Did I do wrong? Told My camera would be conficated

What evidence would you have helped to provide, I wonder, with pictures like that?

That a helicopter landed in the street? It's hardly going to settle a conviction for dangerous driving one way or the other is it?

This sort of thing just ensures that the police are not trusted by a large proportion of the public. I just don't understand why they carry on this way.
 
i can see the coppers point in one respect in case you where taken them of dead bodies (if there was any) but he should of moved you on and asked you not to take anymore pics but you know what the cops are lyk power mad in some cases :thumbs:
 
Keith W said:
If I am first to come across an accident, and I have been in the past, then the first thing I would do is call the emergency services and see if I can assist any casualties until the emergency services arrive, the last thing on my mind would be getting my camera out.

If I come across a major incident, and the emergency services are already present, then yes I will take pictures and try and sell them onto papers/TV to earn a few bob.

I dont go chasing as such, if I hear of a major incident near by then I will go and try a get some shots, hopefully before the rest of the gang arrive - I certainly dont go to every major incident I hear of miles away as I can pretty much guarantee that someone would have already been there, taken shots and have them winging there way to the papers/TV before I even get there

Just remember the news you watch, the papers you read, someone has to take the pictures.

I have never had the police tell me to stop taking pictures, yet, I have had one tell me to move back a bit when I was getting some shots of a petrol station fire once
Click to expand...

It would my first instinct to get the camera out, I'm afraid...

Take a couple of shots and then see if there was anything I could do to assist - if there were others present then I'd carry on taking photographs... if it appeared that the others in attendance were making a hash of things, I'd probably have to do something about it as nothing annoys me more than 'faffage' in a crisis (or even in daily life) - but I'd still keep taking photos.

If first-aid needed to be administered to any casualties, that would come first - after a quick photo...

If you're a serious photographer you have to put your feelings in the back pocket and worry about your concience later on...your primary duty is to record the event, no matter what.

Derek Jameson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Jameson) once sacked a photographer for failing to take enough images at the Heysel Stadium disaster in Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heysel_Stadium_Disaster), where barriers collapsed at an international football match, killing scores of spectators...
The Phot had been busy helping the emergency services tend to the injured as the scale of the disaster was so huge...
Jameson mercilessly sacked him over the phone as the hapless photographer told the story while in tears...

It aint nice and it aint pretty. But it's the job - if you can't do it then don't try.
 
DerekL said:
Must say your a right charmer. If I ever have a serious accident I hope you are somewhere far away.
My first concern would be for the well being of fellow humans and if it cost me my job then at least I can hold my head high
Click to expand...

Well, I hope I'm on hand to record the event for posterity.
The moral high ground doesn't pay the rent...

Grow Up.
 
What a load of boll---s no way could he have confoscated your camera.

Pete
 
DerekL said:
Must say your a right charmer. If I ever have a serious accident I hope you are somewhere far away.
My first concern would be for the well being of fellow humans and if it cost me my job then at least I can hold my head high
Click to expand...


:welcome:

:plusone::plusone:

Some people have such wierd priorities.

I suppose that a reporter should interview the casualties first and then stop the bleeding?
 
shell said:
i can see the coppers point in one respect in case you where taken them of dead bodies (if there was any)
Click to expand...
I don't think it is against the law to photograph dead bodies. (IMO we should see more of them in the press - especially the aftermath of RTA's - some have become so isolated from the outcome of their actions it might get people to think a bit harder about what they are supposed to be doing.)

But a copper threatening to confiscate my camera? Depending on what was happening, I'd either carry on photographing the aftermath of some major event or, if it was a dull as that photograph suggested, take his number and report him. :D
 
Suvv said:
I suppose that a reporter should interview the casualties first and then stop the bleeding?
Click to expand...
In not such a dramatic way, yes they should. The paramedics would be better equipped to deal with the casualties, the reporter better to tell the story.
 
Arkady said:
Well, I hope I'm on hand to record the event for posterity.
The moral high ground doesn't pay the rent...

Grow Up.
Click to expand...

I have grown up thats why I would help the casualties.

If you did record it for posterity you could then explain to my wife and children why you didn't assist and thought taking photos was of more importance.

There comes a time when money is not the most important thing in life as anyone with a mature outlook on life will tell you.
 
DerekL said:
I have grown up thats why I would help the casualties.

If you did record it for posterity you could then explain to my wife and children why you didn't assist and thought taking photos was of more importance.

There comes a time when money is not the most important thing in life as anyone with a mature outlook on life will tell you.
Click to expand...

I suggest you get off your high-horse and read my post properly.

There's a world of difference between doing nothing, and taking a couple of images and then assisting - if there is no-one else there to help. If the emergency services were in attendance I would merely be in the way. Better that I do my job and record the event.

If I were the only person in attendance then of coursee I would help - but I would also attempt to record as much of the event as possible until trained professionals were in attendance, when I would step back, let them do what they're trained to do while I get on and do what I'm trained to do.

I mean what scenario do you imagine here? I mentioned a mass-casualty event with fully-trained paramedics in attendance - of course I'm going to photograph it...any real photographer would.

And for the record I am probably better trained in trauma-care than most people on this forum bar full-time medical personnel...

If you're just an amateur then fine - salve your concience if you must - the only nightmares I ever have are about the photographs I should have taken but didn't.
 
Dizz, there was an accident at some traffic lights not very far from my home. I grabbed the camera, got some shots of the fire brigade cutting the roof off one car (from a good distance with the 70-300 lens which was on the camera). I didn't want to intrude on the poor victims. Some ***** police man saw me, asked me what I was doing, told me it was a 'crime scene' and I 'should have asked permission'. Blah. I'd already got a couple of shots, decided discretion was the better part of valour and 'went about my business'. Then sent the shots to the local paper. As long as you're not getting in the way I don't see why there should be a problem about newsworthy photos. There was another accident at the same TL yesterday morning, but by the time I noticed it (coppers car flashing lights outside our window) it was all over and nothing worth going through the same thing for.
 
Coming rather late into this thread, but I agree with the general sentiments. There are no photos that have been taken that are evidentially useful in this case, ergo it would be highly doubtful that any officer would reasonably be able to justify seizing cameras.

However, so often it just comes down to communication and speaking to people - I've never had a problem getting images off people when I've needed to (there have been a couple of occasions), and there's never been any fuss.
 
Photo Plod said:
Coming rather late into this thread, but I agree with the general sentiments. There are no photos that have been taken that are evidentially useful in this case, ergo it would be highly doubtful that any officer would reasonably be able to justify seizing cameras.

However, so often it just comes down to communication and speaking to people - I've never had a problem getting images off people when I've needed to (there have been a couple of occasions), and there's never been any fuss.
Click to expand...

Obviously there are regional variations between the various Police Forces around the country, but surely there must be some standardisation of Training and the syllabus taught at Police training centres?
Is there no way of ensuring a common standard of training so that this sort of thing doesn't happen?

Also changes in legislation (or even common-practice) affect what happens at an incident - there must be a way of promulgating this information to all officers across the country?
In the Armed Forces we have annual mandatory training (MATs) that re-evaluate and confirm some of the basic tenets of military training - weapons handling; fitness; first-aid (which changes almost monthly due to new practices being constantly introduced based on first-hand experience in the field); Rule of Law; Standards and Morals etc.
Is there no equivalent annual assessment and re-evaluation for Police officers that would inform them of changes in legislation?

One ill-informed officer puts his foot in it and look what happens...
 
He would have had the power to confiscate the memory card if push came to shove. The evidence it *may* have contained is vehicle movements post crash, but as officers were already on scene when the pictures were taken it wouldnt have much evidential value. If you were taking pics before the police arrived, thats a wholly different matter. Say goodbye to said card for a few weeks.

The point is the officer would have had the power to seize the card should have have wished, so push the point too hard and expect the card, at least, to be seized as threatened!!

And there is very little paperwork involved, just a seized property ledger.

Its always a bit contencious to take photos at a serious RTI scene (which this was as one injured party was being airlifted) so some officers, who have been helping the victims, do get touchy with people taking pics and videos as its simply seen as insensitive.
 
The police are idiots, Its not everyday you see a helicopter in the street, now if you was taking pictures as the accident come across then maybe more of a good reason behind it, but still, ignore em, slap em =]
 
Arkady said:
Obviously there are regional variations between the various Police Forces around the country, but surely there must be some standardisation of Training and the syllabus taught at Police training centres?
Is there no way of ensuring a common standard of training so that this sort of thing doesn't happen?

Also changes in legislation (or even common-practice) affect what happens at an incident - there must be a way of promulgating this information to all officers across the country?
In the Armed Forces we have annual mandatory training (MATs) that re-evaluate and confirm some of the basic tenets of military training - weapons handling; fitness; first-aid (which changes almost monthly due to new practices being constantly introduced based on first-hand experience in the field); Rule of Law; Standards and Morals etc.
Is there no equivalent annual assessment and re-evaluation for Police officers that would inform them of changes in legislation?

One ill-informed officer puts his foot in it and look what happens...
Click to expand...

Yes there is, but there is a lot that is constantly changing. However, this isnt a case of the officer not knowing the law - he would have had the power to seize the card if he wished. Its just a case of the officer using the legislation as a means to a different end (ie, you - the photographer - are annoying me, carry on and I'll have your camera!).
 
odd jim said:
He would have had the power to confiscate the memory card if push came to shove. The evidence it *may* have contained is vehicle movements post crash, but as officers were already on scene when the pictures were taken it wouldnt have much evidential value. If you were taking pics before the police arrived, thats a wholly different matter. Say goodbye to said card for a few weeks.

The point is the officer would have had the power to seize the card should have have wished, so push the point too hard and expect the card, at least, to be seized as threatened!!

And there is very little paperwork involved, just a seized property ledger.

Its always a bit contencious to take photos at a serious RTI scene (which this was as one injured party was being airlifted) so some officers, who have been helping the victims, do get touchy with people taking pics and videos as its simply seen as insensitive.
Click to expand...


The point is surely though that it's either evidence or not. It shouldn't be, "Stop taking pictures or I'll treat what you've got as evidence just to show you ..."

And I can completely see why emotions might run high - but as someone else has said if it were me and I'd not taken the shot I'd be gutted to have missed it. Once there's emergency services in attendance there's precisely naff all else I could do anyway.
 
^ agreed. But all I was saying is that the power in law to take it, rightly or wrongly, is there. Best to be as subtle as possible if you must take pics.

At the end of the day this was a life and death situation (which officers deal with daily) so emotions will always run high at scenes like these.
 
odd jim its news togs dont take these pics for fun its news and officers should be aware of that
 
would he have harrassed a tv news crew i think not
 
He wasnt a news tog. These ones wear ID and approach the supervising officers at the scene usually to tell them what they are doing.

...and your point is what? I'm simply explaining the legal powers etc.
 
you said that officers get touchy with people taking pics and videos as its simply seen as insensitive well its news and you should expect it as not all news gatherers are official
 
clowds said:
you said that officers get touchy with people taking pics and videos as its simply seen as insensitive well its news and you should expect it as not all news gatherers are official
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with news, or news togs.

What makes an traffic collision news worthy anyway? 99% of them don't even get a mention in the news.
 
odd jim said:
He wasnt a news tog. These ones wear ID and approach the supervising officers at the scene usually to tell them what they are doing.

...and your point is what? I'm simply explaining the legal powers etc.
Click to expand...


No we don't. Not always. In the past and if I have time, I generally informed an officer that I was present, but in the heat of the moment - and especially if I were on-scene before the cordons were up...?

And who's a news-tog these days? Anyone with a camera has the potential to take a front-page photo...

And while an officer has the right to seize images as evidence, he'd have to justify to my satisfaction that the investigation couldn't proceed without them - otherwise he'd be in reciept of a mysteriously blank CF card...

"Sorry officers, in the heat of the moment I forgot the camera has two of them in the back - must have given you the wrong one...a thousand apologies..."
 
dizz said:
Today a helicopter landed in the street near where i live so off i went camera in hand to get some shots.
It would appear that a car driver had crashed into a building and the air ambulance had been called.
By the time i reached the site the helicopter had landed and the police were in attendance too, so i was standing with some people taking some pictures when a police man told me if i took any pictures he would confiscate my camera when i asked why he said they would be evidence, I didn't understand what he ment by that but as i had taken what I wanted I left the scene.

This is the picture that has vital evidence.
004_web.jpg
Click to expand...


lol if he was on a confiscation spree he would have your camera and a **** load of mobile phones too :bonk:

Earth calling this that guy!

Some of these coppers... MAKE ME LAUGH!
 
Arkady said:
Obviously there are regional variations between the various Police Forces around the country, but surely there must be some standardisation of Training and the syllabus taught at Police training centres?
Is there no way of ensuring a common standard of training so that this sort of thing doesn't happen?

Also changes in legislation (or even common-practice) affect what happens at an incident - there must be a way of promulgating this information to all officers across the country?
Click to expand...

All police forces have standardised training ever since the IPLDP training programme was brought in three years ago. Prior to that, training was individual and unique to each force. As such, the majority of officers currently out on the beat will have been through a training programme that was unique to their force (though, to be fair to it, most forces training programmes were always very similar).

The PNLD (an online legal database) is freely available to officers 24/7 to update them on major changes to legislation, but in terms of other refresher training, it's all organised differently in each force. In the Met, we use an online system called NCALT - a computer based training package - to update officers of significant changes in practice and procedure. Lesser updates are usually given at the same time as our 6-monthly sessions of Officer Safety Training. We also have an extensive intranet with several daily updates of all kinds of information; weekly legal and operational notices, as well as detailed articles on the more important matters.

For general guides and good practice, ACPO - the Association of Chief Police Officers - issue these at a national level and communicate them to all forces. These guides are normally circulated as PDF files, and are usually available publicly from their own website. How that gets down to an operational level is a matter for individual forces. Unfortunately, ACPO don't have enough meetings in a year to discuss every conceivable operational matter, and unlike the government, there is no extensive civil service backing them up, so much is left to individual forces' policies. As I have described, the Met has a number of channels to communicate with its 50-odd thousand staff. I have no idea how it gets down to officers in other forces.
 
To be fair also, there's no recent legislation involved here. The police power to seize evidential property is given at Common law and power is given also under later legislation, but it's a basic police power existing for many years, that all officers will or should be familiar with.

I doubt this officer was in any doubt about his powers in this situation, just threatening unjustified use of the power in this instance.
 
I still think most of it is just a communication "glitch"
Photo plod obviously sees it from both sides and has a fairly balanced viewpoint. But there's always the odd arse**le out there who's out to try and bully you into submission, and that should be fought against at all times. It may be a lack of education in the law, or just down to the personality of a particular officer. Indeed it must be bloody hard to try and get it right all the time, especially when a lot of the time you're up against the dregs of society.

Nevertheless the UK is not a police state yet, and I don't ever want it to become one. I'm also absolutely convinced that 99.9% of the coppers out there don't want that either.
 
Arkady said:
It would my first instinct to get the camera out, I'm afraid...
Click to expand...

Yep same here - I'd be useless with any kind of casualty anyway - although I might try to help if no-one else was around - but I might do more harm than good. My job is to record the event. That's what photographers do - I think these situations maybe highlight a big difference between pro photographers and those with a 'day job'. I've never had any probems with the police but maybe that's because it's obvious I'm a pro? I don't know - I think attitude and modus operandi have a lot to do with it. They know I won't get in the way but I WILL get the shots I need.
 
I wonder what PC Plod would say if someone was taking pictures of his PC colleague being beaten up by yobs with baseball bats, now thats I would call evidence pictures.

This taking of pictures in towns problem has just got out of hand, and plain stupid with all the mobile phone cams that are being used these days, they will need a van to carry them all when they have confiscated them.
 
Another legal issue here - the police are obliged to retain ALL evidence and material gathered as a result of the incident at the scene and during the subsequent investigation under what are called 'disclosure rules'. This is a legal obligation of the police so that the defence can review all the materials to make sure that nothing assists their defence case at trial, or undermines the prosecutions case, even if the police didn't use the material in any way.

One to think about, as its another legitimate reason a camera could be seized, and by the book, should be, as if the officer knows you have material on your camera related to the case he should at least review it under disclosure rules. In reality it would be impractical, but if, for whatever reason, you make yourself stand out you will of course get unwanted attention.

I will make it clear I dont agree with it, as some people seem to think I'm defending the officer's actions at this particular scene, but thats the legal issues all officers are faced with at scenes like these.
 
I'm afraid I would get the camera out first. whilst calling 999. I would be 100% useless in helping anyone and would just make things worse. Paramedics are trained to give first aid, im not. About the confiscation, i dont know the law well enough to comment but the photos being taken, as far as i can tell, show absolutly no evidence at all apart from the fact a helicopter was present, would have been a waste of his time taking it!
 
I must admit that if I was taking pictures and Police Officer said he was going to confiscate my camera .....think I would just offer it to him and ask for a receipt.....don't think he carries receipts !
 
Late to the story again.

Nothing wrong with that photo. I'd expect to see that alongside the story in the local press.

For those taking a dig at Arcady, I suggest you look at his current location/photo's submitted before commenting.
 
...and another thing - while the police might be entitled to the images, they may not be entitled to the media storage device itself...thus necessitating someone with a download facility at the scene. I'd certainly be very reticent about handing over a 16Gb CF card to some copper with just a crummy receipt voucher to show for losing £150's worth of card.
Plus I shoot 16-bit RAW, so unless someone at the station has the required Photoshop plug-ins, they'll be useless to them anyway.
 
Byker28i said:
For those taking a dig at Arcady, I suggest you look at his current location/photo's submitted before commenting.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: Back in Snowy Tchermany again now - all done with the desert for the time being...
 
the police take there own pics at the scene. i have even seen a pcso take a picture of a stolen motorbike with a phone. the police would only need pics if you took photos of the incident happening that was not the case of the op.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top