California Passes Law Protecting Photographers from Police Harassment

[Damon DAmato]

<p>The new law, SB-411, passed the California State Assembly and Senate overwhelmingly. Governor Brown signed the bill into law on August 11, 2015.<br /> The following is the new law as amended by SB-411. <br />The amendments are in italics. <br />Pretty self explanatory. California laws usually go into effect in the next year.<br /> __________________________<br /> Section 69 of the Penal Code is amended to read:<br /> 69.<br /> (a) Every person who attempts, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or prevent an executive officer* from performing any duty imposed upon the officer by law, or who knowingly resists, by the use of force or violence, the officer, in the performance of his or her duty, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.<br /> <em>(b) The fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio or video recording of an executive officer, while the officer is in a public place or the person taking the photograph or making the recording is in a place he or she has the right to be, does not constitute, in and of itself, a violation of subdivision (a).</em></p>

<p>SEC. 2.<br /> Section 148 of the Penal Code is amended to read:<br /> 148.<br /> <br />(a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.<br /> [...] <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB411">Full text at this link.</a><br /> <em>(g) The fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio or video recording of a public officer or peace officer, while the officer is in a public place or the person taking the photograph or making the recording is in a place he or she has the right to be, does not constitute, in and of itself, a violation of subdivision (a), nor does it constitute reasonable suspicion to detain the person or probable cause to arrest the person.<br /><br />______________<br /></em><br>

* An executive officer is a public employee who may exercise some or all of his/her own discretion in performing his/her job duties. Any employee who is charged with enforcing the law is an executive officer.This is a much broader definition than a peace officer. Examples of executive officers include (but are not limited to): police officers, sheriffs, highway patrol officers, judges, government prosecutors and defense attorneys, and other elected officials.<br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Weren't people protected from harrassment by law already?</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>I know all too many people, myself and friends included, who have been detained, arrested, questioned, forced to leave the area, threatened, coerced, etc, for taking photographs and/or recording police, so I'd say no. <br /><br />Will this new law eliminate those detentions. Not all of them. Cops can always find some way to eff with someone. They live for effing with people. But it definitely offers a defense in the case of an arrest. It's good to have black letter law on your side when documenting police misconduct.</p>

[peter_simpson1]

<p>@Steve Smith - yes, but in order to exercise that protection, you first need to have your rights infringed upon, and then make a complaint. In the case where the police are the ones doing the infringing, they are unlikely to be motivated to investigate your complaint. So you end up suing them in court...which costs money...which is the whole problem here, and the police know this. Their goal is intimidation, not winning in court. They know that they can "eff" with you to their hearts' content, even throw you in jail, and they will not, personally, suffer any consequences.</p>

<p>The law does not matter in the above situation. The police know that they have no legal right to "eff" with you, but they do it anyway. This change gives you a little more chance of winning in court, if you have the resources and time to take it that far</p>

<p>Photographing and filming the police, as we have seen recently, puts the brakes on these activities rather effectively, exposing, in some cases, outright lies on official reports. Corruption cannot stand the light of day, which is why the police and their supporters fight so hard for their "privacy" and for the laws against video and audio recording of them in action. It's all well and good to claim that "it's only a few bad apples" in the Force who abuse their authority, but this argument breaks down rather quickly when the police department and the prosecutors bring charges against someone for recording their actions (innocuous as they might be), and the other officers on the scene always manage not to have seen anything. As Shakespeare once said, they "... protest too much." </p>

<p> </p>

[denny_rane]

<p>Do not ever equate the "Passing Of A Law" with what is right and wrong, or with what Will/Should happen in life.<br>

Cops lie all the time, in fact.....THE LAW states clearly that it is LEGAL for The Police to lie to YOU, bit it is illegal for YOU to lie to The Police.<br>

Cops can and do say anything they want, and claim YOU were interfering with them, while thy were trying to do their duty. You MAY be released from jail, after a judge rules in Your favor, but by the time THAT happens, you very well may have lost a lot of:<br>

Time <br>

Money<br>

Work<br>

Reputation.<br>

A wise man once said....."Freedom was born from the barrel of a gun".<br>

A law is only as good as you enforce it to be. Freedom was never given freely, it has always had to be taken. Know your rights, know an attorney, and have cash ready for bail and defense if you are involved in THAT kind of photography.<br>

good luck</p>

<p> </p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Wow! From discussion to insane anarchy in just five posts. That has to be a record. I think it's time to kiss this one goodbye.</p>

[sknowles]

<p>Interesting considering the news reports of cops taking photographs and asking for identification of people without probable cause and running the photographs of faces through facial recognition systems, including driver's license databases, and including the people in various databases, including gang membership. While they bother us for taking photographs and videos, they're doing the same to us for police files. What would George Orwell say?</p>

[Brad_]

>>> THE LAW states clearly that it is LEGAL for The Police to lie to YOU, ...

 

Please cite that law where it is so clearly stated.

[denny_rane]

<p>NEVER talk to The Police.<br>

You SHOULD watch the whole video, but.......47:00, the police officer states it at 47:15 I believe. I am NOT saying The Police can lie...PERIOD. I am saying they can lie To You<br>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> I am saying they can lie To You</p>

<p>I could have sworn you said, "THE LAW states clearly that it is LEGAL for The Police to lie to YOU, ..." and was asking for a citation of that law where it is clearly stated.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>I think you should take another look at that video - the <em>whole</em> video - because your simplified statements are not consistent with the context of the lecture and the purpose of the lecture. The lecture presented have absolutely nothing to do with a persons rights as a photographer or even as a potential witness. Look at it again. Listen to it again.</p>

[denny_rane]

<p>Did you watch the video.? The Police Officer states it at the times I quoted.....they can lie when they interrogate you.<br>

This IS in context to the rights of a Photographer (or anybody else) if they are Arrested or Detained. I have had it happen to me and friends. Any of you guys ever photo a demonstration.?<br>

Occupy<br>

Black Lives Matter<br>

Port Of Seattle<br>

Port Of Oakland<br>

Hormel<br>

Veterans Against Thw Wars<br>

etc etc<br>

The cops illegally hassle, detain, isolate, people with a camera, a video camera, a bullhorn..... IF you intend to shoot similar states, you need to be aware of your rights and potential consequences....the point of the thread.<br>

The video I posted directly deals with how to handle the situation of Police Subterfuge spawned by coverage of these types of events in The OP.<br>

good luck</p>

 

[User_2000406]

<blockquote>

 

<p>>>> THE LAW states clearly that it is LEGAL for The Police to lie to YOU, ...<br>

Please cite that law where it is so clearly stated.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Supreme Court decision, U.S.A.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp</p>

 

<p> </p>

[photo_galleries]

<blockquote>

<p>Supreme Court decision, U.S.A.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frazier v. Cupp does not apply universally. There is sufficient case law that can be cited as precedent where police deception, even during the limited scope of an interrogation, is deemed unlawful. It may not be worth the hassle to some, but a good attorney will easily tear apart a statement of: "the law clearly states that it is legal for the police to lie to you."<br /> <br /> <em>Miller v. Fenton</em><br /> <em>People v. Adrian Thomas</em><br /> <em>In re D.A.S.</em>, 391 A.2d 255, (D.C. App. 1978)<br /> <em>Oregon v. Mathiason</em>, 429 U.S. 492 (1977)<br /> Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975)<br /> <em>Illinois v. Perkins</em>, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)<br /> <em>State v. Patton</em>, 362 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div.) (2003)<br /> <em>State v. Cayward</em>, 552 So. 2d 971 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1989)<br /> <em>Arthur v. Commonwealth</em>, 480 S.E. 2d 749 (Va. 1997), <br /> <em>Sheriff, Washoe Co. v. Bessey</em>, 914 P. 2d 618 (Nev. 1996)</p>