Illegal To Take Photo Of LEO In Tennessee?

[CT-Mike]

Man Arrested For Unlawful Photography | TriCities

Nearly everyone carries a cell phone and it’s hard to find one without that camera feature. It’s convenient when you want to take that impromptu photo, but a Tri-Cities area man ended up behind bars after snapping a shot of a Johnson County sheriff’s deputy during a traffic stop.

The cell phone photographer says the arrest was intimidation, but the deputy says he feared for his life.

“Here’s a guy who takes me out of the car and arrests me in front of my kids. For what? To take a picture of a police officer?” said Scott Conover.

A Johnson County sheriff’s deputy arrested Scott Conover for unlawful photography.

“He says you took a picture of me. It’s illegal to take a picture of a law enforcement officer,” said Conover.

Conover took a picture of a sheriff’s deputy on the side of the road on a traffic stop. Conover was stunned by the charge.

“This is a public highway,” said Conover.

And it was not a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy as Tennessee code states. The deputy also asked Conover to delete the picture three times.

“He said if you don’t give it to me, you’re going to jail,” said Conover.

Under the advice of the Johnson County attorney, the sheriff would not comment and the arresting deputy said he didn’t want to incriminate himself by talking to us.

In an affidavit, the deputy said he saw something black with a red light which he thought was a threat. Conover was also arrested for pointing a laser at a law enforcement officer.

“At no time did I have a laser. I had an iPhone,” said Conover.

When you take a picture in the dark with Conover’s Apple iPhone, there is no flash or any light that comes from the phone that could be mistaken for a laser.

In a witness statement by a Mountain City officer, is says the deputy asked about the picture rather than looking for a laser.

“If you arrested me, wouldn’t you take the laser? If you arrested me, wouldn’t you take the camera?” said Conover.

He expects these charges to be dismissed.

“This guy maliciously arrested me, charging me with phony charges that he don’t even understand himself,” Conover said.

The American Civil Liberties Union would not comment on Conover’s case without fully reviewing the allegations, but told us there is no law that prohibits anyone from taking photographs in public areas, even of police. Taking photos is protected by the First Amendment. Conover is ordered to appear in a Johnson County court on August 6th.

Wow, what was this officer thinking?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[luvmyglock]

Sounds to me like he was having a bad day, and that guy just picked the wrong day to snap his picture...

[braap]

Sounds to me like he was having a bad day, and that guy just picked the wrong day to snap his picture...

If unlawful arrest is that officer's answer to a bad day then he needs a new profession.

[BikerRN]

I'm gonna sit back and watch this one.

Biker

[XD in SC]

Oh boy this could get good. Someone keep us informed if possible!

[ccw9mm]

In an affidavit, the deputy said he saw something black with a red light which he thought was a threat.

"Something black with a red light" and found that threatening. In the absence of any corroborating facts, how could an unknown, unspecified black/red thingy be considered threatening?

He's a citizen in his own country, on publicly-owned property taking a photo of an officer of a public agency who's executing a public task. Yet, he's arrested with the claimed infraction of: illegal photography.

Wow, what was this officer thinking?

Seemingly, that he had more power and authority than he does, to treat citizens in such a manner.

For these and similar reasons, the original colonists rebelled and decided enough was enough. A new country was formed to help ensure such malarkey was not pulled on the people. Yet, it continues.

These same sort of ridiculous chest-pounding charges get flung around in Oregon, too.

[Ram Rod]

Anyone in public, in a public place is subject to being photographed. Just remember that. Nothing illegal about it. One word in this case---lawsuit. Plain and simple.

[SIXTO]

Actually, this law is on a lot of books for a good reason, but it doesnt seem that this officer is acting under the proper intent or color of the law.

[retsupt99]

Hold on, I think we have a call...

Yep, the ref called it...

And the call is...

[calireserve]

Anyone in public, in a public place is subject to being photographed. Just remember that. Nothing illegal about it. One word in this case---lawsuit. Plain and simple.

+1 to Ramrod. This is how it is in my state, California

[Ram Rod]

Actually, this law is on a lot of books for a good reason

Please post text and or links to this info.

Taking photos is protected by the First Amendment

[cdwolf]

Actually, this law is on a lot of books for a good reason, but it doesnt seem that this officer is acting under the proper intent or color of the law.

What would be a proper use of these law?

[ccw9mm]

I wonder if the infraction was 37-1-155(a)(1), photographing a juvenile during investigation? Or, perhaps because he thought the photographer would get off on the pics (39-13-607)? Hm. Curiouser and curiouser.

[Phillep Harding]

I am also interested in why civil servants are protected from public scrutiny while performing their duties.

[ccw9mm]

I am also interested in why civil servants are protected from public scrutiny while performing their duties.

They aren't, legally speaking.