on a pedestal or not. and as with anyting in this world today. two people can look at the same thing and come up with a diffrent outcome.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 26, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> well head on down to your library or courthouse and ask for every law a state has and let me know if your able to remember every single law and how every single law should be applied. There is just too many specific laws to know exactly how laws are worded and meant to be carried out. people are going to make mistakes wether you hold them up on a pedestal or not. and as with anyting in this world today. two people can look at the same thing and come up with a diffrent outcome.



That's not an excuse.  I'm a citizen, and I can't use ignorance of the laws as an excuse in front of a judge.  Not knowing the speed limit won't get me out of a ticket.  Not knowing how to legally transport firearms through many states won't keep me out of jail.  If you are going to enforce the laws, you better know them and know them well.  Making mistakes is one thing, making your own laws on the fly is another.


----------



## analog.universe (Apr 26, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> well head on down to your library or courthouse and ask for every law a state has and let me know if your able to remember every single law and how every single law should be applied. There is just too many specific laws to know exactly how laws are worded and meant to be carried out. people are going to make mistakes wether you hold them up on a pedestal or not. and as with anyting in this world today. two people can look at the same thing and come up with a diffrent outcome.



I was not stating that I expect them not to make mistakes...

My problem is that some portion of the police force is against being photographed because they don't want to be responsible for their mistakes.  Everyone makes mistakes obviously, but people need to take responsibility for their mistakes, especially with regard to public service.  The impulse by some to crack down on photographers is to avoid being caught making a mistake.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 26, 2012)

OP Here:  Back to the orignal post and comment.

I followed up with my friend and the accident occurred on George Washington Parkway which is considered "federal land" so they had Park Police (not state police as previously posted) arrive. The Park Police told her that since it's federal land it's considered a federal "crime scene" and the only photos permitted to be taken at a federal "crime scene" must be taken by forensics.  

Valid?  I have no clue, but there you go.


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 26, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> OP Here:  Back to the orignal post and comment.
> 
> I followed up with my friend and the accident occurred on George Washington Parkway which is considered "federal land" so they had Park Police (not state police as previously posted) arrive. The Park Police told her that since it's federal land it's considered a federal "crime scene" and the only photos permitted to be taken at a federal "crime scene" must be taken by forensics.
> 
> Valid?  I have no clue, but there you go.


 
It could be valid. Perhaps its to maintain the integrity of the visual evidence.


----------



## CMfromIL (Apr 26, 2012)

ecphoto said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > OP Here: Back to the orignal post and comment.
> ...



That's got to be the biggest load of mumbo-jumbo I've heard in a while.  As if taking a picture is going to ruin 'the integrity' of the visual evidence.  

"Your honor...the evidence presented here today is slightly altered.  Defendant "A" took a picture moments before our forensics team arrived on the scene.  The very act of the shutter actuating caused irreparable harm the the visual evidence.  The ruined car that had been rear-ended moments before was not actually damaged in the collision.  It's an optical illusion created by the reckless 'spray and pray' technique employed by the photographer".

Pretty sure that's how that would look on CSI:Car Accident Files

I do not believe the officer on scene is correct as the inability to take pictures of the scene of the accident.


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 26, 2012)

CMfromIL said:


> ecphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jwbryson1 said:
> ...


 
Data files need to be integrity checked by the forensics team. I didn't realize cell phone cameras had the capability built in.

Why do you think canon includes a data integrity kit with their cameras?

In the digital age photos can be copied a billion times and file attributes can be altered...thus integrity checking. There is a method to the madness.


----------



## CMfromIL (Apr 26, 2012)

ecphoto said:


> *Data files need to be integrity checked by the forensics team.* I didn't realize cell phone cameras had the capability built in.
> 
> Why do you think canon includes a data integrity kit with their cameras?
> 
> In the digital age photos can be copied a billion times and file attributes can be altered...thus integrity checking. There is a method to the madness.



Pretty sure the analytics of a picture taken to document the rear-ending of an automobile isn't going to be run through CSI. Methinks someone watches too much TV. In _no way _would restricting a civilian from taking a picture of her trashed bumper with her camera affect the investigation.  The officer on scene was off his rocker.

This isn't a triple homocide involving a high level government official. It's a lady documenting her accident for an insurance claim. There is a "minor" difference in the way police investigate the scene.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Apr 26, 2012)

Don't accident kits have a disposable camera so you can take pictures when you are involved in an accident? Why would taking pictures of a crime scene not be allowed?  Seems pretty dumb to me. Insurance companies want you to take photos of the area and scene...


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 26, 2012)

CMfromIL said:


> ecphoto said:
> 
> 
> > *Data files need to be integrity checked by the forensics team.* I didn't realize cell phone cameras had the capability built in.
> ...


 
In this case its a fender bender. People keep broadening the scope of the question in this thread. I think maybe its time to close this thread, its going no where fast lol.


----------



## Bend The Light (Apr 27, 2012)

CMfromIL said:


> That's got to be the biggest load of mumbo-jumbo I've heard in a while.  As if taking a picture is going to ruin 'the integrity' of the visual evidence.



Erwin Schrödinger would disagree, perhaps?


----------



## CMfromIL (Apr 27, 2012)

Bend The Light said:


> CMfromIL said:
> 
> 
> > That's got to be the biggest load of mumbo-jumbo I've heard in a while.  As if taking a picture is going to ruin 'the integrity' of the visual evidence.
> ...



I highly doubt the police officer was considering quantum entanglement when he made his statement.


----------



## Bend The Light (Apr 27, 2012)

CMfromIL said:


> Bend The Light said:
> 
> 
> > CMfromIL said:
> ...



Yeah, you may be right...


----------



## table1349 (Apr 27, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> A friend was just involved in a rear-end collision outside of Washington, DC.  The wreck occurred on a "federal" highway and therefore state police were somehow involved. :scratch:   While she was waiting for the ambulance to arrive, she called me (an attorney) for quick advice.  I told her to take photos of the accident scene.
> 
> She did.  The cop on the scene told her because it was a federal highway it was a "federal crime scene" and therefore no photos were allowed.  He told her to delete them from her iPhone.  I told her hell no, do NOT delete them.  It was her 1 chance to get images of the accident for insurance and other purposes.
> 
> ...



If the State Police/Highway Patrol worked the accident, it is a simple Interstate Highway.  Local State Police handle the duties on these interstates.  As for the officer on the scene, he is I suspect a bit mistaken in his estimation.  First, it is not a "federal crime scene" unless there is a federal agency running the investigation.  Secondly they can not control such actions on a an Interstate in a situation such as this.  She was perfectly within her rights considering her situation.  That is not to say that it is ok for any Joe Blow to just stop on an Interstate and take photographs, as they become a traffic hazard even if they are pulled over on the shoulder.  Stopping on an Interstate is for emergency reasons only, which of course you client was already involved in. 

Keep in mind, this is based on 30 years LEO here in My State.  If this happened in D.C. proper there may be some goofy obscure law of that nature, as D.C. proper is it's own little "Kingdom" but I have my doubts.

Edit:  Sorry OP, I was answering your original question.  What you learned makes sense since Park Police are Federal and if it was D.C. Proper then it was in a Federal Jurisdiction.  The rest sounds like some obscure Federal Statute that really wasn't intended for situations like this.  I work with the Feds all the time and guess who take most of the photos at those scenes.  US not the Feds.


----------

