Do the police have the right to confiscate your camera?

[c6h6o3]

Sometimes, but not in this case.

 

[MattKing]

I don't know the answer to this, but here is what I think:

In Canada, I doubt it would be necessary for the police to obtain a court order or warrant first, because they generally have the power to preserve evidence of a crime.

They would need to know or be told by someone reliable that there was a likelihood that you had taken a photo that might be relevant to that crime.

They would be required to give you a receipt, and to take reasonable steps to minimize any costs or inconvenience you might suffer.

They would only be entitled to keep that which turned out to be relevant to the crime.

Matt

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I don't know the answer either.


But I wanna see them try.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

If it is written into legislation, I imagine the Police do have the authority to confiscate equipment as evidence, but that wouldn't be their first action.
Say for example if a photographer loiters around a power station and somebody photographs him, takes his car rego and reports him to the police on suspicion of some nefarious activity (in these times, 'terrorism' comes to mind), the first step I imagine would be for the police to question the 'suspect' and where provided, allow him/her to explain his actions. If he/she is evasive or uncooperative I imagine his/her equipment could be confiscated for examination. If the images show nothing more than creative intent the I would think the 'suspect' would be released and his equipment be returned. There has actually been something like this happening in Australia in recent times: a photographic artist creating night scenes of a Military Barracks.

Where I live there are laws in place against photographing things like refineries, Customs areas, commercial wharves, consulates etc. Elsewhere in the world is speculative from where I sit. It's up to photographers to obtain the necessary permission if they wish to photograph something that is sensitive rather than just steam ahead blithely and say "she'll be right!". It's like always asking a property owner permission to enter/cross their land rather than just assume it's right. The outcome is dependent on your input.

 

[MattKing]

There is a really fundamental difference here - the original posting was about a situation where the police were attempting to secure cameras, because they felt they needed to secure what those cameras recorded.

A camera that is used to record an incident which includes criminal behavior may be "storing" evidence of the crime itself. It is in the best interest of society for police forces to be able to secure and protect evidence that would tend to prove criminal acts.

It is the images themselves that have probative value, and can lead to findings of truth. Accordingly it makes sense that those images be preserved.

If you were standing on a sidewalk and someone beside you was attacked, and in the resulting melee you got some of both the victim's and the assailant's blood on your jacket, would you think it improper that the police confiscate that jacket, as evidence of the attack?

This is very different than police seizing a camera under the mistaken belief that the act of using the camera was illegal.

Matt

 

[hoffy]

But what about the police demanding you delete the photos, in case these photos are used against them to incriminate them?

There was an event on the weekend that I heard about (it was the JJJ Hottest 100 event, in a Sydney park I believe), where the police had to make some arrests for what ever reason (the details are a bit vague at the moment). There was a discussion on the JJJ Hack show on Tuesday, where one of the JJJ staff members started taking photos of the police. One of the police officers then demanded the photos be deleted. When the point was argued, the officer tried to confiscate the camera by using force.

As the event was in a public place, I believe the officer and the police in general have no right to demand the deletion of the photos.

 

[JOSarff]

As far as I am concerned, police have NO reason at any time to harrass a bystander or confiscate anything.

 

[c6h6o3]

As far as I am concerned, police have NO reason at any time to harrass a bystander or confiscate anything.

I agree, unless the camera was used in the commission of a crime. For instance, if they have probable cause to think that there's child pornography on film in a camera, they have the right to confiscate it as evidence. Otherwise, they should have to ask.

 

[johnnywalker]

As far as I am concerned, police have NO reason at any time to harrass a bystander or confiscate anything.

As Matt said, their CAN be a good reason for confiscating a record of a crime. Read his posts carefully.

 

[2F/2F]

Absent a court order, NO.

 

[bobwysiwyg]

But what about the police demanding you delete the photos, in case these photos are used against them to incriminate them?

I am as principled as the next person and would probably, if I had a camera of some sort, record the event if I thought something were amiss. Having said that, there are some practical issues to consider and that consideration might have to be done in a few short moments, or seconds.

First, are things as the appear to be to you as a 'witness?' Sometimes they are not.

Second, in the reference above, "demanding you delete .." suggests a digital device. I would gladly delete it for them, not take any additional pics and rush home, and retrieve the deleted images. There's good, free software that virtually assures retrieval under these circumstances.

Finally, depending on your decision to shoot or not (the pic that is) you could be facing some significant legal expenses if you do and refuse to comply, and remember these folks carry guns and handcuffs.

Back to principled discussion.

 

[nyoung]

As a general rule in the US no.

Based on my personal experience on the streets as a cops and crimes photojournalist, every time one has asked or threatened to confiscate a camera, he/she has desisted from the request when I begin taking down his or her name, badge number etc. "for my attorneys." The take away is that they were bluffing and they knew it as well as I did.

As far as "incriminating the officers," that's just another form of the tough cop bluff that generally starts with the phrase "Do you know its illegal to photograph a police officer in the performance of his duty?"

That is absolutely NOT the case as long as you are working in public space - side walks, streets, even inside "public accomadations" such as sports stadiums etc. that do not limit your rights by prohibiting photography in the venue via your entrance contract - ticket.

If you're going to get hit, I'd suggest giving it up and calling you attorney immediately. Often a call from the lawyer to a police supervisor is all it takes to resolve the situation.

 

[Lruw]

It's definitely true that cops will try to confiscate cameras. I personally got asked to hand film over when I took a picture of a mundane fender bender.

There was a guy in my city that got arrested for videotaping arrests based on the "it's illegal to photograph/record police on duty." Despite having no legal basis to prosecute the guy, the city pursued him for something bs like 'assisting a crime.'

 

[Paul Jenkin]

As I understand it, in the UK, they would have to obtain a court order. Nor do they have the right to insist that you either delete any digital images taken or hand over any film - again, without a court order. It is a sad reflection on our societies that we even have to debate such a topic and the police / judiciary should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

 

[removed account4]

i was routinely spoken to by the police and "security"
when i worked for a newspaper. it didn't help that
i have olive skin ...
all that said, i routinely look for a cop, tell them
what i am up to, when i am out and about (with a camera )
so if some crazed citizen calls me in for using a camera
officer blue knows who i am and what i am doing.

it is kind of a love-hate relationship.

as nyoung says, the police know the rights of photographers
and they tend to hope photographers don't know what their rights are ...

 

[pauliej]

The Police have the RIGHT to ASK you to hand over your property to them, but you have the RIGHT TO REFUSE. Well, this is not based on any knowledge of law I may have, but just a common sense right of nature (?). If the copper wants to press his point and arrest you for who knows what law(s) he thinks you are violating, he can (think Chicago, 1968, Democratic Party Convention rioting). Then you can state your case to the judge & jury, if it ever escalates that far. And if your camera is damaged by the police while it is in their custody you can sue for damages (think small claims court). You may want to discuss this with an attorney that can spell it out for you better than I can. I'm a thinkin' most people give up the camera or film when a big hulking copper, with the badge and the gun and the night stick, demands them to, as they dont want the encounter to continue. Just a thought.

paulie

 

[JOSarff]

As Matt said, their CAN be a good reason for confiscating a record of a crime. Read his posts carefully.

My opinoin was solicitated by the question. I replied.

What part of NO didn't you get?

 

[nyoung]

Noticing that some posters on this thread are replying as I do from the standpoint of having once been members of the "working press" (I know its an oxymoron like military intelligence but so be it) and feeling a need to expand on a couple of things for the benefit of those without the press experience.

Very few people realize that the photojournalists representing news organizations actually have NO legal rights that are not available to any citizen of the US.

What we do have is familiarity with the system vis-a-vis our rights in relation to the police and we tend to be more aggressive in defense of our rights.

Mostly we gain access to crime scenes, accident scenes, etc. simply because we are out there every day "rubbing up against" law enforcement. They get to know us and we get to know them.
That familiarity translates directly to access and tolerance of our presence. Freelancers who work a given area continuously will gain the same position.

The staff status does convey one real advantage - access to lawyers. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to hold the title "Staff Photographer" have had the privilege of going back to office the after the confrontation and telling the boss, who then called the lawyers, who then called the police supervisors.

Amazingly, to outsiders, even small publications here in the US have access to this kind of legal help through the various regional and state press associations.

In response to those who say that there might be a rational for police seizure of your cameras or film - there may be, it could happen. If such a rational exists, however, there is a procedure for the police do so.

It called getting a court of appropriate jurisdiction to issue a subpoena for the evidence. Even then its not 100 percent clear that they have an unlimited right to our film and/or notes.

Papers are fighting these actions through the courts all the time even though the general public only hears of the high profile cases involving the New York Times or CBS.

 

[removed-user-1]

Of course, in the case referenced in the original post, the real question is "Do police have the right to just shoot a detained man in the back?" And the answer, of course, is no. But, given that police violence seems to be going up in the USA, if I was asked to hand over my camera I suspect I would do it and then sue the @%$&! out of them, rather than get shot or otherwise injured.

 

[yellowcat]

The situation in the UK was discussed in ' Law in Action' on BBC radio 4 today

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/law_in_action/default.stm

The programme is available as a podcast.

 

[BobNewYork]

The really sad part here is the level of distrust between the police and those they serve. This level of trust has been deteriorating at an increasing rate - and not without good reason. In this instance, the pursuit of bytanders with cameras would suggest that the officers were not convinced that the shooting was justified. If they WERE they convinced of that why seize records of the incident which could only justify their actions? The "Us and Them" situation has deteriorated to an extent which I feel impinges on the ability of the police to do their job. Without the trust and cooperation of the law-abiding public good policing is all but impossible. It used to be that when driving, you subconsciously registered a police officer as a foe, but when you were walking down the street you registered him/her as a friend. I'm not so sure that's the case anymore.

The reality is that no-one may seize or otherwise interfere with your personal property without a lawful court order.

 

[bobwysiwyg]

I thought I might be confronting this issue first-hand today. We noticed a half-dozen large white vans parked about a half block from our house, with police cones blocking off some street parking. Since there isn't that much of interest around here, I went home to get a camera and walked back.

Turns out they are shooting scenes from the upcoming Hilary Swank movie, "Betty Anne Waters." Neither the road, very narrow, nor the sidewalk were blocked so I was free to move around, even to the front of the house being used for the scenes. I was 'shadowed' by one of the security people, but he never interfered in any way. I think he just wanted to make sure I didn't.

It was interesting to see how the lighting was set-up from the exterior for sunlit room interior shot on an otherwise crappy, cold, windy Ann Arbor day.