Minor Getting Arrested - Can I Photograph?

[ryan_smith13]

<p>I was doing a bit of street photography here in Canada and I snapped a few of someone getting arrested by two police officers. One officer confronted me immediately telling me to leave and I couldn't take pictures. I informed him of his ignorance, and continued to shoot.</p>

<p>A few minutes later, he said I couldn't take pictures because it's a "special circumstance involving the arrest of a minor". Now I wasn't 100% sure of my legal right to shoot a minor getting arrested, so I told him the camera was on him and not the minor. My question is: Was this bs? Do they have the legal right to forbid me from taking pictures of a minor getting arrested?</p>

<p>Side notes<br>

- Completely public setting<br>

- Backed up so I wasn't in the way of the officers<br>

- Wasn't shouting or doing anything intrusive</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I can't say for Canada, but in the US, you can photograph minors in a public place. It is customary here that journalists don't release the names/identities/photos of minors, but I don't know what purpose you intend to use them for.</p>

[SCL]

<p>In Illinois you can't photograph police in the process of an arrest, recently affirmed in several cases involving people using their cell phone cameras. Currently there is a strong push to overturn this law.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> In Illinois you can't photograph police in the process of an arrest, recently affirmed in several cases

involving people using their cell phone cameras.

 

Is that really with respect to making photographs? Or making an audio recording (usually in conjunction

with making a video).

[SCL]

<p>Latest comments have focused on the audio aspect as illegal recording without mutual consent, but a lot of commenters in the press have stressed the video as well, even without the audio component.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Latest comments have focused on the audio aspect as illegal recording without mutual consent, but

a lot of commenters in the press have stressed the video as well, even without the audio component.

 

But photographs?

[jeff_conrad]

<p>As Brad indicated, the issue in Illinois is <em>audio</em> recording of a conversation without the consent of all involved. Unlike most similar laws in other states, there is no requirement that parties to the conversation have a reasonable expectation of privacy.</p>

<p>The ACLU of Illinois are challenging the law (Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, sects. 14-1 and 14-2)</p>

[dave_s]

<p>(i) Nobody's answering the question.</p>

<p>(ii) If you want advice regarding the law in Canada, your best bet would be to discuss it with a Canadian lawyer, not in an internet forum.</p>

<p>(iii) Having said that, there is a collection of information <a href="http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php">here</a>, which may or may not be accurate. That page suggests you were within your rights. Alternatively, the cop may have considered that the young scofflaw had a 'reasonable expectation of privacy', which you were violating.</p>

<p>(iv) If there is a disagreement between you and a Canadian cop, the cop will win. The 'I know my rights' and 'My lawyer said so' arguments may not be received in a spirit of good-natured Canuck <em>bonhomie</em>. </p>

[ryan_smith13]

<p>Thanks Dave Sims,</p>

<p>That's quite the goldmine of photography laws in Canada. I will certainly give it a look over.</p>

[glenn_mabbutt]

<p>I'm Canadian, although not a lawyer. I looked at similar questions a while back. Research for yourself, but what I found was:</p>

<ul>

<li>you generally have the right to take pictures of people and things on public property, except of military/gov't secret locations</li>

<li>publishing what you take pictures of is another matter - for example, several provinces have passed fairly strict "privacy" laws that prevent publishing someone identifiably (eg, their face) without their prior explicit consent, regardless of where the photo was taken. In Quebec, this was even applied to someone who appeared in a photograph of a crowd in a public place.</li>

</ul>

<p>I believe that there is some language in the Youth Criminal Justice Act about not "identifying" youths arrested/charged under that act, which is why news footage frequently has their faces pixellated if they show them at all. So, I would imagine you wouldn't be able to publish those photos anywhere anyway.</p>

[riley_s1]

<p>Another Canadian here as well - that part of the Youth Criminal Justice Act as far as I am aware only applies to published photos - you can take as many shots as you want of a minor charged with a crime, but you can't publish them. What city were you in?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>In Illinois you can't photograph police in the process of an arrest, recently affirmed in several cases involving people using their cell phone cameras. Currently there is a strong push to overturn this law.</em></p>

<p>in California, we recently had the first conviction of a police officer for murder. this is because the actual killing, in a public transit station, was caught by cel phone cameras. without that, there likely would have been no trial. i can't see how public safety would be threatened by documenting an arrest, especially if excessive force is involved. in fact, it might be the other way around.</p>

<p> </p>