Can cops demand to take your photo? Says no, 5 months in jail.

[Desertdog]

I hope he got enough to retire on.  At least enough to pay off every thing he owes.

Can cops demand to take your photo?
Man not charged with any crime says no, spends 5 months in jail
By Drew Zahn
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92750


Two years ago, a Pennsylvania man was thrown in jail for 160 days for refusing to allow police to take his picture.

A federal judge last week, however, ruled against local police and in favor of Gregory Bush, who was not charged with any crime on May 17, 2007, when a Lancaster, Pa., officer demanded to take the man's photo. Only after refusing to have his picture taken did the police subdue him, charge him with obstruction of justice and toss him in jail.

"When they first arrested me, I didn't even know why I was being arrested," Bush told Lancaster's Sunday News. "I kept thinking the charge would be dropped at the preliminary hearing. It was ridiculous; I didn't commit any crime."

Five months later, however, Bush was still in jail.

According to the federal lawsuit, Bush had been among several men helping his cousin move out of a home, when an argument broke out, prompting a call to police over fears one of the men had a gun.

Though police investigated the scene, found no firearm and decided there was no cause for arrests, the officers demanded to take photos of the movers.

Bush, however, held his arms over his face and refused the photo. According to the News report, police then subdued Bush, causing him to cut his face on the pavement and require treatment at a local hospital.

Bush then spent 160 days in jail awaiting trial. When his case was finally brought before a judge, the court granted the motion made by Bush's attorney to dismiss the charges.

Bush then filed a lawsuit against Lancaster's police department and the officer that arrested him, Ray M. Corll II, claiming Bush's rights had been violated when police attempted to compel him to submit to an unconstitutional search and seizure of his image.

"We've never maintained that Officer Corll and the others involved are bad actors," Bush's attorney, David R. Dye, told the News. "It's just that they were engaged in a bad practice."

A federal judge agreed with Dye and awarded Bush undisclosed damages last week.

In the wake of the lawsuit, Robert G. Hanna, an attorney who represented the Lancaster police and officer Corll, drafted a new police policy clarifying that people not charged with a crime shouldn't be required to submit to a photograph.

The new policy states that "field photographs" can be taken in public settings – such as on the street or at a park – anywhere the public has no expectation of privacy. Photos may also be taken when the subject consents.

For those not charged with a crime, however, the policy states, "Individuals may not be required to remove their hands, or anything they are using to cover their faces so as to avoid being photographed."

Dye told the News that the new policy would correctly address situations like Bush's in the future.

"We're very pleased," Dye said, "that officers will now be able to do their job in a constitutionally correct way."

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

... an unconstitutional search and seizure of his image....

Wouldn't that mean surveillance cameras are illegal?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"field photographs" can be taken in public settings – such as on the street or at a park – anywhere the public has no expectation of privacy.

[zahc]

"We're very pleased," Dye said, "that officers will now be able to do their job in a constitutionally correct way."

Sure they're pleased. They aren't the ones who spent 5 months is jail.

[Telperion]

"field photographs" can be taken in public settings – such as on the street or at a park – anywhere the public has no expectation of privacy.

Which was not in dispute.  People also have the right to cover their face or turn away from the creepy man taking pictures.  The police were saying they ought to be able to compel someone in public to face the camera by force.

[Balog]

"field photographs" can be taken in public settings – such as on the street or at a park – anywhere the public has no expectation of privacy.

Forgot a lil somthing didn't you?

For those not charged with a crime, however, the policy states, "Individuals may not be required to remove their hands, or anything they are using to cover their faces so as to avoid being photographed."

[Ryan in Maine]

The new policy states that "field photographs" can be taken in public settings – such as on the street or at a park – anywhere the public has no expectation of privacy. Photos may also be taken when the subject consents.

For those not charged with a crime, however, the policy states, "Individuals may not be required to remove their hands, or anything they are using to cover their faces so as to avoid being photographed."

What you don't know can't hurt you infringe upon your freedom.

[MechAg94]

What about the right to a speedy trial.  160 days is a long time to rot in jail waiting for a simple issue like this to be resolved. 

[AZRedhawk44]

I've got mixed feelings on this one.

Public domain photography and the right to attempt to evade photography... I get it.  Unless under arrest for a valid reason, police should have no right to compel compliance with surveillance.  Some exceptions to that might be accessing secure facilities such as airports, where metal detectors and routine video surveillance is used to ferret out bad guys from good guys.

This guy brought it on himself, though, by getting in a shouting match on the street that disturbed the whole neighborhood.  He could have been arrested for disturbing the peace and then forcibly photographed.

Why the arresting officer didn't just take that route, I don't know.

The whole freaking thing could have been avoided though, through two small changes:
1.  The sissypants neighbor who called afraid that "zOMG heez got a gunn and heez argewing!!!11!1one!1!" could have realized that yes, people argue and that is pretty normal.
2.  The guys moving could have taken their argument inside to private quarters.

A seething mountain of stupidity on all parties involved.

[buzz_knox]

This guy brought it on himself, though, by getting in a shouting match on the street that disturbed the whole neighborhood.  He could have been arrested for disturbing the peace and then forcibly photographed.

Why the arresting officer didn't just take that route, I don't know.

Reading the article shows that the officer didn't go down that route because they decided there was no cause for an arrest.

What is absent from the article is any indication that the victim in this case was actually involved in a "shouting match."  It states that he was one of several people involved in moving and a fight broke out.  Stating that he was involved in the argument, let alone in a sufficient way to consitute "mountain of stupidity" is conjecture. 

[griz]

a fact broke out

   That could describe a speech by most any politician.

[zahc]

Some exceptions to that might be accessing secure facilities such as airports, where metal detectors and routine video surveillance is used to ferret out bad guys from good guys.

Even then, one should only be compelled to comply to surveillance as a condition of accessing the airport.

[buzz_knox]

  That could describe a speech by most any politician.

I guess my Freudian slip is showing.  I've been dealing with contracts this morning and fights over facts are all too common.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Forgot a lil somthing didn't you?

For those not charged with a crime, however, the policy states, "Individuals may not be required to remove their hands, or anything they are using to cover their faces so as to avoid being photographed."

how would that change the  validity, or lack thereof, of "Wouldn't that mean surveillance cameras are illegal?"?

[PTK]

how would that change the  validity, or lack thereof, of "Wouldn't that mean surveillance cameras are illegal?"?

Nope. Photos can be taken, video can be taken, you just don't have to show your face. Being forced to show your face is illegal, is all. 

[ilbob]

This is disturbing on many levels. Mostly that police held a guy in jail for 5 months over something so trivial, and people should be seriously outraged over that.

I am ambivilant about the photography thing.

It seems likely they took a photo of him before jailing him. It would seem like a moot point after that.

[RevDisk]

Though police investigated the scene, found no firearm and decided there was no cause for arrests, the officers demanded to take photos of the movers.

Bush, however, held his arms over his face and refused the photo. According to the News report, police then subdued Bush, causing him to cut his face on the pavement and require treatment at a local hospital.

Bush then spent 160 days in jail awaiting trial. When his case was finally brought before a judge, the court granted the motion made by Bush's attorney to dismiss the charges.

I'm not extremely surprised.   The Lancaster County Sheriff's Office are very professional, polite folks.  Good guys and gals, one and all that I have met.  The Lancaster City Bureau of Police...   Uhm.  The quality is highly diverse.  Some are good, professional folks.  Many are not.  It doesn't help that a certain section of Lancaster City is turning into slums.  According to a nice lady from the FBI, it's being turned into a discreet transit and distribution hub for supplying NYC, Philly, and Baltimore.

Previously I counted my blessings that due to someone's gerrymandering I was under the Manheim Township Police Department.  That is until they tried to steal my car in violation of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940.  The tags on my vehicles expired when I was off doing Army stuff.  Township had an ordinance that any car with expired tags, even if parked on private property, was to be towed.  Officer I spoke with was not familiar with SSCRA and expressed his opinion that the SSCRA did not trump local ordinances.  Paraphrased, he was also displeased that I called him after 5 pm and that the background noise (outgoing artillery) was annoying.  Blew off my CO, blew off JAG, but he did listen to the local District Magistrate rip him a new one.   The DM was a former combat vet, good guy.

Course', when I got back home, my front lock was somewhat broken and the marks in the lock were interesting.  Almost like someone used a lock gun to open the door.  If it was a local kid or criminal, why not break the glass or lock?  For that matter, nothing was missing.  Stuff was moved around.  I rooted through all of my stuff to make sure it wasn't snowflaked.  Never found anything planted, but I moved shortly after.  Amusingly, before I moved, I had to stop by the police building to get finger printed for my TS clearance.  I was honored by having six officers conduct my finger printing.   


One of my biggest rules in life is never physically live in a place where you have pissed off the local power structure.  Life's short, and even if you "win", it generally is not worth the effort.  I'm not being anti-cop, I'm being common sense and pro-"not being dead".  In the Balkans, the local power structure was the Russian mafia.  In Manheim, it was the cops.  Back in the Balkans, we didn't mess with the Russians because they had significantly more money and firepower than the US Army.  Back home, you don't mess with the cops because they have significantly more firepower with the local legal system.  "Right or wrong" is most often secondary to "Might makes right".   I think Mr. Bush probably learned that lesson the hard way. 

This guy brought it on himself, though, by getting in a shouting match on the street that disturbed the whole neighborhood.  He could have been arrested for disturbing the peace and then forcibly photographed.

Why the arresting officer didn't just take that route, I don't know.

PA doesn't have a "disturbing the peace".  That's important, because various LE organizations in PA were using "brandishing" or "disturbing the peace" against open carry.  Commonwealth v. Hawkins 1996 settled that argument, same with Commonwealth v. Ortiz.  We have "disorderly conduct" (§ 5503), that's pretty straightforward.

§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.

   1. Offense defined. -- A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
         1. engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
         2. makes unreasonable noise;
         3. uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
         4. creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

The intent and recklessly creating a risk thereof is important.  It's not a catchall for "I don't like what you're doing so I have an excuse to toss you in the pokey on a whim". 

Believe it or not, locally, this case matters.  If the local Lancaster cops could legally toss folks in jail for 5 months for refusing to comply with illegal instructions, what happens when they want to photograph you because you are open carrying, purchasing a firearm, attending a political rally, etc.

[Balog]

how would that change the  validity, or lack thereof, of "Wouldn't that mean surveillance cameras are illegal?"?

It's a red herring. The objection wasn't that someone tried to take his pic; it was that he was arrested for covering his face.

[Nitrogen]

Cops like this, and the other thread about the cop holding up the guy trying to get to his mom make it harder for me not to bash LEO's in general.

Yes, I know a majority of them are good, decent folks.  The bad apples make it harder to remember that, especially when little or nothing happens to some of them.

[DJJ]

That little or nothing happens to them means, IMO, that the "good majority" forfeit the privelege of being considered the "good majority".

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

they have a union

[gunsmith]

how would that change the  validity, or lack thereof, of "Wouldn't that mean surveillance cameras are illegal?"?

No, lets say you're in a greyhound bus terminal, it has surveilance.
they have a sign "we have surveilance "
You hide your face with a newspaper, are you breaking the law? NO! are they? NO!.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"field photographs" can be taken in public settings – such as on the street or at a park – anywhere the public has no expectation of privacy.

It just seemed like a goofy way to describe the ruling.  The notion that a simple photograph amounts to search and seizure implies all sorts of foolishness.  If photographing someone is search and seizure, then any use of cameras by government officials might arguably be unconstitutional without a warrant.  That would include security cameras.

[roo_ster]

they have a union

IMO, gov't employees should be barred by law from having a union.  At every level.  To include public school teachers & administrators.

Think about it: Folks being paid directly by the taxpayer with the power of gov't* at their beck & call organizing to get more money & bennies out of the taxpayer.

Not just "No," but "HELL NO."




*  Taxation, regulation, monopoly on legitimate use of force, etc.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

its the reasonable expectation of privacy thing. it can be odd. i videoed a security guard stealing in a place i managed. i was legal in va to do video but audio woulda got me in trouble