Archive for the 'Police Harassment' Category



Judge Rules for Watchmen: Graber Cleared of Wiretapping Charges

It’s been the case that has served as the flash point of the photographers’ rights issue lately–and now justice, and common sense, has prevailed. Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr., the Harford County Circuit Court judge presiding over Maryland motorcyclist Anthony Graber’s felony wiretapping case, ruled today that police do not have an expectation of privacy when in public while performing their duties.

“Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. ‘Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes’ (“Who watches the watchmen?”).”

Judge Pitt also ruled against Hartford County State’s Attorney Joseph I. Cassilly’s (the prosecutor behind this entire fiasco) claim that Graber should be charged with possessing a “device primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of oral communications” because of the camera he used to record the encounter between himself and Joseph Uhler—the Maryland State Trooper who pulled his gun and ordered Graber to “get off the motorcycle” before identifying himself.

The judge disagreed with the prosecutor that the helmet cam was illegal, and concluded the state’s argument would render illegal “almost every cell phone, Blackberry, and every similar device, not to mention dictation equipment and other types of recording devices.”

And as was reported by The Washington Examiner:

“This ruling upholds the fundamental right to hold police accountable to the public and constitutional principles they serve,” said attorney David Rocah of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, who represented Graber along with a team of private attorneys who took the case pro bono.

Now who wants to see Cassilly and Uhler held financially liable for pursuing these frivolous charges against Graber, and then thrown in jail for 16 years (which is the amount time Graber was facing) for wasting taxpayers’ money?  And let’s not forget about the anonymous judge who signed the search warrant that allowed the cops to illegally enter Graber’s home and steal his private property.

Joseph I. Cassilly
Circuit Court, 1st Floor
20 W. Courtland Street
Bel Air, Maryland 21014
410.638.3500
410.879.3204

Article from The Washington Post and The Washington Examiner

Oregon Officer Crashes Car, Harasses Witness for Snapping Photos

When Hillsboro, Oregon, resident David Emerson witnessed an officer-involved car crash he did what a lot of people do nowadays – he pulled out his cell phone to take photos. The unnamed Hillsboro officer objected (naturally) and told Emerson he had to delete the photos or he would confiscate the phone.

Emerson thinks the officer’s behavior was due to the fact that he was speeding through an intersection without his lights and siren on when he crashed into a Buick and then (to save his own butt) tried to convince Emerson otherwise.

Sorry, officer, but if you weren’t doing anything wrong and have nothing to hide why the paranoia over someone taking pictures of a public and newsworthy event? Is it because you really didn’t have your lights and sirens on when you caused that collision and sent yourself and the other driver to the hospital?

On the other hand, the Hillsboro cops are now trying to say that the unknown officer  never told Emerson to delete his pictures, that the Buick driver “failed to yield” to the officer, and that the cop was only trying to tell Emerson that investigators could confiscate his phone for evidence.

Sure, fellas, keep telling yourself that. But why hasn’t the Buick driver been cited yet for “failing to yield”? And why haven’t investigators asked Emerson to see his photos? Seems like the photos would be very important and useful in determining what really occurred. However, that’s probably not what they’re trying to find out—cover-ups generally don’t involve getting to the truth.

Personally, I’m more inclined to believe a guy on the street who has nothing to gain or lose from this incident than a cop clearly trying to protect himself.

As KATU reported:

“…the officer never told Emerson to delete his photos. After all, they say, that would be completely against protocol.”

Indeed.

Article from KATU

DEA Harasses Storm Photographer – and His Wife


Photo by Michael Petty

Michael Petty likes to shoot thunderstorms and lightning. On the evening of August 31, Petty was taking photos in a church parking lot of a storm that was gathering over Omaha, Nebraska. After taking a few sequence shots, he went home.

The next day he got a call at work from the Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation asking him to come to their offices. He works for a casino in Iowa, so a call from the DCI wasn’t unusual; he did deal with them professionally. But the fact that they asked him to come in was.

A couple DEA agents at the DCI office started off asking him where he was on the night of August 31. He was dumbfounded, he says, and told them he was taking photos of clouds. They replied that DEA offices were over the hill and he was taking photos in that direction — and they wanted to see his photos. He told them he had photos up on Flickr and Photobucket and they asked for his password, which he gave them. (Which the agent was not able to access because of his own computer skills.)

The DEA released Petty a short time later, but not before explaining how they’d tracked him down: they traced his license plate number, staked out his house, talked to a neighbor to find out where his wife worked, visited his wife at work, and, finally, found out where Petty worked.

To recap (in case you haven’t fully digested the preposterousness yet): Federal agents harassed a man’s wife at her workplace so they could get to the bottom of some super sensitive photos…of CLOUDS.

When Petty got home, he did some research to figure out what he had done wrong. He realized he hadn’t done anything:

I then sent an e-mail to my congressman demanding a full apology from the head of the DEA.  I did get a call from an aid and I had to explain how my rights were trampled upon.   Then I got a follow-up letter from my congressman but I have not received an apology as of yet.

Are Iowa DEA agents just hankering to investigate someone, something, anything?! You have to wonder if these guys just don’t have anything better to do?

As we’ve noted countless times, these “cases” could be approached with more common sense and deliberation. Like, perhaps before going all post-9/11 righteous on an innocent photographer, authorities could ask themselves a few questions. Like, what are the odds a terrorist is casing the Omaha DEA building? From a church parking lot beyond a hill, no less? Do we need to pay his wife a visit at work, or could we just call him on the phone?

It’s also important to note that authorities take full advantage of people who don’t know their rights. In fact, they’re counting on it. An uninformed citizenry is a complacent citizenry.

If you would like to see Petty’s highly suspicious photos (at your own risk of course!), go here (and see more of his storm work here).

LAPD Sergeant Fires Away on YouTube

While YouTube is great fun for silly cat videos and clips of kids freaking out after the dentist, it’s also fertile ground for angry, arrogant, illiterate people. Exhibit A:

“your a dick ? what would u wanna video/pictures? a dead guy.. what the fuck are you gona do with the video of a dead guy.. get a life you fuking cunt,”

Interestingly, the comment was left by AbawiTariq, a sergeant with the LAPD, according to his YouTube profile.

Nothing but the best in Los Angeles. Seriously, Chief Beck – that is who you want representing your force?


Oakland Schools District Pays Photog

Do you remember Oakland Schools Police Chief Art Michel who went ballistic on Oakland Tribune news photographer Jane Tyska in 2008? How could you forget.

The Oakland Unified School District just settled a lawsuit and paid Tyksa $99,000 for her troubles. Yep, your tax dollars at work, Oakland. Aren’t you glad when your city officials mess up you pay for it?

From Tyksa’s statement:

“I’m very happy that the OUSD has taken responsibility for the actions of its former police chief. If it wasn’t for the video I shot, this abuse of power would never have come to light. It’s now illegal in a dozen states to record police activity, and this case is an excellent example of why that right needs to be protected. One of the reasons people often fear cameras is because they tell the truth.”
(Meanwhile Michel retired in 2009 and no doubt takes in a sweet, sweet pension. No consequences, no repercussions, no problem.)

Article from Crime Scene/SFGate.com

Met Police Force Photog to Delete Pics

Followers of the  issue know that police in the UK are pretty tone-deaf when it comes to photographers’ rights, no matter what “guidelines” they create.

This past Sunday, freelancer Carmen Valino was working for the Hackney Gazette covering a shooting in East London when she was approached by police, who told her “she was disrupting the investigation and had to hand over her camera.” This was after she had showed her credentials and was working outside the cordoned off area. She protested until the sergeant brought out handcuffs, and then she relented. He took her camera away for five minutes and when he returned it, he told her she had to delete the images.

You have to wonder about Valino here. Perhaps she’s a rookie and didn’t know how to hold her ground. Or maybe the Met Police are frightening thugs and there’s no gettin around them. But she should have never complied – it’s an outrageous request of anyone, much less the working media.

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police called it “disappointing” when officers don’t follow the department guidelines and said they’re looking into it.

Article from the Press Gazette

It’s Our Right to Videotape Police, Says ‘Time’


Screen grab: YouTube

Time magazine gets in on the photographers’ rights debate with an essay by lawyer Adam Cohen in this week’s issue that asks, ” Should Videotaping the Police Really Be a Crime?” (I believe the answer is “Hells no,” but I think this is a rhetorical question.)

…the police can do a lot of damage just by threatening to arrest and prosecute people. “We see a fair amount of intimidation — police saying, ‘You can’t do that. It’s illegal,'” says Christopher Calabrese, a lawyer with the ACLU’s Washington office. It discourages people from filming, he says, even when they have the right to film.

And the money shot, the irrefutable argument, as Cohen writes, is: “If the police are doing their jobs properly, they should have nothing to worry about.”

Read the whole article on Time.com

Photographers, Police Clash in DC


Photo by Joe in DC

A few weeks back Washington Post writer Annys Shin put the call out for photographers who’d been harassed while photographing federal buildings and landmarks in the DC area. This article is the result. Shin finds out what many of us have known for a while, and that’s while DC may be the country’s seat of power, its law enforcement and security personnel are often woefully lacking in knowledge about laws regarding photography.

This quote from the DC police union president is kind of troubling — and illustrates that, no matter how many articles are written, they still just don’t get it.

“When people see a camera, they get more into it,” said Marcello Muzzatti, president of D.C. Lodge No. 1 of the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents 11,000 officers in more than 100 D.C. and federal agencies. “Some people will figure, ‘I have a right to take pictures,’ and we are not arguing with that. An officer also has a right to his or her safety and to control the situation.”

Be sure to also look at this interesting compilation of the photos that got DC area photographers in trouble with the law.

Article from Washington Post

Journalists Arrested at Clinton Wedding Site

The quaint Hudson River town of Rhinebeck is all abuzz with Chelsea Clinton wedding preparations and Norwegian journalists in hot pursuit of the big story. On Wednesday, Thomas Bjorn Nilsson and Kjerste Sortland, working for the newspaper Verdens Gang, were charged with trespassing at the Astor Estate where Clinton will be married on July 31. The journalists claim they were only photographing the gate.

We don’t know what really happened. Perhaps the Norwegians didn’t understand US private property laws — but Nilsson lives in New York, so that seems like a stretch. Maybe, more likely, police are being a little overzealous in their protection of this very high-profile wedding?

As the New York State Police spokesman said, “We’re aware of the visit by the former president of the United States and are working with the U.S. Secret Service as we do with all visits by protectees of the Secret Service.” That really says it all.

Article from Huffington Post

MSM Backs Photographers’ Rights

Photographer Jerome Vorus’ July 3rd encounter with DC police on a Georgetown street has gotten a lot of traction in the media, with reports on WashingtonPost.com, NBC Washington, Reason magazine’s blogWe Love DC and DCist, among others. It surprised me because, if you follow these things, it was a pretty run of the mill event. Maddening, ridiculous,probably  illegal, yes — but pretty standard.

But for some reason the media really jumped on it. And the more mainstream outlets that highlight the absurdity of this harassment, the more likely police departments will review their policies and educate their officers.

On a related note, in an editorial yesterday, USA Today came out in support of the rights of citizens to film police activity. (Be sure to also read the counter point from the police union. Overall, I just don’t buy the “these videos must be viewed in context in order to be understood” argument. I think the Oscar Grant killing, the Times Square cyclist attacks and the UMD beatings, to name a few recent ones, all stand on their own.)


Spam Blocked