Another Camera Seized

Edmonton Journal
(2009-04-06)
News
Journalist's camera seized by police
Vancouver police shot a man Sunday -- and seized a newspaper photographer's
camera
as he took pictures at the scene.

The man was driving a large black pickup truck when police boxed him in.

The man was taken away by ambulance. No further information on the shooting
was available by press time.

When Province photographer Jason Payne arrived at the scene just moments
later, the man was lying on the street as more police arrived.

As he was taking photographs, "a constable pushed me away. Another officer
ran up and pushed me back into the street," said the veteran photographer.

Payne said he identified himself as a news photographer, but the police
demanded his camera.

"They said I was obstructing justice and they were going to confiscate my
camera as evidence. They ended up taking my camera from me. It was either
that or be arrested," he said. "They were manhandling me."
- End of Article -


While I normally would give the benefit of the doubt to the cops, it seems
some are getting a bit grabby when it comes to sezing cameras which could
contain damning evidence.

Perhaps it's time for photographers to contact their legislators and demand
more clarification / protection.

Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands off my
camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.

Take Care,
Dudley

"Dudley Hanks" wrote

Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands off
my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.

In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind is, why
seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images are on a tiny
card, not the camera itself?

Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...

Paul

"Paul Bartram" paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au wrote in message
...

"Dudley Hanks" wrote

Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands off
my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.

In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind is, why
seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images are on a
tiny card, not the camera itself?

Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...

Paul


I'm just surprised that this guy didn't go the distance. He's a
professional journalist, and he should know his rights. So, maybe he spends
a couple of hours in lockup; the company lawyers would have him out in
quick time, and there'd be hell to pay if the cops were out of line -- which
it sounds like they were.

Take Care,
Dudley

"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:ZRBCl.20472$Db2.15294@edtnps83...

"Paul Bartram" paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au wrote in message
...

"Dudley Hanks" wrote

Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands off
my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.

In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind is, why
seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images are on a
tiny card, not the camera itself?

Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...

Paul


I'm just surprised that this guy didn't go the distance. He's a
professional journalist, and he should know his rights. So, maybe he
spends a couple of hours in lockup; the company lawyers would have him
out in quick time, and there'd be hell to pay if the cops were out of
line -- which it sounds like they were.

Take Care,
Dudley



All he had to do is say I will delete the shots, de;ete them in front of
them and then undelete later, mind you the cops are overstepping the mark
and should be bought to account.

Pete D wrote:
"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:ZRBCl.20472$Db2.15294@edtnps83...

"Paul Bartram" paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au wrote in
message ...

"Dudley Hanks" wrote

Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your
hands off my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the
point.

In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind
is, why seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the
images are on a tiny card, not the camera itself?

Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...

Paul


I'm just surprised that this guy didn't go the distance. He's a
professional journalist, and he should know his rights. So, maybe he
spends a couple of hours in lockup; the company lawyers would have
him out in quick time, and there'd be hell to pay if the cops were
out of line -- which it sounds like they were.

Take Care,
Dudley



All he had to do is say I will delete the shots, de;ete them in front
of them and then undelete later, mind you the cops are overstepping
the mark and should be bought to account.

Whoa! BAD advice. The cop didn't say he wanted the shots deleted, he said
that he was seizing the camera as evidence. I don't know the Vancouver laws
but in Connecticut tampering with evidence can get you 5 years in the
slammer, and deleting images right in front of a cop who has just told you
that he needed them as evidence is pretty much asking him to arrest you on
that charge.

Best thing to do if he want it as evidence IMO is ask the cop if you can
just give him the card rather than the camera, and make sure you get a
receipt from him detailing what was seized, the case number, and his badge
number, and make sure that he's got your contact information correctly so
that you have a chance of getting the camera back once the investigation is
over. He should have a form for this--often there's a tear-off receipt form
on the evidence tag.

Paul Bartram wrote:
"Dudley Hanks" wrote

Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands
off my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.

In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind is,
why seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images
are on a tiny card, not the camera itself?

Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...

So you're saying that there are no film cameras left anywhere in the world?
And that there are no cameras that store information only as internal
memory, not on a card? Or are you saying that all cops are experts on
identifying cameras and the type of storage media they use?

There's nothing wrong with asking the cop, politely, if the memory card from
the camera will suffice.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Stat...754/story.html

BugBear

Dudley Hanks wrote:
"Paul Bartram" paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au wrote in message
...

"Dudley Hanks" wrote

Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your
hands off my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the
point.

In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind
is, why seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the
images are on a tiny card, not the camera itself?

Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...

Paul


I'm just surprised that this guy didn't go the distance. He's a
professional journalist, and he should know his rights. So, maybe he
spends a couple of hours in lockup; the company lawyers would have
him out in quick time, and there'd be hell to pay if the cops were
out of line -- which it sounds like they were.

The cops have the right to ask for evidence. If you're a reasonable person
then you should be willing to provide it, after all, somebody is _dead_ and
the person responsible needs to be brought to justice. That being the case,
anything that you can do to help the investigation is worthwhile. Don't get
so caught up in defending your rights that you lose sight of the big
picture.

If you absolutely positively don't want to give up control of the images,
then tell the cop that you're perfectly willing to let the department make a
copy as long as you don't give up control, and if he's not sure of the
procedure for that then ask him to call his supervisor. They should either
be able to make a copy on scene or at the station.

Remember also that they have a responsibility to maintain the chain of
evidence--that means that the images have to be under their control from the
time they became aware of them on--that means that if they don't have the
camera in their possession then they need to have you with the camera in
their possession until the copies are made.

As a working journalist you also have a responsibility to maintain control
of _your_ chain of evidence--put it in those terms and any cop should be
able to understand the problem.

Also note that what the cops can and cannot seize depends on the applicable
statutes which vary from state to state and outside the US from country to
country.

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 05:51:53 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"Paul Bartram" paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au wrote in message
...

"Dudley Hanks" wrote

Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your hands off
my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the point.

In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind is, why
seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the images are on a
tiny card, not the camera itself?

Maybe they haven't heard yet that film has been superseded...

Paul


I'm just surprised that this guy didn't go the distance. He's a
professional journalist, and he should know his rights. So, maybe he spends
a couple of hours in lockup;

That would have worked to the police's advantage. If he was
locked-up, his personal effects - including his camera - would have
been taken from him and held.

I could have been to the photographer's disadvantage. He would not
know if particular images had been deleted while the camera was out of
his possession.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"bugbear" wrote in message
et...
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Stat...754/story.html

BugBear

Linked Info:
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Cops...479/story.html

Take Care,
Dudley