EMT camera taken by police at MVA scene

[+medic]

LINK- Camera taken by police at MVA

-CANTERBURY, N.H. -- A Concord-area freelance photographer said a state trooper confiscated his camera at the scene of a car crash Wednesday morning, WMUR News 9 reported. Blackden, who is also affiliated with Penacook Rescue, is a former firefighter, EMT and police officer who takes pictures at emergency scenes all over the state, often sharing them with News 9 and selling the photos to local newspapers.A year-and-a-half ago, Penacook Rescue invited him to take pictures for their department, and he routinely shows up where they do -- just like he did in Canterbury Wednesday, News 9 reported.

I don't know why the state police felt the need to take this persons camera since he may have been acting in line with his department rules. The First amendment is very clear however as a reporter he has a right to take pictures and it's in his best interest to use them in good taste which this person has and has proven so in the past. JEMS published a great article about the unexpected consequences of on-Scene Photography and allot of it applies.

JEMS The Unexpected Consequences of On-Scene Photography

[Just Plain Ruff]

You left off some of the article. If you are going to quote the article and only use some of it for your purposes makes the post skewed in favor of this guy.

He was taking pictures inside the accident scene. To me that says he was inside the area where only Emergency workers should be. The troopers did not know him. It was unclear that he had any credentials.

Plus the cameras these days have pretty good zoom so he could have easily stayed out of the way if he had any type of good quality camera.

If He was taking pictures of the patient which I find distasteful and disrespectful. We've discussed this ad nauseum here about providers taking pictures. He's a provider (at least he was) so he should know to have respect for the victim or injured party. The general public as well as the troopers would assume that he was taking photos of the victim even though he said he wasn't.

I'm not going to quote the article based on the sites current legal issues.

But the guy didn't have credentials showing he was a freelance photographer (I didn't read that he did).

This guy is a former EMT so he should know better than to take pictures of the victims themselves.

This may very well have been ignorance on the officers part but if this is a criminal case then he's out of a camera because it's evidence now.

I don't really feel sorry for him. I don't really have respect for people who take financial advantage of others pain and grief. He takes the pictures and then sells them to the newspapers.

I can't seem to get myself to give him much support. Maybe others might.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Ruffems

[CBEMT]

"I loaded my fire gear, my helmet and coat into the back of my van, put my cameras away, and he and another trooper approached me, told me to unlock the van and give him the camera," Blackden said.

I would've told them, politely, to go fuck themselves. They have no right to my property without a warrant, and they had ZERO probable cause for a warrantless earch- which is why they asked him to GIVE them the camera, hoping that like most citizens ignorant of their rights, that he would just do it. Unfortunately, he did.

You'll notice he wasn't arrested or even detained and transported to the station for further questioning, meaning even the two thugs in front of him knew he'd committed no obvious crime and couldn't even stretch one (like the usual catch-all, "disorderly conduct") to cover the situation.

State police said they are keeping it because pictures taken so close to the scene might display evidence related to the wreck.

More bullshit. If they think there was evidence that needed photographing, they can do it themselves. Or- here's a crazy thought- give him a business card and ask him for copies once he downloads them off the camera!

They're stalling, because they know that there is absolutely no face-saving way out of this.

You left off some of the article. If you are going to quote the article and only use some of it for your purposes makes the post skewed in favor of this guy.

I'm not going to quote the article based on the sites current legal issues.

Then don't bust somebody else's balls for not doing the same thing!

But the guy didn't have credentials showing he was a freelance photographer (I didn't read that he did).

That would pretty much be the definition of "freelance," wouldn't it? Any moron can make up an ID card for themselves, how is that better?

I don't really feel sorry for him. I don't really have respect for people who take financial advantage of others pain and grief. He takes the pictures and then sells them to the newspapers.

And a salaried newspaper photographer at the same scene would be different.... how exactly?

Your personal sense of morality is irrelevant. Any "newsworthy event" can be photographed by anyone, professional or not, freelance or not- protected 100% by the First Amendment. The cop would have had no more right to take a camera away from you or me had we been there while passing by on vacation. Disciplinary action against the office for exposing his department to a lawsuit is more than justified. Criminal charges if he took it by force would be a distinct possibility as well.

In a time of budget cuts in all sectors, including the media, stringers are infinitely cheaper than professional photographers (my local NBC station's cameramen are unionized, for example). But the media still need on-scene coverage of breaking news to stay relevent. Stringers and freelancers fill that gap. Whether we like it or not, they're going to continue to show up on our scenes. I suggest being very careful with how you and your law enforcement collegues deal with them. A little cooperation can go a long way.

Like the saying goes- never get in a pissing contest with people who buy ink by the barrel.

Edited August 26, 2010 by CBEMT

[Just Plain Ruff]

I'm not against media taking photos but what the article specifically points out is that he was inside the area of the accident which makes me think that he was very very close, if not right in there near the rescuers.

I also didn't post the article text in full out of deference for the lawsuit and I believe I pointed that out in my post.

The article did not make clear if he had credentials but it sure made it sound like this guy was acting on behalf of the fire department as a photographer. And if he was acting on behalf of the fire department and being paid to take photographs of the scene and area then he should have had some sort of ID. Just having bunker gear and a helmet doesn't make him part of the fire department. Anyone like you said can print and ID and anyone can purchase bunker gear and make themself look like a fire fighter by going to EBAY or Craigslist and finding a seller. So your ID comparison doesn't wash either.

Listen, I know the law allows any photographer to take any photos they want of someone in public because we don't have an expectation of privacy when we are out in public but this guy is a previous EMS worker and I believe he was using his status as the photographer for the fire department in question to get up close to the action. Besides I believe the article says that he was going to sell the photos or may sell them to channel 9 news and other papers. He used his status as the fire department's photographer to get in close and will make money off his special photographers' status.

I cannot prove anything in the above statement but those are my thoughts and assumptions on the matter.

The guy was using his special status to get the pictures and as a result he should have been identified as a representative of the fire department. The troopers did not recognize him so they thought he was being intrusive and they took his camera for evidence. Did they do the right thing, not sure. The article also does not say if they asked him to leave or back off.

Unfortunately he lost his camera, were the troopers justified in doing what they did or ignorant but I think this is just goign to become a pissing match between his lawyers and the highway patrol.

Should they give him his camera back, yes they should. Will they, doesn't sound like it.

Quote

State police said they are keeping it because pictures taken so close to the scene might display evidence related to the wreck.

More bullshit. If they think there was evidence that needed photographing, they can do it themselves. Or- here's a crazy thought- give him a business card and ask him for copies once he downloads them off the camera!

They're stalling, because they know that there is absolutely no face-saving way out of this.

CB, evidence needs to be collected as it happens. You have a fire department that is cutting a car apart to get the patient out of it. That evidence is lost now but they have an out. They have a camera with the pictures showing what the car looked like before and also after.

I'm not saying that they police didn't do something wrong in this situation. You seem to be jumping to this guys side even though probably not all the facts are in on the situation.

How many times have we on this site said "let's not cricify anyone until the whole story is out" which is exactly what isn't happening here. You are slamming the troopers and I suspect that there is more to this story than the news article is putting in it.

If indeed the guy did no harm and did what he said he did and the troopers were in the wrong, we need to let this play out and see what happens.

I'm sure you would want the same if you were in either the photographers shoes or the troopers shoes.

Agree or not, I'm just sayin.

[CBEMT]

I also didn't post the article text in full out of deference for the lawsuit and I believe I pointed that out in my post.

So why criticize the OP for not posting more of/the whole article?

So your ID comparison doesn't wash either.

Doesn't sound like these idiots would have accepted it either way.

He used his status as the fire department's photographer to get in close and will make money off his special photographers' status.

Even assuming you're right, it's not illegal. It may be a violation of his arrangement with the fire department, but still not against the law.

Unfortunately he lost his camera, were the troopers justified in doing what they did or ignorant but I think this is just goign to become a pissing match between his lawyers and the highway patrol.

One that could easily cost the state six figures and months of embarrasment.

CB, evidence needs to be collected as it happens. You have a fire department that is cutting a car apart to get the patient out of it. That evidence is lost now but they have an out. They have a camera with the pictures showing what the car looked like before and also after.

Bullshit. How many times have you seen the police keep a road or highway shut down for hours after a crash while they take pictures? Accident reconstructions happen every day without any idea of what the car looked like before the extrication. It's not a necessary part of the investigation, certainly not to the point of illegally siezing the private property of a third party. Are you not getting this? THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL ACT. HIS CIVIL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. First and Fourth, specifically.

If the troopers are really and truly so stupid that they can't conduct an accident investigation (which, as the highway patrol, is pretty much ALL THEY DO) without knowing what the car looked like before they got there, they could A) ask politely, or B, get a subpoena. Investigation 101. A rookie on his first day could have told them what to do. And a first-year law student could win the civil suit.

Edited August 26, 2010 by CBEMT

[+medic]

You left off some of the article. If you are going to quote the article and only use some of it for your purposes makes the post skewed in favor of this guy.

I did that for a reason since posting a whole article has caused problems in the past for this site.

Edited August 27, 2010 by +medic

[Richard B the EMT]

As I see it, while not a full blown "Fail", it is a double "Oops", as the LEOs had no true right to ask for the camera without probable cause and/or a warrant, , but did, and the photojournalist didn't have to turn over the camera without probable cause and/or a warrant, but did.

[Richard B the EMT]

Some years ago, I was on a house fire call, treating patients. One patient was aboard my VAC ambulance, and the NYPD ESU (Emergency Services Unit) was using a "K-12" saw to remove a heavy bracelet from her wrist. As one might expect, it was kicking up a bunch of sparks.

As this was being attempted, a press corps "videographer" was almost standing in the door, videoing the goings on. I tapped him on the shoulder, and conversed with him, that He had the right to do the video, but I wanted to give the patient some sense of privacy, so could he continue videoing the event, but from a longer distance? He actually complied, and readily so.

This was prior to 1996, and the HIPAA rules had not yet been enacted.

[uglyEMT]

The thing with this guy is they took the camera into evidence pending a charge of impersonating a emergency worker. They wanted to check if he took pictures of the deceased and if he was in the way. Also at ther scene he was in full turnout gear with helmet. It did say photgrapher on the helmet though.

The photos were taking from over 75 feet away with a telephoto lens so he was not in the way.

He is a photgrapher for First Responder News with credentials.

Also he states he was asked to be a dept photographer for the local EMS but their chief denies it.

EMS News.com

[FireMedic65]

Only reason I can think of for a copy taking a camera would be for evidence in a crime scene or sensitive material. In that case, just tell the guy to bring the camera to the station and copy the pictures. But like others have said, the cop didn't know this guy.. who knows why he was even there.