Woman arrested for videotaping police...

[Seth]

The photo in question:-

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

DSCF0034a.JPG

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIwcMFEC ... 1313866325[/youtube]

I took walk into town with my camera to indulge my hobby and on the way in I took a photo of a policeman then switched to video mode to see what would happen. - As you might expect, he tried to arrest me but I declined to provide my name, etc. leaving him stumped and (I think) a little frustrated.
I have absolutely no idea what all that "jewellery shop" stuff was about. - *shrug*
Unfortunately, after showing him some of the images I'd taken, the camera batteries expired about halfway through the conversation (bummer) and the most interesting part of the conversation is therefore missing - "There's something very dodgy about you...." - "I WILL find out who you are and when I do you'll be getting a visit from me". etc. etc.....
Anyway, the upshot was that he couldn't find anything to arrest me for (despite calling in to the station for advice) and reluctantly let me go about my business.

What an ignorant officious oaf. I hope you reported him to his superiors, because he needs to take up another line of work.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

It's become increasingly apparent to me that most coppers over here are unaware of the limitations of their powers and that the public just accept this assumed authority. - I bet something like half of the people who end up in the magistrates court are there voluntarily without even realising that by giving their name or "understanding" (standing under) what the officer just said they are entering into a verbal contract to agree to be policed and therefore opening the door to a world of bullshit and woes (and debt).
It's a pity the batteries ran out in the camera and I missed out on recording the threats to pay me a little visit, etc.
I remember that at one point he said that he'd find find something to arrest me for and I replied that there was nothing unlawful about me - to which he replied "There's always something" - Says it all, really.

[Audley Strange]

It's become increasingly apparent to me that most coppers over here are unaware of the limitations of their powers and that the public just accept this assumed authority. - I bet something like half of the people who end up in the magistrates court are there voluntarily without even realising that by giving their name or "understanding" (standing under) what the officer just said they are entering into a verbal contract to agree to be policed and therefore opening the door to a world of bullshit and woes (and debt).
It's a pity the batteries ran out in the camera and I missed out on recording the threats to pay me a little visit, etc.
I remember that at one point he said that he'd find find something to arrest me for and I replied that there was nothing unlawful about me - to which he replied "There's always something" - Says it all, really.

Best advice I was ever given (whether its true or not I don't know but it worked) was if you've done nothing wrong you have no obligation to communicate with the police at all let alone give them any information.

Is it illegal to photograph cops here in the U.K. I seem to recall there was a bill or a law or a proposal or something?

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Best advice I was ever given (whether its true or not I don't know but it worked) was if you've done nothing wrong you have no obligation to communicate with the police at all let alone give them any information.

Is it illegal to photograph cops here in the U.K. I seem to recall there was a bill or a law or a proposal or something?

You are under no obligation to furnish them with any details. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, it is taken as consent to enter into contract with them (we are policed by consent and they will try all sorts of little tricks to get you to do so). The best thing to do (imo) is to remain courteous but decline to consent, "understand" anything or give details. - Once you do then they have their foot in the door and will take all sorts of liberties such as house searches (if you are arrested) etc. ...They must have reasonable articulable suspicion that you have or are about to commit a crime in order to arrest you. - Looking "dodgy" isn't good enough.

It's not illegal or unlawful to photograph the police here in the UK.
They had higher powers such as "stop and search" etc. until last year under Section 44 of the 2000 Terrorism Act and could stop and search anyone they wanted for just about anything (or nothing). Section 44 has now been replaced by Section 47a (it was deemed to be a breach of human rights by Europe) which states that a senior police officer must designate a specific area that he/she deems to be under imminent risk of attack before police officers can start searching people randomly etc.

[MrJonno]

What an ignorant officious oaf. I hope you reported him to his superiors, because he needs to take up another line of work.

He was investigating suspicious behaviour and from at least that part of the video was polite in doing in. Considering there have been campaigns aimed at the public to report that sort of thing, ie its not illegal to pay your rent in cash and be brown but we are encourage to call the police about it if it happens.

The danger is in this case the photographer stayed calm didnt raise his voice and the situation didnt escalate, you could easily see something like that getting ugly.

The police have stopped me before for pushing a pram around at 5am with large packages in it (I was 13 at the time), again thats not illegal I was doing a paper round but but you can't really blame the police for pulling me over and asking what I was doing. Being suspicous in a public place is not a crime but the police would be failing in their job if they didnt at least investigate

[Seth]

It's become increasingly apparent to me that most coppers over here are unaware of the limitations of their powers and that the public just accept this assumed authority. - I bet something like half of the people who end up in the magistrates court are there voluntarily without even realising that by giving their name or "understanding" (standing under) what the officer just said they are entering into a verbal contract to agree to be policed and therefore opening the door to a world of bullshit and woes (and debt).
It's a pity the batteries ran out in the camera and I missed out on recording the threats to pay me a little visit, etc.
I remember that at one point he said that he'd find find something to arrest me for and I replied that there was nothing unlawful about me - to which he replied "There's always something" - Says it all, really.

Yes, that is MOST unfortunate because that sounded like a threat from a police officer to take extra-judicial action, which in this country is a crime (official oppression or official misconduct) and he himself could be arrested for making it. It's at least a gross violation of proper police procedure.

You are absolutely correct that cops worldwide trade on the ignorance of the public and use their badges of office to harass and intimidate innocent people all the time.

[Seth]

What an ignorant officious oaf. I hope you reported him to his superiors, because he needs to take up another line of work.

He was investigating suspicious behaviour and from at least that part of the video was polite in doing in.

There is absolutely nothing whatever suspicious about taking photographs in a public place. It's a perfectly lawful and routine activity. This cop braced the photographer for taking a picture of HIM, which is also perfectly legal. But cops don't like having their pictures taken, so they tend to abuse people who do so, which is what the entire thread is about.

However, of anyone on the streets, citizen's have an ABSOLUTE right to photograph public employees at work, it's part of the process of keeping them accountable and servants rather than masters.

Considering there have been campaigns aimed at the public to report that sort of thing, ie its not illegal to pay your rent in cash and be brown but we are encourage to call the police about it if it happens.

But the police have no authority whatsoever to detain someone for paying their rent in cash or taking pictures in a public place. They can solicit a voluntary conversation, but if the citizen wishes, he may simply decline the conversation and walk away. What should have happened is that he should have told the copper he didn't want to talk to him and walked away, at which point the copper probably would have laid hands on him, which would have given JSR a cause of action in court against the copper.

The danger is in this case the photographer stayed calm didnt raise his voice and the situation didnt escalate, you could easily see something like that getting ugly.

The police have stopped me before for pushing a pram around at 5am with large packages in it (I was 13 at the time), again thats not illegal I was doing a paper round but but you can't really blame the police for pulling me over and asking what I was doing.

You're quite right in part. The police can investigate suspicious activity, such as pushing a pram with packages in it around at 5am when you're 13, which is unusual. Taking photos on a public street in the middle of the afternoon is not unusual or suspicious, and therefore the police have no authority to involuntarily detain someone for doing so.

The precise circumstances of any police contact determine whether the contact was reasonable and lawful. In JSR's case the contact was neither reasonable nor lawful because JSR was doing nothing at all wrong or suspicious.

Being suspicous in a public place is not a crime but the police would be failing in their job if they didnt at least investigate

Taking photos in a public place is not "being suspicious." And that's the whole point.

[MrJonno]

Taking photos in a public place is not "being suspicious." And that's the whole point

In a touristy areas probably not, its unusual on a high street. When TV companies setup cameras they do tend to get the public flocking around them for that reason. Start taking random pictures in a richer area and a member of the public will almost certainly ask you what you are doing, doing in a poor area and there is a fair chance you will get mugged

As for taking pictures in public its not a black and white issue, casual filming of a street background it ok but doing documentary on obese people and specfically targetting and publishing their pictures/video without their permission almost certainly isnt. There are data protections laws to protect privacy

French law is even more strict, take a picture of someone and they own the copyright on it. It can't be published without their permission

More details

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/10/privacy_breach/

[Seth]

Taking photos in a public place is not "being suspicious." And that's the whole point

In a touristy areas probably not, its unusual on a high street.

Nonsense.

When TV companies setup cameras they do tend to get the public flocking around them for that reason.

Red herring. We're not discussing TV production, which draws curiosity seekers because of the size and complexity of the setup, we're talking about private citizens taking photos in public places.

Start taking random pictures in a richer area and a member of the public will almost certainly ask you what you are doing,

So? Curiosity and legal authorization to detain someone for the police are two entirely different things.

doing in a poor area and there is a fair chance you will get mugged

Another red herring.

As for taking pictures in public its not a black and white issue,

Mostly it's color these days, though traditionalists still use black and white for dramatic effect. But as for your silly assertion, it's absolutely black and white from the legal perspective: Citizens have the right to photograph anyone and anything taking place in a public place or on a public street.

casual filming of a street background it ok but doing documentary on obese people and specfically targetting and publishing their pictures/video without their permission almost certainly isnt.

Another red herring argument. You are describing commercial use, not private picture-taking. And the proscription for commercial use is not about the photography, it's about the publishing or broadcasting of the "likeness" of individuals without their permission for COMMERCIAL gain. For editorial use, such as newspaper or TV photojournalism, no permission is required to use the likeness in any journalistic editorial context. If you take such an image and turn it into an advert or a commercial, then you have to get a model release from the individual to avoid being sued for misappropriation, but that's a CIVIL claim, not a criminal one that the police have any authority to enforce or police.

There are data protections laws to protect privacy

Yes, in some places and some contexts, but not on a public street. Paparazzi exist precisely because there is no prohibition against taking photos of celebrities when they are out and about in public places. Bush-shots and nipple-slips of Emma Watson and other famous women abound, and every one of them is perfectly legal. It only becomes an "invasion of privacy" when the photographer intrudes upon a private place where the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, which includes their home, bathrooms and other secluded places that are intended to prevent observation.

But on the street, everyone is fair game for photographers, from Emma Watson to you, and there's not a damned thing you can do to prevent it or get compensated for editorial exploitation of the image.

French law is even more strict, take a picture of someone and they own the copyright on it. It can't be published without their permission

Wrong. The issue of ownership of one's "likeness" is far more complex than you suggest, and even in France, a person in a public place cannot prevent their photo from being taken. They MIGHT be able to prevent commercial exploitation of that image for profit, but they cannot prevent you from taking the photo or demand that you erase or turn it over to them.

[MrJonno]

So? Curiosity and legal authorization to detain someone for the police are two entirely different things.

No one was being detained, person acting suspiciously as defined by copper but not doing any illegal. Copper approaches asks what you are doing if the person is doing something illegal they panic run for it/hit policeman , person gets arrested society is safer.

If the person wasnt doing anything illegal but goes berserk then the problem is what that person not the policeman.

If you have an unarmed policeman and an unarmed person on the streets the bar /risk in asking what they are doing is far lower which is a good thing

[Seth]

So? Curiosity and legal authorization to detain someone for the police are two entirely different things.

No one was being detained,

Looked very much like JSR was being detained. JSR, can you advise us? Did you feel free to leave at any time and walk away from the officer? If you didn't, then you were being detained. Now, here in the US, a police officer has to have a reasonable suspicion that you are, have been or are about to be involved in the commission of a crime in order to detain you under Terry v. Ohio. Since taking photographs in a public place is not illegal, the copper had no authority to prevent JSR from simply refusing to talk to him and walking away. The coppers misunderstanding or ignorance of the law does not absolve him of violating JSR's civil rights.

person acting suspiciously as defined by copper but not doing any illegal.

Coppers don't get to define what is "suspicious," they are required to know what the law is and be able to apply the law to situations properly.

Copper approaches asks what you are doing

Coppers can always ask, it's called a "voluntary contact," and here in the US, the Supreme Court-approved language for setting up a voluntary contact is "Sir (or Ma'm), do you have a moment that I might speak with you?" This makes it clear that the person is free to refuse to speak with the police officer and be on his way, so if the person agrees to speak with the officer, it's a "non-custodial" interview and anything the person says can be used against him in court, and no Miranda warning is required.

However, if the copper says "Hey, you, come here (or stay there) I need to talk to you...don't move...now what's going on..." if the person detained does not reasonably believe he's free to leave, or if the copper physically detains him or moves him from one place to another (for other than safety reasons), then an arrest has occurred, and the officer must have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by the person being arrested.
"

if the person is doing something illegal they panic run for it/hit policeman , person gets arrested society is safer.

Yes.

If the person wasnt doing anything illegal but goes berserk then the problem is what that person not the policeman.

Unable to parse the meaning of this sentence, please reformat and try again...

If you have an unarmed policeman and an unarmed person on the streets the bar /risk in asking what they are doing is far lower which is a good thing

Coppers are free to ask, and citizens are free to ignore them and keep on going about their lawful business.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Looked very much like JSR was being detained. JSR, can you advise us? Did you feel free to leave at any time and walk away from the officer? If you didn't, then you were being detained.

Difficult to say with any real degree of certainty. I suppose if I'd have refused to speak with him and started walking away them he would almost certainly have insisted I stay for a little chat - possibly by using physical means. I wasn't really free to walk away until perhaps 8 - 10 minutes after showing him the contents of the camera and talking in circles with him until he realised that he was wasting his time.
The police over here seem to have developed the habit of leading people around by the arm (not that it happened in this case) before an arrest has been made and it's my guess that a lot of arrests get made because folks (quite naturally) resist this sort of man-handling and the situation escalates into a struggle - especially where alcohol is involved.

[Seth]

Looked very much like JSR was being detained. JSR, can you advise us? Did you feel free to leave at any time and walk away from the officer? If you didn't, then you were being detained.

Difficult to say with any real degree of certainty. I suppose if I'd have refused to speak with him and started walking away them he would almost certainly have insisted I stay for a little chat - possibly by using physical means. I wasn't really free to walk away until perhaps 8 - 10 minutes after showing him the contents of the camera and talking in circles with him until he realised that he was wasting his time.
The police over here seem to have developed the habit of leading people around by the arm (not that it happened in this case) before an arrest has been made and it's my guess that a lot of arrests get made because folks (quite naturally) resist this sort of man-handling and the situation escalates into a struggle - especially where alcohol is involved.

It would be a close call over here, based on what you said. The courts tend to favor the police unless they clearly prevent you physically from leaving when they have no reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The general excuse is "would a reasonable man (a mythical creature) placed in the same position have felt free to leave?" and generally the courts tend to use a standard for knowing one's civil rights and police procedure that far exceeds what most people understand or know. Courts generally have no problem with ruling a detention lawful even when the individual clearly didn't begin to understand that they didn't have to talk to the police. Watch any episode of "Cops" to see police exploitation of ignorance of one's civil rights in action.

Over there, I'm not clear on what the law is regarding detaining someone for questioning, but the one major difference is that over here, your invocation of your right to remain silent cannot be used against you, whereas I understand that in the UK, a refusal to speak to the police CAN be used against you at trial. I suspect, given the general authoritarian, socialist culture that you don't have a right to just walk away from a copper who is interrogating you.

Can you elucidate on your understanding of the law?

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Over there, I'm not clear on what the law is regarding detaining someone for questioning, but the one major difference is that over here, your invocation of your right to remain silent cannot be used against you, whereas I understand that in the UK, a refusal to speak to the police CAN be used against you at trial.

I'm no legal expert by any stretch of the imagination - but as I understand it, remaining silent will be taken as tacit consent to being policed (as well as giving details) that is, entering into contract with them - which they need in order to apply anything other than common law (I could well be wrong there.) Imo, it's probably best to state explicitly that you don't give any consent to whatever is happening or "understand" (stand under) any contract proposed to you.

I suspect, given the general authoritarian, socialist culture that you don't have a right to just walk away from a copper who is interrogating you.

In theory, as long as you are not under arrest or being arrested then you have the right to walk away. - In practice it doesn't seem to work that way. I suppose an example might be that a copper starts to lead someone by the arm out of the way "for their own safety" or annoys someone to the extent where they tell them to "fuck off" (drunk people are easy prey here) and then arrest them for breach of the peace/public order offence or whatever. - It's just brownie points and revenue for them.

[MrJonno]

Well as for identifying yourself , its not required in the UK unless arrested. I assume giving a false name however would be a crime. Thats different from the rest of Europe where you are required to carry ID at all times.

Interesting according to wikipedia you arent required to carry ID in the US but are required to carry a driving license when driving ( you arent in the UK). As you can't go anywhere without a car in the US ( no evil socialist public transport) thats a defacto ID card. I believe individual states allow police to demand your name and address as well