Fox5 TV Coverage here

One of the members of the Flickr group “DCPhoto Rights” testified at the hearing. The text of her testimony can be found here

Here is part of what she had to say:

New Camera

Originally uploaded by asporer

Who try to take pictures like this of the Little Red Lighthouse underneath the George Washington Bridge. This is especially outrageous because the Lighthouse is managed by the Parks Department and is supposedly preserved for the benefit of all New Yorkers.

Imagine that a bunch of out-of-control kids from a nearby school are constantly harassing you, throwing stones and bottles, and threatening you. Now imagine the school principal tells you that you need to identify them in order for them to be disciplined. So you get your camera and take some pictures. Now a cop arrives on the scene and who gets in trouble? You guessed it - THE PHOTOGRAPHER!!!

Another unbelievable story coming to you from across the Atlantic. Details here

[the photographer] claimed that a Police Community Support Officer sent to the scene promptly issued a warning that taking pictures of youths without permission was illegal, and could lead to a charge of assault.

[...]

‘When I went to take photographs of eight of them throwing cans of Coke around, six of them ran away, one threatened to kill me, and another one started phoning the police.

‘A couple of hours later, a Police Community Support Officer told me I had been accused of assault, though no such thing occurred, and told me I was not allowed to take photographs of teenagers on the street.

I guess the death threats, and assaults the kids were committing by throwing cans and rocks are acceptable, but photographing them to gather evidence is a crime. The world really has turned upside down!

In early June we reported on an incident where a woman photographed a police officer in Coral Gables only to have her memory card deleted. She managed to recover the deleted pictures and file a complaint against the officer involved: Officer Nelson Rodriguez.

I guess he did not want anyone to see that he was yapping away on his cell phone when he should have been working. That’s the only explanation we can think of that explains his bizarre behavior.
Seems the Coral Gables Police department is more concerned about their public image than about the behavior of their officers though:

June 24, 2008: The Internal Affairs of Coral Gables police called me, expressing, as an agency, a concern over the negative connotation this report may give to a public, as well as acknowledging the other blogs and sites featuring the content of my report.

Hope they included this site!!
If they are still monitoring the reports then GET IT STRAIGHT: the REPORT did NOT give the public a negative connotation about Coral Gables - Officer Rodriguez did that!!

Story here

The long awaited rules for photographers and film makers will be published today according to the AP News story. These rules, while still not satisfactory to many low budget film makers, nevertheless are a signinficant improvement over the original draconian proposals:

The rules, which were to appear Monday in the City Record, now state clearly that productions must have permits and at least $1 million in insurance if they plan to take over a lane of traffic or leave less than eight feet of open space on a sidewalk.

Permits and insurance also are required for shoots that involve vehicles or use equipment other than hand-held devices or cameras on tripods — items like props, sets, lights, dolly tracks, screens and microphone devices.

This means that most amateur and low budget productions will not have to purchase insurance or secure permits. Good News!!! Now if only the City of New York would agree to educate their police forces. That is really where the disconnect is. The city government can publish all the rules it wants but it means nothing if their police force continues to harass photographers. The track record of the NYPD in this respect is extremely poor. For example photography in the New York subway has been expressly permitted by statute (21 NYCRR 1050.9c) yet police continue to lie to photographers by telling them photography is illegal and/or issuing bogus tickets. Only when the police are properly trained to respect the law will we agree that the City has made a real effort in settling the photography issue.

This is unbelievable. The Johnson County Sheriff’s deputy that arrested and charged the photographer should be terminated from his employment immediately for gross incompetence since they aubused their authority and misapplied a law that has no bearing on this situation.

Story here

“He [the deputy] says you took a picture of me. It’s illegal to take a picture of a law enforcement officer,” said Conover [the photographer].

Conover took a picture of a sheriff’s deputy on the side of the road on a traffic stop. Conover was stunned by the charge.

“This is a public highway,” said Conover.

And it was not a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy as Tennessee code states. The deputy also asked Conover to delete the picture three times.

“He said if you don’t give it to me, you’re going to jail,” said Conover.

Under the advice of the Johnson County attorney, the sheriff would not comment and the arresting deputy said he didn’t want to incriminate himself by talking to us.

WHAT!!! The arresting deputy does not want to incriminate himself. OBVIOUSLY he knows that he committed FALSE ARREST and IMPRISONMENT.

The Tennessee Statute with respect to photography reads as follows:

39-13-605. Unlawful photographing in violation of privacy. —

(a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly photograph, or cause to be photographed an individual, when the individual is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without the prior effective consent of the individual, or in the case of a minor, without the prior effective consent of the minor’s parent or guardian, if the photograph:

(1) Would offend or embarrass an ordinary person if such person appeared in the photograph; and

(2) Was taken for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant.

(b) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, “photograph” means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission of any individual so that the individual is readily identifiable.

(c) All photographs taken in violation of this section shall be confiscated and, after their use as evidence, destroyed.

(d) (1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(2) If the defendant disseminates or permits the dissemination of the photograph to any other person, a violation of this section is a Class E felony.
[Acts 1994, ch. 970, § 2; 1997, ch. 469, §§ 1, 2; 2000, ch. 667, § 2.]

The operative phrase is “when the individual is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy” A police officer issuing a traffic citation has NO reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore has no right to charge anyone under this statute or force them to delete their pictures. The police officers on the scene ADMIT that they attempted to violate Mr. Conover’s first and fourth amendment rights:

According to the witness statement attached to the complaint:

PATROLMAN KEN LANE AND MYSELF STOP THE VEHICLE TO CHECK. THIS OFFICER ASKED THE MALE SUBJECT TO HAND OVER THE CAMERA OR TO DELETE THE PICTURE. THE MALE SUBJECT STATED THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING AND GOT IRATE. THIS OFFICER ASKED FOR THE MALE SUBJECTS NAME HE STATE IT WAS JOHN SCOTT CONOVER. THIS OFFICER ASKED MR. CONOVER TO DELETE THE PICTURE TWO MORE TIMES,

No-one can be forced to delete a picture without a court order. When will these incompetent officers learn to obey the law?

citing non-existant rules agains photographing accidents. See the photographer’s story on Model Mayhem

Ironically it was that same photographer who first did the right thing by calling 9-1-1 to bring help to the accident scene. I guess that is the cop’s way of saying thanks…

Click here to read this story
about a photographer who took a picture of a sign prohibiting horses on a bridge only to be told that he too is prohibited. I guess the New Jersey State Police can’t tell the difference between a photographer and a horse.

Once again there are no signs OR laws prohibiting photography yet the local police have decided to act as if they are the legislature, making up non-existant laws. As far as we are concerned only the authorities are the HORSE’s ASSES in this scenario.