Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by Robert Lederman
If, for example, an officer claims you were too close a door, but your
video shows they did not measure the distance, you will win. Likewise
if an officer cites "exigent circumstances" (an accident, a parade, a
fire) but your video has him telling you to pack up your stand and
leave because a store made a complaint, you will win.
Likewise reaching into a bag or fannypack for your camera and suddenly
pulling it out in such a way that an officer could imagine they saw a
gun. That's a serious no, no.
The NYPD Patrol Guide, code 116-53, clearly affirms the First
Amendment of the Constitution as it states:
"Members of the service will not interfere with the video taping
or photographing of incidents in public places. Intentional
interference such as blocking or obstructing cameras or harassing the
photographer constitutes censorship. Working Press Cards clearly
state, the bearer "is entitled to cross police and fire lines." This
right will be honored and access will not be denied. However, this
does not include access to interior crime scenes or areas frozen for
security reasons."
Both the law and the official NYPD policy as stated in the NYPD Patrol
Guide is that anyone can tape record, videotape or photograph police
officers who are working so long as they are not physically
interfering with them.
http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm
http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/9.html
www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/pdf/nmshldanalysis4pg.pdf
by Eileen Clancy
To see an example of what can happen when the police take umbrage at
being videotaped, see this WCBS story showing an NYPD official
striking a man who was videotaping the police.
In the 1970s a class action lawsuit, Black v. Codd, was brought by the
New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of reporters, photographers
and onlookers who had been harassed, assaulted and/or arrested in the
vicinity of police officers at work. The five plaintiffs were a
diverse group: a WINS radio journalist; an Amsterdam News reporter;
two members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a far Right
LaRoucheite group; and a person identified by The New York Times only
as a "bookkeeper."
NYCLU attorney Paul Chevigny stated in court papers that between 1970
and 1973, 259 people had been "subjected to some sanction, such as
arrest, threats or physical abuse, because of criticism (or implied
criticism, as by taking a photograph or writing down a shield number)
of a police officer, including going to the precinct to make a
complaint." [2]
In 1977 the NYPD was forced to agree that onlookers at incidents where
the police are stopping people or making arrests are permitted to stay
nearby without being subject to harassment or arrest. The federal
court ordered that this understanding be incorporated into the NYPD
Patrol Guide, the internal rulebook about how to be a street cop. (It
appears in section 208-03.)
What does this mean out on the street? Explained in the forthright
language of Lorenzo Casanova, the Deputy Police Commissioner in 1977,
"By law we cannot arrest someone just because he may call a cop a pig.
We cannot arrest someone because he asks for a name or a badge or
takes a picture." [3]
Apart from Black v. Codd, the Patrol Guide warns against interfering
with photographers:
Members of the service will not interfere with the video taping or
photographing of incidents in public places. Intentional interference
such as blocking or obstructing cameras or harassing the photographer
constitutes censorship
[4] Todd Maisel, "150 photographers seek answers at NYPD meeting for
RNC," National Press Photographers Association
PERMANENT LINK
http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/9.html
RELATED RESOURCES
[file-document]
CATEGORIES
ALSO SEE:
http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-black-v-codd