Illegal To Take Photo Of LEO In Tennessee? - Page 3

Illegal To Take Photo Of LEO In Tennessee?

This is a discussion on Illegal To Take Photo Of LEO In Tennessee? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by ccw9mm Precedent for the right of people to peaceably record the public actions they witness: Robinson v. Fetterman , conviction overturned July, ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 63

Thread: Illegal To Take Photo Of LEO In Tennessee?

  1. #31
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    20,379
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Precedent for the right of people to peaceably record the public actions they witness: Robinson v. Fetterman, conviction overturned July, 2005.

    Conviction by the local judge was overturned at the U.S. District Court level.
    Again, the LEO's themselves were not the subject of the video, the checkpoint was. Robinson's video was not for sinister purposes.
    "Just blame Sixto"


  2. #32
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118

    No, absolutely wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    A civil servant is a political post or position, I.E. the Sheriff would be a civil servant, but not the deputies.

    In Europe, any public employee is considered a civil servant, but not in the U.S. That is reserved for elected officials and high ranking appointees.
    You do not need to be in a political position to be a civil servant.
    Absolutely every Federal Employee from the guy who opens mail at IRS to the scientist at NASA is a Civil Servant. For years and years there was a Civil Service Commission which took care of personnel issues involving Federales.

    Second, I'm unconvinced by the rational you have for not wanting to be photographed being a legal reason or justification for it being unlawful in any way.

    We all have reasons for wanting our privacy and anonymity, and you guys don't deserve anything special in this regard.

    When you work out in the public, you are observable by ordinary observation and you can be photographed just like anyone else.

    If you worry that it compromises your security in under cover stuff, get a better disguise.

  3. #33
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    20,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    You do not need to be in a political position to be a civil servant.
    Absolutely every Federal Employee from the guy who opens mail at IRS to the scientist at NASA is a Civil Servant. For years and years there was a Civil Service Commission which took care of personnel issues involving Federales.

    Second, I'm unconvinced by the rational you have for not wanting to be photographed being a legal reason or justification for it being unlawful in any way.

    We all have reasons for wanting our privacy and anonymity, and you guys don't deserve anything special in this regard.

    When you work out in the public, you are observable by ordinary observation and you can be photographed just like anyone else.

    If you worry that it compromises your security in under cover stuff, get a better disguise.
    You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion doesn't change fact. It is what it is, I don't know what else to say about it.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  4. #34
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118

    Specific targeting of officer for photo

    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Your right, it won't fly unless they can prove that the officer was specifically targeted as the subject of the photo, and the photo was going to be used for a sinister purpose.
    The New Orleans police tried this when they were photographed beating an elderly man for no reason, and then beat the folks who took the video clip.

    The bystander had every right to photo the cops beating the man, and eventually the officers were severely dealt with--if my memory is correct on this.

    I'm sure the law varies a little from state to state, but we aren't the former Soviet Union yet, notwithstanding the fond wishes of a few
    ultra-right posters here who support totalitarian ideas.

  5. #35
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,433
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Again, the LEO's themselves were not the subject of the video, the checkpoint was. Robinson's video was not for sinister purposes.
    The point is, it's all so arbitrary. The taping of the Rodney King take-down was of a suspect being brought under control. The individual I mentioned was recording officers doing a different task. A situation in Oregon I'm aware of in the past 3mos had as its subject the recording of statements being made about the carrying of firearms. And yet, when arrested, some get tossed out as absolutely inappropriate arrests (ie, Robinson v Fetterman), while others get upheld. I call: red herring.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #36
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    20,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The New Orleans police tried this when they were photographed beating an elderly man for no reason, and then beat the folks who took the video clip.

    The bystander had every right to photo the cops beating the man, and eventually the officers were severely dealt with--if my memory is correct on this.

    I'm sure the law varies a little from state to state, but we aren't the former Soviet Union yet, notwithstanding the fond wishes of a few
    ultra-right posters here who support totalitarian ideas.
    Once again, the video was of the actions... yes that is fine. I don't know how else to explain it... we keep going around in circles with the same question and arguments being brought up.

    and yes it is arbitrary... here is the second and most important part of my first reply in this thread, just so we all understand where I'm coming from;
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    but it doesnt seem that this officer is acting under the proper intent or color of the law.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,433
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Once again, the video was of the actions... yes that is fine.
    It's hard to see how a video or recording can be other than the actions, unless it's strictly a zoomed-in view of the face of an LEO.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #38
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    20,379
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    It's hard to see how a video or recording can be other than the actions, unless it's strictly a zoomed-in view of the face of an LEO.
    And thats the crux of the whole thing... a picture of an officer directing traffic at an accident scene is fine, the subject is the accident. A picture of me picking my nose in uniform posted on doper.com is not.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  9. #39
    Member Array raytracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    473
    It sounds like, in many cases at least, the "subject" of the picture can't be determined until it's placed in context by publishing it in some form.

    The same video of a cop directing traffic at an accident whilst dislodging a bit of unexpected snout debris could be published on youtube as "horrific wreck in front of my house" or "traffic cop on mining expedition in booger canal". In the first case the subject is clearly the accident while in the second it's just as clearly ridiculing the officer with the blocked nasal passage.

    Now, what happens when the same video is posted to show the accident and no one has noticed Sixto... er... the unnamed officer with his finger in up to the second knuckle until someone points it out in comments and the gist of the publication turns from "look at the accident" to "make fun of the cop" - completely outside the control or intent of the creator/publisher of the video?

    Wow. This makes my brain hurt. Obviously, the way pictures and video are disseminated nowadays is going to have to change how we look at such things.

    Joe

  10. #40
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,433
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    here is the second and most important part of my first reply in this thread, just so we all understand where I'm coming from;
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    ... but it doesnt seem that this officer is acting under the proper intent or color of the law.
    You're right. Apologies if the questions seemed inappropriate. We're in basic agreement.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #41
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    20,379
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    You're right. Apologies if the questions seemed inappropriate. We're in basic agreement.
    Not at all ccw, I enjoy spirited conversation.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  12. #42
    Senior Member Array TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,086
    I have to respectfully disagree with Sixto on the point of potential hazards to undercover work. If an officer has worked deep cover and is now working in the public eye, that officer should never work deep cover again. I believe that, once you go public, you sort of waive that ability. It is sort of like the infamous DEA Agent who shot himself doing the classroom presentation. He claimed in his lawsuit against DEA that the video of the incident would prevent him from working UC in the future. No...doing classroom presentations at public schools about DEA and allowing them to be videotaped will prevent you from doing UC work again.

    On the other hand, I also don't like the idea of guys on raids wearing ski masks and balaclavas. If you are the UC on the case, you don't need to be in on the search/arrest warrant. Leave it to other officers. When you go in dressed like ninjas and hiding your face it tends to lead to problems (both real and perceived). If you work UC, leave the raids to patrol; ERT; non-UC guys in the unit; etc.

    Nobody will ever accuse me of being overly-PC. I don't buy into all of the "over militarization" of law enforcement arguments. I don't have a problem with BDU's and polo shirts. But when you start kicking in doors wearing black hoods and masks, you start sliding down that slippery slope. Just my humble opinion...

    Personally, if I'm doing my job in public and interacting with folks and you want to film me or take my picture, knock yourself out. I should be conducting myself in a professional manner. If I don't and I get caught on video, shame on me. I have been filmed before and even seen it on the national news. It did not cause me any great heartache. Unless you are actively interfering with my duties, creating a public safety hazard (i.e. - standing in the middle of the street to get your pictures), filming/photographing on private/government property, or filming/photographing some sort of sensitive security operation (witness/prisoner movement; visitor screening; etc), you are exercising a public right. Again, just my opinion.
    Gonzo
    "Skin that smokewagon!".

  13. #43
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118

    And exactly why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    And thats the crux of the whole thing... a picture of an officer directing traffic at an accident scene is fine, the subject is the accident. A picture of me picking my nose in uniform posted on doper.com is not.
    And exactly why not?

    If I am in a public place picking my nose, and a store video security cam happens to catch it, they do have the right to post it on youtube or anywhere else.

    And I have a right to be pissed; and maybe sue for them holding me up to ridicule; but I'd lose, 'cause I was picking my nose.

  14. #44
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    20,379
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreatGonzo View Post
    I have to respectfully disagree with Sixto on the point of potential hazards to undercover work. If an officer has worked deep cover and is now working in the public eye, that officer should never work deep cover again. I believe that, once you go public, you sort of waive that ability. It is sort of like the infamous DEA Agent who shot himself doing the classroom presentation. He claimed in his lawsuit against DEA that the video of the incident would prevent him from working UC in the future. No...doing classroom presentations at public schools about DEA and allowing them to be videotaped will prevent you from doing UC work again.

    In an ideal world yes, I agree with you. But things being the way they are, this just isn't plausible. The man power and funds don't exist to do this. A lot of precautions are taken to avoid problems though, the topic of this debate is one of them.

    On the other hand, I also don't like the idea of guys on raids wearing ski masks and balaclavas. If you are the UC on the case, you don't need to be in on the search/arrest warrant. Leave it to other officers. When you go in dressed like ninjas and hiding your face it tends to lead to problems (both real and percieved). If you work UC, leave the raids to patrol; ERT; non-UC guys in the unit; etc.

    Again, only n the ideal world. Most officers wear many hats out of need. Also, there have been tons of threads about SWAT hitting the wrong house... and you are suggesting that we the most important level of security against that happening away?
    "Just blame Sixto"

  15. #45
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917

    Photog Rights

    As an amateur photog I feel the need to share some resources with everyone reading this thread.

    Here is a half-way decent article to introduce you to photographic rights

    Here is a little bit more detail on photographic rights.

    What's important to take away from this discussion is the importance of intent.

    You can photograph children at the playground, even if they're not your children. But if you intend to use the photos for illegal purposes then the act of photographing them is illegal.

    It's the same for anyone else, not just LEO's. For whatever reason some States felt the courts were so egregiously misinterpreting cases before them, that they had to write a law clarifying that LEO's have the same protections you and I as private citizens do.

    They cannot be photographed when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. And you cannot photograph them with illegal intent, such as using the photograph to libel or slander them.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. NYC Flyover Photo Released vs. My Photo
    By JonInNY in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 10th, 2009, 01:35 PM
  2. Tennessee State Trooper Slain in West Tennessee
    By falcon1 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 7th, 2007, 02:47 PM
  3. VM II Photo?
    By Himself in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 30th, 2006, 06:19 PM

Search tags for this page

robinson vs fetterman
,
spell silliwet
,
tennessee assault on a police officer cussing
,
tennessee illegal photography
,
xxx fol saiz photo gonzo
,

xxx genzo fol saiz photo

Click on a term to search for related topics.