Confrontation on Video

[bert_krages1]

Someone sent me a <a href="

to

this video</a> of an incident involving officers of the Tacoma Police Department

and a videographer. The officers seem to have difficulty understanding basic

constitutional rights, respectful treatment, and simple camera operations. The

reason it was sent to me was because the person has used <A

HREF="http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm">The Photographer?s Right</A> flyer in

previous confrontations. (Disclaimer: The video does mention my website at the

end but I had no role in the creation of the video. However, I do think it is a

vivid example of how photographer's rights can be abused.)

[bob soltis]

Thanks for the post, Bert. You're a class act and a credit to the legal profession.

[stephen_w.]

What a bunch of ignorant "civil" servants. They should be better trained in the law rather than imposing their "position of authority" on people that are more familiar with their rights. I'd sue them.

[gwebster]

Thanks so much for posting this Bert and for your excellent work on photographer's rights. Bob's statement really says it all.

[sknowles]

I think it would help to have more information about the location and situation. I can't find

anything on google news about the incident, and without judging either side, it's likely if

he was in a no stopping/parking zone or on the Port property, he was violating the law.

Even if he was near the Port of Tacoma, it's likely they have additional security against

photographers. Or the police just got zealous or over-reacted. Or they were called to the

scene to inquire. Who knows just from the video?

 

I live near Tacoma and haven't found the Tacoma police ignorant or abusive unless

provocked. We also don't know what orders or instructions they had for the area about

people being in the area without permits, about protesters, or something else. I think if

you put yourself in their job for awhile, you might see things differently. Tacoma isn't the

nicest or easiest place for cops to work.

 

And they're not trained in every piece of technology the public uses, so they deserve a

break with the video camera. At least they asked him to turn it off and asked him to show

them how to turn it off. And the guy walked away, eventually, with his equipment in tact,

not arrested, and he kept the video.

 

Personally without additional information I don't see any reason to sue. They're trained to

present the position of authority, but I've found they're also reasonable if you talk to them.

How hard would it have been to turn the camera video off/dark and kept the sound on(?)

and talk?

[michael s.]

<< ... How hard would it have been to turn the camera video off/dark and kept the sound on(?) and talk? ... >>

 

Not hard at all. Nor would it be hard *not* to video or photograph at all, or not to demonstrate, or not to express contrary views. The guy with the camera said he wanted to talk; the officer was heard to -- how shall we say this -- decline.

 

In fairness, though, we don't have enough context/background to make definitive judgments here. Can't tell, for example, if he was standing in an area where, for safety reasons or otherwise, he was not permitted to be (though he asserted that the local tv stations also filmed from there). Are there signs posted ? Applicable security regs ? Is he, as he says, in a public space ? Those are questions worth asking.

 

Arrested ? An hour cuffed in the back of the squad car ? No charges filed ? Time to determine just what law he was suspected of having violated. More questions worth asking.

 

Bert's concern is in my view understandable. There are two ways in which government officials learn critical lessons about constitutionally protected activities, including the sort of activities that make those government officials uncomfortable: (i) effective and ongoing training; and (ii) expensive and embarrassing lawsuits. Foregoing the first sometimes results in experiencing the second.

[tom_jenner1]

Bert,

 

Go to city hall and file a damage claim (and make it large) for unlawful detention. After you're turned down then pursue a lawsuit on 1st Amendment grounds, you identified yourself as media and you are entitled to full media protection.

 

They detained and threated to break the camera of a journalist. In Seattle it's codified in law that the police can not tell a journalist to disperse, I'm sure it's the same in Tacoma.

 

I admire your courage for sticking up for your rights.

 

I know a local civil rights lawyer that specializes in these type of police interaction cases. You can email me at tom ((at) newschooltech ((dot) com and I'll hook you up.

 

Here's a presentation of my dealings with police:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=318172

 

-Tom

[craig_gillette]

Psst - Bert's a highly qualified attorney and photographer - he's simply offering up the video of something that has happened to an individual. If I didn't have a family full of lawyers (and cops for that matter) or lived near him, I'd probably keep him on speed dial!

[john falkenstine]

I think its also a vivid example of a one sided story without a complete information package.

[nathaniel_pearson]

The cop's pushy, patronizing manner on the video -- i.e., the rapid-fire, purely rhetorical questions like 'How about that ['option' of shooting from distant off-screen spot]?'; the refusal to listen to the videographer without cutting him off; &c. -- strike me as typical tactics calculated to intimidate and quickly induce obediance. There is no suggestive evidence in the cops' own words, however, of any immediate danger posed by the photographers' presence (no mention of personal or public safety, &c.). Thus, while I agree that our access to relevant information is (inevitably) incomplete, I think the onus is on the Tacoma police or other witnesses to tell us about any mitigating factors that were missing from this 'one-sided' account. Until then, the video is all we have -- and we should take the evidence it provides seriously.

[john falkenstine]

The officer gives repeated warnings of impending trouble, giving the photographer n number of opportunities to adjust to the situation. He chose not to. Argue with a police officer, good or bad, you lose.

[nathaniel_pearson]

I'm not sure how many 'n' is (as in 'n number of opportunities'), given that the cop we hear

the most from appears to be hectoring the videographers (demanding 'now!' etc.) several

times within just a few seconds; by such a standard, calling the police several times within

5 seconds could be construed as putting in 'n number of requests for police assistance'.

Anyway, by my count (and of course there are apparently gaps in the final edit we see) the

videographer(s) get exactly one clear conditional request from the officers: 'Shut it off, or

you're gonna be arrested.'

 

In not complying, the videographers extended the footage we get as evidence now --

including the now absurdity of an apparently handcuffed(?) person being commanded by

police to help turn off a camera. That stretch of now well publicized tape also apparently

includes an officer's vague (and perhaps unlawful) threat to break the arrestee's camera.

So it's unclear to me who 'loses' in the long run here.

 

At any rate, I'm curious, John, as to whether your concern (in the 8:24 post) that the

posted video account is 'one-sided' and lacks information might undercut your own

inferences (in the 2:30 p.m. post) about what happened.