Phtographer sues cops

[eric_arnold]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/22/BA0N12GMEE.DTL&tsp=1

 

maybe it's just me, but it seems there's been a lot of friction between shutterbugs and da Man of late...

[marcphotography]

Did the photographer see the crash happen? You would think he might think about helping the person that got in the accident instead of taking pictures.

[sorin]

What is sad is that most people (see comments) don't grasp the importance of having a free press, not one threatened with arrest in the name of "safety"/"order"/etc

[Damon DAmato]

Andrew, he's a press photographer. His job is to take photographs, not attempt to rescue people, which could put him and the accident victims at risk for injury.

 

Here's a quote, since it's apparent you didn't read the article before commenting:

"Chavez was named photojournalist of the year earlier this month by the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. He has been with the Tribune for 14 years."

 

Here's another:

The cop, "...blocked his camera and told him, "You don't need to take these kind of photos," according to the suit.

 

Why would you even visit a forum that deals with documentary photography if, for some reason, you think press access to newsworthy events should be limited?

[marcphotography]

Damon, I cant wait to see you sitting in a rolled over car crying for help while a photographer is standing 10 feet away trying to earn some petty award.

I dont know if the person was hurt or not but your way of thinking is inhumane. I love photography but its not that important.

[marcphotography]

If the photographer was there after other people got there then I am all for him taking pictures and the cop was the one in the wrong. I was simply asking whether or not he was the first person at the scene.

[Damon DAmato]

<i>Damon, I cant wait to see you sitting in a rolled over car crying for help while a photographer is standing 10

feet away trying to earn some petty award.</i>><br><br>

Thank you. Best wishes to you, too.<br><br><i>I love photography but its not that important.<br></i>

<br>He's a photojournalist. Look it up.

[tonmestrom]

First to get a few point out of the way:

 

-we don't exactly know what the situation was there and how long it took emergency services to get there

 

-Chavez isn't a trained paramedic and could easily do more harm because of the "help"you suggest

 

The real point here is merely if he was in his rights to take photo's of the scene. He is a press photographer and as such his right to exercise that profession shouldn't be interfered with as long as he doesn't get in the way of emergency services. Again, from the press report not that much can be derived but if it's just putting his car on the hard shoulder it seems to me that the police overreacted here.

[daverhaas]

Okay.... Most, if not all states, have good Samaritan laws that prevent you from being sued by a victim if you help and cause further injury.

 

With that being said - we're getting one side of the story here... Was the victim dead already? Was there danger of a a fire or explosion? Did someone else stop and assist the victim? Why did the officer say "it was a crime scene"? Was the photographer putting himself and or others at risk by taking photos? (meaning was his car blocking another lane of traffic or was he interfering with the law enforcement carrying out their tasks.

 

Having photographed a few accident scenes / fires / etc... I know that I can not (even claiming Press) interfere with a member of the fire dept or law enforcement while they are doing their job. I can't block traffic or stand in the middle of a lane of traffic that they are trying to use to get vehicles through just to take a photo. The only times I've seen an accident called a crime scene was when the driver in the accident was fleeing police, had killed or injured someone else, or had been removed from the vehicle and failed or was suspected of failing a field sobriety test. It has nothing at all to do with freedom of the press, it comes down to Safety and Common Sense.

 

Each time I approach an accident scene - I go up the office in charge and ask (not tell) them where can I stand / be to get photos and not be in their way. Usually (not always) they will let me through the initial line and tell me where to stand. In these instances I'm not the one running the show... They are. Period.

 

The telling thing for me in the article is the "impeding traffic" - sounds like officer told him to stop / move, he didn't, kept shooting, and got arrested.

 

Does he have the right to shoot news? Absolutely - but he doesn't have the right to endanger others or interfere with the public safety officials doing their job.

 

Dave

[michael j hoffman]

Whether Chavez was guilty or not, Reynolds has to be one of the dumbest cops ever pinned to a badge. Unlawful order, improperly restrained/secured prisoner, incomplete arrest. The whole letting him (Chavez) go thing smells like a "contempt of cop" incident to me. I've worked in a police station for 14 years and counting. I've encountered varying degrees of professionalism among police officers, but this moron (Reynolds) takes the cake.

 

Might Chavez have been impeding traffic? Possibly. Do the actions of Officer Reynolds portray him to be a power tripping idiot behind a badge? Definitely!

 

Michael J Hoffman

[daverhaas]

Michael -

 

Agree completely about the incomplete arrest, etc.. If indeed Chavez was left on the side of the road - handcuffed. But again, we are hearing one side of it...

 

The thing that makes me wonder about the other side is that the city dismissed the complaint. Around here if a cop so much as looks at a citizen wrong, the city council writes out a 6 figure check.

 

Dave

[sam_motskin]

How can we make a judgement without knowing all the facts? I bumped into arrogant police officers who seemed to enjoy bullying people. And I also saw unscrupulous pushy press photographers full of themselves who thought the rules and the laws are for hoi polloi

[michael j hoffman]

Upon rereading the story, and Officer Reynolds' idiocy not withstanding, it seems it was a complete arrest as the defendant was issued a criminal citation before being released. The merit of the citation (or lack thereof) is up to a judge or jury. The statements made by Officer Reynolds clearly are not lawful orders. Officer Garcia seemed to give a cogent and lawful explanation of the events that transpired, according to the linked article. Police are in business to serve and protect the public and not their own fraternal brotherhood of the badge, most cops forget that. The really good ones rarely forget it, but they are few and far between.

 

Michael J Hoffman

[el_fang]

<i>Did the photographer see the crash happen? You would think he might think about helping the person that got in

the accident instead of taking pictures.</i>

<p>It all depends on where you place yourself on the spectrum of:</p>

<p>Photographer <-----------------------------------------------------------> Human Being</p>

 

<p>I suppose if you or I were the first one on the scene and saw someone trapped in a burning wreck, we'd

probably try to get them out first. If Damon D'Amato or Ray Chavez would rather set up their tripods and take

artistic

time-exposure photographs of some kid in a back seat burning to death, that's their choice based on their own

self-placement elsewhere in that spectrum.</p>

 

<p>If you as a photographer arrive on an accident or crime scene and there are professional rescue personnel

already there, then

you should be free to take pictures as long as you a) do not endanger yourself or anyone else, b) are not

interfering with a potential crime scene and c) obey commands given to you by authorities in charge of the scene.

Whether or not your "rights" are being violated, your job is to get the pictures, not to get into an argument

with authorities who have more important things to do, like secure a potential crime scene, than get into a

constitutional rights argument with you.</p>

<p>Officer giving you a problem? Agree with him/her, even if you think or know he/she is wrong, pull back behind

the crowd, slap on a 400mm f/2.8 IS (or VR or what-have-you) and take your pictures without further aggravating

anyone. Job done, pictures are published, no arrests or lawsuits necessary. Onto the next assignment.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

I never use tripods.

[el_fang]

^

<p>And this, my friends, is why the general public hates photographers. :)</p>

[eric_arnold]

thanks for all the responses, folks.

it's helpful to have a sampling of what people think.

 

as a bay area resident, i can tell you that the Oakland Police Department has a reputation for overstepping their

bounds, sometimes with tragic consequences. in the past couple of weeks, they have shot and killed three unarmed

people, and in the past few years, they have paid out tens of millions in wrongful-death and police brutality lawsuits.

 

the most famous of these cases dates from 2000-2001:

 

http://www.garone.com/writing/riders.html

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/dec/03/local/me-11013

 

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/157/oakland.shtml

 

http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/PDFS/Riders/JR's%20remarks.pdf

 

yet from this recent article, it seems that OPD has learned nothing from its mistakes:

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/21/BAHNRM2IR.DTL

 

nevertheless, police do have an obligation to (1) ensure public safety and (2) investigate a crime scene.

dealing with the media in a courteous manner, even when the media arrives on the scene first, is not one of their

responsibilities and obviously not a priority. it is a good idea, though, from an image standpoint.

 

and, while it's a photojournalist's job to document news, the first rule of PJ work is, don't become the story. without

having been there, it's impossible to know exactly what was said between the officer and the photographer, and

whether the officer's actions were indeed out of line. obviously, Chavez must feel that way to file a lawsuit.

 

so while there are arguments on both sides, it seems unclear whether the photographer's actions warranted the

treatment he endured. the fact that Chavez has worked at the Tribune for so long suggests he knew the ropes of

professional conduct, so it's not like this was an amateur who just got in the way.

 

i personally applaud Chavez for standing up for freedom of the press; i'm sure there are plenty of similar incidents no

one hears about. perhaps this lawsuit will make OPD, and other police departments, rethink their actions.

[fullmetalphotograper]

Andrew, I have shot more accidents than I care to go into. I have heard your sentiment before, it is nice, but has nothing

to do with reality. The only thing you will do when you try to help at accident is get in the way. If the professionals are

there let them do their job. If you get to an accident before rescue workers, the best thing you can do is not move

anyone and talk to the victims and keep them calm wait for help.

 

I have ran into this issue of going face to face with cops. I have nearly been arrested a couple of times. This is why I

always carry an audio recorder. If the a cop is trying to stop me from shooting I interview him, and record or video him.

Basically, I am going to give him a simple choice, If the cop is going to stop me from shooting then it will be

documented and be on his head. I have local number of police chiefs and PIO, so I will go above their heads. Most cops

do not want the Sword of Damocles hanging above their heads.<div></div>

[j_sevigny]

I'm going to agree with the previous poster who puts the value of human lives above the value of photographs. I, too, have shot more accidents than I care to discuss, as well as other tragedies. I have found that if you start your conversation with the officials on the scene by saying, "I'm XXXXXXX from XXXXXXXXX newspaper. Is there anything I can do to help?", that they will NEVER ask you to help but they will appreciate the gesture and let you do your job.

[el_fang]

<i>Andrew, I have shot more accidents than I care to go into. I have heard your sentiment before, it is nice, but has nothing to do with reality. The only thing you will do when you try to help at accident is get in the way. If the professionals are there let them do their job. If you get to an accident before rescue workers, the best thing you can do is not move anyone and talk to the victims and keep them calm wait for help.</i>

<p>I have shot my fair share of accidents as well and I disagree to the extent that you should be using your own best judgment and common sense instead of making a blanket statement that anything you do will just get you in the way. I agree that if there is no immediate danger to you or anyone else on the scene, it is best to sit tight and call/wait for help if you can. However, if there is immediate danger present to someone on the scene, and you can remove them from that danger without unnecessarily becoming part of the problem or endangering yourself, then common decency would dictate that you put your camera down and do what you can. In fact, in many places there exists a legal concept called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue" target="_blank">Duty to Rescue</a> that requires you to do exactly this.</p>

 

<p><i>I have ran into this issue of going face to face with cops. I have nearly been arrested a couple of times. This is why I always carry an audio recorder. If the a cop is trying to stop me from shooting I interview him, and record or video him. Basically, I am going to give him a simple choice, If the cop is going to stop me from shooting then it will be documented and be on his head. I have local number of police chiefs and PIO, so I will go above their heads. Most cops do not want the Sword of Damocles hanging above their heads.</i></p>

<p>You are already setting yourself up for conflict if you approach the situation in such a "face to face" or combative manner. You have to understand that the cop in question is having an ego trip - he/she is in charge and in a position of power. Journalists and photojournalists who are good at spot news coverage know this, and therefore know how to stroke that ego to increase their chances of being allowed to do their work without hindrance. Going into a situation like this with the mentality of "it is my constitutional right to do such-and-such" and clashing egos with the badge and gun WILL get you arrested sooner or later.</p>

 

<p>I work in one of the busiest metro areas in the United States for spot news and yet when I show up to do my work, the police lift the crime scene tape for me when they see me show up - I don't even need to ask. Through experience, I know how to conduct myself and occasionally even lend a hand, and have become a familiar and welcome face at grim situations. There is simply no reason to ever come close to getting arrested if you have a simple understanding of the psychology at work and know how to do some basic PR.</p><div></div>