Bystanders with Cell phones and taking pictures

[JPINFV]

I realize those members of the legendary Citizen Information League feel they have the right to record wherever/whenever in public. In Maryland, Illinois and Massachusettes it's illegal to record police operations, even in a public place.

Legality of videotaping a patient being treated in public? I'll leave for a moment the shoddy ethical choice and general asshattedness of such an act and go back to legal constraints. Ever heard of disorderly conduct? Public conduct that tends to anger, annoy or intimidate?

I really have no venom about this topic, I'm just perplexed that ass hats have apologists.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals case that I posted earlier was a case out of Boston, MA. The courts don't take kindly to police constantly arresting people for actions that they've ruled to be constitutionally protected. That's a good way for a police officer to find himself out of a job and house and home. Civil rights suits aren't cheap.

Furthermore, that's not what disorderly conduct is. Since you're from Minnesota, I'll look at the Minnesota penal code.

2011 Minnesota Statutes

609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

Subdivision 1.Crime.

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:

(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or

(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or

(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.72

Filming a scene is neither engaging in brawling/fighting, disturbing an assembly or meeting, or offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct in the manner that you would like it to. Furthermore, "others" is going to mean multiple people.

Second, while MN does have an Interference with Privacy statute, but none of it applies to the situations we're discussing.

• The press has much more granted freedoms. Which is very good. They buy it with the duty to care for protection of persons they report about in the proper way. So they're responsible for blurring pictures or such. A provider on scene, assuming someone is going to publish the material against the public right has it easy with some random bystander, but may not interfer with the press. On the other side, it's not always very clear how to identify press (at leat the journalist organization issues ID cards to listed members), could be a bit tricky in extreme situations. Press tends to behave, since they usually want a good relationship enabling their work - then they willingly accept friendly hints. But they even are allowed to endanger themselves! BTW, there was a well-known incident where press took an active part in a hostage situation, which lead to a very restrict self-control of the press (reference: ).
  

Part of the problem in the US that the "press" in the confines of "freedom of press" is... well... everyone. I have just as much right to publish, print, and report on than a journalist from the Los Angeles Times do because that right doens't flow from being employed in that capacity, but by being a citizen.

US Supreme Court case Lovell v City of Griffin is the one that defines everyone as a member of the press.

[Eydawn]

I don't doubt you for a second. You just seem to believe that everything needs to be disallowed by the government. I don't believe that we are mature enough as a nation or a world to accept that we can stand idly by, watch our friends and neighbors be victimized by douchebags and trust that somehow the government will make it all better.

*snip*

I'm not sure how to make the argument Brother that the government can't solve every ill. And that every man that chooses to stand up for himself or his family or his neighbors isn't simply a rabid dog because he's acting without proper government sanction.

*snip*

I'm truly grateful that we disagree on this. I think that your attitude is the future, and we need people that think of the future to bring it into being. But your attitude also has people behave as sheep unless backed by a police officer. It demands that you stand by at such moments and spectate pain in the name of 'progress.' I just don't have that in me...

These three segments here I think define the crux of what Dwayne is saying.

JPINFV, you know I respect you, and have defended you on multiple occasions. I will not argue that you are legally incorrect, nor that your position is not the more civil of many presented here. However, I will argue that these three snippets I dragged out above, especially the one I added emphasis to, are what resonate with many of the people who upvoted the fire hose/break the camera solutions.

For God's sake, we live in a world where everyone now sees themselves to be the paparazzi (and the actual paparazzi cause physical and psychological harm to those they photograph, all the while waving the "immunity" flag...) While I am not advocating assaulting someone just for being an asshole, I am saying that taking a public stand against this sort of crassness is a good idea, legalities of the situation aside. Do you need to break a camera? No.... but if you want to hose down the street and if they're not smart enough to get out of the way, then so be it, they were dumb and got wet.

I am all for the tarp/sheet block idea... and actually, if you have enough bystanders, you can recruit help. Many of you know my position on the media (I hate the bastards, no offense Pox, but I've had some really nasty sitch where they made a mess of my scene) and I love nothing more than making it difficult for the camerafolk to get a clear shot of someone who doesn't need to be photographed. Remember that kid in North Carolina who went missing a couple years back, and when they found him, they transported him out of the ranger's station surrounded by sheets? I literally cheered seeing that.

We have a duty to protect our patients' privacy. Ethically, and legally. Do your best, and try not to get into fisticuffs if you can help it. Also, if you have your own cameraphone handy, take a quick pic of the person filming in case pictures do get out where they don't belong, and leave that information with the patient so they can pursue their own desired legal avenue of justice once they're healthy enough to do so. No rules against photographing the photographer...

Wendy

CO EMT-B

[DwayneEMTP]

Man, Wendy, those quotes exactly exemplify my point. Thanks for doing that.

JP, I truly get your point.

I think that we're not so terribly different, but have been arguing at slightly cross purposes. You, from the point of view, "Don't break the law, but instead choose one of the law abiding options available. Human shield, sheets, etc." Which of course is perfectly logical and responsible.

Me, from the worst case scenario point of view that there are no such options available. Two people, one patient and a douchebag cameraman. No sheets, no bystanders to help, etc. Though I took this stance because I wanted to distill the conversation down to a blatant 'right or wrong' on the severity of the pictures being taken and released V the severity of physically touching him to make it stop, you are certainly right that my argument perspective isn't realistic.

As I dug deeper into my argument I began trying to concoct a scenario that would put me in a position where I couldn't foil the cameraman in any way, where I couldn't protect my patient in any way other than stuffing his phone up his ass, and I just couldn't do it.

I sometimes get defensive as I seem to see more and more often people standing by while they, or their neighborhoods are attacked and victimized. Many times because they should be protected by the government despite the evidence against that belief playing out right before their eyes.

Secondly because we've come to believe that any level or form of violence is the worst possible thing that can happen to a person. And in our electronic age that is just simply not true. A black eye or bloody nose is really inconvenient for about a half hour, then it's an irritation, and within a few days is forgotten. Not so for the family that sees their daughter spread over the cement.

I guess my point is this, that in the given scenario, I concede that getting physical is certainly not the correct course of action when some many other alternatives exist. I allowed my argument to follow my emotions instead of stepping back and making a better effort to approach the problem from your point of view.

I'm grateful that you hung in with the conversation long enough to allow me to come full circle on this thinking...

[DwayneEMTP]

I"m not sure if it applies here, but I like it still..

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence."

Mahatma Gandhi.

[Just Plain Ruff]

Ok, this was a true to life situation about 5 years ago.

Had a jerk off who I asked to stop at a scene. I was doing some FTO ride along time. I was merely an observer. We had plenty of help.

I had asked the guy twice to stop taking pictures. We were actually waiting on the 3rd ambulance to arrive to take the patient. She was not naked but she was back boarded on the ground. No blankets to use for privacy.

So after asking the deputy to stop the guy and he seemed rather disinterested, I walked over the third time as the 3rd ambulance arrived and said I wanted to talk to him. He was all ears. I asked if I could see his phone. He said "sure". I then put his phone in my pocket and said "you can get your phone back at my office tomorrow" and then walked away. Leaving a very dumbfounded guy on the side of the road when our ambulance left for a 45 minute ride to a hospital.

I found the pictures that he took, there were over 100 of them with close up facial pictures and pictures of the open femur fracture and of all the victims not just my patient and the other patients were completely stripped.

I deleted them.

I did nothing else to the guys phone.

I returned to headquarters and turned the phone into the supervisor along with an incident report.

They had already received a in person visit from the very irate phone owner who was threatening pressing charges for theft but it never got that far.

I got a 24 hour suspension which I gladly served.

My boss actually told the guy and several staff members attested to hearing him tell the guy this that if it was his daughter or family member that he was taking pictures of, he would have gotten his phne back in pieces no bigger than grains of sand and he better get out of the office before that became a reality.

but I still had a unpaid forced day off. I spent it at the lake.

[Eydawn]

Sometimes doing the right thing will get you in trouble with the system. Sounds like, to your judgment, it was worth it Ruff.

Wendy

CO RN-ADN Student

[ERDoc]

It doesn't sound so much like a punishment Ruff as it does a reward for doing the right thing. There is no need to destroy the phone, but the pictures got deleted and the asshat got his phone back.

[akflightmedic]

Little late into this one but definitely a good read. I simply cannot understand half the actions indicated which were to be imposed if this occurred on some of your scenes. Several tangents/"what ifs" were thrown in, including personalizing it, but at the end of the day...it is violating no laws and is not impeding care in any way, shape or form.

There have been exceptionally few cases in my long career of where I HAD to strip someone right there in the public. It simply does not occur that often for any of this to be a concern and quite frankly with better judgement and professionalism on behalf of the medic, this is a moot issue. Did we forget we have an office on wheels? The one with two big rear doors? If I need to disrobe someone, I can put them in the truck and control their privacy issues way better than playing on the side of a road or in whatever public place you wish to insert here.

I can also sheet a patient and disrobe/cut their clothes under the sheet if that visual exam is so important it needs to be done right there on the spot. Baring of skin is very often site/body part specific, the full disrobings occur on those multiple system, unconscious trauma patients and again that can take place in the transport unit.

I do garner a sense of self righteousness thinly veiled under "doing what is best for the patient". I am there to provide urgent or emergent medical care according to the best of my ability. I do not have time to overly concern myself with that guy or multiple guys on scene taking pictures...within the professional realm, I have already thwarted their best shots by simply doing what I stated above.

Yes it sucks, yes it would suck if it were my family, but at the end of the day (since Dwayne always likes to personalize it and emotionalize it)...they have violated no laws and not restricted their care.

Ruff...had you pocketed my camera, we would have been rolling in the dirt because the only way you would have gotten the camera out of my hand is if you touched me first (which constitutes battery). I could of also felt threatened and shot you--even killed you, because here in Florida I have the Castle Doctrine supporting my action. Think on that one folks...

[Just Plain Ruff]

Ruff...had you pocketed my camera, we would have been rolling in the dirt because the only way you would have gotten the camera out of my hand is if you touched me first (which constitutes battery). I could of also felt threatened and shot you--even killed you, because here in Florida I have the Castle Doctrine supporting my action. Think on that one folks...

Well AK, you will remember I asked to see the guys phone, and he handed it right over to me, no questions asked, so he apparantly did not feel threatened. So had you have shot me then it would have been you in prison and not me. But unfortunately I'd be dead so thank God that didn't happen.

There was no threat to the guy there, I simply asked to see his phone. I didn't say "Give me your phone" or anything demanding like that. I just said "Can I see your phone". If he took it as a threat then that was his interpretation of the question I asked.

Had he have not given me his phone then I'd have let it go. I would have asked him to delete the photos that he took but I know good and well that anyone can take photos anywhere of anyone out there. That we don't have a expectation of any sort of privacy which I find unfortunate.

But I have been photographed in public before and just turn the tables and start to take photographs of the person taking the photographs. It unnerves them as well and they usually stop taking photos and go away.

Anywho, I think this thread was a good one. I've never had one of my threads go longer than 2 pages. It's a first for me.

[ERDoc]

Agree Ruff, this thread has been good. It's always good to do these mental exercizes from time to time to see what everyone is thinking and how people handle things differently. It's also good because it makes all of us actually search out proof of what our beleifs are. The law is a funny and people think they know the rules. Along comes something like this and we find out how much we don't know.