Yet Another Post About the Law

[Bernie174]

Bluehawk
Makes 2 of us then!
As we both know it makes no difference whether its a complaint or letter to the CC. It'll be words of advice for her, if its as reported. The same as I got over the Harassment thing I mentioned. Did anyone else get to know about it though? No, of course not, so it hardly drip fed anyone anything. In fact it had no real effect on me I still can't remember if it applies to unfurnished or furnished!
Again, either way, if the force is anything like the Met, he'll at very least get a new film. Ok, doesn't make up for the lost shots, but its something.
My point over complaint is that it is up to Joe, not the usual gang of 'we're entitled' and lets get 'outraged by proxy' crowd, what he wants to do about it.

Lastly, I agree with you, street photography is a minor matter, shame that some on here cannot, or most likely due to self interest wont.

Musciman
I'm not suggesting any such thing, please read what I said, not what you think I said. I wasn't there, nor were you, I don't know the full facts, I don't know that it happened as stated, again, nor do you. On what was reported, I have given advice which I think from having been on both sides would probably be the best approach in future.
The rest is answer to the usual suspect howling indignation without knowing anything.

As for Admirable's statement. Suggesting that someone has no idea how to open a camera, because she is female and a Police Officer? Sexist and slanderous springs to mind.

Paul
My words is simply a response to the rather daft suggestion that Police Officers must know everything. They don't never have and never will. Whoopie for Cambs for having something, it does not mean that everyone else has the same. Even if it does it depends whats on the database and lastly that the dammed thing works! I would have been quite happy if my radio had worked when I walked the streets. So in summary, no ignorance isn't an excuse, its mitigation though. And if its been done from a reasonable position then more so. I've seen nothing that suggests it wasn't, and until I do, I'll take that line.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

As for Admirable's statement. Suggesting that someone has no idea how to open a camera, because she is female and a Police Officer? Sexist and slanderous springs to mind.

Err....slander refers to the spoken word, officer, I think you'll find the correct legal term here is "libel"

 

[footman]

Did she take your camera and delete the images or did she demand that you do so - it's not at all clear? I'm sorry, but it's pretty dumb to stand there and let her get away with this when you knew full well she was in the wrong.

but you were a complete wuss for not standing your ground.

I too am quite cross about the actions of this police officer and fully agree that an official complaint should be made.
However, as for "standing his ground", while it may be admirable, I think this bit of information sould be borne in mind:

Up here it applies if an officer thinks you are acting in a manner "enough to cause alarm, annoyance or disturbance to the lieges", a liege in this case being a police officer or a member of the general public.

So that basically covers pretty much everything.....

I would not want to be actually arrested for my photography and I doubt that many here would.

 

[admirable]

As for Admirable's statement. Suggesting that someone has no idea how to open a camera, because she is female and a Police Officer? Sexist and slanderous springs to mind.

I never suggested anything of the kind!

 

[CT]

I too am quite cross about the actions of this police officer and fully agree that an official complaint should be made.
However, as for "standing his ground", while it may be admirable, I think this bit of information sould be borne in mind:


I would not want to be actually arrested for my photography and I doubt that many here would.

Well I have been in this exact position a few years go when I was approached in a town centre by a young copper and told to stop taking photos. I tactfully and pleasantly explained that I had every right to take pictures, but he wouldn't listen and demanded my camera, which I refused to hand over.

He then started threatening me with arrest at which point I told him I was a retired police officer and he really should get on the radio and check with someone before he embarked on that course of action. He walked away a few yards and got on the radio to HQ while watching me intently throughout.

Eventually he just walked off -no word of apology or explanation whatsoever. The encounter didn't leave a particularly nice taste in my mouth, and I'm someone who gives the police a fair bit of slack if they're doing their job.

I appreciate that the law is somewhat different in Scotland -nonetheless I'm quite sure that the spirit of the legislation was not intended a a 'get -out-of -jail free' option for the police to use in all circumstances. Remain calm and polite - you're not the one in the wrong, whichever side of the border you're on.

 

[paulminus273]

Well I have been in this exact position a few years go when I was approached in a town centre by a young copper and told to stop taking photos. I tactfully and pleasantly explained that I had every right to take pictures, but he wouldn't listen and demanded my camera, which I refused to hand over.

He then started threatening me with arrest at which point I told him I was a retired police officer and he really should get on the radio and check with someone before he embarked on that course of action. He walked away a few yards and got on the radio to HQ while watching me intently throughout.

Eventually he just walked off -no word of apology or explanation whatsoever. The encounter didn't leave a particularly nice taste in my mouth, and I'm someone who gives the police a fair bit of slack if they're doing their job.

I appreciate that the law is somewhat different in Scotland -nonetheless I'm quite sure that the spirit of the legislation was not intended a a 'get -out-of -jail free' option for the police to use in all circumstances. Remain calm and polite - you're not the one in the wrong, whichever side of the border you're on.

I agree that calm and polite is the way forward, although being a retired police officer may have help in convicting the officer that he should get on the radio. Perhaps a copy of the ACPO letter would be useful to have in ones camera bag.

 

[footman]

Eventually he just walked off -no word of apology or explanation whatsoever.

Kudos for standing your ground.
Being a retired officer you at least know the law and also having been on both sides of the fence you are able to address a police officer in such a way as not to antagonise.

The bit about him walking away reminds of this:
[youtube]9LMKBuGvGUo[/youtube]
Even though he is within the law I would add that I think the man behind the camera is an annoying git! (apologies if anyone here is related to him)

 

[Bernie174]

Flash in the pan
You are absolutely correct. Although its civil law and not criminal and not my area of expertise your point proves mine. To Err is human. Now if I can make a mistake, having full access to the internet and plenty of time, why can't a Police Officer who's having to deal with something now?

Admirable
So perhaps you can explain the meaning of this line then?

"2/ I find it incredible the this female police officer knew how to open up and remove the film from the camera."

There is no other meaning that can be attached to it. If you didn't mean that, then the words "Female Police Officer" are irrelevant, unless you intended to mean that she could not have known because she was a female police officer. That you included them makes your statement both Sexist and Libelous.

 

[admirable]

I could have written 'she' or 'the police officer' but would it have made any difference?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Flash in the pan
You are absolutely correct. Although its civil law and not criminal and not my area of expertise your point proves mine. To Err is human. Now if I can make a mistake, having full access to the internet and plenty of time, why can't a Police Officer who's having to deal with something now?

The difference is that you're not making a legal judgement based on an incomplete or erroneous understanding of the law, the police offier in this case, was....

 

[Musicman]

Musciman
I'm not suggesting any such thing, please read what I said, not what you think I said.

OK - fair point. I drew your equation of the two in the wrong direction.

However, I am still trying to understand the motivation to destroy the film in the context of what, I presume, police are trained to do with evidence if the officer genuinely believed a crime had been committed.

 

[Bucketp]

So does anybody know if the laws on photography in a public place are the same in Scotland as they are in the rest of the UK? Im asking as I live in Scotland and have seen plenty of documents for English\ welsh police forces but none for Scotland.

 

[Joenail]

Not that I disbelieve you but,

1/ How did the female police office know you had taken an image "that was near a child"?

2/ I find it incredible the this female police officer knew how to open up and remove the film from the camera.

3/ Knowing the law as you do, you stood there and let her do it!

1. Someone complained to a security guard, who in turn phone the police.

2. It's not exactly hard, is it? Most people know the basic functions of a camera.

3. I did, but I was more concerned about the guy who was shouting 'P****!' at me!

 

[Joenail]

However, I am still trying to understand the motivation to destroy the film in the context of what, I presume, police are trained to do with evidence if the officer genuinely believed a crime had been committed.

There was no evidence there, she was just dealing with a complaint. As for why she destroyed it, I'm not sure, but she told me afterwards that 'it's to avoid arresting you'. I told her I'd sooner be arrested, but it was already gone

 

[Keith W]

Kudos for standing your ground.
Being a retired officer you at least know the law and also having been on both sides of the fence you are able to address a police officer in such a way as not to antagonise.

The bit about him walking away reminds of this:
[youtube]9LMKBuGvGUo[/youtube]
Even though he is within the law I would add that I think the man behind the camera is an annoying git! (apologies if anyone here is related to him)

Daren Pollard is nothing more than an antagonistic knob head - enough said!

 

[whiteflyer]

I would have thought your conversation with the police woman should have been on the lines of :

You can't delete my film because either I have done nothing wrong or you are breaking the law by destroying evidence of a crime.

 

[DemiLion]

Anyway she has broken the law now (she needed a court warrant to even touch your camera) you should try for a refund for the price of a roll of film

Untrue that only applies to accredited members of the Press. There are a number of laws that allow the police to either search your camera (ie view the images) or seize the datacard for evidence.

Deleting images or exposing a film is a different matter however.

 

[Joenail]

You must understand that if I saw that she was about to open the camera back I'd have stopped her, but I didn't see it coming

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

That'll teach you to use a film camera then.


Official complaint,

Maybe even ask if the officer can ring you up with an apology so you might regain your respect in her as an officer.

These things happen, the best we can do is try an uphold the laws we know to be true and forgive those that are blundering through ….even if that does mean a trip to a cell …its nothing really, you’ll be home in no time if you haven’t broken any laws.

 

[neil_g]

im normally pro-police but id complain in your shoes. as someone else said whats stopping this police officer doing the same to someone else?

as for the fact she may not have known the law, then she should have checked before destroying someones property.

and for the guy shouting "p****" i would have insisted the police officer deal with that moron.

im starting to hope that bernie isnt my local bobby though.. lol

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Better Bernie than that officer of Joe's

..I think.

 

[whiteflyer]

Untrue that only applies to accredited members of the Press. There are a number of laws that allow the police to either search your camera (ie view the images) or seize the datacard for evidence.

Deleting images or exposing a film is a different matter however.

I always thought laws applied to everyone, no matter what your job was. When did your profession make you exempt from the laws of the land ??

 

[Musicman]

I think what Demi is saying is that the press get special protections in law.

Though you're right that the police themselves are not above the law.

 

[Photo Plod]

I always thought laws applied to everyone, no matter what your job was. When did your profession make you exempt from the laws of the land ??

Bernie is specifically referring to "Special Procedure Material", which would be material created or acquired in the course of a trade, business, profession or office, which (basically) the holder would be expected to treat in confidence; this would require a Crown Court warrant to force its disclosure. In other words, the status of the individual can affect search powers for material held by them. It's not an exemption from the law, but the argument with a private individual would run along the lines of:

1) It's not created in the course of a trade or profession
2) A private individual is not under any obligations (usually) as to how they deal with that material.

A professional journalist would, by nature, be creating material in the course of their trade, and would be obliged only to disclose such material to their employer. As such, this would make it "Special Procedure Material".

A more common example of this would be police requests for bank statements, telephone bills, etc, from Barclays or Vodafone in the course of an investigation - all would require a warrant to seize. If I'm searching your house (under whatever power, and for the sake of argument, a good reason) and I find the same statements or bills, I can seize them (subject to necessity) without a warrant.

 

[paulminus273]

Bernie is specifically referring to "Special Procedure Material", which would be material created or acquired in the course of a trade, business, profession or office, which (basically) the holder would be expected to treat in confidence; this would require a Crown Court warrant to force its disclosure. In other words, the status of the individual can affect search powers for material held by them. It's not an exemption from the law, but the argument with a private individual would run along the lines of:

1) It's not created in the course of a trade or profession
2) A private individual is not under any obligations (usually) as to how they deal with that material.

A professional journalist would, by nature, be creating material in the course of their trade, and would be obliged only to disclose such material to their employer. As such, this would make it "Special Procedure Material".

A more common example of this would be police requests for bank statements, telephone bills, etc, from Barclays or Vodafone in the course of an investigation - all would require a warrant to seize. If I'm searching your house (under whatever power, and for the sake of argument, a good reason) and I find the same statements or bills, I can seize them (subject to necessity) without a warrant.

If I read this right any professional photographer taking photographs for a client (who by implication would wish confidentiality ) should be protected under “Special Procedure Material” or have I missed something?

 

[whiteflyer]

The police can stop and search any person, vehicle, and anything in or on the vehicle for certain items. However, before they stop and search they must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find:

stolen goods, or
drugs, or
an offensive weapon, or
any article made or adapted for use in certain offences, for example a burglary or theft, or
knives, or
items which could damage or destroy property, for example spray paint cans.

There are a few exceptions to this rule. If a serious violent incident has taken place, the police can stop and search you without having reasonable grounds for suspecting they will find the items.

The police can also search a football coach going to or from a football match if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting there is alcohol on board or that someone is drunk on the coach.

The police can also stop and search you or your vehicle if they reasonably suspect you of terrorist activity. They can't stop and search you just for being in a particular area, unless they reasonably suspect you of terrorist activity.

So I would take that as they can't just search you for taking photos

Police should only seize goods if they have reasonable grounds for believing that:

they have been obtained illegally; or
they are evidence in relation to an offence.

In either of these cases, they must also have reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to seize the goods to prevent them being lost, stolen or destroyed.

They could take a memory card, if it's evidence in relation to an offence and they believe that I'm going to delete the images of the offence.

 

[Photo Plod]

If I read this right any professional photographer taking photographs for a client (who by implication would wish confidentiality ) should be protected under “Special Procedure Material” or have I missed something?

You would be correct.

"Material acquired or created in the course of a trade, business, profession, occupation, or office that is held subject to an express or implied undertaking to hold it in confidence, or subject to a statutory restriction on disclosure or obligation of secrecy."

 

[Musicman]

So I would take that as they can't just search you for taking photos

The use of Stop and Search is governed by PACE Code A. With Section 2 probably being most relevant to this discussion.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public...icing/pace-codes/pace-code-a-2011?view=Binary

In the specific respect of photography, outside of some limited circumstances such as taking pictures of Prohibited Places under the Official Secrets Act, that's the theory; since photography itself is not illegal and reasonable suspicion must exist that an offence is being committed or is about to be committed.

The open question in any particular situation is what constitutes reasonable suspicion about, for want of a better term, your manner of photography in the mind of the police officer. One example that springs to mind, in light of the earlier mention of Breach of the Peace in Scotland is this story from 2008.

http://secretscotland.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/disturbing-fine-issued-in-edinburgh-court/

Use of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which permitted searches without suspicion has been deprecated since an ECHR ruling early last year.

The other main exception to the requirement for suspicion is Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Liberty's take on it is here.

e2a: If any of the professionals in the field have any additions or corrections to this short summary, I'd welcome them.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

PACE isn't relevant at all as far as the op is concerned as it doesn't apply to Scotland.....

 

[Musicman]

Ta. Not having occasion to venture north of the border (or even the Thames) that often, combined with the fact that PACE has some provisions relating to Scotland (ss110 and 111) I hadn't realised that.

Should have chosen a different example to the Edinburgh one then... but I think the principle about what you're doing with your camera I was hoping to demonstrate still applies.

And I believe PACE is applicable in Lancashire - which is where whiteflyer is

 

[mininut]

this is some funny right here... bit old but still...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXk4nLIv5jo&feature=related

M.

 

[501cards]

I think what Demi is saying is that the press get special protections in law.

Though you're right that the police themselves are not above the law.

Press Card holders still get grief, This was a year ago, but Jule's suffered even after handing over his UKPCA Press Card and trying to explain the situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQucfv0slOE&feature=player_embedded

 

[simonblue]

This is getting very silly now,all police officers should know about this now .

And Bernie174,if you are upholding the law it is also part of your job,to keep up with new guidelines.

 

[duggiebee]

My tuppence worth.

I have no intention of joining the discussion of the law covering this subject except to say that it appears to have been covered in depth here.
Can I suggest for future reference and as a more practical solution to this kind of thing happening again for individuals whether amateurs or not, do not be frightened to stand your ground. By this I mean get the officer to call his supervisor to attend your location. I would suggest that this would have two effects :- firstly, it would show that you have confidence in what you were talking about and secondly, I suspect that either the control room taking the call or a supervisor would check the ACPO guidance prior to resolving the situation. By the very fact that you have politely requested to 'escalate' this matter, you are showing that you have right on your side, I would suggest.

For what it is worth!

 

[simonblue]

My tuppence worth.

I have no intention of joining the discussion of the law covering this subject except to say that it appears to have been covered in depth here.
Can I suggest for future reference and as a more practical solution to this kind of thing happening again for individuals whether amateurs or not, do not be frightened to stand your ground. By this I mean get the officer to call his supervisor to attend your location. I would suggest that this would have two effects :- firstly, it would show that you have confidence in what you were talking about and secondly, I suspect that either the control room taking the call or a supervisor would check the ACPO guidance prior to resolving the situation. By the very fact that you have politely requested to 'escalate' this matter, you are showing that you have right on your side, I would suggest.

For what it is worth!

Good advice,stand your ground,a police officer even on duty is not above the law.

 

[DemiLion]

Press Card holders still get grief, This was a year ago, but Jule's suffered even after handing over his UKPCA Press Card and trying to explain the situation

I never said that card holders won't get grief (they always will do in some shape or form), just that their material can be protected as "Special Procedure Material" - which is what I was rather ineptly referring to and corrected by Chris.

That vid is a classic bit of recording, and had Jules not been quite so hot headed (in terms of voice pitch etc) and only 16 at the time things might have been handled differently. The Police Sergeant certainly picked the wrong 'kid' to have a go at when it comes to photographers rights!


Personally I find this story, released today, far more disturbing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jul/25/human-rights-act-police

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Personally I find this story, released today, far more disturbing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jul/25/human-rights-act-police

Ridiculous and baffling spring to mind.

As you say more disturbing and bullying attitudes from some officers again, allegedly.

Next time I hope he records all conversations in case he needs them for his defence.

Either that or ring the police and complain that he is at that moment being bullied illegally by the police and could they send some officers round to deal with his complaint. lol

 

[Jonathan Shl]

I must agree that you should lodge a complaint. The Police were overstepping their authority. Its the only way that the Police will change their attitude.

I would threaten to pursue abuse of office charges, and the security guards for incitement to the same.

 

[PsiFox]

I've briefly looked into making a complaint & it doesn't seem wort it to be honest. The only reason I'd be complaining is because I was briefly annoyed at her & it isn't exactly going to make any positive change. Anyway, as Andy said it'll probably just get squashed anyway.

The roll was nearly full, with maybe 15 good shots there. Nothing spectacular.

At least now I know how to avoid it happening again & not to hand over my camera!

It is always worth it.

There is the famous quote/misquote
The words are a bit ott here but the sentiment is not

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

 

[seriousrikk]

3. I did, but I was more concerned about the guy who was shouting 'P****!' at me!

This is the part that irks me most.

Not only did the police officer take the wrong course of action by destroying your film, she also did nothing about the to$$er shouting P****.

Talk about total bias. One baseless accusation gets acted upon by the officer - another baseless accusation which is also rather unpleasant by the guy nearby gets ignored.