Second man arrested for photographing police

[Sundowner]

The first incident:

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121

Article published Jun 29, 2006
Man charged after videotaping police

By Andrew Wolfe
Telegraph Staff

NASHUA – A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man’s sons.

Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon’s wife, Janet Gannon, and police reports filed in Nashua District Court.

Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective’s consent.

The Gannons’ son, Shawn Gannon, 18, is charged with resisting detention and disorderly conduct, and his wife also was cited for disorderly conduct, she said....

The second incident:

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html

Cell Phone Picture Called Obstruction Of Justice

Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity

POSTED: 6:41 pm EDT July 25, 2006
UPDATED: 5:11 pm EDT July 26, 2006
PHILADELPHIA -- A Philadelphia family said they are outraged over the arrest of one of their family members.

The family of Neftaly Cruz said police had no right to come onto their property and arrest their 21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's camera. They told their story to Harry Hairston and the NBC 10 Investigators.

"I was humiliated. I was embarrassed, you know," Cruz said.

Cruz, 21, told the NBC 10 Investigators that police arrested him last Wednesday for taking a picture of police activity with his cell phone.

Police at the 35th district said they were in Cruz's neighborhood that night arresting a drug dealer.

Cruz said that when he heard a commotion, he walked out of his back door with his cell phone to see what was happening. He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene.

"I opened (the phone) and took a shot," Cruz said.

Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate.

"He opened the gate and took me by my right hand," Cruz said.

Cruz said the officer threw him onto a police car, cuffed him and took him to jail.

A neighbor said she witnessed the incident and could not believe what she saw.

"He opened up the gate and Neffy was coming down and he went up to Neffy, pulled him down, had Neffy on the car and was telling him, 'You should have just went in the house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures off your picture phone,'" said Gerrell Martin.

Cruz said police told him that he broke a new law that prohibits people from taking pictures of police with cell phones.

"They threatened to charge me with conspiracy, impeding an investigation, obstruction of a investigation. … They said, 'You were impeding this investigation.' (I asked,) "By doing what?' (The officer said,) 'By taking a picture of the police officers with a camera phone,'" Cruz said.

Regards,
Sun

[DREDIOCK]

Hmmm.
Hmmmmmm.
HMMMMMMMMMMMM.

Gets me to thinking.
Police and militant and or paranoids always say "If your ddoing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about"

Should kinda go the other way too dontcha think?

If they are doing nothing wrong then they should have nothing to worry about.

If you should be allowed to take pictures of ANYONE.
It should be the police.

Bet the KGB,and Gestapo ddint like having their pics taken either.

[Sixpence]

Why should you believe John Dean?

[Gunslinger]

He wasn't charged with Photographing, the video is not what got him in trouble, it was the audio portion:

Under state law (RSA 570-A:2), it is a crime to use any sort of electronic device to eavesdrop or record conversations without the consent of everyone involved. It’s a felony to record other people’s conversations, and a misdemeanor to record one’s own conversations without the other person’s consent.

looks like the police attitudes are beeing looked into and the prosecuter is decidng wether or not charges are applicable.

From the follow up story:

http://nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060701/NEWS01/107010079

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
He wasn't charged with Photographing, the video is not what got him in trouble, it was the audio portion:



looks like the police attitudes are beeing looked into and the prosecuter is decidng wether or not charges are applicable.

From the follow up story:

http://nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060701/NEWS01/107010079

Ahhhhhh.
now thats a horse of a different color.
Same law that applies to civilans (without a court order)

[Chairboy]

That doesn't explain the second guy who was arrested for taking pics with his cell phone.

[Toad]

Nope, it does not. I'd like to hear more, or as Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Chairboy
That doesn't explain the second guy who was arrested for taking pics with his cell phone.

The second guy wasn't charged


Wrongfully detained.....yes

Basically sounds like the police where a little full of themselves that night and decided to abuse their power by taking a teenager downtown.  Inexcusable either way if you ask me.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
The second guy wasn't charged


Wrongfully detained.....yes

Basically sounds like the police where a little full of themselves that night and decided to abuse their power by taking a teenager downtown.  Inexcusable either way if you ask me.

He was arrested, that's all I said.

[Widewing]

The second story is rather appalling, but not out of character for the police in Philly. I know of one photographer that was threatened with arrest when set up to shoot some night-time photos from the steps of the Philadelphia Art Museum. A cop walked over and informed him that the area was closed. That was news... it's public property. Perhaps it was the late hour as they wanted to shoot without pedestrian traffic. The photographer asked if there was a specific ordinance closing the area that he was unaware of. The cop ignored the question and told him to leave or else... So, he left. Unfortunately, he didn't get the cop's name and badge number.

Photographers have specific rights. They may vary slightly from state to state, but in general the same rights apply regardless of where you are. If photography is forbidden, signs must be posted where they are easily seen. Moreover, banning of photography in public places cannot be based upon whim, but must be based upon specific laws, and again, signs must be posted.

If someone should ask for your film, memory card or even your camera, refuse... They are required to adhere to due process, IE: Get a court order. If you attend a concert, and cameras are not permitted into the event, but you sneak one in anyway... They MAY NOT take it from you. They can escort you off the property, but they are not permitted to take your personal property. If they forcably take your camera or the photographic media, they are liable both criminally and in a civil suit.

If I were the fellow in the news story, I'd hire a good ambulance chaser lawyer and sue the city blind....

A basic synopsis of your rights as a photographer, both professional and otherwise appears below.





My regards,

Widewing

[nirvana]

Isn't there a whole show devoted to taping police?

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Widewing
If someone should ask for your film, memory card or even your camera, refuse...  

Yeah, then get the snot kicked out of you before you get arrested

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Yeah, then get the snot kicked out of you before you get arrested

Sixpence, I have no idea what you are referring to. Getting assaulted by cops and arrested for not yielding your rights? That would be remarkably stupid... ending at least one career and doing my retirement fund wonders. I have 3 cops in my immediate family. No rational cop would be so stupid as to try beating down a photographer. A smart cop would not violate the photographer's civil rights by confiscating his camera. They may try it on some kid, but would not risk it with someone who may be a professional... If they do, they will certainly come to regret it afterward.

Now, if you're referring to a dork security guard, thanks for your concern, but I've had no serious trouble dealing with these guys over the years. Most recently, I was informed by a county employee that taking photos of historic cottages on a local beach (cottages owned by the county) was prohibited. Of course, he was full of baloney. I suggested he take a hike. He got belligerent. I walked over to the Park Ranger office and explained that I was shooting for the county historical society and did not appreciate being bothered by that idiot. The employee was escorted to the office, and then sent home. Later, I was told that the guy was subsequently reassigned and re-trained.

Stand up for your rights, don't wuss out.

My regards,

Widewing

[rpm]

I don't think video/audio of police inside your home could be considered eavesdropping. More like a personal record of events. Now if it was a video of some  chick you brought home from the bar getting in the shower, that's different.

Just two cases of the police being police.

[Gunthr]

The ironic thing is, we don't pay much attention to it normally, but all of us are on camera constantly, every single day we go out of our home.  Most every store you go into, bars,banks, drive-thrus, parking lots, government buildings,  restaurants, courthouses,  airports, train and bus stations, museums,  traffic intersections, toll booths, you name it.  Its something to think about as you go about your day.  More and more often these cameras are digital rather than looping tape, which is old technology. Its a little disturbing when you consider what can be done with digital information.  Say for instance, send it to a digital network where it can be easily stored, analysed, or shared with anyone else on the network.  Its already being done by government owned digital cameras.  

 Anyway, RPM,  I'm pretty sure it is illegal to audio tape anybody's speech in any place they have a right to be, without thier consent.