Defensive Carry banner

Illegal To Take Photo Of LEO In Tennessee?

4K views 62 replies 28 participants last post by  Hopyard 
#1 ·
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?
 
#5 ·
Oh boy this could get good. Someone keep us informed if possible!
 
#6 ·
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.
 
#7 ·
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.
 
#12 ·
What would be a proper use of these law?
 
#9 ·
:cheerleader1:
Hold on, I think we have a call...:rolleyes:

Yep, the ref called it...:sport33:

And the call is...:bs2:
 
#11 ·
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
 
#13 ·
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.
 
#19 ·
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.
 
#32 ·
No, absolutely wrong



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.
 
#21 ·
I don't think It's gonna fly in court,you can claim anything you want but it is not illegal to take videos or photos of police officers in public,
 
#22 ·
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.

Semantics. The original references were made in the general sense, of public duties paid by the public.
It might seem to be close to semantics, but a police officer doesn't work for the public directly, he works for the court or the publics interest at large. The officers superiors (political officials such as the mayor, city clowncil trustees depending on the type of government in that particular bailiwick) are the civil servants. Without getting into a long civics discussion, it would be a conflict for an officer to enforce the law impartially if he worked directly for the public;
and thats why I feel its important to point out that LEOs are not in fact civil servants.
 
#24 ·
That's why most Officers on special operations units doing drug arrests and undercover stuff wear face masks to hide their identitys from people that would take their picture to post on websites that could jeopardise them during an undercover operation,A lot of departments do officer swaps from other counties and sometimes states for undercover work due to there is less chance of them ever seeing anybody that has seen them in uniform
 
#25 ·
Yes, it is. These types of laws minimize the risk
Can you be more specific about these laws? What states have them and most importantly, does the state of the OP have them?

If it is so illegal to do so, how come they are continually showing up in newspapers and on TV, such as at crime scenes?
 
#26 ·
Google is your friend, it works for you the same as it does for me. I dont know specifically about PA, but start by searching "Peace Officer Confidentiality" Have fun reading!

They are done with consent or the LEO is not the subject of the photo, the accident scene is.
 
#28 ·
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.
 
#39 ·
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
 
#42 ·
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
 
#44 ·
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?
:smoke23:
 
#45 ·
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.
 
#48 ·
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.
Exactly the points I was trying to make, but you did a much better job in only one post. :redface:
 
#46 ·
Sixto,
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I feel that, when I am in public acting in an official capacity, I am subject to be photographed or recorded. As long as I am in a public place, I have no more expected right to privacy than any other citizen. I try to conduct myself accordingly. Again, as long as a person is not actively interfering with my investigation, my position and location make me subject to public scrutiny. It is something I accept as part of the job. When I was on patrol and working a DUI unit, I filmed DUI stops. Working in Intelligence, I have done video and photography at riots and protests (always in plain sight and always in something that clearly identifies me as a LEO). I cannot expect the citizens not to exercise the same rights.

As for the UC stuff, please understand that I spent a good chunk of my career working dope. I understand how things work and I understand OPSEC/PERSEC. But what you do in public...you do in public. Therefore, you are subject to public scrutiny. I have been on more dope search warrants than I can count and I never wore a hood or a mask. Nobody on any of my teams ever did. Is it justifiable for a SWAT team who is going to deploy flashbangs or some sort of chemical substance to provide them actual physical protection? Yes, I would say so. Is it OK just to allow you UC's to "cuff-n-stuff" without getting burned. Again, this is just my opinion, but no...I don't think it is a good idea.

I will never forget watching an episode of "COPS" where a PD was doing traffic stops following dope buy observations. The Officers were in unmarked cars, wearing plain clothes (along with a "Police" vest or a "Police" t-shirt) and wearing black ski-masks and hockey masks!!!! To me, that is a bigger danger to officer safety than showing my face.

Six, I respect your opinion and experience immensely, but I disagree with you on this one.
Gonzo
 
#47 ·
We are in agreement about the photo thing Gonzo... I'm strictly talking about photos being taken for unlawful purpose. I know and agree with you about what you do in public...you do in public. There is no argument from me about that.
The mask thing is a matter of tactical opinion, I see and understand your side of the argument too. Your needs and structure is different than mine, its a situational thing IMO.
 
#49 ·
31 posts have been removed.

If you don't have anything to contribute to the TOPIC of the thread, which just in case anyone forgot, is:

Illegal To Take Photo Of LEO In Tennessee?



Take the tit for tat urination matches elsewhere.

Given the number of posts removed, not all members were notified of the removals, if you had a post disappear and would like a more detailed reason for it's removal, feel free to PM me.


Carry on.
 
#51 ·
I remember during the Virginia Tech shooting video of the police responding and the very overweight police officer running with his rifle. That video clip was played on the television news many times with comments about the officer's appearance.

When out in public, there is no expectation of privacy. If the officer fears for his safety from people taking his picture he shouldn't leave his house.
 
#53 ·
IMHO ( having read the story elsewhere and none of the comments here ) The disorderly charge will stand because a prosecutor can make much of the verbage ect.. leading up to the arrest . Reading all the supporting documentation that i have seen the " victom " or you may say " suspect " here did become disorderly rather than just stand calmly by his rights to photo . Imho a judge needs to find the " suspect " guilty of the charge of disorderly conduct , wave all fines , court costs , or incarceration and at the same time call for charges on the originating officer for something along the lines of misuse of public office . He would naturally have to recuse himself if and when charges are brought on the officer .

I will now go back and read the thread , but i wanted to post an " uncolored " opinion from my take of the raw info i have before i read forum members comments . On questions of possible police mis conduct i try and do this as a former officer bringing to bear my training and experience on policing , If i see anything in comments that makes me change my mind i will post a follow up on just what and why .
 
#54 ·
Ok after reading the posts here is my ( somewhat ) promised follow up post .

First off i stand by my original post . However i feel i should post some of my thoughts ( which are molded by experience ) on the entire subject of photography of " public persons " such as LE . Understand photography is a hobby of mine , and i spend my $$ frugally . I dont have a high end dlsr , but i do have a camera which can bring much smaller things than you want seen in your bedroom to basically full screen at over 200 yards . I take a lot of pics of wildlife which is why ( not that i need to justify owning an " assault camera " ) i own a high end digital . I have taken pics of local LE when they have no idea they are being photo'd ( on traffic stops as a matter of fact ) and they have asked for and got prints to put on the wall after i showed them the pics .

Like Six i have worked multiple details being a road officer as well as an undercover officer , and the lead detective all at the same time . The local news agreed that it would not be in the " public interest " to film me and put me on tv as an identifiable person . So the most i have ever appeared is as a silliwet on a clip that made it to cnn ( pre msnbc or fox ) . Has my pic ever been public well heck yea , kinda like six i got sworn inn and a paper took a nice pic of me in a shiny new uniform in fact you can find it in the archives of several papers spread across a couple of states lol . However one and only one of my cases was a " neo nazi " who was involved in photography of young ladys , real young ladys and trading same . The postal service assisted and he got some time . He is now out but does not have any of his former materials ( we even raided his safe deposit box for photos or negatives , it was back in the far reaches of pre digital days ). Point is that the investigation took a predator off the street , and working with the postal inspector it took not only a few pedophiles off the street , but some folk who were arming up illegally for " ragnarok " and who would feel that 911 killed a lot of jews . From him we got both an insight and an intro . One bad placed pic could have killed the investigation and as a side effect killed me too . Between trips i was still the fella who investigated crimes , and due to the size of my agency i worked in uniform a lot . Now if you transport to today as an officer i would want to know just why you took my pic . However i would not demand you delete it . ( you have the right to take it , but i also can " contact to question " your behaver . again in this case the officer went too far imho . so did the cell phone genius. Not that he could not take the pic , but because he got " snotty " after he did so . Personally i put 8 folks in prison for murder alone , some got death , some got life , and one got insanity . The insane fella told me ( and he is right ) that he knows me and he knows where i will " run to " and when he gets out he will visit my daughter . IMHO he will , and imho she is prepared to just shoot the old perv . Point is as LE personal identification should be optional to the public , as long as the agency is honest . Dipshit is entirely dishonest with charges the a charge may stand . Back in my day i had to worry about news broadcasts not yutube lol . and the reporters would work with a fella if he talked to them .
"
 
#55 ·
Why Do They Put The (leo) Name On The Side Of Car????? That Is In Jacksonvill Fl. I Can Find Out Wear Any Off Them Live--sheriff Said Cummunity Relations Leo Not Happy About It !!!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top