Did I do wrong? Told My camera would be conficated

odd jim said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh come on! The Disclosure Rules are there so that any material gathered during the course of the investigation but not actually submitted with the file of evidence, is available for scrutiny by the defence should they wish to see it. The Dislosure Rules are no excuse for the officer not using a bit of common sense about what he's seizing in the first place.
 
Bill Roberts said:
Photo plod obviously sees it from both sides and has a fairly balanced viewpoint..
Click to expand...

I think he does remarkably well actually in keeping a very straight bat in threads like this one.
 
gingerjon said:
It's possible to be both in Afghanistan and also wrong about something.

Not in this case, but in general.

Let's not become America where reverence for the military trumps objective thought.
Click to expand...

Only if we're talking about why we are there ;)

About the only thing I admire about the US is their patriotism.
 
What Afghanistan actually is, is a place where 50,000 different tribes all want to kill each other all the time and then feast on each other's testicles while killing anyone who gets in the way of their unquenchable desire to kill.

Anyone left alive at the end of this process has to live in a mud hut eating their own s*** and will be stoned to death for humming.

Many people have asked why they do this and the answer always comes back the same - they're out of their ******* minds.
Click to expand...

This is exactly right in every detail...none of us who have deployed to Afghanistan can see any reason whatsoever for continuing our deployment there.
 
Getting back to the subject of the thread, I guess it's a situation that is far from black and white. The police officer in question was obviously out of order to threaten conviscation of the camera as evidence. However, unlike a tiresome, pointless and downright outrageous Stop & Search I think we must consider the sensibilities of officers in this type of situation. He may well have just seen close up something truely shocking and distressing that few of us apart from Arkady have ever experienced. That may be no excuse for an over-reaction and it does perpetuate a worrying trend to use laws inappropriately to prevent photographers from going about their lawful business, but it is a factor that we should perhaps take into account. One thing is sure, whatever we do or say these days seems to be subject to censorship by the Thought Police.
 
Censorship is censorship and wrong is wrong. The policeman has no right to threaten to confiscate property without the necessary authority and was, as becoming increasingly common, abusing his powers (that we give to him in the first place)... just MO
 
kissfoto said:
Censorship is censorship and wrong is wrong. The policeman has no right to threaten to confiscate property without the necessary authority and was, as becoming increasingly common, abusing his powers (that we give to him in the first place)... just MO
Click to expand...

I quite agree with your sentiments on censorship and certainly don't condone censorship of freedom of speech, opinion or freedom to record events in the public domain, be it censorship by government, the police or even on forums such as this. All I am saying is that there may be other factors in situations such as this that need to be taken into account in order to understand, which is quite different from condoning, the rationale behind certain actions by the police. That surely puts us in a stronger position to argue our case more cogently.
 
Loads of common sense needed in this situation and as photographers we sometimes need to employ a little common sense, and consider the feelings of others. These situations are often not as 'black and white' as they may seem.

I can certainly think of a few instances at the scenes of serious accidents where onlookers have got very angry indeed at the sight of a person taking photographs to the extent that it was quite likely to provoke a breach of The Peace. If a copper tells you to desist in those circumstances you'd be wise to do so regardless of whether what you're doing is actually an offence in itself or not. The activity likely to cause the breach does not necessarily have to be an illegal one-it can often be very dependent on the circumstances and whether a court would consider your actions reasonable in the circumstances.

On the face of it and given the information posted, I'm not defending this copper for one second, but just be aware that circumstances can drastically alter cases.
 
if i am at a scene is there a way of recording images straight to a external drive as i take the pic so if the police take the memory card i would still have the images i use a 5d and a stealth reporter 550aw bag so can fit a laptop in.
 
The police cant take the memory card or delete them.I wouldnt worry
 
We had a similar incident near our town. 3 people sadly died in a tragic accident. Elderly male, young mother and a small baby. There was a photo plastered all over the local papers of the helicopter with the scene in the background.

If you can imagine being a police officer that has turned up at a scene like that and then watching passers by trying to snap "the action". He was right the photos could be used in the investigation as evidence ie where the vehicles were even people in the crowds actions of ambulance and police staff involved in the scene. Maybe under the stress of what was going on he didnt explain himself properly.

Now bearing in mind what is going on around him, his priority is to secure the scene & protect the victims, not passing pleasantries with people trying to grap a pic of the action. His thoughts are probably somewhat repulsed by the fact you are trying to capture what is going on, when he has seen what he has, but also proffessionaly identifying that you may hold some evidence.

Now obviously I wasnt there, but I would imagine his comments were to dissuade you from taking further pics and get you to move along (which it seems you did). From what you said he did not threaten to stop and search under section 44 so realistically I dont see your argument.

Yes the police can get it wrong and be over zealous on occassion and it seems at the moment that everyone seems to have a story about the police stopping them and their personal rights. We never hear any balance.

Does anyone speak up for the police that stop photographers getting mugged for their cameras, or catching the thief that burgled their house and stole their DSLR or even the ones that pose for pictures when out on patrol in their neighbourhood keeping us safe.

NO of course we dont.

You chose to shoot this scene, the responsibility lies with you for raising your camera when others would have walked away.
 
clowds said:
if i am at a scene is there a way of recording images straight to a external drive as i take the pic so if the police take the memory card i would still have the images i use a 5d and a stealth reporter 550aw bag so can fit a laptop in.
Click to expand...

I like your thinking! :D
 
Rob.Richards said:
We had a similar incident near our town. 3 people sadly died in a tragic accident. Elderly male, young mother and a small baby. There was a photo plastered all over the local papers of the helicopter with the scene in the background.

If you can imagine being a police officer that has turned up at a scene like that and then watching passers by trying to snap "the action". He was right the photos could be used in the investigation as evidence ie where the vehicles were even people in the crowds actions of ambulance and police staff involved in the scene. Maybe under the stress of what was going on he didnt explain himself properly.

Now bearing in mind what is going on around him, his priority is to secure the scene & protect the victims, not passing pleasantries with people trying to grap a pic of the action. His thoughts are probably somewhat repulsed by the fact you are trying to capture what is going on, when he has seen what he has, but also proffessionaly identifying that you may hold some evidence.

Now obviously I wasnt there, but I would imagine his comments were to dissuade you from taking further pics and get you to move along (which it seems you did). From what you said he did not threaten to stop and search under section 44 so realistically I dont see your argument.

Yes the police can get it wrong and be over zealous on occassion and it seems at the moment that everyone seems to have a story about the police stopping them and their personal rights. We never hear any balance.

Does anyone speak up for the police that stop photographers getting mugged for their cameras, or catching the thief that burgled their house and stole their DSLR or even the ones that pose for pictures when out on patrol in their neighbourhood keeping us safe.

NO of course we dont.

You chose to shoot this scene, the responsibility lies with you for raising your camera when others would have walked away.
Click to expand...

You are right, Rob, we do need more balance, but that doesn't alter the fact that there are a lot of bad things happening at the moment which are, quite franlky, inexcusable.

Regarding this case in particular, I've already posted urging consideration for the feelings of the police officer. However, that does not entirely excuse him using the old "evidence" chestnut to intimidate a photographer. If evidence really was an issue surely he would have said something along the lines of, "I see you've got a camera, could you please take some pictures that specifically show xxxxx as they may be useful as evidence." Who wouldn't help the police in that situation?

What he really meant was, "We've got enough problems dealing with this incident, I'm asking you to move on please." One thing I cannot tolerate is the police cynically misusing and misquoting laws to intimidate photographers (or anyone else for that matter). I expect far beter of them and at the very least I demand that they are honest and truthfull. They may not like the critisism they are getting but much of it is due to them making a rod for their own backs. If they want respect and trust from the community they first have to earn it.
 
CT said:
Oh come on! The Disclosure Rules are there so that any material gathered during the course of the investigation but not actually submitted with the file of evidence, is available for scrutiny by the defence should they wish to see it. The Dislosure Rules are no excuse for the officer not using a bit of common sense about what he's seizing in the first place.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But you cant tell me for one second that once the officer knows the material exists, no matter how it was taken, the disclosure rules dont apply? The point I was making, and thats all I was doing, is that there are laws that can be used, and quite legitimately, that can be applied if the officer really wants to seize said camera / card.
 
odd jim said:
Indeed. But you cant tell me for one second that once the officer knows the material exists, no matter how it was taken, the disclosure rules dont apply? The point I was making, and thats all I was doing, is that there are laws that can be used, and quite legitimately, that can be applied if the officer really wants to seize said camera / card.
Click to expand...

But the crux of the matter surely revolves around whether the officer really believes the "evidence" might be useful or is he merely misusing the law as a convenience to stop the photographer or punish him in some way. It's an important distinction that defines whether the officer is acting properly or abusing his authority and the law, which is tantamount to misconduct and could warrant a justifiable complaint.
 
I'm also of the opinion that a beat-officer wouldn't make that call anyway. As to whether images taken by you would be useful to the investigation or not would rest with someone more senior, maybe even a detective attending the scene, if it was warranted.
Obviously not in the case of a 'simple' RTA involving a couple of vehicles, but the aftermath of a robbery perhaps, or a mass-casualty event like a train/plane-crash or large motorway pile-up.
 
Arkady said:
I'm also of the opinion that a beat-officer wouldn't make that call anyway. As to whether images taken by you would be useful to the investigation or not would rest with someone more senior, maybe even a detective attending the scene, if it was warranted.
Obviously not in the case of a 'simple' RTA involving a couple of vehicles, but the aftermath of a robbery perhaps, or a mass-casualty event like a train/plane-crash or large motorway pile-up.
Click to expand...

A beat officer may well be the only one who makes that call, as is so often the case - by the time anyone else arrives at a scene, any witnesses could well have been lost unless they've already been spoken to and had details taken. However, 99% of the time we don't need photos from members of the public. The only two occasions I ever took them were a street robbery (where one of the victim's friends was recording him on his phone at the time it happened) and a fraudster who tried to rip off a quick-thinking tourist, who promptly took a snap of him with the camera hanging round his neck. On both occasions, I took the witnesses back to the station and - after about an hour of rummaging around and finding a CD and some connecting bits & bobs - both were given their phone / camera back.

There is a lot of worry here stemming from a cock-up made by an officer from Surrey Police. Unfortunately, police officers will still continue to make mistakes - despite all the recent press and information on the subject (certainly within the Met).

Unless your photos show an offence in commission, they aren't going to be evidentially worthwhile - I believe someone else said this earlier in the thread, and they're quite right. If a scene is worth photographing, we'll call in our own scene of crimes officers to take the pictures for us.
 
Photo Plod said:
A beat officer may well be the only one who makes that call, as is so often the case - by the time anyone else arrives at a scene, any witnesses could well have been lost unless they've already been spoken to and had details taken. However, 99% of the time we don't need photos from members of the public. The only two occasions I ever took them were a street robbery (where one of the victim's friends was recording him on his phone at the time it happened) and a fraudster who tried to rip off a quick-thinking tourist, who promptly took a snap of him with the camera hanging round his neck. On both occasions, I took the witnesses back to the station and - after about an hour of rummaging around and finding a CD and some connecting bits & bobs - both were given their phone / camera back.

There is a lot of worry here stemming from a cock-up made by an officer from Surrey Police. Unfortunately, police officers will still continue to make mistakes - despite all the recent press and information on the subject (certainly within the Met).

Unless your photos show an offence in commission, they aren't going to be evidentially worthwhile - I believe someone else said this earlier in the thread, and they're quite right. If a scene is worth photographing, we'll call in our own scene of crimes officers to take the pictures for us.
Click to expand...

In terms of real evidence, if ever I was in a situation when I had recorded something useful for a police investigation I would be more than happy to assist, even if it meant the temorary loan of my equipment and I would hope others would too. I'm actually a great supporter of the police when they are doing the job properly. It's when they start to cynically manipulate the law for ulterior motives or are forced to act as political puppets that I get really annoyed and simply won't stand for it.

In my view it is right that we remain hyper-critical of the police in these terms in order to redress the balance and send a message to those at the top that some things will not be tolerated and ultimately cannot be enforced. However, to maintain the correct balance it's also important to acknowledge that there is much that is right with our police and that they really do perform a valuable role. Sure, there will always be a few bad apples but generally the men and women on the street are dedicated, hard working and under-appreciated. It's unfortunate that they have become embroiled in what is essentially a political issue whilst the real culprits, like that incompetent pratt Alan Johnson and his muppet Sir Paul Stephenson, sit in their ivory towers and refuse to debate the issue.
 
goldenlight said:
... like that incompetent pratt Alan Johnson and his muppet Sir Paul Stephenson, sit in their ivory towers and refuse to debate the issue.
Click to expand...

It's actually Sir Paul Stephenson who has raised the issue among ACPO and other forces, and was responsible for issuing the guidance that you can now find on the Met Police website. He has also made it force policy in the Met to greatly restrict the areas where s44 stops will be carried out.

Personally, rather than write him off as a muppet, I'd argue that he's the only chief officer who actually appears to be addressing photographers' grievances at all.
 
Photo Plod said:
It's actually Sir Paul Stephenson who has raised the issue among ACPO and other forces, and was responsible for issuing the guidance that you can now find on the Met Police website. He has also made it force policy in the Met to greatly restrict the areas where s44 stops will be carried out.

Personally, rather than write him off as a muppet, I'd argue that he's the only chief officer who actually appears to be addressing photographers' grievances at all.
Click to expand...

In that case I apologize, but I've written to him personally (and very politely) on two occasions only receiving a stock response from the Met Customer Service Unit. That at least is better than the total lack of acknowledgement I received from Johnson. Having tried and failed to engage in constructive debate it leads me to conclude that maybe I am dealing with muppets but I am sorry if this is an unfair reflection on Sir Paul.

Having said that, if the boss himself is so pro-active in asserting the legal rights of photographers it begs the question why this message appears to be failing to reach the front line?
 
goldenlight said:
Having said that, if the boss himself is so pro-active in asserting the legal rights of photographers it begs the question why this message appears to be failing to reach the front line?
Click to expand...

I can only answer for the Met Police. Guidance regarding photographers and stops has been issued via the intranet as an Operational Notice, as a Special Notice, an ACPO briefing PDF and has also been disseminated via daily borough briefings for quite some time now. It is also permanently available on our website.

If a Met Police officer is unaware of the guidance, then that is due to them either not paying attention or not remembering it. Our management have done everything reasonable, I think, to get the message out there.

I have no idea what systems Surrey Police - to whom this particular thread refers - have in place or what guidance they have provided for their officers.
 
Photo Plod said:
I can only answer for the Met Police. Guidance regarding photographers and stops has been issued via the intranet as an Operational Notice, as a Special Notice, an ACPO briefing PDF and has also been disseminated via daily borough briefings for quite some time now. It is also permanently available on our website.

If a Met Police officer is unaware of the guidance, then that is due to them either not paying attention or not remembering it. Our management have done everything reasonable, I think, to get the message out there.

I have no idea what systems Surrey Police - to whom this particular thread refers - have in place or what guidance they have provided for their officers.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying that. :)
 
police have photographers to take evidence

why would they ever rely on snappers..any evidence you took could be at the instruction of a third party in any case

sounds like heavy plod to me...but conforming to the instruction was the best course of action...there could be more to it than just our opinion
 
backstage pass said:
All you need to know is that ANYONE, including the police, will abuse any power they are given.
Click to expand...

I think that's a bit harsh...some may - and the attendant publicity if and when it comes to light tarnishes all others within that organisation for a time, but many others do not...
Have you any evidence to back this claim?
 
these threads just go round and round like a dog chasing its own tail then get locked by the mods. we all agree on one thing thats our love of photography so i have an idea. we need to educate the public and we do that by commenting on news stories on news websites both local and national and highlighting our cause.
the more we post here on this subject we are just preaching to the converted lets try and get public support behind us.

anyway its just an idea i am trying to find a way forward.
 
they have no right to take the camera - however if a Police officer ever asked me to stop, i would and if they asked me to format my card, i would (recovery of files is easy)
tiler65 said:
Whoever photoshopped the sign wants sacking.
Click to expand...

:lol::bonk:
indeed :)
 
Bobtographer said:
they have no right to take the camera - however if a Police officer ever asked me to stop, i would and if they asked me to format my card, i would (recovery of files is easy)


:lol::bonk:
indeed :)
Click to expand...

Why would you do that? Even if recovery is easy you are letting them get away with abusing the law which they are meant to uphold! Don't let the tail wag the dog! However, except in a few isolated cases I don't think this has been an issue, it's mainly the S&S.
 
clowds said:
these threads just go round and round like a dog chasing its own tail then get locked by the mods. we all agree on one thing thats our love of photography so i have an idea. we need to educate the public and we do that by commenting on news stories on news websites both local and national and highlighting our cause.
the more we post here on this subject we are just preaching to the converted lets try and get public support behind us.

anyway its just an idea i am trying to find a way forward.
Click to expand...

Well, in my view these threads do serve a purpose as many here are still unconvinced of the dangers to our freedom posed by these ill-conceived laws and their misuse. However, you make an excellent point and one which I will take on board. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top